Moore and Krugman piss on the ACA decision

[stupidicus]

130. no, what's dishonest

is you.

There's no dishonesty to be found in BSing and subsequently making it clear that one indeed was BSing.

All you've done here is focused on teaching me some kinda lesson over material and motives you didn't understand, and rather than accept my explanation for it, you're clinging to that effort.

Let's face it, you've nothing to go on.

1. You've no rebuttal to the fact that my complete agreement with them undermines your dishonest and wholly unsupported "opinion" that I was serious about their having pissed on the ACA decision.

2. Nobody has assigned you as judge and jury, nor has there been a consensus sought, much less achieved, that the use of that subject line for the purposes outlined was either intentionally dishonest in a dishonesty preservation way, or to be condemned in the manner you've attempted from the start and continue to, despite my efforts to explain it. Maybe I should have followed it with a "NOT" so that the juveniles around here would have a better grasp/understanding of my intent, no?

3. Quoting the content of an insulting top post that represented the foundation and cause for my hyperbole, and noting the dozens of "dittos" to, it is not mere conjecture, and your claim of it is nothing more than another example of your clinging to BS in an effort to punish a crime that exists only in your rather biased mind. Clearly and inarguably (well, to those not corrupted by baseless righteousness that lack the ability or acumen to get past it)

Acknowledgement of and complaints about the flaws of the ACA are as important as its human misery-relieving benefits, because that's the path to providing more.

Keep pissing Mike and Paul.

if I was "serious" about the real or imagined offense from M&K, I made myself guilty of the same offense. Apparently neither subtlety nor the obvious are not your strong suit, or in the most likely plausible alternative, you steadfastly refuse to get past your fallacious charges. For me to be guilty of a willful "mischaracterization" and what that connotes, an intent on my part of having made one would needs to be shown. Obviously that is non-existent, but rather than acknowledge that and let it go, you're clinging to you BS. This is similar to but not to be confused with, the garbage that prompted this post. "I" dictate what my efforts and intent with them are, not you. You're doing exacty what the "purist" do with the criticisms and those who offer them around here -- telling them (me in this case) what they think, how they feel, and what their goals for the criticism are.

4. WHo said anything about "a message board" alone? Not I. Do I expect people like you or the "purists" I indicted to treat those like me any differently elsewhere? And what exactly does "and this isn't the only place I see this" mean that I posted? How much trouble do you have deriving proper meaning from even plain and simple english? It means that it happens likely everywhere people like the "purists" can be found, which means that the accumulative effect of it can and likely will be significant for those who are on the fence deciding whether to vote period or for which party this Nov.

So by all means as already noted, maintain your pov that the kinda insulting and dismissiveness it represents I noted with this TP will have no significant impact. I can only hope it doesn't, and think that those that think it's alright -- the potential negative impact notwithstanding -- as you apparently do, given you're inclined to minimize the problem with "it's but a few "characterization" and "your single post with dozens of them is mere CONJECTURE" BS, are not only supporting the practice of being insulting and dismissive with the enabling those things represent -- kinda the way rightwingnuts dismiss their racism, etc problem with "but a few" excuse -- whether you know it or not.

It's my "opinion" that it's a problem with predictable outcomes, that tons of evidence seen here, on other boards, and in my interpersonal and societal interactions support. That in conjunction with all the evidence for a lack of enthusiasm for BHO at this point -- loss of donors, etc -- points to peril we can only debate the magnitude of, not its existence.

SO by all means, keep clinging to your demonstrated fallacious and/or erroneous BS about the messenger here, since you've made it clear the message itself you either can't understand or can't rebut.

And no, I remain uncaring about you, much like K&M didn't write their stuff because they care about what those that disagree with them "think". So "lengthy posts" and my not caring about you and what you think personally are not mutually exclusive things. If there wasn't a wider audience to read it like here, and we were in a room alone, I'd have told you to piss the fugg off as soon as you started trying to dishonestly dictate to me what I meant and intended to do with this post.