Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Perhaps because you wrote this:

"You think he wants to spend $84+ billion on simple maintenance? Also, since when has any member of congress said "modernization" and not meant "build a bunch of new stuff to replace what we have now?"

You annoying fuck... You made me violate my "never dig for a board cite" rule.

Yeah, Adder screwed up my respond to a question with a question approach. I note that he did try, since there's a question mark at the end of each sentence, but those weren't the best questions.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I want your Hank interpretter. Will you loan it to me?

The funny thing here is, if I PM'd you and said, "GGG, stop fucking with me. You know the point I'm referring to is the one where Abed and Hank argued over whether the money was being spent on new or replacement weaponry" you'd reply back with, "Sure, but that's no fun."

And you'd be right. But I like playing "Angry Ref" once in a while, and I fucking loath this argument, which is all too common on these boards"

A: "[Insert obvious fact]."

B: "Show me where that's true."

A: "Fuck you. You know it's true."

B (Replying with knowledge opposing position is in fact correct): "I don't know that. It could be this, this or this."

A: "That's fucking absurd and you know it."

B: "I asked for proof. You have none."

A: "I'm not going to piss away a half hour cobbling together cites for you. It's fucking obvious and you know it. I could just as easily ask you for proof of your position."

B: "I asked you first."

It's a game of wearing down the other person, and it results in a debate where nothing is said, nothing is resolved and everybody just acts like the douches in their litigation groups at work. I have to put up with tools all day in practice. I'd rather try to find common ground with someone here.

ETA: Yes, I am more interested in the game than the substance. I do shit like this in practice as well. It's fun to see opposing counsel reply to papers listing their strategy for the judge. They get kind of pissy, like, "Hey. What are you doing? You're not supposed to step through the fourth wall like that." I say, Why not? They're free to do the same thing to me. It's all lies and procedrual fuck-arounds. Why not try to clear the air, cut the gamesmanship and get to the meat of the case?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Gates has already weighed in in support of the treaty that Kyl is trying to block. Does that count for anything?

Yep. That's good enough for me. Fuck Kyl. He's a piece of shit and I hope he gets his ass handed to him in this battle.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

To which Hank responded (appropriately), "we must be able to find out," suggesting to me that he recognized that I did not know and was speculating.

ETA: BTW, this is an even dumber thing to argue about.

He was rope a doping you. And we both know what happened next... You looked it up, found how easy it was to locate news stories disproving your silly accusation and wisely avoided coming back to the point.

Had you not realized how easy it was to disprove that point, you'd have rolled with it.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Yeah, Adder screwed up my respond to a question with a question approach. I note that he did try, since there's a question mark at the end of each sentence, but those weren't the best questions.

Remind me never to hire you as defense counsel.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The funny thing here is, if I PM'd you and said, "GGG, stop fucking with me. You know the point I'm referring to is the one where Abed and Hank argued over whether the money was being spent on new or replacement weaponry" you'd reply back with, "Sure, but that's no fun."

And you'd be right. But I like playing "Angry Ref" once in a while, and I fucking loath this argument, which is all too common on these boards"

A: "[Insert obvious fact]."

B: "Show me where that's true."

A: "Fuck you. You know it's true."

B (Replying with knowledge opposing position is in fact correct): "I don't know that. It could be this, this is this."

A: "That's fucking absurd and you know it."

B: "I asked for proof. You have none."

A: "I'm going to piss away a half hour cobbling together cites for you. It's fucking obvious and you know it. I could just as easily as you for proof of your position."

B: "I asked you first."

It's a game of wearing down the other person, and it results in a debate where nothing is said, nothing is resolved and everybody just acts like the douches in their litigation groups at work. I have to put up with tools all day in practice. I'd rather try to find common ground with someone here.

Oh, come on, show me where that's true!

Yes, in this case, it started with Adder making a simple point, and Hank then asking him, what, did he want our nukes to rot? It was indeed rather unenlightening on any substantive issue. But, still, it was a success. Hank finally came out and said that he doesn't take positions here because he's stupid about everything, and I think that important self-realization is the first step toward a better Hank.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

A: "[Insert obvious fact]."

Perhaps the fact was obvious to you, but it was not to me. Although, frankly, I didn't spend very much time thinking about it because it didn't matter at all.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You looked it up, found how easy it was to locate news stories disproving your silly accusation and wisely avoided coming back to the point.

Nope. I did not look it up. Because I didn't care.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Remind me never to hire you as defense counsel.

And I'd been thinking it would be fun to start trying cases!

[Gattigap]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I have to put up with tools all day in practice. I'd rather try to find common ground with someone here.

Oh, c'mon. We both know shit like "finding common ground" only happens on this board when multiple people are drunk posting.

(At the same time.)

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Gattigap

Oh, c'mon. We both know shit like "finding common ground" only happens on this board when multiple people are drunk posting.

(At the same time.)

There is a time when there aren't multiple people drunk posting?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Yep. That's good enough for me. Fuck Kyl. He's a piece of shit and I hope he gets his ass handed to him in this battle.

Thank you. Everyone else -- that was easy, wasn't it?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

So what's with the DeLay trial this morning? According to TPM, his lawyers went to prove he couldn't have talked to the head of his PAC during the time frame at issue by introducing their schedules - and missed a time when they were in a meeting together?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Thank you. Everyone else -- that was easy, wasn't it?

Do your partners ever complain about your tendancy to underbill on matters?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Do your partners ever complain about your tendancy to underbill on matters?

You make a good point. I'm sending you my revised invoice shortly.