<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18876">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Verdana>Roger,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Verdana></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Verdana>When you make relies, do not use or delete the
">" from in front of your entries so that we can tell which entries are
yours. Else it is too hard to read, and not worth the effort.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Verdana></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Verdana>W.</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=lfalen@turbonet.com href="mailto:lfalen@turbonet.com">lfalen</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=v2020@ssl.fastmail.fm
href="mailto:v2020@ssl.fastmail.fm">Saundra Lund</A> ; <A
title=philosopher.joe@gmail.com href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">'Joe
Campbell'</A> ; <A title=Vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, March 12, 2010 10:16
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020]
Teabaggers</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>I will make some comments after some of your
statements<BR>-----Original message-----<BR>From: "Saundra Lund" <A
href="mailto:v2020@ssl.fastmail.fm">v2020@ssl.fastmail.fm</A><BR>Date: Wed, 10
Mar 2010 23:01:23 -0800<BR>To: "'Joe Campbell'" <A
href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</A>, <A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>Subject: RE:
[Vision2020] Teabaggers<BR><BR>> Hi Joe,<BR>> <BR>> Great to read you
again, and thanks for such a cogent post, with which I<BR>> wholeheartedly
agree.<BR>> <BR>> Just another comment or two, and a couple or three
comments back to Roger.<BR>> <BR>> You wrote:<BR>> "In fact,
teabaggers initially called themselves teabaggers!"<BR>> <BR>>
Exactly. It was a self-chosen label, unlike the GOP's inclination to
call<BR>> all with conscience and who put people above profit "socialists"
and<BR>> "communists" and "anti-American" and all that other
nonsense.<BR>> <BR>> I suppose it would be fair to say that the
teabaggers were FOR their<BR>> self-chosen label before they were against
it. How positively GOP of them<BR>> :-)<BR>> <BR>> Perhaps,
though, a good compromise would be to refer to them as<BR>>
teabaggers-cum-Tea Partiers ;-)<BR>> <BR>> In a separate response
to me, Roger wrote:<BR>> "The bulk of them however are for smaller
government, freemarkets, and<BR>> adhering to the Constitution."<BR>>
<BR>> Really, you need to get OUT more because you are completely out of
touch<BR>> with how the movement has . . . evolved. Heck -- I can't
even call it an<BR>> evolution because it was defined by wingnuts from the
very beginning, I'm<BR>> sorry to say :-(<BR>> I did not say that
wren't any wingnut in the Tea Party. I said that there were some in most
movement. You rile against wingnunts associated with the Tea Party. I have yet
to see you, Tom, Nick or Wayne comment on those left wingers that think that
9/11 was an inside job of the Bush Administration. If wou buy into that then
you are futher out on the fringe than anybody in associated with the Tea
Party. You imply that I am uninformed. It is true that I do not listen to tv
news even Fox. but here is a list where I do get information- Newsweek, US
News and World Reports, Newsmax, Reason, The Heritage Foundation, National
Review, Natural History, Natural Geographic, Wild West, American History,
History Cannel Magazine, Discover Magazine, American Heritage, The NRA, AARP,
Archaeology, Kiplinger's Personel Fianace,, Money, Scientific American, Health
New, Sheptical Opservor, Cituzebs Agint Government Waste, Drug Policy
Alliance, Tuffs <BR>> I'm really sorry, Roger -- you don't get to define
the movement according to<BR>> your ideals. I wish you did, though,
because this country would be a better<BR>> place if those were the genuine
motives of the teabaggers-cum-Tea Partiers.<BR>> <BR>> In a response to
Nick, Roger also made the comment:<BR>> "What the mainline media says does
not confirm anything. they have been<BR>> consistent either in
ignoring the Tea Party or downplaying it."<BR>> <BR>> Again, Roger, and
I say this with love: you really need to broaden your<BR>>
horizons. The Teabaggers-cum-Tea Partiers have been ALL over the
news,<BR>> including that embarrassing 9/12 Teabaggers-cum-Tea Partiers
attendance<BR>> gross overestimation. Indeed, I would argue that the
mainstream media has<BR>> overblown the whole thing. Most likely, the
movement is going to implode<BR>> precisely because honest people were
initially drawn to a movement that is &<BR>> was from the very
beginning grossly overpopulated by wingnuts. Basically,<BR>> it's
become a freak show with the likes of lunatics like Tancredo providing<BR>>
scary entertainment for the rest of us.<BR>> <BR>> In a response to
Keely, Roger wrote:<BR>> "There are also a substantial number of Black
Americans in the Tea Party."<BR>> <BR>> Who am I going to believe:
your statement or my lying eyes? Absent proof<BR>> to the contrary,
I'm going to believe what I've seen with my own eyes.<BR>> <BR>> IOW,
Roger, put up or shut up. Nick provided statistics from a
libertarian<BR>> delegate to the Tea Party Convention that 99.5% of the
delegates were WHITE.<BR>> If there are so many "Black Americans" in the
Tea Party, why were 99.5% of<BR>> the delegates WHITE? And, of
course, there are my own lying eyes that tell<BR>> me there aren't
"substantial" numbers of anything but white folks in the Tea<BR>>
Party.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Saundra Lund<BR>> Moscow, ID<BR>>
<BR>> The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people
to do<BR>> nothing.<BR>> ~ Edmund Burke<BR>> <BR>> ***** Original
material contained herein is Copyright 2010 through life plus<BR>> 70
years, Saundra Lund. Do not copy, forward, excerpt, or reproduce
outside<BR>> the Vision 2020 forum without the express written permission
of the<BR>> author.*****<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> -----Original
Message-----<BR>> From: <A
href="mailto:vision2020-bounces@moscow.com">vision2020-bounces@moscow.com</A>
[mailto:vision2020-bounces@moscow.com]<BR>> On Behalf Of Joe
Campbell<BR>> Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 2:15 PM<BR>> To: <A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>> Subject:
[Vision2020] Teabaggers<BR>> <BR>> A few comments on the use of the word
teabaggers.<BR>> <BR>> 1/ Nick was not the first person to call folks
in the Tea Bag movement<BR>> teabaggers. The term teabagger was a
finalist for the New Oxford<BR>> American Dictionarys word of the year.
And not for the sex act<BR>> use of the term but for the usage that
refers to members of the Tea<BR>> Bag movement as Nick used it.
Dictionaries have no political agenda.<BR>> They just register usage. In
fact, teabaggers initially called<BR>> themselves teabaggers!<BR>>
<BR>> 2/ According to the Urban Dictionary, teabagger has FIVE
distinct<BR>> meanings, the FIRST of which is one who carries large bags
of<BR>> packaged tea for shipment. Only one of the five meanings has
the<BR>> explicit sexual connotation.<BR>> <BR>> 3/ Why does the use
of the word teabaggers make folks cringe every<BR>> time they hear it?
Im no psychologist but my guess is the term has<BR>> gay connotations and
the CONSERVATIVE not libertarian but<BR>> straight-up conservative
folks in the tea bag movement are<BR>> homophobic. Maybe there is another
reason that the term makes you<BR>> cringe, Dan, but if there is I dont
get it. Maybe its just the<BR>> sexuality of the connotation but when my
softball teammates call me a<BR>> baller I laugh, I dont cringe.<BR>>
<BR>> 4/ Teabaggers pretend to be libertarian but how many of them voted
for<BR>> a state constitutional amendment against gay and lesbian
marriage?<BR>> Lets face it, once you give the state the right to tell you
whom to<BR>> MARRY, youve crossed over to the non-libertarian side of
the<BR>> political spectrum. Like Garrett, I applaud much of the
teabaggers<BR>> platform, especially the limitation of government
intrusion. As Nick<BR>> notes, teabaggers are for economic liberty not
freedom from<BR>> government intrusion. And they are not for economic
liberty for all.<BR>> Otherwise, why on earth wouldnt they favor gay and
lesbian marriages<BR>> so that gays and lesbians can enjoy the same tax
benefits as straight<BR>> married couples? This is just standard George
Bush, religious-right<BR>> conservatism wearing a new hat. If it were
otherwise, it would have<BR>> started long before Obama was
elected.<BR>> <BR>> 5/ Dan, as much as I like and respect you, you are a
hypocrite, as<BR>> Garrett suggested. You POSTED on Tom Forbes website
back when he had<BR>> a tagline that was insulting to academics, like
myself. When the<BR>> Christ Church guy held up the sign that said that
Linda Paul, Tom<BR>> Lamar, and Aaron Ament were bigots, you told me in an
exchange on the<BR>> Daily News blog that the right approach to insulting
idiots was to<BR>> ignore them. You even went so far as to openly
criticize Toms wife<BR>> and daughter for confronting the Christ Church
bigot guy. Dale<BR>> Courtney essentially called all liberals and
progressives communists<BR>> in the header of his blog for years a
practice that is shared each<BR>> day by Rush and Beck and I never hear a
peep from you about that. As<BR>> much as it bothers you to hear the word
teabagger, how would you<BR>> like it if folks regularly called you a
communist? My brother, my<BR>> father, and my grandfather fought in wars
against communists to help<BR>> secure our freedoms and I can tell you I
dont like it one bit. Ive<BR>> never heard you condemn the usage of that
term in reference to<BR>> liberals and progressives.<BR>> <BR>> Ill
tell you what. The next time that Donovan Arnold, or some other<BR>> Christ
Church dupe, writes an insulting comment following a post by<BR>> Nick, or
Tom, or Keely and you make a similar condemnation of his<BR>> language,
Ill apologize for calling you a hypocrite. A slight<BR>> parenthetical
remark here is not convincing. Sorry. Back it up with<BR>> action.
Please.<BR>> <BR>> 6/ Im going to continue to use teabaggers. It
reminds everyone of<BR>> how out of touch the movement is, and how hastily
developed it was.<BR>> Anyone who forms a political movement without taking
enough time to<BR>> research the alternative connotations of the NAME of
their group<BR>> deserves to be reminded of it regularly!<BR>> <BR>>
The term is a reminder, also, of how narrow and conservative the true<BR>>
aims of the Tea Party are. They are concerned merely with limited<BR>>
economic relief for some, not liberty and freedom for all. They dont<BR>>
even want to think about gays, let alone afford them equal rights. It<BR>>
is faux-libertarianism disguised as the real thing, the government<BR>>
telling us whom to marry but giving us tax relief. Yipes! Essentially,<BR>>
they are saying that theyre willing to accept the governmental<BR>>
suppression of others just as long as they get some tax money back!<BR>>
What a perverse libertarian nightmare.<BR>> <BR>> Libertarianism is a
tough row to hoe. It entails giving folks the<BR>> right to do things that
are against your own personal beliefs, for it<BR>> puts freedom from the
state ahead of all other concerns. I am far more<BR>> libertarian than ANY
teabagger I know!<BR>> <BR>> Best, Joe<BR>> <BR>>
<BR><BR>=======================================================<BR> List
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<BR>
<A
href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</A>
<BR> <A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>=======================================================</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>