DIYbanter - View Single Post - OT - Senate Republicans vote to kill Obama's jobs bill..Why DoRepublicans Hate America?

Hawke[_3_]

On 10/28/2011 11:26 AM, wrote:

Well, maybe it's YOU?

Maybe it's the fact you're an incoherent, pompous, immature dolt.

Hey Dan, here's what I am talking about. Everyone understands me just
fine. Take this right winger, for example. He understood what I wrote.
But as I also said about the right wingers, everything I write either
enrages or confuses them or both. From the level of his personal attack
against me, I'd say this one is enraged . But that is to be expected
when you can't come up with a cogent argument backed by facts that
proves me to be wrong about something. So, they call me names.

Hawke

It sounds to me as if they are just describing your actions. Immature
because you will not admit you are wrong about the damage to the White
House.

Why should I admit to something that I don't believe is true? Or is so
petty that it was never worth mentioning and only was by political
opponents. The question for you is why do you value the accusations that
come only from right wing opponents of the Clinton's?

Pompous because you bring up having gone to college as if it is
something special.

I only brought it up in the first place to establish that I have a
degree in a field that a lot of discussions take place in. That means
I'm not just some ignorant or untrained amateur like most folks here
are. Second, only about 25% of adult Americans have completed a college
degree. Meaning 75% don't have one. The fact that 75% don't have one
does mean having one is special. Of course, that's by my definition of
special.

I expect a large majority of the people who post
here have graduated from college.

Statistically speaking that would not be true. As I said 75% of people
don't have a degree and people in the "trades" in general are even less
inclined to have one. So you might "expect" the majority of people who
post here have degrees the statistics say otherwise. Excuse me if I
choose to go with statistics over your expectations.

And incoherent because you make up
your own definitions as to what words mean. It sounds to me as if
they understand you all right.

Like I said, they do understand me. They just don't like hearing points
of view that are not from the far right side. As to making up my own
definitions that is not something I alone do. So do most people.

What you write does not enrage me. I mean to say why should I get mad
just because you can not make a cogent coherent statement.

Obviously I make cogent and easily understandable statements all the
time. Otherwise you would not understand me. As to why what I write
would make you mad is because I express opinions you strongly disagree
with. FYI that sort of thing makes many on the right very angry.

Some of
the things you say confuse me because you use your own definitions of
words that differ from the standard convention.

So you believe. But I think the problem is your way of comprehending
what is written. You are very rigid in your thinking and are not good at
grasping anything besides the obvious.

And I have come up
with cogent arguments backed by fact that prove you wrong about saying
there was no damage done by departing Clinton staff. So wail away at
the keyboard and try to worm out of it, but anyone reading this now or
as long as it is archived on the internet can see how immature you
are.

Some might agree with your assessment, Dan. But not everyone. In fact,
many people would agree with me that a small amount of breakage in the
White House isn't properly described as damage. Especially when the
claims are made by right wingers who are out to smear the Clinton's
name. Moreover, I doubt many people will agree with you that what I have
said is in any way immature. What I think they will think is that you
were really desperate to be right about the Clinton's doing a lot of
"damage" to the White House. So you constructed an ineffective argument
to back that assertion up, and that the truth is what I have maintained
all along, and that is the White House was not damaged by the Clintons'.
Characterizing it that was was politically done and didn't reflect the
truth.

Hawke