something good about Romney.
How about he supports radio amateurs?
NEVER MIND.
Mr. Romney "Disses" Amateur Radio In Televised Town Meeting
"Mitt Romney...alienating America one group at a time."
AlaskaErik
Posted on 08/07/2009 7:10:59 AM PDT by Seth_Stuck
Someone sent this video to me as a means to saying Romney isn't a "real conservative." I'm curious to see if any of you agree with this analysis, and why. Please post your thoughts directly on the blog in response to this post.
I will add my comments in a later post...
(Excerpt) Read more at conservativebrawler.blogspot.com ...
*Horrified screams*
Spelling chicken pecked my post and said it is okay.
The spelling chicken loves me.
;-)
Ouch...
I can just imagine what it took to do Java Script...
It involved real java.
Though it ws hard to come by.
“FR Czar”
LOL
Seth man why are you taking this personally? Most here don’t like Romney for obvious reasons. Sometimes folks get a little animated. Roll with the blows man not everyone will like what you post. I post what I am interested in and sometimes peeps don’t like it. I don’t really care. A part of being an adult is accepting that sometimes people will not agree or be pleasant with you. There are those who will have conversations with you. Some will not. That is life.
Yeah, you were treated shabbily, Seth.
I for one will miss your posts.
I’ll still log on to find the conservative Diggs, thanks for all you do in that area.
Good luck with your blog.
Ed
It was nice of you to provide links, thank you. Unfortunately for you, that means people will actually be able to read what I wrote, and not your highly redacted and misleading snippets.
However, I am not sure I understand your issues here with what I have said.
First of all, you certainly aren’t trying to say that you like Romney. So I don’t know why you seem to object to me correctly noting that you have a hatred of all that Romney stands for. Maybe you think I have over-generalized, and that you do like some things about Romney — but I highly doubt it.
SO tell me, in what way do I “attack” you by mentioning “your hatred of all things Romney”?
Further, in what way to I “attack” freepers in general, when I note that some of them also hate what Romney stands for? Many of these freepers have said so themselves, and some have said they hate the man personally. I believe it is a stated position of this web site as well.
If you say you hate something, and then I say you hate that thing, I can hardly be accused of being “anti-freeper”. I certainly think that you are wrong in your hatred, but that doesn’t mean I’m “anti-freeper”, just that I disagree with you. After all, I am also a freeper, and you disagree with me, but that doesn’t make you “anti-freeper”.
As to the 2nd link, again I urge people to read what is at the link, and thank you for providing it. In that thread, I stated “I’ve decided not to bother anymore. These are the people who gave us John McCain as our nominee, although they didn’t support him at all either, and gave us Obama, because they never could come up with a candidate they all could support. They believe that just attacking others will somehow win elections next time around.”
I stand behind those words, and believe that they are accurate. And I have made no secret of my disdain for the tactic of attacking also-rans instead of focusing on the real issues that confront us. Many of us have, as I have said again in this thread, simply chosen to ignore the blind haters and bashers when they engage in such tactics, finding them counterproductive, but arguing with them also counterproductive.
If Romney was actually pushing a plan, and I supported that plan, and some people here were attacking the plan simply because Romney was for it, that would be a productive argument. But I find no value in participating in the rehashing of old arguments that have no current meaning.
On my third link, in the context of the link which you have provided, I stand by that statement, although there were many things that “gave us McCain”. One factor clearly was that conservatives couldn’t find that one single candidate that we would all support. Hunter? 1%. Keyes? 1% maybe. Thompson? Had the world on his side, and lost it. Romney? strong supporters, but equally strong detractors. Huckabee? certainly not appreciated here.
While conservatives split their vote (and for the record, by the time I was able to vote, McCain was already our nominee), McCain won by plurality. In 2012, it is imperative that we find a candidate we can all support, and not split our vote.
My 4th link is an excellent post by me about the problem conservatives are having, and again I thank you for providing the link. Your quote is but a small part of what I said. ANd I believe your posts here at FR are a perfect example and proof of what I am talking about in that thread, where some conservatives, rather than debate philosophy or discuss issues, use personal attacks as a first resort, I believe because they are lazy, or simply don’t know how to articulate a conservative position in a way they think will win a debate.
As a former debater, I learned long ago that such tactics are useless and counterproductive, but a surprising number of people resort to name-calling anyway.
As to my 5th quote, I can’t believe ANY conservative would argue that we should allow the liberals to PASS THEIR LEGISLATION simply so our country is destroyed and we might win elections in the future. I certainly would much rather stop the democrats in their tracks. And the tea-party protestors are certainly NOT fighting to get democrats to pass legislation, and the anti-Obama health care protestors are not trying to help Obama pass his health care legislation.
So I ask you — are you actually trying to help Obama pass his legislation, in order to win the next election? I said “I can’t hope for bad policies to continue so that the economy crashes more just so we get Obama out of office.” — are you fighting for bad policies to continue? If so, shame on you.
The 6th quote is somewhat the same, although I do understand why some people want the economy to crash to discredit Obama. And in fact, despite my statements to the contrary, I did find myself conflicted at recent economic news, part of me happy that our country will not end up being owned by the Chinese, but another part of me thinking if things were worse it would be better for the next election.
But my rational side stands by my statement — I do not want the end of our way of life; I do not want the economy to crash; I do not want bad things to happen to my country; EVEN THOUGH if things get better, Obama will no doubt take credit for it. I certainly don’t want Obama to get credit for things he had nothing to do with, but I don’t wish ill on my fellow Americans simply to put Obama down.
That’s right, it was you who attacked freepers for having a 24 live thread. Interesting that you would bring that back up, and repeat it, in a post where you are complaining about “attacking freepers”. Fortinately for those of us who enjoyed watching “24”, the owners of this forum do not share your disdain for the show, or for those who would want to watch it — or at least, are more tolerant of freepers who want to discuss the show than you are.
Oddly, I have said nothing good about Romney on this thread.
But I don’t think facts would ever stand in the way of one of your rants.
A majority of the republican primary electorate voted for people they considered conservatives. If they had all voted for the SAME conservative, that conservative, and not McCain, would have been our nominee.
When we reached the point where there were only 3 viable candidates left, McCain still could have been stopped, if all the conservatives had either backed Huckabee or Romney. Huckabee was NEVER going to get a majority of conservatives, much less the vast majority of conservatives, to vote for him.
Niether was Romney.
But it is clear that, had the Huckabee haters decided to vote for Huckabee, or the Romney haters had decided to vote for Romney, McCain would not have been our nominee.
Frankly, I think those who dislike Romney were by and large happy that our nominee was McCain INSTEAD of Romney — so I don’t understand why you, as one of those who dislike Romney with a passion, would object to being given credit for McCain rather than Romney being our nominee.
I still believe we had a better chance of winning the election last year with Romney than McCain. We obviously lost with McCain, and McCain lost on economic issues.
And I am also convinced that Romney wouldn’t have taken over the car industry, wouldn’t have supported porkulus, and would NEVER have appointed Sotomayer to the Supreme Court.
I have no idea if Romney would have turned out as bad as the Romney haters said he would — I don’t think he would have, but I can’t prove otherwise. And I do agree that, because Obama is President, and not a Republican, conservatives have a better shot at winning elections in 2010.
NEVER MIND.
Mr. Romney "Disses" Amateur Radio In Televised Town Meeting
Time would be better spent taking a nap. Most of what you say is pure pabulum.
Pabulum:Probably you were looking for "pablum". Although common use has also allowed the definition for "pablum" to also appear as a lesser definition of "pabulum", somewhat like "judgement" is now a word.Main Entry: pab·u·lum Pronunciation: \ˈpa-byə-ləm\ Function: noun Etymology: Latin, food, fodder; akin to Latin pascere to feed — more at food Date: 1733 1 : food; especially : a suspension or solution of nutrients in a state suitable for absorption 2 : intellectual sustenance
pab·lum (pblm) n. Trite, insipid, or simplistic writing, speech, or conceptualization: "We have to settle for the pablum that passes for the inside dope" (Julie Salamon).
Still dazed and confused, I see and wrong as usual.
Merriam Webster Online defines "pabulum" as follows: something (as writing or speech) that is insipid, simplistic, or bland. Clearly #3 is the appropriate definition for an internet debate forum and fits you like a glove. Sadly, you're too stupid to figure it out. Link
1 : food; especially : a suspension or solution of nutrients in a state suitable for absorption
2 : intellectual sustenance
3 : something (as writing or speech) that is insipid, simplistic, or bland
Although common use has also allowed the definition for "pablum" to also appear as a lesser definition of "pabulum"
This is the 3rd definition given for "pabulum". Pablum was a perfectly good word to use for this, but the dictionary doesn't represent the correct use of words so much as whatever people end up doing with the language.
IN fact, yourdictionary.com actually replaces your MW 3rd definition with the word "pablum":a soft, bland cereal food for infants Etymology: contr. < pabulum noun any oversimplified or tasteless writing, ideas, etc.
I thought it might be nice if someone who bothered to follow this insipid thread might get to learn a little something. I'm not expecting that you will, but someone might.pabulum definition pabu·lum (pab′yo̵̅o̅ ləm, -yə-) noun 1. food or sustenance 2. nourishment for the mind 3. Pablum
It saddens me to see people destroy our language, and I wish dictionaries would still enforce historical norms more; but it is hard to fault the dictionary for giving in to the common misuse of language that has acompanied the internet age.
I no longer expect the average internet poster to work at finding the right word; I am occasionally surprised when someone manages to use a particularly clever word properly.
However, I attribute the use of a word to mean it's opposite to the public education foisted upon us by the liberal mindset.
Here's the deal. You attempted to express yourself with a smartass remark that backfired. You then attempted to cover your dumb error. You know very well, I wasn't referencing "intellectual sustenance", but rather, your "insipid, simplistic" and "bland" writing. Period.
You then proceeded to post definitions without a proper link and without proper attribution. Making your reply, void of substance and pure nonsense.
What I posted backed up exactly what the meaning of the word "pabulum" was, per my linked source at Merriam Webster Online. While its been given a shared meaning with "pabulum", MW defines "pablum" in its earliest form, as a trademark for baby food.
Btw, contrary to what you posted...
>>>>>"somewhat like "judgement" is now a word."
... the word "judgement" is the original and proper spelling for British English. It preceded the word "judgment" which is now commonly used in American English. Judgement is not a proper word used in the good old USA today.
You attempted a sarcastic comment, but in doing so used a word with multiple meanings, where the meaning you wanted was the least used. In doing so, you ignored the more obvious word which sounds like the word you used and has the meaning you expected.
Taking advantage of your use of the less exclusive word was a simple task. Quoting the online dictionaries was also a simple task, one that even a child could do. It's hard to imagine anybody other than you would have required me to post a link to an online dictionary reference.
Of course I know that you were not trying to say anything nice -- it wouldn't be your nature, contrary to the namesake you have chosen to hide behind as a screen name.
It's not my fault you left yourself open with a poor word choice.
Going with my assertion you are not clueless, I can't fathom how you think that "insipid, simplistic, and bland" have no relationship to the word "pablum". You surely must know that those are descriptive terms used for baby food, and why the word is used to describe bland writing.
While its been given a shared meaning with "pabulum", MW defines "pablum" in its earliest form, as a trademark for baby food.
So you actually believe that "pablum" got a shared meaning FROM "pabulum"? Wow.
It's not my fault you chose a word for which the most common definition is a positive quality of speech that elucidates or feeds the curiousity of those who read it. That you chose this word for an opposite reaction is your own fault. I tried to give you a better word, but you seem to simply want to argue that you meant the 3rd definition, not the 1st, as if everybody doesn't know that already, and are having a good laugh at your expense.pabulum Usage Examples Adjective modifier very: For these dangerous and divisive elements the legislation proposed in the Race Relations Bill is the very pabulum they need to flourish.
Your response reminds me of an insipid movie, "Happy Gilmore". The protagonist, trying to act the cool man, says "I eat pieces of shit like you for breakfast". TO which Gilmore replies -- "You eat pieces of shit for breakfast?"
And just like you with your "pabulum" remark, everybody knows what the protagonist meant, and they all laugh at him for his poor choice of how to say what he wanted to say.
Next time, I do recommend that if you are trying to be snarky (and given your history, I would suggest you stick to trying something you are better at), you should try choosing a word whose main meaning is what you want to say, not the opposite.
>>>>>You attempted a sarcastic comment, but in doing so used a word with multiple meanings, where the meaning you wanted was the least used.
Sorry, no sarcasm was attempted. I went for your jugular and from your responses, looks like I hit paydirt. News flash: most words have multiple meanings. LOL
>>>>>Quoting the online dictionaries was also a simple task, one that even a child could do.
Quoting is easy, linking is a task that you obviously could not do.
Pabulum is the right word that defines your posting history on this forum, "insipid, simplistic" and "bland"... to go along with your desperate personality and obsessive-compulsive nature.
I’m really just here to entertain you, while we discuss important issues on other threads. It’s important for the adults to have their time, but someone has to entertain the others.
And you are actually a lot of fun to play with. No matter what, you can be counted on to respond, often with hilarious results.
It’s so cute watching you with your little rubber knife “going for the jugular”.
It is funnier that, even if you used the better word, you still were doing nothing more than stating an ill-informed opinion, and thinking you are making some hard-hitting observation. “Ooh, I called his posts bland. If he keeps posting, I think I’ll say his odor is unpleasant — that will put him in his place”.
LOL You do have a sense of humor.
I feel sorry for you, however. You can't let go. You're obsessive-compulsive nature doesn't leave you any good options. And your desperate personality dictates you must have the last word. A sad and pathetic commentary on a first class loser.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.