|
Register | Forum Rules | Members List | Today's Posts | Search | Bookmark & Share |
View Poll Results: IMPEACH OBAMA NOW? | |||
YES | 13 | 41.94% | |
NOT SURE | 0 | 0% | |
NO | 18 | 58.06% | |
Voters: 31. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#51
|
||||
|
||||
TREAD:
Conse 'Pubs start with the desired outcome, craft their argument to fit, and then they look for anything to savage in any opinion that questions their flawless conclusion. TAL |
#52
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
TREAD: FACT 1: Waterboarding is not torture. PROOF 1: Poking your eye out with a knife is torture, and since waterboarding isn't that extreme that proves it is not torture. ANGRY: A Conse 'Pub--like YOU--talker wanted to prove that waterboarding is not torture, but after doing it on film and on air he said it was torture. He said that despite his conversation with Hannity, and despite his Conse 'Pub audience he said it was TORTURE!! He also said regarding his fellow Conse 'Pubs: What about the truth no longer meaning anything? Why don't you slime him??? Call him what he is!!! TAL |
#53
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Christopher Hitchens is just another talking head like Glenn Beck or Rachel Maddow and saying that he speaks on my behalf is just absurd. Your arguements as to what defines "torture" and what falls into that category has not risen above "It's torture because it makes the person uncomfortable". There are thousands of things that make someone uncomfortable and yet they aren't defined as torture. Why not?
__________________
*More posts than Bionca* [QUOTE=God(from Futurama)]Right and wrong are just words; what matters is what you do... If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope... When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all. |
#54
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
ANGRY: So, you're a Lib. LOL and then some. Mancow Muller on WLS in Chicago and a friend of Sean Hannity, felt it would be like splashing water on his face, and 60 seconds would be easy. The water goes down your nose and throat, causes a near blackout condition, and begins a mental breakdown. That's after SEVEN SECONDS. So, your opinion is that he is a wussy, and the above description is only him and only a little uncomfortable? TAL |
#55
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The one I remember was with Christopher Hitchens getting waterboarded. I never said he was a wuss. I just said he had a low tolerance towards discomfort. I don't think "mental breakdown" is the same as personal disposition. People's opinion as to what constitutes torture greatly varies and is subjective. The actual definition of torture (as I previously posted) clearly defines torture. Interrogation techniques are not the same as "cruel and unusual punishment" or "excessive use of force", however "harsh" they may seem to be to some people.
__________________
*More posts than Bionca* [QUOTE=God(from Futurama)]Right and wrong are just words; what matters is what you do... If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope... When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all. |
#56
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Context my brutha!
__________________
*More posts than Bionca* [QUOTE=God(from Futurama)]Right and wrong are just words; what matters is what you do... If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope... When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all. |
#57
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Lib is short for liberal, and not libertarian. You highlight Conse 'Pub, but you're not a Conse 'Pub. You are more right of them: the extreme right. If YOUR definition of torture is correct, why does international law & The Geneva Convention outlaw waterboarding? Why has America prosecuted people over this? In other words, waterboarding violates The Geneva Convention, but--in your opinion--is not torture when applied to enemy combatants. TAL |
#58
|
|||||
|
|||||
Quote:
Quote:
If there is more than 1 definition they are all valid. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And who makes the conviction and decides who is in witch degree guilty? Punishment without proper conviction is highly susceptible for abusiveness. Last edited by Tread; 02-16-2010 at 04:13 PM. |
#59
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quit twisting my words around. And Tal, The Geneva Conventions specifically states what the defining marks of an enemy combatant are and who may be covered by the Geneva Convention. As I stated in my earlier post, that as terrorists and not soldiers, they are not afforded Geneva Convention Rights. No uniforms, no insignia, no overt state endorsement, and no differentiation between civilian & military targets. If they were identified as soldiers with the Iraqi Republican Guard or something, it would be entirely different.
__________________
*More posts than Bionca* [QUOTE=God(from Futurama)]Right and wrong are just words; what matters is what you do... If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope... When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all. |
#60
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Nice evasiveness!! You did everything except demand a public apology. Firstly, calling you a Lib wasn't an insult or making fun of your party affiliation, as there are Lib 'Pubs too--albeit only a few are left. I was making a light-hearted comment with the LOL to indicate that, and not the way it was taken. Sorry, I gave you something to savage. 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. Libertarian is the most far right of center you can be, or at least that's what I take it to mean. So, that means extreme right as far as I can tell. What words did I twist? How about an answer to these 2 questions which you glossed over with an I-covered-this-with-you smack-down. If YOUR definition of torture is correct, why does international law & The Geneva Convention outlaw waterboarding? Why has America prosecuted people over this? TAL |
#61
|
||||
|
||||
Actually traditional liberals were basically libertarians. The liberals of today were hijacked by the progressives. The traditional liberal is somebody who believes in personal responsibility and 'natural rights'. And they believe in small government and conservative economics. They differ from republicans in that they are socially liberal.
Hillary Clinton openly calls herself a Progressive. Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, FDR and LBJ were all progressives. Many, if not all of the people on this forum who support Obama are progressives.
__________________
A lesbian trapped in a man's body |
#62
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The US is involved in a conflict that they call War on Terrorism. Prisoners of that war are prisoners of war. One party of the conflict are the imprisoned Terrorists (if someone confirms the element of terrorism on them). The Terrorists are armed. Quote:
The legal position is not difficult. No matter what we personal might think what should happen to them. Last edited by Tread; 02-17-2010 at 09:25 AM. |
#63
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#64
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Last edited by smc; 02-17-2010 at 05:25 PM. |
#65
|
||||
|
||||
In my humble opinion only
Quote:
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 |
#66
|
||||
|
||||
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 Quote:
__________________
A lesbian trapped in a man's body |
#67
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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. |
#68
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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 |
#69
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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 |
#70
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
2)They are paying you and everyone else who complains about waterboarding being "torture" a bunch of lip service so it will look like they are doing something about it. I can guarantee you that those CIA operatives who did waterboard people are never going to see what the insides of Ft. Leavenworth look like. The "trials" are just a dog and pony show to shut people up.
__________________
*More posts than Bionca* [QUOTE=God(from Futurama)]Right and wrong are just words; what matters is what you do... If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope... When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all. |
#71
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
2) A militia in times of war would have state endorsment and would supplement regular forces. See: Main Entry: mi?li?tia Pronunciation: \mə-ˈli-shə\ Function: noun Etymology: Latin, military service, from milit-, miles Date: 1625 1 a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b : a body of citizens organized for military service 2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service The whole "military service" part would include them since that counts as state endorsment, but since the Iraqi government or the occupying forces do not recognize them as a supplemental force, they are unlawful combatants and are therefore not covered by The Geneva Conventions.
__________________
*More posts than Bionca* [QUOTE=God(from Futurama)]Right and wrong are just words; what matters is what you do... If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope... When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all. |
#72
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I didn't spend more than 3 minutes to find this on google, and I grabbed the first thing I found. I trust you'll find fault with whatever I present. The United States knows quite a bit about waterboarding. The U.S. government -- whether acting alone before domestic courts, commissions and courts-martial or as part of the world community -- has not only condemned the use of water torture but has severely punished those who applied it. After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war. At the trial of his captors, then-Lt. Chase J. Nielsen, one of the 1942 Army Air Forces officers who flew in the Doolittle Raid and was captured by the Japanese, testified: "I was given several types of torture. . . . I was given what they call the water cure." He was asked what he felt when the Japanese soldiers poured the water. "Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning," he replied, "just gasping between life and death." Nielsen's experience was not unique. Nor was the prosecution of his captors. After Japan surrendered, the United States organized and participated in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, generally called the Tokyo War Crimes Trials. Leading members of Japan's military and government elite were charged, among their many other crimes, with torturing Allied military personnel and civilians. The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call waterboarding. TAL |
#73
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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. |
#74
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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 |
#75
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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). |
#76
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
*More posts than Bionca* [QUOTE=God(from Futurama)]Right and wrong are just words; what matters is what you do... If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope... When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all. |
#77
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
ANGRY: Waterboarding Used to Be a Crime - washingtonpost.com Nov 2, 2007 ... One such set of questions relates to "waterboarding. ... Nor was the prosecution of his captors. After Japan surrendered, the United States ... www.washingtonpost.com ? Opinions ? Outlook & Opinions - Similar TAL |
#78
|
||||
|
||||
Do you have a direct link to the article? It won't open in my browser.
__________________
*More posts than Bionca* [QUOTE=God(from Futurama)]Right and wrong are just words; what matters is what you do... If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope... When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all. |
#79
|
|||||
|
|||||
I appoglize for the big post, but it didn?t happen or is not true without working link or quotes.
What is Torture: http://waterboarding.org/torture_definition Waterboarding: http://waterboarding.org/node/3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_188008.html http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...=waterboarding http://terrorism.about.com/od/w/g/Waterboarding.htm Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Unlawful combatant: From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant Quote:
Other Link: Prisoners of War or Protected Persons qua Unlawful Combatants? http://jicj.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/1/2/284 Quote:
Occupying Forces do not recognize them as a supplemental force??? What do you talk about??? The Terrorists are 1 occupying force. Is it the War on Terror or against the Iraqi government? Did Saddam Hussein attack the US with planes??? What the hell are US Soldiers do in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and so on? Where did the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay come from, and from witch War??? |
#80
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Sorry, this is all I have. Maybe, this will work, if not google water boarding prosecutions. Waterboarding Used to Be a Crime - washingtonpost.com http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con... As a JAG in the Nevada National Guard, I used to lecture the soldiers of the 72nd Military Police Company every year about their legal obligations when they guarded prisoners. I'd always conclude by saying, ... TAL |
#81
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
SMC: That might be possible. The reason I say might is that the biggest articles will be Phillies-Sox, Phillies-Yanks and the trading deadline. I write pre-game and post-game, and those Halladay-Hamels vs. Beckett-Lackey-Lester-Sabathia starts will be hugh pre-gamers. I usually have the pre-game for game 2 ready before game 1 begins, and do the first post-game during the game. I might need every hour I have for writing and photos. I cannot promise anything, but thanks for the offer. TAL |
#82
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
Quote:
http://forum.transladyboy.com/showpo...&postcount=806 Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
A lesbian trapped in a man's body |
#83
|
||||
|
||||
[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 |
#84
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Tracy looks around. Sees no Glenn Beck... shrugs.
__________________
A lesbian trapped in a man's body |
#85
|
||||
|
||||
Here's one democrat I can get behind...
__________________
A lesbian trapped in a man's body |
#86
|
||||
|
||||
I for one consider myself an independent, but I WHOLEHEARTEDLY disregard topics which devolve to calling people by shallow nicknames such as "Cons," "Pubs," "Dems," "Mods," etc, etc, etc. If a topic can't bother to name the variety by which I might find myself labeled (without resorting to base labeling), that topic doesn't deserve my input.
|
#87
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Thank you for this post, from the bottom of my heart!!! |
#88
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
GRH: You and SMC consider abrevs. to be shallow. They are not insults or nicknames, but abbreviations. It is not base labeling IMHO. Is t-girl base labeling too? I do that, does that make me shallow? TAL |
#89
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Many t-girls call themselves that, whereas I defy you to find a single conservative republican that calls herself or himself by the abbreviation you use. The beauty of what GRH wrote is that it reflects how GRH responds to your use (potential or real) of one of your abbreviations to describe GRH. Shallow or not, I'm just sayin' ... |
#90
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
SMC: I do that as I've said. I never said others do it. 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 |
#91
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
It seems to me that if you are posting on a board and you have to find the right name to give people in order to discuss with them, it is a colossal waste of time. Serious people have serious discussions. Others are just doing the un-fun kind of masturbating. Last edited by smc; 02-22-2010 at 08:37 PM. |
#92
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
SMC: The abbrevs. are not uncommon in political debate. Your only interest is in provoking me, and I'll take it that your denial is in order. This is not a debate between you and me; it's you using debate as a shield for your provocation. If you want to continue this charade, be my guest. I'll cut and paste and use other shortcuts to waste as little time as possible on this. TAL |
#93
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
1. Just because someone makes a claim doesn't make that claim the truth. You don't know me, and you know very little about me. So don't presume that your claim that my only interest is in provoking you is true, just because you make the claim. 2. A Google search of "conse pub" yielded 3 hits: two of your posts on a Philly-related blog, and one post on Trans Ladyboy Forum. So while abbrevs. may be common in political debate that one is not. And that is my entire point -- the point you continue to ignore. What I've been writing has been about the use of language -- something I know a thing or two about, and that I've spent my entire adult life researching and teaching. And I will continue to contend that your use of some abbreviations is a provocation, just like the one of which you accuse me. |
#94
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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 |
#95
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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. |
#96
|
||||
|
||||
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. |
#97
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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 |
#98
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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 |
#99
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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 |
#100
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
|
|