Lets talk about Nancy Pelosi

[DaSleeper]

I can't understand why people keep clinging to one party or another as there is very little difference between parties, especially since parties are getting farther and farther away from their original platforms. That is evident just by the number of people you see "crossing the floor", it's getting to the point where they need a traffic light in the middle of the floor. The bastards are mostly in it for themselves, like which party can do the most for me this week?

I might be slightly conservative in ideology, but in my lifetime I have voted for the major parties about an equal number of time.
I couldn't stand Mulroney or Trudeau, Chretien and Martin for making me loose money and I despised Diefenbaker for being an American puppet..
I even voted for Chretien at first...thinking he might be different than Trudeau:angryfire:

 

[JLM]

I might be slightly conservative in ideology, but in my lifetime I have voted for the major parties about an equal number of time.
I couldn't stand Mulroney or Trudeau, Chretien and Martin for making me loose money and I despised Diefenbaker for being an American puppet..
I even voted for Chretien at first...thinking he might be different than Trudeau:angryfire:

You see things about the same way I do. For about 30 years I was pretty loyal to the N.D.P. and then one day I realized that the N.D.P. is a good party in a society, where everyone is willing to do their share plus 5% and no one is injury or accident prone and no one whines when things don't go right.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Would it have been better if Judicial Watch was a extremely partisan, left wing bunch of lawyers, of course not. It doesn't really matter who says what about ACORN, they (ACORN) are still crooked. Just look at the "Fraud map", it list some of their crimes. Wrong is wrong whoever says it.

Ironsides, whether ACRON is crooked or not is a separate question. If they are crooked, I assume they will be prosecuted and will pay the price.

What I am saying is that I wouldn’t accept the word of Judicial Watch for anything. If they say that sun rises in the east, I would need independent confirmation before I will believe it.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

So what you are saying here is that you have been proven wrong so you are giving up.

Not at all, EagleSmack, you changed the subject. Let us discuss the original subject, then we will move on to what you want to discuss.

 

[EagleSmack]

Not at all, EagleSmack, you changed the subject. Let us discuss the original subject, then we will move on to what you want to discuss.

What do you mean I changed the subject? You just got shown up...now you are doing a little dance for me.

Like I said...like shooting fish in a barrell.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

What do you mean I changed the subject? You just got shown up...now you are doing a little dance for me.

Like I said...like shooting fish in a barrell.

Sure you changed the subject. We were discussing whether patronizing is the same as an insult, remember? When you had no argument against my position that they were not the same thing, that patronizing is different from insult, you all of a sudden tried to change the subject.

If you are not changing the subject, let us resume our discussion. I say patronizing is totally different from insults. And you say?

 

[EagleSmack]

Sure you changed the subject. We were discussing whether patronizing is the same as an insult, remember? When you had no argument against my position that they were not the same thing, that patronizing is different from insult, you all of a sudden tried to change the subject.

If you are not changing the subject, let us resume our discussion. I say patronizing is totally different from insults. And you say?

No... you are surely mistaken...

Patronizing can be insulting...simple.

I provided examples and you are dumbfounded...perplexed...unsure of what to do. Your argument became moot.

But because you are unable to admit fault and that you are wrong...clearly wrong you feel that continuously posting will make you seem right.

 

[johnnyhangover]

I have an opinion on this:

patronizing someone is always insulting, however insulting someone obviously doesn't have to involve patronizing them.

yup, that's what I think.

 

[DaSleeper]

I have an opinion on this:

patronizing someone is always insulting, however insulting someone obviously doesn't have to involve patronizing them.

yup, that's what I think.

Ditto:smile:

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Patronizing can be insulting...simple.

EagleSmack, patronizing can be insulting, really? But that is not what you have been saying so far. So far you have maintained that patronizing is the same as an insult.

If you say that patronizing can be insulting, the clear implication is that sometimes patronizing is insulting, other times it isn’t. Is that what you are saying? If so, you have changed your tune.

So before I let you know what I think about it, exactly what are you saying, that patronizing is the same as insulting, or patronizing can be insulting (the clear implication is, sometimes)?

 

[EagleSmack]

Patronizing can be insulting...simple.

EagleSmack, patronizing can be insulting, really? But that is not what you have been saying so far. So far you have maintained that patronizing is the same as an insult.

If you say that patronizing can be insulting, the clear implication is that sometimes patronizing is insulting, other times it isn’t. Is that what you are saying? If so, you have changed your tune.

So before I let you know what I think about it, exactly what are you saying, that patronizing is the same as insulting, or patronizing can be insulting (the clear implication is, sometimes)?

Oh dear...you poor thing... you poor poor boy.

JP...stop embarrassing yourself...have some dignity.

 

[EagleSmack]

I have an opinion on this:

patronizing someone is always insulting, however insulting someone obviously doesn't have to involve patronizing them.

yup, that's what I think.

I agree Johnny.

 

[YukonJack]

When all else fails, consult the dictionary.

According to the dictionary, "patronizing" is defined (in the context of this discussion) as 'to show favour in a condescending manner'.

According to the dictionary, "condescending" is defined as 'marked or characterized by condescension; stooping to the level of one's inferiors'.

I don't know about you, but if somebody considered me his/her inferior I would feel insulted. And I must admit I am baffled how SirJosephPorter can in any way, shape or form consider Sarah Palin his inferior. Or himself to her superior.

But that is just my opinion, and English is only my second language.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Oh dear...you poor thing... you poor poor boy.

JP...stop embarrassing yourself...have some dignity.

You still haven't answered my question, EagleSmack. You have changed your tune, you are not saying what you were saiyng before.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Yukon, I know perfectly well what the two words mean,

According to the dictionary, "patronizing" is defined (in the context of this discussion) as 'to show favour in a condescending manner'.

Quite so, I don’t see the word ‘insult’ mentioned anywhere in its meaning. It is totally different from insult.

I don't know about you, but if somebody considered me his/her inferior I would feel insulted.

Now that is a matter of opinion, isn’t it? How the recipient perceives patronizing behavior depends upon the recipient. Sometimes he will feel insulted, other times he won’t.

For instance, when somebody is presented to the Queen, I assume her behavior is usually patronizing. Yet people don’t feel insulted, they feel honoured to be in her presence.

Or in your case, suppose you met Pope, and his behavior towards you is patronizing. Will you feel insulted? I seriously doubt it.

So again, patronizing is different from insult. Some may perceive it as an insult, others won’t.

 

[Said1]

But then there is intent. Just because someone does not get it does not mean the patronizing tone was not intended to be insulting. Then, some people may not realize how patronizing and obnoxious they really are and can never figure out why they provoke such bad reactions from people or internet posters.

 

[YukonJack]

Response to #135:

So, we have reached the Chimborazzo of inflated self-importance!

Picture the scenes:

Yukon Jack plays himself and SirJosephPorter plays the Pope.
Yukon Jack plays himself and SirJosephPorter Plays Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.

At least that is what he implies.

I would stand proudly in the presence of both the Queen or the Pope, because they have the required amount of human dignity not to claim superiority. Neither of them - I am sure - would call Sarah Palin the ridiculous moniker you use referring to her time after time.

 

[JLM]

Yukon, I know perfectly well what the two words mean,

According to the dictionary, "patronizing" is defined (in the context of this discussion) as 'to show favour in a condescending manner'.

Quite so, I don’t see the word ‘insult’ mentioned anywhere in its meaning. It is totally different from insult.

I don't know about you, but if somebody considered me his/her inferior I would feel insulted.

Now that is a matter of opinion, isn’t it? How the recipient perceives patronizing behavior depends upon the recipient. Sometimes he will feel insulted, other times he won’t.

For instance, when somebody is presented to the Queen, I assume her behavior is usually patronizing. Yet people don’t feel insulted, they feel honoured to be in her presence.

Or in your case, suppose you met Pope, and his behavior towards you is patronizing. Will you feel insulted? I seriously doubt it.

So again, patronizing is different from insult. Some may perceive it as an insult, others won’t.

Here's a real live situation I will blow by you for your evaluation. I bowl on a five pin league, where we are mostly just average "run of the mill" bowlers, except for one fellow who I would describe as having dwarf like features and quite spastic, but a nice enough fellow. Once in awhile he rolls a strike or a spare, which the rest of us do quite regularly and pass a word of compliment, but when this fellow does it everybody really pours it on, whereas I just say "good one Jim" as I woukl to the rest of them. I feel quite embarrassed for the guy when they do this. I feel it's just a left handed insult. What's the consensus?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I just say "good one Jim" as I woukl to the rest of them.

JLM, I think that would be about appropriate reaction. As to the rest, I can see two arguments. Some probably just want to make fun of him.

However, others may genuinely want to encourage him. If he rolls a strike or a spare only once in a while, it is quite an achievement compared to someone who does it all the time. For him it is a much bigger achievement than it would be for you. So it stands to reason that somebody would think that he deserves more praise than you would in a similar situation.

So it could be considered patronizing behavior. But insulting? Perhaps yes, perhaps no.

Let me give you another example. Suppose a couple has two kids, one gets straight As, the other can only manage Bs and Cs. Now suppose he gets an A. The parents would probably praise him much more than they would the other kid, who may have got 5 or 6 As in the same exam.

Patronizing? Perhaps. But instilling? Hardly.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Yukon Jack plays himself and SirJosephPorter plays the Pope.
Yukon Jack plays himself and SirJosephPorter Plays Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.

You said it, Yukon, I didn’t.

I would stand proudly in the presence of both the Queen or the Pope

You would? You surprise me; I didn’t think you liked the Queen. And while I haven’t met the Queen, her behavior can only be characterized as patronizing (I don’t know about the Pope).. First, you don’t ‘meet’ the Queen; you are ‘presented’ to her. She refers to herself as ‘we’. If she bestows an honour on you, you are supposed to kneel before her.

Now I don’t know about you, but I would definitely characterize that behavior as patronizing. But insulting? No. People feel honoured to be presented to the Queen.