Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
No point here worth considering.
|
You know there is, you just don't like the point. To put it in terms you might get, if someone presented me with a news story by ISIS, and said it was from an "independent foreign political organization," I'd be suspicious about the agenda of the person presenting that story.
Quote:
|
Bloomberg was cited offering the same info in the same post. Your suspicion of Bloomberg was?
|
I did not say I was suspicious of Bloomberg. In fact, my actual point had nothing to do with the merits of the Susan Rice story, which is why I said, "my actual point had nothing to do with the merits of the Susan Rice story." You should know. You quoted me saying that in the very post I'm responding to.
Quote:
|
I fully expect that. If the opposite were to occur, I'd be disturbed. If you can;t free the Id here...? I mean, really.
|
I am pretty aware of the relatively low risk of saying outrageous things just to say outrageous things on an anonymous online chatting board that nobody reads. I'll remind you that the phrase most usually associated with me here is "unsolicited, no-strings-attached fellatio." But if you really "fully expect" that your willingness to say blatantly untrue things and mischaracterize people's arguments will result in people dismissing your arguments as bullshit, why do you always act so surprised, angry, and hurt when it happens?
Quote:
|
I didn't think it needed addressing, or was interesting. In much the same way, I read Ty's health care bit yesterday, found it more slieght of hand than substance, thought about replying, but then figured, "Eh, fuck it. He missed my point, I missed his, and we'll never agree."
|
I already responded to this when you said it again in another post.
