The 99-percent should feel fortunate to have Nancy on their side!

[Xavier_Onassis]

actually trying to debate any issue seriously

=================================
It has never been, and will probably never be, possible to debate anything with sirs seriously.
Every discussion ends in an argument of what sirs meant vs what sirs said.

[sirs]

actually trying to debate any issue seriously
=================================
It has never been, and will probably never be, possible to debate anything with sirs seriously.

Yea, because I always respond with attacking the poster, or call the article all kinds of names, or refer to someone I disagree with as dolts, morons, stupid.....oh wait, that'd be xo.  Or ignore when a direct serious question is asked.....oh wait, that'd be xo as well

Every discussion ends in an argument of what sirs meant vs what sirs said.

LOL....precisely.  Strange how you and Bt will consistently ignore what I've said, and set your anchor on what I must have meant, despite even futher clarifications of what I've said.  That's the most substantive point you've made in quite a while Xo.  My compliments

[BT]

Sirs says:

Strange how you and Bt will consistently ignore what I've said, and set your anchor on what I must have meant

Xo must have missed the part that this isn't really about Pelosi...

Don't see how i set anchor on anything other than what you said.

 

[sirs]

See, if you were focused on what I had actually said, vs what you thought I meant, this tangent wouldn't have gone on beyond reply #13.  You would have said "ahhh, well I don't agree, but I see where you're coming from".  Something along those lines, but here you are, persevering on yet again, in reply #32, what you apparently think I meant, and ignoring what I've clearly said.  Which also includes no mandate to agree with how I came to my conclusion

Here's also a good example for Xo, when he goes off erroneously trying to claim I'm the one who doesn't respond seriously.  Note Xo's 1st salvo at "seriousness" in response #5, & again in reply #8, then my followup in reply #6, and again in responding to Bt with reply #13, when asked a direct question

At least with this completely irrelevant tangent, that little bit of substance can be highlighted

[Xavier_Onassis]

Don't see how i set anchor on anything other than what you said.

===================================
I agree on this point.

sirs says A, then when someone else points out that A is flawed, sirs says he really meant B, and makes some nasty crack about how the other person was unable to see that sirs really meant B, and how reminding him that he said A is a "deflection". . If anyone corrects him and tell him that he said A, he wants to change the topic to how Bush did  not lie about WMD's or something else unrelated.

[sirs]

Not quite,

Sirs says A.....Xo insults A and calls both A and sirs names, Bt distorts, or worse misrpresents A to imply sirs said B. 
Sirs adds to why A means A...Bt spends the next 4+ pages claiming how B must be A.  Xo salivates in agreement, and calls sirs some more names

Movin on , gents

[BT]

See, if you were focused on what I had actually said

What you actually said was this:

Xo must have missed the part that this isn't really about Pelosi...

Do you deny saying that? Is someone else posting under your name?

[sirs]

Ironic that you claim need for context, then post a snippet of what I said.  Bravo

[BT]

The snippet was the money quote. Do you deny that you said the lead post was not about Pelosi?
Because the snippet says you did.

I just don't see why you are arguing against saying what you clearly said. It is there in black and white.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I just don't see why you are arguing against saying what you clearly said. It is there in black and white.

=====================================
Why does a chimp like bananas? This seems to be instinctive behavior.

[sirs]

The snippet was the money quote. Do you deny that you said the lead post was not about Pelosi?
Because the snippet says you did.

I just don't see why you are arguing against saying what you clearly said. It is there in black and white.

The context you conveniently left out, to what I CLEARLY SAID was......It's about DC, especially Dems, trying to lay claim to "knowing what the rest of us 99% are going thru", being "connected to us" as it relates to budgeting, and simply surviving day to day living, which includes watching our incomes and pensions go down, while theirs goes exponentially up......using OUR tax dollars

But as I said, bravo to the double standard



and right on cue, there's Xo to add his SOP namecalling snark.  A double bravo     

[BT]

Perhaps you would have been better served by saying the broader issue is blah blah and Pelosi is an example of that issue instead of saying that the article wasn't about Pelosi.

Then we wouldn't be having this little side discussion.

Hope that is helpful.

[Christians4LessGvt]

To be clear, i disagree with you characterizing the 1st post as not being about Pelosi,
when clearly it was.

When did SIRS characterize the 1st post as not being about Pelosi?

SIRS stated this wasn't just about Pelosi or Obama after
others besides Pelosi were brought into the discussion.

In fact SIRS even cheered when Ami pointed out that both
Republicans and Democrats had gotten rich after taking elected office.
Shows that SIRS is not a blind partisan and will gladly also cheer facts that
are not flattering to Republicans.

And I think SIRS is correct.....it isn't really about Pelosi.
Small picture it's about Pelosi, Big Picture it's not.....isn't that obvious?...lol
it's about many on the Left pretending they "feel your pain"
and then running to $10,000 a night hotel rooms or $2000 sun dresses.
They pretend they are "one of the people" but they are really elite as hell.

[Christians4LessGvt]

instead of saying that the article wasn't about Pelosi.

where did SIRS do this when you first accused him of this?

SIRS said it wasnt about Pelosi (or Obama) after the discussion
had changed to include pictures of Michelle Obama as well.

And after others besides Pelosi are brought into the discussion
wouldn't in fact what SIRS said be true....that it wasn't just
"about Pelosi"?

[sirs]

It seems both Bt & xo have fixated on Pelosi, as if this is all about her, and damn anything that was said that couldn't have made it any clearer as to what this whole issue has been all about.  Deflection perhaps??  naaaaaaa   

Wash, rinse, repeat