Set, you just made my day.
(Editing back up here because I don't really want to get in the last word. I find set's need to do so quite predictable).
I could not be more delighted . . .
shaggydog wrote: How you find that the article does not support Brand X's assertion of a religious liberal cabal isn't amazing, it is usual, and, again, boooooring.
BrandX wrote:
Quote:Meanwhile, the religious left perpetrated the unforgettable, unforgivable Jonestown massacre
BrandX was asserting first, that there is such a thing as the 'religious left' and second, that they were responsible for the Jonestown massacre. The article that you point to does not support that.
Quote:
It is prevarications like that, Duck, that eventually drive one crazy, as Krugman is and as you are nearing. Get some help.
See if you can possibly be any nastier or more insulting.
"Now if Jones had taken out a bunch of Halliburton executives during a Caribbean retreat, it might make some sense in terms of an overall strategy..."
Duck, that would have fit perfectly. On the other hand, how does Paul Krugman explain that Ross Perot was NOT assassinated? Without good old Ross both Bush1 and Dole would have beaten Clinton, and we would be into our 3rd decade of Republican dictatorship.
What I got from BrandX's original post was the concept of the left linking arms with whatever group, cult, or clatch can add to their juice, as the Joneses did quite clearly. The Democrats have the biggest tent of all, because they have no bouncers.
Me, nasty and insulting? I really do think that you don't think clearly, and are so interested in winning these little virtual contests that you process the facts, and other people's posts, only to serve your point. Krugman does it too, and is turning from an analyst into a bombthrower. I get my mind changed all the time, and sometimes it gripes me no end, but I do think it makes me more whole eventually.
Please, please, have the last word on this.
shaggydog wrote:What I got from BrandX's original post was the concept of the left linking arms with whatever group, cult, or clatch can add to their juice, as the Joneses did quite clearly. The Democrats have the biggest tent of all, because they have no bouncers.
Obviously, that isn't what I got from his post at all, but I'm willing to call it a difference of interpretation at this point.
Quote:
Me, nasty and insulting? I really do think that you don't think clearly, and are so interested in winning these little virtual contests that you process the facts, and other people's posts, only to serve your point.
So far, I don't recall having made any personal comments or accusations towards you or your way of thinking but you seem to be unable to finish a post without throwing some in there. In fact, as far as I can tell, this is the first exchange I've had with you. So either you are confusing me with someone else, or you are guilty of what you are accusing me of.
Ok duck, sorry to ruffle your feathers. I thought that your interpretation of X's original post proved my point about your bias messing up your analysis. Krugman is over the top, and he got there by forming conclusions and bending reality to fit them. I can live with the difference in interpretation of X's post, and won't assume that you are on the Krugman highway. Have a nice long weekend.
