• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rep. Jenkins: GOP looking for "great white hope"

Not to be "insulting" but you expect that one word in one post is supposed to clarify your argument when everything you said afterward muddled you equivocation?

Everything he posts is a muddle of logical fallacies. It's like if you gave a keyboard to Stephen's Logical Fallacies and just let him go to town.
 
note you give no indication of what makes someone a "crazy" protesters leading the implication to be squarely that those calling him socialist/fascist/communist is what makes a crazy protester.

Its not other peoples fault if you are very poor at articulating what you actually mean.

Because crazy is a judgment call.

What, do you expect an essay on the definition of the word crazy?
 
Because crazy is a judgment call.

What, do you expect an essay on the definition of the word crazy?

We expect that if you make a claim, you will substantiate it with evidence. This ain't rocket science.
 
Not to be "insulting" but you expect that one word in one post is supposed to clarify your argument when everything you said afterward muddled your equivocation?


Did you not understand my earlier post?

You are not worth the time, nor te effort.

I do not trade words with people whose very first post is an insult.

End of discussion.
 
Because crazy is a judgment call.

What, do you expect an essay on the definition of the word crazy?

Do you think that calling Obama a communist makes somebody 'crazy'? I'd like to know the qualifications one would need for you to call them crazy.
 
Did you not understand my earlier post?

You are not worth the time, nor te effort.

I do not trade words with people whose very first post is an insult.

End of discussion.

Well then you are just going to have to deal with me pointing out how asinine your every argument is, even if you aren't going to be discussing it with me. I am glad we cleared that up.

This is just the beginning of the discussion, now. :2wave:
 
We expect that if you make a claim, you will substantiate it with evidence. This ain't rocket science.

Ridiculous.

This is not about a scientific claim.

It is about a judgement call.

No proof needed, o proof required.

Now, if I would have said there are x many people making x amount of money in x state, then yes I understand the need for proof.

But for this?

Hogwash.
 
Well, watching the DP cabal dog pile on someone is enough for me to say goodbye to another thread that has nowhere else to go but the sewer.

The Limit; your ideas and political views are not shared by me, but that stated, there is a tactic here on DP where favored one's dog pile on a member until the thread is dragged into the sewer or you have violated a forum rule and get infracted or thread banned.

The best way to deal with it is to ignore the ones baiting and trolling and stick to the topic at hand. Don't say I didn't warn you.

Now, before the thread descends further into ignorance, I bid it adieu.
:2wave:
 
I find it totally ridiculous I am being asked for "proof" for what is essentially a judgement call.

So anyway what do you base this 'judgement call' on? I am assuming figments of your imaginations but still.
 
Do you think that calling Obama a communist makes somebody 'crazy'? I'd like to know the qualifications one would need for you to call them crazy.

Crazy...I do not know. It depends on the person.

However, calling Obama a communist is an uninformed opinion.

Because he is not a "communist" no matter how hard someone wishes it to be so.
 
Yet you keep coming back for more ... :roll:

That was my thought exactly. But then, we are talking about the guy who thinks that asking for proof is an insult so...

The bar hasn't been set very high as far as consistency is concerned...
 
Ridiculous.

This is not about a scientific claim.

It is about a judgement call.

No proof needed, o proof required.

Now, if I would have said there are x many people making x amount of money in x state, then yes I understand the need for proof.

But for this?

Hogwash.

Yes, I understand that barneyandfriends.com doesn't really require much in the way of evidence, but you're playing with the big kids now, Limt. We expect that if you post a statement generalizing an entire group of humans that you will be able to present statistically valid research that will substantiate that claim. And if you can't present it, the odds are pretty damn good that your initial post was logically flawed beyond repair.

Hope that helps.
 
We expect that if you post a statement generalizing an entire group of humans that you will be able to present statistically valid research that will substantiate that claim. And if you can't present it, the odds are pretty damn good that your initial post was logically flawed beyond repair.

Hope that helps.

I did not generalize an "entire group of humans." Another false attribution.

And I far from playing with the "big dogs." That is quite a fantatsic claim.

I am playing with people who just yesterday were classlessly dancing on the grave of individual.
 
Well, watching the DP cabal dog pile on someone is enough for me to say goodbye to another thread that has nowhere else to go but the sewer.

The Limit; your ideas and political views are not shared by me, but that stated, there is a tactic here on DP where favored one's dog pile on a member until the thread is dragged into the sewer or you have violated a forum rule and get infracted or thread banned.

The best way to deal with it is to ignore the ones baiting and trolling and stick to the topic at hand. Don't say I didn't warn you.

Now, before the thread descends further into ignorance, I bid it adieu.
:2wave:

I have relentlessly sticked to the topic at hand.
 
I am playing with people who just yesterday were classlessly dancing on the grave of individual.

We may dance without class, but we can simultaneously maul your arguments with ease.

I did not generalize an "entire group of humans." Another false attribution.

Actually, you did. You generalized a large subgroup of humans. And, you can't substantiate your generalization about them. We all know it. You look silly.
 
But do not expect any of us to keep quiet and not call bull**** on it.

Again, another false attribution.

I never once expected anyone to "keep quiet."

Is this a tradition on this board...to repeatedly and falsely attribute words to a poster who has never actually said the things he or she is being accussed of?
 
I have relentlessly sticked to the topic at hand.

Translation:

enviromental-head-in-the-sand.jpg
 
Crazy...I do not know. It depends on the person.

However, calling Obama a communist is an uninformed opinion.

Because he is not a "communist" no matter how hard someone wishes it to be so.

Just like calling a group of people crazy (and racist) for calling him a communist is an uninformed opinion. Because "communist" isn't a racial slur no matter how hard you wish it to be so.
 
Is this a tradition on this board...to repeatedly and falsely attribute words to a poster who has never actually said the things he or she is being accussed of?

I think you're simply being asked to stand behind your initial claim. Are you now recanting that claim? (that would be wise)
 
Crazy...I do not know. It depends on the person.

However, calling Obama a communist is an uninformed opinion.

Because he is not a "communist" no matter how hard someone wishes it to be so.

So it could be anybody who calls Obama a communist regardless of whether or not they're using it to replace the word nigger?
 
Back
Top Bottom