The Glade 4.0

Liberty, as Khross once said, is not License. Vindi and DE had every opportunity to *not* imply or say what they said. They chose instead to make a rude comment about what amounts to a wide swath of people in the country, and I chose to stand up to them.

or your attitude and victim complex that leads you to these boards looking to pick a fight and declare yourself persecuted.

It sounds to me like you guys have decided Liberal is something to be ashamed of. Good to understand the standards here as they pertain to respect for other political ideologies. I shall resume using teabagger and rethuglicans.

No, people have implied that liberalism is somehow something to be ashamed of, and that Progressive is a term used as a fig leaf.

It's no less respectful an idea than calling conservatives something unsavory like Tea Bagger.

Show respect, get respect. I've been very thoughtful about abandoning those kinds of things lately in the hopes that people would show more respect for liberalism in general. Clearly, people here still feel Liberalism is something to be ashamed of.

The reality is that Progressive refers to a specific political ideology that can trace it's roots to Wisconsin. Modern American liberalism is often lumped in with Progressiveness (ism?), but there are some differences.

Ignorance still leads to hate, it would seem.

But the second you (and by that I mean, the general you, and not anyone in specific)start saying that liberalism is inherently tainted, or somehow shameful, then **** you. And the horse you came in on. Because if you can't show basic levels of respect, then I will go out of my way to be disrespectful.

No, Vindi did it. He very clearly sees Progressive as a fig leaf term to hide that shameful Liberalism. And so did DE. They talked around the issue, a little bit like how someone might say "You know honey, people like that (read: Black) ain't too good for your reputation". They don't come out and say it, but that's what they mean.

I'm confronting their hateful ignorance directly.

It was disrespectful of them to do. I called them on it. The ones who need to grow up are them, not me.

I am not threatening to **** up anything because two people offended me. I am telling people that I will respond in kind.

Look, there's just not any way that I can put this more tactfully than I am:

Offending you is about as difficult as falling off a log. I think it would be a very, very bad thing if this board were beholden to what does or doesn't offend King Monte. Nothing that DE or Vindi said was a personal attack on anyone. They weren't rude or crass. While their comments could very well be disagreeable, grating, or even annoying to progressives, they only attacked the idea of progressivism. If this offends you, then there's really only one thing that can be said:

Tough.

You are perfectly free to say that you think Libertarianism sucks. Or that you think Conservativism sucks. These are ideas and they are allowed to be critiqued here, whether or not someone finds the critique offensive. You fail to separate public standards of "offensive language" from "Montegue is personally offended".

This would be a more compelling argument if anybody else who read these statements walked away with the same implication in their reading of the text. I'm not obligated to bend over backwards in order to say things in such a way that you infer things that I don't intend to imply, nor should I apologize for your belief that I implied something I didn't.

If this were a one-time incident, then I might also give more of a benefit of the doubt, and concede that perhaps the implication was reasonable to make. But you've got a long history on these boards, Montegue, of reading all kinds of **** and motives in the simplest, plainest language, and attributing stuff to people out of left field, when nobody else has any clue what you're talking about or what possesses you to get X out of Y. So, in my judgement, the problem is you -- either your comprehension, or your attitude and victim complex that leads you to these boards looking to pick a fight and declare yourself persecuted.

Well, I started out by saying this thread is nonsense. Now, I'm leaning toward the opinion that progressives are touchy and have victim complexes.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/60496


President Obama’s friends call him the smartest man ever to occupy the White House (a dubious claim in light of the fact that John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Quincy Adams, Abraham Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson all had better intellectual credentials or were far superior writers, or both).

According to his supporters, his command of the English language is supposedly unparalleled (when using a teleprompter, presumably).

There’s only one problem: Obama is addicted to utilizing language that he has carefully tailored or perverted to obfuscate the truth. In other words, he uses double talk on a routine basis.

In order to understand what Obama truly tells us when he speaks to us, it is necessary to grab our Little Orphan Annie Decoder Ring and decipher precisely what he means when he uses his pet phrases. This, then, is a list of his favorite linguistic flourishes—and just what he means when he uses them:

“Hope and change”: Socialism at home, surrender abroad. Obama uses this talismanic formula when he wants to activate his base, which responds to it like a jukebox when you drop in a nickel.

“False choice”: A very real choice Obama wants to pretend doesn’t exist. He uses this when he puts on his “pragmatic administrator” mask. Instead of facing up to the reality that we sometimes have to choose between scientific advances and morality, or between civil liberties and national security, or between environmental regulations and economic development, Obama pretends he can solve these conflicts through some sort of Hegelian synthesis only he is wise enough to comprehend.

“Deficit reduction”: Deficit increases. Obama suggests that he will cut the rate at which the deficit is growing—something he has never actually achieved—and acts as though this is actual deficit reduction. It’s the equivalent of a woman spending $2,000 on her credit card, then informing her credit card company that though she won’t pay off her debt, she’ll only spend $1,500 next month.

“Let me be clear”: Let me lie to you.

“Make no mistake”: See “let me be clear.”

“Unprecedented”: When he’s doing something beneficial for the American people, Obama claims he is the first to ever think of it; when he’s doing something harmful, he seems to always find a precedent for it in FDR or LBJ.

“This isn’t about me”: This is completely about me.

“Hitting the reset button”: Refusing to learn from the mistakes of the past and acting as though a fresh start requires utter naivete.

“Reaching out to the other side of the aisle”: Totally rejecting all ideas from anyone outside the Obama-approved bubble. Then suggesting that subsequent political impasses are their fault, and that they ought to bend down and grab their ankles to establish a new tone in Washington.

“Failed policies of the past”: Don’t blame me! Blame Bush!

“Teachable moment”: I screwed something up, now I’ll brag about it.

“Tax cut”: Redistribution of money from those who pay a disproportionate amount of taxes to those who pay none.

“Transparency”: Deliberate opaqueness, hiding crucial facts from the American public.

“Accountability”: Don’t worry, I’ll fire someone.

“Stimulus”: Payoffs to friends.

“Shovel-ready jobs”: Jobs that no one wants and that last for two months.

“Green jobs”: Imaginary jobs.

“Saved or created”: Old Obama language used to futz the numbers on jobs.

“Recovery”: Continued economic stagnation.

“Jobs funded”: Jobs Obama will take credit for, even though he has done nothing to either save or create.

“It won’t happen overnight”: It will never happen.

“Progress”: Redistribution.

“Cynics”: Anyone who doesn’t believe in the Obama radical agenda. Obama uses this word to disparage his critics as angry and lacking in basic qualities of human kindness.

Watch for these phrases while marveling at Obama’s supposed rhetorical brilliance. They shouldn’t be taken at face value, because Obama isn’t a master of pure artistry of the English language—he’s a master at manipulation above all.

---

Heh

No you're not. You're not under any obligation to agree with what the elected leader, or do what he proposes; saying "his ideas suck and I don't support them" certainly doesn't make it your fault.

Hence the problems here. His ideas are "progressive" and that's the problem. "Progressive" is just a term to make a certain political bent sound better than it is. Most "progressive" ideas suck.

Nothing to see there? really? Cool.

So, when I say "Christianity is just a term to make certain values ideas sound better. Most Christian ideas suck", it's a-ok. Good to know.

Nothing to see there? really? Cool.

So, when I say "Christianity is just a term to make certain values ideas sound better. Most Christian ideas suck", it's a-ok. Good to know.

Tick tick tick

Hey, I've said worse than that about both specific churches and religion in general. I generally view "Christian" as a derogatory term.

Really?

How about - "Offending you is about as difficult as falling off a log"

You might agree with his sentiment, but that's still an attack.

or -

"to what does or doesn't offend King Monte." is just outright name calling.