Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 23, 2011 at 10:39 PM in reply to: OT – Who will run for President on the Republican side? #724286August 23, 2011 at 10:39 PM in reply to: OT – Who will run for President on the Republican side? #724643
eavesdropper
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=eavesdropper][quote=Arraya][img_assist|nid=15235|title=..|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=267|height=200]
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/13/us-usa-campaign-idUSTRE77C0BW20110813
Michele Bachmann narrowly won the Iowa straw poll of Republicans on Saturday in the first big test of the 2012 presidential campaign, as Texas Governor Rick Perry formally launched a White House bid that could reshape the race.[/quote]Geez, Arraya, where did you get that photo? Hmmm, looks like Michelle got some skills….
I’m getting mental pictures of Bachmann fans with adolescent histories of using the infamous Farrah Fawcett swimsuit as an aid to self-gratification doing the same with this money shot…..
(someone pleeeasse make them go awaaaay…)[/quote] Eaves: I’m willing to be extremely understanding on a lot of topics, but “hands off” Farrah Fawcett! I HAD that poster and I, er, um, well… I had that poster. [/quote]
Now THAT’S a revelation (not). But I confess to feeling a bit let down, Allan.
It’s not that I object to your adolescent habit of self-abuse with visual aids. In fact, back then, I took perverse adolescent pleasure in knowing that a high school classmate with a totally unrequited crush on me did the same with my yearbook picture (BTW, he’s now my husband).
But I would never have expected someone with your savoir faire to resort to so mundane an inspiration. I would have thought that you performed your five-fingered exercises to the vision of Isabelle Adjani or Julie Christie or Catherine Deneuve. You disappoint me, Allan.
Alors, à chacun ses goûts.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Say what you will, but the 2012 election is going to be a barnburner! (Little nod to Iowa, there). As wacky as the GOP field is (Huntsman excepted), Obama is going to have his hands full and it’ll be difficult for the Dems to pull out a win (at this point, anyway).[/quote]I liked Huntsman. Very much, in fact, until they asked him to explain why he had shipped tens of thousands of jobs overseas. He gave this long, rambling answer that, in fact, did not answer the question. He almost immediately segued into the standard, “We need to make the atmosphere in America more corporation-friendly” speech that all Republican candidates spit out. What?! The hundreds of billions that Americans SPEND on the products made and services offered by corporations isn’t enough for the motherfuckers?
Right now, I’m lovin’ Gary Johnson. Any guy that can stand up in a Republican lineup and openly and enthusiastically endorse the legalization of pot and prostitution, defend a woman’s right to choose, and proclaim his belief in the existence of global warming in this political environment gets me wet and happy. I’d lick envelopes for this guy.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Perry is far more formidable than anyone realizes and for one reason: JOBS. Rightly or wrongly (based on the actual facts behind the story), Texas is perceived as a jobs-creation engine. [/quote]
I fear that you are right, Allan. Most Americans have an attention span that will last only through “I created more jobs”. They’ll totally miss the part that reveals that the jobs are almost entirely in the minimum wage and lower category.
Forget how much education and job experience we all have. We need to start looking in the mirror, while practicing the phrase, “Will you have the hot apple pie with that”.
*BTW, forgive the late response on the post. Got a bit backed up as of late.
Participant[quote=briansd1]Romney should move to Palm Beach, FL where all the conservatives live.
(I didn’t know that Rush Limbaugh lost his hearing. It’s poetic justice for all the shouting he engages in).[/quote]
He had a cochlear implant several years back, but has continued to experience a worsening of the condition. There’s not a lot of research on the underlying cause of the hearing loss, AIED (autoimmune inner ear disease), but it is thought that opiate abuse (e.g., hydrocodone, oxycodone) can exacerbate the condition.
Participant[quote=briansd1]Romney should move to Palm Beach, FL where all the conservatives live.
(I didn’t know that Rush Limbaugh lost his hearing. It’s poetic justice for all the shouting he engages in).[/quote]
He had a cochlear implant several years back, but has continued to experience a worsening of the condition. There’s not a lot of research on the underlying cause of the hearing loss, AIED (autoimmune inner ear disease), but it is thought that opiate abuse (e.g., hydrocodone, oxycodone) can exacerbate the condition.
Participant[quote=briansd1]Romney should move to Palm Beach, FL where all the conservatives live.
(I didn’t know that Rush Limbaugh lost his hearing. It’s poetic justice for all the shouting he engages in).[/quote]
He had a cochlear implant several years back, but has continued to experience a worsening of the condition. There’s not a lot of research on the underlying cause of the hearing loss, AIED (autoimmune inner ear disease), but it is thought that opiate abuse (e.g., hydrocodone, oxycodone) can exacerbate the condition.
Participant[quote=briansd1]Romney should move to Palm Beach, FL where all the conservatives live.
(I didn’t know that Rush Limbaugh lost his hearing. It’s poetic justice for all the shouting he engages in).[/quote]
He had a cochlear implant several years back, but has continued to experience a worsening of the condition. There’s not a lot of research on the underlying cause of the hearing loss, AIED (autoimmune inner ear disease), but it is thought that opiate abuse (e.g., hydrocodone, oxycodone) can exacerbate the condition.
Participant[quote=briansd1]Romney should move to Palm Beach, FL where all the conservatives live.
(I didn’t know that Rush Limbaugh lost his hearing. It’s poetic justice for all the shouting he engages in).[/quote]
He had a cochlear implant several years back, but has continued to experience a worsening of the condition. There’s not a lot of research on the underlying cause of the hearing loss, AIED (autoimmune inner ear disease), but it is thought that opiate abuse (e.g., hydrocodone, oxycodone) can exacerbate the condition.
Participant[quote=AN]eavesdropper, you’re funny. FYI, this thread is about cities ranking in the promiscuous scales. I applaud you for bringing up politics.
[/quote]AN, I noticed that you deliberately left out my inclusion of my original post and your response to it. For your convenience, I have inserted it below:
[quote=AN][quote=eavesdropper]Excuse me?? Dallas AND Houston BOTH made the list?? Red-state Texas? Super-Christianite Texas? Pro-marriage Texas? Anti-premarital sex Texas? Mega-family-values-Texas has TWO cities in the top ten?
Hah!! And they can’t even blame it on what they consider their liberal aberration, Austin. Dallas and Houston. That’s rich!
I wonder if Gov. Perry’s going to make some more of his incomparable commercials for Texas tourism that feature this recent achievement.[/quote]
Seriously? This from the lady who constantly rail against the American public for being too polarized and not doing their proper research? I’m sure you did your research and just can’t help but be partisan. FYI both Harris County and Dallas County voted for Obama in 2008. Obama actually beat McCain 57.5% to 41.9% in Dallas.[/quote]Now that the evidence is before you (and, indeed, anyone with the ability to read this), can you please explain the meaning of, “eavesdropper, you’re funny. FYI, this thread is about cities ranking in the promiscuous scales. I applaud you for bringing up politics.” Please show me *exactly* where it is in the above post that I bring up politics, or invite the discussion of same.
[quote=AN][quote=eavesdropper]In the meantime, stop hassling me with your obsessive nitpicking of my posts[/quote]
Hypocrisies, makes me laugh and with you being on your high horse, I just can’t resist.[/quote]AN, your responses are not the reactions of someone who is amused. They are characteristic of someone who is angry, insecure, and anxious to find opportunities to demonstrate his superiority. Consider the following:
1. You respond to my original post with a disjointed series of sentences that make no sense.
2. In order to respond to your post, I had to make inferences about what you were trying to say. In my last post, I asked you to correct my inference, if it was incorrect, and explain exactly what you meant. You chose to ignore my request.
3. You had responded to my original post with information of a political nature that I inferred to be evidence of why Houston and Dallas had been included on the “most promiscuous” list (“FYI both Harris County and Dallas County voted for Obama in 2008. Obama actually beat McCain 57.5% to 41.9% in Dallas”) I, in turn, responded with information that demonstrated that the voters of Dallas and Houston clearly share their state’s preference for Republican candidates, the 2008 Presidential race results notwithstanding. You chose to completely ignore this information also.[quote=AN] [quote=eavesdropper]…but because of your inability to “hear” what others are saying, and your lack of preparation prior to entering public discourse.[/quote]
You should look in the mirror sometimes.[/quote]Instead of resorting to childish retorts like the one above, please respond in a manner equivalent to your age, background, and education. For my part, I can provide legitimate and relevant sources for everything I use as supporting evidence in my posts. And I make every effort to ensure an open dialogue with any and all correspondents, and will ask questions and research the material behind their opinions, if I am not familiar enough to challenge them on it.
AN, your posts appear to be very thinly-veiled expressions of hostility that date back to our previous “debate” on your support of school vouchers. I challenge any reasonable intelligent person to read our entire exchange on that topic, and conclude that I did not give you every opportunity to voice and support your positions. Your posts distorted facets of our discussions to a degree that they, in no way, resembled objective reality. Your responses (August 4) to my confronting you on the issue of your “evidence” was a textbook exhibition of narcissistic defenses, each subsequent post an exercise in cognitive distortion, while you denied, accused, fabricated, alternated between playing the victim and posing as the obviously superior intellect.
I cannot accept that it possible to carry on a true debate or discussion with you. Based on a wide variety of your posts, I don’t believe that you are capable of accepting the possibility that you could be wrong. What’s more, I believe that you are so firmly convinced of the superiority and infallibility of your opinions, that you find it offensive that anyone would require you to provide valid evidence supporting them. My perceptions may be erroneous, but I choose to be guided by them in order to avoid unnecessarily fractious exchanges.
I come to Piggs to exchange ideas and opinions with a widely diverse group of highly intelligent people, from all walks of life. The most appealing thing about this site is its civil tone, in an era in which name-calling, personal insults, threats of violence, and other irrelevant commentary is almost universally practiced on similar websites. I am grateful for the warm welcome I received as a new Pigg, and for the continuing friendship and encouragement from many of its regulars.
Since August 4, I have made it a point to avoid commenting on your posts, rather than exposing our fellow Piggs to senseless pissing matches and vitriolic exchanges. I would appreciate it if you would do likewise. We can simply agree to disagree.
Participant[quote=AN]eavesdropper, you’re funny. FYI, this thread is about cities ranking in the promiscuous scales. I applaud you for bringing up politics.
[/quote]AN, I noticed that you deliberately left out my inclusion of my original post and your response to it. For your convenience, I have inserted it below:
[quote=AN][quote=eavesdropper]Excuse me?? Dallas AND Houston BOTH made the list?? Red-state Texas? Super-Christianite Texas? Pro-marriage Texas? Anti-premarital sex Texas? Mega-family-values-Texas has TWO cities in the top ten?
Hah!! And they can’t even blame it on what they consider their liberal aberration, Austin. Dallas and Houston. That’s rich!
I wonder if Gov. Perry’s going to make some more of his incomparable commercials for Texas tourism that feature this recent achievement.[/quote]
Seriously? This from the lady who constantly rail against the American public for being too polarized and not doing their proper research? I’m sure you did your research and just can’t help but be partisan. FYI both Harris County and Dallas County voted for Obama in 2008. Obama actually beat McCain 57.5% to 41.9% in Dallas.[/quote]Now that the evidence is before you (and, indeed, anyone with the ability to read this), can you please explain the meaning of, “eavesdropper, you’re funny. FYI, this thread is about cities ranking in the promiscuous scales. I applaud you for bringing up politics.” Please show me *exactly* where it is in the above post that I bring up politics, or invite the discussion of same.
[quote=AN][quote=eavesdropper]In the meantime, stop hassling me with your obsessive nitpicking of my posts[/quote]
Hypocrisies, makes me laugh and with you being on your high horse, I just can’t resist.[/quote]AN, your responses are not the reactions of someone who is amused. They are characteristic of someone who is angry, insecure, and anxious to find opportunities to demonstrate his superiority. Consider the following:
1. You respond to my original post with a disjointed series of sentences that make no sense.
2. In order to respond to your post, I had to make inferences about what you were trying to say. In my last post, I asked you to correct my inference, if it was incorrect, and explain exactly what you meant. You chose to ignore my request.
3. You had responded to my original post with information of a political nature that I inferred to be evidence of why Houston and Dallas had been included on the “most promiscuous” list (“FYI both Harris County and Dallas County voted for Obama in 2008. Obama actually beat McCain 57.5% to 41.9% in Dallas”) I, in turn, responded with information that demonstrated that the voters of Dallas and Houston clearly share their state’s preference for Republican candidates, the 2008 Presidential race results notwithstanding. You chose to completely ignore this information also.[quote=AN] [quote=eavesdropper]…but because of your inability to “hear” what others are saying, and your lack of preparation prior to entering public discourse.[/quote]
You should look in the mirror sometimes.[/quote]Instead of resorting to childish retorts like the one above, please respond in a manner equivalent to your age, background, and education. For my part, I can provide legitimate and relevant sources for everything I use as supporting evidence in my posts. And I make every effort to ensure an open dialogue with any and all correspondents, and will ask questions and research the material behind their opinions, if I am not familiar enough to challenge them on it.
AN, your posts appear to be very thinly-veiled expressions of hostility that date back to our previous “debate” on your support of school vouchers. I challenge any reasonable intelligent person to read our entire exchange on that topic, and conclude that I did not give you every opportunity to voice and support your positions. Your posts distorted facets of our discussions to a degree that they, in no way, resembled objective reality. Your responses (August 4) to my confronting you on the issue of your “evidence” was a textbook exhibition of narcissistic defenses, each subsequent post an exercise in cognitive distortion, while you denied, accused, fabricated, alternated between playing the victim and posing as the obviously superior intellect.
I cannot accept that it possible to carry on a true debate or discussion with you. Based on a wide variety of your posts, I don’t believe that you are capable of accepting the possibility that you could be wrong. What’s more, I believe that you are so firmly convinced of the superiority and infallibility of your opinions, that you find it offensive that anyone would require you to provide valid evidence supporting them. My perceptions may be erroneous, but I choose to be guided by them in order to avoid unnecessarily fractious exchanges.
I come to Piggs to exchange ideas and opinions with a widely diverse group of highly intelligent people, from all walks of life. The most appealing thing about this site is its civil tone, in an era in which name-calling, personal insults, threats of violence, and other irrelevant commentary is almost universally practiced on similar websites. I am grateful for the warm welcome I received as a new Pigg, and for the continuing friendship and encouragement from many of its regulars.
Since August 4, I have made it a point to avoid commenting on your posts, rather than exposing our fellow Piggs to senseless pissing matches and vitriolic exchanges. I would appreciate it if you would do likewise. We can simply agree to disagree.
Participant[quote=AN]eavesdropper, you’re funny. FYI, this thread is about cities ranking in the promiscuous scales. I applaud you for bringing up politics.
[/quote]AN, I noticed that you deliberately left out my inclusion of my original post and your response to it. For your convenience, I have inserted it below:
[quote=AN][quote=eavesdropper]Excuse me?? Dallas AND Houston BOTH made the list?? Red-state Texas? Super-Christianite Texas? Pro-marriage Texas? Anti-premarital sex Texas? Mega-family-values-Texas has TWO cities in the top ten?
Hah!! And they can’t even blame it on what they consider their liberal aberration, Austin. Dallas and Houston. That’s rich!
I wonder if Gov. Perry’s going to make some more of his incomparable commercials for Texas tourism that feature this recent achievement.[/quote]
Seriously? This from the lady who constantly rail against the American public for being too polarized and not doing their proper research? I’m sure you did your research and just can’t help but be partisan. FYI both Harris County and Dallas County voted for Obama in 2008. Obama actually beat McCain 57.5% to 41.9% in Dallas.[/quote]Now that the evidence is before you (and, indeed, anyone with the ability to read this), can you please explain the meaning of, “eavesdropper, you’re funny. FYI, this thread is about cities ranking in the promiscuous scales. I applaud you for bringing up politics.” Please show me *exactly* where it is in the above post that I bring up politics, or invite the discussion of same.
[quote=AN][quote=eavesdropper]In the meantime, stop hassling me with your obsessive nitpicking of my posts[/quote]
Hypocrisies, makes me laugh and with you being on your high horse, I just can’t resist.[/quote]AN, your responses are not the reactions of someone who is amused. They are characteristic of someone who is angry, insecure, and anxious to find opportunities to demonstrate his superiority. Consider the following:
1. You respond to my original post with a disjointed series of sentences that make no sense.
2. In order to respond to your post, I had to make inferences about what you were trying to say. In my last post, I asked you to correct my inference, if it was incorrect, and explain exactly what you meant. You chose to ignore my request.
3. You had responded to my original post with information of a political nature that I inferred to be evidence of why Houston and Dallas had been included on the “most promiscuous” list (“FYI both Harris County and Dallas County voted for Obama in 2008. Obama actually beat McCain 57.5% to 41.9% in Dallas”) I, in turn, responded with information that demonstrated that the voters of Dallas and Houston clearly share their state’s preference for Republican candidates, the 2008 Presidential race results notwithstanding. You chose to completely ignore this information also.[quote=AN] [quote=eavesdropper]…but because of your inability to “hear” what others are saying, and your lack of preparation prior to entering public discourse.[/quote]
You should look in the mirror sometimes.[/quote]Instead of resorting to childish retorts like the one above, please respond in a manner equivalent to your age, background, and education. For my part, I can provide legitimate and relevant sources for everything I use as supporting evidence in my posts. And I make every effort to ensure an open dialogue with any and all correspondents, and will ask questions and research the material behind their opinions, if I am not familiar enough to challenge them on it.
AN, your posts appear to be very thinly-veiled expressions of hostility that date back to our previous “debate” on your support of school vouchers. I challenge any reasonable intelligent person to read our entire exchange on that topic, and conclude that I did not give you every opportunity to voice and support your positions. Your posts distorted facets of our discussions to a degree that they, in no way, resembled objective reality. Your responses (August 4) to my confronting you on the issue of your “evidence” was a textbook exhibition of narcissistic defenses, each subsequent post an exercise in cognitive distortion, while you denied, accused, fabricated, alternated between playing the victim and posing as the obviously superior intellect.
I cannot accept that it possible to carry on a true debate or discussion with you. Based on a wide variety of your posts, I don’t believe that you are capable of accepting the possibility that you could be wrong. What’s more, I believe that you are so firmly convinced of the superiority and infallibility of your opinions, that you find it offensive that anyone would require you to provide valid evidence supporting them. My perceptions may be erroneous, but I choose to be guided by them in order to avoid unnecessarily fractious exchanges.
I come to Piggs to exchange ideas and opinions with a widely diverse group of highly intelligent people, from all walks of life. The most appealing thing about this site is its civil tone, in an era in which name-calling, personal insults, threats of violence, and other irrelevant commentary is almost universally practiced on similar websites. I am grateful for the warm welcome I received as a new Pigg, and for the continuing friendship and encouragement from many of its regulars.
Since August 4, I have made it a point to avoid commenting on your posts, rather than exposing our fellow Piggs to senseless pissing matches and vitriolic exchanges. I would appreciate it if you would do likewise. We can simply agree to disagree.
Participant[quote=AN]eavesdropper, you’re funny. FYI, this thread is about cities ranking in the promiscuous scales. I applaud you for bringing up politics.
[/quote]AN, I noticed that you deliberately left out my inclusion of my original post and your response to it. For your convenience, I have inserted it below:
[quote=AN][quote=eavesdropper]Excuse me?? Dallas AND Houston BOTH made the list?? Red-state Texas? Super-Christianite Texas? Pro-marriage Texas? Anti-premarital sex Texas? Mega-family-values-Texas has TWO cities in the top ten?
Hah!! And they can’t even blame it on what they consider their liberal aberration, Austin. Dallas and Houston. That’s rich!
I wonder if Gov. Perry’s going to make some more of his incomparable commercials for Texas tourism that feature this recent achievement.[/quote]
Seriously? This from the lady who constantly rail against the American public for being too polarized and not doing their proper research? I’m sure you did your research and just can’t help but be partisan. FYI both Harris County and Dallas County voted for Obama in 2008. Obama actually beat McCain 57.5% to 41.9% in Dallas.[/quote]Now that the evidence is before you (and, indeed, anyone with the ability to read this), can you please explain the meaning of, “eavesdropper, you’re funny. FYI, this thread is about cities ranking in the promiscuous scales. I applaud you for bringing up politics.” Please show me *exactly* where it is in the above post that I bring up politics, or invite the discussion of same.
[quote=AN][quote=eavesdropper]In the meantime, stop hassling me with your obsessive nitpicking of my posts[/quote]
Hypocrisies, makes me laugh and with you being on your high horse, I just can’t resist.[/quote]AN, your responses are not the reactions of someone who is amused. They are characteristic of someone who is angry, insecure, and anxious to find opportunities to demonstrate his superiority. Consider the following:
1. You respond to my original post with a disjointed series of sentences that make no sense.
2. In order to respond to your post, I had to make inferences about what you were trying to say. In my last post, I asked you to correct my inference, if it was incorrect, and explain exactly what you meant. You chose to ignore my request.
3. You had responded to my original post with information of a political nature that I inferred to be evidence of why Houston and Dallas had been included on the “most promiscuous” list (“FYI both Harris County and Dallas County voted for Obama in 2008. Obama actually beat McCain 57.5% to 41.9% in Dallas”) I, in turn, responded with information that demonstrated that the voters of Dallas and Houston clearly share their state’s preference for Republican candidates, the 2008 Presidential race results notwithstanding. You chose to completely ignore this information also.[quote=AN] [quote=eavesdropper]…but because of your inability to “hear” what others are saying, and your lack of preparation prior to entering public discourse.[/quote]
You should look in the mirror sometimes.[/quote]Instead of resorting to childish retorts like the one above, please respond in a manner equivalent to your age, background, and education. For my part, I can provide legitimate and relevant sources for everything I use as supporting evidence in my posts. And I make every effort to ensure an open dialogue with any and all correspondents, and will ask questions and research the material behind their opinions, if I am not familiar enough to challenge them on it.
AN, your posts appear to be very thinly-veiled expressions of hostility that date back to our previous “debate” on your support of school vouchers. I challenge any reasonable intelligent person to read our entire exchange on that topic, and conclude that I did not give you every opportunity to voice and support your positions. Your posts distorted facets of our discussions to a degree that they, in no way, resembled objective reality. Your responses (August 4) to my confronting you on the issue of your “evidence” was a textbook exhibition of narcissistic defenses, each subsequent post an exercise in cognitive distortion, while you denied, accused, fabricated, alternated between playing the victim and posing as the obviously superior intellect.
I cannot accept that it possible to carry on a true debate or discussion with you. Based on a wide variety of your posts, I don’t believe that you are capable of accepting the possibility that you could be wrong. What’s more, I believe that you are so firmly convinced of the superiority and infallibility of your opinions, that you find it offensive that anyone would require you to provide valid evidence supporting them. My perceptions may be erroneous, but I choose to be guided by them in order to avoid unnecessarily fractious exchanges.
I come to Piggs to exchange ideas and opinions with a widely diverse group of highly intelligent people, from all walks of life. The most appealing thing about this site is its civil tone, in an era in which name-calling, personal insults, threats of violence, and other irrelevant commentary is almost universally practiced on similar websites. I am grateful for the warm welcome I received as a new Pigg, and for the continuing friendship and encouragement from many of its regulars.
Since August 4, I have made it a point to avoid commenting on your posts, rather than exposing our fellow Piggs to senseless pissing matches and vitriolic exchanges. I would appreciate it if you would do likewise. We can simply agree to disagree.
Participant[quote=AN]eavesdropper, you’re funny. FYI, this thread is about cities ranking in the promiscuous scales. I applaud you for bringing up politics.
[/quote]AN, I noticed that you deliberately left out my inclusion of my original post and your response to it. For your convenience, I have inserted it below:
[quote=AN][quote=eavesdropper]Excuse me?? Dallas AND Houston BOTH made the list?? Red-state Texas? Super-Christianite Texas? Pro-marriage Texas? Anti-premarital sex Texas? Mega-family-values-Texas has TWO cities in the top ten?
Hah!! And they can’t even blame it on what they consider their liberal aberration, Austin. Dallas and Houston. That’s rich!
I wonder if Gov. Perry’s going to make some more of his incomparable commercials for Texas tourism that feature this recent achievement.[/quote]
Seriously? This from the lady who constantly rail against the American public for being too polarized and not doing their proper research? I’m sure you did your research and just can’t help but be partisan. FYI both Harris County and Dallas County voted for Obama in 2008. Obama actually beat McCain 57.5% to 41.9% in Dallas.[/quote]Now that the evidence is before you (and, indeed, anyone with the ability to read this), can you please explain the meaning of, “eavesdropper, you’re funny. FYI, this thread is about cities ranking in the promiscuous scales. I applaud you for bringing up politics.” Please show me *exactly* where it is in the above post that I bring up politics, or invite the discussion of same.
[quote=AN][quote=eavesdropper]In the meantime, stop hassling me with your obsessive nitpicking of my posts[/quote]
Hypocrisies, makes me laugh and with you being on your high horse, I just can’t resist.[/quote]AN, your responses are not the reactions of someone who is amused. They are characteristic of someone who is angry, insecure, and anxious to find opportunities to demonstrate his superiority. Consider the following:
1. You respond to my original post with a disjointed series of sentences that make no sense.
2. In order to respond to your post, I had to make inferences about what you were trying to say. In my last post, I asked you to correct my inference, if it was incorrect, and explain exactly what you meant. You chose to ignore my request.
3. You had responded to my original post with information of a political nature that I inferred to be evidence of why Houston and Dallas had been included on the “most promiscuous” list (“FYI both Harris County and Dallas County voted for Obama in 2008. Obama actually beat McCain 57.5% to 41.9% in Dallas”) I, in turn, responded with information that demonstrated that the voters of Dallas and Houston clearly share their state’s preference for Republican candidates, the 2008 Presidential race results notwithstanding. You chose to completely ignore this information also.[quote=AN] [quote=eavesdropper]…but because of your inability to “hear” what others are saying, and your lack of preparation prior to entering public discourse.[/quote]
You should look in the mirror sometimes.[/quote]Instead of resorting to childish retorts like the one above, please respond in a manner equivalent to your age, background, and education. For my part, I can provide legitimate and relevant sources for everything I use as supporting evidence in my posts. And I make every effort to ensure an open dialogue with any and all correspondents, and will ask questions and research the material behind their opinions, if I am not familiar enough to challenge them on it.
AN, your posts appear to be very thinly-veiled expressions of hostility that date back to our previous “debate” on your support of school vouchers. I challenge any reasonable intelligent person to read our entire exchange on that topic, and conclude that I did not give you every opportunity to voice and support your positions. Your posts distorted facets of our discussions to a degree that they, in no way, resembled objective reality. Your responses (August 4) to my confronting you on the issue of your “evidence” was a textbook exhibition of narcissistic defenses, each subsequent post an exercise in cognitive distortion, while you denied, accused, fabricated, alternated between playing the victim and posing as the obviously superior intellect.
I cannot accept that it possible to carry on a true debate or discussion with you. Based on a wide variety of your posts, I don’t believe that you are capable of accepting the possibility that you could be wrong. What’s more, I believe that you are so firmly convinced of the superiority and infallibility of your opinions, that you find it offensive that anyone would require you to provide valid evidence supporting them. My perceptions may be erroneous, but I choose to be guided by them in order to avoid unnecessarily fractious exchanges.
I come to Piggs to exchange ideas and opinions with a widely diverse group of highly intelligent people, from all walks of life. The most appealing thing about this site is its civil tone, in an era in which name-calling, personal insults, threats of violence, and other irrelevant commentary is almost universally practiced on similar websites. I am grateful for the warm welcome I received as a new Pigg, and for the continuing friendship and encouragement from many of its regulars.
Since August 4, I have made it a point to avoid commenting on your posts, rather than exposing our fellow Piggs to senseless pissing matches and vitriolic exchanges. I would appreciate it if you would do likewise. We can simply agree to disagree.
Participant[quote=UCGal]Here’s the UT’s take on it.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/aug/20/romney-home-in-la-jolla-to-grow/And if anyone wants to see the house on redfin – http://www.redfin.com/CA/La-Jolla/311-Dunemere-Dr-92037/home/4913412
Or zillow –
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/311-Dunemere-Dr-La-Jolla-CA-92037/16849324_zpid/#{scid=hdp-site-map-bubble-address}(which still has listing pictures).
[/quote]
Looking at Romney’s existing house, I can’t imagine how they are going to squeeze 11,000+ square feet of McMansion into that lot. Must suck to be the poor guy who lives directly behind Mitt’s property.
Unless he can manage to sell his property to Romney for hmmmmm……….. say, $19,999,000?
Participant[quote=UCGal]Here’s the UT’s take on it.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/aug/20/romney-home-in-la-jolla-to-grow/And if anyone wants to see the house on redfin – http://www.redfin.com/CA/La-Jolla/311-Dunemere-Dr-92037/home/4913412
Or zillow –
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/311-Dunemere-Dr-La-Jolla-CA-92037/16849324_zpid/#{scid=hdp-site-map-bubble-address}(which still has listing pictures).
[/quote]
Looking at Romney’s existing house, I can’t imagine how they are going to squeeze 11,000+ square feet of McMansion into that lot. Must suck to be the poor guy who lives directly behind Mitt’s property.
Unless he can manage to sell his property to Romney for hmmmmm……….. say, $19,999,000?
Participant[quote=UCGal]Here’s the UT’s take on it.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/aug/20/romney-home-in-la-jolla-to-grow/And if anyone wants to see the house on redfin – http://www.redfin.com/CA/La-Jolla/311-Dunemere-Dr-92037/home/4913412
Or zillow –
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/311-Dunemere-Dr-La-Jolla-CA-92037/16849324_zpid/#{scid=hdp-site-map-bubble-address}(which still has listing pictures).
[/quote]
Looking at Romney’s existing house, I can’t imagine how they are going to squeeze 11,000+ square feet of McMansion into that lot. Must suck to be the poor guy who lives directly behind Mitt’s property.
Unless he can manage to sell his property to Romney for hmmmmm……….. say, $19,999,000?
-
AuthorPosts