That Ain't Earl Grey In Your Teabag!

[Bebe Le Strange]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Call it what you want. I explained my point of view. You don't have to write a grad school dissertation, but don't expect me to do the heavy lifting to figure out your point. And if your point is just parroting what someone else said -- that's not really your point is it?

Well even so, I think it is lazy for you not to take the time to read what someone links, or at least skim it to see their viewpoint even if you don't agree.

I may not agree with everyone on this board, but I try to at least read what they have to say, read any linked information to understand where they are coming from.

We all "parrot" ideas, and expressed opinions to some degree in debating view points and there is nothing wrong with that.

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by Bebe Le Strange

Well even so, I think it is lazy for you not to take the time to read what someone links, or at least skim it to see their viewpoint even if you don't agree.

I may not agree with everyone on this board, but I try to at least read what they have to say, read any linked information to understand where they are coming from.

We all "parrot" ideas, and expressed opinions to some degree in debating view points and there is nothing wrong with that.

I'm lazy for not reading an obscure links? But the person that just slaps the link up there instead of writing what they are trying to say is not lazy? Yeah right!

I'm more that willing to engage people of other viewpoints. In case you haven't noticed, I routinely "discuss" things with people whose point of view is different than mine. But I only engage people who make the effort to actually make a point, not just copy and paste an article or link it. As I've said, IMO that is intellectually lazy on their part and if they don't make the effort why should I?

How about instead of having this discussion I just link a few websites and tell you to figure it out for yourself. Would you?

[phatdaty]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

I rarely read articles linked here.

So you are just going to push forward with your error. Ignorance is bliss.

The TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party was created in 1994 by Brenda Kuhn. It was recieving national attention by 1994.

That is verified fact, not opinion. Read the article if you need proof and either retract, or basically go back to your cigar and remember the George Elliot proverb about opening your mouth and removing all doubt.

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by phatdaty

The TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party was created in 1994 by Brenda Kuhn. It was recieving national attention by 1994.

I'm not disagreeing with you about this "historical fact". Yes it was created in 1994. But that organization has little to do with what is today collectively known as "The Tea Party". There are lots of "Tea Party" organizations -- most of which have cropped up since 1994. The collective term "Tea party" encompasses all of them -- not just the 1994 Ohio outfit. If the Tea party was just the Ohio gang, it would have zero national influence -- as it has since 1994.

[Marshall]

Originally Posted by phatdaty

So remember the George Elliot proverb about opening your mouth and removing all doubt.

?????????? phatdaty said that?!?.....................HA ! HA! HA! HA! HA~! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

[phatdaty]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

I'm not disagreeing with you about this historical fact.

See, that wasn't so painful, was it?

[pjorourke]

Not painful at all -- we never disagreed on that historical fact. Just like we don't disagree that the first Tea Party occurred back in the 1700's. But neither of those historical facts have anything to do with the Tea Party movement that was being discussed in this thread -- a point that is apparently too painful for you to concede.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by phatdaty

The TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party was created in 1994 by Brenda Kuhn. It was recieving national attention by 1994.

It's funny you would say this when you thought it started in 2008.

If i didn't know better, i'd simply assume you were criticizing others for not being more up on the facts than yourself.

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by phatdaty

So you are just going to push forward with your error. Ignorance is bliss.

The TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party was created in 1994 by Brenda Kuhn. It was recieving national attention by 1994.

That is verified fact, not opinion. Read the article if you need proof and either retract, or basically go back to your cigar and remember the George Elliot proverb about opening your mouth and removing all doubt.

Uh oh. Cigar avatar pissing contest. I'm putting my money on PJ.

[phatdaty]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

The collective term "Tea party" encompasses all of them -- not just the 1994 Ohio outfit. If the Tea party was just the Ohio gang, it would have zero national influence -- as it has since 1994.

Uh nope--check when the tax-exempt paperwork was filed for the organization and who the original founders (co-signors on the federal paperwork) of the group were:

Kuhn, Liddy, and Williams (the later two are national figures) in 1993.

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Not painful at all -- we never disagreed on that historical fact. Just like we don't disagree that the first Tea Party occurred back in the 1700's. But neither of those historical facts have anything to do with the Tea Party movement that was being discussed in this thread -- a point that is apparently too painful for you to concede.

They have everything to do with that first group--they are recognized as the first charter group. They initiated the networking of rag-tag groups in the a viable national organization in about 15 years.

Originally Posted by Doove

It's funny you would say this when you thought it started in 2008.

Might want to grab a remedial reading course when you take a break from whoring around. I did not state it began in 2008, I said it really started to concern me by 2008:

Originally Posted by phatdaty

Being a conservative Libertarian, I have been quite troubled with the whole tea party movement since it raised it's rather ugly head in the 2008 elections.

Up until then it was a rather amusing, folksy, grassroots movement. I actually was at Fountain Square the afternoon she pulled that row boat stunt that would later be recreated over and over again in various towns.

I became concerned when it got ugly by 2008 when either the backroom wizards of the RNC or the Fox News Entertainment Division, or both decided by giving them some backdoor funding, manpower, and most importantly exposure might turn them a buck and be manipulated into being the perfect bully pulpit. This is of course conjecture that borders on conspiracy paranoia, but it sure seems damn convenient for the republicans to now have a wild card like these folks that they can wince at and lightly denounce, but tag on the "I don't agree with how they made their point, but they do have a point."

If i were a betting man, this smells like the work of Atwater and Noonan.

They were behind the Buchanan tirade.

It could just be an honest to goodness volksmarch, but I think careful manipulation is more likely the real cause.

I think the movement might have been honest back in those days it started in Ohio, but it has been perverted into something much uglier of recent.

[phatdaty]

My apologies. Lee Atwater had already passed away before any of this happened. It was probably whoever his prodigy was. I didn't always like his politics, but the guy was a masterful political strategist.

[Bebe Le Strange]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

Uh oh. Cigar avatar pissing contest. I'm putting my money on PJ.

All of this makes me want to have a cigar!

But I would most likely turn green in the process of smoking it..lol

[phatdaty]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

I'm lazy for not reading an obscure links? But the person that just slaps the link up there instead of writing what they are trying to say is not lazy? Yeah right!
%0A
I'm more that willing to engage people of other viewpoints. In case you haven't noticed, I routinely "discuss" things with people whose point of view is different than mine. But I only engage people who make the effort to actually make a point, not just copy and paste an article or link it. As I've said, IMO that is intellectually lazy on their part and if they don't make the effort why should I?

How about instead of having this discussion I just link a few websites and tell you to figure it out for yourself. Would you?

LOL,

Now PJ, you know I didn't post the link out of laziness.

Damn, please don't confuse me with WTF.

I gave you the link in case you wanted to verify my facts.

Come on I expect better out of a Redskin than that.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Bebe Le Strange

All of this makes me want to have a cigar!

But I would most likely turn green in the process of smoking it..lol

Who says you have to smoke it?

[Doove]

Originally Posted by phatdaty

Might want to grab a remedial reading course when you take a break from whoring around. I did not state it began in 2008, I said it really started to concern me by 2008:

Well, we can argue all day about what "....it raised it's rather ugly head in the 2008 elections..." and "...I am pretty sure they gained notoriety in the Spring and Summer of 2008, not in the fall and winter" both mean, but i think my interpretation was entirely reasonable. Especially when you mentioned nothing about 1993 during our discussion of when it "began", only bringing 1993 into the equation when PJ pointed out you were wrong in suggesting 2008. Me thinks you got your undies in a bunch after PJ told you that you were wrong, to which you decided to investigate on your own, and only then did you came up with a date other than 2008.