@airshocker: You should know that I didn't target you specifically with my post so I'm not wishing anything concerning you in particular here. Here you go again deliberately misinterpreting my arguments. I didn't say Americans shouldn't care, period which is how you're trying to make it seem. Instead I presented a rationalization that takes into consideration the big picture. Try to do the same yourself.
And paying substantial attention to such a trivial portion of a supposedly pressing issue would entail malice in the sense that there had to be an ulterior motive behind such an irrational undertakin, such as scandalizing the masses against a political rival. Once again its either this or the fact that the individual in question is genuinely stupid.
Edit: forgot to add that the individual in question will of course be under the impression that he's making a genuine and valid point when he brings up such trifles regardless whether the real reason behind it is mental deficiency or malice.
If there's a misinterpretation it's because you aren't being clear. You are targeting me specifically by saying the only reason for my concern is either malice or mental deficiency. You're wrong on both counts, though. I didn't blame any particular politician when I posted this article so I'm not sure who I would be "scandalizing" the masses against. In fact I believe I said both Republicans and Democrats are to blame for this nonsense. As for someone being stupid because they care about wasteful spending, I guess I've heard it all, now. The only one trying to marginalize the issue here is you. I think that's the real indicator of stupidity.
Oy vey, the linearity is strong with this one. You don't have to be obvious and explicitly bring into light one politician or political party or the other in your attempt to undermine and slander them. It is sufficient to point out a flaw or a blunder of theirs and make a fuss about it during the term of a specific president or under the administration of one political party in particular. You certainly wouldn't be talking about the opposition. Also, it doesn't take a genius to understand that the "I blame both sides" routine can be disingenuous, employed solely to market one's self as partial and neutral.
Moreover, regarding the rationale behind my suggested potential triviality of this specific manifestation of the problem of wasteful government spending, it is so clear that only a genuine idiot or someone with a predisposition not to understand would miss the point. That doesn't mean you have to agree with my take on the issue and that I'm speaking the infallible truth in this instance. What it means however is that for you to escape the only two possible explanations of your lack of understanding, stupidity and malice, you'll have to make the distinction between the argument I'm making and "trying to marginalize the issue", rather than equating them with one another. Then you can proceed to explain how its not irrelevant and how it should be given attention. I'm sorry there is just no other way.
Yeah a good portion seems to have been exaggerated to try and dismiss scientific research as "wasteful spending". The article would have been fine, since they highlighted some wasteful issues (vehicles, helicopter parts, etc.) It just seemed to tried to incorporate too many things under their umbrella of wasteful spending, thus diminishing the value of the article.
That's typical Coburn style. Do a lot of crying about it but not actually DO anything about it. I'd much rather see him provide details about what spending he's actually prevented as opposed to what's been spent. Do something about it Coburn. Pointing fingers in typical republican fashion doesn't get things done. Republicans need to move out of the way and let the Democrats govern. Voting is a lot like Driving. If you want to go forward choose D. If you want to go backward choose R.
Yeah a good portion seems to have been exaggerated to try and dismiss scientific research as "wasteful spending". The article would have been fine, since they highlighted some wasteful issues (vehicles, helicopter parts, etc.) It just seemed to tried to incorporate too many things under their umbrella of wasteful spending, thus diminishing the value of the article.
That's typical Coburn style. Do a lot of crying about it but not actually DO anything about it. I'd much rather see him provide details about what spending he's actually prevented as opposed to what's been spent. Do something about it Coburn. Pointing fingers in typical republican fashion doesn't get things done. Republicans need to move out of the way and let the Democrats govern. Voting is a lot like Driving. If you want to go forward choose D. If you want to go backward choose R.
Yeah a good portion seems to have been exaggerated to try and dismiss scientific research as "wasteful spending". The article would have been fine, since they highlighted some wasteful issues (vehicles, helicopter parts, etc.) It just seemed to tried to incorporate too many things under their umbrella of wasteful spending, thus diminishing the value of the article.
That's typical Coburn style. Do a lot of crying about it but not actually DO anything about it. I'd much rather see him provide details about what spending he's actually prevented as opposed to what's been spent. Do something about it Coburn. Pointing fingers in typical republican fashion doesn't get things done. Republicans need to move out of the way and let the Democrats govern. Voting is a lot like Driving. If you want to go forward choose D. If you want to go backward choose R.
Yeah a good portion seems to have been exaggerated to try and dismiss scientific research as "wasteful spending". The article would have been fine, since they highlighted some wasteful issues (vehicles, helicopter parts, etc.) It just seemed to tried to incorporate too many things under their umbrella of wasteful spending, thus diminishing the value of the article.
That's typical Coburn style. Do a lot of crying about it but not actually DO anything about it. I'd much rather see him provide details about what spending he's actually prevented as opposed to what's been spent. Do something about it Coburn. Pointing fingers in typical republican fashion doesn't get things done. Republicans need to move out of the way and let the Democrats govern. Voting is a lot like Driving. If you want to go forward choose D. If you want to go backward choose R.
That was just terrible altogether
You loved it and you know it.
I'm fairly sure its not guilt that is evoking this rejection in me.
Yeah a good portion seems to have been exaggerated to try and dismiss scientific research as "wasteful spending". The article would have been fine, since they highlighted some wasteful issues (vehicles, helicopter parts, etc.) It just seemed to tried to incorporate too many things under their umbrella of wasteful spending, thus diminishing the value of the article.
That's typical Coburn style. Do a lot of crying about it but not actually DO anything about it. I'd much rather see him provide details about what spending he's actually prevented as opposed to what's been spent. Do something about it Coburn. Pointing fingers in typical republican fashion doesn't get things done. Republicans need to move out of the way and let the Democrats govern. Voting is a lot like Driving. If you want to go forward choose D. If you want to go backward choose R.
That was just terrible altogether
You loved it and you know it.
I'm fairly sure its not guilt that is evoking this rejection in me.
That's typical Coburn style. Do a lot of crying about it but not actually DO anything about it. I'd much rather see him provide details about what spending he's actually prevented as opposed to what's been spent. Do something about it Coburn. Pointing fingers in typical republican fashion doesn't get things done. Republicans need to move out of the way and let the Democrats govern. Voting is a lot like Driving. If you want to go forward choose D. If you want to go backward choose R.
That was just terrible altogether
You loved it and you know it.
I'm fairly sure its not guilt that is evoking this rejection in me.
Perhaps you should grow a sense of humor.
My sense of humor is impeccable, which is most probably why I didn't even let out a tee hee after reading your post.
That's typical Coburn style. Do a lot of crying about it but not actually DO anything about it. I'd much rather see him provide details about what spending he's actually prevented as opposed to what's been spent. Do something about it Coburn. Pointing fingers in typical republican fashion doesn't get things done. Republicans need to move out of the way and let the Democrats govern. Voting is a lot like Driving. If you want to go forward choose D. If you want to go backward choose R.
That was just terrible altogether
You loved it and you know it.
I'm fairly sure its not guilt that is evoking this rejection in me.
Perhaps you should grow a sense of humor.
My sense of humor is impeccable, which is most probably why I didn't even let out a tee hee after reading your post.
The word you meant to use was "impaired". Which makes perfect sense.
That's typical Coburn style. Do a lot of crying about it but not actually DO anything about it. I'd much rather see him provide details about what spending he's actually prevented as opposed to what's been spent. Do something about it Coburn. Pointing fingers in typical republican fashion doesn't get things done. Republicans need to move out of the way and let the Democrats govern. Voting is a lot like Driving. If you want to go forward choose D. If you want to go backward choose R.
That was just terrible altogether
You loved it and you know it.
I'm fairly sure its not guilt that is evoking this rejection in me.
Perhaps you should grow a sense of humor.
My sense of humor is impeccable, which is most probably why I didn't even let out a tee hee after reading your post.
The word you meant to use was "impaired". Which makes perfect sense.
I think your incapacity to understand what I meant points out your overall impairment.
@airshocker: You should know that I didn't target you specifically with my post so I'm not wishing anything concerning you in particular here. Here you go again deliberately misinterpreting my arguments. I didn't say Americans shouldn't care, period which is how you're trying to make it seem. Instead I presented a rationalization that takes into consideration the big picture. Try to do the same yourself.
And paying substantial attention to such a trivial portion of a supposedly pressing issue would entail malice in the sense that there had to be an ulterior motive behind such an irrational undertakin, such as scandalizing the masses against a political rival. Once again its either this or the fact that the individual in question is genuinely stupid.
Edit: forgot to add that the individual in question will of course be under the impression that he's making a genuine and valid point when he brings up such trifles regardless whether the real reason behind it is mental deficiency or malice.
If there's a misinterpretation it's because you aren't being clear. You are targeting me specifically by saying the only reason for my concern is either malice or mental deficiency. You're wrong on both counts, though. I didn't blame any particular politician when I posted this article so I'm not sure who I would be "scandalizing" the masses against. In fact I believe I said both Republicans and Democrats are to blame for this nonsense. As for someone being stupid because they care about wasteful spending, I guess I've heard it all, now. The only one trying to marginalize the issue here is you. I think that's the real indicator of stupidity.
Oy vey, the linearity is strong with this one. You don't have to be obvious and explicitly bring into light one politician or political party or the other in your attempt to undermine and slander them. It is sufficient to point out a flaw or a blunder of theirs and make a fuss about it during the term of a specific president or under the administration of one political party in particular. You certainly wouldn't be talking about the opposition. Also, it doesn't take a genius to understand that the "I blame both sides" routine can be disingenuous, employed solely to market one's self as partial and neutral.
Moreover, regarding the rationale behind my suggested potential triviality of this specific manifestation of the problem of wasteful government spending, it is so clear that only a genuine idiot or someone with a predisposition not to understand would miss the point. That doesn't mean you have to agree with my take on the issue and that I'm speaking the infallible truth in this instance. What it means however is that for you to escape the only two possible explanations of your lack of understanding, stupidity and malice, you'll have to make the distinction between the argument I'm making and "trying to marginalize the issue", rather than equating them with one another. Then you can proceed to explain how its not irrelevant and how it should be given attention. I'm sorry there is just no other way.
A blunder of whose, exactly? Seeing as we're going off of my words, what was said in this thread, what you believe is irrelevant. I mentioned no single person, no single party. So how you can come to some conclusion based on that, as to who or what I'm talking about, is highly suspect
No, what's clear is you believe a certain way, and I believe a certain way. Instead of getting over the fact that we disagree with each other, like any normal human being would do, you attempt to spin it. You call it maliciousness, or stupidity, when you haven't proven anything of the kind. In fact, the simple truth that all of this is coming from you and directed at me means nothing of what you say should be or can be believed considering how highly biased you are. And then, to make yourself appear blameless, you attempt to backtrack on those statements.
As for your attempts to obfuscate the issue all I can say is how typical. Hiding the real issue behind paragraphs of nonsense is a game I've noticed you enjoy playing. The real issue being, so you can't spin it, that it's neither maliciousness nor stupidity that makes me care about wasteful spending. I'm not sure why you can't wrap your head around it, but that's also typical. You may know how to write intelligently, but your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired.
You may know how to write intelligently, but your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired.
That's actually the conclusion that I set out to reach in the occasion that you still haven't understood what I've been getting at in the multiple posts I dedicated to you for the explanation of the actual point I'm making. For you seem to genuinely believe in what you're saying and I've come to believe that you're too innocent for maliciousness. Nevertheless, the fact remains that I may have an excuse for wanting in English reading comprehension, seeing how its my second language. What's yours?
On a different note, I have noticed that you, along with a couple more users, seem to constantly bring up either my writing style or the length of my posts, or both whenever you're discussing something with me. Why is that? And its never about any legitimate issue with my writing skills; at least that would be useful like many did before and I remain indebted to them to this day. Since its confined to such a small number of the same users, I think we can safely conclude that its nothing but pity attacks of ad hominem to make up for bankruptcy in argumentation and barrenness in intellect.
That's typical Coburn style. Do a lot of crying about it but not actually DO anything about it. I'd much rather see him provide details about what spending he's actually prevented as opposed to what's been spent. Do something about it Coburn. Pointing fingers in typical republican fashion doesn't get things done. Republicans need to move out of the way and let the Democrats govern. Voting is a lot like Driving. If you want to go forward choose D. If you want to go backward choose R.
That was just terrible altogether
You loved it and you know it.
I'm fairly sure its not guilt that is evoking this rejection in me.
Perhaps you should grow a sense of humor.
My sense of humor is impeccable, which is most probably why I didn't even let out a tee hee after reading your post.
The word you meant to use was "impaired". Which makes perfect sense.
I think your incapacity to understand what I meant points out your overall impairment.
Oh, I understood your narcissistic boasting about your sense of humor. I disagree that it's impeccable. Your sense of humor is, in my humble opinion, impaired.
This seems something to consider http://news.yahoo.com/us-funded-research-waste-scientists-refute-wastebook-criticism-101505298.html
This is exactly what I was talking about. He's turning these things into something that SOUNDS absurd in order to claim its waste. The general public know very little on how actual research is done and why it may be valuable. All they do is see a price tag and declare it waste when its stripped down to sound like something dumb.
Log in to comment