calbear93 said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

Honest question: was Yogi ever a critical thinker?

---

Well, he's often critical of others.

---

I know you are trying to be funny. But serious question. Do you think most here are critical thinkers? I would argue that Yogi is exponentially more of a critical thinker than the person originally asking that "honest" question.

---

Exponentially? Hardly. Mostly I think of him as a sore loser who's been on a 7+ year tantrum since Bernie Sanders lost. I also can't respect someone who creates a few hundred aliases under the belief that somehow he's putting something over on the moderators. Everyone can tell it's Yogi right away.

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

Honest question: was Yogi ever a critical thinker?

---

Well, he's often critical of others.

---

I know you are trying to be funny. But serious question. Do you think most here are critical thinkers? I would argue that Yogi is exponentially more of a critical thinker than the person originally asking that "honest" question.

---

Exponentially? Hardly. Mostly I think of him as a sore loser who's been on a 7+ year tantrum since Bernie Sanders lost. I also can't respect someone who creates a few hundred aliases under the belief that somehow he's putting something over on the moderators. Everyone can tell it's Yogi right away.

---

I don't think he is hiding himself from us. I think he is working around the ban put in by the moderators. At the very least, you must recognize that Yogi provides more substance and independent thinking than the person asking the question.

calbear93 said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

Honest question: was Yogi ever a critical thinker?

---

Well, he's often critical of others.

---

I know you are trying to be funny. But serious question. Do you think most here are critical thinkers? I would argue that Yogi is exponentially more of a critical thinker than the person originally asking that "honest" question.

---

Exponentially? Hardly. Mostly I think of him as a sore loser who's been on a 7+ year tantrum since Bernie Sanders lost. I also can't respect someone who creates a few hundred aliases under the belief that somehow he's putting something over on the moderators. Everyone can tell it's Yogi right away.

---

I don't think he is hiding himself from us. I think he is working around the ban put in by the moderators. At the very least, you must recognize that Yogi provides more substance and independent thinking than the person asking the question.

---

I think determinations about who provides more substance and independent thinking usually boils down to who agrees politically with the person making the determination.

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

Honest question: was Yogi ever a critical thinker?

---

Well, he's often critical of others.

---

I know you are trying to be funny. But serious question. Do you think most here are critical thinkers? I would argue that Yogi is exponentially more of a critical thinker than the person originally asking that "honest" question.

---

Exponentially? Hardly. Mostly I think of him as a sore loser who's been on a 7+ year tantrum since Bernie Sanders lost. I also can't respect someone who creates a few hundred aliases under the belief that somehow he's putting something over on the moderators. Everyone can tell it's Yogi right away.

---

I don't think he is hiding himself from us. I think he is working around the ban put in by the moderators. At the very least, you must recognize that Yogi provides more substance and independent thinking than the person asking the question.

---

I think determinations about who provides more substance and independent thinking usually boils down to who agrees politically with the person making the determination.

---

Not really. I disagree violently with Yogi from a political basis. I cannot think of one thing where we agree politically. But at least he has a point of view on substantive matters.

If you've read any of Ruth ben-Ghiat you know how Ritual Humiliation is part of the autocratic playbook. They use it to attack enemies and keep underlings in tow. They will use it against opponents and allies to stay on top. That is why Traitor Trump applies nicknames to all his opponents and subjects his defeated Republican opponents to humiliating subservient photo ops.

Defeating a fascist movement isn't done by winning debate points. Humiliate the humiliater. Decorum is a political loser. When the gross old man dies his hair orange, drowns his face in mud, combs his hair over his bald spots, ****s into his diaper until he stinks, farts in court where he is being tried for after-effects of sticking his mushroom peener in a porn star, and falls asleep because he's mentally incapable - that is all fair game. Democrats aren't good at that game, but President Biden is better than most Democrats.

It's too bad the establishment conservative Republican party failed so badly economically and with foreign policy they basically disintegrated and left us with MAGAts. We are a better people when we are debating ideas.

calbear93 said:

---

I would argue that Yogi is exponentially more of a critical thinker than the person originally asking that "honest" question.

---

Tell me you aren't paying attention without saying "I'm not paying attention."

calbear93 said:

---

blungld said:

---

Are you suggesting that there is equivalence between Trump and any other politician and the childish nicknames? That that isn't "his thing." His brand is built on name calling. His followers wait for the nickname he gives each person. That has NEVER happened before in American politics. And NO ONE would say, Biden is so famous for calling people names. Can you just be honest in an exchange and stop always defending a position when you have taken an obviously wrong one?

---

So, you are consistently moving the goal post. I refer you to your original objection and rationale for not reading the rest of Oski's post.

Now, the standard is that Oski used a name to mock someone who, based on your subjective standard, has not crossed the line on name calling as much as the other guy? SO it wasn't just name calling that you were objecting to. It was just that it was directed at someone who doesn't engage in name calling as much as the worse name caller. With the worse name caller, it is fine to engage in name calling.

---

I am not moving the goalposts I am responding to you. Your direct quote: "Let's be honest. Everyone, including Biden, has called others names before."

I am refuting that false equivalence. Again, to say that in this context is like saying everybody steals in reference to a secretary taking home office supplies in order to minimize the discussion happening around a multi-million dollar embezzlement by the CEO. You introduced this to the conversation and it is ridiculous.

oski003 said:

---

blungld said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

blungld said:

---

Are you suggesting that there is equivalence between Trump and any other politician and the childish nicknames? That that isn't "his thing." His brand is built on name calling. His followers wait for the nickname he gives each person. That has NEVER happened before in American politics. And NO ONE would say, Biden is so famous for calling people names. Can you just be honest in an exchange and stop always defending a position when you have taken an obviously wrong one?

---

So, you are consistently moving the goal post. I refer you to your original objection and rationale for not reading the rest of Oski's post.

Now, the standard is that Oski used a name to mock someone who, based on your subjective standard, has not crossed the line on name calling as much as the other guy? SO it wasn't just name calling that you were objecting to. It was just that it was directed at someone who doesn't engage in name calling as much as the worse name caller. With the worse name caller, it is fine to engage in name calling.

---

I am not moving the goalposts I am responding to you. Your direct quote: "Let's be honest. Everyone, including Biden, has called others names before."

I am refuting that false equivalence. Again, to say that in this context is like saying everybody steals in reference to a secretary taking home office supplies in order to minimize the discussion happening around a multi-million dollar embezzlement by the CEO. You introduced this to the conversation and it is ridiculous.

---

Allegedly sleeping and farting in court is how many times worse than repeatedly outright lying to voters on the campaign trail?

---

tRump does both of these things but you are still okay with him.

calpoly said:

---

oski003 said:

---

blungld said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

blungld said:

---

Are you suggesting that there is equivalence between Trump and any other politician and the childish nicknames? That that isn't "his thing." His brand is built on name calling. His followers wait for the nickname he gives each person. That has NEVER happened before in American politics. And NO ONE would say, Biden is so famous for calling people names. Can you just be honest in an exchange and stop always defending a position when you have taken an obviously wrong one?

---

So, you are consistently moving the goal post. I refer you to your original objection and rationale for not reading the rest of Oski's post.

Now, the standard is that Oski used a name to mock someone who, based on your subjective standard, has not crossed the line on name calling as much as the other guy? SO it wasn't just name calling that you were objecting to. It was just that it was directed at someone who doesn't engage in name calling as much as the worse name caller. With the worse name caller, it is fine to engage in name calling.

---

I am not moving the goalposts I am responding to you. Your direct quote: "Let's be honest. Everyone, including Biden, has called others names before."

I am refuting that false equivalence. Again, to say that in this context is like saying everybody steals in reference to a secretary taking home office supplies in order to minimize the discussion happening around a multi-million dollar embezzlement by the CEO. You introduced this to the conversation and it is ridiculous.

---

Allegedly sleeping and farting in court is how many times worse than repeatedly outright lying to voters on the campaign trail?

---

tRump does both of these things but you are still okay with him.

---

How am I okay with Trump doing those things and how stupid are you?

blungld said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

blungld said:

---

Are you suggesting that there is equivalence between Trump and any other politician and the childish nicknames? That that isn't "his thing." His brand is built on name calling. His followers wait for the nickname he gives each person. That has NEVER happened before in American politics. And NO ONE would say, Biden is so famous for calling people names. Can you just be honest in an exchange and stop always defending a position when you have taken an obviously wrong one?

---

So, you are consistently moving the goal post. I refer you to your original objection and rationale for not reading the rest of Oski's post.

Now, the standard is that Oski used a name to mock someone who, based on your subjective standard, has not crossed the line on name calling as much as the other guy? SO it wasn't just name calling that you were objecting to. It was just that it was directed at someone who doesn't engage in name calling as much as the worse name caller. With the worse name caller, it is fine to engage in name calling.

---

I am not moving the goalposts I am responding to you. Your direct quote: "Let's be honest. Everyone, including Biden, has called others names before."

I am refuting that false equivalence. Again, to say that in this context is like saying everybody steals in reference to a secretary taking home office supplies in order to minimize the discussion happening around a multi-million dollar embezzlement by the CEO. You introduced this to the conversation and it is ridiculous.

---

You either have the shortest memory or you are a gaslighter.

1. You start by saying that you object to name calling as opposed to stating an opinion. Nothing about who was being called a name but just name calling itself.

Imagine being such a man child that one copies dim witted language and immature nicknames like Lying Joe instead of just articulating an opinion.

2. I note that you don't seem to object to name calling as opposed to stating an opinion about Trump.

3. You changed the standard by saying it's two tier. Best option is not to call anyone names. But, if you are someone who calls people names, then you should be called names. So, generally, disfavor name calling, but if it's someone you think called other people names, then you pivot 180 degrees and favor name calling. So you changed the goal posts.

First choice, nobody calls anyone names. Second choice, if you are an ahole that calls people names, I want you called names.

4, I said that everyone has called others names before. Even Biden has done that. You are either against name calling, or you are applying your subjective determination on who is worse at name calling. Then it's not really about being mature and not calling names. It's really about not calling names to people you like.

Now, the standard is that Oski used a name to mock someone who, based on your subjective standard, has not crossed the line on name calling as much as the other guy? SO it wasn't just name calling that you were objecting to. It was just that it was directed at someone who doesn't engage in name calling as much as the worse name caller. With the worse name caller, it is fine to engage in name calling.


So, at the end of the day, your position is not (as you originally claimed) that you won't read the opinion of anyone so immature to call others names. It's that you won't read it if it's about Biden but you will celebrate it and star it if its about someone you don't like. How principled of you.

calbear93 said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

Honest question: was Yogi ever a critical thinker?

---

Well, he's often critical of others.

---

I know you are trying to be funny. But serious question. Do you think most here are critical thinkers? I would argue that Yogi is exponentially more of a critical thinker than the person originally asking that "honest" question.

---

Exponentially? Hardly. Mostly I think of him as a sore loser who's been on a 7+ year tantrum since Bernie Sanders lost. I also can't respect someone who creates a few hundred aliases under the belief that somehow he's putting something over on the moderators. Everyone can tell it's Yogi right away.

---

I don't think he is hiding himself from us. I think he is working around the ban put in by the moderators. At the very least, you must recognize that Yogi provides more substance and independent thinking than the person asking the question.

---

My issue is that Yogi's "independent thinking" really just leads him to always take a position that lets him rag on Democrats (or "liberals" as the case may be). His ideology is not based on a consistent set of constructive values, just bashing on his perceived enemies. I have no respect for that.

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

Honest question: was Yogi ever a critical thinker?

---

Well, he's often critical of others.

---

I know you are trying to be funny. But serious question. Do you think most here are critical thinkers? I would argue that Yogi is exponentially more of a critical thinker than the person originally asking that "honest" question.

---

Exponentially? Hardly. Mostly I think of him as a sore loser who's been on a 7+ year tantrum since Bernie Sanders lost. I also can't respect someone who creates a few hundred aliases under the belief that somehow he's putting something over on the moderators. Everyone can tell it's Yogi right away.

---

I don't think he is hiding himself from us. I think he is working around the ban put in by the moderators. At the very least, you must recognize that Yogi provides more substance and independent thinking than the person asking the question.

---

My issue is that Yogi's "independent thinking" really just leads him to always take a position that lets him rag on Democrats (or "liberals" as the case may be). His ideology is not based on a consistent set of constructive values, just bashing on his perceived enemies. I have no respect for that.

---

Here is my pure opinion and most likely a bad attempt to speak on behalf of Yogi. My take on this from Yogi's prior post is not that he favors or sides with the far right Republicans. It's that he thinks they at least just come out and say they are as bad as they are. It seems like, after the incident with Bernie Sanders, he feels that the Democrats just wear masks as if they are progressive but, when it comes down to actual decisions, they usually side with establishment Republicans. My guess is that he thinks the disingenuous behavior is more worthy of derision.

But bashing perceived enemies is the exact tribal behavior that goes on here. It's why people bash Yogi and some of the far right posters pretending it's about behavior as opposed to political position. And then remain silent or star when the exact same behavior is undertaken by someone with alleged liberal viewpoint.

How is Yogi different?

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

Honest question: was Yogi ever a critical thinker?

---

Well, he's often critical of others.

---

I know you are trying to be funny. But serious question. Do you think most here are critical thinkers? I would argue that Yogi is exponentially more of a critical thinker than the person originally asking that "honest" question.

---

Exponentially? Hardly. Mostly I think of him as a sore loser who's been on a 7+ year tantrum since Bernie Sanders lost. I also can't respect someone who creates a few hundred aliases under the belief that somehow he's putting something over on the moderators. Everyone can tell it's Yogi right away.

---

I don't think he is hiding himself from us. I think he is working around the ban put in by the moderators. At the very least, you must recognize that Yogi provides more substance and independent thinking than the person asking the question.

---

My issue is that Yogi's "independent thinking" really just leads him to always take a position that lets him rag on Democrats (or "liberals" as the case may be). His ideology is not based on a consistent set of constructive values, just bashing on his perceived enemies. I have no respect for that.

---

Here is my pure opinion and most likely a bad attempt to speak on behalf of Yogi. My take on this from Yogi's prior post is not that he favors or sides with the far right Republicans. It's that he thinks they at least just come out and say they are as bad as they are. It seems like, after the incident with Bernie Sanders, he feels that the Democrats just wear masks as if they are progressive but, when it comes down to actual decisions, they usually side with establishment Republicans. My guess is that he thinks the disingenuous behavior is more worthy of derision.

But bashing perceived enemies is the exact tribal behavior that goes on here. It's why people bash Yogi and some of the far right posters pretending it's about behavior as opposed to political position. And then remain silent or star when the exact same behavior is undertaken by someone with alleged liberal viewpoint.

How is Yogi different?

---

There certainly are posters here who just bash Republicans over and over and I have little respect for this style of posting either. I mean, I can't stand Trump or his party, but just saying so over and over is not interesting content to me. I have largely given up on trying to police behavior here, so mostly I just ignore these people (not literally put them on "ignore," I just see the posts and quickly scroll past). I also also usually just let Yogi rant away, except on the rare occasion when he decides to attack me personally.

I think your description of Yogi's philosophy above is fairly accurate, but again I also have no respect for it. Just calling out hypocrisy doesn't accomplish anything. If one party is a bit further left but is disingenuous about how far left they are, and the other party is just straight-up right-wing, then as a left-leaning person you're still better off voting for the one that is further left even if you find them annoying. To me voting isn't about just making myself feel good, it's about the utility of choosing one option versus another. Yogi's old hero Bernie Sanders also seems to agree with this philosophy, given that he consistently supports Democrats over Republicans even though he's further left than most Democrats. He sees the practical reality. People like Yogi just want to point and laugh.

And guess what? If you loudly announce that you don't intend to support either Democrats or Republicans no matter what anyone says, then both parties are just going to ignore you and go after people whose votes are gettable. Yogi seems to me to be in this camp . . . and thus ignorable.

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

Honest question: was Yogi ever a critical thinker?

---

Well, he's often critical of others.

---

I know you are trying to be funny. But serious question. Do you think most here are critical thinkers? I would argue that Yogi is exponentially more of a critical thinker than the person originally asking that "honest" question.

---

Exponentially? Hardly. Mostly I think of him as a sore loser who's been on a 7+ year tantrum since Bernie Sanders lost. I also can't respect someone who creates a few hundred aliases under the belief that somehow he's putting something over on the moderators. Everyone can tell it's Yogi right away.

---

I don't think he is hiding himself from us. I think he is working around the ban put in by the moderators. At the very least, you must recognize that Yogi provides more substance and independent thinking than the person asking the question.

---

My issue is that Yogi's "independent thinking" really just leads him to always take a position that lets him rag on Democrats (or "liberals" as the case may be). His ideology is not based on a consistent set of constructive values, just bashing on his perceived enemies. I have no respect for that.

---

Here is my pure opinion and most likely a bad attempt to speak on behalf of Yogi. My take on this from Yogi's prior post is not that he favors or sides with the far right Republicans. It's that he thinks they at least just come out and say they are as bad as they are. It seems like, after the incident with Bernie Sanders, he feels that the Democrats just wear masks as if they are progressive but, when it comes down to actual decisions, they usually side with establishment Republicans. My guess is that he thinks the disingenuous behavior is more worthy of derision.

But bashing perceived enemies is the exact tribal behavior that goes on here. It's why people bash Yogi and some of the far right posters pretending it's about behavior as opposed to political position. And then remain silent or star when the exact same behavior is undertaken by someone with alleged liberal viewpoint.

How is Yogi different?

---

To me voting isn't about just making myself feel good, it's about the utility of choosing one option versus another.

---

At the end of the day, based on the binary choice we have and despite hating most of the policies of the left, I have resigned myself to voting for Biden because the other option is just a big middle finger to rule of law. I can rant and vent here but I am at the end of the day a person who believes in order and rule of law with respect for the constitution and our country.

calbear93 said:

---

At the end of the day, based on the binary choice we have and despite hating most of the policies of the left, I have resigned myself to voting for Biden because the other option is just a big middle finger to rule of law. I can rant and vent here but I am at the end of the day a person who believes in order and rule of law with respect for the constitution and our country.

---

And one of the reasons why you hate most of the policies on the left is because they give a big middle finger to the rule of law with no respect to the constitution and our country.

calbear93 said:

---

blungld said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

blungld said:

---

Are you suggesting that there is equivalence between Trump and any other politician and the childish nicknames? That that isn't "his thing." His brand is built on name calling. His followers wait for the nickname he gives each person. That has NEVER happened before in American politics. And NO ONE would say, Biden is so famous for calling people names. Can you just be honest in an exchange and stop always defending a position when you have taken an obviously wrong one?

---

So, you are consistently moving the goal post. I refer you to your original objection and rationale for not reading the rest of Oski's post.

Now, the standard is that Oski used a name to mock someone who, based on your subjective standard, has not crossed the line on name calling as much as the other guy? SO it wasn't just name calling that you were objecting to. It was just that it was directed at someone who doesn't engage in name calling as much as the worse name caller. With the worse name caller, it is fine to engage in name calling.

---

I am not moving the goalposts I am responding to you. Your direct quote: "Let's be honest. Everyone, including Biden, has called others names before."

I am refuting that false equivalence. Again, to say that in this context is like saying everybody steals in reference to a secretary taking home office supplies in order to minimize the discussion happening around a multi-million dollar embezzlement by the CEO. You introduced this to the conversation and it is ridiculous.

---

You either have the shortest memory or you are a gaslighter.

1. You start by saying that you object to name calling as opposed to stating an opinion. Nothing about who was being called a name but just name calling itself.

Imagine being such a man child that one copies dim witted language and immature nicknames like Lying Joe instead of just articulating an opinion.

2. I note that you don't seem to object to name calling as opposed to stating an opinion about Trump.

3. You changed the standard by saying it's two tier. Best option is not to call anyone names. But, if you are someone who calls people names, then you should be called names. So, generally, disfavor name calling, but if it's someone you think called other people names, then you pivot 180 degrees and favor name calling. So you changed the goal posts.

First choice, nobody calls anyone names. Second choice, if you are an ahole that calls people names, I want you called names.

4, I said that everyone has called others names before. Even Biden has done that. You are either against name calling, or you are applying your subjective determination on who is worse at name calling. Then it's not really about being mature and not calling names. It's really about not calling names to people you like.

Now, the standard is that Oski used a name to mock someone who, based on your subjective standard, has not crossed the line on name calling as much as the other guy? SO it wasn't just name calling that you were objecting to. It was just that it was directed at someone who doesn't engage in name calling as much as the worse name caller. With the worse name caller, it is fine to engage in name calling.


So, at the end of the day, your position is not (as you originally claimed) that you won't read the opinion of anyone so immature to call others names. It's that you won't read it if it's about Biden but you will celebrate it and star it if its about someone you don't like. How principled of you.

---

You think you followed, but you did not. My initial comment was pointing out how he discredits himself by REPEATING name calling coined by Trump. That is lazy. Makes the rest of what he wrote undesirable to read and written by a person who seems to have no problem with Trump's childish name calling and even goes so far as repeat it.

I know you think you are a hypocrit hunter, but usually it's a big fail and also so ironic given your blindspot to your own behavior.

blungld said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

blungld said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

blungld said:

---

Are you suggesting that there is equivalence between Trump and any other politician and the childish nicknames? That that isn't "his thing." His brand is built on name calling. His followers wait for the nickname he gives each person. That has NEVER happened before in American politics. And NO ONE would say, Biden is so famous for calling people names. Can you just be honest in an exchange and stop always defending a position when you have taken an obviously wrong one?

---

So, you are consistently moving the goal post. I refer you to your original objection and rationale for not reading the rest of Oski's post.

Now, the standard is that Oski used a name to mock someone who, based on your subjective standard, has not crossed the line on name calling as much as the other guy? SO it wasn't just name calling that you were objecting to. It was just that it was directed at someone who doesn't engage in name calling as much as the worse name caller. With the worse name caller, it is fine to engage in name calling.

---

I am not moving the goalposts I am responding to you. Your direct quote: "Let's be honest. Everyone, including Biden, has called others names before."

I am refuting that false equivalence. Again, to say that in this context is like saying everybody steals in reference to a secretary taking home office supplies in order to minimize the discussion happening around a multi-million dollar embezzlement by the CEO. You introduced this to the conversation and it is ridiculous.

---

You either have the shortest memory or you are a gaslighter.

1. You start by saying that you object to name calling as opposed to stating an opinion. Nothing about who was being called a name but just name calling itself.

Imagine being such a man child that one copies dim witted language and immature nicknames like Lying Joe instead of just articulating an opinion.

2. I note that you don't seem to object to name calling as opposed to stating an opinion about Trump.

3. You changed the standard by saying it's two tier. Best option is not to call anyone names. But, if you are someone who calls people names, then you should be called names. So, generally, disfavor name calling, but if it's someone you think called other people names, then you pivot 180 degrees and favor name calling. So you changed the goal posts.

First choice, nobody calls anyone names. Second choice, if you are an ahole that calls people names, I want you called names.

4, I said that everyone has called others names before. Even Biden has done that. You are either against name calling, or you are applying your subjective determination on who is worse at name calling. Then it's not really about being mature and not calling names. It's really about not calling names to people you like.

Now, the standard is that Oski used a name to mock someone who, based on your subjective standard, has not crossed the line on name calling as much as the other guy? SO it wasn't just name calling that you were objecting to. It was just that it was directed at someone who doesn't engage in name calling as much as the worse name caller. With the worse name caller, it is fine to engage in name calling.


So, at the end of the day, your position is not (as you originally claimed) that you won't read the opinion of anyone so immature to call others names. It's that you won't read it if it's about Biden but you will celebrate it and star it if its about someone you don't like. How principled of you.

---

You think you followed, but you did not. My initial comment was pointing out how he discredits himself by REPEATING name calling coined by Trump. That is lazy. Makes the rest of what he wrote undesirable to read and written by a person who seems to have no problem with Trump's childish name calling and even goes so far as repeat it.

I know you think you are a hypocrit hunter, but usually it's a big fail and also so ironic given your blindspot to your own behavior.

---

I quote you verbatim but you are still in denial.

Your morals and values are so narrowly tailored with so many exceptions and carve-outs for you and you alone that, in your delusional mind, you can do no wrong and can call people out for their behavior with you the zenith of morality and right values when the rest of us with common sense see you for the verbose tribalist that you are. The only fail is your attempt to present yourself as someone not otherwise rolling in the mud with the rest of the posters here.

But carry on. And maybe I used a word or name you didn't like, and based on principle, you didn't actually read this.