The Democrats Gloat Thread

Ticomaya wrote:

nimh wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Ascerbic? Scornful? Moi?

You dont believe those words apply to your posts on the Politics board here? Seriously?

I was being sarcastic .... which just goes to show you don't have as firm a grasp on my online persona as you might imagine.

OK, you had me there, admitted. So you know you generally come across as scornful, in Politics at least. OK, good, you know what I was talking about then. No "colored, tendentious, misremembering" on that count, apparently.

That makes me wonder, on a side note, what I did say that in your view was "tendentious" and based on "false memories", though. The thing you originally took issue with, puzzlingly, appears to be where I wrote, "you normally seem to be pretty well-informed and eager to discuss any Republican achievements and issues".

That seems an odd thing to take offense at. Especially for an unabashedly partisan poster like yourself. Or would you consider "unabashedly partisan" a mischaracterisation as well? Is it my claim that you have "argued the Bush/Republican administration line in pretty much every political contention" that bothers you? Or the "stalwart Republican" part? Really?

Surely you will forgive us for some gloating on this Democrats gloating thread about seeing such a dismissive critic of all Bush administration critics express unease at being characterised as a "stalwart Republican". Whether it is indeed coincidental or not, it simply serves as too striking an illustration of what we are seeing on the national political stage: all those Republican office holders suddenly going out of their way to clarify how independent-minded and bipartisan they actually are.

Ticomaya wrote:

I suspect you will find me a smidge more likeable in that setting, since I tend to offend your political sensibilities.

I will follow your kind advice. It is however not your political views that offend me - there are people who are as conservative as you, and nevertheless wholly likeable. Much like there are people as leftwing as me and yet unfailingly polite.

Odd misunderstanding, this, in any case - this attribution of my reaction to your political views - considering you just acknowledged the acerbic/scornful character of your posting style. Wouldn't that be a much more obvious explanation for any perceived unlikability?

It's a classic response though, I'll give you that: to attribute hostile reactions to one's way of expressing oneself to the other party's political intolerance - you see that a lot. It allows one to go on as one was, so to say, and claim the "straight shooter", "I wont let them shut me up" status at that.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
nimh wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Ascerbic? Scornful? Moi?

You dont believe those words apply to your posts on the Politics board here? Seriously?

I was being sarcastic .... which just goes to show you don't have as firm a grasp on my online persona as you might imagine.

OK, you had me there, admitted. So you know you generally come across as scornful, in Politics at least. OK, good, you know what I was talking about then. No "colored, tendentious, misremembering" on that count, apparently.

That makes me wonder, on a side note, what I did say that in your view was "tendentious" and based on "false memories", though. The thing you originally took issue with, puzzlingly, appears to be where I wrote, "you normally seem to be pretty well-informed and eager to discuss any Republican achievements and issues".

That seems an odd thing to take offense at. Especially for an unabashedly partisan poster like yourself. Or would you consider "unabashedly partisan" a mischaracterisation as well? Is it my claim that you have "argued the Bush/Republican administration line in pretty much every political contention" that bothers you? Or the "stalwart Republican" part? Really?

Surely you will forgive us for some gloating on this Democrats gloating thread about seeing such a dismissive critic of all Bush administration critics express unease at being characterised as a "stalwart Republican". Whether it is indeed coincidental or not, it simply serves as too striking an illustration of what we are seeing on the national political stage: all those Republican office holders suddenly going out of their way to clarify how independent-minded and bipartisan they actually are.

Ticomaya wrote:
I suspect you will find me a smidge more likeable in that setting, since I tend to offend your political sensibilities.

I will follow your kind advice. It is however not your political views that offend me - there are people who are as conservative as you, and nevertheless wholly likeable. Much like there are people as leftwing as me and yet unfailingly polite.

Odd misunderstanding, this, in any case - this attribution of my reaction to your political views - considering you just acknowledged the acerbic/scornful character of your posting style. Wouldn't that be a much more obvious explanation for any perceived unlikability?

It's a classic response though, I'll give you that: to attribute hostile reactions to one's way of expressing oneself to the other party's political intolerance - you see that a lot. It allows one to go on as one was, so to say, and claim the "straight shooter", "I wont let them shut me up" status at that.

I always find these sort of smug self-serving comments quite interesting, and nimh you never cease to disappoint my interest with your production.

You decry the judgmental while being judgmental. You deride the offending while being offensive. Your profess to objectivity while being entirely subjective. You castigate those whom you believe are too critical.

I'm perfectly OK with these characteristics, but then I don't lay claim to an uber-rational personae.

0 Replies

Ah, and in comes Tico's double. The two of you do frightfully remind me of each other.

0 Replies

Although come to think of it, compared to Finn, Tico does actually almost seem slightly jolly..

Finn: I dont claim to be objective, myself. You must be confused with my preference for objective (or at least verifiable) sources - as opposed to the column type ones. But although I generally prefer my sources to be free of too much opinionating, I myself of course am most opinionated. As an avowed leftist I by definition can not claim an objective POV.

Similarly, I dont castigate those who are too critical; I love a worthy opponent. I castigate those who are too nasty. Not quite the same thing, though I appreciate your difficulty in distinguishing the two. Perhaps an illustration that you can immediately identify with will serve. When I fiercely argue against, say, one of Timber's assertions using any reliable source I can find in the best of arguments I can bolster, thats being critical. When, as here on this "Democrats Gloating" thread, I opt for cheap shots when they're funny, that's nasty. I'm sure that will help clarify the difference.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Ah, and in comes Tico's double. The two of you do frightfully remind me of each other.

That funny because you have always frightfully reminded me of M. Tartuffe

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Although come to think of it, compared to Finn, Tico does actually almost seem slightly jolly..

Finn: I dont claim to be objective, myself. You must be confused with my preference for objective (or at least verifiable) sources - as opposed to the column type ones. But although I generally prefer my sources to be free of too much opinionating, I myself of course am most opinionated. As an avowed leftist I by definition can not claim an objective POV.

Similarly, I dont castigate those who are too critical; I love a worthy opponent. I castigate those who are too nasty. Not quite the same thing, though I appreciate your difficulty in distinguishing the two. Perhaps an illustration that you can immediately identify with will serve. When I fiercely argue against, say, one of Timber's assertions using any reliable source I can find in the best of arguments I can bolster, thats being critical. When, as here on this "Democrats Gloating" thread, I opt for cheap shots when they're funny, that's nasty. I'm sure that will help clarify the difference.

One reply just wasn't enough?

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
nimh wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Ascerbic? Scornful? Moi?

You dont believe those words apply to your posts on the Politics board here? Seriously?

I was being sarcastic .... which just goes to show you don't have as firm a grasp on my online persona as you might imagine.

OK, you had me there, admitted. So you know you generally come across as scornful, in Politics at least. OK, good, you know what I was talking about then. No "colored, tendentious, misremembering" on that count, apparently.

That makes me wonder, on a side note, what I did say that in your view was "tendentious" and based on "false memories", though.

I didn't say you said anything that was "tendentious." That's just your over-active imagination on full-bore again, nimh.

Quote:

Surely you will forgive us for some gloating on this Democrats gloating thread about seeing such a dismissive critic of all Bush administration critics express unease at being characterised as a "stalwart Republican".

I don't give a rat's ass what you "gloat" about, nimh.

Quote:

Whether it is indeed coincidental or not, it simply serves as too striking an illustration of what we are seeing on the national political stage: all those Republican office holders suddenly going out of their way to clarify how independent-minded and bipartisan they actually are.

This discussion began when you asked me: "Are you not following the news about your own candidates?" To which I correctly responded by alerting you to the fact that he was not my candidate. You, then, asserted that all Republican candidates must be my candidates, simply because you have observed me defend the positions of Republican candidates in these fora. I alerted you to your mistake: A candidate is not my candidate merely because there is an "R" after his name. (For some reason you don't seem to be willing to accept this fact -- odd that.)

Quote:

Ticomaya wrote:
I suspect you will find me a smidge more likeable in that setting, since I tend to offend your political sensibilities.

I will follow your kind advice. It is however not your political views that offend me - there are people who are as conservative as you, and nevertheless wholly likeable. Much like there are people as leftwing as me and yet unfailingly polite.

If you do not find me likeable, nimh, I submit that is your failing, not mine, as it is demonstrative of your judgmental character -- which I see Finn has astutely observed.

Quote:

Odd misunderstanding, this, in any case - this attribution of my reaction to your political views - considering you just acknowledged the acerbic/scornful character of your posting style. Wouldn't that be a much more obvious explanation for any perceived unlikability?

No, because I fully believe that were I a leftist, you would not find my posting style to be the least bit disagreeable.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Ah, and in comes Tico's double. The two of you do frightfully remind me of each other.

I'll take that as a compliment.

0 Replies

Finn D' Abuzz wrote:

I always find these sort of smug self-serving comments quite interesting, and nimh you never cease to disappoint my interest with your production.

You decry the judgmental while being judgmental. You deride the offending while being offensive. Your profess to objectivity while being entirely subjective. You castigate those whom you believe are too critical.

I'm perfectly OK with these characteristics, but then I don't lay claim to an uber-rational personae.

************************************************************

A PERFECT DESCRIPTION...Besides, Nimh doesn't know sh.t about American Politics.

He presents a bogus poll where 72% of the people polled approved of Obama. This poll consists of 600 people. The pollsters admit that there were some people who did not wish to participate.

Nimh really thinks that 72% of the people of Illinois approve of the job Obama has done and is doing.

It just goes to show Nimh's massive IGNORANCE about what really happens in American politics.

Nimh has never participated in an American election. He knows what he reads in magazines like Slate and the Nation but that is not tantamount to real knowledge of American politics.

He will learn that although some African-Americans are running for office and even though some of them gain relatively high poll numbers, none of them( except any who might be running against another African-American) will get votes that approach the poll results.

Since Nimh does not know American politics, he does not know that the American populace does not really trust African-American politicians. It is a legacy from Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton!!!

0 Replies

Our little community is turning into an episode from Deadwood.

There's an interesting dynamic running across the surface of things now. A little less than two years ago, there was an easily discernable, even bubbling, "gloat quotient" from a bunch of you (friendly wave to tico and finn). But there's been remarkable success in the Bush administration's efforts to turn black to white and flip ass to tea-kettle. The floor beneath you fellows is about to land on your heads. Perhaps this accounts for some of the chagrin?

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Perhaps this accounts for some of the chagrin?

That would be my guess. Tico's and Finn's posts certainly have not lacked in gloating, with and without scorn, ridicule and related unpleasantness for their liberal fellow-posters, in the past. I suppose it's a question of the tables turning for a bit.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

I didn't say you said anything that was "tendentious." That's just your over-active imagination on full-bore again, nimh.

I was going on where you wrote about my presumed "tendency to create a "false memory" of something I said". But OK, the offense you took, then, concerned my "tenuous", "colored" and "misremembered", but not "tendentious", "false memories". Fail to see the difference it makes really, but the correction is noted.

Ticomaya wrote:

Quote:
Surely you will forgive us for some gloating on this Democrats gloating thread about seeing such a dismissive critic of all Bush administration critics express unease at being characterised as a "stalwart Republican".

I don't give a rat's ass what you "gloat" about, nimh.

I'll take that to mean "yes", then.

Ticomaya wrote:

This discussion began when you asked me: "Are you not following the news about your own candidates?" To which I correctly responded by alerting you to the fact that he was not my candidate. You, then, asserted that all Republican candidates must be my candidates, simply because you have observed me defend the positions of Republican candidates in these fora. I alerted you to your mistake: A candidate is not my candidate merely because there is an "R" after his name. (For some reason you don't seem to be willing to accept this fact -- odd that.)

You misremember.

I explained my description of Republican candidates as being "your candidates" by saying, "you normally seem to be pretty well-informed and eager to discuss any Republican achievements and issues, no matter where in the country they take place."

That's the statement you replied to saying, "You've misremembered aspects of my personality/character in the past .... do you suppose this is another example of that?"

What am I supposed to have misremembered here - that "you normally seem to be pretty well-informed and eager to discuss any Republican achievements and issues, no matter where in the country they take place"? You really want to take issue with that?

Definitely must be some general chagrin setting in.

Then there's the alternative argument, of course, that, considering that you are a registered Republican, there was little wrong about describing Republican candidates as "your candidates" in the first place - but that would probably take us into another discussion of the difference between the American and European political systems.

Where all of this really started, meanwhile, was where you ridiculed Tom Kean Jr. as just a State Senator for New Jersey, in order to belittle his remarks about Rumsfeld -- conveniently overlooking that he is also the Republican candidate for Senate there, one of only two Senate candidates in the entire USA with a shot of dislodging a Democrat, who has received high-profile support from the national Republican party.

Going after my use of the word "your" when I pointed that out, I suppose, is one way to distract from that rather typical attempt at spin. Succeeded, too.

Ticomaya wrote:

No, because I fully believe that were I a leftist, you would not find my posting style to be the least bit disagreeable.

And that, Tco, is where you are blatantly incorrect, as pretty much any observer without a chip on his shoulder would be able to tell you. The pretense that I must just not like your style because you disagree with me is rather transparent.

Perhaps you are projecting your and Finn's mindset on me. But you're mistaken - I'm not like you, on this count; I dont happily accept snidenesses from people on my own side while indignantly climbing on my high horse over those from the other side. If anything its a bit of a 'hobbyhorse' of mine not to, as Finn, whom I recently engaged in a tawdry debate about this, could testify. The Tartarin episode may be from before your time, but Blatham for one has been on the receiving end of my disagreement on this count several times as well - which probably plays a part in the enjoyment he is taking from this conversation. Vice versa, of course, I have been at polar opposites with posters as conservative as you, without finding them to be of similar disagreeable fashion.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

One reply just wasn't enough?

You are worth two, Finn. One to mirror your usual scornful flippancies, and one to seriously argue with your point. The latter is, of course, as always wasted - which is why I'm actually coming round to Blatham's style of posting ever more (vindication is yours, Blatham).

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Our little community is turning into an episode from Deadwood.

There's an interesting dynamic running across the surface of things now. A little less than two years ago, there was an easily discernable, even bubbling, "gloat quotient" from a bunch of you (friendly wave to tico and finn). But there's been remarkable success in the Bush administration's efforts to turn black to white and flip ass to tea-kettle. The floor beneath you fellows is about to land on your heads. Perhaps this accounts for some of the chagrin?

uh..... blatham no one loves you more than I (platonically, like real he men of course) but.... I think it's the ceiling ABOVE them that would land on their heads..... Razz

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

blatham wrote:
Our little community is turning into an episode from Deadwood.

There's an interesting dynamic running across the surface of things now. A little less than two years ago, there was an easily discernable, even bubbling, "gloat quotient" from a bunch of you (friendly wave to tico and finn). But there's been remarkable success in the Bush administration's efforts to turn black to white and flip ass to tea-kettle. The floor beneath you fellows is about to land on your heads. Perhaps this accounts for some of the chagrin?

uh..... blatham no one loves you more than I (platonically, like real he men of course) but.... I think it's the ceiling ABOVE them that would land on their heads.....

You're my next male playmate (given that BernardR refuses my constant invitations, of course) but...uh...there was an upside-down joke in there.

0 Replies

nimh wrote

Quote:

(vindication is yours, Blatham).

I feel like the local pastor has just pulled me aside, rubbed a palm over his white hair and shuffled his feet a bit and said, "Look, I think I've been wrong about some stuff. Do you by any chance still have satan's phone number?"

This has all seemed something of an impossible situation. I expect, if I met them in person, I'd like tico and finn, foxfyre and McG and most of the crowd supporting this administration. But there is a deep intellectual perversity in modern American conservative ideology and that is reflected in each one of these folks in a number of quite discernible ways - the purposeful limitation of informations sources, comfort with or even fealty towards a small authority set, aggressive militarism, exceptionalist nationalism bordering on the fanatic, a tendency to avoid nuance and complexity in favor of simple black/white dichotomies, an apparent lack of familiarity with non-confrontational models of discourse, and, perhaps most aggravating of all, a serious resistance to reflection and any admission that they got something significant wrong - it is oddly like the what Patten described on leaving Hong Kong where he talked about the difference between the values of 'honor' which he considered important versus the Chinese valuation of "face".

Of course, any of what I've said above has great variation in these folks. And it is simply not possible that some of it won't apply to me as well. But it is the case that modern American conservatism constitutes a real low point in ideological blindness and the consequent rhetorical and intellectual failures. The theoretical danger(s) of this are now past mere theory and we are not better off for it.

Last week, the President of Iran gave a speech wherein he enjoined Iranian citizens to confront and remedy the university community in Iran because it had become (his words) "too secular and liberal". Either one of these descriptors, or both, are frequently forwarded by our conservative friends here regarding American universities. If anything might give them a clue as to the path they are on, you'd think that would. Yet our community history here suggests it won't.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

blatham wrote:
Perhaps this accounts for some of the chagrin?

That would be my guess. Tico's and Finn's posts certainly have not lacked in gloating, with and without scorn, ridicule and related unpleasantness for their liberal fellow-posters, in the past. I suppose it's a question of the tables turning for a bit.

I assure you, nimh, any gloating, scorn, ridcule, or related unpeasantness that has been brought to bear on any leftist poster on this site by the likes of me, is (a) undoubtedly fully deserved, and (b) without question overwhelmed by the level of smug, self-righteous, pompous, hypocritical, and sanctimonious posts created by the likes of you and blatham.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
I didn't say you said anything that was "tendentious." That's just your over-active imagination on full-bore again, nimh.

I was going on where you wrote about my presumed "tendency to create a "false memory" of something I said". But OK, the offense you took, then, concerned my "tenuous", "colored" and "misremembered", but not "tendentious", "false memories". Fail to see the difference it makes really, but the correction is noted.

Are you serious? "Tendentious" means: "Marked by a strong implicit point of view; partisan."

You fail to see the difference by quoting a word you claimed I used, which I didn't, and which has an entirely different meaning from any of the words I did use? You fail to see the difference it makes? Really?

This in light of the point I was making, which is you have this annoying little habit of falsely remembering little things about me, which I have pointed out to you on several occasions now. And in response to my making that claim, the first thing you do is falsely claim I used a word I did not in fact use, and to top it all off you claim you don't "see the difference it makes"?

Correction noted indeed.

Quote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Quote:
Surely you will forgive us for some gloating on this Democrats gloating thread about seeing such a dismissive critic of all Bush administration critics express unease at being characterised as a "stalwart Republican".

I don't give a rat's ass what you "gloat" about, nimh.

I'll take that to mean "yes", then.

You can gloat about the 9/11 terrorist attacks being an inside governmental job, for all I care, and it would have the same level of accuracy.

Quote:

Ticomaya wrote:
This discussion began when you asked me: "Are you not following the news about your own candidates?" To which I correctly responded by alerting you to the fact that he was not my candidate. You, then, asserted that all Republican candidates must be my candidates, simply because you have observed me defend the positions of Republican candidates in these fora. I alerted you to your mistake: A candidate is not my candidate merely because there is an "R" after his name. (For some reason you don't seem to be willing to accept this fact -- odd that.)

You misremember.

I explained my description of Republican candidates as being "your candidates" by saying, "you normally seem to be pretty well-informed and eager to discuss any Republican achievements and issues, no matter where in the country they take place."

That's the statement you replied to saying, "You've misremembered aspects of my personality/character in the past .... do you suppose this is another example of that?"

What am I supposed to have misremembered here - that "you normally seem to be pretty well-informed and eager to discuss any Republican achievements and issues, no matter where in the country they take place"? You really want to take issue with that?

Definitely must be some general chagrin setting in.

Correcting leftists is a full time job, as I've mentioned many times before.

You claimed this NJ State Senator was MY candidate. I told you he wasn't MY candidate, because I neither live or vote in NJ. That's when you said I "seem to be pretty well-informed and eager to discuss any Republican achievements and issues, no matter where in the country they take place. Odd, the sudden claim of disinterest/ignorance." I never claimed ignorance or disinterest ... I said he was not my candidate. For you to believe him to be my candidate, which is what you said, you must be claiming by that statement that he is my candidate because I have discussed the "achievements and issues" of other Republican candidates, including those for whom I cannot vote. While I have discussed the "achievements" of Republican candidates and elected officials, I have also discussed the "failings" of Republican candidates. For that matter, I have discussed the "achievements" and merits of Democrat candidates and electeds, as well as their "failings." And the fact that I have done so means as much about whether such Democratic candidates are "my" candidates as your claim that any particular Republican candidate is "my" candidate. It is a ridiculous and foolish statement for you to have made in the first instance, and you only exacerbate the level of foolishness by your continued defense of that ridiculous claim.

You know, I thought it went without saying that your logic in this regard is as flawed as it possibly can be. I have not noticed logical thought to be a strength of leftists, and you are not altering that observation by this argument of yours.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt in the first place by attributing your faulty logical process here to a "misremembering" by you of some trait of mine -- specifically, your sense that every Republican candidate must be "my" candidate, or perhaps some sense that I had never pointed out the failings of any Republican, defended any Democrat, or otherwise indicated that I carry the water of the Repubican party, regardless of the candidate that is trotted out. This despite the numerous occasions when discussing the relative merits of President Bush, that I have pointed out that he was the best candidate available.

And I do take issue with you, and you are more than welcome to research this point exhaustively, and as you set about that task I will remind you of the several prior occasions you have done so, only to be forced to come back and report that you had, indeed been wrong about me.

Quote:

Then there's the alternative argument, of course, that, considering that you are a registered Republican, there was little wrong about describing Republican candidates as "your candidates" in the first place - but that would probably take us into another discussion of the difference between the American and European political systems.

This does not entail a discussion of the differences between American and European political systems, because I told you that the NJ state senator was not my candidate merely because he has an "R" after his name. But instead of accepting that as truth, you chose to engage in this silly little argument of yours. If the cause of your trouble in this regard is the differences between European and American political systems, that is your problem, not mine.

Quote:

Where all of this really started, meanwhile, was where you ridiculed Tom Kean Jr. as just a State Senator for New Jersey, in order to belittle his remarks about Rumsfeld -- conveniently overlooking that he is also the Republican candidate for Senate there, one of only two Senate candidates in the entire USA with a shot of dislodging a Democrat, who has received high-profile support from the national Republican party.

I'm trying to follow your logic, nimh, but I'm confused. Maybe you can help me out with a few points:

Did Tom Kean have an opponent in the Republican primary? If so, was Kean my candidate in the Primary, or did I support the loser?

And when David Duke (google him if you are unfamiliar) campaigned for office of US Senate, and President, I believe he did so on the Republican ticket. Was he also my candidate? Or would he only have become "my" candidate if he won the primary?

Side question, because I'm unsure to what lengths your logic will go: If Duke was "my" candidate, does that make me a rascist, or a supporter of the KKK?

Quote:

Going after my use of the word "your" when I pointed that out, I suppose, is one way to distract from that rather typical attempt at spin. Succeeded, too.

How is that "spin," nimh? That was your entire point, I thought: That Kean was "my" candidate. That is the point I thought we've been discussing, and the point to which I've taken issue. How can you characterize that as "spin"?

Now, if you now try to slip out of this discussion by claiming you didn't actually really mean that he was "my" candidate, THAT would be a fine example of spin.

Quote:

Ticomaya wrote:
No, because I fully believe that were I a leftist, you would not find my posting style to be the least bit disagreeable.

And that, Tco, is where you are blatantly incorrect, as pretty much any observer without a chip on his shoulder would be able to tell you. The pretense that I must just not like your style because you disagree with me is rather transparent.

No, I think I'm rather correct, based on my prior observations of you and your postings.

Quote:

Perhaps you are projecting your and Finn's mindset on me. But you're mistaken - I'm not like you, on this count; I dont happily accept snidenesses from people on my own side while indignantly climbing on my high horse over those from the other side. If anything its a bit of a 'hobbyhorse' of mine not to, as Finn, whom I recently engaged in a tawdry debate about this, could testify. The Tartarin episode may be from before your time, but Blatham for one has been on the receiving end of my disagreement on this count several times as well - which probably plays a part in the enjoyment he is taking from this conversation. Vice versa, of course, I have been at polar opposites with posters as conservative as you, without finding them to be of similar disagreeable fashion.

You're not like me? Damn straight you're not. I'm not a hypocrite, and I certainly find you to be one.

I never said you happiliy accepted snideness from your own side, but you don't seem to have a problem with snideness from your own side being directed towards those on the other side. Your problem, it seems, comes when that snideness is directed towards you. Thus, if I were a leftist, I would likely not be directing my snideness towards you, and you would not find my postings to be disagreeable. In this respect, it is indeed my politics that is the cause of your inclination to find me ascerbic and scornful.

Quote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
One reply just wasn't enough?

You are worth two, Finn. One to mirror your usual scornful flippancies, and one to seriously argue with your point. The latter is, of course, as always wasted - which is why I'm actually coming round to Blatham's style of posting ever more (vindication is yours, Blatham).

Of course that means you're going to be even more self-righteous, hypocricial, pompous, sanctimonious. snooty, patronizing, pseudo-intellectual, and priggish than ever before.

0 Replies

Quote:

Of course that means you're going to be even more self-righteous, hypocricial, pompous, sanctimonious. snooty, patronizing, pseudo-intellectual, and priggish than ever before.

A bullet I would have sworn had my name scrawled on it.

0 Replies

Quote:

Of course that means you're going to be even more self-righteous, hypocricial, pompous, sanctimonious. snooty, patronizing, pseudo-intellectual, and priggish than ever before.

Yeah, but he's right most of the time, which is more than I can say for certain other posters who share the same qualities on the Republican side of the fence.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I don't think any of this is much about being right or being wrong, cyclo.

Last week, georgeob wrote a post wherein he said he had concluded that he'd been wrong regarding the wisdom/necessity of Bush's war on Iraq.

He's the only person on a2k who has been a long time republican and supporter of this administration who has had the intellectual courage/capacity to change course. The only one.

We all are wrong sometimes. But without that honorable capacity and that integrity to put truth and accuracy above party/ideological fealty and one's own past public statements, it's guaranteed we'll stay wrong and unsmart.

I tipped my hat to george on that post. I tip it again.

0 Replies

The Democrats Gloat Thread

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know