Oh That Dreaded Health Care Law - Obama Cares!

Pot, meet Kettle.

 

Proof that you are gregarious with rlm, as if that were necessary to prove.

 

If you would post something a bit on topic we might be able to discuss something. Lately, all your posts responding to me or supposedly answering me only seem to wind up as you attempts at insults. I can't even comment about women's hockey without you going ballistic. Yet, somehow you think I am being unreasonable. The only comment I can make would be if you would try to answer a question in stead of throwing insults, you might just get a much better discussion going.

 

I do, and often. The word gregarious is no coincidence, while the literal meaning is easy enough to understand, the more subtle aspects are not. If you are open-minded, you may discover what some of those are by doing some self-reflection yourself.

As for the apparent differences in my responses, that too takes an open-mind to comprehend. I can tell you this: I am not above temporarily lowering myself to a more incendiary level to respond to similarly-guaged comments. That you are able to see the differences in my responses is only half the truth of what's actually occuring. While there is definitely an argument to be made for simply ceasing to engage with loathesome characters like rlm and Coin, I have my reasons, reasons I am unwilling to share with someone who has generally opposing beliefs when compared to my own.

 

Of course it's a slippery slope. We can let people die unnecessarily for any reason we choose. Trumped up wars, addictive legal products, low-quality high calorie foods, poverty, the list is endless. Why do we find some of those reasons Ok and yet when someone chooses to throw their health away, we think we should lend a hand and not hold those making money off of their misery responsible? The answer is that someone is making money off of war, cigarettes, cheap food, and keeping people in poverty. Money is the only reason we accept any of the slippery slopes that we deem OK. Now how is that any better than the slippery slope of ending care for people that actually choose to harm themselves? Smokers ARE drug addicts after all. You can't deny that.

 

The phrase "not being able to smell your own (deleted)" applies. I have said this often, yet most are unwilling to heed it: I can agree to disagree and move on. But you can't do that, you can't tolerate a stalemate. You have to decare victory, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, then attack your opponent to deflect attention away from your perceived humiliation. You take loss personally, attack maliciously, then complain about it to anyone that will listen... all to avoid losing an argument. Over what? The definition of "flip-flop"? Unreal.

 

Nice try, I'm sure the less informed among us will believe you... but let's ask someone who knows you well, let's see what Moen would say on this, I'm sure he has a graph that shows your true nature in all it's splendor:

A: "He supports his arguments far better than you are capable of!"
B: "You wouldn't know the meaning of the word if your therapist hadn't shown you in a dictionary, and he only did that in order to stop you incessant babbling!"
C: "You're one to talk! And since when have you ever "debated" anything?!!"

Thank you Moen... but you're usually much more verbose... and where are the graphs I asked for?

 

It shouldn't. But then again you're focus isn't on others, is it, so it should come as no surprise that you'd fail to see that I have agreed with you on more than one occasion.

 

I doubt you hated to that much, if any. It's highly likely you actually achieved some measure of happiness from it. That is unfortunate, I hadn't considered that possibility when responding to David's comment.

 

Just how are we to debate anything when the only answers we can get are "I am right and you are a coward" or some such insult. In order to debate, you have to give us something to talk about and back up at least some of you data. Lately, the best attempt you have had at data is some weird definition of gregarious. If you are serious about wanting to debate, give us something to debate about.

 

I'll begin work on them right away!

 

Are you really questioning that? It was a republican debate after all. The likelyhood someone other than a Republican was responding to Blitzer's question in that manner is so near non-existant that... (deleted)

...I had to delete the rest of my comment. While the rest of my sentence was truthful, and not directed at any particular individual, it could also be viewed as a personal attack. I assure you though, I meant no disrespect.

 

Kettle, meet HM. She doesn't know it yet, but you two are closely related.

 

And here comes the final, desperate act. This is where rlm, unable to admit defeat, begins to complain that people are picking on him. A final desperate diversionary tactic, all to avoid admitting to losing the debate over the definition of "flip-flop".

 

Sorry, but that does not cut it. Something to talk about, please.

 

I'm not even gonna make the attempt. It's safe to say we have differing view-points on this issue that can't be resolved here. In order to show people how mutual respect works, I suggest we agree to disagree on the issue, and I promise I won't respond to discussions on it anymore. (You can still debate it with them though )

 

Nice reflection on points that can be said about you and Coin, only much earlier in the discussion. It, as usual, is your attempt to take the focus away from your loss in the debate on what the definition is of "flip-flop". It's not the end of the World you know(losing a debate), especially considering it was a mere definition of a phrase that was being debated. That you take it this far to avoid potential humiliation is the point I'm now intent on making, because of that behavior both you and Coin got into the habit of using. You both should learn that losing a point is a part of debating. You both should learn how to accept it, and not attack people for winning the point. You both should learn how to show mutual respect while debating the issues.

 

I keep trying to focus on the definition of "flip-flop" or anything debatable, but all I get from you is this garbage. You got it from here. I give unless you can actually present something to talk about.

 

Really? Point to one thing that I posted that was nearly as over the top as what you've posted. Ever. I admit that you and IQ have goaded me into anger a few times, but for you to speak of people being disrespectful is a bit humorous.

 

I'm fully capable of having, and am willing to have, simultaneous discussions in multiple threads, even with varying temperaments. However, this discussion is not over simply because you've said so. There are unresolved issues here that, if left unchecked, may resurface later. ...But ...I don't lack for the ability to compromise... and that may be enough for me to reconsider my determination here. Give me something, anything, to convince me you can behave differently in the future than you have in recent days and I'll reconsider my stance on this issue. One absolute requirement, that I agree to consider as satisfactory proof of your willingness to move past this issue and return to a more "normal" debate, is the removal of the offending remark you made on the thread I created in Chatter on the Packers. The reasons for which are stated there. Do that and I will refrain from hounding you on the issues raised in this thread. Refuse, or fail to comply, and this offer is void.