More on Obama's no new taxes promiseFollow

When everyone is able to find problems with what you're saying and you insist over and over that they're all wrong and you're right and you're somehow being persecuted by everyone else...

...well, "pathological" is a good word for it but I don't think it's how you intended it.

Is 4 people posting the same thing considered an intervention?

We're only here because we love you, son. Or whatever the **** we're supposed to say.

To be fair I think pretty much everyone else just ignores you when you start to discuss philosophy

You mean when he repeated a statement his director of the CIA told him was supported by the intelligence? The one he said was a "slam dunk"? That one?


It's about intent Smash. Remember? Bush's intent was to invade Iraq and remove Saddam from power. Which was exactly what he told the people he wanted to do, asked Congress for permission to do, and ultimately did.

Obama's intent is to raise revenue to pay for his social programs. But instead of saying "I'm going to find ways to increase tax revenue to pay for this stuff", he instead promised the people that their taxes would not go up. He promised them the exact opposite of what he intended to do. He knew darn well that the cost for his programs would be born by the very people he was promising not to raise taxes on.

No, Bush's intent was to continue Daddy's War. Those of us who were war protesters saw through it from the get go.

Yes. Did he lie about that intent? yes or no?


Do you see how that is different than promising not to do something, while actually planning to do that thing?

But when the arguments are about weighty subjects, such as politics and religion and other sundry topics as they appear in the Asylum, you are mentally graded by those who read your posts. Too much BS in a post and our internal faildars go off.

As opposed to the poster reads my response about his friend's concerns about high taxes and concludes that I'm agreeing that we're going to create a second treasury department? That's well received.

Or the poster who repeatedly insists that Bush "lied" during the state of the union address by repeating a statement his head of intelligence said was ok to say, even after the hundredth time his claim has been challenged and debunked.


Or the poster who insists that promising not to raise taxes while planning to raise taxes isn't as bad a lie as telling people you think we should go to war with Iraq, while planning to go to war with Iraq.


Do you see how one might start to suspect that it's really not about logic, reason, maturity, form, or style? An internet forum is like a grade school playground and the decisions as to who is "right" and who is "wrong" are made based on pretty much the same set of criteria. I accept that and it doesn't bother me (much), but let's not sit here and pretend that if only I had shorter posts, people would agree with me more. It's not really that. I post unpopular opinions. Specifically, I post opinions which the "in clique" on the playground doesn't like. No amount of posting style changes makes any real difference, does it?

Edited, May 14th 2009 6:12pm by gbaji

It would make a difference to me.

After the first couple years, I've never proactively read your posts. Really the only time I bother is if someone quotes you and I find what they've quoted so absurd I have to go back and find it in context so's I can laugh at you myself.

Conversely, I read almost all of Varus' posts, because he keeps it succinct. Basically, I'm only going to let a ****** babble at me for a brief period of time before I lose interest entirely.

I've lost interest in you entirely, ******.

tl;dr

This.

What I'm saying is if you weren't such an arrogant martyr about it I'd welcome a dissenting opinion.

Oh stop it; you're going to get me all hot and bothered.