The “also” was a break in point. The first paragraph was directed toward your comments about Stewart going back to the subject after Hannity's apology. That is a comics tactic, nothing more.

The tawdry connotation of teabagger not withstanding, this faux insult has been kicked around way too much here. My comments were directed toward those who are constantly offended. If you are not one of those, feel free to read it as not directed toward you. My mistake was to put both comments in the same response.

I'll be happy to stop using this term if the right side refrains from the list of pejoratives used to describe the left. In this thread, I believe a separate comment to AR would have made the implied distinction overt.

I also didn't comment about 'teabagger' with outrage- I was responding to those who were puzzled at how the tea party participants could possibly not have known about the urban dictionary definition of teabag, and letting them know that at least among people that I know, no one understood what the juvenile joking was all about and I'm not ashamed to admit that because I have no shame in not being well versed in crass terms for sex acts.

I find it odd how you don't see the irony of Hannity's use of erroneous film clips to push a political meme. I distinctly remember how outraged you were that Oberman edited a Palin daughter clip. At least in his case, he actually used her words about abstinence.

As to Stewart “milking” the apology, get over it. Stewart is a comedienne who lives on the milk of other people's hypocrisy. Hannity and fox in general slice and dice raw footge to produce their meme on a regular basis. Stewart caught him and called him out by using humor to make his point. Any time Hannity wants to guarantee that this episode is his last attempt to shape the news through purposeful editing, I'm sure Stewart will leave him alone.

Also, as to the teabagger “controversy”, I suggest you watch Robert Wuhl's “Assume the Position.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgddY5OO4fY This jumps into themiddle of his talk, and I suggest you watch all four parts. You will find yourself laughing at the lies we've told ourselves.

Yankee Doodle was a homophobic slur first used by the British. It took Americans to make it a battle cry. My point is simple, instead of taking umbrage with a an opposition's intended slur, use it, ignore it, or make it mean something you want it to. Being offended is a waste of everybody's time.

In Austin's defense, I attended all of the Tea Parties in my area. Not ONCE did any of us refer to ourselves as “Tea Baggers” or to our event as “Tea Bag Parties”. Not once.

Just because ANY media outlet calls it that, does not make it right. And contrary to your probable believe, the make up of the crowd at the Tea Parties was approximately 1/3 democrat. SHOCKING!! The media, and no doubt you, presumed it was a massive neocon/GOP effort. That may have been the case for many of the participants, but for me (A social-conservative moderate Democrat) it was not. It was a frustration with Congress, the Bush/Obama bailouts, multi-Trillion dollar heathcare, and impending debt that we cannot afford to pass to the children.

I know this has all been said before. But as long as conservatives and liberals alike continue to miscategorize the impetus behind the Tea Parties, or belittle their meaning, here I'll be on the soapbox.

Indeed. Not to mention that throwing around loose tea likely would not have required as much clean up. In fact, it might have been quite beneficial for the White House lawn. Though I do wonder how much sales tax was paid in this protest on taxation, and folks fail to see the irony in that.

If they'd stop and actually consider why the Boston Tea Party happened the way it did, they'd know that it wasn't merely a symbolic thing. Dumping all that tea meant that it would not be sold and therefore could not be used to collect taxes. It was also illegal, but then some of the more effective protests usually are. You could even compare it to the sit-ins of the 1960s and bus boycotts. They weren't just symbolic. They had an actual effect. Symbolism and lack of sacrifice just isn't that effective.

Now you can't tell me that if a group of protesters decided to hold rallies to speak out against Mexican immigrants and call it a “Dirty Sanchez Party” that it wouldn't immediately hit the radar of every comedian out there. Chances are, you know what that term means, and if you don't, you at least have a good idea as to what type of act it might. To top it off, imagine if they continued calling it that and some proudly held signs that they were going to give the border patrol a Dirty Sanchez, all mixed in with little old ladies continued to use the term and have no idea what they were talking about. Now imagine that even after that they continued to refer to themselves as Dirty Sanchezers. At some point, with them insisting to be called that, it just becomes lodged in your brain that that's what they're supposed to be called. You might even start use the term without even thinking about it.

Better example… Let's say that a group of Buddhists use a symbol for centuries. Let's say that a fringe right-wing group starts to use that symbol and then commits genocide. Even though it's still a Buddhist symbol, it is now more commonly associated with the second group and considered social taboo.

Um, no, it wasn't a 'nip', nor did I say that people who watch The Daily Show are petty. I simply answered Joe's question with my own opinion of this particular clip from Stewart, and personal opinions were what Joe asked for. Funny how a few commenters here react as though there is only one correct answer to a question about opinions, and yet somehow simultaneously are trying to claim that we who might have a contrarian opinion are trying to nip at heels to herd people into agreeing with us.

Obviously so, but not surprising in the least that it is happening, given the silliness and pettiness that is so pervasive and predictable “there”…
************
Well that's one way of looking at it. Here's another way: without shows like The Daily Show to keep the rampant propaganda on both sides under check, we'd be living in Soviet Russia under the KGB. I mean, really…if it was up to the GOP they would have that measure of control over the populace if we let them.

Like I said about Olbermann, if the need wasn't there, The Daily Show and The Colbert Report wouldn't exist.

tidbits wrote: “The odd part about the term “tea bag” associated with these protests, is that it was initally used by the protesters themselves, until its double meaning became apparent.”

Exactly right tidbits, as pointed out in the Wikipedia post: Tea Party Protests

In February [2/27/09], David Weigel of The Washington Independent photographed a protester holding a sign that read “Tea Bag the Liberal Dems Before They Tea Bag You.” The verb “tea bag” is used by others including Fox News Reporter Griff Jenkins and <a href=”http://www.reteaparty.com/2009/02/27/rick… where it is used self-referentially. Salon.com, however, pointed out that “teabagging” has long had another meaning.

April 15th Tax-day Events

An April 15, 2009 Tea Party protest outside the White House was moved after a box of tea bags was hurled over the White House fence. Police sealed off the area and evacuated some people. The United States Secret Service brought out a bomb-detecting robot, which determined the package was not a threat. Approximately a thousand people had demonstrated, several waved placards saying “Stop Big Government” and “Taxation is Piracy”.

There were many, many “Tea Bags” brought to the “Tea Party's”… ergo “Tea Bag Party” if they'd had any sense they would have bought it in bulk, it's cheaper and it's better.