I support Bush because ....
POSTED BY: rue
UPDATED: Monday, September 18, 2023 03:50
VIEWED: 13337
PAGE 13 of 14
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
That's why it's called a secret ballot.
Sorry. While I was obviously prying, I didn't consider it personal information because I have no idea who the Hell you are.
Quote:
I try not to make my vote in congressional races a proxy for my like or dislike of the president, so I'll probably go on issues of more local interest. If I want to get rid of the Republican in the White House, I'll vote against him in 2008.
That's a valid position. But, wouldn't you agree that keeping a Republican majority in both the House, and Senate is in effect giving a blank check to the current Administration, as there will continue to be no oversight? I would also add that Senator Allen votes with the White House over 95% of the time. By voting for a Bush rubber stamp and a continued lack of oversight, aren't you actually casting an implicit vote of approval for President Bush?
Quote:
I do have the natural disinclination to remove a Senator who has tenure, as he can bring more local benefits.
This is a valid point as well. I actually feel similarly about Senator Warner. Allen is, however, the junior Senator and has only been in the Senate for a single term, so he really doesn't have that much seniority.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Dreamtrove, you obviously haven't been paying attention.
Just, for anyone who hasn't noticed it, I wanted to alert everyone to the objective fact that liberals are losing this debate because of their antagonistic attitude.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Didn't they use electro shock once apone a time?
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I'm open to suggestions from the non-Kaneman among us.
Quote:What, where a conservative tries to make out that they're more reasonable and simply 'better' than the competition?
Oh, yeah, wait, that's every debate, isn't it?
Pretty much
Post funded by the "two can play at that game"...
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
yay liberals!
Okay, no one said that, but I get it.
Liberals yay their side. That's not an effective rhetorical point. You can argue with me that I'm wrong, that you're winning, etc. But no amount of arguing will make me wrong, you right, and you winning this debate.
Because, what is winning?
There are two forms of winning in a debate:
1. making the other person give in to your position. I'm not sure why an assault on geezer, who seems truly moderate to me, would merit any serious victory for liberals. i also don't see him caving,
2. make the casual observer side with you. I'm pretty neutral to the debates i see going on, and tend to fall down on one side or the other with even regularity. Sure, I'm not politically neutral, but geezer seems calmer to the very casual observer, which would be the stronger hand.
Here's the thing. I'm not paying close attention, sure, but i'm the casual observer. I think kaneman and hero would lose almost anything, antimason and auraptor usually lose, chrisisall, 7%, casual, finn, tend to win, though not always. It's a matter of sounding reasonable and remaining flexible, while avoiding positions which would seem intractable and extreme unless they are essential to your position.
Like, for me, on abortion. Life is life, ending life is death. This is essential to my position. Without it, my position loses its definition, becomes weaker, or even meaningless. "Abortion is okay in the case of rape or incest" is an incredibly weak position. It's saying "killing is wrong, but i guess if you gotta, then it's okay"
However, seemingly stronger stances would also weaken my position, such as "abortion doctors got to hell" or "abortion should be tried as murder" or even "abortion should be banned." These are not essential to my position, they are more extreme, create more opposition, and there is no reason why I should hold them. I don't hold them, in keeping with my faith, I don't seek conflict, and avoid believing in unnecessary things which would cause conflict, and have no problem accepting this. If someone did have such convictions, they'd probably do well to shut up about them. If you find yourself shutting up about a position because you find it would create a lot of opposition, you might examine its rightness or necessity.
I'm not great at *winning* debates, but I know some obvious things that lose them. One is this:
Hey knucklehead. If you had half a brain you'd know that abortion should be tried as murder because those sinners need to be sent to hell so quick that they get pickforks through their asses. But if you had half a brain you'd just be on my page already ass monkey ass ass ass.
Not saying this is how the debate happens, but I have seen some posts that look like this recently.
This is probably a better argument:
Abortion is wrong because whether or not it ends a life, it prevents a life from becoming by interrupting the natural flow, and as it is, IMHO, not on the side of life, it should be discouraged.
Not looking, btw, to have an abortion debate, if one happens I won't participate, just using it as an example.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
double post
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey Slick,
If you are posting just to piss people off, WHAT MAKES YOU DIFFERENT FROM A TROLL? Just wondering, is all.
Quote:
Originally posted by Slick:
“JUST TO PISS YOU OFF!!!!”
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Slick,
And this is just a marker for where I will point out yet another one of your outrageous lies. Because, as you know, unchallenged lies have a way of gaining common parlance. So they need to be pointed out. Sure it's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it.
PS Ghoulman was right.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Hey Slick,
If you are posting just to piss people off, WHAT MAKES YOU DIFFERENT FROM A TROLL? Just wondering, is all.Quote:
Originally posted by Slick:
“JUST TO PISS YOU OFF!!!!”
Read the quote, and then see who I've addressed it to. "Just to piss YOU off", and in response only to yourself and SignyM. Unless you and SignyM are all the people (or maybe you are all the people who count, in your opinion), I guess I'm not trying to piss "people" off, just you, the charter members of "The Looney Left".
And this only relates to the long string of "Bush is(Oops. Can't use the E Word in this context anymore)...Not the Guy for Us" posts. In the "Evil" thread, I'm trying to be serious, although SignyM's attitude sometimes provokes a response. Do you think she's trying to piss ME off?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Poor Slick,
You're sounding all rattled and desperate. You can't even keep your own story straight on a single thread anymore.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Poor Slick,
You're sounding all rattled and desperate. You can't even keep your own story straight on one single thread anymore.
Huh? What you smokin', Rue?
Select to view spoiler:
(Oh, Boy! That should provoke another lengthy string of quotes culled from three years of posts and hour on hour of research. Oops. Did I just type that?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME