1
   

"I support the troops..." ???

 
 
trespassers will
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Apr, 2003 03:20 pm
dyslexia wrote:
"facts" so many times are the ones selected by the user to support his agenda.

I'm sorry... was I supposed to select them to support yours? Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Apr, 2003 04:26 pm
Quote:
The previous administration left the military gutted, terrorists fearing nothing from the US and the economy sliding headlong into the current economic slump.


You guys are so laughable, it almost isn't fun punching holes in your arguments.

Everything that is bad: blame it on Clinton. Anything good; take credit for Dubya.

The notion that the military was gutted under Clinton was successfully refuted in another thread, Tresspasser. No need to go over it again. It is simply anti-Clinton thinking in dreamland.

As for the economy -- everyone knew Dubya would screw it up -- and everyone knew that when it happened, the knee-jerkers would blame Clinton.

Quote:
The current administration has begin rebuilding both our military readiness and our credibility as a nation you attack only at your peril and has taken steps to repair the economy (the success of which we could debate but only time will tell).


The current administration is trashing long-held standards of conduct -- and is alienating us through the world. The only reason they have to repair the economy is because they have already screwed up a good thing.

Quote:
Now, I don't argue the point that Republicans will find fault with Democrats and vice versa no matter what the situation, but I thought it would add to the usefulness of your hypothetical to better define the facts to which you refer.


There is "defining facts" and there is "distorting facts."

I think you were doing the latter, Tresspasser -- although I will defend your right to delude yourself into thinking you were doing the latter.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Apr, 2003 06:20 pm
Frank Apisa wrote:
The notion that the military was gutted under Clinton was successfully refuted in another thread, Tresspasser. No need to go over it again.


That would be this thread.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Apr, 2003 07:32 pm
Quote:
dyslexia wrote:
"facts" so many times are the ones selected by the user to support his agenda.
trespassers wrote
Quote:
I'm sorry... was I supposed to select them to support yours?
my comment was totally value neutral, neither my nor your facts, your response was value laden, rude and totally without merit.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Apr, 2003 08:08 pm
agreed
0 Replies
 
trespassers will
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Apr, 2003 12:38 am
Frank - You couldn't punch holes in my arguments if you had a jackhammer. I don't know what concerns me more; the possibility that you enjoy lying about the facts, or the possibility that you actually don't know or recognize the facts.

Either way there's no point in debating anything with you, is there?
0 Replies
 
trespassers will
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Apr, 2003 12:45 am
dyslexia wrote:
Quote:
dyslexia wrote:
"facts" so many times are the ones selected by the user to support his agenda.
trespassers wrote
Quote:
I'm sorry... was I supposed to select them to support yours?
my comment was totally value neutral, neither my nor your facts, your response was value laden, rude and totally without merit.

Your comment was intended to call the value of the facts I stated into question. As such I considered it both rude and a waste of time. Did you really think what you wrote was noteworthy? Of course people cite facts that support their position. And??? Then you come back with this, "Aw geez, I dint mean nuthin..." crap.

My response was simply an attempt to say "OF COURSE the facts I cite support my point of view". If that's rude, then so be it. I rarely agree with you, Dys, but I generally respect the way you carry yourself here. In this case you seem to be making a big move in the wrong direction.

Don't worry though, I don't expect you to care about my opinion or to agree with it. Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Apr, 2003 06:19 am
You know what the problem here is, Tresspasser -- and it is not that I am either lying about the facts or am ignorant of the facts. The problem is that you cannot acknowledge when you are wrong -- so you attempt to strong-arm your way through a debate.

Wherever the notion that Clinton gutted the military was discussed (and I acknowledge that I may be wrong; it may have been in this thread rather than in another) - your position on the issue was thoroughly discredited with facts.

Grow up!

Try to develop enough confidence in yourself to be able to acknowledge error once in a while.

You'll be a better person for it.

In any case, I stand by what I wrote in my last post.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Apr, 2003 06:57 am
Frank, tres, consider that, by its nature, controversy is controversial. Absolute Rights are as rare as are Absolute Wrongs. Valid support may often exist for arguments on either side of a controversy. Denying that serves merely to strengthen the controversy, no matter which "facts" are trotted out, or how they may be applied. What is "Wrong", IMO, is to be convinced that by act of proposing a condition counter to one's own preference or belief one's opponent is necessarily "Wrong".
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Apr, 2003 08:47 am
These were the posts this morning or late last night from trespassers will:

to frank apisa
Quote:
Frank - You couldn't punch holes in my arguments if you had a jackhammer. I don't know what concerns me more; the possibility that you enjoy lying about the facts, or the possibility that you actually don't know or recognize the facts.
Either way there's no point in debating anything with you, is there?

to mamajuana
Quote:
How slippery of me to use logic, cite facts, and ask you to do the same! Shame on me!
I would be foolish to waste my time further pointing out the illogic and untruths in your response. No offense, but I recognize a closed ming when I slam into it a few dozen times.


to me
Quote:
I really don't have the energy to follow you on another of your attempts to alter the course of the discussion and obscure the reality that your point is unraveling. Maybe someone else would like to bang his or her head against this wall for a while. I need a rest.

to billy falcon
Quote:
I would truly love it if you could offer us a single valid source for such a claim.
Don't worry though... I will not be holding my breath.

to cobalt
Quote:
Then you did not understand them. Consider finding a transcript and reading the statement in question IN CONTEXT. With all due respect, there is no question what he meant and no question to whom he was speaking. The only way a person could come to a different conclusion is if he or she were either unaware of the context, getting it wrong on purpose, or lacked the requisite intelligence and competency in the English language to understand what was said.


A week ago, the politics forum, with submissions from nimh, craven, timber and some others, was achieving a level of careful and graceful (marked by humility and easy humor) discussion of ideas and issues that was superior to most of what we see in the professional press. It demonstrated what can be achieved in online debate.

Posts like these by tres work in direct converse to what was occuring last week. Posts like these diminish our community.

My personal recommendation is that we engage tres only when and if he posts carefully considered ideas and when he refrains from insulting those with whom he disagrees.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Apr, 2003 09:09 am
Good point, Blatham. And I apologize to the community for plugging into Tresspassers conduct. I'll try to tone my comments down.



Nimh

Thanks for pointing out that the material I referenced about Clinton and the military was in this thread. I tried finding it, but couldn't. If you were the one who did the research involved (and I think you were) I thank you for the time and effort you put into it -- although I does not seem to have registered with Tresspasser.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Apr, 2003 10:30 am
My personal recommendation is that we engage folks only when and as they post carefully considered ideas and when the posters refrain from insulting those with whom they disagree ... to paraphrase blatham. What is the deal with this crap, anyway? A few ill considered words and otherwise reasonable, mature folks start behaving like a bunch of preschhoolers squabbling over who stole the stolen sweets from who first. What the hell ... IT JUST DOESN"T MATTER ... please try to stick to topics, as opposed to sticking it to one another. I know its hard for some to do, but put a little effort into attempting to at least appear to be dealing with issues in responsible, adult manner.

All that said, the members of this forum do a better job of that than is evidenced on any number of other forums. Good job for that, and keep on trying. Lots more gets accomplished by attempts at advancing arguments than by attempting to diminish one another. To participate in behavior one decries is to become a participant in such behavior, you know. Twisted Evil

End of rant. Carry on.
0 Replies
 
trespassers will
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Apr, 2003 10:48 am
Frank, if you want to have a pissing match, have the decency to take it to PM where it belongs.

Bernie - I could take the time to list all the petty little insults you've offered me in your recent posts, but you aren't worth my time. Anyone who can read can see the "high level of debate" to which you hold yourself.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Apr, 2003 10:52 am
Geez.
0 Replies
 
trespassers will
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Apr, 2003 11:01 am
Frank Apisa wrote:
Good point, Blatham. And I apologize to the community for plugging into Tresspassers conduct. I'll try to tone my comments down.

What a surprise that Frank considers me responsible for his behavior. ..sigh..

Frank, if you insult me, I will respond. If you don't like the responses, don't be such a prick, okay? I know you think I'm a moron who can't admit when he is wrong. Everyone else knows you think that too. Can we move on, or are you going to feel the need to bring us back to this crap again and again?

You might try just steering a clear path around me if you really have no use for my contributions here.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Apr, 2003 11:04 am
Tresspasser

Please continue to have a nice day.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Apr, 2003 11:07 am
I've grabbed a couple quotes here, but please understand these remarks are intended for a general audience, not anyone in specific or particular.
Quote:
... if you want to have a pissing match, have the decency to take it to PM where it belongs.

Good point ... but making the point on a public thread sorta misses the point, IMO.
Quote:
I could take the time to list all the petty little insults ... aren't worth my time

Ain't worth anyone's time, damnit. Playing that game is a total waste of time. The object is not to win a fight here, but to exchange ideas and information. This just plain ain't the place for fighting. A littler teamwork is called for here ... quit throwing bait, and quit rising to thrown bait.

Grow up, damnit. Or at least act like it.
0 Replies
 
frolic
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Apr, 2003 01:20 am
Why We Fight
0 Replies
 
trespassers will
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Apr, 2003 05:11 pm
frolic wrote:

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20030407/capt.1049733792.iraq_us_war_xits101.jpg

Ask her.

Or just tell me that you think she had a better chance of growing up free and happy with Saddam running things or whether you think her future is brighter for his absence from it.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Apr, 2003 05:18 pm
To be fair, Tres, somebody prolly oughta ask her a while later on. Right npw, she is free only from the oppression of Saddam. While there are reasons for optimism, the issue has its pessimists too. Time will tell. I devoutly wish she is not among the disappointed. I'm optimistic ... so, by the look of the photo, is she.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/26/2024 at 11:16:33