Obama demeans himself and the office of the President by using the term “tea-bag”

The President of the United States demeaned himself and the office of the Presidency by using an extremely offensive term (tea-bag) ,referring to a lude sex act, to describe his critics.

From the New York Times Blog Prescriptions:

“Does anybody think that the teabag, anti-government people are going to support them if they bring down health care? All it will do is confuse and dispirit” Democratic voters “and it will encourage the extremists.”

I’m sure oneutah readers are well aware of this term and it’s intended meaning towards the tea party movement.

It’s one thing for low lives like Janeane Garofalo to use this vile term but for the President to use it shows he too has no class.

, , ,

  1. #1 by Uncle Rico on November 9, 2009 - 9:33 pm

    Ken demeans himself by posting about Obama supposedly demeaning himself by using a term tea-baggers use to describe themselves. Gee Ken, can you reach any further?

  2. #2 by Ken Bingham on November 9, 2009 - 9:40 pm

    Uncle Rico. The Tea Party people do not refer to themselves “tea-baggers”. that was a term assigned to them by the opposition because it does have the lewd connotation. It is meant to demean them. There is no other reason to use the term “tea bagger”.

  3. #3 by Larry Bergan on November 9, 2009 - 10:40 pm

    Ken:

    I don’t know whether my side ever exploited the term “teabaggers” to embarrass your side or not, but I DO know that we never used the term “conservative” as a pejorative as your side has done trillions of times, (and that’s just Hannity) with the word used to describe one of the best movements in history, (can you name it?)

    OK, Hannity couldn’t have possibly done that on his own, but I’m not so sure about the larger conspiracy.

    Your outrage is silly.

  4. #4 by Larry Bergan on November 9, 2009 - 10:42 pm

    How else is Obama going to refer to the cattle: patriots?

    Stop it!

  5. #5 by Ken Bingham on November 9, 2009 - 10:51 pm

    Larry

    What the bowel movement?

  6. #6 by Larry Bergan on November 10, 2009 - 2:39 am

    Ken:

    We can only hope.

  7. #7 by Weer'd Beard on November 10, 2009 - 3:28 am

    Who does the President think he is, Cliff?

  8. #8 by Cliff Lyon on November 10, 2009 - 8:12 am

    Weer’d, The African Prince is the ruler of the free world. He IS Black, African, and he is YOUR master.

    Next time you hear noises around the cave late at night, I suggest, you stay away from your gun. You dont want to give the ATF reason to question your intelligence.

  9. #9 by P. Diddy on November 10, 2009 - 8:36 am

    There is no change, and Obama has his own masters, nigga please! He is not the leader of the free world, he is snubbed by diplomats wherever he goes.

    His is a job to finish that was begun by Reagan, which is why Obama acts more like a Republican than any Democrat does. He is the Gold man’s (nut) Sack, where the bankers keep their balls.

    Here is the house boy’s job in a nut shell.

    http://www.richardccook.com/2009/11/09/reaction-to-fort-hood-stupidity-beyond-belief/

  10. #10 by Mussolyon on November 10, 2009 - 9:54 am

    It’s a lewd sex act Ken. Obama is truly dry f*cking the country.

    Let’s ask his supporters to simply change Obama’s name for Bush in the following article, and we would see the knee jerk reaction from progressives. Progs like frogs, draw fools into bogs.

    Tell us how it is different!

    http://uruknet.com/index.php?p=m59889&hd=&size=1&l=e

  11. #11 by tim carter on November 10, 2009 - 10:07 am

    Thousands of protesters — some dressed in colonial wigs with tea bags hanging from their eyeglasses — showed up in states from California to Kentucky to Massachusetts, holding signs and reading speeches lambasting the Obama administration’s tax-and-spend policies.

    From here:

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/15/thousands-anti-tax-tea-party-protesters-turn-cities/

  12. #12 by James farmer on November 10, 2009 - 10:18 am

    Ken:

    Congratulations! You actually out-ridiculed your last ridiculous post. One can only wonder what you have in store for us next. Really, dude, you need to get a grip!

    PS. If I drum up several equally “sordid” Bush gaffes, are you going to not be the hypocrite you generally are and criticize Bush for the same thing? Nah, I didn’t think so. Hypocrite!

  13. #13 by jasonthe on November 10, 2009 - 10:26 am

    I can understand why you’d find it demeaning, but for the rest of us outside of the tea-baggn’ crowd, it was a moment of pure joy.

    Ah to have a President call it like it is.

    Good for him.

  14. #14 by Richard Warnick on November 10, 2009 - 10:28 am

    Ken–

    First of all, “lude” is not a word. You probably meant “lewd.”

    Secondly, what is now the Tea Party movement originally called on their adherents to “tea bag” the President and other Democrats. That’s what they said.

  15. #15 by jasonthe on November 10, 2009 - 10:53 am

    Well, so much for Ken’s manufactured moral outrage and hand-wringing over political etiquette:

    Washington Independent: The Slur the Must Not Be Named?

    This, says a RedState blogger, is “pornographic” and “name-calling.” I think that’s a bit much. Is there some way to talk about people who wave around tea bags to make political points without mentioning the tea bags? Generally, I think there is, and I go to some lengths not to make crude jokes when I write about the Tea Party movement. But like many slurs devised by a movement’s opponents, I’ve heard this slur being co-opted by the people working the Tea Parties. I’ve actually talked to Tea Party activists who referred to themselves as “Teabaggers.” And at the 9/10 pre-March on Washington event at the D.C. Armory, I bought this button on sale from a vendor…

    [Pic available in link above]

    Always fun to see conservatives bristling like Victorian prudes. And it encouraging to see they still have no real criticism for Obama as President outside of the ridiculousness displayed here by Ken.

  16. #16 by Cliff Lyon on November 10, 2009 - 11:03 am

    Republicans and Conservatives alike are obsessed with sexual deviance.

    Note the follwoing headlines just today

    WATCH GOP Rep. On “Colbert”: “I’m Going To Cockblock Delaware”

    Anti-Gay Hate Church Stages Protest Outside Obama Girls’ School

    Conservative Heritage Foundation Defends Violent Sex Offenders, Rape, Sex Slavery

    Mary Jo Kilroy: GOP Shouting At Democratic Women A ‘Sexist’ Attempt To Put Us ‘In Our Place’

    Blake Hall, Idaho GOP Leader, Quits RNC After Stalking Conviction

    I think whats left of the Republican party are nothing but a bunch of sexually repressed, sexual deviants.

    TOO MUCH CHURCH???

    • #17 by Glenden Brown on November 10, 2009 - 11:16 am

      And I remember Rachel Maddow earlier in the year trying to get through a report about the teabaggers. She had to actually stop and say something like, “Look they call themselves teabaggers. It’s also means a specific sex act. I’m never going to get through this report with out laughing. Everyone in the studio needs to stop laughing.”

  17. #19 by Ken on November 10, 2009 - 12:13 pm

    Richard

    I am sure Obama has taken many “ludes” in his life.

  18. #20 by Weer'd Beard on November 10, 2009 - 12:22 pm

    Cliff Lyon :
    Weer’d, The African Prince is the ruler of the free world. He IS Black, African, and he is YOUR master.
    Next time you hear noises around the cave late at night, I suggest, you stay away from your gun. You dont want to give the ATF reason to question your intelligence.

    Hehehhee I love when you open your Mouth Cliff. Could I say anything more damaging than what you say unprompted?

  19. #21 by Cliff Lyon on November 10, 2009 - 1:25 pm

    Another story about conservatives today. This one about Murdoch’s NY Post

    “On one occasion when Ms. Guzman and three female employees of the Post were sharing drinks at an after-work function. Defendant Allan approached the group of women, pulled out his blackberry and asked them ‘What do you think of this?’ On his blackberry was a picture of a naked man lewdly and openly displaying his penis. When Ms. Guzman and the other female employees expressed their shock and disgust at being made to view the picture, Defendant Allan just smirked… [N]o investigation was ever conducted and the Company failed to take any steps to address her complaints.”

    Why do conservatives run around with pictures of male genitalia on their phones?

  20. #22 by Richard Warnick on November 10, 2009 - 2:54 pm

    Ken–

    Do you really want to go into accusations of substance abuse? George W. Bush was arrested for cocaine possession in 1972, and had to go AWOL from the Air Force to avoid taking a drug test.

  21. #23 by Larry Bergan on November 10, 2009 - 4:51 pm

    Ken:

    Well this post has been utterly debunked with pictures and stories of teabaggers calling themselves teabaggers. If you would stop listening to liars, you would look a lot less silly.

    Liberals have the truth. Come on over!

  22. #24 by Mussolyon on November 10, 2009 - 5:34 pm

    Larry what a true idiot you are, I’m sure the commies don’t even consider you a useful idiot. Easily within the first 1 percent to go, just to check for public response. Man, what maroon.

  23. #25 by Mussolyon on November 10, 2009 - 5:39 pm

    Why do you ask about possibky gay republicans Cliff, are you trying to make hay over the fact that someone might be a homosexual?

  24. #26 by Larry Bergan on November 10, 2009 - 5:56 pm

    “commies” are a mythical creature like Bin Laden. Why would I care what they think? Enemies I fight must be real, like the teabaggers. They are armed, I am not. Both of us mean nothing in the larger clandestine scheme.

    My God, I’m starting to sound like you, glenn.

  25. #27 by Becky Stauffer on November 10, 2009 - 10:22 pm

    Ken, are you equally offended when Orrin Hatch and Mike Noel use the term “scumbag” to insult their detractors? By now they surely have learned what it is, yet they continue to say it.

    Let’s see if your indignation is real, Ken, or if it’s just another of your pointless attacks on Obama.

    teabagger

  26. #28 by Ken Bingham on November 12, 2009 - 2:59 pm

    Cliff

    The President of the United States is not our master. He works for us and unless you are in the military he is not our commander-in-chief.

  27. #29 by Richard Warnick on November 12, 2009 - 3:09 pm

    Ken–

    You’re absolutely right. The Bush administration relentlessly promoted the idea that President Bush was “our” commander-in-chief, and anyone who dared to criticize his policies was a traitor.

    That concept was and is un-American.

  28. #30 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on November 12, 2009 - 5:56 pm

    Ken–Let’s make this simple. Please just admit that there’s overwhelming evidence that your original argument was derived from a poorly-researched misconception, and we can all go on to the next thread.

    Your insistence on continuing to post responses on this thread without admitting that its premise is debunked only serves to show how unreasonably stubborn you are. Please, before you respond to any other comments from any other detractor, renew my faith in humanity by admitting that you were wrong. It would do our discussion so much good to have a little less disseminating indignation and a little more forthright honesty.

    Dwight Sheldon Adams

  29. #31 by Chino Blanco on November 13, 2009 - 1:43 am

    Janeane Garofalo is a low life?

  30. #32 by Larry Bergan on November 13, 2009 - 2:06 am

    Janeane Garofalo is a Godess of reason.

  31. #33 by Larry Bergan on November 13, 2009 - 2:11 am

    Governor George Bush kept telling us his job was to keep us safe. No – his job was to protect and defend the constitution which he knows less about then John Boehner.

  32. #34 by Shane Smith on November 15, 2009 - 9:13 pm

    i know i have been gone quiet a while, sorry there has been a lot on my plate lately, but i want to thank Ken for keeping the crazy here waiting for me, warm and bubbling.

    That is impressive Ken. Your insanity knows no bounds!

  33. #35 by Richard Warnick on November 16, 2009 - 3:51 pm

    “Teabagger” was a finalist in consideration to be the New Oxford American Dictionary’s Word of the Year:

    According to the release, they define “teabagger” as “a person who protests President Obama’s tax policies and stimulus package, often through local demonstrations known as ‘Tea Party’ protests (in allusion to the Boston Tea Party of 1773).”

  34. #36 by Larry Bergan on November 16, 2009 - 8:25 pm

    Allusion, illusion – It’s all so confusion.

  35. #37 by Uncle Rico on November 17, 2009 - 6:54 am

    Oh my God! Obama demeans himself and this country by bowing to Emperor Akihito. What a incompetent, spineless, subservient weenie. American leaders don’t bow to others; they bow to us. This is the greatest country on earth populated by God’s select. And its being ruined by Obama, liberals, atheists, homosexuals, labor unions, minorities, the poor, and the lazy, brown hordes streaming across the southern border.

    There Ken. Now you don’t have to waste time parroting Fox News and the right wing blogosphere.

  36. #38 by Richard Warnick on November 17, 2009 - 8:58 am

    Pop Quiz: Which U.S. President bowed to the very same Japanese Emperor who ordered the attack on Pearl Harbor?

    Answer.

  37. #39 by cav on November 17, 2009 - 10:10 am

    Well, there’s bows and then there’s bows.

    I prefer the photos of GW holding hands with the major Saudi dude.

    …or Rahm fondling blue-dog frontal lobes.

    But that’s just me.

  38. #40 by brewski on November 18, 2009 - 8:13 am

    A Gallup Poll released last week offered a disturbing glimpse about the state of play: just 14 percent of independents approve of the job Congress is doing, the lowest figure all year. In just the past few days alone, surveys have shown Democratic incumbents trailing Republicans among independent voters by double-digit margins in competitive statewide contests in places as varied as Connecticut, Ohio and Iowa.

  39. #41 by Glenn Hofer on November 18, 2009 - 9:48 am

    It is going to be a bloodbath.

  40. #42 by Glenn Hofer on November 18, 2009 - 10:41 am

    The latest betrayal….

    Given candidate Obama’s promise to not use signing statements to circumvent the legislative intent of Congress and his pledge to support whistleblowers, I was shocked to read the signing statement he issued on the Omnibus Appropriations Bill that was signed into law on March 11. Not only did President Obama’s action run contrary to his promise not to use signing statements to circumvent the intent of Congress, he also appears to have broken his promise to strengthen whistleblower laws by singling out an important whistleblower protection provision that Congress has included in every appropriations bill for the last decade.

    grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=19927

  41. #43 by Ken Bingham on November 18, 2009 - 11:11 am

    Now Knock It Off!

  42. #44 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on November 18, 2009 - 11:47 am

    “Tea bag?” Bowing too deeply? These are big issues? What’s next? “President Obama spilled tea on his shoe? Oh no! America won’t be respected by other countries ever again!” I can only hope the Japanese Emperor is more culturally aware than the average American, and this little snafoo against protocol will be forgotten soon. Besides, I don’t think we have a lot to lose in the “America is weak” department. Other countries already figured out that bully-playground-respect dynamic of the Bush administration.

    Then there’s how Bush called the Middle-East conflict a “crusade.” Funny that “tea bag” is more offensive to so many people. Of course, you can see from this that such offenses are only felt inwardly. No one seems to mind when a genuine outrage is committed against other people, but use our own word to describe us and WOW! Our heads go kablammo and indignation flies everywhere.

    Politics can really be sickening when people get involved. We should all stay home and let only the politicians vote next election. Let them bear all of the shame of our stupidity.

    Brewski–I don’t see how your post has much to do with anything in this thread. It would probably serve better elsewhere. Nevertheless, I feel compelled to respond:

    I hope that politico.com isn’t fulfilling the responsibilities dictated by journalistic integrity and comparing that poll to this one. If they are, they might notice another “disturbing glimpse about[sic] the state of play.”

    In particular, that Republican and Democrat support for Congress grew by far more than Independent support diminished.

    Nevertheless, Republicans are ahead in terms of general support, 48% to 44% on Gallup’s generic ballot. Individual politicians, however, can make a big difference.

    I think it’s worth your time, brewski, to read Gallup’s analysis of similar poll trends following the 2006 election, which suggests that disapproval of Congress is largely due to their inaction–that they’re not being “Democrat” enough. Keep in mind that, according to the most recent polls, 30% of independents would still vote Democrat (with 52% Republican and 18% Other), despite only 14% approval.

    Disapproval of Congress is pretty much always lower than voting percentages. Otherwise we would have had a lot more 3rd-Party Congressman than we do at present.

  43. #45 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on November 18, 2009 - 12:58 pm

    Ken–I guess you didn’t read my first post. Shame on you. You just can’t admit your error.

    OneUtah–You should also note that past Presidents (Bush and Clinton) have made similar signing statements in regards to similar laws. Obama’s promise was to not circumvent the intent of Congress. I’m opposed to the Executive branch interpreting the law, but where Congress doesn’t specify, interpretation is necessary. The intent is that a person who prevents the whistleblower from contacting Congress won’t get paid. Obama is asserting his and his officers’ authority to oversee communications by employees using office equipment or in regards to official communications. I don’t, however, believe that this implies oversight in any situation but in the workplace. It would be a far stretch indeed to interpret his statement to mean that his officers could oversee and modify personal communications outside of the office. Such communications would instead be governed by confidentiality laws and concomitant whistleblower protections.

    Nevertheless, I agree with the idea that signing statements are dangerous things. Traditionally, the President should veto the law and send Congress his recommendations. If Congress really wants to pass the law, let them change it a little or get a 2/3 majority. If the President really wants to pass the law, let him bend a little, too. There is, however, some validity to the legality of signing statements–in certain uses.

    One of the unfortunate realities of big government is that laws become so large that nitpicking can go on eternally. Rather than vote on each individual part of the Omnibus Bill, congresspersons choose to vote on all of it at once, throwing caution to the wind a bit. The President, likewise, realizes the uselessness of nitpicking, and instead simply makes parts of the law defunct. Maybe it’s advisable to slow down a little–to be satisfied with less but better laws.

    On the other hand, until the signing statements become expressly abusive or evidence of their misuse is found (such as if abuse has already occurred in the area defined by the signing statement [torture, etc.], if the signing statement has been used excessively [signing nearly every law with one], or the intentional suppression of a legitimate whistleblower), patience may be warranted. I still don’t like signing statements as a general rule, but these ones don’t seem particularly bad. Nevertheless, we should keep our eyes open for the potential–and reality–of abuse.

    Dwight Sheldon Adams

  44. #46 by Richard Warnick on November 18, 2009 - 1:16 pm

    Ken–

    I guess you missed my comment above. Click the link.

  45. #47 by Cliff Lyon on November 18, 2009 - 7:21 pm

    I am pleased to present to you, PHOTOS of our Republican Presidents “demeaning themselves” and “groveling” to foreign leaders, including Bush kissing ON THE LiPs, Wasabi leaders who fund Al Quaida

    Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

    Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

    Ooooooh, I hear laughter in the rain

    Walkin’ hand in hand with the one I love…

    Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

    Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

    Now here’s how you treat a ferner:

    Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

    *********************************************************************

    ADDED:

    Here’s President Nixon bowing to Japanese Emperor Hirohito:

    Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

    And even more shameful, here’s a photo of President Dwight Eisenhower bowing to a Frenchman!, Charles De Gaulle:

    Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

    Also, some are questioning the legitimacy of the photo of Bush kissing Saudi King Abdullah on the mouth (I’ve since replaced that with a definitely non-shopped photo). Here’s no less an authority than Fox News:

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: