Monday, August 31, 2009

What Do You Think When Someone Says, "Teabagger"?

Instapundit, being a more reasoned and reasonable person than I, chalks it up to ignorance:

IS “TEABAGGER” THE NEW “N-WORD?” No, but when I hear someone use it, I know that nothing they say on the subject is worth taking seriously. Either they’re deliberately using it as a sexual slur, or they’re too ignorant to be worth listening to.

My reaction to hearing someone use the word "teabagger" is hypocrite.

As long as I can remember, liberals have claimed moral superiority over conservatives based on their "open-mindedness" and "tolerance". As a result of their vast intellectual curiosity and acceptance of varied points of view, they thought it only "right" that they belittle stodgy, dull conservatives for being "judgemental."

If we've learned anything from recent events, it is that liberals are close-minded, intolerant, whiny hypocrites. And yes, they're ignorant.

4 comments:

smitty1e said...

What I think is that whoever uses the word in a normal referential way is probably a self-identified, Constitution-hating, modern liberal, Progressive, utopian, hate America first, can't wait to have a unified world government, standing by to be devoured by Cthulhu, propaganda spewing, ignorant sack of something I don't want to use in a comment on your blog.

Carol said...

...sack of something I don't want to use in a comment on your blog.

You sir, are a gentleman and it is appreciated. That said, I couldn't agree with you more, sack and all.

Anonymous said...

Where were the tea-partiers when Bush exploded the deficit, began a war with no way to pay for it, spied on citizens and began a HUGE entitlement program? (Medicare part D)If they're really so concerned about the deficit and constitution, they would have taken to the streets then. It seems more like they're the party of sore losers.

Carol said...

Where were we? We were busy throwing the bums out. Now we are busy replacing the bums of both parties with people who will serve this country and its Consitution and not themselves.