You can offer the same conclusory imprecise statements less unpersuasively if you omit the personal insults. Weâre mostly friendly here.
Really, I made innocuous comment on here this morning and the response was like, âyour grammar and punctuation suck,â (Iâm paraphrasing) âanything to add besides a halfhearted defense of Rubioâ (which it wasnât) âDo you have data to back up an obvious made up statistic, blah, blah, blah.â Ahh, intellectual elitism at itâs finest.
I think youâre posting about something interesting. For-profit, corporate media are less good at journalism.
Do you think the policies of conservatives like Sen. Rubio arenât making that problem worse?
Itâs asking a lot, for a contribution.
I love the smell of pom-poms in the morning
turnabout is fair play, ye deep thinker.
Of the final four (cruz, trump, rubio, and OH-IO) , Rubio is the only one Iâd stand close enough to to pour my beer on
So you could care a bit?
Nice! Allow me to add:
Ha; itâs been a while since I saw that oneâŚ
HST didnât use his political influence to advocate against legalizing marijuana.
And to think just 12 years ago Howard Dean was deemed unfit to be president because of an overenthusiastic yell at a rally. How far we have come.
This .gif just never gets old.
Waste of beer when you could just piss on their legs. Give 'em some of the old trickle-down.
The word youâre looking for is âmalfunctionâ
- Marco Rubio is malfunctioning
Obviously. And yet you donât hesitate to point out what you, sometimes mistakenly, think are errors made by others. Apparently though itâs okay for you to be âsnootyâ.
The points youâre trying to make would be taken a lot more seriously if youâd stop treating your opinions as facts, try to understand what others are saying instead of projecting, and try to be clear. If people donât understand what youâre saying donât assume that itâs their fault.