+3
The two posters I can’t stand are not even in this thread. (which is not to say that there aren’t a few here that are in the running). I confess to a mild disappointment that I didn’t make the cut. I must try harder. Perhaps if I, too, could enter into pissing contests and refuse to ever end them, I would rate.
I am not sure who is more annoying: those who seen as the instigators or those who are most vocal about their annoyance. Maybe it’s a win/win!
Nobody is arguing that being wrong frequently means you suddenly become right. If I often leave my house on a bright and sunny day declaring that there’s an awful downpour, then I will be wrong til the day I die.
When enough* people use a word to mean the exact opposite of the accepted usage then the accepted usage changes. You can certainly feel free to use bible-thumper to mean a vociferous Christian and bible-basher to mean an extremely critical non-Christian. Do not be surprised though if others don’t always understand what you mean. It’s part and parcel of clinging to outmoded word definitions.
*I do not know what this number might be. It is probably not very formalized.
Still nothing but your assertions (with no cites to back them up) to post, huh?
This is a bit thick, even for you. You’re saying that conservatives are more polite as a group but when you’re not it’s because liberals made you. HA! FUCKING, HA!
I am reminded of all those polite conservatives at the Palin rallies…
I don’t think you have ever studied how languages work.
If you have your teachers were very bad.
Or you were a bad student.
Whatever the reasons your point above is wrong, as is your understanding of what a “bible basher” is (unless, of course, you subscribe to a minority dialect of English).
Hey, hold on there! They were quite perfectly polite to Ms. Palin!
I meant Dan Norder above, not DianaG (she makes my point).
Nice. The “switch in context” technique.
Need I point out that more polite does not equal unfailingly polite?
Conservatives, in my experience, are much more polite as well as less crass and vulgar than our liberal counterparts. This does not mean we are polite all the time and in the face of every provocation.
Nice try, though. Oh, wait…
Well, I suppose it helps that you apparently decide whether people are “conservative” or “liberal” based on nothing other than what you perceive to be the “crassness” of their behavior. I mean, unless you’re taking polls in public places? Are you?
I have no idea what your point is. You are the one who mentioned the post I was responding to as relevant context.
<sticks her hand in the crazy>
Conservatives like all those polite and well mannered conservative talk shows hosts? Like conservative talk radio? Like the liberal bashing message boards conservatives? Like the conservatives I know that still don’t want blacks to live next to them (but Jews are ok, now), that don’t want their kids to attend public school due to “unwelcome elements” (read minority kids and non-Christians)? Those same conservatives that condemn gays to hell? Like the racist, homophobic, misogynistic conservatives I see regularly (my inlaws)? Or more like the bigoted working class people I also see every week at work? Why is ok for some cons to be nasty some of the time, but libs get no such “pass”?
Bad behavior knows no political line–and you know this. I think you like to yank various chains here. There has been an increase in raunch in this country, true–and no one deplores the rise of porn and slutty/boorish behavior more than I, a staunch liberal, do. I tend to see more boorish behavior (in public) in lower SES folks, but by no means do I give my own SES a pass. I’ve seen and heard shit at the country club that makes what happens in a WalMart aisle look like Mr Roger’s Neighborhood. We are more selfish and more self involved than ever. The rise of liberalism is coincidental to this, not causal. I might was well save my fingers the workout, though. You remain convinced otherwise; and most of us think you’re kinda silly for it.
There was no golden age of America; Beaver and Wally are fictional characters. You constantly strike this one note, as if to prove something. It proves nothing but your own prejudice against those who do not share your political viewpoint. But I will say you are polite in your beating of your gong (most of the time. You’re no Albert Schweitzer).
+4
(Hey, one more & its Vorpal…! :D)
I forgot this bit: I always read pseudotriton ruber ruber’s name as pseudo rubber rubber, and I think of fake rubber condoms. But that’s just me. The real thing (prr) is kinda boring in comparison, IMO.
Correct. As I’ve said many times around here, it only seems that way when contrasted with the way things are now.
I have to leave shortly and don’t have time to address your post in its entirety, but I will point out, yet again, that I spent twenty years of my life in the fifties and sixties, and I know perfectly well that Leave It To Beaver did not typify life during that time. The notion that those of us who are disgusted by what life in this country has become only feel that way because we thought the country was once like Ozzie & Harriet land, only feel that way because they’ve been taught it…probably by the same bozos who claim dumbing down and scuzzing out society was necessary to eliminate racism.
But the point is, I remember perfectly well how people dressed and behaved comported themselves during that era, and I saw first hand the changes take place and the reasons why, and it had virtually nothing to due with race and almost everything to do with the desire of baby-boomers (or as I like to call them: pre-liberals) coming of age in the late sixties and, thanks to the influence of long-haired musicians and a burgeoning drug culture, wanting to think, act and behave any way they wanted with no regard for its impact on society, and as a result the lowest common denominator has come to reign supreme.
Thank you. (I think. ;))
I really would like to go into more detail regarding some of the other things you’ve said. I’ll try to get back later and do so.
Forget it. This guy is convinced that his own personal observations, filtered through the lens of his own prejudice and ignorance, are an absolute, and that he only has to point out that they are indeed his very own observations for us all to immediately recognize his insight and brilliance. Don’t waste your time.
Nothing wrong with doing so. Hell, it probably helps you socially, as that rule has probably eliminated all of those long internal conversations you had with yourself.
Since brazil84 is rarely worth wasting more than a few minutes time on, as everyone who heavily participates in GD, on both sides of the fence, realize he’s just a giant douche, I’ll let someone who does agree with his point of view share their stance. From post 13 in that thread linked above:
Oh, and I should mention that jshore, among others, is a fucking saint for actually attempting to educate the idiot. While that’s frankly impossible, I think they do it for the lurkers who might actually give two shits about learning the truth.
Until this thread, I’ve always read it as pseudotron ruber ruber, and thought perhaps it was something sci-fi. If nothing else, this thread’s been educational.
Yeah, can’t wait to work that into a conversation, so people can see how smart I can pretend to be…