Republicans

[smc]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

SMC:

Doesn't that true thing apply to you as well?

I said it's my abbrev., and why I had to take that measure. It was a defensive move, but others have used since it on a political blog.

You say that's not the case, no?

The point is you're calling me a liar. The point is you started this nonsense, including how you'd make short work of me.


TAL

I did not call you a liar. I do not think you are a liar, and would never stoop to such a level. I simply reported on a Google search. Anyone who knows the Web even a bit knows that it not a complete measure of usage.

And yes, of course, the point applies to me as well. I would never deny it.

Again, though, you make my point for me. You had to "invent" the abbreviation as a "defensive move." Reread all that I have written about this, including my most recent thoughts about discussions that involve such nonsense, and you will see how you have proven my point.

But we probably should be done with this. You can keep posting with your "Conse Pub" abbreviation that serves no purpose here for genuine debate, as far as I can see, and I'll go back to the pleasures of the Forum.

[GRH]

I'll add my perspective. When I first saw this "cons pubs" nonsense, I didn't have any idea what was being talked about for the longest. Finally I figured it out. Now don't get me wrong, I generally dislike conservative Republicans, so I don't particularly care about whether the nickname gets their feathers ruffled. But it just seemed nonsensical. Nonsensical and pointless to invent nicknames for the sole sake of it, unless there was an ulterior motive as SMC points out. And that brings me to the larger question: The need to abbreviate things when you could simply type out the full name. It doesn't take that much more effort and it certainly comes across as more educated sounding, and potentially less derogatory.

All of that said, I don't really like the idea of coming to this message board for the sake of arguing politics with people. So your nicknames haven't really cost you a poster (at least as far as I am concerned), as I probably would have ignored the political topics on principle to begin with.

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by GRH

I'll add my perspective. When I first saw this "cons pubs" nonsense, I didn't have any idea what was being talked about for the longest. Finally I figured it out. Now don't get me wrong, I generally dislike conservative Republicans, so I don't particularly care about whether the nickname gets their feathers ruffled. But it just seemed nonsensical. Nonsensical and pointless to invent nicknames for the sole sake of it, unless there was an ulterior motive as SMC points out. And that brings me to the larger question: The need to abbreviate things when you could simply type out the full name. It doesn't take that much more effort and it certainly comes across as more educated sounding, and potentially less derogatory.

All of that said, I don't really like the idea of coming to this message board for the sake of arguing politics with people. So your nicknames haven't really cost you a poster (at least as far as I am concerned), as I probably would have ignored the political topics on principle to begin with.

GRH:

I'll repeat what you ignored.

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.

TAL

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by GRH

All of that said, I don't really like the idea of coming to this message board for the sake of arguing politics with people. So your nicknames haven't really cost you a poster (at least as far as I am concerned), as I probably would have ignored the political topics on principle to begin with.

GRH:

I don't come here for a date, for the porn, but to talk to t-girls about their thinking. I have male (shopping, sports, math) thought patterns, and female (romance, love, relationships, dancing) thought patterns. I come here to compare thinking, and I wait until that chance comes along again. That's why I'll only be here once a month when baseball season begins, as I write on a national blog.

TAL

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by smc

I did not call you a liar. I do not think you are a liar, and would never stoop to such a level. I simply reported on a Google search. Anyone who knows the Web even a bit knows that it not a complete measure of usage.

And yes, of course, the point applies to me as well. I would never deny it.

Again, though, you make my point for me. You had to "invent" the abbreviation as a "defensive move." Reread all that I have written about this, including my most recent thoughts about discussions that involve such nonsense, and you will see how you have proven my point.

But we probably should be done with this. You can keep posting with your "Conse Pub" abbreviation that serves no purpose here for genuine debate, as far as I can see, and I'll go back to the pleasures of the Forum.

SMC:

It was nice of you to inform me of your decisive victory in something that is irrelevant to me.

I said it was defensive before, and that I made-up the abbrev. Now, it proves your point?

I await your next attack. It's a waiting move and I don't have long to wait.


TAL

[smc]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

SMC:

It was nice of you to inform me of your decisive victory in something that is irrelevant to me.

I said it was defensive before, and that I made-up the abbrev. Now, it proves your point?

I await your next attack. It's a waiting move and I don't have long to wait.


TAL

For a guy who writes seriously as a vocation or avocation (the "national blog"), you don't seem to be a very careful reader of what others write.

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by smc

For a guy who writes seriously as a vocation or avocation (the "national blog"), you don't seem to be a very careful reader of what others write.

SMC:

Thank you, for the insult. If I missed it point it out, because I am not erudite like you.


TAL

[smc]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

SMC:

Thank you, for the insult. If I missed it point it out, because I am not erudite like you.


TAL

Don't sell yourself short. You didn't miss anything. There's a big difference between missing and ignoring.

Since I have been coming here I have been impressed with how friendly this place is and how respectful of other?s views most users are. That is important since many of us are sharing very intimate details of our personal lives here. I have posted extensively of my own ?self discovery? and have gotten much support from members. Society at large, is not always so tolerant of our community.

Even though never in a million years did I think I?d be reading about Republicans on *this* forum(!), I have enjoyed AngryPostman?s writings and also Tracy?s. I originally come from a ?Conservative Republican? family and by an early age had read Ayn Rand, von Mises, Milton Friedman, Hayek, and others. When I graduated from high-school, my parents gave me a subscription to ?The American Spectator? and the book ?Modern Times? by Paul Johnson. As I got older and went on through higher-ed towards my doctorate, I became more ?progressive? in my views and found the Republican party ?wanting? as far as social issues. Many might categorize me now as a ?Liberal Professor? but they would be right only to a certain extent. At my core, I still believe many of the things I learned at an early age--especially those things involving personal liberty and freedom.

Not that anyone here needs defending, but the term ?Conse Pubs? clearly was intended to be dismissive of conservative views. It is not generally accepted like the abbreviation ?RBI.? Nor is it neutral. I can, for example, find much to fault within the current Republican party, but I support one?s right to post their views without being subjected to demeaning and stereotypical ?labels.? We reject stereotypes and labeling as a community--why tolerate it here?

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by aw9725

Not that anyone here needs defending, but the term “Conse Pubs” clearly was intended to be dismissive of conservative views. It is not generally accepted like the abbreviation “RBI.” Nor is it neutral. I can, for example, find much to fault within the current Republican party, but I support one’s right to post their views without being subjected to demeaning and stereotypical “labels.” We reject stereotypes and labeling as a community--why tolerate it here?

AW9725:

Firstly, the only 2 who come here consistently (Angry & Tracy) to represent the views of your youth are conservative libertarians, have identified themselves as such, and are no longer referred to in that manner, as it would be incorrect.

It is nice of you to decide for me what I mean when I say something, like SMC who has consistently told me things about myself I didn't know. Do both of you know someone who hates me still? There is the spoken and the unspoken; there is the public and the PM.

I said it was made-up by me elsewhere in a defensive position, and you say it is deliberate and a fact.

1. My major infraction is an abrev. that I've explained.

2. The two posters I referred to that way are conservative libertarians.

3. I last referred to someone that way over a week ago (post #53 on this thread).

4. If I say it's one thing, then you dispute that strongly, what are you saying? My reason isn't possible or is a flat-out lie? Or is it something else? And you know this how?

What is your thinking on how I should be dealt with?

TAL


SMC:

You used the word again, but where was the before?

You said the abbrev. was a deliberate aggressive action: offensive in nature.

Then, I proved that point by saying it was defensive?


TAL