So-o.....with Kerry's and the Prez's John Hancocks......

[desertswo]

Ditto. He said exactly my sentiments.

I'm happy for you.

[Blademaster]

I'm happy for you.

Good now we are getting along. Have a beer on me.

[Bigfella]

I would hasten to point out that conservatives in general do not demonize homosexuals. Some no doubt do. It might be better to refer to those who do as ignorant.

JAD, I realise that it is now PC to claim that conservatives 'don't care about what people do in private etc. I'm sure some conservatives have always felt that way, though they managed to keep it pretty damned quiet until recently. I can recall some pretty influential & significant figures in conservative politics & the GOP doing just that in the 70s, 80s & 90s. I can remember an awful lot of silence from their bretheren when they did. I may have exaggerated slightly for effect, but there is (or at least was) a good deal more truth to it that you are admitting.

I'm pleased that things have changed relatively quickly, but the past doesn't un-happen as a result.

[Bigfella]

Why do you believe I'm a conservative? I'm probably the only pure civil libertarian you are ever likely to meet in this life or any other. My distrust of big government comes honestly. I was once one of its pawns, and beyond the day to day joy of my life's work, I didn't enjoy that other aspect. I worked inside the belly of the beast; up close an personal, and learned to REALLY hate those elected bastards and their toadies. I have no use for politicians or the shit they peddle in the guise of being "good for me." That goes equally for both sides of the aisle, so please, you may call me many things, but conservative isn't one of them.

Mike,

I wasn't accusing you. I was after the message, not the messenger. I was taking aim at the arguments you were using - which appear heavily influenced if not directly derived from those put forth by conservatives & conservative websites.

Classifying Blademaster's post as 'elitist' and 'vulgar' for using a term TPers themselves have used - even after the meaning became clear - is pretty stock standard conservative argument. He was doing no more than you did with your 'jug eared' comment - make light of those with whom he disagrees. Both terms were a bit on the adolescent side, but methinks you did protest too much.

As I pointed out, the 'teabagger is an anti-gay slur' is another conservative beat up. It is just one more part of the endless point scoring that goes on in US politics. My profound irritation was directed at the people who created that line of argument, not you for using it. I took your feelings to be genuine if ill-directed. If I thought BM was engaging in some anti-gay slurring I would be the first in line to tear strips off him, and I wouldn't be even a bit polite about it. Watching one of the people you love most die a death that family members are too ashamed to admit happened will do that to you.

To summarize: 'teabagger' is at worst yet another bit of the adolescent 'back and forth' between the different tribes in US politics. No more. People on the conservative side have tried to build it up into the deepest of insults in order to 'play victim' and make their opponents look bad. Like I said, more tribal politics. I am pleased to hear that you aren't in either tribe, though you appear to lean more heavily on the arguments of one than the other.

I'm also pleased to hear that you know the difference between 'conservative' and 'libertarian'. It has been my unfortunate observation that conflation of the two is received wisdom among many American conservatives - pretending that 'conservative' always & everywhere equated to 'libertarian'.

BTW, you aren't the first or only pure libertarian I have ever encountered. Met one here some years back. One of the finest people you would ever care to meet. You remind me of him in a great many ways (most of them good ).

[Monash]

:

Monash:

We're going in circles here. I am not giving you my opinion of the treaty, but how gun rights folks view it.

It is not a matter of trust in the State Department folks who worked on the treaty. The terms of the treaty will be applied domestically in some fashion. The question is how and how will it affect people's gun rights. You say not at all; they say, we want to be sure.

Unfortunately yes we are going around in circles but that's where the 'logic' (if that's the right term) of anyone using this argument takes you. The only way to prove the Treaty won't have any significant or adverse domestic impact on US gun ownership would be to ratify it and if you don't ratify it you can't disprove their assertion. Since I didn't study Logic at university I'm not sure but I think this particular "pro gun" argument (not that that is what it really is) is one of the so called 'Informal Fallacies' of Logic, specifically the 'onus probandi" or shifting the burden of proof. (Logicians anyone????)

And yes I had to look it up. :)

And as noted previously if the argument is that the Treaty 'will be used' domestically then the onus does fall the proponent to specify how. I note that collecting statistics, serial numbers and export license details on firearms exports could be regarded as use but since it has no impact on domestic sales of firearms I fail to see how it would be relevant.

[JAD_333]

:

Unfortunately yes we are going around in circles but that's where the 'logic' (if that's the right term) of anyone using this argument takes you. The only way to prove the Treaty won't have any significant or adverse domestic impact on US gun ownership would be to ratify it and if you don't ratify it you can't disprove their assertion. Since I didn't study Logic at university I'm not sure but I think this particular "pro gun" argument (not that that is what it really is) is one of the so called 'Informal Fallacies' of Logic, specifically the 'onus probandi" or shifting the burden of proof. (Logicians anyone????)

And yes I had to look it up. :)

And as noted previously if the argument is that the Treaty 'will be used' domestically then the onus does fall the proponent to specify how. I note that collecting statistics, serial numbers and export license details on firearms exports could be regarded as use but since it has no impact on domestic sales of firearms I fail to see how it would be relevant.

Monash:

Nothing could be worse than ratifying a treaty to test its affect on gun owners' rights. It would be better to show where the potential infringements lie, correct them and then ratify. Even then there may be issues unrelated to gun rights. The burden does fall on the NRA and others who oppose ratification and no doubt if ratification is considered by the Senate, all the domestic pros and cons will be aired in hearings.

I loved logic in college. Curiously it was listed as a philosophy course. In a Jesuit-run college, anything is possible.:)

[desertswo]

I loved logic in college. Curiously it was listed as a philosophy course. In a Jesuit-run college, anything is possible.:)

It's almost always a philosophy course in my experience.

[Monash]

It would be better to show where the potential infringements lie, correct them and then ratify. Even then there may be issues unrelated to gun rights. The burden does fall on the NRA and others who oppose ratification and no doubt if ratification is considered by the Senate, all the domestic pros and cons will be aired in hearings.

Agreed, the problem is though that IMO you will never get the NRA or for that matter anyone else pushing this line of argument to actually specify which (if any) clauses cause the problem they are worried about. And even if you do back them into a corner somehow and get them to specify which particular sections of the treaty cause them concern they will still refuse to accept that the rewrites offer sufficient protection. ('onus probandi' again.)

The problem is the NRA is a single issue organisation, its executive are are voted into office and paid to push a political platform that opposes any and all legislation that might potentially restrict private gun ownership in the US. Its their job for want of a better term so they can hardly be expected to react otherwise.

As a result all State and Federal Legislation is viewed through the prism of that single objective - legislation either enhances the private ownership of firearms in the US or restricts it. (If it does neither it is largely irrelevant). That which enhances 2nd amendment rights is good, that which does not is bad.

Given this kind of worldview convincing the NRA to support the Treaty no matter how many re-writes you do is tough ask. I suspect you'd have to offer them something big on the domestic scene before they would acquiesce.

[Parihaka]

Mike,

The term has been used by TPers & their supporters themselves. Initially they clearly didn't know it had already been taken, but subsequently it has continued to be used on occasion. Early TPers sent tea bags to congressmen (or were urged to do so) & I've seen photos of people decked out in tea bags & with badges & signs using the phrase. People such as Jay Nordlinger & Andrew Breitbart also used the term.

The evolution of the word 'tea bagger' - The Week

Advocating sending tea bags in 2001.

Talk Radio Thwarts Tennessee Income Tax - Los Angeles Times

Another one from 2009. I can dig up way more, trust me.

The Humble Libertarian: A Reminder To Tea Bag The Fools In Washington DC On April 1st

Check out the photo here - taken in 2010

The Slur That Must Not Be Named | The Washington Independent

Obviously critics of the Tea Party movement were happy to use the bat placed in their hands by TPers to whack them over the head with, but the self-righteous rage on the part of countless conservative websites is more about tribal politics & labelling than about any of the evil & nasty things supposedly being done to poor conservatives by evil liberals. If you use teabags as one of the symbols of your movement and use the term 'teabagger' and refer to 'teabagging' then you don't get to play hurt when someone uses the term to describe you.

By all means request that the tem not be used, but the tone is unwarranted.



The 'gay slur' thing is yet another beat up. The act in question can be performed by hetrosexuals or homosexuals. It wasn't an 'anti-gay slur' of any significance before conservatives wanted to act like it was. More game playing.



As someone with several homosexuals in my immediate family, one of whom died of HIV/AIDS I don't give a shit about the term. Not one tiny little bit. I've been dealing with the issue of anti-gay discrimination all of my adult life. This is NOT on the radar.

I am a great deal more pissed off about the same conservatives who have demonized & discriminated against homosexuals for generations trying to pretend that they are the victims of some great slur. I'm not accusing you personally and I don't doubt your genuiness, but there are a great many conservatives who were happy enough to crow about 'God's punishment' back before combination therapy came about (some still do). Plenty more would happily see homosexuals permanently relegated to the status of second-class citizens (and I'm not just talking gay marriage). With all due respect to yourself (and I have a great deal of respect for you) they can shove their faux offence. For every one who is genuine there are another hundred just using it as another way to score points - every bit as cynical & hypocritical as those they claim to criticize.

All good points. Apparently the way the term is used is offensive (perhaps in different ways) to virtually everyone. Shall we desist from using it?

[Parihaka]

JAD, I realise that it is now PC to claim that conservatives 'don't care about what people do in private etc. I'm sure some conservatives have always felt that way, though they managed to keep it pretty damned quiet until recently. I can recall some pretty influential & significant figures in conservative politics & the GOP doing just that in the 70s, 80s & 90s. I can remember an awful lot of silence from their bretheren when they did. I may have exaggerated slightly for effect, but there is (or at least was) a good deal more truth to it that you are admitting.

I'm pleased that things have changed relatively quickly, but the past doesn't un-happen as a result.

I can remember an awful lot of silence from the left on the issue as well. Shall we dispense with broad sweeping categorisations and generalisations while we are at it? :)