(07-17-2019 09:40 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 08:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 08:48 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 09:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 09:17 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I am on record as him being a toxic tower of vitriol. Your point exactly, that is, beyond a cute repartee?


Using that logic Reagan ran a campaign of vitriol using the return to the values of the 'city on hill' when faced with the malaise that endemic to the Carter administration, being preceded by the Ford/Nixon.

Good god you are clutching at straws.

Hate to tell you, there are a number of people that do believe the United States entered a similar malaise. Some point to the baby Bush era as that entry; others point to the Obama years. The quagmires of Afghanistan and Iran were direct corollaries to those in SE Asia.

There are *actually* some of us that experienced a hope for an euphoria about the 'goodness and greatness of America' ---- after Carter was gone, after Nixon, during the Iranian hostage crisis, after the Mayaguez incident, and after SE Asia. And within literally two weeks after Reagan took office and his campaign about a return to the shining hill on the city, the US hostages were released, *and* the space shuttle flew for the very first time. And that culminated with the West's victory in the Cold War -- again which President Reagan pulled from a toxic handling under a combination of LBJ, Nixon, Ford, and especially Carter.

You cling to the straw 'again' as toxicity; some of us with a tad more context than you saw it a return to the path of America as experienced in the first heady months of 1981.

So, lad, what exactly is *toxic* about 'again' (that is aside from your endless teeth gnashing)? I think American pride and esteem had plummeted within two years of 9/11 as the endless quagmire of a war drug on, NSA tapped the crap out of our phones, in light of the so-called Patriot Act, and the image of a President that was seemingly jumping around in a bouncy house, with a seemingly endless grab of Executive power by that same ad/hd President.

The crash of 2008 immediately followed, with the subsequent further power grab of Executive power in the name of so-called 'social justice', which in my view simply masked the community organizer / President we elected. Coupled with that same President's very dim view of the United States as a whole (i.e. Michelle Obama saying she had never been proud of the United States) from this point of view, the message of returning to a 'Yes, America is GREAT' isnt such a bad message. Considering that arguably happened in the Camelot years and arguably again in the first two years after Reagan lifted the malaise -- again seems appropriate.

So given that context that seemingly are absolutely blind to, what *exactly* is so fundamentally wrong with 'again'?

I mean, lad, sometime you should actually stop and think that the gd fing world doesnt revolve around your point of view and *your* timeline. If you dont think that a good proportion of the country was of the view that a malaise of '68 to '80 had similarly affected the country between 2000 - 2016, then you are amongst the most myopic people I have ever encountered. And I really hate to tell you, for some of us America *was* great, they did great things and had great attitudes. And I wish that we could return to those times where we did feel great about America, *and* being American. Similarly I actually yearn for a return where American manufacturing had the clout that it once had -- yet another target for the word 'again'.

You think a return to that feeling is 'toxic', because I hate to tell you is that is what the message 'again' means. Has Trump delivered? -- not in my book. But kudos for him for the message.

And you are an utter idiot for pointing to the use of that word as 'toxic' given that history that you are apparently clueless about.

Apparently you are such a fanboi of socialism that you equate the criticisms of AOC and her ilk of 'have to grab all the money we can to be fair' to 'wow, it would be *great* to have a respected nation again' as equivalent criticisms. You have every right to subjectively say that those two are equivalent. If they are, I am utterly happy with the very large probability that I will be worm food before people of that viewpoint actually take the levers of power in this country.

If you are unaware of that timeline, I sincerely hope you do a little research before your next straw clutch foray.

Yes, the idiot here isn’t the one who has to rely on childish name calling. Grow up.

edit: even funnier is that your reading comprehension is so poor that you thought my second paragraph was immediately and directly connected to the first. My second paragraph had nothing to do with Trump's language or toxicity - it was everything about his message that criticized America. You can try and rationalize why Trump's criticism of America, and wanting to make it great again (therefore, directly stating it isn't currently) and how Omar's is different, but they really aren't any different. I think both are equally valid and have no issue with Trump suggesting America has issues to fix. I have a problem with people thinking Omar can't do the same thing.

One of my favorite quotes regarding American progress and continuing to form a more perfect union comes from James Baldwin:

Quote: I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.

I guess you are one of the few short-busers in the world that seemingly think a criticism of 'again' directly relates to the constant toxicity of the 'squad'. Got it.

Are you so invested in these pillars that you cant even note that?

And to be blunt, had you bothered with any semblance of reading comprehension my statement of history for you was describing the object of of his oh-so-bad message of 'again' that you had a diaper hissy fit about.

Had you any 'reading comprehension' you would have noted that the history lesson that you dont seeming have any backing of kind of sets the stage for the 'again' comment. And 'again', the term 'again' is far from the constant toxic flow of bile from these four. That is is described your so-called 'terrible' message; i.e. the word message that you so furiously dance your patented lad world irish jig on.

**** off you little twerp, all you can do is run around from pendantic bouncy house to pendantic bouncy house clutching at the little dirt clods you 'found' in between them. Get back with us when you find a 'nuance' that is actually worth something.

What am I, a retard or a twerp?

Hard to keep up with all your name calling.

edit: ahhh, I see you realized using the term retard was a bad look, so you edited your post to call me a "short-buser" instead. Not much of a better look, there.

You misunderstood my comment, and it wasn't because what I wrote was too complicated. Let my "retarded" self spell it out for you.

Point 1) Trump has a history of using toxic language - either by pulling a Tanq move and making fun of someone's disabilities, making fun of someone's appearances, calling a political opponent nasty, etc.

Point 2) It is ironic that people are criticizing these women for criticizing America, because Trump's entire campaign was based on criticizing America. This has nothing to do with his toxicity or vitriol, but rather that his campaign was based on a criticism of America and that it was no longer great.

The reason I have to run around the pedantic bouncy house is because you intentionally misconstrue every single thing I say, so I'm forced to come back and break down my points for you.

As I noted earlier, the specific term 'again' has the exact same impact and message in your world and view as directly stating the US is a nation of concentration camps. Got it. That is some amazing insight there lad.

Go run around and find some more irridescent shiny bugs to play with and play with.

Funny you claim as 1) above the toxicity, but you only use the word 'again' in your description. Perhaps my reading comprehension missed all your other examples you provided there. Hmmmm..... I still only see the word 'again' as the sole specific point that put out there. Nice pivot there, all the while squawking on *my* reading comprehension.. Or dont you see that? lolz.

As for 2), as I noted in an edit to my comment apparently just as you responded, I have zero issue with criticism. I do have an issue with toxic criticism. And, I do have an issue with what seems to be an undecidely anti-American version of toxic criticism emanating from here: the message that Omar put out yesterday was the precise message a spouse abuser gives.

And when you decide to mix the anti-american with a good helping of not being able to respond to a question of whether one would denounce the ICE occupiers this last weekend, I think that is a very large departure from you specific example of 'again'.

Their message and their delivery are inexerably linked -- that is the 'message' for all your bounces.

Trump's criticisms, while criticisms, are that we can achieve the largess and greatness, as opposed to the FU that the squad messages the United States for its shortcomings.

Look up Reverend Wright for a similar delivery of a message.

Edited to add:
And yes, I did use that word 'retard.' Then I thought better of it and changed it. Amongst a number of items. FU for your snide comment in the rep ding; at least I recognized it and changed it on my own volition, you fing twerp (which was another comment I had edited out on my volition at that time, but seemingly that edit out 'crossed' with your response. I will reinstate that one here in its full glory here)

Even the sainted Obama used “special Olympics” to denote subpar results.

My mother taught me that if I couldn’t say something nice about somebody, to say nothing at all. I may fail occasionally, but I still think it is good advice.

(07-17-2019 10:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 09:40 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 08:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 08:48 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 09:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Yes, the idiot here isn’t the one who has to rely on childish name calling. Grow up.

edit: even funnier is that your reading comprehension is so poor that you thought my second paragraph was immediately and directly connected to the first. My second paragraph had nothing to do with Trump's language or toxicity - it was everything about his message that criticized America. You can try and rationalize why Trump's criticism of America, and wanting to make it great again (therefore, directly stating it isn't currently) and how Omar's is different, but they really aren't any different. I think both are equally valid and have no issue with Trump suggesting America has issues to fix. I have a problem with people thinking Omar can't do the same thing.

One of my favorite quotes regarding American progress and continuing to form a more perfect union comes from James Baldwin:

I guess you are one of the few short-busers in the world that seemingly think a criticism of 'again' directly relates to the constant toxicity of the 'squad'. Got it.

Are you so invested in these pillars that you cant even note that?

And to be blunt, had you bothered with any semblance of reading comprehension my statement of history for you was describing the object of of his oh-so-bad message of 'again' that you had a diaper hissy fit about.

Had you any 'reading comprehension' you would have noted that the history lesson that you dont seeming have any backing of kind of sets the stage for the 'again' comment. And 'again', the term 'again' is far from the constant toxic flow of bile from these four. That is is described your so-called 'terrible' message; i.e. the word message that you so furiously dance your patented lad world irish jig on.

**** off you little twerp, all you can do is run around from pendantic bouncy house to pendantic bouncy house clutching at the little dirt clods you 'found' in between them. Get back with us when you find a 'nuance' that is actually worth something.

What am I, a retard or a twerp?

Hard to keep up with all your name calling.

edit: ahhh, I see you realized using the term retard was a bad look, so you edited your post to call me a "short-buser" instead. Not much of a better look, there.

You misunderstood my comment, and it wasn't because what I wrote was too complicated. Let my "retarded" self spell it out for you.

Point 1) Trump has a history of using toxic language - either by pulling a Tanq move and making fun of someone's disabilities, making fun of someone's appearances, calling a political opponent nasty, etc.

Point 2) It is ironic that people are criticizing these women for criticizing America, because Trump's entire campaign was based on criticizing America. This has nothing to do with his toxicity or vitriol, but rather that his campaign was based on a criticism of America and that it was no longer great.

The reason I have to run around the pedantic bouncy house is because you intentionally misconstrue every single thing I say, so I'm forced to come back and break down my points for you.

As I noted earlier, the specific term 'again' has the exact same impact and message in your world and view as directly stating the US is a nation of concentration camps. Got it. That is some amazing insight there lad.

Go run around and find some more irridescent shiny bugs to play with and play with.

Funny you claim as 1) above the toxicity, but you only use the word 'again' in your description. Perhaps my reading comprehension missed all your other examples you provided there. Hmmmm..... I still only see the word 'again' as the sole specific point that put out there. Nice pivot there, all the while squawking on *my* reading comprehension.. Or dont you see that? lolz.

As for 2), as I noted in an edit to my comment apparently just as you responded, I have zero issue with criticism. I do have an issue with toxic criticism. And, I do have an issue with what seems to be an undecidely anti-American version of toxic criticism emanating from here: the message that Omar put out yesterday was the precise message a spouse abuser gives.

And when you decide to mix the anti-american with a good helping of not being able to respond to a question of whether one would denounce the ICE occupiers this last weekend, I think that is a very large departure from you specific example of 'again'.

Their message and their delivery are inexerably linked -- that is the 'message' for all your bounces.

Trump's criticisms, while criticisms, are that we can achieve the largess and greatness, as opposed to the FU that the squad messages the United States for its shortcomings.

Look up Reverend Wright for a similar delivery of a message.

Edited to add:
And yes, I did use that word 'retard.' Then I thought better of it and changed it. Amongst a number of items. FU for your snide comment in the rep ding; at least I recognized it and changed it on my own volition, you fing twerp (which was another comment I had edited out on my volition at that time, but seemingly that edit out 'crossed' with your response. I will reinstate that one here in its full glory here)

Even the sainted Obama used “special Olympics” to denote subpar results.

My mother taught me that if I couldn’t say something nice about somebody, to say nothing at all. I may fail occasionally, but I still think it is good advice.

The lad got equally mad that I recognized that aspect, and changed it sua sponte.

In the comments he actually seems to be somewhat enraged about me removing the term. Perhaps he got pissed that deprived him of a moral preening opportunity.
Good grief.

As noted, am I proud that I put that in their originally? Nope. Mea culpa. The lad seems hopping mad that it was changed, though.

But, another brick in the bouncy house I guess. Heh, just noticed I used 'hopping' mad as well.....

But, if you stop and think it over, it might be an odd message in tandem:

How *dare* you use that term. Yep, good point. Very good point, actually.
How *dare* you remove it on your own action prior to any comemnt. Uhh...... dumb as doornails given the previous message.

This is absolutely rich, imo. Bouncy house to bouncy house.....

But that is the driving force of progressivism isnt it? How *dare* anyone not just say something, how *dare* they actually think about it and remove it on their own. The real issue is how *dare* anyone even think double bad ungood things, I guess. Kind of absolutely fits in in the 'deplorables' comment, the just recent kerfluffle we had about the comment about Trump supporters lapping up the comment. And the comment of 'how dare you, *even* if you recognize it and remove it yourself' is simply abundant evidence of the sanctimonious, smug, and condescending attitude from this quarter.

Bravo for the lad. You did a great job on shining a great spotlight on the notions of that here. As noted, *my* use of that word was not good in the slightest. But to make sure your sanctimonious shrill message is played, you cannot even note in a positive manner the actual voluntarily act of its removal. You actually preach that. Good job there, son, good job.

Kind of a 'learning moment' when you stop and look at the reaction, to steal the comment from the demigod St Barry if I might be deigned to coop that.... might make me a triple bad ungood there, though.

(07-17-2019 10:44 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 10:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 09:40 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 08:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 08:48 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I guess you are one of the few short-busers in the world that seemingly think a criticism of 'again' directly relates to the constant toxicity of the 'squad'. Got it.

Are you so invested in these pillars that you cant even note that?

And to be blunt, had you bothered with any semblance of reading comprehension my statement of history for you was describing the object of of his oh-so-bad message of 'again' that you had a diaper hissy fit about.

Had you any 'reading comprehension' you would have noted that the history lesson that you dont seeming have any backing of kind of sets the stage for the 'again' comment. And 'again', the term 'again' is far from the constant toxic flow of bile from these four. That is is described your so-called 'terrible' message; i.e. the word message that you so furiously dance your patented lad world irish jig on.

**** off you little twerp, all you can do is run around from pendantic bouncy house to pendantic bouncy house clutching at the little dirt clods you 'found' in between them. Get back with us when you find a 'nuance' that is actually worth something.

What am I, a retard or a twerp?

Hard to keep up with all your name calling.

edit: ahhh, I see you realized using the term retard was a bad look, so you edited your post to call me a "short-buser" instead. Not much of a better look, there.

You misunderstood my comment, and it wasn't because what I wrote was too complicated. Let my "retarded" self spell it out for you.

Point 1) Trump has a history of using toxic language - either by pulling a Tanq move and making fun of someone's disabilities, making fun of someone's appearances, calling a political opponent nasty, etc.

Point 2) It is ironic that people are criticizing these women for criticizing America, because Trump's entire campaign was based on criticizing America. This has nothing to do with his toxicity or vitriol, but rather that his campaign was based on a criticism of America and that it was no longer great.

The reason I have to run around the pedantic bouncy house is because you intentionally misconstrue every single thing I say, so I'm forced to come back and break down my points for you.

As I noted earlier, the specific term 'again' has the exact same impact and message in your world and view as directly stating the US is a nation of concentration camps. Got it. That is some amazing insight there lad.

Go run around and find some more irridescent shiny bugs to play with and play with.

Funny you claim as 1) above the toxicity, but you only use the word 'again' in your description. Perhaps my reading comprehension missed all your other examples you provided there. Hmmmm..... I still only see the word 'again' as the sole specific point that put out there. Nice pivot there, all the while squawking on *my* reading comprehension.. Or dont you see that? lolz.

As for 2), as I noted in an edit to my comment apparently just as you responded, I have zero issue with criticism. I do have an issue with toxic criticism. And, I do have an issue with what seems to be an undecidely anti-American version of toxic criticism emanating from here: the message that Omar put out yesterday was the precise message a spouse abuser gives.

And when you decide to mix the anti-american with a good helping of not being able to respond to a question of whether one would denounce the ICE occupiers this last weekend, I think that is a very large departure from you specific example of 'again'.

Their message and their delivery are inexerably linked -- that is the 'message' for all your bounces.

Trump's criticisms, while criticisms, are that we can achieve the largess and greatness, as opposed to the FU that the squad messages the United States for its shortcomings.

Look up Reverend Wright for a similar delivery of a message.

Edited to add:
And yes, I did use that word 'retard.' Then I thought better of it and changed it. Amongst a number of items. FU for your snide comment in the rep ding; at least I recognized it and changed it on my own volition, you fing twerp (which was another comment I had edited out on my volition at that time, but seemingly that edit out 'crossed' with your response. I will reinstate that one here in its full glory here)

Even the sainted Obama used “special Olympics” to denote subpar results.

My mother taught me that if I couldn’t say something nice about somebody, to say nothing at all. I may fail occasionally, but I still think it is good advice.

The lad got equally mad that I recognized that aspect, and changed it sua sponte.

In the comments he actually seems to be somewhat enraged about me removing the term. Perhaps he got pissed that deprived him of a moral preening opportunity.
Good grief.

As noted, am I proud that I put that in their originally? Nope. Mea culpa. The lad seems hopping mad that it was changed, though.

But, another brick in the bouncy house I guess. Heh, just noticed I used 'hopping' mad as well.....

Yes, hopping mad is a slur on frogs. Frogs who were born that way. Or maybe it is about kangaroos. My youngest son is a kangaroo, in the sense he graduated from two schools with a kangaroo mascot. Better that than a frog.

Obama

(07-17-2019 10:44 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 10:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 09:40 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 08:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 08:48 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I guess you are one of the few short-busers in the world that seemingly think a criticism of 'again' directly relates to the constant toxicity of the 'squad'. Got it.

Are you so invested in these pillars that you cant even note that?

And to be blunt, had you bothered with any semblance of reading comprehension my statement of history for you was describing the object of of his oh-so-bad message of 'again' that you had a diaper hissy fit about.

Had you any 'reading comprehension' you would have noted that the history lesson that you dont seeming have any backing of kind of sets the stage for the 'again' comment. And 'again', the term 'again' is far from the constant toxic flow of bile from these four. That is is described your so-called 'terrible' message; i.e. the word message that you so furiously dance your patented lad world irish jig on.

**** off you little twerp, all you can do is run around from pendantic bouncy house to pendantic bouncy house clutching at the little dirt clods you 'found' in between them. Get back with us when you find a 'nuance' that is actually worth something.

What am I, a retard or a twerp?

Hard to keep up with all your name calling.

edit: ahhh, I see you realized using the term retard was a bad look, so you edited your post to call me a "short-buser" instead. Not much of a better look, there.

You misunderstood my comment, and it wasn't because what I wrote was too complicated. Let my "retarded" self spell it out for you.

Point 1) Trump has a history of using toxic language - either by pulling a Tanq move and making fun of someone's disabilities, making fun of someone's appearances, calling a political opponent nasty, etc.

Point 2) It is ironic that people are criticizing these women for criticizing America, because Trump's entire campaign was based on criticizing America. This has nothing to do with his toxicity or vitriol, but rather that his campaign was based on a criticism of America and that it was no longer great.

The reason I have to run around the pedantic bouncy house is because you intentionally misconstrue every single thing I say, so I'm forced to come back and break down my points for you.

As I noted earlier, the specific term 'again' has the exact same impact and message in your world and view as directly stating the US is a nation of concentration camps. Got it. That is some amazing insight there lad.

Go run around and find some more irridescent shiny bugs to play with and play with.

Funny you claim as 1) above the toxicity, but you only use the word 'again' in your description. Perhaps my reading comprehension missed all your other examples you provided there. Hmmmm..... I still only see the word 'again' as the sole specific point that put out there. Nice pivot there, all the while squawking on *my* reading comprehension.. Or dont you see that? lolz.

As for 2), as I noted in an edit to my comment apparently just as you responded, I have zero issue with criticism. I do have an issue with toxic criticism. And, I do have an issue with what seems to be an undecidely anti-American version of toxic criticism emanating from here: the message that Omar put out yesterday was the precise message a spouse abuser gives.

And when you decide to mix the anti-american with a good helping of not being able to respond to a question of whether one would denounce the ICE occupiers this last weekend, I think that is a very large departure from you specific example of 'again'.

Their message and their delivery are inexerably linked -- that is the 'message' for all your bounces.

Trump's criticisms, while criticisms, are that we can achieve the largess and greatness, as opposed to the FU that the squad messages the United States for its shortcomings.

Look up Reverend Wright for a similar delivery of a message.

Edited to add:
And yes, I did use that word 'retard.' Then I thought better of it and changed it. Amongst a number of items. FU for your snide comment in the rep ding; at least I recognized it and changed it on my own volition, you fing twerp (which was another comment I had edited out on my volition at that time, but seemingly that edit out 'crossed' with your response. I will reinstate that one here in its full glory here)

Even the sainted Obama used “special Olympics” to denote subpar results.

My mother taught me that if I couldn’t say something nice about somebody, to say nothing at all. I may fail occasionally, but I still think it is good advice.

The lad got equally mad that I recognized that aspect, and changed it sua sponte.

In the comments he actually seems to be somewhat enraged about me removing the term. Perhaps he got pissed that deprived him of a moral preening opportunity.
Good grief.

As noted, am I proud that I put that in their originally? Nope. Mea culpa. The lad seems hopping mad that it was changed, though.

But, another brick in the bouncy house I guess. Heh, just noticed I used 'hopping' mad as well.....

But, if you stop and think it over, it might be an odd message in tandem:

How *dare* you use that term. Yep, good point. Very good point, actually.
How *dare* you remove it on your own action prior to any comemnt. Uhh...... dumb as doornails given the previous message.

This is absolutely rich, imo. Bouncy house to bouncy house.....

But that is the driving force of progressivism isnt it? How *dare* anyone not just say something, how *dare* they actually think about it and remove it on their own. The real issue is how *dare* anyone even think double bad ungood things, I guess.

Kind of a 'learning moment' when you stop and look at the reaction, to steal the comment from the demigod St Barry if I might be deigned to.

Quote:What am I, a retard or a twerp?

Hard to keep up with all your name calling.

edit: ahhh, I see you realized using the term retard was a bad look, so you edited your post to call me a "short-buser" instead. Not much of a better look, there.

Yes, that clearly denotes that I was more mad that you edited the remark to be a euphemism...

You do see where is said it is "not much of a better look," right? Had I been more mad about the edit, I would have said "that is a worse look." That is how words work, Tanq. How did you mix that up?

I'm not mad that you changed your comment, I think it was the right thing to do. I'm disappointed that you thought it fit to type that slur in the first place. And I'm also a bit disappointed that instead of removing the insult completely, you just changed it to a euphemism for retarded. I pretty much feel the same way about your word choice as I did when an Uber driver recently used "gay" to refer to someone cutting him off.

I'm not really mad about any of this, despite you thinking I am. This is an internet message board, after all.

(07-17-2019 11:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 10:44 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 10:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 09:40 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 08:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  What am I, a retard or a twerp?

Hard to keep up with all your name calling.

edit: ahhh, I see you realized using the term retard was a bad look, so you edited your post to call me a "short-buser" instead. Not much of a better look, there.

You misunderstood my comment, and it wasn't because what I wrote was too complicated. Let my "retarded" self spell it out for you.

Point 1) Trump has a history of using toxic language - either by pulling a Tanq move and making fun of someone's disabilities, making fun of someone's appearances, calling a political opponent nasty, etc.

Point 2) It is ironic that people are criticizing these women for criticizing America, because Trump's entire campaign was based on criticizing America. This has nothing to do with his toxicity or vitriol, but rather that his campaign was based on a criticism of America and that it was no longer great.

The reason I have to run around the pedantic bouncy house is because you intentionally misconstrue every single thing I say, so I'm forced to come back and break down my points for you.

As I noted earlier, the specific term 'again' has the exact same impact and message in your world and view as directly stating the US is a nation of concentration camps. Got it. That is some amazing insight there lad.

Go run around and find some more irridescent shiny bugs to play with and play with.

Funny you claim as 1) above the toxicity, but you only use the word 'again' in your description. Perhaps my reading comprehension missed all your other examples you provided there. Hmmmm..... I still only see the word 'again' as the sole specific point that put out there. Nice pivot there, all the while squawking on *my* reading comprehension.. Or dont you see that? lolz.

As for 2), as I noted in an edit to my comment apparently just as you responded, I have zero issue with criticism. I do have an issue with toxic criticism. And, I do have an issue with what seems to be an undecidely anti-American version of toxic criticism emanating from here: the message that Omar put out yesterday was the precise message a spouse abuser gives.

And when you decide to mix the anti-american with a good helping of not being able to respond to a question of whether one would denounce the ICE occupiers this last weekend, I think that is a very large departure from you specific example of 'again'.

Their message and their delivery are inexerably linked -- that is the 'message' for all your bounces.

Trump's criticisms, while criticisms, are that we can achieve the largess and greatness, as opposed to the FU that the squad messages the United States for its shortcomings.

Look up Reverend Wright for a similar delivery of a message.

Edited to add:
And yes, I did use that word 'retard.' Then I thought better of it and changed it. Amongst a number of items. FU for your snide comment in the rep ding; at least I recognized it and changed it on my own volition, you fing twerp (which was another comment I had edited out on my volition at that time, but seemingly that edit out 'crossed' with your response. I will reinstate that one here in its full glory here)

Even the sainted Obama used “special Olympics” to denote subpar results.

My mother taught me that if I couldn’t say something nice about somebody, to say nothing at all. I may fail occasionally, but I still think it is good advice.

The lad got equally mad that I recognized that aspect, and changed it sua sponte.

In the comments he actually seems to be somewhat enraged about me removing the term. Perhaps he got pissed that deprived him of a moral preening opportunity.
Good grief.

As noted, am I proud that I put that in their originally? Nope. Mea culpa. The lad seems hopping mad that it was changed, though.

But, another brick in the bouncy house I guess. Heh, just noticed I used 'hopping' mad as well.....

But, if you stop and think it over, it might be an odd message in tandem:

How *dare* you use that term. Yep, good point. Very good point, actually.
How *dare* you remove it on your own action prior to any comemnt. Uhh...... dumb as doornails given the previous message.

This is absolutely rich, imo. Bouncy house to bouncy house.....

But that is the driving force of progressivism isnt it? How *dare* anyone not just say something, how *dare* they actually think about it and remove it on their own. The real issue is how *dare* anyone even think double bad ungood things, I guess.

Kind of a 'learning moment' when you stop and look at the reaction, to steal the comment from the demigod St Barry if I might be deigned to.

Quote:What am I, a retard or a twerp?

Hard to keep up with all your name calling.

edit: ahhh, I see you realized using the term retard was a bad look, so you edited your post to call me a "short-buser" instead. Not much of a better look, there.

Yes, that clearly denotes that I was more mad that you edited the remark to be a euphemism...

You do see where is said it is "not much of a better look," right? Had I been more mad about the edit, I would have said "that is a worse look." That is how words work, Tanq. How did you mix that up?

I'm not mad that you changed your comment, I think it was the right thing to do. I'm disappointed that you thought it fit to type that slur in the first place. And I'm also a bit disappointed that instead of removing the insult completely, you just changed it to a euphemism for retarded. I pretty much feel the same way about your word choice as I did when an Uber driver recently used "gay" to refer to someone cutting him off.

I'm not really mad about any of this, despite you thinking I am. This is an internet message board, after all.

Just mentioning that the comments and the timing truly do paint you as the paragon of sanctimony. That is the progressive way, isnt it? You should be getting double good junior agent prog points for this...

Funny, when one actually retracts words, after consideration, it *is* a better look. So please keep up with the junior prog agent of change sanctimony. Good look there, son.

Where is your next bouncy house jaunt going to take us?

Funny you dont bother to mention your St Barry's foray into the language. SO your sanctimonious cry is now 'how *dare* you use retard, and it *doesnt* matter that your self-reflection got it pulled, and gee, and I will be just as appalled by verbiage that my own demigod has employed.' Is that accurate now? Still seems high on the shrill and sanctimonious side.

But hey, I have no reading comprehension, you know, that comprehension that addresses a 'message' while you bounce all over the pendantic landscape chasing those irridescent fireflies that captivate you so.

(07-17-2019 11:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 10:44 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 10:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 09:40 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 08:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  What am I, a retard or a twerp?

Hard to keep up with all your name calling.

edit: ahhh, I see you realized using the term retard was a bad look, so you edited your post to call me a "short-buser" instead. Not much of a better look, there.

You misunderstood my comment, and it wasn't because what I wrote was too complicated. Let my "retarded" self spell it out for you.

Point 1) Trump has a history of using toxic language - either by pulling a Tanq move and making fun of someone's disabilities, making fun of someone's appearances, calling a political opponent nasty, etc.

Point 2) It is ironic that people are criticizing these women for criticizing America, because Trump's entire campaign was based on criticizing America. This has nothing to do with his toxicity or vitriol, but rather that his campaign was based on a criticism of America and that it was no longer great.

The reason I have to run around the pedantic bouncy house is because you intentionally misconstrue every single thing I say, so I'm forced to come back and break down my points for you.

As I noted earlier, the specific term 'again' has the exact same impact and message in your world and view as directly stating the US is a nation of concentration camps. Got it. That is some amazing insight there lad.

Go run around and find some more irridescent shiny bugs to play with and play with.

Funny you claim as 1) above the toxicity, but you only use the word 'again' in your description. Perhaps my reading comprehension missed all your other examples you provided there. Hmmmm..... I still only see the word 'again' as the sole specific point that put out there. Nice pivot there, all the while squawking on *my* reading comprehension.. Or dont you see that? lolz.

As for 2), as I noted in an edit to my comment apparently just as you responded, I have zero issue with criticism. I do have an issue with toxic criticism. And, I do have an issue with what seems to be an undecidely anti-American version of toxic criticism emanating from here: the message that Omar put out yesterday was the precise message a spouse abuser gives.

And when you decide to mix the anti-american with a good helping of not being able to respond to a question of whether one would denounce the ICE occupiers this last weekend, I think that is a very large departure from you specific example of 'again'.

Their message and their delivery are inexerably linked -- that is the 'message' for all your bounces.

Trump's criticisms, while criticisms, are that we can achieve the largess and greatness, as opposed to the FU that the squad messages the United States for its shortcomings.

Look up Reverend Wright for a similar delivery of a message.

Edited to add:
And yes, I did use that word 'retard.' Then I thought better of it and changed it. Amongst a number of items. FU for your snide comment in the rep ding; at least I recognized it and changed it on my own volition, you fing twerp (which was another comment I had edited out on my volition at that time, but seemingly that edit out 'crossed' with your response. I will reinstate that one here in its full glory here)

Even the sainted Obama used “special Olympics” to denote subpar results.

My mother taught me that if I couldn’t say something nice about somebody, to say nothing at all. I may fail occasionally, but I still think it is good advice.

The lad got equally mad that I recognized that aspect, and changed it sua sponte.

In the comments he actually seems to be somewhat enraged about me removing the term. Perhaps he got pissed that deprived him of a moral preening opportunity.
Good grief.

As noted, am I proud that I put that in their originally? Nope. Mea culpa. The lad seems hopping mad that it was changed, though.

But, another brick in the bouncy house I guess. Heh, just noticed I used 'hopping' mad as well.....

But, if you stop and think it over, it might be an odd message in tandem:

How *dare* you use that term. Yep, good point. Very good point, actually.
How *dare* you remove it on your own action prior to any comemnt. Uhh...... dumb as doornails given the previous message.

This is absolutely rich, imo. Bouncy house to bouncy house.....

But that is the driving force of progressivism isnt it? How *dare* anyone not just say something, how *dare* they actually think about it and remove it on their own. The real issue is how *dare* anyone even think double bad ungood things, I guess.

Kind of a 'learning moment' when you stop and look at the reaction, to steal the comment from the demigod St Barry if I might be deigned to.

Quote:What am I, a retard or a twerp?

Hard to keep up with all your name calling.

edit: ahhh, I see you realized using the term retard was a bad look, so you edited your post to call me a "short-buser" instead. Not much of a better look, there.

Yes, that clearly denotes that I was more mad that you edited the remark to be a euphemism...

You do see where is said it is "not much of a better look," right? Had I been more mad about the edit, I would have said "that is a worse look." That is how words work, Tanq. How did you mix that up?

I'm not mad that you changed your comment, I think it was the right thing to do. I'm disappointed that you thought it fit to type that slur in the first place. And I'm also a bit disappointed that instead of removing the insult completely, you just changed it to a euphemism for retarded. I pretty much feel the same way about your word choice as I did when an Uber driver recently used "gay" to refer to someone cutting him off.

I'm not really mad about any of this, despite you thinking I am. This is an internet message board, after all.

My senior year in HS, I was talking with a girl in class when the teacher asked, "(OO), what are you and Karen being so gay about". The class erupted in laughter. Apparently the Teacher and I were the only ones who did not know the new meaning of gay.

I kind of miss the old days, when words meant what they were supposed to mean. As a kid, I enjoyed fairy tales. But my grandkids could not, as it is Un-PC to call them that.

So Lad, when you have kids, will you read them fairy tales? Will history talk about Gay Paree and the Gay 90's? Or will language be so restricted that those words will need permission from some Language Suitability Board?

I agree, Tanq should not have called you 'retard" or anything like that. You clearly have a high IQ. (I hope is OK to call you a genius). But sometimes, you get so obstinate in persisting in your wrongheadedness***, I can understand his frustration.

JMHO.

***Wrongheadedness was approved usage by the Language Suitability Board, a subdivision of the PC board. It is neither racial or sexual in nature, and has no religious component. We did not touch.

(07-17-2019 11:26 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 11:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 10:44 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 10:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 09:40 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

As I noted earlier, the specific term 'again' has the exact same impact and message in your world and view as directly stating the US is a nation of concentration camps. Got it. That is some amazing insight there lad.

Go run around and find some more irridescent shiny bugs to play with and play with.

Funny you claim as 1) above the toxicity, but you only use the word 'again' in your description. Perhaps my reading comprehension missed all your other examples you provided there. Hmmmm..... I still only see the word 'again' as the sole specific point that put out there. Nice pivot there, all the while squawking on *my* reading comprehension.. Or dont you see that? lolz.

As for 2), as I noted in an edit to my comment apparently just as you responded, I have zero issue with criticism. I do have an issue with toxic criticism. And, I do have an issue with what seems to be an undecidely anti-American version of toxic criticism emanating from here: the message that Omar put out yesterday was the precise message a spouse abuser gives.

And when you decide to mix the anti-american with a good helping of not being able to respond to a question of whether one would denounce the ICE occupiers this last weekend, I think that is a very large departure from you specific example of 'again'.

Their message and their delivery are inexerably linked -- that is the 'message' for all your bounces.

Trump's criticisms, while criticisms, are that we can achieve the largess and greatness, as opposed to the FU that the squad messages the United States for its shortcomings.

Look up Reverend Wright for a similar delivery of a message.

Edited to add:
And yes, I did use that word 'retard.' Then I thought better of it and changed it. Amongst a number of items. FU for your snide comment in the rep ding; at least I recognized it and changed it on my own volition, you fing twerp (which was another comment I had edited out on my volition at that time, but seemingly that edit out 'crossed' with your response. I will reinstate that one here in its full glory here)

Even the sainted Obama used “special Olympics” to denote subpar results.

My mother taught me that if I couldn’t say something nice about somebody, to say nothing at all. I may fail occasionally, but I still think it is good advice.

The lad got equally mad that I recognized that aspect, and changed it sua sponte.

In the comments he actually seems to be somewhat enraged about me removing the term. Perhaps he got pissed that deprived him of a moral preening opportunity.
Good grief.

As noted, am I proud that I put that in their originally? Nope. Mea culpa. The lad seems hopping mad that it was changed, though.

But, another brick in the bouncy house I guess. Heh, just noticed I used 'hopping' mad as well.....

But, if you stop and think it over, it might be an odd message in tandem:

How *dare* you use that term. Yep, good point. Very good point, actually.
How *dare* you remove it on your own action prior to any comemnt. Uhh...... dumb as doornails given the previous message.

This is absolutely rich, imo. Bouncy house to bouncy house.....

But that is the driving force of progressivism isnt it? How *dare* anyone not just say something, how *dare* they actually think about it and remove it on their own. The real issue is how *dare* anyone even think double bad ungood things, I guess.

Kind of a 'learning moment' when you stop and look at the reaction, to steal the comment from the demigod St Barry if I might be deigned to.

Quote:What am I, a retard or a twerp?

Hard to keep up with all your name calling.

edit: ahhh, I see you realized using the term retard was a bad look, so you edited your post to call me a "short-buser" instead. Not much of a better look, there.

Yes, that clearly denotes that I was more mad that you edited the remark to be a euphemism...

You do see where is said it is "not much of a better look," right? Had I been more mad about the edit, I would have said "that is a worse look." That is how words work, Tanq. How did you mix that up?

I'm not mad that you changed your comment, I think it was the right thing to do. I'm disappointed that you thought it fit to type that slur in the first place. And I'm also a bit disappointed that instead of removing the insult completely, you just changed it to a euphemism for retarded. I pretty much feel the same way about your word choice as I did when an Uber driver recently used "gay" to refer to someone cutting him off.

I'm not really mad about any of this, despite you thinking I am. This is an internet message board, after all.

Just mentioning that the comments and the timing truly do paint you as the paragon of sanctimony. That is the progressive way, isnt it? You should be getting double good junior agent prog points for this...

Funny, when one actually retracts words, after consideration, it *is* a better look. So please keep up with the junior prog agent of change sanctimony. Good look there, son.

Where is your next bouncy house jaunt going to take us?

Yes, I did say it was a better look. It just isn't that much better, given you that you replaced them with a euphemism... And the reason you see that I addressed this in an edit, is because you changed the post between the time I read the initial one, and I hit reply. I only noticed the edit after I went back to edit my phone's autocorrect of "retard" to "regard."

What would have been a good look was to have removed the word retard and the euphemism you replaced it with, and instead of attacking someone by suggesting they have a mental disability, maybe take a step back and see if you misunderstood something or ask for clarification. But you didn't do that, so I have 0 problems with calling you out for taking the low road, even if it was raised up a bit from where it started.

And you literally keep reinforcing why I have to enter this stupid bouncy house - you continue to misinterpret what I type. Given that I very clearly stated that youe edit (retracting the word retard and replacing it with short-bus) was a better look than just leaving the word retard, I have to assume you're willfully misinterpreting my posts.

Seriously, why do you keep willfully misinterpreting my posts?

(07-17-2019 11:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 11:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 10:44 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 10:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 09:40 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

As I noted earlier, the specific term 'again' has the exact same impact and message in your world and view as directly stating the US is a nation of concentration camps. Got it. That is some amazing insight there lad.

Go run around and find some more irridescent shiny bugs to play with and play with.

Funny you claim as 1) above the toxicity, but you only use the word 'again' in your description. Perhaps my reading comprehension missed all your other examples you provided there. Hmmmm..... I still only see the word 'again' as the sole specific point that put out there. Nice pivot there, all the while squawking on *my* reading comprehension.. Or dont you see that? lolz.

As for 2), as I noted in an edit to my comment apparently just as you responded, I have zero issue with criticism. I do have an issue with toxic criticism. And, I do have an issue with what seems to be an undecidely anti-American version of toxic criticism emanating from here: the message that Omar put out yesterday was the precise message a spouse abuser gives.

And when you decide to mix the anti-american with a good helping of not being able to respond to a question of whether one would denounce the ICE occupiers this last weekend, I think that is a very large departure from you specific example of 'again'.

Their message and their delivery are inexerably linked -- that is the 'message' for all your bounces.

Trump's criticisms, while criticisms, are that we can achieve the largess and greatness, as opposed to the FU that the squad messages the United States for its shortcomings.

Look up Reverend Wright for a similar delivery of a message.

Edited to add:
And yes, I did use that word 'retard.' Then I thought better of it and changed it. Amongst a number of items. FU for your snide comment in the rep ding; at least I recognized it and changed it on my own volition, you fing twerp (which was another comment I had edited out on my volition at that time, but seemingly that edit out 'crossed' with your response. I will reinstate that one here in its full glory here)

Even the sainted Obama used “special Olympics” to denote subpar results.

My mother taught me that if I couldn’t say something nice about somebody, to say nothing at all. I may fail occasionally, but I still think it is good advice.

The lad got equally mad that I recognized that aspect, and changed it sua sponte.

In the comments he actually seems to be somewhat enraged about me removing the term. Perhaps he got pissed that deprived him of a moral preening opportunity.
Good grief.

As noted, am I proud that I put that in their originally? Nope. Mea culpa. The lad seems hopping mad that it was changed, though.

But, another brick in the bouncy house I guess. Heh, just noticed I used 'hopping' mad as well.....

But, if you stop and think it over, it might be an odd message in tandem:

How *dare* you use that term. Yep, good point. Very good point, actually.
How *dare* you remove it on your own action prior to any comemnt. Uhh...... dumb as doornails given the previous message.

This is absolutely rich, imo. Bouncy house to bouncy house.....

But that is the driving force of progressivism isnt it? How *dare* anyone not just say something, how *dare* they actually think about it and remove it on their own. The real issue is how *dare* anyone even think double bad ungood things, I guess.

Kind of a 'learning moment' when you stop and look at the reaction, to steal the comment from the demigod St Barry if I might be deigned to.

Quote:What am I, a retard or a twerp?

Hard to keep up with all your name calling.

edit: ahhh, I see you realized using the term retard was a bad look, so you edited your post to call me a "short-buser" instead. Not much of a better look, there.

Yes, that clearly denotes that I was more mad that you edited the remark to be a euphemism...

You do see where is said it is "not much of a better look," right? Had I been more mad about the edit, I would have said "that is a worse look." That is how words work, Tanq. How did you mix that up?

I'm not mad that you changed your comment, I think it was the right thing to do. I'm disappointed that you thought it fit to type that slur in the first place. And I'm also a bit disappointed that instead of removing the insult completely, you just changed it to a euphemism for retarded. I pretty much feel the same way about your word choice as I did when an Uber driver recently used "gay" to refer to someone cutting him off.

I'm not really mad about any of this, despite you thinking I am. This is an internet message board, after all.

My senior year in HS, I was talking with a girl in class when the teacher asked, "(OO), what are you and Karen being so gay about". The class erupted in laughter. Apparently the Teacher and I were the only ones who did not know the new meaning of gay.

I kind of miss the old days, when words meant what they were supposed to mean. As a kid, I enjoyed fairy tales. But my grandkids could not, as it is Un-PC to call them that.

So Lad, when you have kids, will you read them fairy tales? Will history talk about Gay Paree and the Gay 90's? Or will language be so restricted that those words will need permission from some Language Suitability Board?

I agree, Tanq should not have called you 'retard" or anything like that. You clearly have a high IQ. (I hope is OK to call you a genius). But sometimes, you get so obstinate in persisting in your wrongheadedness***, I can understand his frustration.

JMHO.

***Wrongheadedness was approved usage by the Language Suitability Board, a subdivision of the PC board. It is neither racial or sexual in nature, and has no religious component. We did not touch.

OO - What is your point? What are you trying to defend here?

Are you seriously suggesting that my Uber driver, who was clearly complaining about the person cutting them off, used the word "gay" in a way that meant happy?

You go on this diatribe about how certain words that have dual meanings are never OK (like fairy tales), which just isn't true. Gay is an OK word to use to describe when someone is happy or is homosexual. It's not really an OK word to use when describing someone's actions that annoy you.

(07-17-2019 11:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 11:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 11:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 10:44 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 10:35 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Even the sainted Obama used “special Olympics” to denote subpar results.

My mother taught me that if I couldn’t say something nice about somebody, to say nothing at all. I may fail occasionally, but I still think it is good advice.

The lad got equally mad that I recognized that aspect, and changed it sua sponte.

In the comments he actually seems to be somewhat enraged about me removing the term. Perhaps he got pissed that deprived him of a moral preening opportunity.
Good grief.

As noted, am I proud that I put that in their originally? Nope. Mea culpa. The lad seems hopping mad that it was changed, though.

But, another brick in the bouncy house I guess. Heh, just noticed I used 'hopping' mad as well.....

But, if you stop and think it over, it might be an odd message in tandem:

How *dare* you use that term. Yep, good point. Very good point, actually.
How *dare* you remove it on your own action prior to any comemnt. Uhh...... dumb as doornails given the previous message.

This is absolutely rich, imo. Bouncy house to bouncy house.....

But that is the driving force of progressivism isnt it? How *dare* anyone not just say something, how *dare* they actually think about it and remove it on their own. The real issue is how *dare* anyone even think double bad ungood things, I guess.

Kind of a 'learning moment' when you stop and look at the reaction, to steal the comment from the demigod St Barry if I might be deigned to.

Quote:What am I, a retard or a twerp?

Hard to keep up with all your name calling.

edit: ahhh, I see you realized using the term retard was a bad look, so you edited your post to call me a "short-buser" instead. Not much of a better look, there.

Yes, that clearly denotes that I was more mad that you edited the remark to be a euphemism...

You do see where is said it is "not much of a better look," right? Had I been more mad about the edit, I would have said "that is a worse look." That is how words work, Tanq. How did you mix that up?

I'm not mad that you changed your comment, I think it was the right thing to do. I'm disappointed that you thought it fit to type that slur in the first place. And I'm also a bit disappointed that instead of removing the insult completely, you just changed it to a euphemism for retarded. I pretty much feel the same way about your word choice as I did when an Uber driver recently used "gay" to refer to someone cutting him off.

I'm not really mad about any of this, despite you thinking I am. This is an internet message board, after all.

My senior year in HS, I was talking with a girl in class when the teacher asked, "(OO), what are you and Karen being so gay about". The class erupted in laughter. Apparently the Teacher and I were the only ones who did not know the new meaning of gay.

I kind of miss the old days, when words meant what they were supposed to mean. As a kid, I enjoyed fairy tales. But my grandkids could not, as it is Un-PC to call them that.

So Lad, when you have kids, will you read them fairy tales? Will history talk about Gay Paree and the Gay 90's? Or will language be so restricted that those words will need permission from some Language Suitability Board?

I agree, Tanq should not have called you 'retard" or anything like that. You clearly have a high IQ. (I hope is OK to call you a genius). But sometimes, you get so obstinate in persisting in your wrongheadedness***, I can understand his frustration.

JMHO.

***Wrongheadedness was approved usage by the Language Suitability Board, a subdivision of the PC board. It is neither racial or sexual in nature, and has no religious component. We did not touch.

OO - What is your point? What are you trying to defend here?

Are you seriously suggesting that my Uber driver, who was clearly complaining about the person cutting them off, used the word "gay" in a way that meant happy?

You go on this diatribe about how certain words that have dual meanings are never OK (like fairy tales), which just isn't true. Gay is an OK word to use to describe when someone is happy or is homosexual. It's not really an OK word to use when describing someone's actions that annoy you.

Just trying to inject a little humor into this little slap fight over word usage.

I find it funny that Dems get all upset about word usage, then turn around call whatever conservative they hate at the moment (approved) names like deplorable or Nazi or bitter clinger.

Taje Nazi for example. A perfectly good word, but often misapplied. Kind of like how your cabbie misapplied 'gay". Never heard you get upset about it, though.

Do they send you a list of what words can used, when, and how? The Language Board, I mean?

One of the reasons I oppose the left is that I don't want to live in a restrictive society that monitors my every thought and word. You apparently think that would Utopia. So you are a disciple of Rightthink. Or at least, rightverbalize.

What are the current and past countries that monitor speech? The short list would include Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, North Korea, Cuba, China, and under President Harris, the USA.

Serious question. Did you leave him a tip? Another serious question. did you lecture him on his wrongthinking?

(07-17-2019 12:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 11:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 11:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 11:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 10:44 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The lad got equally mad that I recognized that aspect, and changed it sua sponte.

In the comments he actually seems to be somewhat enraged about me removing the term. Perhaps he got pissed that deprived him of a moral preening opportunity.
Good grief.

As noted, am I proud that I put that in their originally? Nope. Mea culpa. The lad seems hopping mad that it was changed, though.

But, another brick in the bouncy house I guess. Heh, just noticed I used 'hopping' mad as well.....

But, if you stop and think it over, it might be an odd message in tandem:

How *dare* you use that term. Yep, good point. Very good point, actually.
How *dare* you remove it on your own action prior to any comemnt. Uhh...... dumb as doornails given the previous message.

This is absolutely rich, imo. Bouncy house to bouncy house.....

But that is the driving force of progressivism isnt it? How *dare* anyone not just say something, how *dare* they actually think about it and remove it on their own. The real issue is how *dare* anyone even think double bad ungood things, I guess.

Kind of a 'learning moment' when you stop and look at the reaction, to steal the comment from the demigod St Barry if I might be deigned to.

Quote:What am I, a retard or a twerp?

Hard to keep up with all your name calling.

edit: ahhh, I see you realized using the term retard was a bad look, so you edited your post to call me a "short-buser" instead. Not much of a better look, there.

Yes, that clearly denotes that I was more mad that you edited the remark to be a euphemism...

You do see where is said it is "not much of a better look," right? Had I been more mad about the edit, I would have said "that is a worse look." That is how words work, Tanq. How did you mix that up?

I'm not mad that you changed your comment, I think it was the right thing to do. I'm disappointed that you thought it fit to type that slur in the first place. And I'm also a bit disappointed that instead of removing the insult completely, you just changed it to a euphemism for retarded. I pretty much feel the same way about your word choice as I did when an Uber driver recently used "gay" to refer to someone cutting him off.

I'm not really mad about any of this, despite you thinking I am. This is an internet message board, after all.

My senior year in HS, I was talking with a girl in class when the teacher asked, "(OO), what are you and Karen being so gay about". The class erupted in laughter. Apparently the Teacher and I were the only ones who did not know the new meaning of gay.

I kind of miss the old days, when words meant what they were supposed to mean. As a kid, I enjoyed fairy tales. But my grandkids could not, as it is Un-PC to call them that.

So Lad, when you have kids, will you read them fairy tales? Will history talk about Gay Paree and the Gay 90's? Or will language be so restricted that those words will need permission from some Language Suitability Board?

I agree, Tanq should not have called you 'retard" or anything like that. You clearly have a high IQ. (I hope is OK to call you a genius). But sometimes, you get so obstinate in persisting in your wrongheadedness***, I can understand his frustration.

JMHO.

***Wrongheadedness was approved usage by the Language Suitability Board, a subdivision of the PC board. It is neither racial or sexual in nature, and has no religious component. We did not touch.

OO - What is your point? What are you trying to defend here?

Are you seriously suggesting that my Uber driver, who was clearly complaining about the person cutting them off, used the word "gay" in a way that meant happy?

You go on this diatribe about how certain words that have dual meanings are never OK (like fairy tales), which just isn't true. Gay is an OK word to use to describe when someone is happy or is homosexual. It's not really an OK word to use when describing someone's actions that annoy you.

Just trying to inject a little humor into this little slap fight over word usage.

I find it funny that Dems get all upset about word usage, then turn around call whatever conservative they hate at the moment (approved) names like deplorable or Nazi or bitter clinger.

Taje Nazi for example. A perfectly good word, but often misapplied. Kind of like how your cabbie misapplied 'gay". Never heard you get upset about it, though.

Do they send you a list of what words can used, when, and how? The Language Board, I mean?

One of the reasons I oppose the left is that I don't want to live in a restrictive society that monitors my every thought and word. You apparently think that would Utopia. So you are a disciple of Rightthink. Or at least, rightverbalize.

What are the current and past countries that monitor speech? The short list would include Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, North Korea, Cuba, China, and under President Harris, the USA.

Serious question. Did you leave him a tip? Another serious question. did you lecture him on his wrongthinking?

I think you may be acting deliberately clueless here, OO.

It's frustrating to see smart people throw their hands up in the air and act like figuring out which words are OK and which are not is completely befuddling.

I will grant you that there are extremists when it comes to PC-policing that can create confusion (It's not OK to call a black person "black"?).

But come on. There is some low-hanging fruit here which doesn't fall of the category of confusing. It isn't difficult to figure out that the use of the term "gay" in a pejorative sense is offensive. "Retard" and "short bus" as well.

(07-17-2019 12:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 11:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 11:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 11:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 10:44 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The lad got equally mad that I recognized that aspect, and changed it sua sponte.

In the comments he actually seems to be somewhat enraged about me removing the term. Perhaps he got pissed that deprived him of a moral preening opportunity.
Good grief.

As noted, am I proud that I put that in their originally? Nope. Mea culpa. The lad seems hopping mad that it was changed, though.

But, another brick in the bouncy house I guess. Heh, just noticed I used 'hopping' mad as well.....

But, if you stop and think it over, it might be an odd message in tandem:

How *dare* you use that term. Yep, good point. Very good point, actually.
How *dare* you remove it on your own action prior to any comemnt. Uhh...... dumb as doornails given the previous message.

This is absolutely rich, imo. Bouncy house to bouncy house.....

But that is the driving force of progressivism isnt it? How *dare* anyone not just say something, how *dare* they actually think about it and remove it on their own. The real issue is how *dare* anyone even think double bad ungood things, I guess.

Kind of a 'learning moment' when you stop and look at the reaction, to steal the comment from the demigod St Barry if I might be deigned to.

Quote:What am I, a retard or a twerp?

Hard to keep up with all your name calling.

edit: ahhh, I see you realized using the term retard was a bad look, so you edited your post to call me a "short-buser" instead. Not much of a better look, there.

Yes, that clearly denotes that I was more mad that you edited the remark to be a euphemism...

You do see where is said it is "not much of a better look," right? Had I been more mad about the edit, I would have said "that is a worse look." That is how words work, Tanq. How did you mix that up?

I'm not mad that you changed your comment, I think it was the right thing to do. I'm disappointed that you thought it fit to type that slur in the first place. And I'm also a bit disappointed that instead of removing the insult completely, you just changed it to a euphemism for retarded. I pretty much feel the same way about your word choice as I did when an Uber driver recently used "gay" to refer to someone cutting him off.

I'm not really mad about any of this, despite you thinking I am. This is an internet message board, after all.

My senior year in HS, I was talking with a girl in class when the teacher asked, "(OO), what are you and Karen being so gay about". The class erupted in laughter. Apparently the Teacher and I were the only ones who did not know the new meaning of gay.

I kind of miss the old days, when words meant what they were supposed to mean. As a kid, I enjoyed fairy tales. But my grandkids could not, as it is Un-PC to call them that.

So Lad, when you have kids, will you read them fairy tales? Will history talk about Gay Paree and the Gay 90's? Or will language be so restricted that those words will need permission from some Language Suitability Board?

I agree, Tanq should not have called you 'retard" or anything like that. You clearly have a high IQ. (I hope is OK to call you a genius). But sometimes, you get so obstinate in persisting in your wrongheadedness***, I can understand his frustration.

JMHO.

***Wrongheadedness was approved usage by the Language Suitability Board, a subdivision of the PC board. It is neither racial or sexual in nature, and has no religious component. We did not touch.

OO - What is your point? What are you trying to defend here?

Are you seriously suggesting that my Uber driver, who was clearly complaining about the person cutting them off, used the word "gay" in a way that meant happy?

You go on this diatribe about how certain words that have dual meanings are never OK (like fairy tales), which just isn't true. Gay is an OK word to use to describe when someone is happy or is homosexual. It's not really an OK word to use when describing someone's actions that annoy you.

Just trying to inject a little humor into this little slap fight over word usage.

I find it funny that Dems get all upset about word usage, then turn around call whatever conservative they hate at the moment (approved) names like deplorable or Nazi or bitter clinger.

Taje Nazi for example. A perfectly good word, but often misapplied. Kind of like how your cabbie misapplied 'gay". Never heard you get upset about it, though.

Do they send you a list of what words can used, when, and how? The Language Board, I mean?

One of the reasons I oppose the left is that I don't want to live in a restrictive society that monitors my every thought and word. You apparently think that would Utopia. So you are a disciple of Rightthink. Or at least, rightverbalize.

What are the current and past countries that monitor speech? The short list would include Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, North Korea, Cuba, China, and under President Harris, the USA.

Serious question. Did you leave him a tip? Another serious question. did you lecture him on his wrongthinking?

I did leave him a tip and didn't lecture him. I could have been, and probably should have been, a better advocate and at least said something. But given that I was in his car for another 15 minutes and I wanted to get home, I went ahead and let sleeping dogs lie, given the potential direct conflict that could have ensued.

And I find it odd that you call him using the word "gay" like that wrongthinking. Is that now the term for using slurs? One of the main reasons we have made progress on a lot of social issues, is that society has stigmatized certain actions. Do you think we should teach young children that they can use words without consequence and that they shouldn't care about the feelings of others when they speak? That's the kind of picture you're painting by labeling this as "wrongthink."

Well let's take a look at the bouncy house:

You stated that Trump's use of the word 'again' was an equivalence to the toxic foursome.
Here are your *exact* words:

Quote: I also love all the hate thrown at these women for criticizing portions of America, when Trump ran a campaign that explicitly did the same thing. Why do you think Trump said "again" in his slogan?

And for your edification, 'again' is *not* 'explicity' the same thing as stating that the US government operates akin to Nazi concentration camp providers. *only* when you employ a Mr Magoo style look at the world, or a 150,000 bird's eye view are they anywhere near one another. Let alone gd 'explicitly'. I dont think the fing problem is my 'reading comprehension' with that, son.

Yes, they are both 'critical'. Aside from that 140,000 birdseye, telephoto eyeglass Mr Magoo (moronic, perhaps) view of the topic, please do tell how the word 'again' is so equivalent to the direct comparison of the US government to a Nazi organizational trait? *That* is something I really want to gd hear......

Lad I am repeating *your* fing words here. Your two specific points are: both are toxic. Correct, but you *forget* the object of the toxicity.

Then you directly equate the same drooling level idea that the 'explicit messages' (both of them) are simply 'criticisms'. They are. From a simpleton's point of view (is 'simpleton' a bad word for you son?), or from the viewpoint who is so invested with the ideals of the squad that perhaps they choose not to see it, that would be correct.

That is with that statement you are saying that what the squad says re: United States is explicitly equivalent to the message that Trump connoted to the United States. If you think 'again' (i.e. a mild form of 'we can do better') is explicitly the same as, say, the comments about the concentration camps, I will say you are unequivocally clueless in that regard.

Quote:Point 2) It is ironic that people are criticizing these women for criticizing America, because Trump's entire campaign was based on criticizing America. This has nothing to do with his toxicity or vitriol, but rather that his campaign was based on a criticism of America and that it was no longer great.

I suggest you take of the donk glasses there son. No one is saying 'how dare you criticize the US'. What people *are* saying is how dare they champion the essence of something distinctly counter to what the US stands for (the 'socialist utopia' crapola they spew), and how dare they, as an example, equate the US government to Nazis, when *they* dont have the fing courage to denounce the people who promote violence in Washington state, dont have the fing courage to denounce an armed takeover of a US ICE office, dont have the fing courage to denounce Al-Quaeda (they dance from that question much as you hop from bounce house to bounce house, mind you), and find the time to describe 9/11 as 'something happened to some people'.

I dont find that litany of ostensibly toxic viewpoint as anywhere *near* your so-called 'explicit' congruency to 'again' in terms of its level of vitriol, and some can take as outright hatred.

And the real funny thing, is that the view above is seemingly one that is being more widely accepted of them even from those on their own side of the aisle.

Honestly, if some two bit bag of bones wants to concurrently advocate that the US government practices no better than Nazi Germany, then has the fing gall to say that 9/11 was 'somebody did something to someone else', I do find their 'criticism' of the US as toxic. In a major league fing way. And no, I dont find that nearly equivalent to your sophomoric as Trump's criticisms of the United States.

So for a direct question, aside from the grand fing 2nd grade analysis that each view is 'critical', how in exactly the the hell do you equate 'again' as being any different from one of the toxic ******* comments about 'concentration camps'? I really want to know. Their message is absolutely and fundamentally different from Trump's in regard to criticisms. But in lad world, dismiss all those differences because you can pound on your bouncy house chest and keep yelling 'but but but but..... they are all criticisms....'.

Or perhaps you will blame me for my reading comprehension skills when you moronically put your view that 'again' is not just as bad a message as that promulgated by the squad, but it is 'explicitly' the same message.

I mean this is as moronic as saying a penny is the same thing as a 500 dollar bill, since they are all money. That is exactly what your supposed point 2 says there.

Or, as I suspect, I'll just see another lad level bouncy house.

(07-17-2019 12:39 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 12:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 11:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 11:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 11:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Yes, that clearly denotes that I was more mad that you edited the remark to be a euphemism...

You do see where is said it is "not much of a better look," right? Had I been more mad about the edit, I would have said "that is a worse look." That is how words work, Tanq. How did you mix that up?

I'm not mad that you changed your comment, I think it was the right thing to do. I'm disappointed that you thought it fit to type that slur in the first place. And I'm also a bit disappointed that instead of removing the insult completely, you just changed it to a euphemism for retarded. I pretty much feel the same way about your word choice as I did when an Uber driver recently used "gay" to refer to someone cutting him off.

I'm not really mad about any of this, despite you thinking I am. This is an internet message board, after all.

My senior year in HS, I was talking with a girl in class when the teacher asked, "(OO), what are you and Karen being so gay about". The class erupted in laughter. Apparently the Teacher and I were the only ones who did not know the new meaning of gay.

I kind of miss the old days, when words meant what they were supposed to mean. As a kid, I enjoyed fairy tales. But my grandkids could not, as it is Un-PC to call them that.

So Lad, when you have kids, will you read them fairy tales? Will history talk about Gay Paree and the Gay 90's? Or will language be so restricted that those words will need permission from some Language Suitability Board?

I agree, Tanq should not have called you 'retard" or anything like that. You clearly have a high IQ. (I hope is OK to call you a genius). But sometimes, you get so obstinate in persisting in your wrongheadedness***, I can understand his frustration.

JMHO.

***Wrongheadedness was approved usage by the Language Suitability Board, a subdivision of the PC board. It is neither racial or sexual in nature, and has no religious component. We did not touch.

OO - What is your point? What are you trying to defend here?

Are you seriously suggesting that my Uber driver, who was clearly complaining about the person cutting them off, used the word "gay" in a way that meant happy?

You go on this diatribe about how certain words that have dual meanings are never OK (like fairy tales), which just isn't true. Gay is an OK word to use to describe when someone is happy or is homosexual. It's not really an OK word to use when describing someone's actions that annoy you.

Just trying to inject a little humor into this little slap fight over word usage.

I find it funny that Dems get all upset about word usage, then turn around call whatever conservative they hate at the moment (approved) names like deplorable or Nazi or bitter clinger.

Taje Nazi for example. A perfectly good word, but often misapplied. Kind of like how your cabbie misapplied 'gay". Never heard you get upset about it, though.

Do they send you a list of what words can used, when, and how? The Language Board, I mean?

One of the reasons I oppose the left is that I don't want to live in a restrictive society that monitors my every thought and word. You apparently think that would Utopia. So you are a disciple of Rightthink. Or at least, rightverbalize.

What are the current and past countries that monitor speech? The short list would include Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, North Korea, Cuba, China, and under President Harris, the USA.

Serious question. Did you leave him a tip? Another serious question. did you lecture him on his wrongthinking?

I think you may be acting deliberately clueless here, OO.

It's frustrating to see smart people throw their hands up in the air and act like figuring out which words are OK and which are not is completely befuddling.

I will grant you that there are extremists when it comes to PC-policing that can create confusion (It's not OK to call a black person "black"?).

But come on. There is some low-hanging fruit here which doesn't fall of the category of confusing. It isn't difficult to figure out that the use of the term "gay" in a pejorative sense is offensive. "Retard" and "short bus" as well.

Any word in a pejorative sense is offensive. Every word in a pejorative sense is offensive. Some words are always pejorative - racist, Nazi - the ones used against people like me by your friends.

But your friends go batshit crazy over "short bus"?

Strange how certain words get the left riled up, and certain words get the right riled up.

I have heard comments ti me and about me from leftists using short bus, and retard, and variations on that theme. All it means is you are not listening to me, you are missing my point, how can I make you understand? That's what Obama was getting at with his "clinging to their religion" comment. Stupid Christians. Why don't they open up their closed minds and listen to what I I say, not some guy dead 2000 years. I didn't take them personally, nor did I take them personally on somebody else's behalf. I am just stupefied that the left can dish it out but cannot take it.

Really, the word that gets me riled up the most is "hypocrisy". Because that's what I see from the left. I was kidding before, but I am riled up. Yall are good with deplorables, bitter clingers, racist, haters, and Nazis, but "short bus' is over the line? I guess snow flakes really are thin skinned.

I don't want to make this personal, since I like both you and Lad. Most democrats are not as open minded about things, except in certain pre-approved avenues. Go their way and you get pats on the head. Get off the approved trails and then the minds become the brick walls of a maze. Yall all sound like clones of each other.

(07-17-2019 02:19 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 12:39 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 12:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 11:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 11:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  My senior year in HS, I was talking with a girl in class when the teacher asked, "(OO), what are you and Karen being so gay about". The class erupted in laughter. Apparently the Teacher and I were the only ones who did not know the new meaning of gay.

I kind of miss the old days, when words meant what they were supposed to mean. As a kid, I enjoyed fairy tales. But my grandkids could not, as it is Un-PC to call them that.

So Lad, when you have kids, will you read them fairy tales? Will history talk about Gay Paree and the Gay 90's? Or will language be so restricted that those words will need permission from some Language Suitability Board?

I agree, Tanq should not have called you 'retard" or anything like that. You clearly have a high IQ. (I hope is OK to call you a genius). But sometimes, you get so obstinate in persisting in your wrongheadedness***, I can understand his frustration.

JMHO.

***Wrongheadedness was approved usage by the Language Suitability Board, a subdivision of the PC board. It is neither racial or sexual in nature, and has no religious component. We did not touch.

OO - What is your point? What are you trying to defend here?

Are you seriously suggesting that my Uber driver, who was clearly complaining about the person cutting them off, used the word "gay" in a way that meant happy?

You go on this diatribe about how certain words that have dual meanings are never OK (like fairy tales), which just isn't true. Gay is an OK word to use to describe when someone is happy or is homosexual. It's not really an OK word to use when describing someone's actions that annoy you.

Just trying to inject a little humor into this little slap fight over word usage.

I find it funny that Dems get all upset about word usage, then turn around call whatever conservative they hate at the moment (approved) names like deplorable or Nazi or bitter clinger.

Taje Nazi for example. A perfectly good word, but often misapplied. Kind of like how your cabbie misapplied 'gay". Never heard you get upset about it, though.

Do they send you a list of what words can used, when, and how? The Language Board, I mean?

One of the reasons I oppose the left is that I don't want to live in a restrictive society that monitors my every thought and word. You apparently think that would Utopia. So you are a disciple of Rightthink. Or at least, rightverbalize.

What are the current and past countries that monitor speech? The short list would include Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, North Korea, Cuba, China, and under President Harris, the USA.

Serious question. Did you leave him a tip? Another serious question. did you lecture him on his wrongthinking?

I think you may be acting deliberately clueless here, OO.

It's frustrating to see smart people throw their hands up in the air and act like figuring out which words are OK and which are not is completely befuddling.

I will grant you that there are extremists when it comes to PC-policing that can create confusion (It's not OK to call a black person "black"?).

But come on. There is some low-hanging fruit here which doesn't fall of the category of confusing. It isn't difficult to figure out that the use of the term "gay" in a pejorative sense is offensive. "Retard" and "short bus" as well.

Any word in a pejorative sense is offensive. Every word in a pejorative sense is offensive. Some words are always pejorative - racist, Nazi - the ones used against people like me by your friends.

But your friends go batshit crazy over "short bus"?

Strange how certain words get the left riled up, and certain words get the right riled up.

I have heard comments ti me and about me from leftists using short bus, and retard, and variations on that theme. All it means is you are not listening to me, you are missing my point, how can I make you understand? That's what Obama was getting at with his "clinging to their religion" comment. Stupid Christians. Why don't they open up their closed minds and listen to what I I say, not some guy dead 2000 years. I didn't take them personally, nor did I take them personally on somebody else's behalf. I am just stupefied that the left can dish it out but cannot take it.

Really, the word that gets me riled up the most is "hypocrisy". Because that's what I see from the left. I was kidding before, but I am riled up. Yall are good with deplorables, bitter clingers, racist, haters, and Nazis, but "short bus' is over the line? I guess snow flakes really are thin skinned.

I don't want to make this personal, since I like both you and Lad. Most democrats are not as open minded about things, except in certain pre-approved avenues. Go their way and you get pats on the head. Get off the approved trails and then the minds become the brick walls of a maze. Yall all sound like clones of each other.

Yes. "Short bus" is over the line. The origin of the term was making fun of kids with disabilities. It's really not that confusing. There is no reason to make this political.

Catching up on some TV this afternoon.

Two black characters talking.

One says something, the other says "What kind of white people **** is that?"

What do you PC policemen think?

(07-17-2019 02:48 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Catching up on some TV this afternoon.

Two black characters talking.

One says something, the other says "What kind of white people **** is that?"

What do you PC policemen think?

I reject the assertion that i am a "PC policeman" because I think that the casual insult towards kids with disabilities is wrong.

(07-17-2019 12:39 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 12:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 11:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 11:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 11:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Yes, that clearly denotes that I was more mad that you edited the remark to be a euphemism...

You do see where is said it is "not much of a better look," right? Had I been more mad about the edit, I would have said "that is a worse look." That is how words work, Tanq. How did you mix that up?

I'm not mad that you changed your comment, I think it was the right thing to do. I'm disappointed that you thought it fit to type that slur in the first place. And I'm also a bit disappointed that instead of removing the insult completely, you just changed it to a euphemism for retarded. I pretty much feel the same way about your word choice as I did when an Uber driver recently used "gay" to refer to someone cutting him off.

I'm not really mad about any of this, despite you thinking I am. This is an internet message board, after all.

My senior year in HS, I was talking with a girl in class when the teacher asked, "(OO), what are you and Karen being so gay about". The class erupted in laughter. Apparently the Teacher and I were the only ones who did not know the new meaning of gay.

I kind of miss the old days, when words meant what they were supposed to mean. As a kid, I enjoyed fairy tales. But my grandkids could not, as it is Un-PC to call them that.

So Lad, when you have kids, will you read them fairy tales? Will history talk about Gay Paree and the Gay 90's? Or will language be so restricted that those words will need permission from some Language Suitability Board?

I agree, Tanq should not have called you 'retard" or anything like that. You clearly have a high IQ. (I hope is OK to call you a genius). But sometimes, you get so obstinate in persisting in your wrongheadedness***, I can understand his frustration.

JMHO.

***Wrongheadedness was approved usage by the Language Suitability Board, a subdivision of the PC board. It is neither racial or sexual in nature, and has no religious component. We did not touch.

OO - What is your point? What are you trying to defend here?

Are you seriously suggesting that my Uber driver, who was clearly complaining about the person cutting them off, used the word "gay" in a way that meant happy?

You go on this diatribe about how certain words that have dual meanings are never OK (like fairy tales), which just isn't true. Gay is an OK word to use to describe when someone is happy or is homosexual. It's not really an OK word to use when describing someone's actions that annoy you.

Just trying to inject a little humor into this little slap fight over word usage.

I find it funny that Dems get all upset about word usage, then turn around call whatever conservative they hate at the moment (approved) names like deplorable or Nazi or bitter clinger.

Taje Nazi for example. A perfectly good word, but often misapplied. Kind of like how your cabbie misapplied 'gay". Never heard you get upset about it, though.

Do they send you a list of what words can used, when, and how? The Language Board, I mean?

One of the reasons I oppose the left is that I don't want to live in a restrictive society that monitors my every thought and word. You apparently think that would Utopia. So you are a disciple of Rightthink. Or at least, rightverbalize.

What are the current and past countries that monitor speech? The short list would include Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, North Korea, Cuba, China, and under President Harris, the USA.

Serious question. Did you leave him a tip? Another serious question. did you lecture him on his wrongthinking?

I think you may be acting deliberately clueless here, OO.

It's frustrating to see smart people throw their hands up in the air and act like figuring out which words are OK and which are not is completely befuddling.

I will grant you that there are extremists when it comes to PC-policing that can create confusion (It's not OK to call a black person "black"?).

But come on. There is some low-hanging fruit here which doesn't fall of the category of confusing. It isn't difficult to figure out that the use of the term "gay" in a pejorative sense is offensive. "Retard" and "short bus" as well.

But when you bounce around the issue and say that Trumps followers will lap up the comments, you meant nothing perjorative. Or smug. Or condescending. Got it.

Feel free to piss on my leg. Dont try and tell me its raining. And dont lecture about the impropriety of pissing on legs just a short time afterwards, my friend.

And least you aren't trying the pendantic bouncy house proffered from another the other day that went 'Well I said base, and distinctly did not include followers, and distinctly did not include supporters'. All the difference in light of the smug and condescending statement subject. All the difference.

--- kind of the same verbal bouncy house that went over so well with Hillary's "deplorables" comments. (well she only meant *half* of them).

This is like you all dont even listen to yourselves.

The best thing I've ever read on the subject is an essay by Bill James (basically the father of baseball sabermetrics) about Marge Schott. For context, James is politically a self-proclaimed and unabashed far left liberal. He basically defended Schott, who made more than a few very public non-PC statements in her time. His point was that rather than taking offense at everything, we should focus more on trying not to be offensive ourselves.

I'm sorry if "The Squad" was offended by Trump's remarks, but I have to be honest and say that I have been offended by almost everything that has come from any of those four mouths. I have to say as well that I find Trump's comments to be more an attack on the intellectual vapidity of their ideas than an attack on their race or ethnicity.

I don't dislike AOC because she is hispanic, nor Pressly because she is African-American, nor Omar or Tlaib because they are Muslim. But I dislike them all intensely because they are seeking to impose ideas on me with which I have absolutely zero agreement. I consider the to be despicable human beings who would gladly do great harm to the US in order to advance their horse**** agenda..

So my question for the PC police is simple--How do I express my total dislike of them and everything they stand for without being called "racist" in response?

(07-17-2019 03:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 12:39 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 12:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 11:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 11:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  My senior year in HS, I was talking with a girl in class when the teacher asked, "(OO), what are you and Karen being so gay about". The class erupted in laughter. Apparently the Teacher and I were the only ones who did not know the new meaning of gay.

I kind of miss the old days, when words meant what they were supposed to mean. As a kid, I enjoyed fairy tales. But my grandkids could not, as it is Un-PC to call them that.

So Lad, when you have kids, will you read them fairy tales? Will history talk about Gay Paree and the Gay 90's? Or will language be so restricted that those words will need permission from some Language Suitability Board?

I agree, Tanq should not have called you 'retard" or anything like that. You clearly have a high IQ. (I hope is OK to call you a genius). But sometimes, you get so obstinate in persisting in your wrongheadedness***, I can understand his frustration.

JMHO.

***Wrongheadedness was approved usage by the Language Suitability Board, a subdivision of the PC board. It is neither racial or sexual in nature, and has no religious component. We did not touch.

OO - What is your point? What are you trying to defend here?

Are you seriously suggesting that my Uber driver, who was clearly complaining about the person cutting them off, used the word "gay" in a way that meant happy?

You go on this diatribe about how certain words that have dual meanings are never OK (like fairy tales), which just isn't true. Gay is an OK word to use to describe when someone is happy or is homosexual. It's not really an OK word to use when describing someone's actions that annoy you.

Just trying to inject a little humor into this little slap fight over word usage.

I find it funny that Dems get all upset about word usage, then turn around call whatever conservative they hate at the moment (approved) names like deplorable or Nazi or bitter clinger.

Taje Nazi for example. A perfectly good word, but often misapplied. Kind of like how your cabbie misapplied 'gay". Never heard you get upset about it, though.

Do they send you a list of what words can used, when, and how? The Language Board, I mean?

One of the reasons I oppose the left is that I don't want to live in a restrictive society that monitors my every thought and word. You apparently think that would Utopia. So you are a disciple of Rightthink. Or at least, rightverbalize.

What are the current and past countries that monitor speech? The short list would include Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, North Korea, Cuba, China, and under President Harris, the USA.

Serious question. Did you leave him a tip? Another serious question. did you lecture him on his wrongthinking?

I think you may be acting deliberately clueless here, OO.

It's frustrating to see smart people throw their hands up in the air and act like figuring out which words are OK and which are not is completely befuddling.

I will grant you that there are extremists when it comes to PC-policing that can create confusion (It's not OK to call a black person "black"?).

But come on. There is some low-hanging fruit here which doesn't fall of the category of confusing. It isn't difficult to figure out that the use of the term "gay" in a pejorative sense is offensive. "Retard" and "short bus" as well.

But when you bounce around the issue and say that Trumps followers will lap up the comments, you meant nothing perjorative. Or smug. Or condescending. Got it.

Feel free to piss on my leg. Dont try and tell me its raining. And dont lecture about the impropriety of pissing on legs just a short time afterwards, my friend.

And least you aren't trying the pendantic bouncy house proffered from another the other day that went 'Well I said base, and distinctly did not include followers, and distinctly did not include supporters'. All the difference in light of the smug and condescending statement subject. All the difference.

--- kind of the same verbal bouncy house that went over so well with Hillary's "deplorables" comments. (well she only meant *half* of them).

This is like you all dont even listen to yourselves.

So what you are essentially saying is:

"Not sure if this will affect him negatively from a political standpoint. It seems that this type of language is appreciated by his base." is just as offensive as "You are a retard".

Got it. Sorry if I vehemently disagree.