Comments on: Using wit, not anger, to deal with ones opposition

By: baborn3

baborn3 — Sun, 18 Nov 2012 01:14:19 +0000

A recently published, fun read on Limbaugh is "A Dog Named Rush Limbaugh". For those inclined: www.adognamedrushlimbaugh.com

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 02:34:42 +0000

I prefer to use a sword instead.

By: Danny Lemieux

Danny Lemieux — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 02:15:50 +0000

I will submit my summary assessment of NYT Columnist, Tom Friedman: an unerring ability to state the obvious while simultaneously missing the obvious.

By: David Foster

David Foster — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 01:12:38 +0000

The Earl of Sandwich, to John Wilkes: “Sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox” (ie, syphilis) Wilkes, in reply: “That depends, my lord, on whether I embrace your lordship’s principles or your lordship’s mistress”

By: raven397

raven397 — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 00:35:56 +0000

Don’t forget John Randolph’s slam an opponent,
Last but certainly not least is his memorable observation about political opponent Edward Livingston: He is a man of splendid abilities, but utterly corrupt. He shines and stinks like rotten mackerel by moonlight.

By: afakaz

afakaz — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 00:33:09 +0000

Ceruleanbill: something perhaps akin to “… the rare ability to accept a solid point without embracing the rosebush containing it”?

By: ceruleanbill

ceruleanbill — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 22:40:14 +0000

I’d settle for being able to agree with some things that the opposition supports – for example, we all want the debt reduced – without that being translated into ‘ah, you support all of my positions’. Something like “he had the rare gift of being able to acknowlege a valid point without generating the assumption that he supported the entire bloody 99 Theses.” Alas, I don’t have that – but I’m working on it.