Find even more ways to be a tyrranical douche?

Roberta X (#96): “…Matt:how about the way you keep trying to win-by-sneakiness … and start metadiscussions instead of addressing the issue?“

Matt’s comments are right on point. I don’t see him as being “sneaky” at all.

Perhaps if you simply accepted that I didn’t lob an ad hominem at you, quit telling people that their words aren’t resurrecting the dead (when do they ever?), and tried to have an honest, civil discussion with others instead of seeing how you can one up them with snarky asides, there might be a bit less pointless friction between us.

Roberta X (#81): “Elliot: accusing someone of telling lies, of ignoring recent history, those constitute personal attacks…“

I criticized what you wrote, not what you look like, the pitch of your voice, your education level, or anything like that.

When you write something which is false and impertinent and you’re called on it, calling that a personal attack is inaccurate. Also, it’s a distraction, as you’re not addressing the actual criticisms themselves.

“Please read more history. No, just please read more.“

This is yet another example of impertinence. No mention of historical inaccuracies, no genuine justification for this “advice”. If it was something other than spite at being criticized for what you wrote, please speak up.

What would things be like if every congresswoman, when she goes about her business creating unjust and violent laws, were uncertain whether she would return alive and had to say goodbye to her family?

An enemy deserves crosshairs. With an opponent you go a few rounds bloodying each other’s noses and then go out for drinks afterwards.

That is, unless you can tell me how many dead people having the actual, fruitless debate will bring back; if you can and it does, we’ll set them up right next to the ones reanimated by the ideological purity of the ideologically pure. It”s be awesome.

Didja hear the shooter was, eventually, taken down by bystanders? Let’s be more like them.

#91 Matt

I’m not clear why her doing what she was elected to do would be a reason not to condemn her. It depends on what she was doing. Her popularity is irrelevant.

My point is just that the blame probably rests more with those who put her in office than it does with her. In fact, in a democracy, there would probably be more reason to condemn her if she didn’t do what the voters waned.

“ok, here goes, i’m going to type this slowly and use small words: the only person responsible is the one who pulled the trigger. the only person who knows the motive is also the one who pulled the trigger.

now please, stop embarrassing me” (us).

Halle – fucking – lujah!

Hyperbole much? Are you seriously fucking serious dude?

You have no sympathy for her because she had the gall to work in the political system and vote on bills put forward to her? Jesus Christ, man. You are heartless.