Talk:Tea Party movement

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon politics USA.svg

This United States politics related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


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. Z3rotalk 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. ħumanUser talk:Human 17:28, 15 April 2009 (EDT)
Teabagging for Republicans? Totnesmartin 17:45, 15 April 2009 (EDT)
Teabagging douchebaggery? ħumanUser talk:Human 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? ħumanUser talk:Human 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 \pi 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? ħumanUser talk:Human 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 \pi 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. ħumanUser talk:Human 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 \pi 02:57, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

cut to discuss[edit]

", taking its name from the acronym TEA --"Taxed Enough Already."" - sounds like bullshit to me. Do we have a cite? Also, it's not an "acronym" - it's a "backronym" if anything. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:58, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

Hey human, I got a cite for ya...*right here*. CreamTwoSugars 00:01, 16 April 2009 (EDT)
and here: (Signs such as “Give us liberty, not debt,” “Stop spending our kids’ money,” and “Can we lay off Congress?” waved high in the air at the Taxed Enough Already Party in Victoria Wednesday evening...) CreamTwoSugars 00:03, 16 April 2009 (EDT)
OK, but it's not an acronym, as I said above. It's a trivial point, but I'll re-insert it. Can you then tack on the cites from the idiots for me? ħumanUser talk:Human 00:05, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

Sure, cites from idiots coming up (I don't buy into this shit at all, but if the fucktards are callin' it that, hell, give the people what they want. Assholes.) CreamTwoSugars 00:07, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

TEA stands for "Taxed Enough Already"

Put it in, human took it out--does it not stand for that? I assumed it did...CreamTwoSugars 23:59, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

Assumption is not enough, since it already has a provenance (the Boston tea party). Are the "protesters" using the backronym? Tea also stands for Toughly Extolling Anger. Among many other things. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:03, 16 April 2009 (EDT)
I think it is a backroynm, look at WorldNutDaily they use it alot. Also Cream, as a point of convention do not start another level 2 heading on something that is already under one somewhere else. - User \pi 00:05, 16 April 2009 (EDT)
Yeah--I think human and I were thinking alike--his wasn't there when I started the edit. Whatever. CreamTwoSugars 00:06, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

(I killed the excess header.) TEA also stands for Tax Everyone Already, Tax Every Alien, Taxes Excite Anger, Tax Exact Age... it's f'in stupid. This whole thing is a Fox News exploit and I think we should move that into the lead. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:11, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

Should we also include that FoxNews denies direct sponsorship or endorsement? --Irrational Atheist 00:20, 16 April 2009 (EDT)
Of course, every time they lie it's funny. We have a quick citation, right? We also need images... I'll see if I can scam some. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:53, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

What makes this extra sad is that most of the rocket surgeons at these mad tea parties don't make more than $250,000/year, which means that Obama's new tax policy will probably LOWER their taxes. Why are SO many people SO DUMB? --Gulik 19:20, 18 April 2009 (EDT)

I would expect the third paragraph here has a lot to do with it. It's something I keep thinking is that it's tribal. Their tribe lost, so there's pride at stake. It's not like their leaders and mouthpieces haven't been encouraging exactly that sort of reaction. --Kels 19:38, 18 April 2009 (EDT)
Yeah, that's a good post. I liked the joke about fighting communists at Bunker Hill. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:45, 18 April 2009 (EDT)

"Gulik" (what a ridicuolous name), give it up. Time to come down from your ivory tower and embrace the conservative concept that higher taxes results in greater economic prosperity. Just look at the Clinton years. Don't deny the facts like the liberal that you are, but try to open your mind. To conclude- If you do not lik the conservative truth contained in this site, leave. Continuing to insert liberal bias will get you banned. Teh Assfly

User:Theemperor/Sig/Sig 19:28, 18 April 2009 (EDT)


Apparently, everyone who joined this "protest" promoted incessantly by Fox News could be described as "people not of color". In other words, it was a mass racist reactionary backlash against a black man being President of the United States.

Do we have anything to support that claim? I don't doubt that far-right white supremacy groups involved themselves in the protests and I also don't doubt that nearly every protester was white, but to equate every protester with the white supremacist is spurious at best (you can guess for yourself what it is at the worst). I am removing that section. - User \pi 03:09, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

I didn't write "white supremacy". Most racism in the US is kinda subtle, and when it is "evident" it's usually got nothing to do with WS as such, but shows as more of a common thread in the sea of faces one sees at certain events (like GOP conventions...). The only real "evidence" I can directly offer are the photos of the events - the sea of faces. Oh, and various racist signs held by some of the teabaggers. I guess it should say "virtually everyone", of course. Oh, and one of the pics I grabbed was from Boston, a city that like many is "majority minority" (I'm pretty sure it is) - keep in mind these photos were taken by participants, not radical left wing media - and all faces in it are, well, white. ħumanUser talk:Human 16:14, 16 April 2009 (EDT)
Ah, it seems you cut it to here. How about:

"Judging by photographs and newsreels of the events, almost everyone who joined this "protest" could be described as "people not of color". In other words, it was a subtly racist backlash against a black man being President of the United States."

ħumanUser talk:Human 17:00, 16 April 2009 (EDT)
That is better, it sort of points to the subtle racial bias that still permeates society rather than a direct conscious act. - User \pi 21:25, 16 April 2009 (EDT)
I might be in favour of softening it a little more: lots of people were no doubt there for the reasons that Human lays out--but probably a lot weren't, and I'm not sure how fair it is to paint everyone with that brush. I dunno, I mean, racism is so pervasive and subtle and insidious. Maybe i'm wrong...TheoryOfPractice 21:29, 16 April 2009 (EDT)
Wikis are fun! (Someone teach CUR how to discuss stuff on the talk page, 'K? Who's his monitor this week?) How about:

"Judging by photographs and newsreels of the events, almost everyone who joined this "protest" could be described as "people not of color". In other words, it is likely that a fair number of them were attracted to the "movement" as a subtle racist backlash against a black man being President of the United States."

It's a bit weaselly, but getting better? ħumanUser talk:Human 21:45, 16 April 2009 (EDT)
I like weasels. - User \pi 21:48, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

How 'bout we just go with "white people kinda suck a lot of the time." No? Go with Human's then...TheoryOfPractice 21:55, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

Update: Or we just run with this. TheoryOfPractice 23:02, 16 April 2009 (EDT)
That's a great link, and so is the gallery it links to. ħumanUser talk:Human 18:39, 18 April 2009 (EDT)

Racism redux....[edit]

So someone posted this totally NSFW link in my local craigslist "Rants and Raves" section--it seems like the really nasty folks at Stormfront took more than a passing interest in the teabagging protest...yikes. ugly, ugly, stuff...TheoryOfPractice 10:43, 18 April 2009 (EDT)

Just a link[edit]

Seems applicable but as I's not a USAian, I thought I'd just dump it here FYI. I have just eaten Toast& stiltontalk 14:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

"Catherine Crabill, a Republican nominee for Virginia House of Delegates: We have a chance to fight this battle at the ballot box before we have to resort to the bullet box. I am glad for all of us who enjoy the use of firearms for hunting, but make no mistake, that was not the intent of the Founding Fathers. Our second amendment right was to guard against tyranny." I have just eaten Toast& stiltontalk 14:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Coffee party[edit] our glorious local blogger(lies) claims that there is a counter group of liberals known as the coffee party. Any thoughts? I think he is making this one up.Tyrannis (talk) 14:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I've seen various "coffee party" groups, but from what I understand, they're devoted to restoring civility in American politics and are not especially liberal (well, except compared to the teabaggers, who make Dick Cheney look like Ralph Nader.)
There are members of the Green Party that are trying to start "Green Tea Parties", which are an expressly liberal rebuttal to the tea parties. MDB (talk) 12:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Why not a herbal tea party (no, not the stuff you put in your hubble bubble/hookah)? (talk) 15:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Teabagging? Really?[edit]

Maybe I'm a humorless old right-wing prick, but is it really necessary to use the term "Teabagging" as the page title? Yes, there have been scattered signs using the word "teabag" as off-color invective at a number of demonstrations. No, that does not make it "their term." As far as I can tell, confused and scattered as this protest is, they're anything but authoritarian, and anti-science only as a minor plank. I know this site has something of an unspoken purpose as the "good twin" of Conservapedia, but it's not as though we redirect homeopathy to "magic water," and that's more against the stated aims of this wiki than the Tea Party movement, isn't it? Sake Fueled (talk) 05:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

What? Can you rephrase that as a question? ħumanUser talk:Human 05:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
"Shouldn't the article be called Tea Party movement or some such instead of teabagging (protest)?" I kind of agree, though obviously the nickname should still be in the intro somewhere. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 05:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Wow, I can't believe this goes back a year and a half. Contrary to my predictions, the Palinmonkeys are still alive and well and even "effective". I'll move this to Kupiashimi's suggestion above after I hit the "lose" button. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


I object strongly to the renaming of the teabaggers to the Tea Party Movement on the grounds of snarky point of view. We're here to rip them a new one, not cuddle them. Lord of the Goons The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 02:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I see nobody has answered my objections yet, so I just may undo the drive-by re-naming of this. Lord of the Goons The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 22:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
This is a better name because it seems more mature, and is more commonly used. Let the article rip them a new one. --Onion <talk> 22:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
No, put it back to the snarky name. Fuck making them feel good about themselves after they realized what calling themselves "teabaggers" implied and changed their name to make them look respectable. Lord of the Goons The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 22:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Why not just have a major section on the name and leave it at that? I think it has gone beyond a "protest" and is now a "movement", supporting candidates and stuff. Even if they still are a bunch of idiot teabaggers. ħumanUser talk:Human 22:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Not all tea partiers are morons. Just sayin' MarcusCicero (talk) 22:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Morons or not, to me the teabaggers (and yes, I call them that out of scorn) symbolize everything that is going wrong with my country (the United States), and the ignorant fools that are to blame. People who actually think Reaganomics trickling down on us like urine is a good thing while buying the line that you can cut needed programs and funding rather than make the wealthy pay their fair share. The steel wreckage of the former 35W bridge that still sits in a park not far from where the bridge collapsed here in Minneapolis is a monument to this sort of thinking. Lord of the Goons The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 03:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I find it rather childish, but what find worse is the assertion that this term originated within the movement and is/was commonly used by actual Tea Partiers, which, as far as I can tell, is simply false.Fdof (talk) 06:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Tea Party: fun article[edit]

I remember there used to be another article about this. I liked it, there was this picture of them as Alice and Wonderland, and I thought that was really clever. What happened to that article? Rabbitxhampster (talk) 06:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I looked for it, found no traces. Maybe you thought this one was funnier (or maybe it was funnier) before? ħumanUser talk:Human 06:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Nevah mind. This was the article, right here. I do beleive we should still link that page to this page, at the top of the article. Rabbitxhampster (talk) 02:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC) (n.b., actually added between human's two edits, sigged later)
Or at least at the bottom (see also)! ħumanUser talk:Human 06:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Anyone actually feel bad for the Teabaggers?[edit]

No doubt the 'baggers are a lulz-mine and they should be ripped on, but I feel bad for (some) of them. Think about it. A lot of these people got completely fucked over by the financial crisis, which is part of the reason why this whole thing is so radicalized. You lost your job and you're screwed financially. But why the hell did the economy blow up? Joe Sixpack can't understand how a confluence of historical and economic factors mixed with a generous amount of bankster and loan shark fraud (which, of course, the MSM barely reports on) to take down the entire world economy. The corporate backers of this thing saw the confusion, paranoia, and resentment that happened in the wake of the financial crisis, and they took advantage big time by feeding prospective 'baggers loads of propaganda with Faux helping them out. Now they've got a whole army of Joe Sixpacks as their useful idiots marching to the beat of the drummers at Koch-bankrolled astroturf groups like FreedomWorks, industry lobbyists, and banker-approved Republican candidates. Maybe the most ironic moment of the 'Bagger movement was when they protested the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill -- why, if Lloyd Blankfein and Jamie Dimon can't steal your dough, it's socialism! It's such a beautiful scheme, but seeing so many people take it up the ass and then watching the dicks who did it convincing them to bend over again and say "Please sir, can I have some more," does fill me with some degree of pity. That's why I kind of cringe when I see them described simply as butthurt Republicans or racists. That's only a small part of the game -- this thing can't really be boiled down to just that, it's a massive incoherent ball of fucked-upedness that refuses to go away. You have to laugh at this stuff if you value your sanity, though.

Now all the cranks, crypto-fascists, white supremacists, etc. that have latched on as well as the lobbyists, corporate assholes, and all the others running this thing I have zero sympathy for. They can fuck straight off. (BTW, Astroturf Wars is well worth watching.) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I have seen it consume people, and change them. There was a local political blogger, not bad as Republicans go, as he was more center-right than anything. Then the tea party started. while he was no Birther and despised them, his personality completely changed. His profanity rate in posts skyrocketed. Another blog I read went berserk, from gun and cooking humor to a daily f**k you Obama. Literally. ТyTalk. 02:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Definitely. The old man that lives down the street from me was a pretty nice guy most of the time, but he seemed to have something a little unhinged about him. Then Obama got elected and he went ape, spewing all this stuff about how Obama's the secret love-child of Malcolm X come to let the blacks out jail and lead a Black Panther uprising. He even founded our local 'Bagger chapter. It's like he has a split personality, because he's actually still a really nice guy in "Normal Mode," but batshit crazy when he goes into "Bagger mode." He even invited me to a 'Bagger meeting. I went (morbid curiosity) and had to wash the wingnut and batshit off afterward.
This stuff has gotten so bad any criticism of Obama can get you mistaken for a Teabagger in the lefty internet circles (and IRL as well). Apparently I am a Firebagger. Didn't actually vote for the man, so the "butthurt about him betraying me" doesn't apply -- I just like to rip on my Dem friends for jumping on the bandwagon, 'cause I called it (wasn't too hard to do when you looked at his voting record in the Senate, honestly). Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
The tea party is partly what drove me away from conservatism. I'm not a democrat(technically I am a registered Republican. Long story, might tell you sometime), and view them as more "meh" than anything. Also amusing was watching the Paul fans suddenly start anti-semitic conspiracy stuff. ТyTalk. 20:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Obama's single biggest problem is he spends too much time reaching out to people that will never support him and deserting the people that would. That is why the Dems ended up passing the Republicans' healthcare bill for them and they still got the political mileage for opposing what was originally their own idea.
As for the baggers I feel sorry for them, but only as far they were injured in a financial crisis not of their making. What I can't forgive them for is their own gross ignorance, that a few minutes of actual thinking and education would fix. They instead tune in to watch the sideshow clown Beck parade around his own special brand of pseudo-history and pseudo-political science. It is through their own lack of political nuance they are being lead around like they are. - π 03:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Obama's only hope to to switch parties: He'd become instantly rehabilitated and a member in good-standing as a Republican...since he's Bush-lite anyways only the hard core leftists would mind very much. TeaPartyPlanner (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Labour Unions? Is that an issue in the US anymore?[edit]

Guess you don't live in Scott Walker's Wisconsin], eh? BbMaj7 On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. 23:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like the big issue of the tea party movement. - π Moderator 23:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Since it's a US issue, we must remove that unsightly "u", please.  ;-) but yeah, i don't think labor unions have much effect nation wide in the US, adn they are very much NOT a tea party thing.Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 23:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
It's tricky -- the TP is anti-the-government-spending-any-money, so yeah, the public sector unions are in their sights as far as that goes, no doubt. But yeah, to say the TP is "anti-union" might be painting with too big a brush. BbMaj7 On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. 23:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Why do libs only like protestors when they are leftys?[edit]

Why does this article demonize the Tea Party and pursue childish name calling when this wiki is supposed to be "rational". The Tea Party is made up of mostly libertarian Ron Paul supporters. All that they want is some government accountability and fiscal responsiblity. Also, why were potestors seen as patriotic when GWB was president but they are racist now that Barack Obama is president? The extreme bias of this article makes Conservapidia look moderate. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

*Takes 2 shots* ТyLonely. Ever so lonely. 12:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Go away.
BbMaj7 On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. 17:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
But No True Tea Partier... ADK...I'll soak your exit sign! 17:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
"The Tea Party is made up of mostly libertarian Ron Paul supporters..." So much so that they ran three primary candidates against him. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
To better answer your initial questions: RationalWiki isn't about liking or disliking protesters. We're about accurately accessing claims made by protesters, as well as their methods, and informing the public of them. And yes, we absolutely are guilty of the sin of being snarky towards those who fail to measure up to the critical eye of reality. We shouldn't do that, but I've yet to be able to convince RationalWiki to refrain from doing so. As to why it -seems- like we're more liberal on RationalWiki, I leave you with a quote from Stephen Colbert, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." Also, you shoud probably check out balance fallacy --Kiorri (talk)

Matthew 22:21[edit]

...I'm surprised we haven't talked about this at all and the irony therein... -- Seth Peck (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

2nd revolution flag[edit]

Anyone know why there are 13 stars? (I think I can guess if there are 11, but not exactly 13). K61824Who is Terry Koeckritz anyways? 22:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

13 colonies? Тytalk 22:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The Confederate States only got 11 as I know it... so which are the extra 2? ThiehZOYG I edit like Kenservative! 05:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Probably either Missouri and Kentucky, who wanted to join but weren't able to, or Maryland and Delaware, slave states that stayed in the union. If had to pick one it'd be the former. Sophiebecause liberals 11:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Homey da Clown[edit]

"No matter what the lefties say, race has NOTHING at all to do with the teabagger movement. Silly ofay can't even spell homie right." So, clearly this was intended to be sarcastic, but what exactly is the intended statement? References to Homey da Clown are racist? If anything, it's an homage to the Wayans. And is the last part also supposed to be sarcastic, or does the person who wrote this really think that "homie" is the correct spelling?Fdof (talk) 06:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

2nd Amendment[edit]

Neoconservatives and libertarians generally agree that gun control is bad, so it doesn't really work with the section. (talk) 20:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

It is a "compare and contrast" section too, so both how are the two groups similar as well as how they are different come into play...besides as the edit comment the user afore you, BoN, said, it's in the poll data cited. C®ackeЯ 21:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

After the 2012 Election[edit]

So... which politicians in the Tea Party caucus were re-elected? Is the Tea Party done for, or is it going to keep going, able to hide its crazy better? --TheLateGatsby (talk) 00:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Even if they lost everything, they still have far too much control of the Republican party to just vanish. --Revolverman (talk) 02:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Needs updating[edit]

In the post-2012 election era, I think this article could use a decent amount of updating. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 13:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Have I Got News For You[edit]

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)... (talk) 15:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry i can not get an answer anywhere else on these here internets[edit]

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 "" 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[edit]

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?[edit]

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