Kellyanne Conway a woman that girls can look up to

[ArcadiaGP]

"Conservatives" aren't one thing. It encompasses a set of individuals who share some common principles which are conservative in nature, but also have diverse beliefs not in common.

If you want I can treat whatever group you want to identify with as a whole part. But that would be stereotyping.

Offering a prediction here... we're going to see Classical Liberalism make a comeback in the next four years. The egalitarianism and utilitarianism is a natural resistance to the actual fascism going on from the hard-left.

As long as it isn't co-opted by the current hard-left, I'd be happy to encourage classical liberalism's rise. It may even replace current conservatism, leaving today's "Republicans" to become the hard-right.

 

[Kutnupe14]

"Conservatives" aren't one thing. It encompasses a set of individuals who share some common principles which are conservative in nature, but also have diverse beliefs not in common.

If you want I can treat whatever group you want to identify with as a whole part. But that would be stereotyping.

Whoa, whoa, who there bro. I'm not the one assigning labels. You need to keep up with the thread. My response post was in line with this:

i am fed up with the candy asses on the right being afraid to punch liberals in the face, so to speak. They threw Trent Lott overboard for a comment about a guy's 100th birthday party. and Newt Gingrich being tossed aside. Puh-Thetic. Stand up for yourself

"The Right" being synonymous with "conservatives," with their opponents being "liberals." I think we can all agree on that, right? I'm only speaking in the language Doc was speaking, so if you have a beef with whatever stereotypes you see within this thread, how about you target the first offender rather than Kut, because I'm the easiest mark for you to avoid grief from other members?

 

[ATM]

...because I'm the easiest mark for you to avoid grief from other members?

Whoa, whoa, who there bro.

Was there some contest or poll I was not made aware of? How does one enter the running for this prestigious title and what is involved in earning it?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Whoa, whoa, who there bro.

Was there some contest or poll I was not made aware of? How does one enter the running for this prestigious title and what is involved in earning it?

Lol, takes lots of work ATM.... you're in the running, but I remain TOP dog. ha ha

 

[ATM]

You make it look so effortless!

 

[printcraft]

I remain unconvinced.

 

[KG1]

Don't interrupt.

 

[jamil]

Whoa, whoa, who there bro. I'm not the one assigning labels. You need to keep up with the thread. My response post was in line with this:


"The Right" being synonymous with "conservatives," with their opponents being "liberals." I think we can all agree on that, right? I'm only speaking in the language Doc was speaking, so if you have a beef with whatever stereotypes you see within this thread, how about you target the first offender rather than Kut, because I'm the easiest mark for you to avoid grief from other members?

Oh. Don't take it personally. I replied to words that caught my attention. Not a person. You're not a mark. No one was targeted. I'm not attacking you. That's a complete misread.

 

[jamil]

Whoa, whoa, who there bro.

Was there some contest or poll I was not made aware of? How does one enter the running for this prestigious title and what is involved in earning it?

Lol, takes lots of work ATM.... you're in the running, but I remain TOP dog. ha ha

If people tend to disagree with you, perhaps it's more because you say things most people here disagree with. Maybe it's NOT personal. At least it isn't with me.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Oh. Don't take it personally. I replied to words that caught my attention. Not a person. You're not a mark. No one was targeted. I'm not attacking you. That's a complete misread.

Do you have Doc on ignore or something? Because if my words caught your attention, I gotta ask why Doc's words didn't? His post did appear before mine, after all. As I stated, I was addressing Doc, in kind, based on what he posted. Next thing I know, you're quoting my post with an admonishment about stereotyping. It's completely fair to point out what you "missed," and where you started to respond. Kinda reminds me of the grief I got for using "retard."

 

[BugI02]

Clearly everyone else is the problem. Seriously, there's not a chance in hell it's you.

 

[jamil]

Do you have Doc on ignore or something? Because if my words caught your attention, I gotta ask why Doc's words didn't? His post did appear before mine, after all. As I stated, I was addressing Doc, in kind, based on what he posted. Next thing I know, you're quoting my post with an admonishment about stereotyping. It's completely fair to point out what you "missed," and where you started to respond. Kinda reminds me of the grief I got for using "retard."

WHOA.

I just wanted to say that once.

Seeing you and ATM say it, I thought it would feel more face-boomy. I'm disappointed.

Seriously, c'mon man. You keep wanting to make this about people. So let's look at words.

i am fed up with the candy asses on the right being afraid to punch liberals in the face, so to speak. They threw Trent Lott overboard for a comment about a guy's 100th birthday party. and Newt Gingrich being tossed aside. Puh-Thetic. Stand up for yourself

I have to admit that I do tend to skim. I don't read every word of everyone's posts. But, I did read what you quoted from Doc's post when I read your response to it.

Why would I read stereotyping into that? Doc obviously believes that Republicans should have stood up for Trent Lott, because his statement wasn't as outrageous as the left made of it. That's what I took those words to mean. You can both carry on a side argument about how outrageous was the statement, but to the meaning, there's nothing stereotypical about it. For you now to say you were calling out HIS stereotyping, does not seem justified to me.

Now we're defending Strom Thurmond and his views? lol. Is that what the right is, Strom Thurmond supporters? Good luck with that argument. Thurmond, a hypocrite, a racist, and generally, a person who (if he didn't repent) is probably having dinner with the devil.

To me, this is the post that demonstrates the stereotyping. I did not get from doc's post that he was stereotyping anything. You did. That's why I replied to your post. I don't think I missed anything. I think you inferred things not implied.

 

[ATM]

WHOA.

I just wanted to say that once.

Seeing you and ATM say it, I thought it would feel more face-boomy. I'm disappointed...

Face-boomy is a character of delivery.

Practice in front of a mirror for an hour each day until you finally put yourself on ignore.

 

[Kutnupe14]

To me, this is the post that demonstrates the stereotyping. I did not get from doc's post that he was stereotyping anything. You did. That's why I replied to your post. I don't think I missed anything. I think you inferred things not implied.

Holy intellectual dishonesty Batman! To just about anyone reading that post, it was made painfully obvious that I was attempting to separate the idea that "the right" is synonymous with "Strom Thurmond supporters." ....Hence the "good luck with that argument" follow-up. You're calling that stereotyping? C'mon Jamil.

 

[jamil]

Holy intellectual dishonesty Batman! To just about anyone reading that post, it was made painfully obvious that I was attempting to separate the idea that "the right" is synonymous with "Strom Thurmond supporters." ....Hence the "good luck with that argument" follow-up. You're calling that stereotyping? C'mon Jamil.

Intellectual dishonesty? Really? It's just how I read it. I'll have to take your word for what you meant by it.

 

[KG1]

Intellectual dishonesty? Really? It's just how I read it. I'll have to take your word for what you meant by it.

I see what you did there.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I see what you did there.

You sure?

 

[jamil]

I see what you did there.

I just played it straight up.

 

[KG1]

On Ingo you're not supposed to take anyone's word on what they meant by it. You're supposed to argue that they really meant something else.

 

[Kutnupe14]

On Ingo you're not supposed to take anyone's word on what they meant by it. You're supposed to argue that they really meant something else.

What you say about my mama?