Why? So the dog can eat your homework, again? In one of your many rants, I asked you to support your imaginary history with an actual timeline. You claimed that I was obviously baiting you because no one could actually produce any timeline. So I went through your rant and demonstrated that your events did not occur in the manner you claimed or that the times you claimed and that the events over which you expressed such angst were the natural progressions of many earlier events rather than some “liberal” or “hippie” outbreak in 1968. You replied that you were going to refute all my lies, then never bothered to do so after three separate declarations of intent. On another occasion, I was noting the tragedy of the U.S. conflating the very genuine threat from the U.S.S.R. with the imaginary threat of “world communist conspiracy” and how that led to a number of blunders during trhe Cold War. You interrupted the thread to insult me and call my cited statements bullshit, then ran away and refused to point out a single error I had posted.
Those are two of several incidents I recall. At that time, I had strongly disagreed with your odd historical revisionism, but I had declined to engage in your abusive posting style. Interestingly, it appears to be your position that there are so many rude “liberals” on the board that you are simply forced to be rude to all of them, even when you are quoting a poster who has not insulted you.
Given your utterly warped views of history, you complete failures of logic, and your abusive nature, I no longer feel constrained to give you any benefit of the doubt when you are behaving execrably. Still, I would say that my behavior toward you has remained far more civil that your behavior toward me. (It just looks worse to you because my mild, if pointed, comments are more effective than your scatalogical bluster.)
No, but it’s the liberals’ fault that he has to be so crass. He’s going to say, “When in Rome” or something like that. We overwhelm his natural decorous, polite behavior and cause him to say horrible things. It’s not his fault. He HAS to do it.
Well if he says those things then I’ll point out no one forces him to say what he says, or come here. His actions are his choice, as are the consequences. He’s either a “liberal”, and a hypocrite, or just wrong, and a hypocrite.
It seems to have escaped your notice that my comments on the trailer-parking of America came before elucidator got all butthurt and exposed the fact that he lives in a trailer himself.
I am aware that there can be perfectly fine people living in trailer parks. I have known some myself. I have also seen what they were surrounded by. I have also been close to meth addicts and petty thieves and other assorted low-lifes who lived or hung out in trailer parks.
I am probably better qualified to know what typical trailer-park life is like than most of the posters around here.
Still, the purpose of my post wasn’t to denigrate people who live in trailer-parks, although to a certain degree that is the inevitable result, it was because most people know instantly what is mean by the use of the term, and that is the meaning that I wanted to convey.
So if you are or if you know someone who is a good person who lives in a trailer park, know that you are most certainly exempt from the characterization and that you have my apologies and acknowledgement that not everyone who lives in a trailer park meets the standards I described.
Okay. You and I both feel the other guy is an utter jerk, but we each feel that at one time we tried to be civil to the other. Like with Rubystreak, I find myself unable to regard you as a total douchebag in spite of myself. If you want to agree to wipe the slate clean and start over again, it would be fine with me. Be forewarned however than I’m frankly disinclined to respond to TLDR posts such as FinnAgain and occasionally you like to confront me with, nor to engage is cite vs. cite pissing contests. It is often difficult enough to keep up with posts directed at me as it is without having to deal with posts that would take an hour or two to read, research and respond to in the bargain. In that event however, I will agree to try not to be dismissive or rude in my declinations.
Maybe it’s just my barbarian liberal savagery speaking but I don’t insult an class of people unless that class has earned it (example anyone stupid enough to vote for Bush). Insulting large swaths of innocent people as collateral damage is pretty vulgar.
Oh, somehow I think they’ll get over it. Where’s your concern over all the lies, misrepresentations, false motives, insults and character flaws heaped upon conservatives as a group around here.
Fiscal conservatives do okay, as do libertarians, who more or less, which some lump in with conservatives. Neocons don’t get much love, but they kind of earned it with the Bush nonsense.
Social conservatives? Well what kind of reception do you expect destructive policies, on a board for fighting ignorance, to receive?
You are maintaining that liberals as a whole are responsible for all the ills and essentially the downfall of society. You don’t get to do that and tell the other guy to stop being mean.
According to SA, “the liberals” gained power back in 1968. He sees the Beatles & long hair as the wellspring of all evil in the USA today. We do wonder how style choices of middle-class white kids led to so much degradation. And we wonder just how badly 20-year-old SA was humiliated in 1968. He mentions he’d grown his hair out a bit until a teacher criticized him.
Two members of my high school Class of '66 were not allowed to pick up their graduation robes until they got their hair cut. The hair was barely over their ears, but Coach Roach, Dean of Boys, was adamant. However, none of us were 20 yet. Either SA was a very old high school student or he went to college at Bob Jones.
Back in the 50’s & early 60’s, military service was still part of every young man’s life. Our generation had been brought up with tales of the fight against Fascism–our fathers’ war. Most of us were–& are–proud of what that generation had accomplished. As the 60’s wore on, many of us began to realize that the war in Vietnam was not quite the same. Surely SA did not succumb to that wrong thinking; why has he not regaled us with his adventures in Southeast Asia? Perhaps he served elsewhere, as many did. (Let’s not mention Georgie Bush, Fighter Jock–who couldn’t even hack the Battle of Ellington. Oops! I just did!)
Or a hippie chick turned him down for being a hopeless dweeb.
So, **SA **fesses up that his declarations about trailer park inhabitants are both wrong and over-broad, like most of his postings. But that isn’t going to keep him from doing it again.
And he will forgive all as long as we don’t try to hold him to those messy facts and such that can really get in the way of a good scatological argument.
Oh, and courageous embattled conservatives including **SA **really deserve recognition as the poor, hapless victims of those demonic liberal pussies from 1968.
Am I in a fairy tale? A marvelous Alice in Wonderland type world pulled entirely from **SA’s **nether regions?
Nobody warned me about the brown acid before (belated thanks, elucidator!), so maybe this is another one of those flashbacks…