While I don't identify with the Tea Party movement, I'm definitely to the right, fiscally, of this administration and Democrats in general. I look at people from parent's generation, baby boomers, who for years were warned of the dangers of nationalized health care and see these dark prophecies coming closer to fruition each day. Like Howard Beale, they're "mad as hell and...not going to take it anymore." These are the same people who in college during the late 60's and early 70's rolled their eyes at the trust fund babies who, in an attempt to rebel against their parents, grew their hair out, dropped acid and protested the war in Vietnam.

Now those trust fund babies and their offspring are the ones rolling their eyes at the Tea Party crowd.

It got me to wondering, are the "tea baggers" really any more wheels off than the Vietnam War protesters? How about the Code Pink people? How about the ruffians who protest the WTO?

If nothing else, at least most of the "tea baggers" have jobs, something members of those other groups can't really say.

Tea baggers is a relatively new term for me. I looked it up in the urban dictonary, and I fail to see where it has any relevance to a person's political beliefs. Objectionable behavior to be sure, but not indicative of one's politics.

Does this term have another meaning besides one who actually markets tea?

Or is it just the latest Democratic pet expression for Republicans?

The fact that you had to look the term up in an "Urban Dictionary" pretty much indicates that you won't get how it applies to you. There is an attitude that defines the sex act that is echoed in the attitude sorrounding the political movement. Basically, It is rude and self absorbed to sit on someone's face. Conversely, there is a certain dim-bulb unawareness evidenced by gleefully allowing someone to sit on your face. The whole Tea Party movement is a call for other Americans to hold still while the "tea baggers" sit on our faces for their lower taxes and quality health care access. The receiving end of the act is also apparent in the "teabagger's" willingness to let Glenn Beck and Bachmann sit on their faces for higher ratings and headlines. Now, the sex act is kinda silly and humiliating. But in a private, laugh at what just happened kinda way. The political movement is silly and humiliating in a public "Oh my God, what did I just do" sort of way.

Most of the teabaggers are older people...in other words, the ones protesting national health care are the ones who HAVE it. And as for a polite,peaceful protest...tearing up papers and throwing them on the floor is hardly polite or peaceful.

The first time I heard the phrase 'teabaggers' in reference to the teabaggers, it was by someone either in their movement or someone on Fox pushing the movement. They were the first ones to call themselves teabbagers, and only after having a lot of people laughing their asses off at them, and rightly so, did they realize what the term meant in some other circles of society.

Also, while the term references a certain semi-sexual act, it was not that act that popularized the term. It was popularized in on line gaming, when one persons character squats over someone elses they just killed and repeatedly squats over their face. In this context it has zero sexual connotations and it all about humiliating the person you dominated. Something the current teabaggers seems intent on pursuing themselves.

If Beam used the phrase, blame the movement itself for not having one tiny ass clue as to popular culture references, since it fits them as being clueless anyway.

As for the movement itself, I've seen idiots with Obama Hitler signs, and I've seen more reasonable people with signs simply concerning government spending and other actual issues. To claim the 'movement', such as it is, stands as one monolithic voice is almost as ignorant as claiming independent voters are one monolithic voting block.

They are not.

And I;m sorry, Vietnam war protesters were "wheels off"? In what way, the way they claimed the war was wrong, which is was? Or maybe about the way the war was being waged piss poorly, which it was? I agree some protesters were over the limits of good taste, especially in their treatment of returning war veterans. But once again, the Vietnam war protesters were not a monolithic group either.

And how in Gods name do you pretend to know that Code Pink and WTO protesters don't have jobs? The fact that you conflate the Vietnam war protest movement with 'trust fund babies who grew their hair out' shows me clearly that you, as well, are as ignorant as the teabaggers were when they so poorly picked a name for their so called movement.

As for naitonal health care, I've yet to get an answer to this quetion; maybe you can help since you're so clearly tuned into the psych of all that oppose you: How can it be that the entire rest of the world has health care wrong, and only America, in all of the entire developed world, has it right?

I'm willing to accept your contention that the teabaggers are a minority among all those publicly objecting to the Obama administration. But when will we hear from the non-teabaggers? Right now, it's the looniest of the loony who are lauded by mainstream rightwing media pundits. As the Bachmann show illustrated, our elected officials (GOP) are busy kissing the asses of the most batshit crazy of the teabaggers. Who, exactly, on the right is publicly expressing any reservations at ALL over the calls for secession and revolution? Who on the right has expressed disagreement with the constant "Hitler/Stalin" demonography? Who on the right has even said it's wrong to howl out for the murder of Americans they disagree with? If they're there, I sure haven't heard from them.

If the face of today's Republican Party is those howling nutbags who wish for nothing less than the destruction of our democratic traditions, then that's the face the GOP has CHOSEN for itself.

"...most of the 'tea baggers' have jobs, something members of those other groups can't really say."

And you know this how?

Most of the 't-b's' that I saw are elderly...apparently at least of an age to have retired. Most of them seem to be old enough to get Medicare and Social Security. Unfortunately, they don't seem bright enough to understand that those are socialized programs designed to help people in need. Whoops!

They also fail to understand that if their 'jobs' let them take off a mid-week day to go protest, they owe that ability to a bunch of liberal cry-babies who fought for the 8 hour day and the 5 day week and the concept of 'vacation.' If they so long for a day when the government didn't 'interfere', let them throw those concepts out along with safer food, tested drugs, and police/fire departments.

I don't think anyone has mentioned that the intended implication of the teabaggers' name was to invoke the Founding Fathers' Boston Tea Party; a protest against "taxation without representation" sorta thing. Naturally liberals have been all too willing to co-opt the name knowing the derisive connotation of oral-scrotal sex the term "teabagging" implies.

I can't contest the notion the notion that teabaggers aren't any crazier than Viet Nam protestors of the 60's/70's. Given the time gap they might be exactly the same people. Not sure if teabaggers will be much more effective in stopping Health Care Reform than the hippies were in stopping the Viet Nam war.

"Tea baggers" is a pejorative used by those on the Left to attack people who protest high taxes and nationalization of private industries. Again, though I agree with many of the "tea baggers" ideas, I find the term to be funny.

From my perspective, the Republican Party is a much more attactive party with the "tea baggers" leading it than when the "Rapture Right" led it. Big Church is just as bad as Big Government.

Good luck electing Republicans without Christian voters ;- )

Actually, big church proabably worse than big government.

My thanks to everybody for defininitions on tea baggers.

Geoausch:

"Tea baggers" is a pejorative used by those on the Left to attack people who protest high taxes and nationalization of private industries. Again, though I agree with many of the "tea baggers" ideas, I find the term to be funny.

From my perspective, the Republican Party is a much more attactive party with the "tea baggers" leading it than when the "Rapture Right" led it. Big Church is just as bad as Big Government.

The name "Teabaggers" was all over Fox News for weeks preceding and after the events. Jeeze! You guys invent a lame name for yourselves -- one that includes the meaning of sexual submission -- and then blame the rest of the world for laughing at it. Yup. We understand you wanted to evoke some 18th-century patriots who protested against a colonial government that backed private companies. Oh. Wait! You didn't actually know about the role of "free enterprise" in that event? Back to the history books, teabaggers! If anybody wanted to really emulate the Boston Tea Party, they'd be demonstrating to end government's ass-kissing of the for-profit healthcare insurance industry. Or, can YOU explain for us why healthcare insurers are exempt from antitrust legislation?

As far as "taxation without representation", you have the form of representation that was written into the US Constitution. And the constitution nowhere guarantees that your representatives will do everything your way. By the way, have any of you figured out yet what "your way" would actually BE?

Looks like you are batting 000.

Every single statement you made turned out to be wrong, wrong, and wrong.

Those boomers who were "warned" about nationalized health care do not see it as dark at all. In fact, if you try to take their Medicare away, they would beat you to death with their canes.

Back in the 60's and 70's, only a few frat rats still supported the war in Viet Nam. Clearly the majority of Americans wanted us to get out of the war--or we would have stayed permanently. Not everyone dropped acid, but damned near everyone--collar of white, blue, or pink--grew their hair out. Look at some high school and college yearbooks if you don't believe me.

The term trust fund babies does not apply to the health care reform debate at all. In fact, the more wealthy one is, the more one is likely to have free health insurance from some outside source, and the less likely one is to care about the rest of America getting some help. Those who are very well off now just don't get it. I pay my health insurance completely out of my pocket; my insurance went up $90.00 per month. And I am ready to pull a Howard Beale.

And after the way the goddamned publicans screwed the pooch in terms of the economy and bitch every time President Obamn tries to improve things, I don't think it is a good idea for you to disparige people who do not have jobs. If you are of an employable age and still have a job, you had better thank your lucky stars; there are no doubt several thousand qualifed people who would be glad to have your job--if only for the company health insurance that comes with it.

On a side note, the general publican line is that the economy is in the crapper, and we are headed for economic Gmorrah. But they have the other side covered as well. Mitt Romney, busy running for Prez in 2012 says that the economy is improving? but it is not the result of President Obama's good works. No, no, indeed! The economy is improving itself! <link>

Romney's such a turd. It still pains me that my state of Michigan went for the asshole in the primaries because he blatantly lied about bringing all our lost jobs back. McCain was honest and lost the Michigan primary, Romney blatantly lies and wins. There's your modern GOP.

northwoods:

Those boomers who were "warned" about nationalized health care do not see it as dark at all. In fact, if you try to take their Medicare away, they would beat you to death with their canes.

Most boomers I know (i.e. my parents and their friends) aren't on Medicare. They have insurance through their JOBS. In fact, I can honestly say, I don't know anyone personally under the age of 80 who is on Medicare.

northwoods:

Back in the 60's and 70's, only a few frat rats still supported the war in Viet Nam. Clearly the majority of Americans wanted us to get out of the war--or we would have stayed permanently. Not everyone dropped acid, but damned near everyone--collar of white, blue, or pink--grew their hair out. Look at some high school and college yearbooks if you don't believe me.

Again, I can only speak from my own personal experience. I wasn't born until 1978, so I can only go on the stories from my parents and their friends. My mother came from a poor, rural, Southern Democrat family and worked two jobs while attending college. She said she became a Republican after seeing the "trust fund babies" rebel against mommy and daddy, while burning through their money, protesting the war.

My dad was also in college during the this time period and in ROTC. He joined the Army by choice--he wasn't drafted--and served during the War. After his service, he married my mother and they were able to start their own successful businesses.

northwoods:

The term trust fund babies does not apply to the health care reform debate at all. In fact, the more wealthy one is, the more one is likely to have free health insurance from some outside source, and the less likely one is to care about the rest of America getting some help. Those who are very well off now just don't get it. I pay my health insurance completely out of my pocket; my insurance went up $90.00 per month. And I am ready to pull a Howard Beale.

Almost every white liberal Democrat in Congress, especially those from the Northeast, are "trust funders", just like Bush. They want health reform, not to help out the poor in this country, but to gain more power for themselves.

I have $4, that's four dollars, a month deducted from my paycheck each month for my employer provided health care. Any health care bill proposed would raise my taxes more than that $4 a month, so in essence I would be paying more for far inferior health care. Screw that!