• 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!

Arizona Sheriff Blasts Rush Limbaugh for Spewing 'Irresponsible' Vitriol

j-mac said:
This is the only relevant part of your answer to my question....Thanks.


j-mac
Click to expand...

Only if you're scoring some points somewhere. A yes or a no without understanding why means very little outside of a vote on something. That's why yes and no questions are usually considered poor questions.
 
Boo Radley said:
Only if you're scoring some points somewhere. A yes or a no without understanding why means very little outside of a vote on something. That's why yes and no questions are usually considered poor questions.
Click to expand...

Since when have "yes" or "no" questions been poor questions? ROTFLOL... That's the first I've heard of this. "Yes/No" only questions are excellent, as they cut through the crap. It's why lawyers love to use them.

More politicians should be given ONLY "yes/no" questions. I don't need to hear their qualifications on a lot of issues. I want to know where the mother****er stands. Spare me the BS... tell me... yes or no.

Did you have sex with that woman Billy Bob?
Senator Obama, do you really want us to believe you never heard the poisonous slurry spewing from between Rev. Wright's gums?
Senator Obama, do you consider many on the right to be bitter clingers? 10 to 30%? 30 to 50%? 50 to 70%? More than 70%?
Hillary, did you bone up on those 900 raw FBI files?
Sandy Burgler, did you steal, by shoving documents down your pants and destroy those documents from the National Archives to cover for the incompetence of The Clintons?
Algore, did you invent the Internet?
Senator Reid, is the war lost?
Senator Turbin, are our troops like Nazi's?
Senator Kerry, did these atrocities you testified about happened in Vietnam? Did you report them to your superiors?

I think the next presidential election should be run with 90% "yes/no" answers.

Too many politicians and (especially) libs (of all stripes) remind me of this character.


.
 
Last edited:
zimmer said:
Since when have "yes" or "no" questions been poor questions? ROTFLOL... That's the first I've heard of this. "Yes/No" only questions are excellent, as they cut through the crap. It's why lawyers love to use them.
Click to expand...

Such questions offer nothing to understanding. Politiicans aside, if you're in a discussion, a yes or no question doesn't explain anything. Offers nothing to the discourse.
 
zimmer said:
After the Dems got their asses booted in 1994, that is when the political discourse had risen to the level we have today.

Back then The Libs got their asses kicked and the R's took over both chambers for the first time in 40-years. You don't think that pissed off the left? Of course it did. I think it's a good thing, even a great thing to have the electorate engaged... and passionate. But of course there is a line. Rush didn't cross it. Palin hasn't crossed it, nor has FOXNEWS. The Dems have crossed it in the most disgusting manner twice in less than a decade.

Talk radio was a significant force in the D's demise, and now FOXNEWS and the internet don't let them get away with their spin like they once could when they owned the media. It is voices like Limbaugh the left wants to shut down, and this shooting is another illustration of how low they are willing to go to achieve that goal.

I thought voting to send our troops to Gulf War 2 and then turning their backs on them... treasonous back stabbing was as low as one could go. Sending troops to war for political expediency... there could be nothing lower. Could there? I was wrong. Their behavior after this shooting is at least on par with that most digusting moment in their history.

And for what reason do we see the D's twice sink to this depth... swimming in the feces... with full assistance from their journOlists?

Power.

It's sad, sick, and demented, but it's the story of the modern Democrat party.

.
Click to expand...

It's nice to come to another forum and see somebody else gets it.
 
Boo Radley said:
Such questions offer nothing to understanding. Politiicans aside, if you're in a discussion, a yes or no question doesn't explain anything. Offers nothing to the discourse.
Click to expand...

It lets people know where you stand. It may not explain why, but that gum flapping may not matter.

Are you for higher taxes on the wealthy?
Is 250,000 a year wealthy?
Are you for the death penalty?
Do you believe in spreading the wealth around?
Are you for gay marriage?
Do you believe Roe v Wade was a gross overreach by the SCOTUS?
Was Algore cheated in 2000?
Did the Florida Supreme Court vastly overreach?
Did Bush lie about getting us into Iraq?
Did the Dems in Congress vote to send troops to war for political expediency?
Did the Dems turn their backs on the troops for political expediency?

You see, in 5 minutes I could learn more about you with Y/N questions than all the gum flapping and rationalizing of positions. Therefore they provide great insight into understanding.

I think it'd be a great test to run on Moderates and Progressives... ROTFLOL. Of course such Libs aren't prone to answering honestly... because they lie about who they are right out of the gate...LOL.

.
 
Last edited:
yes's and no's are "generally considered poor questions"

LOL!

says the guy who demands links (after dozens provided from the ny times, boston globe, wapo, ap, reuters, bloomberg, cnn, nbc...)

and prefers wik to the cbc for purposes of "comparison and overview"

60 second kneejerkers demonstrate appalling lack of self respect

and they're HILARIOUS!
 
Boo Radley said:
Such questions offer nothing to understanding. Politiicans aside, if you're in a discussion, a yes or no question doesn't explain anything. Offers nothing to the discourse.
Click to expand...


A wise old man once told me "better to baffle them with B*** S***, than dazzle them with brilliance, especially when you're short on Brilliance."

Seems that is what Joe is driving at.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
A wise old man once told me "better to baffle them with B*** S***, than dazzle them with brilliance, especially when you're short on Brilliance."

Seems that is what Joe is driving at.


j-mac
Click to expand...

Not at all. In fact, what you describe is often the reason to ask a yest or no question. You want to skip any explination or any understanding, because with the reason for the answer being open to your interpretation, you can paint it as you please.
 
zimmer said:
It lets people know where you stand. It may not explain why, but that gum flapping may not matter.
Click to expand...

It doesn't really even do that.

Are you for higher taxes on the wealthy?
Click to expand...

Higher than who? A progressive tax, yes. Just random gore the wealthy, no.

Is 250,000 a year wealthy?
Click to expand...

Yes. Compared to 40,000 a year. Sure is.

Are you for the death penalty?
Click to expand...

No. For two reasons: I don't think we be 100% certain that we're actually killing the right person, and I think death might be too easy for some.

Do you believe in spreading the wealth around?
Click to expand...

That's more a phrase taken out of context, so there is no way that should ever be a yes or know question. What is meant by the person who uttered such a phrase, and what is meant by the person asking the question? That requires a lot of understanding between the parties.

Are you for gay marriage?
Click to expand...

Yes. And why matters. How it's painted matters. The question is only good in yes and no form for a vote on the issue. Without discussion, it's really meaningless.

Do you believe Roe v Wade was a gross overreach by the SCOTUS?
Click to expand...

Much more complicated. And something I'm much less sure.

Was Algore cheated in 2000?
Click to expand...

No. But the resulting circus was a disgrace for both parties and the courts as a whole. We all lost something in that. Again, a yes or no is meaningless in this discourse, and would only matter if we were somehow voting to do something about it.

Did the Florida Supreme Court vastly overreach?
Click to expand...

See above.

Did Bush lie about getting us into Iraq?
Click to expand...

Of course he did, but it too is complicated, and unless we're voting on some action to take places, a yes and no alone is meaningless.

Did the Dems in Congress vote to send troops to war for political expediency?
Click to expand...

Is that even what they did? Didn't congress as a whole really just pass the buck?

Did the Dems turn their backs on the troops for political expediency?
Click to expand...

And isn't this just a stupid question? And yes, there are stupid questions.

You see, in 5 minutes I could learn more about you with Y/N questions than all the gum flapping and rationalizing of positions. Therefore they provide great insight into understanding.
Click to expand...

No, you really couldn't. With no explanation, all you could really do is use those answers to paint any picture you want to paint. And believe me that has become the method of the day in this country. To paraphrase a fictional MLK from the Boondocks cartoon, too many today seek more to use an answer to inaccurately frame a debate or tar an opponent, and too few seek to listen to understand and consider.
 
Boo Radley said:
Not at all. In fact, what you describe is often the reason to ask a yest or no question. You want to skip any explination or any understanding, because with the reason for the answer being open to your interpretation, you can paint it as you please.
Click to expand...


Nonsense. How about just wanting a simple answer, rather than all the BS associated with it?


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Nonsense. How about just wanting a simple answer, rather than all the BS associated with it?


j-mac
Click to expand...

Simple answers to complex probklems are usually false and misleading. And in discussin, meaningless. Better for a vote on something, not a discussion. Seeking to understand just requires more.
 
Boo Radley said:
Simple answers to complex probklems are usually false and misleading. And in discussin, meaningless. Better for a vote on something, not a discussion. Seeking to understand just requires more.
Click to expand...


Understanding, nuance, overly explained, over use of misleading, and often misdirecting language is the mark of a scam artist, not someone that is well intentioned.


j-mac
 
I swear boo. You have been having this argument since al gore gave you a commodore 64. :2razz:
 
j-mac said:
Understanding, nuance, overly explained, over use of misleading, and often misdirecting language is the mark of a scam artist, not someone that is well intentioned.


j-mac
Click to expand...

Which is the other extreme. Wouldn't you think there is something inbetween?
 
j-mac said:
Understanding, nuance, overly explained, over use of misleading, and often misdirecting language is the mark of a scam artist, not someone that is well intentioned.


j-mac
Click to expand...

Don't forget used car salesmen and politicians.....
 
Boo Radley said:
Which is the other extreme. Wouldn't you think there is something inbetween?
Click to expand...

I am often skeptical of someone who is over explaining anything. Fewer words mean clear understanding. The more you have to gunk up the explanation the more often it is not the truth.


j-mac
 
Gill said:
Don't forget used car salesmen and politicians.....
Click to expand...

Exactly my point. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid had to sneak through this massive legislation under the cover of Christmas last year, without holding true to one of Obama's solemn campaign promises of transparency why? Because it was too urgent? Please, it doesn't even take full effect for years.

Remember Pelosi, "We'll have to pass the bill to find out what's in the bill." Totally absurd.


j-mac
 
He has a legitimate point. What if I ask J-Mac and Zimmer these yes and no questions, with the obvious intent to use their answers against them in the future.

Do you support increasing government spending?
Do you support expanding government?
Do you support increasing government budgets?
Is the Military part of the Government?
Do you believe parents should be in charge of raising thier children?
Do you believe that the government shouldn't have a say with what you do with your health?
Should we always follow the constitituion?
Should we follow only parts of the constitution?
Should we treat all parts of the constitution as equal?
Should we put limits on constitutional rights?
Should we put limits on gun ownership?
Are those who say they don't believe in 9/11 conspiracies, they are just asking questions or doubt the governments claim, really any different than turthers?
If you're not always conservative are you liberal?
Do you think increasing the size of government, creating entitlements, and increasing spending are signs of a bad president?
If we allow gay marriage to happen do you think it will lead to people marrying dogs or polygamy sometime in the next 50 years?
Was Barack Obama born in the U.S.?
Is he a legal U.S. Citizen?
Is he a Muslim?
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
I am often skeptical of someone who is over explaining anything. Fewer words mean clear understanding. The more you have to gunk up the explanation the more often it is not the truth.


j-mac
Click to expand...

That's just a generalization, and something likely wrong. ;)
 
Zyphlin said:
He has a legitimate point. What if I ask J-Mac and Zimmer these yes and no questions, with the obvious intent to use their answers against them in the future.
Click to expand...

Well, you can ask any questions you like of me, I can't speak for zimmer ofcourse, but whether your purpose be legitimate, or trolling as you express here, it matters not.

For the record right here and now today 1-14-11....

No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No - He's a dhimmi

There, now have fun, but read carefully.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Well, you can ask any questions you like of me, I can't speak for zimmer ofcourse, but whether your purpose be legitimate, or trolling as you express here, it matters not.
Click to expand...

Thanks. So you're against the military growing at all, having any larger budget, or increasing its spending at all. Good to know for the future. You must be against laws restricting minors from drinking alcohol, smoking, or looking at pornographic material since you think parents should be determining how to raise their kid not the government. Additionally it appears you also agree with making suicide legal, and thus assisting in suicide wouldn't be illegal since you're not assisting someone in doing an illegal thing. Plus marijuana and other drugs should be legalized since what I do to my health is none of the governments business. I'm very glad to see your non-nuanced stance on the constitution as well. Its wonderful that you find pushing laws against flag burning or laws regulating 1st and 2nd trimester abortions wrong since they are putting limits on ones constitutional rights, as found by the supreme court, who the constitution enables the ability to be the interpriters of the constitution.

I am truly, and absolutely honest, in stating I'm glad you're not a birther, and don't buy it when people try to hide their birther status. Also happy you disagree with one posters notion that somehow if you're not strictly conservative on an issue you're liberal. Its also refreshing to see you admit that George Bush had a number of signs of a Bad President during his tenure. And finally I am also very glad to see that you won't be one we'll see using the polygamy or beastiality arguments in the gay marriage threads recently.

I do hope my understanding of your views on a wide range of political issues are correct based on the fact that yes/no questions without any nuance or context clearly give us such an accurate look at what an individual things.
 
Zyphlin said:
Thanks. So you're against the military growing at all, having any larger budget, or increasing its spending at all. Good to know for the future. You must be against laws restricting minors from drinking alcohol, smoking, or looking at pornographic material since you think parents should be determining how to raise their kid not the government. Additionally it appears you also agree with making suicide legal, and thus assisting in suicide wouldn't be illegal since you're not assisting someone in doing an illegal thing. Plus marijuana and other drugs should be legalized since what I do to my health is none of the governments business. I'm very glad to see your non-nuanced stance on the constitution as well. Its wonderful that you find pushing laws against flag burning or laws regulating 1st and 2nd trimester abortions wrong since they are putting limits on ones constitutional rights, as found by the supreme court, who the constitution enables the ability to be the interpriters of the constitution.

I am truly, and absolutely honest, in stating I'm glad you're not a birther, and don't buy it when people try to hide their birther status. Also happy you disagree with one posters notion that somehow if you're not strictly conservative on an issue you're liberal. Its also refreshing to see you admit that George Bush had a number of signs of a Bad President during his tenure. And finally I am also very glad to see that you won't be one we'll see using the polygamy or beastiality arguments in the gay marriage threads recently.

I do hope my understanding of your views on a wide range of political issues are correct based on the fact that yes/no questions without any nuance or context clearly give us such an accurate look at what an individual things.
Click to expand...


Other than the number of fallacies you commit in your assumptions, I would say you are free to believe what ever you want, its a free country, for now. But your one big problem lies not with in what I answer to your asinine questions Zeph, and I say this with all due respect, but it lies within your own mirror sir.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Other than the number of fallacies you commit in your assumptions, I would say you are free to believe what ever you want, its a free country, for now. But your one big problem lies not with in what I answer to your asinine questions Zeph, and I say this with all due respect, but it lies within your own mirror sir.


j-mac
Click to expand...

I think he did a decent job demonstrating my point. Just saying. . . :coffeepap
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom