165 posts
But the payments start before they are elected...
You are mirroring the talking points I see on conservovision. "Bammer won't budge," I hear yaz say (now), "he doesn't know how to negotiate!"
You gotta forget the last 4 to think that way. Why would he compromise, especially up front, when doing so gets "him" less or no votes from the other side?
When he's "negotiating" (which is the job of the Congress, btw) who is he representing? Who is the "other side" representing?
They all compromise, like you paying more taxes (as per the thread we are in) went hand in hand with those over 450k paying more. How do you think that "negotiation" went down?
Do you think that Billory "negotiated" and "compromised" to help the pubs pass their GrammLeachBliley Act through the pub Congress of the time? Was it good that he did?
Blaming Clinton and Bush at the same time isn't the same as being neutral...
If you lean just a tad conservative, then in these times, that makes you a democrat. Republicans haven't been a "tad" conservative since the 80s.
charger — Feb 01, 2013If you lean just a tad conservative, then in these times, that makes you a democrat. Republicans haven't been a "tad" conservative since the 80s.
Pretty much agree with that. I just don't want the label. It's insulting.
BINGEWOOD — Feb 01, 2013But the payments start before they are elected...
You are mirroring the talking points I see on conservovision. "Bammer won't budge," I hear yaz say (now), "he doesn't know how to negotiate!"
You gotta forget the last 4 to think that way. Why would he compromise, especially up front, when doing so gets "him" less or no votes from the other side?
When he's "negotiating" (which is the job of the Congress, btw) who is he representing? Who is the "other side" representing?
They all compromise, like you paying more taxes (as per the thread we are in) went hand in hand with those over 450k paying more. How do you think that "negotiation" went down?
Do you think that Billory "negotiated" and "compromised" to help the pubs pass their GrammLeachBliley Act through the pub Congress of the time? Was it good that he did?
Blaming Clinton and Bush at the same time isn't the same as being neutral...
Yeah, it is. It would be easy to ignore the other side and take the side who your in favor of. It's the facts, reality, of the situation. Call it what you want, doesn't matter to me. They both had a role in this disaster. Thats factual.
Yeah, it is. It would be easy to ignore the other side and take the side who your in favor of. It's the facts, reality, of the situation. Call it what you want, doesn't matter to me. They both had a role in this disaster. Thats factual.
Do you see Clinton and Bush as representing different sides. Who did they each represent in their roles in this disaster?
You missed the point. Fucking completely.
BINGEWOOD — Jan 21, 2013Is the point just that you feel that Clinton played some role? That's it?
I gave you a list of people who played a role.
Hookbender — Feb 07, 2013I gave you a list of people who played a role.
But you will concede that not everyone necessarily played an EQUAL role, correct?
Or are you going to ignore reality again...? :P
Tripper
I don't see any benefit to assigning a percentage of guilt to each individual who played a role. My point is made as is. In general, were some more guilty than others, probably so. So, I'll agree with that general statement but I have no interest in debating the amount of guilt to assign each individual. I don't think that Bush was a great President. I do think the blame for this mess rest in his lap for most Americans who are uninformed and ignorant of the facts and complexity of this disaster. I think that is very unfair and the reason I like to defend Bush at times. I do have much respect for Bush backing out of the spotlight and not getting in the political way of Obama as he does his thing. Country before politics, imo. +1 for Bush. Even as Obama goes around spreading lies about how this mess is Bush's fault, Bush remains silent. Impressive!
Huh. Funny because you call tons of shit Obama's fault, but yet, president for 8 years, worst financial crisis in 70 occurs right at the end of his tenure, and it's not in any way Bush's fault? We all pointed out the mistakes he made. Chief among them, passing two tax breaks, neither of which was needed, and both of which put us on the path to yearly deficits we've had since then. Deficits which you abhor and castigate Obama for. Dude, those are a DIRECT RESULT of those tax cuts, and Bush's increased spending. I could point out a lot more shit he did--like the fucking department of Homeland Security which is catching some terrorists, but also terrorizing the people. Like the completely unnecessary and unfounded war in Iraq. But you don't care, in your opinion he was "pretty good".
Pretty good?
Bush will go down in history as the worst president in the last 100 years, and you'll still call him "pretty good." You probably think Obama is a worse president. And that's why, no matter what you say, I have to call some level of bullshit on it. There's some bias at work here that you aren't revealing, because if Bush did half the fucking job Obama has done (and had even half as tough an opposition to his agenda) we'd all be applauding him.
Hookbender — Feb 07, 2013I do have much respect for Bush backing out of the spotlight and not getting in the political way of Obama as he does his thing. Country before politics, imo. +1 for Bush. Even as Obama goes around spreading lies about how this mess is Bush's fault, Bush remains silent. Impressive!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That's it, Bush is pulling a "classy" move by making himself scarce. Could you ask Cheney to get "classy" too...
charger — Feb 07, 2013Huh. Funny because you call tons of shit Obama's fault, but yet, president for 8 years, worst financial crisis in 70 occurs right at the end of his tenure, and it's not in any way Bush's fault? We all pointed out the mistakes he made. Chief among them, passing two tax breaks, neither of which was needed, and both of which put us on the path to yearly deficits we've had since then. Deficits which you abhor and castigate Obama for. Dude, those are a DIRECT RESULT of those tax cuts, and Bush's increased spending. I could point out a lot more shit he did--like the fucking department of Homeland Security which is catching some terrorists, but also terrorizing the people. Like the completely unnecessary and unfounded war in Iraq. But you don't care, in your opinion he was "pretty good".
Pretty good?
Bush will go down in history as the worst president in the last 100 years, and you'll still call him "pretty good." You probably think Obama is a worse president. And that's why, no matter what you say, I have to call some level of bullshit on it. There's some bias at work here that you aren't revealing, because if Bush did half the fucking job Obama has done (and had even half as tough an opposition to his agenda) we'd all be applauding him.
Can you be any more unfair and wrong in response to my post? Do you even read past the first sentence before you know exactly how you'll respond? I don't think you do.
Name something I've blamed Obama for that wasn't his agenda or actually his fault.
I named Bush as partly at fault for the crisis, it just wasn't all his fault. Read the list dude. I never said it wasn't Bush's fault and he was completely innocent of any blame. He was partly to blame. And I don't blame Obama for creating the deficit, I just don't like the fact that he's pretty much ignored it.
I don't completely blame Bush for Iraq either. There were other considerations and other countries that thought exactly the same as we did, or Bush did. Obama has the power to bring all the troops home from Iraq and Afgan., but he hasn't done that. So, if you oppose the war in Iraq, and I would guess you oppose the Afgan war as well, bitch about what Obama isn't doing while in office rather than bitching about someone who is fucking gone and has no control of the situation. That would make more sense.
And I still give a little slack for all the shit Bush had to deal with during his terms. You ignore that and just spread a bunch of shit that means nothing..... and you know better.
I do not think Obama is a worse President than Bush. They both had, and have, a shit load of disaster on their plate. Jimmy Carter was a fucking horrible President, neither Obama or Bush was that bad, imo. The congress and senate both passed the Bush tax cuts by the way, they didn't have to do that. Bad idea by Bush, passed by congress. Again, plenty of blame to go around. And if you read my post, just a few above this one on the same page, I said "I didn't think Bush was a great President".
Your such a die hard liberal you've become blind to reason and facts, and even logic. You know way more about politics than I probably ever will yet you let yourself just explode with stupidity and ignorance to protect so-called liberals, namely Obama. It's pretty much become senseless to even try to reason or debate politics with you. We all know the republicans faults in the dealings with Obama, but some of us also know Obamas faults as well.
I understand your frustration, but I don't understand you ignoring facts and picking little parts of a huge ordeal and assigning blame to one person.
Would you say that the tax cuts and the GrammLeachBliley Act were Republican policies?
Hey Hook - you do realize that the reason Obama "hasn't done anything about the deficit" is that THE VAST MAJORITY OF ECONOMISTS SAY THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO POINT IN DOING ANYTHING UNTIL THE ECONOMY IS STABILIZED. right?
BTW, your statement isn't even true - he HAS done things about the deficit...and tried to do more, but has been blocked by the Republicans in Congress.
Tripper
Hookbender — Feb 07, 2013
I don't completely blame Bush for Iraq either. There were other considerations and other countries that thought exactly the same as we did, or Bush did. Obama has the power to bring all the troops home from Iraq and Afgan., but he hasn't done that. So, if you oppose the war in Iraq, and I would guess you oppose the Afgan war as well, bitch about what Obama isn't doing while in office rather than bitching about someone who is fucking gone and has no control of the situation. That would make more sense.
Are you FUCKING KIDDING ME?
Bush is the one and only reason there was a second Iraq war. Other countries thought exactly the same as we did? How about "we twisted their fucking arms to go along with us because Bush had an insane, unreasonable need to invade Iraq". Bush's agenda in Iraq was set before he even took office. So don't tell me that Bush is not 100% to blame for it. He wanted that war more than anything, and used 9/11 as an excuse to get into it. 100%. There is no one else you can blame for Iraq. Anywhere. So don't tell me I'm blinded by "liberalism" . If anything I am relying on facts, instead of completely invented, asinine bullshit. They call that liberalism at Fox News, but that's because they are stupid.
charger — Feb 08, 2013[quote author=Hookbender link=1357320750/100#112 date=1360275305]
I don't completely blame Bush for Iraq either. There were other considerations and other countries that thought exactly the same as we did, or Bush did. Obama has the power to bring all the troops home from Iraq and Afgan., but he hasn't done that. So, if you oppose the war in Iraq, and I would guess you oppose the Afgan war as well, bitch about what Obama isn't doing while in office rather than bitching about someone who is fucking gone and has no control of the situation. That would make more sense.
Are you FUCKING KIDDING ME?
Bush is the one and only reason there was a second Iraq war. Other countries thought exactly the same as we did? How about "we twisted their fucking arms to go along with us because Bush had an insane, unreasonable need to invade Iraq". Bush's agenda in Iraq was set before he even took office. So don't tell me that Bush is not 100% to blame for it. He wanted that war more than anything, and used 9/11 as an excuse to get into it. 100%. There is no one else you can blame for Iraq. Anywhere. So don't tell me I'm blinded by "liberalism" . If anything I am relying on facts, instead of completely invented, asinine bullshit. They call that liberalism at Fox News, but that's because they are stupid.
I was referring to the bad intelligence Bush received that was also apparently bad from other countries as well. I didn't make myself clear, my bad.
Are you accusing me of inventing stuff? If so, what did I invent?
Well, I'd say Bush was partly at fault. But not 100%. Again, you should be mad at Obama for not ending the wars, not Bush for beginning them, if in fact, he did. But your not gonna do that because it would show that you are intelligent. ;D ;D
Tripper — Feb 08, 2013Hey Hook - you do realize that the reason Obama "hasn't done anything about the deficit" is that THE VAST MAJORITY OF ECONOMISTS SAY THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO POINT IN DOING ANYTHING UNTIL THE ECONOMY IS STABILIZED. right?
BTW, your statement isn't even true - he HAS done things about the deficit...and tried to do more, but has been blocked by the Republicans in Congress.
Tripper
;D ;D
So, why are economist saying not to do anything? Is it because something would be to raise taxes, which Obama has started doing, and it would hurt the economy? Or, maybe, the economist are of the liberal nature and they would rather let the republicans raise taxes and take the blame? ;D ;D
The easy thing to do would be to end the Afgan war today and save the American tax payers about 117 BILLION dollars this year. Wonder if the economist would think that's a good idea? The American people would!!
Hookbender — Feb 08, 2013So, why are economist saying not to do anything? Is it because something would be to raise taxes, which Obama has started doing, and it would hurt the economy? Or, maybe, the economist are of the liberal nature and they would rather let the republicans raise taxes and take the blame?
Because it's actually important to deal with the short term issue of getting the economy moving and growing than dealing with any sort of long-term deficit and debt issues. It's much easier to solve deficit and debt issues when the economy is working. Ask Bill Clinton and his budget director (and soon-to-be-new-Treasury secretary) Jack Lew.
The easy thing to do would be to end the Afgan war today and save the American tax payers about 117 BILLION dollars this year. Wonder if the economist would think that's a good idea? The American people would!!
President Obama does. That's why he's talked about advancing the timetable. But you know that already because you're so keen on current events. ::) ;D ;D
Tripper
Excuses are like assholes. He could have brought them home anytime in the first 4 years he was President. Advancing the timeline is political bullshit talk. He doesn't need permission to bring troops home. With a snap of his finger they could be headed this way tomorrow. Surely your not a closet Charger, right? Your arguments are filled with fallacies. Mine are too at times. But you use just basic bullshit a lot. Interesting.
Hookbender — Feb 10, 2013Excuses are like assholes. He could have brought them home anytime in the first 4 years he was President. Advancing the timeline is political bullshit talk.
Until it's reality, it's bullshit. I'll grant you that much.
He doesn't need permission to bring troops home. With a snap of his finger they could be headed this way tomorrow.
That is true. But the planning and logistics involved in leaving without having the place fall into complete chaos undoing what we were able to accomplish (and the whole actual point of the war, ousting the Taliban) is definitely something to consider.
Surely your not a closet Charger, right?
Charger owns you every time you attempt to argue with him. EVERY TIME.
Your arguments are filled with fallacies.
When have you ever gotten the point of the arguments I've made? You make more strawmen than a farmer with a crow problem.
Mine are too at times.
Yep. Most times...
But you use just basic bullshit a lot. Interesting.
Proof/examples or shut up, you liar.
Tripper
No, Charger does not. Period. Not even close. It isn't about winning, it's about truth, reality, and facts. All of which I did 100%. Apparently you are a closet Charger. ;D
"Proof/examples or shut up, you liar."
Thats one right there. Ad Hominem Abusive. Personal attack.
I'm not going through all your post and digging up all the stuff in them and laying it out for you. You use the one above quite often and have since I first got here. From reading your post all this time, it appears your trying to make points, and at the same time slamming the person your point is aimed at. Do what you want, doesn't bother me, call me what you want, thats fine too. But I assure you of one god-damn thing, you will never catch me lying intentionally..... in my personal life or here or anywhere else. You can take that to the bank. Yes, that touched a nerve, probably one of the only things I absolutely hate and can't tolerate is a lier.
Getting pissed at me won't change the fact that your human, and fuck up sometimes. ;)
And by the way, in this thread, Charger has laid out more straw than I've ever seen. Re-read the entire thread for your proof. I'm offering this thread as evidence. ;D
Dude, when's the last time you used facts to argue your point? Like, never. Gimme a break. I lay out arguments that are coherent and factual and then you're like, "yeah, but Obama sucks" or, "you can't blame it on Bush." Can't blame Iraq on Bush? I know you voted for him--AFTER he invaded Iraq... so maybe you feel compelled to still stand up for the guy, but come on. There is one and only one person responsible for the US invading Iraq, and it's Bush. So don't tell me how I'm making shit up and you're using facts. You haven't met a fact you liked as long as I've known you. Your arguments are always 75% based on gut feeling, as far as I can tell. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But it's a long fucking stretch from there to "I'm 100% on the side of the truth." To quote Jack, "you can't handle the truth."
Hookbender — Feb 12, 2013No, Charger does not. Period. Not even close. It isn't about winning, it's about truth, reality, and facts. All of which I did 100%. Apparently you are a closet Charger. ;D
"Proof/examples or shut up, you liar."
Thats one right there. Ad Hominem Abusive. Personal attack.
You have made a claim that is false based on demonstrable history and reality. You must provide evidence for this claim. You are lying about my posts. I shouldn't have called you a liar, I should have just said "that's a lie, provide proof of this false claim". If I gave a shit that it wasn't an ad hominem, of course... :)
I'm not going through all your post and digging up all the stuff in them and laying it out for you.
If you cared to actually make your point you might try this. Instead, you just attack my writings without providing any material support to your weak attack. You just throw your pulled-out-of-the-anus opinions out there and act as though they're facts. Then whine and/or lie about the people who respond to you.
You use the one above quite often and have since I first got here. From reading your post all this time, it appears your trying to make points, and at the same time slamming the person your point is aimed at.
I make my points. Sometimes I have a little fun fucking with you and being mean, and that's uncalled for, but totally fun and something I've been doing long enough for you to hopefully be numb to it. The facts are, though, your grammar is weak, and your arguments are often incongruous, and when I point that out...that's not an attack, just an uncomfortable reality you don't want reflected back at you. That's, of course, assuming you understand reality. Not sure there's much proof of that, unfortunately.
Do what you want, doesn't bother me, call me what you want, thats fine too. But I assure you of one god-damn thing, you will never catch me lying intentionally..... in my personal life or here or anywhere else. You can take that to the bank. Yes, that touched a nerve, probably one of the only things I absolutely hate and can't tolerate is a lier.
I wish you could spell. Seriously. Sorry it touched a nerve, but my posts and arguments are not bullshit or bullshitting except when I'm being facetious (and that's often pretty obvious and followed by ;) ). Your assessment is at best an inaccurate representation of reality, at worst an outright lie.
Getting pissed at me won't change the fact that your human, and fuck up sometimes. ;)
Not pissed at you, just annoyed by your endless inability to get the fucking point of what people who challenge your often childishly foolish claims post. It's kind of amazing. It almost seems like performance art.
And by the way, in this thread, Charger has laid out more straw than I've ever seen. Re-read the entire thread for your proof. I'm offering this thread as evidence. ;D
Already did...you still win, Scarecrow. He answers your questions very clearly and with evidence far more often than you answer anyone else's.
Tripper
charger — Feb 12, 2013Dude, when's the last time you used facts to argue your point? Like, never. Gimme a break. I lay out arguments that are coherent and factual and then you're like, "yeah, but Obama sucks" or, "you can't blame it on Bush." Can't blame Iraq on Bush? I know you voted for him--AFTER he invaded Iraq... so maybe you feel compelled to still stand up for the guy, but come on. There is one and only one person responsible for the US invading Iraq, and it's Bush. So don't tell me how I'm making shit up and you're using facts. You haven't met a fact you liked as long as I've known you. Your arguments are always 75% based on gut feeling, as far as I can tell. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But it's a long fucking stretch from there to "I'm 100% on the side of the truth." To quote Jack, "you can't handle the truth."
First, you haven't read my post, so how would you know????
Show me where I said "you can't blame it on Bush". Show me where I said "you're making shit up and I'm using facts".
Your post is a very common fallacy, by the way.
Trip, Trip, Trip ...... calm down man, it's ok bro. Really.
So, what claim did I make?
I didn't attack your writings. I clearly gave you my opinion of your post. Simple as that. If you want evidence, read your last post. That backs my claim. No work for me required.
What did I lie about? Thats a claim, with no evidence to support it, I guess that's one of your "pulled-out-of-the-anus opinions".
I don't think its good debate skills, even in this forum, to accuse someone of accusations of a lack of evidence, and challenge that by making false allegations about said person, me, is it? Without any evidence? Surely not.
Grammar and spelling time again. That's so old.
I'm really not interested in your opinions of me at this point. I'd rather stick to the subject of debate. So if you have nothing to say concerning the topic of discussion, excuse me if I simply ignore you.
I like how you act like my posts haven't been almost entirely on topic when they have. Read them. I'm always addressing something in the discussion, often something stupid you wrote...only occasionally do I drift into commentary about your lack of ability to reason or spell.
I leave you with this...almost every comment you make, both original and in response to someone's challenge to your "debating", "logic" and "reason", reminds me of this quote:
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand." - Bertrand Russell
Perhaps this is why you always seem to miss the fucking point.
Tripper
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin
"Perhaps this is why you always seem to miss the fucking point."
If its a point worth making, it should be a point worth explaining.
"If you can't explain it, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein
Hookbender — Feb 14, 2013Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin
"Perhaps this is why you always seem to miss the fucking point."
If its a point worth making, it should be a point worth explaining.
"If you can't explain it, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein
"Half of the things quoted on the internet are wrong." - Abraham Lincoln
"If I could explain it to the average person, I wouldn't have been worth the Nobel Prize."--
actual Einstein quote
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."- Albert Einstein
;D ;D
"I do not like green eggs and ham; I do not like them, Sam-I-Am." -Dr. Seuss
"He is stupid, but he knows that he is stupid and that, almost makes him smart.. let's listen" -Unknown
"He who dares to question will be personally attacked by the liberal mob". - Hookbender
"He who cries, then calls a name, is sure to cry another day." -Confu(se)cius
Hardest thing for liberals to do is to stay on subject, especially when they are loosing. Everything they don't like ends up a personal attack instead of subject debate backed by facts. A few grammatical errors and misspelled words only diminish ones argument slightly. However, one who lowers himself to attack ones argument with personal jabs and personal emotion and feeling about the opposing person is a waste of time.
How do you win or lose in political observation?
For me, it's not about wins and losses. Its about, as you said, a personal "observation" based on the reality of the situation. When opposing views differ with some of those views people have here, it ends up a personal attack that totally shits on the subject being discussed. It's a shame really. I learn a lot when the debate stays on subject. It makes me see others views and gather information I may not have known if not for the debate/discussion.
Then bring it back to the subject you want to discuss and bring a schweet and substantive point.
One of the problems is that politics is a layer that rides on top of issues/solutions.
No solutions will be found or sane discussion had when it involves personal attack.
Hookbender — Feb 18, 2013No solutions will be found or sane discussion had when it involves personal attack.
What a brashly ignorant generalization.
You're also the person who acts as though it's a liberal trait to fall down the "ad hominem" hole. Have you ever listened to right-wing talk radio? I mean, most of the opinions that you've posted indicate that you have - quite a bit, actually - but when you made that statement it made me wonder if you understood that one has absolutely nothing to do with the other. Then you make this statement, which every writers' room, cabinet meeting, and legislative session in hundreds of countries around the world might refute on any given day.
Just to be clear on liberal/ad hominem thing - I make personal attacks sometimes because it's fun for me. Not because I am a "liberal". (Even though I wouldn't label myself as such, I know that's how you see me.)
It doesn't change that you frequently post incorrect things or misrepresentations of history that are presented as facts, and you get endlessly butthurt when people call you out for the lack of factual basis for your statements (again, which are presented as factual more than just your opinion or perspective).
It's amazing to me that you persist in the fiction that ad hominem attacks have anything to do with the "liberals" losing an argument...because they haven't lost one yet with you. They've presented facts and you've rejected them because they don't jibe with your opinion. That's the behavior of a modern Republican...which I know you are NOT, at least based on your claims.
But if it quacks like a duck...
Tripper
Tripper — Feb 18, 2013[quote author=Hookbender link=1357320750/125#138 date=1361225472]No solutions will be found or sane discussion had when it involves personal attack.
What a brashly ignorant generalization.
You're also the person who acts as though it's a liberal trait to fall down the "ad hominem" hole. Have you ever listened to right-wing talk radio? I mean, most of the opinions that you've posted indicate that you have - quite a bit, actually - but when you made that statement it made me wonder if you understood that one has absolutely nothing to do with the other. Then you make this statement, which every writers' room, cabinet meeting, and legislative session in hundreds of countries around the world might refute on any given day.
Just to be clear on liberal/ad hominem thing - I make personal attacks sometimes because it's fun for me. Not because I am a "liberal". (Even though I wouldn't label myself as such, I know that's how you see me.)
It doesn't change that you frequently post incorrect things or misrepresentations of history that are presented as facts, and you get endlessly butthurt when people call you out for the lack of factual basis for your statements (again, which are presented as factual more than just your opinion or perspective).
It's amazing to me that you persist in the fiction that ad hominem attacks have anything to do with the "liberals" losing an argument...because they haven't lost one yet with you. They've presented facts and you've rejected them because they don't jibe with your opinion. That's the behavior of a modern Republican...which I know you are NOT, at least based on your claims.
But if it quacks like a duck...
Tripper
No, no, you misunderstood me. I was being nice. It is your trait, here, to personally attack and put down the opponent. Thats my observation, I pointed that out already. That is a fallacy or 2. I pointed that out as well, already. I don't at all think that it's a "liberal trait" to go from the subject being discussed to personally attacking someone.
I don't see where your claims have any merit, or evidence. Just a opinion of yours, I guess.
No, not a republican at all. I do like some of the things they do but they are all piles of shit in the political arena, at minimum. That's strictly my opinion, by the way.
Hookbender — Feb 18, 2013No, no, you misunderstood me. I was being nice. It is your trait, here, to personally attack and put down the opponent. Thats my observation, I pointed that out already. That is a fallacy or 2. I pointed that out as well, already.
I think you need to re-read the posts I've made in this thread. I only start crapping on you after you started attacking ME personally (saying I'm a "closet Charger" as though that's some sort of slur). I do mention your reality denial a few times before that, but hey, that's pretty demonstrable when you read what you've posted. Seriously. You're confusing Charger's bile with mine (no offense to Charger, but he tolerates your ignorance a lot less than I do).
I don't at all think that it's a "liberal trait" to go from the subject being discussed to personally attacking someone.
This is what you wrote:
Hardest thing for liberals to do is to stay on subject, especially when they are loosing. Everything they don't like ends up a personal attack instead of subject debate backed by facts.
So that's not what you meant? Because that's essentially what you're saying here. Liberals can't stay on subject when they are "loosing" (sic). We don't have evidence of liberals "loosing" (sic) so we can't really test that claim. You write that everything liberals "don't like ends up a personal attack instead of subject debate backed by facts". BUT YOU REPEATEDLY IGNORE FACTS WHEN THEY ARE PRESENTED!!! That's the liberals' point, and why it usually devolves into personal attacks, since obviously you refuse to respect reality when it is presented to you clearly and with citation. Which is a very Republican thing to do...
I don't see where your claims have any merit, or evidence. Just a opinion of yours, I guess.
Only because of the quote I shared earlier. And don't act like you're not making false equivalences all over the place when it comes to assigning blame for things. Seriously, man. It's a fucking JOKE how little you understand recent history...you really repeat the GOP re-telling of it like it's reality, when it never was.
No, not a republican at all. I do like some of the things they do but they are all piles of shit in the political arena, at minimum. That's strictly my opinion, by the way.
Then please stop acting like one. Start accepting reality, facts, and grow more intellectually curious.
Tripper
Seriously Tripper? Fallacy again. ;)
What does any of this have to do with the subject? Nothing!
Any evidence for your claims? Nothing again.
I'm sorry you feel that way, but , can we get back to the subject now? ;D
Why don't you just start a bash Hook thread and post your opinions of me there, so I can continue learning from this discussion. Seriously, this is getting old.
I was responding to your off-topic post. Why on Earth would my post be on-topic?
Talk about a fallacy...did you even bother to go back and read my past posts? Nope. Because you'd see how completely WRONG your assumptions about my participation in this thread have been up until the point when you attacked me.
Tripper
Well, my opinion wasn't formed from this thread alone.
Look, I just don't see that as an attack on you personally. I can see how some could come to that conclusion to a degree, but not you. I did actually intend to put the big grin at the end of that and simply forgot. No shit. It was meant as a joke. Not a attack. I mean damn, can you even define what a closet Charger is?
Your last post represents a fallacy as well, by the way.
I see the "attack" struck a nerve with you. It wasn't intended that way, so out of kindness, I will apologize for that.
However, if your gonna make a laundry list of claims about me in the future, at least provide the evidence required to make the claims valid. Hell, even I did that.
Can we get back to the subject now?
You keep using this word fallacy.
"I do not think it means what you think it means." - The Princess Bride
It's like you start threads to hear us fight back at your bizarre fox-news rants, and then you act all personally offended when we take the bait. I often wonder why we even bother responding. I think it's better to just post a bunch of bullshit, unrelated quotes, and maybe some pictures of kittens.
charger — Feb 20, 2013It's like you start threads to hear us fight back at your bizarre fox-news rants, and then you act all personally offended when we take the bait. I often wonder why we even bother responding. I think it's better to just post a bunch of bullshit, unrelated quotes, and maybe some pictures of kittens.
Well, lets see dude. You said it's 100% Bush's fault that we invaded Iraq. I haven't see any evidence for that yet. You see, if you make a claim like that, and provide evidence for it, I'd be more likely to shut the fuck up. But you didn't. So your claims are actually less than mine. I at least gave you a list to blame for the economic meltdown.
You see, I don't know everything. I think I do, though. So, if I have a conclusion that is incorrect, and you, Trip, or anyone else proves that I'm incorrect about something...... I do consider that a win on my part because I learned something. I didn't DEFEAT anyone in a argument, but I won because I learned something.
If I argued with Stratman, I wouldn't learn anything and it would be a waste of time for me. And, maybe you feel that way about debating/discussing, with me. If so, I understand. I'm only ignorant if I don't pursue the facts about any given subject. I take your insults because most of the time I get defeated concerning the argument but win by gaining knowledge. Even a different way of speaking about certain subjects introduces a new way too understand a subject, or a new understanding about the subject. And if I disagree with your stance, then I do. So what?
It's all about knowledge and learning. I usually learn much from you and Trip. I just don't see the point of attacking the person rather than the subject or arguments introduced.
The only time I have ever been pissed or insulted is when Mark accused me of being racist. Over and over and over with no evidence to support that, and it was a personal attack against me, as a individual. At the same time he was wanting me to go to the jams and sending me PM's. Dude was a little off, I guess. Other than that I have never felt that way from you or Trip. Maybe I should have.... ;D
Not 100% (though the buck would stop there), Cheney & Company Inc. all participated in the deception using known bad information...
Sure, pubs and crats played a role.
There were many at fault. H. Clinton and John Edwards, among others making decisions and not reading reports. All kind of bullshit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution