(08-08-2018, 01:42 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote:

(08-08-2018, 12:56 PM)mikesez Wrote: I'm sorry you feel that way.  I don't think I've ever tried to use any word in a way that wasn't one of the top two or three definitions on Merriam-Webster.
I'm not trying to upset anyone.
Your politicians and talk radio hosts want you upset . 
Notice that I don't usually start threads. 
These threads start because someone heard something on a right wing blog or a right-wing talk radio show that was intentionally presented to be as upsetting as possible, then they broadcast their outrage here. 
I'm always the guy trying to say that the truth is more complicated than you're intentionally upsetting pundit has made it out to be and maybe you don't need to be so upset.

So you're ascribing other's actions to me, changing the definition of plain words to attempt to make your case, and then blaming them for your inability to maneuver your way out of the corners you keep finding yourself in. Good to know. Keep digging, you'll find water eventually.

most comments that I make are not directed at you or even at anyone in particular.
As I already said I don't deviate from the top three in Merriam Webster.
it would be a pretty sad and useless discussion if no one was learning anything and no one ever said anything that they later had to back off of.
Republicans used to believe that it was OK to candidly change your mind when presented with new information or possibilities.  I still do.  But now most don't believe that.  So they have two choices.  One is that they can adopt an extremely simplistic worldview, "government bad, letting people do whatever they want good," as you have done.  The other option is to keep their complicated and nuanced point of view, but aggressively deny and counter-accuse if someone catches you changing your mind, as most politicians and pundits do now.

---