"Bombastic" isn't a particularly obscure word, and I'm not at all convinced that the bolded is correct.

Interacting with you is relatively unimportant, so it is unlikely that any comment I make to you will qualify as the best example of anything, because no effort is made in that regard. Interesting that you assume otherwise.

Some of us have a gifted insight that others lack. My suggestion is you stop having emotional reactions when you lack a skill and instead work on it. Tell yourself a joke that only you laugh at if that helps the process.

Poking holes in your arguments requires reading them and placing value on them. Not a proper use of my valuable time. I assume you are a fairly mundane Trumpderp. You being sad is of no value to me as well - be as sad as you like. Tell yourself a joke to feel better as needed. Hope this helps - I am all about helping those in need.

All the best.

Also, the Shaggy song is Mr Boombastic, not Mr Bombastic.

One of the lines is "She touch me inna my back, she says I'm Mr. Boom-boom-boom-boom". Pretty sure he isn't talking about his speaking or writing style there.

See, Deuces, if you took a leaf out of my book and stuck to the snippy one-liners, more people might actually read your posts. You do you and carry on fighting the noble fight, though.

Polling that just happened to be for the tiny handful of states that were ~dead heats where convincing ~20k ppl(out of millions) to not vote/go 3rd party was enough to tip the scales. The 16 environment was far wackier than any I can remember--and I went in person to laugh at the few people I know who thought ronpaul was going to win they thought the entire town would be there(and you could get that idea online) but in reality ~9ppl showed up


There was enough there that things at least looked to be coordinated--not like there would need to be constant contact. I could see wanting at least an initial agreement/guarantee he's actually going to follow thru and run(after bailing out previously) if you're going to go to the trouble to help. And that could've been accomplished pretty easily/way earlier etc.

In my younger and more bombastic days, a wise man gave me a great piece of advice: never assume you're the smartest person in the room.

Your style of discourse reeks of the steadfast belief that you're more clever and insightful than everyone else. Most people have no interest in engaging substantively with someone like that, because it's exhausting and usually pointless. Hence all the one-line mocking.

Well I put it out there and gave some examples but it's not like I made a rigorous argument. Maybe you have some counter examples from a newspaper or magazine of some reporter's or journalist's or opiner's work being called bombastic. Trenchant might be a good word to describe my style. Iconoclastic would be another. Bombastic seems way out there as a way of describing expository writing even if there is a little humor mixed in.

I'm the only person ITT who has admitted they were mistaken about anything or has conceded any points to their opposition. So stop with the arrogance. That's just something you are projecting onto me because what I say makes more sense than what you're told by those to whom you are instructed to listen. I'm challenging orthodoxy so I'm arrogant- wrong. You might have half a point if the orthodoxy didn't happen to be killing our prospects for a decent world.

While I don't want to reflexively dismiss what someone says they perceive, I've been subject to that sort of criticism hundreds and hundreds of times and it never ends with anyone showing any evidence of my arrogance.

I am not coming in here and talking about myself. I am talking about, for example, the national security state. What can happen when you attack institutions competently is people feel threatened even though they aren't, the real threats they face coming from said institutions.

So get over it. Be adults. Be men. Stop looking at the federal government like it's your mommy and daddy and start looking at it like its a bunch of your employees. There is no arrogance in this message or in any of the reasons I give for it being the correct advice.

You can save time by just saying "I bore others."

All the best.

This has to be some sort of performance art, right? Right? Surely nobody can be this blind to their own shortcomings and completely immune to criticism.

I did cite it as "Boombastic"

And the fact that he isn't talking about a writing style is my point. You used bombastic to describe a writing style, which I think is a poor choice. Shaggy referring to himself as "Mr. Boombastic" is one of the all time most bombastic actions ever taken. Writing about it isn't bombastic, pretty much no matter what you write. See the difference?

I'm going to tell you something else which you will find arrogant because it's telling you something you don't seem to get. But I really feel like I need to help you be a better enemy because you're not quite up to snuff as you are. When you nitpick at people over things that aren't germane to the topic, a subtext evoked is one I label "The Predator". In the move Predator, Ahnold has the line, referring to the predator, "if it bleeds we can kill it". The prey animals, humans in this case, were happy to find one tiny indication of vulnerability in an enemy they were previously thinking was invincible.

I'm honored that you find me so formidable that you think any little thing you can find on me is worth touting like a trophy. But now that that is exposed as your real motivation, try moving on to make some counter arguments. At this point, not making counter arguments is pretty much conceding.

Again, you are being a dick. Perhaps you missed it. If so, read your last post until you see it.

Tell me more about how telling me stuff is a waste of your time. Everyone finds that riveting.

One might suspect that if one has been called arrogant "hundreds and hundreds of times", there might be a shred of truth in it? Just some food for thought.

I'm not sure what sort of evidence you're after here. The fact that I'm telling you that I think you are arrogant is evidence that I think you are arrogant. I'm not sure one can adduce objective evidence that another person is arrogant, it's a subjective judgement.

I'll do you one better d2. Not only me, but not one person you have ever nagged on the internet has ever changed their self perception based on anything you have ever posted. Not sorry to break it to you. Find a better life mission. Or don't. People don't change so just go with it at this point.

Obama has been called a Muslim millions of times. Is there any truth to it? That's a terrible argument.

People wrongly accuse Obama of being a Muslim, so I shouldn't listen when a bunch of different people, individually, on separate occasions, tell me that I am an arrogant conceited dick. That's logic, folks.

Why would anyone find anything riveting about an interaction with you. That is not part of the equation. I never tell you stuff with the intent you will do anything or learn from it, as having that as an agenda is a waste of time. If others are doing that then they are indeed wasting their time. I do it for the fun of tweaking inferior beings once in a while, that's all. Hardly riveting. Not bombastic nor boombastic. Just something fun to do with lesser beings once in a while in riggie threads, nothing more, nothing less, except when they hurl lots of money at me like in 2020. In that case I make more of an effort to create a narrative to continue that cash flow. Hope that better explains it, as you seem kind of slow to pick up on this type of stuff.

All the best.

You need to cite that. As far as I know the actual content of the data has never been revealed. Mueller has the data and the all the emails to which the data is attached, but has refused to release it. So where are you getting these specifics about the data? Tell me you're not just making it up.

In political discourse a high number of people making some accusation doesn't make it true. There could even be a negative correlation there. Is your inability to think logically the reason you don't often engage on actual issues and just issue weak, unfunny personal attacks all the time?

It also doesn't make it false. Perhaps you should pull your head out of your ass, stop thinking that a large number of people criticising you is evidence that you are actually right on the merits, and do a little introspection.

I jest, I jest, obviously you will never do that. And it's for the best, really, we need a regular supply of dumbass know-it-alls to dunk on round here, and a bunch of Qderps dropped out recently.

While boasting that they're open to criticism, too. It's really quite impressive.

+1

I said no intelligence or security agency has labeled him a Russian intelligence officer. You might be confused in thinking that the Senate report is the statement of an agency. It isn't. It's the statement of a committee. I don't willfully misrepresent anything. That's more like your thing.

I'm not the one making incorrect claims and not admitting them. You are.

You said:

I gave this contradicting quote from the senate committee:

Now, the committee is obviously lying about not know why Manafort sent polling data to Kilimnik, but maybe technically not lying depending on the word "reliably". Who cares when the truth is so apparent. The rest of the quote directly contradicts what you asserted. Maybe you have a supporting quote from the report you'd like to share? I'm not saying the report doesn't have conflicting information, but I haven't seen what you are saying and I do see it's contradiction.

An argument doesn't have to be always false to be terrible, and your argument is terrible, and your argument about your argument is terrible.

You're not dunking on anyone outside your own imagination. In real life you can't touch the net let alone the rim. And I am a guy who will admit when people I hate can dunk and when they dunk on me. I don't even hate you because you haven't expressed any hateworthy values. I don't hate people just for being pathetic. My inclination is to help such people. That's why I'm a Leftist.

You're a gnat.