>>>>>>>>>I don't think I suggested anything was "good". I was suggesting that an oft-repeated adage is false.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>To be clear I am a free market capitalist with socially libertarian views. I regard both parties as contemptuous leeches, slowly sucking the life from this once great nation in the name of their own money and power. I regard professional politicians as the single greatest threat to this republic as they and they alone have the power to legislate it from existence and have been actively using that power to undermine our founding documents for decades. I believe the promise of a "more perfect union" has been actively betrayed by those elected to represent us in pursuit of an unachievable "ideal" to which humanity by its very nature cannot achieve.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>And how about all people here who regard themselves Democrat or Republican? Are they also contemptuous leeches?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Jake spoke, imho, about politicians, not about ordinary citizens.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Those politicians represent ordinary citizens, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>>So what that they represent? Your previous message tried to establish an image of Jake hurling 'contemptuous leeches' insult to many people. It was not true presentation. To be precise Jake used the words for parties, not even for politicians.
>>>>
>>>>A party is (in this case) one word for a group of people, including politicians, who kind of share a political ideology. It's not like a 'building', a 'tree', a 'star' or some other object. When someone calls parties contemptuous leeches, then he's referring to the people in those groups. Simple as that.
>>>>
>>>>Jake is actually derogating here. He's not talking about an object, but about people. So yes, you have understood my previous message well.
>>>
>>>In my opinion, you are looking for trouble where one does not exist.
>>
>>All I try to make clear is that Nick has been banned apparently for some derogative remark towards another UT member and that Jake is not banned for some derogative remark, although it is directed toward many. The two are likely less different from each other when it comes to ethics than some think. I'm not saying that Jake must be banned. But neither must Nick. Not that soon.
>
>There is still a huge difference based on the UT rules. One used profanity and one did not. Just because a remark is derogatory doesn't make it profane.

Tracy, you're a contemptuous leech. Now tell me, is that merely derogatory and not profane? Perhaps I don't understand the, for you apparent, difference.

BTW, Tc, you're a sweetheart. ;)