Yup. I almost started in on that but figured I’d already gone a fair ways into nerd land for some folks. Should we tell them about how to do superscript and subscript? 
1 Like
Suits me.
5 Likes
The Senate republicans are indifferent. About 50% of Congress then?
1 Like
Worst president 'til Trump.
He’d fit right in. Those teeth of his are perfect for eating grass.
2 Likes
If you want to troll by deliberately mischaracterizing and playing ad absurdum games with peoples’ arguments, then kindly GFY.
2 Likes
Do you have anything relevant to say?
1 Like
“That just makes no fucking sense whatsoever”.
Memo drawn up by person with extensive knowledge of tax law and not executive branch prerogatives?
Also, “What?!!? Don’t tell him he’s completely fucked! Are you trying to get us all fired? You gotta leave an out - oh, crap, good point. How about ‘executive privilege’? Huh? I dunno, but it sounds plausible and we can wash our hands of it and hunker down again.”
3 Likes
Live, or YouTube from CSPAN feeds?
######(If there’s a Sekrit Special TPM Way to do it, you can tell me… I promise I won’t tell anyone. Otherwise I’d just look up the html tag :D)
(btw the hashtag trick was new to me too, so thanks!)
Actually, the way I do it on this site is the traditional html ‘< sup >’ - ‘< /sup >’ and ‘< sub >’ - ‘< /sub >’ tags (remove the spaces from each side of these tags and put your exponent or subscript between the tag pair to make them work in the wild). Another site I go to let’s you do it with a carat (’^’) but that doesn’t work here for me.
1 Like
What, you think this wasn’t a good thing for Biden? I do. “Kim Jong Un doesn’t like me” seems to be a good thing to talk about. Do you disagree? @inversion
Aaron hasn’t read the piece, so Aaron will let you two talk about it.
Aaron didn’t need to read the piece, whoever Aaron is. If inversion knows Aaron and wants to explain his relevance, that’s up to inversion. But since inversion apparently had an issue with the relevance of a snarky response to a dictator’s silly ready-fire-aim screed against the Democratic frontrunner, I did them the courtesy of including them in my reply.
k?
My name is Aaron and usually when I say my actual as opposed to, that usually means I’m pissed off or (in this instance), I wanna keep distance.
Guess which way I’m leaning towards. (at least right now)
1 Like
Nope, I said that I didn’t read it and as of now, I don’t wanna.
Anything else?
1 Like
Did someone have control of Aaron’s keyboard when user “inversion” upvoted a comment claiming that I had nothing relevant to say?
k, I’ll bite.
Aside from being the second person (I’m lying) to call me out on my upvoting choices,
A) why is this piece important to you?
B) why is my opinion (or my upvote) important to you?
btw, we’ve done this before, so you know that I can go all day. #theresthedoor
Ah yes, always classy.
Although reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly valid form of argumentation, it wasn’t employed in the comment to which you’re replying. There was, of course, no mischaracterization, deliberate or otherwise, your bare conclusory assertions notwithstanding.
My position is quite clear:
And you can read back in the history of that comment as well as I can. If you (plural) want to keep characterizing perfectly valid points of view as those of bots, trolls, checkers fans, purity ponies, or whatever else, then kindly GFY.