Talk:Tea Party movement

==Teabagging== Shouldn't this be Teabagging_(protest) instead? --Irrational Atheist 15:17, 15 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I couldn't decide which was funnier. Whichever people think is funnier.   15:20, 15 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Good question. I can't make up my mind which to stump for.  OK, I'm leaning about 60/40 towards IA's suggestion.  ħ uman  17:28, 15 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Teabagging for Republicans? Totnesmartin 17:45, 15 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Teabagging douchebaggery?  ħ uman  22:42, 15 April 2009 (EDT)
 * If it were done by Wiki standards, the term comes first. Then in parentheses put a category. It's named Teabagging, but it's categorically a tax protest. Also, the article needs to mention that TEA stands for "Taxed Enough Already" --Irrational Atheist 23:16, 15 April 2009 (EDT)
 * By "Wiki" do you mean "wikipedia", just one wiki among thousands? Or do you mean this wiki, which has no standards, and precious few tribbles?  ħ uman  00:00, 16 April 2009 (EDT)
 * They didn't mind pissing away $12 billion dollars a month in the Iraq sideshow when their boy was in the WH.  Mega   23:19, 15 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I am in favour of Teabagging (protest) as the name, keeping it with the Wikipedia convention. - User   00:03, 16 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I am in favor of Teabagging (friendly act). Oh, yeah.  I don't care what WP does.  Question: is this worthy of being a random-pageable mainspace article, or should we either merge it into tax protester (I favor that) or make it a sub-page?  ħ uman  00:13, 16 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Which on is the friendly act? I think it is a good mainpage article by itself, especially if it gets an update after the day of protest is over (is that yet, I can't tell from here?) - User   00:16, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

I think it might be a funny main article, although it's gonna die a slow death of irrelevancy as the months go by. I like IA's title suggestion. I like putting "teabagging" first, since it's not a "real" tax protest - it was an idiots' convention. Stewie and Colbie both covered/hammered it well tonight, btw, with delightful Fox News montages.  ħ uman  00:44, 16 April 2009 (EDT)
 * In a few months it will make the transition from current affairs to history piece. It is funny, but makes a rational point; that is what we are about. I'll do the rename and clean up the links. - User   02:57, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

Have I Got News For You
From last Friday's episode. 'The Tea Party - sort of UKIP with guns.'

What sort of tea - Builders, 'strong enough for a spoon to remain upright'/'strong enough to tan your stomach' (apparently strong tea + sugar will do this), Lapsong Souchong, Earl Grey, decaffeinated (with unpleasant chemicals)... 171.33.222.26 (talk) 15:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry i can not get an answer anywhere else on these here internets
I am sorry to bother anyone, with my question, or if i asked it in the wrong place or format, but for those familiar with the website "teapartycrusaders.com" could answer weather that site is a joke site or a real site run by real tea party "bible carrying, gun clinging, god loving, christian conservatives fighting against tyranny" I think i read a few references to it being a joke site..but i couldn't tell in what way, is it a joke because cranks who believe this crap post and disseminate such silly info.....or is it a joke because its a joke on these astro turf retardsGhostOfJoshJoad (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting question. See Poe's Law. I certainly can't tell. Placeholder (talk) 17:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

No good place to integrate(ha) this information
Tea partiers tend to come from more segregated communities. I don't really know how to integrate this piece of information, but it seemed strikingly relevant. Ikanreed (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

How far to silver?
Seriously? Seems fairly comprehensive. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Current Status
Does the Tea Party still exist in any form, or can the article safely be put in past tense? 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒  talk  22:11, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn't. It was very specifically Anti-Obama in character and stopped mattering once a GOP president was installed.-Flandres (talk) 22:18, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm going to start changing the article to past tense. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒  talk  22:20, 22 August 2021 (UTC)