Yeah, I’m kinda done with him. He said he was done with me, after all.
It’s too bad, because I’m pretty sure this is down to a combination of misunderstanding hyperbole and misunderstanding exactly who I was talking about.
The John McCain links are evidence of that, because McCain never hurled unfounded accusations with ironic truths underlying them at anyone.
If, for example, McCain had embraced birtherism, the fact that he himself was born outside of the United States would have been a textbook example. But McCain had too much integrity to do that, so doesn’t fit the profile of accuser/confessor.
For the life of me, I don’t get what’s so hard to understand. The formula is simple: Stupid, mendacious accusation == confession about an ironic, underlying truth. No stupid, mendacious accusation? No ironic, underlying truth.
The formula is simple: Stupid, mendacious accusation == confession about an ironic, underlying truth. No stupid, mendacious accusation? No ironic, underlying truth.
Holy shit, introducing nuance? It’s almost like you understand my point and changed your argument to exactly what I suggested it should have been in the first place, but would never admit that you were wrong! Wow, I’m completely shocked!
“Every accusation…Every single one. No exceptions.” is the same as “stupid, mendacious accusation”. Cause non-“stupid, mendacious accusations” certainly sounds like the literal definition of an exception to “every accusation…every one”
Yeah, I’m kinda done with him. He said he was done with me, after all.
It’s too bad, because I’m pretty sure this is down to a combination of misunderstanding hyperbole and misunderstanding exactly who I was talking about.
The John McCain links are evidence of that, because McCain never hurled unfounded accusations with ironic truths underlying them at anyone.
If, for example, McCain had embraced birtherism, the fact that he himself was born outside of the United States would have been a textbook example. But McCain had too much integrity to do that, so doesn’t fit the profile of accuser/confessor.
For the life of me, I don’t get what’s so hard to understand. The formula is simple: Stupid, mendacious accusation == confession about an ironic, underlying truth. No stupid, mendacious accusation? No ironic, underlying truth.
C’est la vie, I guess.
Holy shit, introducing nuance? It’s almost like you understand my point and changed your argument to exactly what I suggested it should have been in the first place, but would never admit that you were wrong! Wow, I’m completely shocked!
Now I’d LOOOVE for you to tell me how
“Every accusation…Every single one. No exceptions.” is the same as “stupid, mendacious accusation”. Cause non-“stupid, mendacious accusations” certainly sounds like the literal definition of an exception to “every accusation…every one”
Betting you’ll sidestep or not answer tho lol
Lol yep, classic