Bad news for the Obama '12 campaign...

[BentSailor]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

Spoken like a true lib.

Originally Posted by PBzeer

Evidently BS, you're no better with patronize than with condescend. But thank you for playing.

Originally Posted by PBzeer

Like I said, nice try and thank you for playing.

All examples of

• dealing with people in a patronizingly superior manner.
• assuming an air of superiority, and/or
• behaving in an offensively condescending manner toward others.

Part of accepting the definition of a word is knowing how it applies to real world situations. Looks like you've still a ways to go with that

Originally Posted by ssneade

he was not sued, nor were any criminal charges brought against him, ya jackwagons. your feeble attempts a character assassination will fail just like your lord and savior obama has....

No, the organisation Cain was leading simply paid a woman a year's wages dues for a "misunderstanding". That's why Cain is refusing to ask the NRA to let the women speak on the issues he is talking about to every media organisation he can. You're lack of perspective is showing, ssneade

[PBzeer]

Spoken like a true lib - if anything, it's stereotyping

Evidently BS, you're no better with patronize than with condescend. But thank you for playing. And, Like I said, nice try and thank you for playing. - If your self-esteem is so low that that's an example of superiority, how was I to know? Most people would consider it sarcasm, a literary device I freely admit to.

[PBzeer]

There's only one GOP candidate who resembles Obama's populist target of the fat cat insider - Romney.

[BentSailor]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

Spoken like a true lib - if anything, it's stereotyping

You do realise it is possible to both stereotype and patronise someone at the same time, right?

If you cast yourself as superior to the stereotype you are applying to those you speak of, you still match the definition of being condescending. Do try to READ the definitions you posted. It kind of helps

Evidently BS, you're no better with patronize than with condescend. But thank you for playing. And, Like I said, nice try and thank you for playing. - If your self-esteem is so low that that's an example of superiority, how was I to know? Most people would consider it sarcasm, a literary device I freely admit to.

My self-esteem has no bearing on the matter (nice attempt at indirect insult though). Whether or not I think of you as superior or not (hint: I don't), they are examples of you acting that way.

Still immensely amusing how you are so adamant about sticking to the OP, ignoring the minutiae to focus on the subject of the thread, and critical of others being personal yet always seem to relish in those activities.

[PBzeer]

Unless you feel inferior, by virtue of being a liberal, there is no patronizing in "Spoken like a true lib", it's merely stereotyping.

To condescend, or patronize, entails assuming a position of superiority. Since I don't assume one, such superiority can only be assessed as a feeling of inferiority on your part. Nothing indirect there, just logic.

Perhaps you might try addressing what is said once in a while, rather than constantly take issue with how it's said. Just a suggestion. If you'd rather chase your tail around though, that's fine with me (now that's condescending, intentionally to make a point).

[BentSailor]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

Unless you feel inferior, by virtue of being a liberal, there is no patronizing in "Spoken like a true lib", it's merely stereotyping.

Bzzt. Wrong. See, the definition makes no mention of how I feel about the actions that are condescending. The act is not condescending based on my feelings but the position you take.

To condescend, or patronize, entails assuming a position of superiority. Since I don't assume one, such superiority can only be assessed as a feeling of inferiority on your part. Nothing indirect there, just logic.

Bullsh%t. You have made quite clear that you are not a liberal (true or otherwise), therefore you are putting yourself outside that group you are stereotyping. Your stereotype is denigrating and hence your actions are condescending.

Of course, you could be admitting that you are just as bad as the "true liberals", which would be a change.

Perhaps you might try addressing what is said once in a while, rather than constantly take issue with how it's said. Just a suggestion. If you'd rather chase your tail around though, that's fine with me (now that's condescending, intentionally to make a point).

See the condescending, belittling, and name-calling claims about the forum liberals were from yourself to start. Remember? Not to mention that this started with you stating "Spoken like a true lib"... you know, commenting on how something was said rather than what it was.

Perhaps you should follow your own advice sometime. Just a suggestion

[xymotic]

Originally Posted by BentSailor

Bzzt. Wrong. See, the definition makes no mention of how I feel about the actions that are condescending. The act is not condescending based on my feelings but the position you take.



Bullsh%t. You have made quite clear that you are not a liberal (true or otherwise), therefore you are putting yourself outside that group you are stereotyping. Your stereotype is denigrating and hence your actions are condescending.

Of course, you could be admitting that you are just as bad as the "true liberals", which would be a change.



See the condescending, belittling, and name-calling claims about the forum liberals were from yourself to start. Remember? Not to mention that this started with you stating "Spoken like a true lib"... you know, commenting on how something was said rather than what it was.

Perhaps you should follow your own advice sometime. Just a suggestion

Spoken like a true lib

[SloopJonB]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

Evidently BS, you're no better with patronize than with condescend. But thank you for playing.

As has been pointed out, they are virtually interchangeable - patronize means to condescend while condescend means to patronize. Much like the "difference" between responsible and accountable.

[SlowButSteady]

Nice hijack, PB. I suppose if I were you (perish the thought!) I would do the same, rather than actually discuss the topic of this thread.

[ssneade]

Originally Posted by BentSailor

No, the organisation Cain was leading simply paid a woman a year's wages dues for a "misunderstanding". That's why Cain is refusing to ask the NRA to let the women speak on the issues he is talking about to every media organisation he can. You're lack of perspective is showing, ssneade

hey, all she has to do is payback payment received, and she can say whatever she wants. probably won't change much. Mr. Cain's contributions have gone up since this little media stunt. how unfortunate for those who started this little witch hunt.....

can't give the libs all the credit though. this could well be a little smear tactic by a republican opponent. one note: Mr Cain's successor at the NRA is a big romney supporter who has made a sizable contribution to mitt's campaign...... just throwin' that out there......

anyway its all just a bunch of "he said she said" until documents with substansial proof are produced showing the whole affair. it was vouge back in the ninety's to be engaged in a sexual harassment suit if you were about to lose your job for non performance or were turned down for a promotion or any number of work related grievances...