Stupid rule.
Yeah but the Bush years were understandably hard on **Bricker **in the Pit. Since November 2008 there have only been a total of four.
Neither Mark Halperin nor Jill Klausen are conservative columnists, and no agenda-driven columnist’s summary of the law is more accurate than the actual words of the actual law.
And you’re just as big an idiot as he is. The link Bricker was referring to was NOT the link in the OP, it was a link in a subsequent post wherein I quoted Mark Halperin BY NAME.
And he did way more than simply suggest I read the law, he attacked me personally as someone who lives in a fucking cave without bothering to acknowledge that the SOURCE I quoted was a CONSERVATIVE.
As for the moderator comments here, all I can say is I don’t care.
Huh. The above post was intended for the GD thread, and the impolite version in the GD thread was intended for here.
Sorry about that.
Mark Halperin is not a conservative, Shayna.
And you aren’t any person of ANY note. You’re an ASSHOLE who had no respect for anyone except your holier-than-thou self. Go cram a jalepeno pepper up your eurethra.
So, getting to the matter of this Pit thread.
Bricker was certainly not diplomatic in his first response, but it’s hardly insulting. Especially since the OP consisted of nothing more than a link + quote, a cheap shot, well poisoning remark about FoxNews, and little else.
The OP seems to suffer from victim-itise, in that so many people are “insulting” her, but the mean ol’ mods won’t do anything about it. And what’s with the screeching (all that capitalized shit)? Did someone get between the Momma Grizzly of the left and her cub, affectionately known as PeaPact?
It should be noted, thought, that further on in the GD thread, Bricker clearly is breaking the rules when he calls the OP a liar. Not kosher.
I personally would call Halprin as centrist. He’s had his problems with Obama. Notably calling him a dick and decrying the insane amount of what he called media bias for him during the 2008 campaign. He’s not conservative in the sense that he’s a liar like Hannity, but he’d probably be a moderate Republican back when you guys weren’t following the insane wing of your party.
In any case, none of this means *you *aren’t a complete pustule.
As I understand it, this whole tangent is based on whether a company that pays for medical passes along the rebate to the worker, right? Didn’t we find that out? So why are you so upset, is it because you know that Obamacare isn’t actually evil incarnate, so you need to find something to bitch about?
GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK you arrogant piece of shit. He’s no goddamn LIBERAL, that’s for DAMN sure, and you fucking well KNOW that, which makes your allegation that much more despicable. You slimy piece of scum.
Yup. I’m afraid I mixed up which forum I was in. The calm response above was intended for the GD thread. The response in the GD thread was to find a home here.
If he’s not a conservative, and you said he was a conservative, how does that make my allegation more despicable?
My point was that you draw your information from echo chambers which reinforce,rather than challenge, your views. If Halperin is not a conservative,that would seem to support my point, wouldn’t it?
No, it wasn’t.
That’s an understatement.
Actually, this tangent is based on whether or not Bricker decides he personally likes my source, and if he decides he doesn’t, well I must live in a fucking … what did he call it … oh yes, “the echo chamber of publications that reinforce [my] view.”
He gets off on making himself feel superior because, well he deigns to come to the … <gasp!> Librul Straight Dope! OMG bow down, good man, bow down before him.
If I can’t call him a motherfucker can I call him a bloody puss pocket in a boil on the ass of Rush Limbaugh? Does that pass muster in the Pit these days?
Yes, it FUCKING WAS you dumbass. Can you not even follow a goddamn thread? Must I spell it the fuck OUT for you?
Fine. I’ll be back.
Jesus fucking christ.
If I had to find an upset person by reading the posts in this thread, I really would not have chosen my name as the prime candidate.
My thinking: whether Halperin is a conservative is irrelevant. Whether Shayna is engaged in echo-chamber visiting is irrelevant. Bother of these points only enter the discussion as ad hominems and should be recognized as such and then dropped. (The bleeding pustule stuff is also ad hominem, of course, but this is the Pit–I’m talking about what should be dropped in GD).
If the OP’s article misrepresents the law, then Bricker, it’d behoove you to show how and in what way. Saying, “read the law” is not productive. Saying, “Look at page 336 of the law, in which points x, y, and z are laid out,” is much more productive.
Shayna appears to be over-reacting.
Bummer.