candidone1 wrote:Blatham?
Sorry, blatham, my sincere apologies, I get you and Parados confused. They usually argue the same arguments.
ah yes okie.. Stick to your "common sense".
Who should we believe? You or our lying eyes? and our lying ears? and our lying brains?
Let me use your "common sense" argument myself.
The sun will come up to tomorrow. That fact proves Bush is a liar about Iraq. Unless you can prove the sun won't come up then Bush must be a liar.
My argument makes as much sense as your non sequitor about Berger stuffing documents in his trousers.
My common sense tells me that parados has no interest in and likely no understanding of common sense.
parados wrote:ah yes okie.. Stick to your "common sense".
Who should we believe? You or our lying eyes? and our lying ears? and our lying brains?
Let me use your "common sense" argument myself.
The sun will come up to tomorrow. That fact proves Bush is a liar about Iraq. Unless you can prove the sun won't come up then Bush must be a liar.
My argument makes as much sense as your non sequitor about Berger stuffing documents in his trousers.
All RED HERRINGS and STRAWMEN, Parados!
okie wrote:parados wrote:ah yes okie.. Stick to your "common sense".
Who should we believe? You or our lying eyes? and our lying ears? and our lying brains?
Let me use your "common sense" argument myself.
The sun will come up to tomorrow. That fact proves Bush is a liar about Iraq. Unless you can prove the sun won't come up then Bush must be a liar.
My argument makes as much sense as your non sequitor about Berger stuffing documents in his trousers.
All RED HERRINGS and STRAWMEN, Parados!
I see you can recognize a red herring when I use it the same way you did. Now we can all agree that your statements were nothing but red herrings.
You don't have a clue what a strawman is though.
A man made out of straw, Parados. What else do you need to know?
okie wrote:I admit I read over it quickly but FactCheck.org ...
you didn't quite twig to where/who I got the FactCheck.org reference from, didja
In a rush to condemn Clinton, we forget that he had a consensual affair with an adult for which he was impeached but the Republicans overlook the pederastic Foley. Hypocrites!
cjhsa wrote:I believe in common sense. Most "facts" these days aren't.
"I don't have much use for facts. Facts can change. But my opinions will never change." Stephen Colbert
blatham wrote:cjhsa wrote:I believe in common sense. Most "facts" these days aren't.
"I don't have much use for facts. Facts can change. But my opinions will never change." Stephen Colbert
If the people in front of you are all disappearing over a cliff, do you lie down and be trampled, or get behind a fat one?
It would be a fine thing if you and I might engage in a discussion of regarding the complete uselessness of the term "common sense" but there ain't a chance that will happen. Its only common sense which tells me so.
I'm going to use that as a sig line. Thanks blatham for doing your liberal hokey pokey.
Thirty years ago, it was only common sense that you didn't invite any black people to a party of white people.
Thirty years ago, it was only common sense that you hired a woman as a secretary and not as an executive.
cjhsa wrote:I'm going to use that as a sig line. Thanks blatham for doing your liberal hokey pokey.
I double dares ya to use the whole thing.
blatham wrote:cjhsa wrote:I'm going to use that as a sig line. Thanks blatham for doing your liberal hokey pokey.
I double dares ya to use the whole thing.
It doesn't fit, and it's not out of context, so....
cjhsa wrote:blatham wrote:cjhsa wrote:I'm going to use that as a sig line. Thanks blatham for doing your liberal hokey pokey.
I double dares ya to use the whole thing.
It doesn't fit, and it's not out of context, so....
It DOES fit. You would, however, have to get rid of your hokey thing.
Are you still following me around? I need to change my cologne or something.
cjhsa wrote:Are you still following me around? I need to change my cologne or something.
Or, at least, start using some.
