Republicans

[ila]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

.....Conse 'Pub is my abbreviation for conservative republican, and I worked hard on that abbreviation to NOT be insultive. I couldn't use Con and Repub due to insultiveness, and Rep due to other meanings for that shorthand. I use Dem, Lib, Mod, Indy, etc. .......

Since I'm an outsider to your political system I can never be called a conservative republican so I feel that I can give a somewhat unbiased opinion on your abbreviation. Your abbreviation seems to be somewhat dismissive and possible arrogant or condescending towards conservative republicans. Why do you feel the need to make up an abbreviation? Why not just type or write conservative republican out in full as it doesn't take much more effort. You would then not look like you are entering a debate, with an air of superiority.

[smc]

Originally Posted by ila

Since I'm an outsider to your political system I can never be called a conservative republican so I feel that I can give a somewhat unbiased opinion on your abbreviation. Your abbreviation seems to be somewhat dismissive and possible arrogant or condescending towards conservative republicans. Why do you feel the need to make up an abbreviation? Why not just type or write conservative republican out in full as it doesn't take much more effort. You would then not look like you are entering a debate, with an air of superiority.

Well put, ila, especially the point about the need to make up an abbreviation or "shorthand" at all. It is a type of cleverness that, in my humble opinion, is seen all too often in writing, especially in journalism and particularly in sports journalism. I discuss this very point with my writing students, and even use sports columnists from The Boston Globe as source material.

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by smc

Originally Posted by ila
Since I'm an outsider to your political system I can never be called a conservative republican so I feel that I can give a somewhat unbiased opinion on your abbreviation. Your abbreviation seems to be somewhat dismissive and possible arrogant or condescending towards conservative republicans. Why do you feel the need to make up an abbreviation? Why not just type or write conservative republican out in full as it doesn't take much more effort. You would then not look like you are entering a debate, with an air of superiority.



Well put, ila, especially the point about the need to make up an abbreviation or "shorthand" at all. It is a type of cleverness that, in my humble opinion, is seen all too often in writing, especially in journalism and particularly in sports journalism. I discuss this very point with my writing students, and even use sports columnists from The Boston Globe as source material.

SMC:

Thank you, for the insults.

No, you didn't SAY it; you only agreed with it.

Correct me if I'm wrong--I no doubt am wrong IYHO--You agree with Ila's implied aggressive offensive opinion, but you say defensive proves your point.

You can say--so, I'll say it for you, you were happy with Ila's opinion, and didn't want to disagree with someone you respect. You expect respect, and I'm sure that you respect every poster here. I don't have to ask if you respect me, because that only says insult me some more.

TAL

[smc]

A friend on this forum has widely advised me to cease engaging in this debate. After giving it some thought, I have decided to take his sage advice. I will let what is already posted stand on its own, with the confidence that a reasonable reading of the record will lead the reader to draw the appropriate conclusions.

Whether I can resist the bait that may come ... well, we will have to wait and see. I will do my best.

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by smc

A friend on this forum has widely advised me to cease engaging in this debate. After giving it some thought, I have decided to take his sage advice. I will let what is already posted stand on its own, with the confidence that a reasonable reading of the record will lead the reader to draw the appropriate conclusions.

Whether I can resist the bait that may come ... well, we will have to wait and see. I will do my best.

SMC:

I don't want this debate with you, and never have. If there is bait, it won't be from me.

TAL

[TracyCoxx]

I've been gone a couple of days. I guess I didn't miss much.

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by ila

Since I'm an outsider to your political system I can never be called a conservative republican so I feel that I can give a somewhat unbiased opinion on your abbreviation. Your abbreviation seems to be somewhat dismissive and possible arrogant or condescending towards conservative republicans. Why do you feel the need to make up an abbreviation? Why not just type or write conservative republican out in full as it doesn't take much more effort. You would then not look like you are entering a debate, with an air of superiority.

ILA:

I appreciate your input, but in America we have 2 types of debate: honest and political. An honest debate is possible with Dems, 'Pubs, Indies, Mods, Conses and Libs. It is not possible with Neo-Cons, Lib'ians and Conse 'Pubs, because they specialize in political debate. In that strategy they are either right, or have an equal opinion to anyone who disagrees on almost EVERY issue. They might concede that Obama is a citizen with proof, that Palin might not be presidential timber, and that Bush 43 did a couple things that they didn't like: immigration, pharm. deal, financial decisions.

On this very board there is a perfect example. My POV is that Obama does not have ties to terrorists, but Conse 'Pubs, Neo-Cons and Lib'ians are the only ones who have a different "opinion" on this issue.

Example: Bill Ayers was a terrorist when Obama was 8 years old, and was a professor when Obama knew him in passing. On this board a familiar-from-political-boards crafted "opinion" has been defended with vigor, and is considered a real issue. The slogan he-pals-around-with-terrorists from 2 years ago has morphed into a secondary issue for ending Obama's Presidency. The concept is to question every thing every day with no let up, and reclaim power to run the country their way, like under Cheney. Of course, the logic is that what W did in 8 years doesn't count, but everything the opposition does in 1 year does count. The only pass Obama gets is when he does something Bush did. I wish I could say I was making that up.

There is a method to the strategy of Conse 'Pubs and the other 2. They go to sites where there are other views, and they present one doubt after the other. The point is that the country can only be run the right way, which happens to be ONLY their way to only their benefit (tax cuts are their main issue IMHO). Don't believe me, read their posts on this board to make a liar of me. Make a fool out of me by showing me where they backed off of ONE issue other than citizen Obama and Pres. Palin.

When you have to prove Obama is a citizen to get a concession, all the other issues are a no-win situation. You mock them and they claim you don't respect their equal opinion. You ignore them and they eliminate any opinion other than there own. That leaves only ONE option and that is to identify who they are, and you have to say Conse 'Pub or you get savaged for it. I learned that long ago. You can them a republican in the course of your point, and you get the evasive reply: I'm a conservative. You say they are a conservative, and they don't have to defend anyone not in The Conservative Party. If you point out someone in The Conservative Party, and you'll get I'm a republican unless you point out a republican in the same post. Then, you get either another evasion, an insult (s), and/or a crafted accusation with them no doubt being offended and/or outraged. Read some of their posts and you'll get a non-negotiable stance.

As you can see I identify who specifically has this opinion, even though most Americans feel they way they do in their opinion. Conse Dems, aka Blue Dogs, do not have that opinion, and Mod 'Pubs don't share that opinion. In fact, most on the right--not right of center--are Conse 'Pubs. Please don't confuse commenting on the hollowness of arguments and by whom for arrogance, superiority and condescension.

There are 31 of those abbreviations in this post, and not just 2: conservative republican. That's why there are so many baseball abbreviations. You have no idea how mentally draining a 2000-2500 word article is, and that's why we do it. It's not a dissertation for a PHD, because the reading audience is not erudite for the most part. It's hard enough to build a readership as it is, and abbreviations make the data easier to digest. I doubt my readers are concerned with runs batted in being spelled out every time instead of RBI. Their concern is reading about their team, and enjoying details they don't have time to research and ferret out.

Here's a baseball example. They want to hear that Doc Halladay has a work ethic that is Chase Utley's equal. If Lidge was tipping his pitches, Utley would know it. They know that Doc will win 18-23 games unless he has a season that is well above average. It's nice to end on a lighter note.


TAL

[TracyCoxx]

TAL,

Most of your gripes about 'Conse 'Pubs' can equally be said about you. Your debate style is political because you put people into narrowly defined political parties and then claim to know their entire point of view based on whatever political party you've classified them as. That leads to mistakes, like when you think I'm a conservative republican, and therefore must be against clinton too. The fact that I had already defended clinton against republicans apparently made no difference, and you still have not acknowledged this. You probably think I'm a bible thumper as well, which would be another mistake.

You come into this forum with the declaration that

Originally Posted by Talvenada

Bush 41 left a deficit for Clinton, Clinton left a surplus for Bush 43, Bush 43 left a whopping deficit for Obama.

Conse 'Pubs put us in a hole with tax cuts, and The Dems have to pay the bill. Then, Conse 'Pubs say we cut taxes, and Dems raise taxes. Will that Conse 'Pub vote be cash or charge?

TAL

This is a very simplistic view. I'm sorry if my arguments, which are often backed by verifiable information, doesn't fit in your narrow view of permissible topics or falls into one of your taboo topics, but facts are facts and you can choose to ignore them if you want, and you do, but own up to it. Don't just assign me the title of Conse 'Pub (which I'm not btw) and dismiss everything I say based on that. Say "you do not fit in my narrow point of view so I will ignore what you say and blame you for not fitting in my narrow point of view."

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

TAL,

Most of your gripes about 'Conse 'Pubs' can equally be said about you. Your debate style is political because you put people into narrowly defined political parties and then claim to know their entire point of view based on whatever political party you've classified them as. That leads to mistakes, like when you think I'm a conservative republican, and therefore must be against clinton too. The fact that I had already defended clinton against republicans apparently made no difference, and you still have not acknowledged this. You probably think I'm a bible thumper as well, which would be another mistake.

This is a very simplistic view. I'm sorry if my arguments, which are often backed by verifiable information, doesn't fit in your narrow view of permissible topics or falls into one of your taboo topics, but facts are facts and you can choose to ignore them if you want, and you do, but own up to it. Don't just assign me the title of Conse 'Pub (which I'm not btw) and dismiss everything I say based on that. Say "you do not fit in my narrow point of view so I will ignore what you say and blame you for not fitting in my narrow point of view."

TRACY:

Since, your side has the facts, could you please humor me with 3 or 4 examples out of the many you imply? If I'm guilty of most of what I gripe about, it should be easy to point this out to me. Could you elaborate, please?

I refer to myself as a Mod Dem, so how is it narrow and political to refer to myself that way? Sorry for referring to you as a Conse 'Pub, what are you?

I've acknowledged that you felt Obama is a citizen with proof, that Palin might not be presidential timber, and that Bush 43 did a couple things that you didn't like: immigration, pharm. deal, financial decisions. The Clinton issue wasn't addressed, because I was addressing all of your other catastrophes with Obama in The WH for 1 year. Let me get this straight. Bush did 3 things you didn't like, and you like some of what Obama does like Bush only. I don't think anyone on the site is a bible thumper, and have never mentioned religion. I'm guilty by question?

What topics have I said are taboo or permissible, because I'm too stupid to comprehend that aspect of your post? I dismiss what you say based on what you say, and not based on you're being a party of one. I've heard that 'Pubs cut taxes and Dems raise taxes. Are you saying that Dems blow excesses of money, while 'Pubs--other than Bush--balance the budget and lower taxes? Did I miss anything? I'm sure you have a multitude of examples of my transgressions. I await your angst.

TAL

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

TRACY:

Since, your side has the facts, could you please humor me with 3 or 4 examples out of the many you imply? If I'm guilty of most of what I gripe about, it should be easy to point this out to me. Could you elaborate, please?

I think this link spells out my credentials:
http://forum.transladyboy.com/showpo...&postcount=806

Originally Posted by Talvenada

I refer to myself as a Mod Dem, so how is it narrow and political to refer to myself that way? Sorry for referring to you as a Conse 'Pub, what are you?

I said why you are political, and it's not because you are a mod dem. I also said you had a narrow view, not because you're a mod dem, but for something else. Go back and read again.

Originally Posted by Talvenada

The Clinton issue wasn't addressed, because I was addressing all of your other catastrophes with Obama in The WH for 1 year. Let me get this straight. Bush did 3 things you didn't like, and you like some of what Obama does like Bush only.

I don't remember if I said I liked some of the things BO did that Bush did. Are there any? People here see me debating against Obama's policies and assume I'm a hard right winger. I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal. This is what the liberal party was before it was hijacked by the Progressives. In the Bush vs Gore election, I had to seriously think about who I would vote for. In hindsight I'm so glad Bush won instead of Gore. I also had to think hard about the Clinton vs Dole election. In the election before that I voted for Ross Perot. I probably don't exactly fit in any one well defined political party, but Conservative Libertarian probably is the closest.

Originally Posted by Talvenada

I don't think anyone on the site is a bible thumper, and have never mentioned religion. I'm guilty by question?

I was just saying if you thought I was a republican you probably lumped me in with all those other bible thumpers in the party like Palin, Bush, Pat Robertson, etc...

Originally Posted by Talvenada

What topics have I said are taboo or permissible, because I'm too stupid to comprehend that aspect of your post?

Originally Posted by Talvenada

TRACY:

I'm not going to even read posts that sound like a certain show.

TAL

Originally Posted by Talvenada

I dismiss what you say based on what you say, and not based on you're being a party of one.

Mmmm hmmm.

Originally Posted by Talvenada

I've heard that 'Pubs cut taxes and Dems raise taxes. Are you saying that Dems blow excesses of money, while 'Pubs--other than Bush--balance the budget and lower taxes? Did I miss anything? I'm sure you have a multitude of examples of my transgressions. I await your angst.

TAL

Not all republicans cut taxes. Bush Sr raised them, so that Clinton could take credit for a surplus. You can't just look at the president. You also have to look at the congress. i.e., there's Bush with a republican congress. Bush with a democrat congress. There are differences in spending. What's going on in the world? Could it be that jets crashing in the heart of the US's financial center and the following war might affect our budget? Things that make you go hmmmm....

[Talvenada]

[QUOTE=TracyCoxx;133714]I think this link spells out my credentials:
http://forum.transladyboy.com/showpo...&postcount=806


1- I said why you are political, and it's not because you are a mod dem. I also said you had a narrow view, not because you're a mod dem, but for something else. Go back and read again.

2- People here see me debating against Obama's policies and assume I'm a hard right winger.

QUOTE]

TRACY:

Read above I marked 1 for your question, and 2 for your answer. That makes me narrow, because you appear that way. A conservative libertarian is to the right of a Neo-Con from what I can tell.

I call very-right-leaning political posters Conse 'Pubs until they state otherwise. I've been called a Lib by Conse 'Pubs, Neo-Cons and Libertarians, and then called a liar when I said I'm a Mod Dem. So, I'm a liar on the receiving end, and narrow-minded on the other end. I do post on a local political board, and I learned that calling someone a 'Pub gets you no answer to your question with an I'm-a-conservative blast to the face. If you say they're a conservative, no republican is accountable by them, and the talkers are entertainers only. The strategy is that the attacker can be on offense 100% of the time. Sorry, but these individuals want to crush any opposing opinion, while passing out insults to anyone who dares to have an offending opinion.

The Commie-Marxist-Obama debate is not a taboo or not a permissible subject. Sorry, I have no desire to debate Glenn Beck. I refuse to debate something I don't respect. I could describe it in a more offending way, if you confuse distaste for weakness and fear.

Sorry, I find it distasteful to defend any American President, EVEN BUSH 43, from questions about his loyalty to America.


TAL

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

I call very-right-leaning political posters Conse 'Pubs until they state otherwise. I've been called a Lib by Conse 'Pubs, Neo-Cons and Libertarians, and then called a liar when I said I'm a Mod Dem. So, I'm a liar on the receiving end, and narrow-minded on the other end. I do post on a local political board, and I learned that calling someone a 'Pub gets you no answer to your question with an I'm-a-conservative blast to the face etc etc etc

I could care less about political labels. I deal in actions and results.

Originally Posted by Talvenada

The Commie-Marxist-Obama debate is not a taboo or not a permissible subject. Sorry, I have no desire to debate Glenn Beck.

Tracy looks around. Sees no Glenn Beck... shrugs.

[smc]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

There are 31 of those abbreviations in this post, and not just 2: conservative republican. That's why there are so many baseball abbreviations. You have no idea how mentally draining a 2000-2500 word article is, and that's why we do it. It's not a dissertation for a PHD, because the reading audience is not erudite for the most part. It's hard enough to build a readership as it is, and abbreviations make the data easier to digest. I doubt my readers are concerned with runs batted in being spelled out every time instead of RBI. Their concern is reading about their team, and enjoying details they don't have time to research and ferret out.

I'll skip the political part of your post and concentrate on the part directed specifically at my post. It's easily dispensed with, because you -- and I mean you, Talvenada -- know that my point had absolutely nothing to do with things like spelling out RBIs.

So, you want to talk about styles of argument or debate. Here's the one you just employed: sophism. And I mean in its modern usage. You can look it iup.

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by smc

I'll skip the political part of your post and concentrate on the part directed specifically at my post. It's easily dispensed with, because you -- and I mean you, Talvenada -- know that my point had absolutely nothing to do with things like spelling out RBIs.

So, you want to talk about styles of argument or debate. Here's the one you just employed: sophism. And I mean in its modern usage. You can look it iup.

SMC:

I'm sorry but I don't know what abbreviations you're referring to. If it's Mod Dem, I use political abbreviations. If it's pregers for pregnant in journalism, I understand that. The only sport I follow is baseball, and I cannot think of what you have in mind. So, if you want to imply other than than, go ahead it's irrelevant to me. I'm not part of academia and nor do I desire that path. I respect your input, even though it's not mutual.


TAL

[smc]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

SMC:

I'm sorry but I don't know what abbreviations you're referring to. If it's Mod Dem, I use political abbreviations. If it's pregers for pregnant in journalism, I understand that. The only sport I follow is baseball, and I cannot think of what you have in mind. So, if you want to imply other than than, go ahead it's irrelevant to me. I'm not part of academia and nor do I desire that path. I respect your input, even though it's not mutual.


TAL

Ah, the beauty of sophism.

This has nothing to do with "academia." In deference to those who wish to discuss "Republicans" in this thus-named thread, and at the risk of being accused of avoiding the discussion (or not taking the bait), I will leave it at that. Perhaps I will get back to it another time, but in the meanwhile I will let others engage you. I see they are lining up to do so, and since it's about politics it will be far more entertaining.

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by smc

Ah, the beauty of sophism.

This has nothing to do with "academia." In deference to those who wish to discuss "Republicans" in this thus-named thread, and at the risk of being accused of avoiding the discussion (or not taking the bait), I will leave it at that. Perhaps I will get back to it another time, but in the meanwhile I will let others engage you. I see they are lining up to do so, and since it's about politics it will be far more entertaining.

SMC:

Enjoy the entertainment with the self-satisfaction of what you planted, but one person does not constitute a line, as the other was answering a question that was on the table prior to your post.


He who speaks with his tongue on fire
Cares not to come up any higher
But get you down in the hole he's in

Those words remind me of you for some strange reason. Aah, it's must be a debating tool.


TAL

[smc]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

SMC:

Enjoy the entertainment with the self-satisfaction of what you planted, but one person does not constitute a line, as the other was answering a question that was on the table prior to your post.


He who speaks with his tongue on fire
Cares not to come up any higher
But get you down in the hole he's in

Those words remind me of you for some strange reason. Aah, it's must be a debating tool.


TAL

The more I think about it, the more I'm torn between two positions, both of which absolutely, truly reflect what I think and are not "debating tools" for our purposes here.

On the one hand, I truly wish I had never taken the bait (set out by whomever, not necessarily you, Tal) and engaged in this discussion. The reason is that I neither like where it has ended up, because I'd really rather that we all just enjoy the site and not get into these kinds of discussion, and because I can't see this venue as one in which any conclusory synthesis can be developed that brings us to some kind of consensus or understanding or compromise or whatever. And that, after all, ought to be the point of debate.

On the other hand, there's a part of me that wants to open a new thread on "Debating and Discussion Tools" and take on this question comprehensively and definitively -- not the content of discussion and debating tools or styles, but the forms and what they tell us. But that feels too much like my "day job." So, how about this: there is at least a 50-50 chance I will be in Philadelphia when the Red Sox travel there in May. If that happens, I'll buy the beers and we can talk about this face to face.

I really don't want to fight with anyone, even though I am confident that I will always win, and I wish I hadn't engaged in what is turning into an unpleasant fight (and a distraction from why I participate on Trans Ladyboy Forum at all).