That'll Teach the Birthers! - Page 12

BeenThinkin · #**111** 04-08-2010, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by n david

It isn't the same and you know it.

I've asked to please stop using the term, you've refused. I'll ask admin.

The word has no other definition other than for an vulgar and obscene sexual term. It shouldn't be used on this forum.

I agree with you 100% n david and wonder about Twisp's attitude and spirit concerning this vulgar term. There are other vulgar terms that could be used about the same act. Is Twisp okay to use those terms as well? So sad!

Been Thinkin

Pressing-On · #**112** 04-08-2010, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Twisp

You are correct. In my haste I overlooked that.

I guess teabagger caught on when they started showing up with teabags at capital buildings. I still don't view it as an obscene term in regards to political conversations.

Your homegirl, Rachel Maddow, quickly jumped on that term and explained it to the viewing audience. I'm sure she would be much more familiar with the term than we would.

Twisp · #**113** 04-08-2010, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeenThinkin

I agree with you 100% n david and wonder about Twisp's attitude and spirit concerning this vulgar term. There are other vulgar terms that could be used about the same act. Is Twisp okay to use those terms as well? So sad!

Been Thinkin

If those terms could also correctly be applied to a political party apart from their vulgar origins, yes. Then they would not be vulgar. The word is only vulgar if the intent behind it is vulgar. My intent, which is clear in my posts, was to describe a person's affiliation with a type of political party. Much like members of the Birth Movement have become birthers.

Twisp · #**114** 04-08-2010, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Your homegirl, Rachel Maddow, quickly jumped on that term and explained it to the viewing audience. I'm sure she would be much more familiar with the term than we would.

I have never watched her show, so I am uncertain how she describes the Tea Party (said it correctly that time, lol).

Sam · #**115** 04-08-2010, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by n david

Teabagger is NOT the proper or correct way to describe a person affiliated and it's sexually obscene and offensive.

There is no proper definition and then a slang definition, there is only one definition and it is sexually obscene and shouldn't be used in this forum.

Well, I don't know if it's because I'm a senior (old man), or not "street smart" or just plain stupid but I didn't know what the "T" term meant. I Googled it and found out. That's one of the things I learned as a result of being part of this forum. See, one is never too old to learn.

Looks like it has several meanings, some of which are crude and/or sexual. One of the meanings denotes a reference to a gesture of dominance. Maybe that was in mind when folks started calling themselves the TEA party, I dunno.

Several of our English words have more than one meaning. Does Titus 1:15 apply here? Or Colossians 4:6? or Titus 2:8?

BeenThinkin · #**116** 04-08-2010, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Twisp

If those terms could also correctly be applied to a political party apart from their vulgar origins, yes. Then they would not be vulgar. The word is only vulgar if the intent behind it is vulgar. My intent, which is clear in my posts, was to describe a person's affiliation with a type of political party. Much like members of the Birth Movement have become birthers.

But Twisp why are you so adamant about using a term that has been on the news numerous times, and has been discussed on the news, concerning it's derogatory and vulgar meaning. I would have thought that you would want to "shun the very appearance of evil!"

What is your reasoning for calling a group of Independents, Republicans and Democrats a name that would carry any hint of such vulgar meaning?

Been Thinkin

Twisp · #**117** 04-08-2010, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeenThinkin

But Twisp why are you so adamant about using a term that has been on the news numerous times, and has been discussed on the news, concerning it's derogatory and vulgar meaning. I would have thought that you would want to "shun the very appearance of evil!"

What is your reasoning for calling a group of Independents, Republicans and Democrats a name that would carry any hint of such vulgar meaning?

Been Thinkin

I am not adamant on using it. I never used it in a vulgar term. I simply used it in general conversation to describe a political party, because that is how the majority of people describe them with. Now, whether other people use it as a vulgarity, I do not know. I just know that I did not use it like that, and I have seen many instances where it was used in a non-vulger way.

Pressing-On · #**118** 04-08-2010, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Twisp

I have never watched her show, so I am uncertain how she describes the Tea Party (said it correctly that time, lol).

I have never watched her show either. I saw a clip of her explaining the "teabagger" term on Politico, because, like Sam, I had never heard the term before. I've seen her on ABC when George Stephanopoulos was anchor on This Week. Can't stand the woman.

Twisp · #**119** 04-08-2010, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I have never watched her show either. I saw a clip of her explaining the "teabagger" term on Politico, because, like Sam, I had never heard the term before. I've seen her on ABC when George Stephanopoulos was anchor on This Week. Can't stand the woman.

As unlikely as it sounds, when I watch news on TV, I usually watch Shepard Smith. He is very smart, seems pretty honest, and I have watched him call out a few guests on his show when they were not be completely honest, on both sides if I recall correctly. And I watch Chris Matthews sometimes, although I find his voice very grating for some reason.

BeenThinkin · #**120** 04-08-2010, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Twisp

I am not adamant on using it. I never used it in a vulgar term. I simply used it in general conversation to describe a political party, because that is how the majority of people describe them with. Now, whether other people use it as a vulgarity, I do not know. I just know that I did not use it like that, and I have seen many instances where it was used in a non-vulger way.

Twisp.... This is my last post on this subject. But really if you're not trying to be "vulgar" why don't you just say Tea Party. Why do you have to use the other terms. What is your purpose for doing so. Is it a way to be as ugly ("vulgar") about those horrible people that are a part of this movement. And by the way, the majority that describe the Tea Party with the other term is the liberal media and their followers.

I'm afraid your play on words has had it's intended affect. You could call someone a donkey.... but there is another term for donkey that would get a whole lot quicker response, if you used it! So, you just used the term that would come as close to being vulgar? Why else do you insist and argue about it's use.

God bless you. Hope I have not been offensive with my words

Been Thinkin