Posts for: Chamuco
Oct 1, 2019 23:19:07 #
(Main)
note: "convincing someone otherwise" is changing someone's opinion.
being "convinced otherwise by someone" is someone changing your opinion.
QUESTION:
CAN ANYONE ON THIS SITE
HONESTLY STATE
THAT THEY HAVE EVER EITHER..,
CONVINCED SOMEONE OTHERWISE OR..,
WAS CONVINCED OTHERWISE BY SOMEONE?
[please supply proof]
My God.., WHAT IN HELL ARE WE DOING?!?
If a Civil War comes.., EVERYONE on this site shares a fair share of the BLAME.
Opposing thought.., opposing opinion..., the very act of "opposing" lies at the
VERY HEART of American Exceptionalism.
"Disagreement" is one thing.., "disparagement" another.
Lincoln's said it best..., "If you look for the bad in your fellow man.., you will surely find it".
I have yet to find ANYONE on this site who has followed Abe's advice.
So, again.., I have to ask..,
My God.., WHAT IN HELL ARE WE DOING?!?
being "convinced otherwise by someone" is someone changing your opinion.
QUESTION:
CAN ANYONE ON THIS SITE
HONESTLY STATE
THAT THEY HAVE EVER EITHER..,
CONVINCED SOMEONE OTHERWISE OR..,
WAS CONVINCED OTHERWISE BY SOMEONE?
[please supply proof]
My God.., WHAT IN HELL ARE WE DOING?!?
If a Civil War comes.., EVERYONE on this site shares a fair share of the BLAME.
Opposing thought.., opposing opinion..., the very act of "opposing" lies at the
VERY HEART of American Exceptionalism.
"Disagreement" is one thing.., "disparagement" another.
Lincoln's said it best..., "If you look for the bad in your fellow man.., you will surely find it".
I have yet to find ANYONE on this site who has followed Abe's advice.
So, again.., I have to ask..,
My God.., WHAT IN HELL ARE WE DOING?!?
Oct 1, 2019 22:02:03 #
(Main)
eagleye13 wrote:
Thanks for explaining your position. br We have so... (show quote)
Well packaged stuff.
I remember Paul's 3 p**********l runs quite well.
I v**ed for him in 1988 when he ran on the Independent Ticket and came in a distant 3rd.., then again in
2008 and 2012 when he got crushed by McCain and Romney in succession.
Believe me.., if I could have pushed a button and Paul would have been president.., I would have
pushed that button.
However.., as to the scenarios presented by your YouTube se******ns.., the best I can do is agree to disagree.
Speaking of Independents.., I've gotta tell you I was extremely disappointed that Rand abandoned the Independent Party moniker.
It's not as if he wouldn't still have sided with the Republicans on most v**es.
It's not as if retaining it would have prevented him from running for the Republican P**********l nomination any more than they use of it prevents Sanders from running for the Democratic nomination.
That fact that Bernie Sanders is allowed to use the "Independent" moniker DEEPLY disturbs me since the Independent Party is a separate, well-established political Party that IN NO WAY includes Sanders political philosophy.
Independent is a Party.., not an adjective.
Oct 1, 2019 21:06:25 #
(Main)
eagleye13 wrote:
Thanks for explaining your position. br We have so... (show quote)
Oct 1, 2019 14:39:12 #
(Main)
eagleye13 wrote:
"Chamuco]have tried it.., rather boring."
Says a liberal.
I guess t***h could be boring to a liberal.
Too bad so many people do not get One America News Network.
I went to Dish, and the local cable both do not carry One America News Network.
I miss it.
I am now on Dish, and it does not carry it.
The Liberal/Left own most of the airwaves, as predicted in the Bible for the Last Days.
BTW; episodes are available on You Tube.
Says a liberal.
I guess t***h could be boring to a liberal.
Too bad so many people do not get One America News Network.
I went to Dish, and the local cable both do not carry One America News Network.
I miss it.
I am now on Dish, and it does not carry it.
The Liberal/Left own most of the airwaves, as predicted in the Bible for the Last Days.
BTW; episodes are available on You Tube.
for someone who calls himself "eagle eye" you are surely blind.
i never v**ed for a democrat in my life and..,
oan is still boring.
Oct 1, 2019 12:25:37 #
(Main)
Mikeyavelli wrote:
Try One America News Network. OAN as it's called.
Fox is turning left.
Fox is turning left.
have tried it.., rather boring.
Oct 1, 2019 12:18:14 #
(Main)
marinevet73 wrote:
I am a liberal, and you're right, I want only one ... (show quote)
Your self-serving reply pretty much establishes that you haven't an ounce of "respect" for any OPINION but those with which you agree.
Under your NONSENSICAL paradigm.., the word "opinion" wouldn't even exist..., only the "facts" YOU consider relevant and the "NARRATIVE" which supports the conclusions YOU reach.
Only an unmitigated NARCISSIST could believe that THEIR opinion is the ONLY one defensible and worthy of respect.
I'd think a jarhead would be have more respect for the differing opinions of his fellow citizens.
Oct 1, 2019 10:43:30 #
(Main)
Mikeyavelli wrote:
Yep, Trump will win in a landslide, probably against Squaw Warren. Then perhaps Trump will fire Bush Boy Barr and appoint a loyalist to prosecute these t*****rs. Right now, Trump has no one fighting back except for his growing number of supporters.
agree with your first sentence and fervently hope it comes true.
after that.., you fall off the cliff with me.
Oct 1, 2019 10:38:52 #
(Main)
Oct 1, 2019 10:32:12 #
(Main)
Mikeyavelli wrote:
Well, I'm certainly to the right of Fox News as it is today.
Wallace's credentials consist of his last name.
Worthless nasal little punk. Surprised that the sunnuvabich still has a nose.
Wallace's credentials consist of his last name.
Worthless nasal little punk. Surprised that the sunnuvabich still has a nose.
Setting aside your seeming incognizance of the realities that INSULTS ARE NOT ARGUMENTS and that they are WHOLLY COUNTERPRODUCTIVE to the persuasion process..., my opinion is a bit more "NUANCED".
Like opinions on what constitutes a "conservative" or a "Republican".., there seems to be a wide range of opinions on what constitutes the "right".
Sons are NOT fathers. Equating Wallace to his "flaming left" father is both unfair and utter nonsense.
Still.., I think Wallace has recently demonstrated a "ONE SIDEDNESS" in his interviews just as Napolitano has demonstrated a ONE SIDEDNESS in his presenting his of legal opinions.
Napolitano's performance is particularly annoying since he fails to acknowledge that legal scholars differ with his interpretation of what constitutes a crime in Trump's Ukrainian phone conversation where he has previously been careful to acknowledged the varying legal arguments involved.
Shep has acknowledged from the get-go that he is a Never-Trumper and his coverage has NEVER failed to
reflect his position. As a journalist.., his daily performances are particularly inexcusable.., just as his retention by Fox News is utterly incomprehensible.
With the departure of the wise Krauthammer.., I look to Brit Hume for that wisdom.
The BOTTOM LINE is that the "left wing" slant to the News is WIDELY available.., while Fox is where the public can go for the "right wing" slant.
By ANY standard of "fairness".., Shep should be fired.
Liberals will disagree [as they undoubtedly will in replies] because they only want ONE-SIDE of the story.., one "NARRATIVE" to be available to the American Public.
Sep 30, 2019 22:18:35 #
(Main)
Wholly agree with your first line
As to second line.., "When is it NOT used "to deflect/divert/deviate from the topic at hand"?
As to your final line.., I find taking "each situation/event/argument by itself" is, too often, a lesson in subjectiveness and that such "comparisons" mostly hold up well under objective "scrutiny".
Anyway.., really like the sophisticated way you put forward your thoughts.
plus.., look ma.., no insults!!!
As to second line.., "When is it NOT used "to deflect/divert/deviate from the topic at hand"?
As to your final line.., I find taking "each situation/event/argument by itself" is, too often, a lesson in subjectiveness and that such "comparisons" mostly hold up well under objective "scrutiny".
Anyway.., really like the sophisticated way you put forward your thoughts.
plus.., look ma.., no insults!!!
Sep 30, 2019 22:05:05 #
(Main)
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
What aboutism has it's place... But only when being used to define the parameters of an argument/debate...
When used to deflect/divert/deviate from the topic at hand it becomes an annoying logic fallacy....
Personally I prefer to take each situation/event/argument by itself... Conpsrisons so rarely hold up under deeper scrutiny...
When used to deflect/divert/deviate from the topic at hand it becomes an annoying logic fallacy....
Personally I prefer to take each situation/event/argument by itself... Conpsrisons so rarely hold up under deeper scrutiny...
Sep 30, 2019 20:44:00 #
(Main)
kemmer wrote:
Trump’s last hooker cost $180,000 and maybe his sorry presidency.
OUCH!!!
That's what JFK, Clinton and Trump would classify as "below the belt".
Sep 30, 2019 20:34:58 #
(Main)
The sad REALITY is that
EVERY, SINGLE PERSON
on this site is a "lemming"..,
rushing madly toward
the inevitable destination
which conveniently proves
that which we lemmings
desire it to prove.
Stephen Stills said it best..,
"There's battle lines being drawn.
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong."
Things have changed since Thoreau's day..,
when men were "QUIET" in their "desperation".
Today.., they can't seem to shut up.
While.., here I am..,
the prime proof of that which I disapprove.
ah, well....
EVERY, SINGLE PERSON
on this site is a "lemming"..,
rushing madly toward
the inevitable destination
which conveniently proves
that which we lemmings
desire it to prove.
Stephen Stills said it best..,
"There's battle lines being drawn.
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong."
Things have changed since Thoreau's day..,
when men were "QUIET" in their "desperation".
Today.., they can't seem to shut up.
While.., here I am..,
the prime proof of that which I disapprove.
ah, well....
Sep 30, 2019 15:19:49 #
(Main)
amadjuster wrote:
That’s why it’s called “Fair and Balanced”.
I've found EXTREMELY few Information Sources totally "Fair and Balanced".
Literally EVERY Network and Cable News sources have chosen sides and CREATE [through News and Analysis] NARRATIVES that favor the "sides" they've CHOSEN to support.
Sadly..,to one degree or another.., it's ALL "F**e News".
There is, however, one "Fair and Balanced" Source of Information that TRUMPS [no pun intended] all others because it actually offers one piece of NON-OPINIONATED "INFORMATION" worth knowing:
WHO'S THE HELL IS WINNING.
For fascinating, UP TO DATE RESULTS as to how well the various "NARRATIVES" are selling amongst the American Public...,
I recommend...,
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/pres_general/
IT TAKES NO SIDE BECAUSE IT RECOGNIZES ALL SIDES.
Sep 30, 2019 13:04:27 #
(Main)
Carlos wrote:
I'm not sure I understand the question. I'm a little slow. Ask the question in another way please.
Example.
I'm in argument with someone who brings up Trump's questionable sexual proclivities as to women.
I reply.., "Well, WHAT ABOUT... Clinton.., or Kennedy."
They reply by insisting we stick to Trump and not divert the argument using "What about-ism".
Both sides use the technique why objecting to its' use by the other side.
I think comparing how a thing was handled in the past is a WHOLLY LEGITIMATE approach to determining how it should be handled it in the present.
Unfortunately.., humans tend to be intensely interested in the faults of others while not-at-all-so in those of their own.