Republicans

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

[smc]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

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

I will let AW9725 speak for himself. As for me, it seems I need to repeat something I wrote earlier to Talvenada in this thread: "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."

Why do I repeat this? Because I never "said the abbrev. was a deliberate aggressive action: offensive in nature" -- something Talvenada attributes to me in his last post. A careful read of my posts will show that all I ever did with such words was to quote Talvenada saying that about his own use of language.

One can imagine what happens to my students who either miss stuff like that, or pull sophistic stunts like that, in their writing.