How a Witch Hunt Works

I still think you are still confused about what a fact is. You are spouting one-sided political ideology and calling it "facts". A fact needs to be testable in a independent way, and falsifiable (you should be able to tell me what evidence would get you to admit your fact is "false").

You are spouting the most simplistic political dogma and calling it facts. And you are ignoring any evidence that doesn't fit your narrow ideological narrative.

I will accept that my claimed fact that _______ has been disproven if you provide evidence that _______.

I still think you are still confused about what a fact is.

You are spouting one-sided political ideology and calling it "facts".

A fact needs to be testable in a independent way, and falsifiable (you should be able to tell me what evidence would get you to admit your fact is "false").

You are spouting the most simplistic political dogma and calling it facts.

And you are ignoring any evidence that doesn't fit your narrow ideological narrative.

Here are the things you are calling "facts"...

- Many of the unjust tactics that are used in witch hunts, are also being used against Mr. Trump. That is why people are calling it a witch hunt.

- When Democrats abuse the law to harm people who disagree with them, that's a witch hunt.

- [Comparing the impeachment to a witch hunt] is a perfectly defensible comparison.

- Nixon did nothing wrong.

- You are more intelligent than Farmerman.

These aren't facts, they are talking points. They are silly ones at that, they are the most simplistic partisan blather that don't even get to the real issues.

If you want to argue any of these are actual facts, then apply the falsification principle....

If Oralloy can argue a real fact, we will all note that he wrote:

I will accept that my claimed fact that _______ has been disproven if you provide evidence that _______.

Anything I claim to be a fact, I can do exactly this.

What you guys are giving us is not facts. It is simplistic, narrow, partisan blather.

That is incorrect. My posts are factual and true.

What we are saying is true. Progressives don't like what we have to say, but it is still the truth.

This is not an intelligent argument. It is a silly argument.
I was making arguments like this in middle-school.

But, I do think you have an intellectual inability to question yourself, to admit any doubt, or to change your mind when you are wrong.

This statement shows an intellectual failure.

I wish that we could discuss some of the more interesting, more intelligent issues being raised in this trial... they aren't simple.

When the answer is "conservative right, democrats bad"... come on. I appeal to your intelligence to see how silly this stance is.

I would like to see any evidence you can tell the difference between fact and opinion. I am still waiting.

Starting by expressing how any of your facts meet the falsifiability condition would be a good start.

I don't think I have ever seen you admit where your opposition (that would be people you disparage as "progressives") make a valid point even though it doesn't fit your political ideology.

You and I have never been able to dive into the more complicated issues that interest me because they don't have a simple solution.... usually we are stuck with these silly simplistic "opinions as facts" that aren't even really interesting.

I would love to see a conservative here that is willing to engage in intelligent discussion rather than the ideological blather on this thread.

When you state an opinion, and then claim that your opinion is a fact, it is impossible for anyone to disprove it. How do you disprove an opinion.

When you say "Nixon did nothing wrong" this is a (rather extreme) opinion. It is an opinion (and a rather meaningless one) because there is no definition of "wrong".

When you claim something is fact... it is your responsibility to support it.

When you claim that all of your posts are facts.. that is just silly.

I have an opinion that what Nixon did was both improper and immoral.