re: #521 Salamantis

So let me get this straight:

The term, unlike the choice to the Tea party template, seems to be a matter of unfortunate bottom-up serendipity rather than top-down imposition. Some organizers decide to riff off the original Boston Tea Party by naming their political gatherings that, and some folks come up with the idea to send their congressspeople teabags so that they will know that there are quite a few of them, and a website innocently calls that campaign ‘Teabag the Congress’. A Fox reporter also innocently refers to them as teabaggers, due to the fact that they are sending these teabags to their representatives. And it’s their fault that they didn’t first Google the term to find out that it just happened to be an obscure euphemism for oral-genital dipping? Or does it instead unfavorably reflect upon the puerile emotional maturity level of those who would obdurately persist in juvenilely ridiculing them by sniggeringly riffing on that second meaning?

You think once “teabag the Congress” became a slogan there was any way in hell they wouldn’t get ridiculed for it? C’mon, Sal. That’s not puerile, that’s inevitable.