Gah. Well, why don’t we just ban everyone who annoys you. Surely the board will then be a more interesting place. At the very least, the server won’t have much of a load.
Well, since the word “fiance” derives from French, your use of the male form of the word suggests that you’re either a girl or a gay man.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that, mind you.
I hope it is clear that my previous post quoted taggert as sole author.
He was responding to a violation of Godwin’s Law posted by DesertGeezer. I hope that wasn’t unclear.
I cut and pasted the quote from the taggert post of response.
Good luck with the pile on.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m sorry to hear about your heroine habit. But that’s no excuse to fool us all so badly, or to be a conservative. We demand satisfaction!
Are you:
[ul]
A) A parodist, the penalty for which is Banning!
B) An unadmitted parodist which we can prove either is or is not a parody, thus cleverly undermining our position that parody is undectable and needs links. I would charge you here with undermining the SDMB, the penalty for which is Banning!
C) An unadmitted parodist which we cannot prove is a parody, therefore upholding our position of undetectable parodies. This is absurd, as it lets unadmitted parodist get off scott-free! I’m not sure what the penalty is for making people with more posts than you look silly, but in all probability it’s more Banning.
[/ul]
Remember, either you’re with us or against us. As you’ve implied, this implies no implicit criticism of the board or the glorious rules therein, which are always right. Also, the moderators, only more so.l
Like moths to the fire…
I’d have to go with “pretty fuckin’ funny.” I don’t think there’s any possible way you can construe taggert as being serious. I’m willing to bet my mother on it. C’mon. “Now watch this drive” as a sig? Anyhow, it makes for amusing light reading, and if it pisses some of y’all off, isn’t that the whole purpose of the “ignore” button.
Taggert said:
Hmmm…sorry, I’m not buying it. You also have repeatedly posted with petty complaints, pointing out said
While your point about this being a Pit thread specifically dedicated to your alleged state-of-troll-being is true, your claim that any discussion of the very arguments that earn you such status is invalid doesn’t make sense. Are you saying that should a thread be opened in GD, “Why Taggert is wrong/ right: come weigh in”, you would then discuss your views, but not here?
I asked you to disprove the illegal immigrant point not as a threat, or to make fun of you, but rather to give you an opportunity (and satisfy my curiosity, too…): if you’re not a troll (satirist, etc…), which you repeat over and over, then do/ write something that shows you to be otherwise. Repeating generalized rhetoric does not help your case, if indeed you are as bothered by the claims that engendered this post as you claim to be.
There is a difference between being conservative (or liberal, for that matter) and making broad assumptions and tenuous hypotheses based on speculation, personal interpretation, and books like Anne Coulter’s…(there’s already been a post about her very sketchy research methods here and at salon). Anyone, liberal or conservative, who makes the sorts of claims that defy logical debate is, to a certain degree, doing nothing but what you claim irks you so: being inflammatory without proving a point. Back up what you say, or people will continue to see you as a troll/ annoying/ satirist…
Sheesh.
Time to leave for class.
aurelian
ps. And thank you, Coldfire! 
This is not political debate - this is a guy amusing himself and some others (e.g. me). Sometimes this is appropriate, sometimes not. I see, upon looking around, that one of our worthy GD moderators (MEBuckner) reprimanded taggert for this post - I fully agree with this. But threads like this one are good clean fun.
thanks for the link, Izzy. Since that admonishment in GD from a mod (similar to the one that prompted this thread), went ignored by the OP, tho he started this thread ostensibly to ‘answer’ that same charge, it does seem clear that he’s posing. But then, it gets into the rhelm of a not so funny schtick quite quickly.
but then again, I never understood the popularity of AD Clay, either.
Come on, people. We are beating a dead horse here. Our friend is either:
(a) Perfectly serious and sincere. In that case he demonstrates a serious thinking disorder or he is in direct telepathic contact with the Duke of Wellington’s more reactionary supporters. If sincere, then his polemics are not worthy of attention.
(b) He is attempting satire and parody derived from the unaccountably popular likes of Anne Coulter. If so, his act is getting very stale. The problem with this stuff is that unless the tongue in cheek is made obvious the whole thing loses its focus in very short order. Remember that Dean Swift attempted his modest proposal act only once and that 1984 and Animal Farm become hard sledding once you see what is going on. So it is with our friend Taggert, as marginally amusing as he may have once been he has long sence exhausted his ability to shock and entertain.
© He is just a garden variety jerk who gets his yucks from pulling chains and seeing what sort of reaction he gets. If so, his posts are the intellectual equivalent of “Hold my beer; watch this.”
Let me make my own modest proposal—until such time as our friend sees fit to straighten up and fly right he deserves to be ignored. As for my learned friend Minty Green, there is too much vitriol, hostility and general animosity around already to let this sorry slow leek get your goat. Put him down as an over achieving adolescent with too much time on his hands. School will start again soon, he may fade away leaving a vague sour odor wafting in the evening breeze.
There is another possible explanation. He may be a Texas Congressman. In that case we are going to be stuck with him forever. Oh, happy thought.
Fiancé is from the French fiancer, “to betroth.” Both the Canadian Oxford and the Webster’s New World dictionaries describe it as “a man who is engaged to be married.”
Fiancée (note the extra “e”) is the female equivalent.
Carry on.
Taggert—That this country is basically a conservative country leads me to my next point Jodi I heartily applaud any conservatism on this board, but really, you can’t claim to be a conservative just by claiming to be a “fiscal conservative” as everybody claims that. Hell, have you ever heard anyone claim to be a “fiscal liberal”? Nope. And claiming to be a fiscal conservative does not make one a Republican. Fiscal conservatism, a spoken policy of balanced budgets, low taxes and welfare reform is what everybody talks about. But emminences like President Reagan and both Bushes walk the walk. They lower taxes for higher investment, they fight for balanced budgets and eliminating welfare.
And Minty Green, all I want is a voice in the debate and to lend a hand to the gallant conservatives on this Board who hail our President as the leader in the war against terror. My goal is accomplished because there is still freedom to post my conservative views. I don’t really mind the ad hominem attacks because as Ann Coulter detailed in her great book Slander, it least it shows liberals up for people who cannot argue about the policies. I have never on this board attacked another poster personally, even if they were a commie sympathizer. It shows the weakness of the argument if someone attacks me personally, and I count that as a win.
Me—Bwaaahahahahahahahahaha! Commie sympathizer! Haahahahahahaha.
Oh, Tag, you wacky goof you. And here I thought you were serious. Oh, keep it up guy. You’re more help to us liberals than you can imagine.
The following was wriytten at about 2 am, and the hamsters were either asleep or on strike. The machine ground for about five minutes, and then said the page was not available. My apologies if I have repeated anything since the hamsters woke up, but I put too much time into this to just let it go.
That’s disingenuous, taggert. While I don’t have proof that you singled anyone out, even though I identified myself to you as “largely liberal” you had these things to say about liberals in general, which included me as an individual (all bolding for emphasis is mine):
In this thread you state: “I support … the right to denounce liberals as
the communist scum they are…”
and here you state that "Liberals aren’t real Americans, they are pinko softie bleeding hearts who put their own twisted ideas of justice in place of good business judgment.
and especially from this thread “Druggies are liberals, and liberals don’t want to be tested. They recruit youngsters to take drugs to perpetuate their libertine lifestyle. The refuse lie detectors because they don’t want to be found out as liars! They oppose loyalty oaths because they are disloyal.”
…and finally, from the same thread: “I know that you would really like me to take back that stuff about liberals being traitors, but it really wouldn’t be sincere.”
No, you didn’t call anyone specifically a traitor. You just called anyone on the boards who identifies him/herself as liberal a traitor, repeated it, and then refused to take it back. And you
were right when you said that that was rude.
See above.
Forgive me Shodan, and for that matter taggert as well for giving the impression that I was comparing either taggert or GWB to Hitler. The “führer” reference was to taggert’s idolatrous “if the President says it, it must be correct because He is my Leader” attitude. I just failed to express myself with my usual utter clarity and devastating, rapier-like wit. 
I shall try to improve in future posts.
By the way, I don’t think conservatives are bad people. Some of my best friends…um, I guess you’ve heard that one. One of my favorite writers is P. J. O’Rourke, whom I admire. But I don’t read him too often, because he’s too convincing and I’m afraid he might convert me. Hell, I don’t even think Rush Limbaugh is a bad person. Wrong most of the time maybe, but not bad.
I’ll be dam…er…darned! I think he’s right, about several of us. Thinking back over taggert’s posts I don’t recall any “potty” stuff, unless by “potty” you mean mentally unbalanced. 
I am not a shrink, of course, but the boy seems a little off to me.
Your drug of choice, taggert?
[fixed link-Czarcasm]
Taggert,
You put up a link to the thread about Innocent vs. Guilty people and our judicial system.
In that thread you stated: “As for me being convicted, there is a silly assumption that I would be charged in the first place. It won’t happen to me because I do not hang around the criminal element and I don’t look like a criminal.”
But you never answered my questions. What does a criminal look like, and who exactly are the “criminal element” you don’t hang around?
Let me say that, based on earlier statements you made, I don’t believe you are a racist. I’m not accusing you of assuming blacks or anybody else are automatically criminal. So please explain what you meant.
As to laughing at your posts, well, I personally believe that everybody is entitled to their opinions, including you. I just disagree with you vehemently, and, guess what? I’m a liberal and an atheist, and proud of it. So according to you, I’m a pinko commie traitor. So I don’t think I’ll apologize.
Speaking of North Korea’s Great Leader, I wouldn’t mind kicking back at his place. He reportedly owns over 20,000 movies, the largest private collection in the world.
Hang on a minute, I thought that the Liberals were the silent ones?
It sounds like apathy on both sides to me - just like over here…unless you are actually representing the Liberals in a cunning bid to undermine their position by pretending to be Conservative. Uh, my head hurts.
All this and we have different takes on conservatives and liberals over here. It’s enough to make me give up voting and join the silent majority, or minority.
Hi, I can’t do this all day this time, but here goes.
Coldfire, my french isn’t all that good, but in American English, fiance is both genders. My betrothed would work too, but that starts to look like poetry.
photopatI’m pretty sure I did answer your question, but a quick summary: People who come dressed to court inappropriately such as in tank tops, with tattoos looking stoned and who are shifty and nervous when testifying. And I’m not asking anyone to apologize. I do think potty mouth is a bit much, but not even for that, and no, I don’t mean you.
With respect to M.E.Buckner’s comments in the other thread, this is the first I have seen of them. Practically speaking, there is no solution to the current Arab/Israeli problem going down the path we are travelling except the one I outlined. If you take current events to their logical conclusion, and in fact what is being discussed in Washington, this will happen. Or are you folks not listening? Iraq needs a new regime. Just two days ago the story that RAND was advising viewing Saudi Arabia as an enemy (for good reason) and implying that they need overthrowing, and having Iran on the list of the Evil Axis. We are going to spend $200 billion to move armies to Iraq and then later deal with Iran and Saudi Arabia? I don’t think so. You guys may think this is satire, but it is policy.
Alright guys, I misspelled “heroine”. :smack: Guilty as charged. Ann Coulter is my “heroin”. I get it. Real funny. Does she have “heroin chic”?
aurelianI’m going to agree that you have part of a point, that if I express views on immigration that I should be willing to defend them. But I think that if everyone were to take pot shots from various issues in the same thread that the thread would lose all cohesion and value for our readers. I would, in principle, probably participate in a thread on immigration (not today, too busy). But if we follow every tangent I think the thread would become a big mess.
And Desert Geezer I don’t mind the comparison to President Bush and am in fact flattered, but not even in false modesty, I am not worthy of such praise, even when intended as an insult. He is a great leader and visionary. As for comparing me to Hitler, no, I didn’t read that into your post, and I think I would have noticed that. As for whether you should take personal offense, I have to leave that up to you. I do generally have the described opinions about liberals and fellow travellers. If you want to imagine that I am picturing you in your Desert hideaway when I am writing these things, that is up to you. I am picturing people like Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Hillary Rodham.
Well, not according to dictionary.com, who offers multiple definitions for “fiance,” not one of which is “a woman engaged to be married.” FTR, I’ve only seen “Fiance” as referring to men–even though it’s a French word, its usage still counts as still counts as “American English.”
Well, she’s definitely skinny enough to qualify!
taggert, I hereby withdraw anything complimentary I’ve said in the past about your parodic skills. Either you’ve carried it way too far, or you’re trying to make conservatives look foolish (and there are others already doing that job very well), or you’re nuts. No one could believe all the contradictions you claim to and remain sane.
Give it a rest before the mods make you give it a rest, understand?
BTW, that "Great Leade"r stuff is too directly copied from Bob Boudelang, Angry American Patriot, a well-written parodic column that I’m sure you’re familiar with.
Um, no.
It was funny the FIRST time. MAYBE the second time. By the third time, it was just plain annoying.
It’s also trolling. Which isn’t allowed on here. Satire is fine, and good in its place. When a poster does nothing BUT satire, however, that is simply being a gimmick poster, which wears on people’s nerves. It doesn’t add to the discussion, it’s just taking up space. It reminds me of shudder Sweet Sue shudder
Lib:
WHERE the fuck did I say we should ban him because “he annoys me?” Huh? I said he was annoying. That alone isn’t reason enough for banning, naturally.
HOWEVER, if he keeps TROLLING, obviously, he’s going to get his ass canned.
What do you consider trolling?