If I drink the Kool-Aid I might think that way too.
Keep the Faith. Don’t give in to Doubt.
no u
Meh, you pointed to that report of the AG of California, don’t complain that the evidence here shows that you willfully ignored the main conclusions of the AG so as to get your stupid one.
I don’t need faith. I have evidence. Actual evidence, not alternative evidence.
I guess it’s working …
Goddamn, FP. You really are impressed with your second-grade playground intellect.
He’s not applying his intellect-he’s shooting spitwads, and every time someone reacts with a disgusted “What the fuck?” he considers it a win.
Well, he’d have to establish it first and that’s, like, hard.
That’s actually not far from the truth.
Personally I’d just as soon stick with substantive discussions of the issues. But some people aren’t up to anything more than shooting spitwads, and if that’s where they insist on taking things, I sometimes roll with that too.
[ETA: even there, I do stick pretty closely to what’s actually true, though.]
The “but he did it first!” defense, as it does here, on the playground generally means, “He didn’t really do it, but I know I’ll look bad if I admit that, so I’m gonna say he did it first and that I was just retaliating.”
When 7 year olds do it, I know it’s developmentally appropriate. If it’s developmentally appropriate for you, you’re violating the board’s signup agreement.
You have to deal with people based on what they’re like, not based on what you’d like them to be.
In your case for example, I would prefer to deal with the high-minded guy in favor of substantive discussion that you so enjoy pretending to be in ATMB discussions. (Especially as, unlike so many of your pals here, you’re not a complete moron.) But in every other forum you’re a smug snarky prick, and acting as if you weren’t just wouldn’t work well at all.
Well then the evidence shows that you wanted to pass a report by the AG of California that was in reality devastating to your points. In reality it was not supporting them.
So your effort here was to mislead others **or **you just were too dumb to see that in reality it did not help your case.
Choose your poison.
We have a fair amount of evidence regarding what James O’Keefe is like. We don’t have to fantasize that he’s some crusading investigative journalist trying to uncover the truth, whatever it may be.
Your sneering at me reminds me of a parable:
For real, if most folks don’t think me a “smug snarky prick,” but a supercilious halfwit like you does, I have a real problem being upset over that :).
Hard to know what “most folks” think of you.
One problem is that it’s very heavily influenced by ideological alignment, and you’ve conveniently chosen a forum where you’re comfortably and firmly ensconced in the majority position.
Perhaps if you got out a bit more … but I suspect you would be afraid to risk that.
Okay, this is like, way boring now.
True.
It’s an easy problem to examine, if it exists - go find a right-wing majority forum, register, post one of your arguments word-for-word there and privately send out links inviting your opponents in this thread to register and post their word-for-word responses.
I can’t be bothered and don’t care either way. Remember, we’re discussing public opinion of LHOD, not me.
But if you’re interested, you go find a right wing forum and post the same arguments as you post here and see how they go over and whether people think you’re a “highly intelligent individual …”, as you claim to be.
I realize that you’re not LHOD either, but the same phenomenon should hold.
:smack:
So by that standard no one can be trusted on anything.