Teabagging

Theres only one poster there comparable to the ones Lemur showed, the hitler one, the rest are pretty tame, worlds number one terrorists is the worst after that... but hardly shocking...

So is your problem the amount of posters rathers than whats on them ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

A sample of some of the signs being shown at the Tea Parties. I certainly don't blame the attendees for a few fringe lunatics with bad taste, but would you say these are better, worse or equivalent to the stuff being paraded at the anti-war rallies in '03?

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...iteSlavery.jpg https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...amaVampire.jpg https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...ObamaSaudi.jpg https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...bamaHitler.jpg https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v.../JewsOvens.jpg

---

Simply recycled hate rhetoric for the masses.

I was able to get Nazis and jews in the same poster.

https://img13.imageshack.us/img13/7333/pic1jqf.jpg

Where's my gold star?

You know what Lemur? I think your attacking these people is very imatture on your part. Who cares what a bunch of perverts use the word for? Half the words in the English language have been given a sexual meaning (it is called a hyperbole people). If I say someone is nuts, am I being a pervert or an idiot? If you say you love to eat eggs, are you being a pervert or an idiot? They are using an innocent word in an innocent way, and people who do not like them are being perverts. Don't be so obsessed...

And FYI, I do not agree with this 'teabagging' nonesense they are doing, or with what they are saying (no matter how good thier intentions may be), but I think that the way you and others are acting about it is even worse, because it is not well intented in the least. And before you say it is partisanism, do you honestly thing that if Democrats had went 'teabagging' when Bush was elected that people who disagreed with them would be going on obessively in more than one topic about how what they say can be take sexually? If you think of it that way, that is your...affair. It is not how they are using it, and you are taking it completely out of context when you irrelevently go on about the sexual implications the words could have.

I mean no offense Lemur, I know that this stupidity aggrevates you (as I find many of these people's stupidity aggrevating myself), but you hardly do any good for an argument against them when all you can ever post about concerning them is the joy you get from revelling in the sexual undertones you see in their use of an innocent word. Do you see what I mean?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Do you honestly thing that if Democrats had went 'teabagging' when Bush was elected that people who disagreed with them would be going on obessively in more than one topic about how what they say can be take sexually?

---

Trust me, if a bunch of far-left liberals decided to protest President 43 and called it "teabagging," or some equivalent phrase, I don't doubt that everyone else would have a good laugh.

Not every combination of letters makes for a double entendre. Also, you might want to check the definition of hyperbole. That word doesn't mean what you think it means.

Lol Teabag obama.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Trust me, if a bunch of far-left liberals decided to protest President 43 and called it "teabagging," or some equivalent phrase, I don't doubt that everyone else would have a good laugh.

---

I see nothing wrong with seeing it an chuckling when that thought enters your mind, because it can be funny if taken out of context. It is something esle entirely to obsess over the sexual meaning the word COULD have, and treat them like idiots because of the sick associations we make in our own minds. They are doing plenty of things for you to pick on them for being idiots, you do not need to obsess over imaginative referrences to male genitals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Not every combination of letters makes for a double entendre. Also, you might want to check the definition of hyperbole. That word doesn't mean what you think it means.

---

I said half of the words in the English language which is:

Quote:

---

a figure of speech in which statements are exaggerated.

---

I used it:

Quote:

---

to create emphasis.

---

I fail to see how I used it wrongly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

I fail to see how I used it wrongly.

---

Um, a secondary (probably unintentional) meaning for a word or phrase is a double entendre. Hyperbole, as you can tell from the Greek roots (υπερβολή) means extreme and/or deliberate exaggeration for emphasis. A word can only be hyperbolic in its usage, never its meaning.

So when AC/DC sings that "we've got big balls" they're engaging in a double entendre. When Kiss says "I want to rock and roll all night and party every day" they're using hyperbole. When Scorpions sings "I'm gonna rock you like a hurricane" they're using a simile, and when Led Zepplin says "And she's climbing a stairway to heaven" they're using a metaphor.

I could go on, but in the interests of public health I won't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Um, a secondary (probably unintentional) meaning for a word or phrase is a double entendre. Hyperbole, as you can tell from the Greek roots (υπερβολή) means extreme and/or deliberate exaggeration for emphasis. A word can only be hyperbolic in its usage, never its meaning.

So when AC/DC sings that "we've got big balls" they're engaging in a double entendre. When Kiss says "I want to rock and roll all night and party every day" they're using hyperbole. When Scorpions sings "I'm gonna rock you like a hurricane" they're using a simile, and when Led Zepplin says "And she's climbing a stairway to heaven" they're using a metaphor.

I could go on, but in the interests of public health I won't.

---

The hyperbole I was referring to was:

Quote:

---

half the words in the English language

---

The part that came right before I said it was a hyperbole. Sorry if it was confusing, I meant it to be obvious. "Half" is the hyperbole, as not half the words in the English language have been given sexual meanings (or are even commonly known :P).

The one thing that really show that it's hysteria imo is that this happens in april 2009 and not 2011 or 2012. Your new president has barely been into power.

Simply put, Obama doing his election promises are enough for the opposition to reclaim the spirit of the revolution. Anything else than Republican isn't American?

And while the concern about the incread debt is a real one, I suspect that if Obama didn't do it now, he wouldn't be able to so until after the next election and that's usually not a good thing. But if he doesn't do anything more about it during the next years he deserves a good kicking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

The one thing that really show that it's hysteria imo is that this happens in april 2009 and not 2011 or 2012. Your new president has barely been into power.

Simply put, Obama doing his election promises are enough for the opposition to reclaim the spirit of the revolution. Anything else than Republican isn't American?

And while the concern about the incread debt is a real one, I suspect that if Obama didn't do it now, he wouldn't be able to so until after the next election and that's usually not a good thing. But if he doesn't do anything more about it during the next years he deserves a good kicking.

---

I disagree with you. I find the illogical presentations and assumptions to be offensive. The time is not something bad. Their dislike of his principles comes from a different philosophy that they strongly believe in, and according to that philosophy, what he says he is going to do (and has started to do) is going to ruin America, so they NEED to do something about it now, not after it is too late to reverse. In that respect, I am of the exact opposite opinion as yourself. If they really believed that about it and decided to wait until what they believe the destruction of America is already being put into place, THEN they would be stupid. I think they are simply doing what they believe in, and as long as they are being peaceful and not common criminals (like the protesters at the RNC) destroying property, injuring, and killing people that they should be commended for standing up for what they believe in. What I think is stupid and completely discredits them though is the stupid fashion in which they do so, and the ridiculous claims and assumptions that they make.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

Theres only one poster there comparable to the ones Lemur showed, the hitler one, the rest are pretty tame, worlds number one terrorists is the worst after that... but hardly shocking...

---

Exactly, but now imagine (or Google Image) a parade filled with those.

Quote:

---

So is your problem the amount of posters rathers than whats on them ?

---

Lemur said:

Quote:

---

I certainly don't blame the attendees for a few fringe lunatics with bad taste, but would you say these are better, worse or equivalent to the stuff being paraded at the anti-war rallies in '03?

---

I said it was worse at the anti-war rallies, because they (not all, but a fair few) were positively filled with signs of that nature. The signs were the same, but there were more nutjobs wielding them, making the phenomenon worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

I said it was worse at the anti-war rallies, because they (not all, but a fair few) were positively filled with signs of that nature. The signs were the same, but there were more nutjobs wielding them, making the phenomenon worse.

---

Just curious: You're in Germany. I assume you were still there when the '03 protests happened. On what are you basing your quantitative assessment?

Vuk, first, by doing this now, you are moving to bypass the democratic principle, while sometimes it may be the correct choise, it's a very dangerous path to walk.

Second, what will happen to this movement? Obama is slightly more left than Bush, whom did have the power for the last 8 years. Thus if this is enough, then you weren't a fan of Bush's policies.

Why is this important? Because this is already simply an attack tool on the democrats, while it would need to be onto American politics in general to bring the actual change. And as long Fox News and other Republicans that prefer politics simular to Bush will guide the path nothing will change.

It could of course become a gale, storming through the politics and leaving change through it's wake. But alas, the conditions aren't right, not enough part of the populace are willing for it now. If Xiahou is right, then it would have it's strongest time by the end of Obama's presidency. A strong determination with the realisation that a big change is needed (for example an election were the main issue is about who will fix the mess) is the time were this movement needs to be strongest.

Now, it will probably wither and die or possibly end up as a Republican pet dog barking around and somewhere deep in it's mind wondering what went wrong.

I might be wrong and would actually be pleasantly surpriced if I was, but usually movements lose thier strength pretty fast and I'll doubt it last long enough to have a large inpact on the next senate election let alone the next presidental election.