Comments for Community.GJSentinel.com

Comment on Salazar avoids health care questions by Scott

Scott — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:05:15 +0000

The “Tea bagger talking points” are what were being referenced, so the term is pertinent to the discussion. Personally, I had no idea about the “other” definition of the phrase. As far as I knew it simply referred to those who attend the Tea Partys and seem to be of the more vocal and conservative persuasion, and I see nothing offensive about using it in that context.

If it is not used in that context, then why even bring up that particular definition at all? You are the one who mentioned the “derogatory sexual term” in the first place, JMH. Now you say “OF COURSE it was not intended to imply the actual act…” So why did you even mention it?

Comment on Salazar avoids health care questions by JMH

JMH — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:44:14 +0000

RL says, “That is something totally different than “sexism”. The poster might pay more attention to what is actually stated instead of seeing what he wishes to see, and thereby attempting to change the focus of the discourse.”

Who said anything about sexism? The posters RL, and Scott, might wish to pay more attention to what is actually stated instead of seeing what they wish to see, and thereby attempting to change the focus of the discourse.

Given the content of the letter, OF COURSE it was not intended to imply the actual act - similar to the way the words “dick” or “bitch” are not used to imply a woman is actually a female dog or a man is actually a body part. Duh.

Given the context of the letter, attaching it to the opposing point of view only reflects that the person using or defending the term is shallow and has nothing AT ALL to say about the the REAL focus of the discourse - which is HEALTH CARE REFORM.

RL says, “So, let us stay on subject shall we?”

How about it? Any intelligent comments?

Comment on Salazar avoids health care questions by warhorse

warhorse — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:32:54 +0000

Riddler - Thats common here. Personal attacks, one liners and my way or the highway mentality. Reasoned questions are often dismissed with immediate negative attacks and/or digression into irrelevancy.

Comment on Salazar avoids health care questions by warhorse

warhorse — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:21:10 +0000

RL - stated “And what “derogatory sexual term” is the poster talking about? Is it “she”? If so, then JMH (who I understand is female) may very well be showing us her own sexism. Or, does she believe that women have a right to spout and not be challenged, just because they are women?” It just seemed in that statement that you were a little confused as to what term was referenced. I was simply trying to clear it up for you. It appears that Bullish has provided a clearer “street” definition of the term. I still think it is worth considering why so many people in the media and on the left insist on using the term. Perhaps they are also confused or perhaps they are intentionally using the term to in a derogatory manner. In either case I think JMH has the right to be offended regardless off his/her sex.

Comment on Salazar avoids health care questions by Riddler

Riddler — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:05:10 +0000

Why did you find in necessary to attact Ms. Sturm personally and or professionally John? I think she had some very good questions. I think her main point is: Why does Mr. Salazar avoid his constituants?

Comment on Salazar avoids health care questions by Scott

Scott — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:59:37 +0000

Given the context of the letter, do you really think that is what was meant by the term? Talk about going out of your way looking for something to take offense to.

By your logic, certain diminutives of the name Richard should never be used because there is one meaning that some might consider offensive. Not to mention an alternate word for rooster that should apparently never be used, because regardless of the context someone might think you’re talking about something else.

Comment on Salazar avoids health care questions by bullishfrog

bullishfrog — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:43:05 +0000

RL needs to add to his education:

teabagger: a man that squats on top of a womens face and lowers his genitals into her mouth during sex, known as “teabagging”.

Comment on Salazar avoids health care questions by RLaitres

RLaitres — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:02:20 +0000

Warhorse: “I suppose the term teabagger and its “street” definition have been lost on you through all of these discussions. Perhaps you should take the time to learn why this offensive term is being used by so many in the media and those that aren’t “on board” with the current democratic party agenda”

That is something totally different than “sexism”. The poster might pay more attention to what is actually stated instead of seeing what he wishes to see, and thereby attempting to change the focus of the discourse. The “teabagger” term is not limited to, nor restricted to women alone. So, let us stay on subject shall we?

Comment on Salazar avoids health care questions by warhorse

warhorse — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:52:51 +0000

RL - Really? I suppose the term teabagger and its “street” definition have been lost on you through all of these discussions. Perhaps you should take the time to learn why this offensive term is being used by so many in the media and those that aren’t “on board” with the current democratic party agenda.

Comment on Salazar avoids health care questions by RLaitres

RLaitres — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:14:21 +0000

JMH: “PS - You do not help your own argument (whatever it is) by labeling the opposing point of view with a derogatory sexual term.”

And what “derogatory sexual term” is the poster talking about? Is it “she”? If so, then JMH (who I understand is female) may very well be showing us her own sexism. Or, does she believe that women have a right to spout and not be challenged, just because they are women?

If so, then the individual may wish to look at what she uses for standards of credibility as neither men nor women have any monopoly on either intelligence or wisdom, or on incompetence.