More Biden Buffoonery

[IBCoupe]

Z now:

on certain items

Z before:

And I believe that the Democrats would not have agreed to negotiate anything

Democratic (did I get it right?) party

Almost. "Party" should be capitalized, too.

As always, you are way too hasty to jump to conclusions about other people's knowledge and experiences.

As usual, you mischaracterize what I write and take it as an opportunity to condescend, right after giving me a lecture about flaming. Truly, you are amazing.

I hope you're not surprised when I don't trust your "opinion" to discern when and where you draw the line at "unreasonable" or when you "get tired" of editing. Thanks for continuing to illustrate exactly the problem
I was alluding to!

But, if someone does not agree with your world view - right or wrong - it must be because the other person is an idiot or mentally incapacitated, right?

Maybe. Maybe it's just you: I can't help but notice that you didn't actually respond to my particular criticism, and instead opted to work in a life lesson for li'l ol' me. Got a quote, sweet pea? See, I have no trouble imagining that over the course of 20 years you were just as delusioned about what Democrats actually think. It wouldnt surprise me if you read what you wanted to read in the Boaton Globe all those years ago.

[stebo0728]

IB and my world views are nearly polar opposite I think. I hope you dont consider me an idiot or mentally incapacitated (although I'm probably both)

[IBCoupe]

No, you're just Georgian.

I <3 my Stebo.

[stebo0728]

No, you're just Georgian.

At least I still have the folks in Alabamastan to laugh at.

[IBCoupe]

"How do I get to Alabama from here?"

"Drive west until you feel like f*** your sister."

[szh]

Z now:

on certain items

Z before:

And I believe that the Democrats would not have agreed to negotiate anything

Weren't you the one who got upset in another thread when someone took partial extracts?

The above two quotes are for different things that I commented on. Connecting them here is incorrect - so not worth responding to.

Democratic (did I get it right?) party

Almost. "Party" should be capitalized, too.

Oh, so sorry! I will be more careful of my spelling and grammar next time.

As always, you are way too hasty to jump to conclusions about other people's knowledge and experiences.

As usual, you mischaracterize what I write and take it as an opportunity to condescend, right after giving me a lecture about flaming. Truly, you are amazing.

I hope you're not surprised when I don't trust your "opinion" to discern when and where you draw the line at "unreasonable" or when you "get tired" of editing. Thanks for continuing to illustrate exactly the problem I was alluding to!

Nice deflection. I was not insulting you - hoping to get through to the rational person you can be, but the teaching moment was apparently lost. Oh, well!

But, if someone does not agree with your world view - right or wrong - it must be because the other person is an idiot or mentally incapacitated, right?

Maybe. Maybe it's just you: I can't help but notice that you didn't actually respond to my particular criticism, and instead opted to work in a life lesson for li'l ol' me.

Was a waste of my time apparently.

And, by the way, what you have missed is that the only few people whose posts I have edited for removing attacks, and the only person that I have given a time-out to in this forum, has occurred because other people have complained.

I can't help but notice that you didn't actually respond to my particular criticism

Did you miss these words from me below? Oh, yes, I must not forget to capitalize Party here! I specifically responded to your point - I personally read the material I am talking about. Goes back to the seventies and eighties - little if any of that is on the Internet now and I not going to bother wasting my time searching for direct quotes.

I saw the political rhetoric from the Democratic (did I get it right?) Party politicians in MA, before most people in this forum were born. I read the "Tax and spend" mantra from these politicians often enough in the Boston Globe and heard it in the local TV too. And formed my own opinions - no need to follow anybody else - MA was a Democratic party state then and now, and most people actually felt the other way from my opinions.

Got a quote, sweet pea? See, I have no trouble imagining that over the course of 20 years you were just as delusioned about what Democrats actually think. It wouldnt surprise me if you read what you wanted to read in the Boaton Globe all those years ago.

"Boston".

Yeah, I must be delusioned. My reading goes back to the seventies and eighties - little if any of that is on the Internet now and I not going to bother wasting my time searching for direct quotes. I don't consider Google the end-all for my learning and talking to people.

So, please don't let your imagination run away with you here.

Z

[szh]

IB and my world views are nearly polar opposite I think. I hope you dont consider me an idiot or mentally incapacitated (although I'm probably both)

Apparently not. He has not insulted you ... yet.

R/T took the brunt some weeks ago.

This time, it is (once again) my turn.

Z

[AZhitman]

R/T took the brunt some weeks ago.

Did I somehow miss that? Someone humor me with a link!

[AZhitman]

I don't call the TEA Party Republicans "terrorists" because they're extreme. I don't even call all of the TEA Party terrorists (or extreme, for that matter). I call the House Republicans willing to push us to a default if they didn't get what they wanted "terrorists."

...getting back to my original point, then, it's pretty ignorant of ol' Sleepy Joe to paint Tea Party members as "terrorists".

He didn't say "House Republicans willing to push us to a default are terrorists".

You guys are making this WAY too complicated.

[IBCoupe]

Weren't you the one who got upset in another thread when someone took partial extracts?

The above two quotes are for different things that I commented on. Connecting them here is incorrect - so not worth responding to.

No, they're for the same thing. You said Democrats wouldn't have negotiated for anything, I replied that you should be able to provide a quote to the extent of "NO CUTS EVAR," and then you replied that you could easily find a quote that said "NO CUTS on certain items." Which part of that summary of events is inaccurate?

If it's generally accurate, maybe you can stop making false equivalencies.

Oh, so sorry! I will be more careful of my spelling and grammar next time.

If you want to be treated like an Internet troll, that can be arranged. Come on, let me hear it: <b>"President" Balrog Hussein Sombrero Fartbongo.</b>

Nice deflection. I was not insulting you - hoping to get through to the rational person you can be, but the teaching moment was apparently lost. Oh, well!

Yep, it's not disturbing at all when you're getting egged on by a guy who's already used the banhammer on you once. Not at all.

Was a waste of my time apparently.

And, by the way, what you have missed is that the only few people whose posts I have edited for removing attacks, and the only person that I have given a time-out to in this forum, has occurred because other people have complained.

You missed the point. It's not the edits I object to.

Did you miss these words from me below? Oh, yes, I must not forget to capitalize Party here! I specifically responded to your point - I personally read the material I am talking about. Goes back to the seventies and eighties - little if any of that is on the Internet now and I not going to bother wasting my time searching for direct quotes.

Ah, right: "Trust me when I tell you that Democrats wouldn't have negotiated on anything. Just trust me."

"Boston".

Typo.

Yeah, I must be delusioned. My reading goes back to the seventies and eighties - little if any of that is on the Internet now and I not going to bother wasting my time searching for direct quotes. I don't consider Google the end-all for my learning and talking to people.

"Trust me."

[IBCoupe]

I don't call the TEA Party Republicans "terrorists" because they're extreme. I don't even call all of the TEA Party terrorists (or extreme, for that matter). I call the House Republicans willing to push us to a default if they didn't get what they wanted "terrorists."

...getting back to my original point, then, it's pretty ignorant of ol' Sleepy Joe to paint Tea Party members as "terrorists".

He didn't say "House Republicans willing to push us to a default are terrorists".

You guys are making this WAY too complicated.

That I'll agree with. He painted with too broad a brush, though it wasn't the broadest he could have used (he didn't say "Republicans," after all). His error wasn't the term, but his impreciseness in its use. Is his defense, "Those members of the House Republicans, most of whom are 'TEA Party' freshmen, were terrorists, holding the Country's economy at stake for political gain" is a bit of a mouthful.

[AZhitman]

I liked it much better when IB was arguing with me. Or Stebo.

Let's get back on-topic with this one, please? Feels like you guys are arguing minutiae and semantics.

[IBCoupe]

R/T took the brunt some weeks ago.

Did I somehow miss that? Someone humor me with a link!

The locked "Hot Coffee & Tort Reform" thread in Politics. I'm fairly certain I was rude to Z, too. It's not that I take turns, it's that, for certain folks, I don't care about being respectful after a while.

It's the thread I got banned in. If you make it to the end, note that what pissed me off wasn't that RT got the last word, but that he lied in it.

[AZhitman]

Is his defense, "Those members of the House Republicans, most of whom are 'TEA Party' freshmen, were terrorists, holding the Country's economy at stake for political gain" is a bit of a mouthful.

Of course.

For a guy who says things as profound as "This is a big f***ing deal!", it is a stretch.

I think, in time, history will view the "holdout" position by certain members of the House as no more than a strong and unshakable assertion of the belief that drastic measures need to be taken to get the deficit under control (regardless of the reasonableness of the act or the inevitable implications thereof).

[AZhitman]

It's not that I take turns, it's that, for certain folks, I don't care about being respectful after a while.

I can empathize. He and telco certainly make me long for intelligent, on-topic discourse (even if it's heated opposition).