You’re right about people portraying their opponents as not just wrong, but as bad. But honestly, GOP leadership IS BAD. They have stood in lockstep against everything this president has tried to do even when it is something they have supported in the past. Here’s a list of 24 things the GOP has supported that they now oppose solely because they hate Obama. This is a graphic example of why they are not just “wrong” but are in fact bad. They know these policies are not wrong since they have supported them int he past. They are bad because of their deliberate opposition.

Again, notice the tactic of focusing on how I’m saying something, not what I’m saying.

Chaff.

(Start at about 3:22 in)

This is Flame, so a post eloquent in its disdain and superciliousness and overweening egotism, heavily leavened with straightforward snottiness, is obligatory here. But it’s indistinguishable from many of your posts elsewhere. And a damn good Newt Gingrich impression.

But to go on would be to just recycle a flame that’s been erupting here periodically for years. It’s like I said to Bowser, we know all that already. What’s the point of belaboring it? Better to be entertained by Jon Stewart than to have to listen to me.

Think you might be in a bit of a rut? One of us is, because I can’t even think of an original way to flame you, and had to rely on Jon Stewart to do it. This is sad.

I think part of the problem is your assuming what is said before having read it and responding to your assumptions. It’s worth a try, isn’t it?

And while I’ve felt I was an Injured Innocent in some exchanges around here, that hasn’t happened for a long time and certainly not here.

It’s just not going to work, is it? I am sorry.

And yes, you’ve succeeded in hauling that entire thread on CE into the ditch, where the wheels are spinning uselessly around the “correct” interpretation of a high school graduate with a goddam job and benefits.

Forget what I said about capitalism, the examples, forget the lesson of Europe, the philosophies, and everything else in my responses prior to that.

How about you tell me what you mean? If you were doing anything other than blowing smoke in the first place, it should be easy to rephrase it with specifics.

While avoiding implications of “fatal”, “flaw” and “bad”. I readily accept the need to act as if these are honest misreadings of the posts for there to be a constructive dialogue. And I get to the point where I do not believe there is an interest in “constructive”. I get to where it seems their goal is to be ridiculous and then claim victory. How does one confront and allow the person practicing that tactic to save face?

It is identical to the dilemma faced by Obama in dealing with the Republican House.