unoservix Posted September 17, 2012 Report Share Posted September 17, 2012 the best part is if you'd ask actual real life honest to God socialists what they think of Obama you will be greeted with almost as much venom as if you'd asked the teabaggers but who asks those dirty socialists anything amirite lololol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drasiana Posted September 17, 2012 Report Share Posted September 17, 2012 Between that and Romney apparently being a Liberal (what the christ) then I'm wondering if people here like, actually know what socialism even is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faisul Posted September 18, 2012 Report Share Posted September 18, 2012 It's pretty much a catch-all American label for everything foreign and/or different at this point. It's an extremely salient point that all you pretty much need to do to direct the ire of the extreme right vote (which by now is what the Republican platform has been desperately pandering to in order to galvanize the fence-sitting crowd) is to point your finger at someone and whisper the word 'socialist.' McCarthy would be proud! Something I've spent some time considering after the recent spates of argument on this board is the fact that no matter how well you present your points - how well researched they are, how well sourced they might be, and how eloquently you express them - please note now that I make no claim to have done any of the above - ultimately means nothing. I suspect we have a fair crowd of conservatives and libertarians present, but we also have a contingent of what I suppose you could call liberals here too (I myself do not see myself falling into that category since I'm left even for my own pretty goddamn leftist government, and by US standards I'm an anarcho-collectivist agitator from Planet Red, apparently). But for all this political diversity present I don't see much debating going on - mostly, someone says A, smackdown brigade delivers a whole lot of B with snark, person saying A throws up arms in disgust and vows to leave or designates B-sayers as children for not understanding A. When sources are delivered they're either ignored or ridiculed. I think we're dealing with the backfire effect. Read this. Seriously. Now I'm not pretending to be the paragon of polite refutal of points I see as ridiculous but at least I try to examine the sources someone puts up, even if they seem stupid as shit (and turn out to be). But if we're so entrenched in our respective ideologies that we refuse to even consider the arguments of the opposing side I don't see a lot of use for this board, except as republican target practice. I'm not advocating an abandonment on personal principles nor a moratorium on strong language, just an attempt to just read the shit we put up for you to read even if you might disagree with it. Chances are it's not going to change your mind but it will at least allow you to argue with your opponent without the whole sticking-fingers-in-ears-going-la-la-la schtick. However if you refuse to do this because the LIEberal media is inherently biased towards the soul-sucking, Kenyan terrorleninist lizard creature known as Obama and that we and our sources are simply too laughably stupid to accept your infallible truth goddamnit you're too far gone to reason with. You're welcome to continue to post your opinions but you'll be doing so with the full knowledge that they're going to be rejected, likely in the strongest possible terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thu'um Posted September 18, 2012 Report Share Posted September 18, 2012 the best part is if you'd ask actual real life honest to God socialists what they think of Obama you will be greeted with almost as much venom as if you'd asked the teabaggers but who asks those dirty socialists anything amirite lololol oh i know! I knew this couple form finland. they're were real commies! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faisul Posted September 18, 2012 Report Share Posted September 18, 2012 That's nice :> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thu'um Posted September 18, 2012 Report Share Posted September 18, 2012 That's nice :> i said it playfully. The word commies makes me laugh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faisul Posted September 18, 2012 Report Share Posted September 18, 2012 Commies. Commies. WOO OOGA WOOGA COMMIES! *smirks, stalks out of conference room to wild applause* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thu'um Posted September 18, 2012 Report Share Posted September 18, 2012 hell ya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harlow Posted September 18, 2012 Report Share Posted September 18, 2012 Between that and Romney apparently being a Liberal (what the christ) then I'm wondering if people here like, actually know what socialism even is. Depends, there is normal socialism (Canada, Most Europeans, which I'm ok with) and bananesque scrappy half-assed socialism (Venezuela, Cuba) Many Reps think that any socialism refers to the latter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thu'um Posted September 18, 2012 Report Share Posted September 18, 2012 Many Reps think that any socialism refers to the latter. Really? being a Rep myself i never considered it that way. I was taught cananda is socialist, at least more then we are. and cuba was commy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unoservix Posted September 18, 2012 Report Share Posted September 18, 2012 However if you refuse to do this because the LIEberal media is inherently biased towards the soul-sucking, Kenyan terrorleninist lizard creature known as Obama and that we and our sources are simply too laughably stupid to accept your infallible truth goddamnit you're too far gone to reason with. You're welcome to continue to post your opinions but you'll be doing so with the full knowledge that they're going to be rejected, likely in the strongest possible terms. this also puts you in the illustrious company of: -birthers -9/11 truthers -Bildeberg/Freemason//Illuminati/Priory of Sion/etc conspiracy theorists -people who are afraid of fluoridated drinking water -people who sold their belongings in anticipation of the imminent rapture back in May (and have done the same thing over and over again since time immemorial) -Holocaust deniers -the guys who think all our world leaders are secretly alien lizards in people suits -homeopaths -creationists -the Time Cube guy -and many more! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faisul Posted September 18, 2012 Report Share Posted September 18, 2012 Canada isn't socialist. It has socialized medicine and a few more state-controlled this's and that's but it's still a pretty capitalist country. It's just a little more regulated than the US is, economically, and with a more developed social security/welfare system. Cuba bills itself as a marxist-leninist socialist state and damn, they sure believe in their system, which I guess is either to the credit of their system or ol' Castro's propaganda machine. At any rate they have decent education and great healthcare despite everything, according to wikipedia. As I see it, when many Americans think about Communism what they're really thinking about is Stalinism, that is, a one-party, essentially one-man rule by a select cabal of autocrats or some guy with a silly hat & moustache with effective state capitalism at the top but a more and more collectivized economy as you go down the totem pole. It's essentially a huge, debauched orgy of opulence for the guys at the very top of the party structure while you get starvation and production inefficiencies at the bottom line. Now, this is a gross simplification and I'm sure I misunderstood something somewhere but the core argument is that Stalin didn't lead a Communist country; he lead a Stalinist country, that is, a dictatorship. I'm not setting up an argument that 'Communism could work guys, if we all believed in it enough and clicked our heels together and ate the rich!!' but the ideals behind Communism are, at least, deserving of some consideration, if only for its utopian vision. Now, the idea that some socialized systems present in a government is an indication that it is entirely socialist when it is clearly not is hyperbole at best and outright scaremongering at worst. The way socialized medicine in the US, for example, has been so vilified for its supposed connection to socialism and communism that even people that would benefit greatly from it refuses to vote in its favour is quite a tragedy, this attitude being a useless fossil from the Cold War, which some people seem to forget has been over for more than 20 years. One would hope that after giving it a proper shot (and not this hamstrung, emaciated corpse currently available) the American public would be less critical of it, but seeing that they are perfectly willing to vote contrary to their best interests to spite the other guy I remain cautiously optimistic. It also involves seriously stripping the insurance companies of their power, which many would oppose on the senate level, I assume. Also Uno you goddamn bastard Time Cube guy is the best ever! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Krystal Posted September 18, 2012 Report Share Posted September 18, 2012 Please, do tell me the parts of "our side" that you've bothered to listen to. I mean, if you weren't being a huge hypocrite, you'd probably know why some people are terrified by the idea of a Republican presidency, right? But of course. No need for name calling here. A fair number of young people and democrats in general have been told that Republicans are generally speaking: self-serving war mongers who will do anything to turn a profit. That capitalism was helpful in the past, but can't be expected to help bring about economic equality or stability. Governments, they say, must act in the public interest for those things for which the public won't achieve on their own. And also to help bring about moral necessities that the public would otherwise oppose if given the choice. Governments must be arbiters between people in social, economic, business, and personal relationships in order to make sure that no individual can take advantage of anyone else. Furthermore, there is a long-standing belief among liberals that the greed and subtle hatred that all conservatives feel for non-Christian non-white non-Americans would ultimately lead to long-running wars with other countries primarily designed either to steal land or to obtain natural resources, particularly oil. Would you say that's a fair description of your beliefs about me? If not, what did I overlook or mischaracterize? If you would be so kind, please do the same for me: describe what you believe I believe about you. As for what I listen to, I primarily listen to hour long video lectures by published economists such as Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Thomas DiLorenzo, Aaron Clarey and a few other non-economists including investigative reporter John Stossel, and of course Bill Whittle, political commentator. I occasionally listen to talk radio including Rush Limbaugh and the news programs on NPR. I don't generally pay much attention to the main-stream media because I at least like to know my news sources aren't pretending to be unbiased. I do happen upon reports by main-stream media and I read those. What are your news sources? These are my thoughts on the videos. I'll try to keep it to things I can actually comment on. I'm not an economist, but I'm certainly not a libertarian pipe-dreamer either. Number one, barely competent conspiracy-esque whining about Obama lying and stuff. Drops the socialist bomb, awesome. Finally, a socialist president! Maybe the US will finally become a sane country. The comment on the cartel weapons deals are disturbing if true, but seeing the quality of reporting here it wouldn't surprise me if it weren't yet another desperate attempt at making Obummer look like bad. "HE COVERED IT UP!" Awesome job, go hog wild, looks great! On to number two. Smash the state! "If you've been successful, you didn't get it on your own." Usually true, what is this guy whining about? You're no longer a nation of do-it-yourself frontiersmen and pioneers. There are individual success stories, yes, but you don't make it big unless you are one lucky son of a bitch or you have contacts & capital. Then ol' Billy here starts moaning about Obama's mom being in an 'openly Communist school' and his dad being inspired by a marxist. What the fuck is it with him and communism? "A story of doors magically opening for him [Obama.]" Rags on Oboma for being privileged, I suppose, in the context of him claiming that success is not [only] due to your own work. Burn Wall Street. Takes it as an insult to all americans. Should have displayed a picture of Lady Liberty crying over a backdrop of a burning eagle. Something about Obama going to Pakistan, makes it seem like a super shady deal. God, whatever. Present your proof. Points to Obama's inactivity as a Senator. "Attends Rev. Right's Marxist, Anti-American, Anti-White hateful church for twenty years[.]" God, white people whine so fucking much sometimes. Something about Obubba being absent when Rev. Right preaches against "Capitalism, American culpability and white privilege." Wouldn't that be a good thing in Bill's eyes? And hey, those are real things, Billy. You're not lily-white innocent bystanders to some global tragedy of the commons, you often have an apple-pie-crusted finger right in there. Also your neoliberal economics got the west's finances into the fucking mess that it is in the first place. Some socialized government action would be prudent at this point. MIRACULOUS! Don't know anything about selling missile defence capability to 'America's mortal enemies' so I won't say anything about that, but Bill calls Obossa a traitor. Haaaaaaaaaaaa *splodes* Looking good! Going to number three; Federal budget stuff. DEBT. DEBT DEBT DEBT! DEEEEBT! DEBT! Bill flails about debt. Mentions the majority of government spending being on entitlements. Grumbles about a downward spiral of benefit spending creating more benefit users, coalescing into a black hole in which the US will be imploded. MIRACULOUS! No comment, extremely stupid. May I point out to you that Obob had nothing to do with this and I do not expect him to do much about it; thanks to eight years of corporate privilege under Bush, deregulation from thirty years back (Hey Reagan!) and more insanity than you can shake a stick at in between, yes, the US gov't spends a lot of money on frivolous, stupid crap (the military budged being larger than all the developed nations of the world combined is pretty dumb) and corruption is to be expected. If I were an idealist, I'd hope Barack Osama would clear that up! But he won't, because he's not a socialist. He's actually right of centre, not far from the Republican party, in fact. So are the rest of the Democrats; the only difference is that the Republicans are more socially conservative and are a little more financially conservative as well. To me they're all rightist burgeois scum. Abolish capital! Workers of the world unite! Kill the rich! Eat the poor! MIRACULOUS! In summary: It's a bunch of fingerpointing, eyebrow-waggling, hush-hush exaggeration and flailing. If it was meant to make us sceptical of Obaba it instead made me more sceptical of conservatives and America as a whole. Additionally Bill's a part of PJ Media, which is a known conservative and libertarian group; he has a dog in this fight so large it has a gravity well (for attracting dumb people). Mr. Krystal if you want to present your case I suggest you take it from a more nuanced source. That mentions its sources. The above is why I attempted to leave this debate. It's simply a matter of time that I don't have. I have a job to perform, several actually. If we want to have a legitimate debate on any of these subjects, I welcome it, but we must to it properly, and the subject matter must be kept extremely sparse. Otherwise it becomes a shouting match, and I am utterly uninterested in shouting matches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drasiana Posted September 18, 2012 Report Share Posted September 18, 2012 A fair number of young people and democrats in general have been told that Republicans are generally speaking: self-serving war mongers who will do anything to turn a profit. That capitalism was helpful in the past, but can't be expected to help bring about economic equality or stability. Governments, they say, must act in the public interest for those things for which the public won't achieve on their own. And also to help bring about moral necessities that the public would otherwise oppose if given the choice. Governments must be arbiters between people in social, economic, business, and personal relationships in order to make sure that no individual can take advantage of anyone else. Furthermore, there is a long-standing belief among liberals that the greed and subtle hatred that all conservatives feel for non-Christian non-white non-Americans would ultimately lead to long-running wars with other countries primarily designed either to steal land or to obtain natural resources, particularly oil. Ah, the "bleeding-heart anti-war hippie that can't throw a stone without the government's permission" analysis! Yes, the government should step in to help those who simply aren't and never were in the position to be able to hold their own, especially in a world of economic difficulty. This is a position that many people are in thanks to the not-so-subtle racism, sexism, and religiously intolerant views of not just modern Republicans but the way that like-minded bigots have pruned society to put those such people on the bottom rung. Yes, there are in fact many people in this country that are being taken advantage of, and who are tired of being othered by the politics that govern them. Yes, we should worry about America's shaky foreign relations, and no, we should not do that by completely ignoring the plights of people who already live in America. No, the government must not be an "arbiter" in personal relationships. The government being an arbiter between personal relationships is a very, very big reason why many people disagree with your party. It's people like your boy Rush running their mouths on how "slutty Feminazis" and the GAYS are bringing about the ruin of our country that, frankly, pisses off women and homosexuals, because that is a fantastic example of the government--restricting the marriage of two consenting adults and being hesitant in supplying women with a necessary medical treatment out of fear of her having sex--having way too goddamn much to say about the personal relationships of its citizens. "And also to help bring about moral necessities that the public would otherwise oppose if given the choice"? What is this supposed to mean? That the government should see its people equally rather than limiting their rights based on the complete non-effect it has on the lives of dissenters? Surely that isn't especially outlandish. And our boy Rush is only one of many spite-fuelled Republicans who don't "pretend" to be unbiased in their unabashed racism, homophobia and general lack of shits given for the people who aren't them. I mean, Romney literally just said that his life would be easier if he was a minority, which shows how insanely out of touch he is with the 47% of Americans he affirms he doesn't care about. If you would be so kind, please do the same for me: describe what you believe I believe about you. I think you've done that already, in your exceptional condescention that has punctuated every post of yours in regards to politics. Your completely dismissive responses to DZ and others who have provided you facts, calling us "laughable" or somehow deserving of your pity, has definitely made you "That Guy" of the conversation. And you have done it in this post, again, with your continued misrepresentation of those who share "democratic" opinions. No mental gymnastics are required to come to the conclusion that you are a comfortably-employed ("I have work to do instead of defending my statements in political debates!"), Christian white male. Because you're predisposed to the benefits of society, it's clear to you that everyone is as well, and that there are no societal pressures that are straight-up preventing people from being able to bootstrap their way to success. The only explanation for an inability to do so is an idea that the "youth of today" are lazy and wish to be coddled entirely. The rights of women, gays, POC and non-Christians are simply "unimportant" in the face of other "real" problems (which is why the Republican platform hasn't tried to make a case on them at all). All dissent is from misplaced entitlement, and if the government buckles to the demands of its people then society will continue to "degrade". Anyone who can't see this dystopian future is simply not as enlightened as you. As for what I listen to, I primarily listen to hour long video lectures by published economists such as Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Thomas DiLorenzo, Aaron Clarey and a few other non-economists including investigative reporter John Stossel, and of course Bill Whittle, political commentator. I occasionally listen to talk radio including Rush Limbaugh and the news programs on NPR. I don't generally pay much attention to the main-stream media because I at least like to know my news sources aren't pretending to be unbiased. I do happen upon reports by main-stream media and I read those. "I KNOW my news is biased!" doesn't really make a case for you when you're accusing any news sources we use as being biased. The above is why I attempted to leave this debate. It's simply a matter of time that I don't have. I have a job to perform, several actually. If we want to have a legitimate debate on any of these subjects, I welcome it, but we must to it properly, and the subject matter must be kept extremely sparse. Otherwise it becomes a shouting match, and I am utterly uninterested in shouting matches. Gee, it'd be nice if your quote included examples of Faisul being snarky outside of the part where he asked that your sources actually include sources. Criticizing other people and making broad claims is not a thing you can do if you are not willing to keep up a discussion that isn't slanted in the direction you'd like it to be. You're not "uninterested in shouting matches", you're just uninterested in people who disagree with you. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faisul Posted September 18, 2012 Report Share Posted September 18, 2012 Drasiana brings the cows home. I think I still have some things to add, though. The above is why I attempted to leave this debate. It's simply a matter of time that I don't have. I have a job to perform, several actually. If we want to have a legitimate debate on any of these subjects, I welcome it, but we must to it properly, and the subject matter must be kept extremely sparse. Otherwise it becomes a shouting match, and I am utterly uninterested in shouting matches. I'm glad you saw the point I was trying to make. If you would like to know why I dismissed your source so out of hand is because it was exactly the kind of source I would expect you to pull out, that is, a talking head firing off a barrage of vague and unsubstantiated claims and theories aimed to de-legitimize the current president, orchestrated by an established conservative/libertarian media group. While I take it for granted that in that pea soup of scorn there was one or two meaty chunks of fact that could check out under scrutiny the truth is that if the source is unwilling or aversive towards telling how it made its conclusions and where its facts are from (in this case with a 'you know I'm right, don't even think I'm not' smirk) it is not a very good source at all, especially when it makes so many broad charges towards the apparently disastrous presidency of Obama that we are then expected to believe out of hand. Since it appeals so much to our gut feelings about the president (in this case the intended audience being the crowd that already hates the guy) I'm going to go with my own gut feelings and say "Bill Whittle is full of shit." As for your other sources, I am not very surprised to find a neoconfederate Lost Cause-revisionist among them. While all the others are predictably overwhelmingly libertarian and conservative scholars, except for Clarey which seems like an okay guy, DiLorenzo stands out as the greater sore thumb in your source library. I'd like to make an appeal to your sense of justice here and say if you seriously believe what this guy is saying, you are contributing to damaging whatever hope the American South has to come to terms with its difficult history. I respectfully recommend you dissasociate yourself with this kind of thinking and literature, except outside of trying to understand the minds of those so unable to accept the truth of fact that they are willing to ignore mountains of evidence over convenient, fabricated 'history.' It is never peer-reviewed except by other neoconfederates, if that, and there is serious harm in continuing to support these individuals. Most of what they claim (States Rights causing the Civil War, Confederate armies containing legions of black volunteers, Slavery being ultimately benign towards blacks, and the voracious evil of the North) doesn't help anyone but the diminishing upper class of wealthy whites and contributes to the continued difficulties between southern minorities (In the case of some of the former slave capitals, what used to be a minority is now a majority) and whites to maintain a meaningful dialogue. If you are interested in sources opposing those of the Lost Cause 'historians' I recommend you first find some material from this essay collection and browse your way through the sources given there. I do expect you to decry them as 'liberal propaganda' on the basis that some of these people actually have real degrees and are outspoken opponents of American exceptionalism (as in the case of Gary B. Nash, the director of the NCHS) but I would then want to remind you that the sources you have given can very well also be pointed out as libertarian/neoconservative/neoconfederate propaganda mouthpieces. Especially damning, however, is your assertion that Limbaugh & Whittle et. al. are an unbiased source of information. They are most decidedly and empathetically not. What you view as an 'unbiased' source of information is the voice of the Far Right, and they do have an agenda beyond telling their version of the truth. It is not in the best interest of the emaciated middle class, especially not women or minorities. I'm not going to pretend I haven't had my opinion informed by leftist literature (especially activist history and theory) but I make no claims otherwise when I tell you that you are swearing to be true the ramblings of a guy who once told a black caller "to take the bone out of your nose and call me back" and that feminism was a way to "let unattractive women into mainstream society." The man is a terrible human being and you take on some of his terribleness by saying he is telling the unbiased truth. Your denouncement of the centrist media is so telling of your paranoia of a nonexistent liberal media conspiracy that I might as well give up trying to convince you otherwise. I should really take a page out of my own book and leave it at this because I realize none of what I say is going to change your mind (and probably only solidify it) so I am instead doing this to let others sitting on the fence know what kind of ideology you subscribe to as a point of warning. If you are so terrified of your own fellow man that you are willing to make an enemy out of reason you are more deserving of sympathy than criticism. I'm very sorry for you, Mr. Krystal. I hope you'll be truly happy some day. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Krystal Posted September 18, 2012 Report Share Posted September 18, 2012 With every post, I get steamrolled with two others, each four times the length of my own. The poll says there are roughly double the number of people here in support of Obama over Romney. It is unreasonable for you to expect me to be able to respond to every single thing said, as each thing I say leads to a more than doubling of content that you require a response about. I only fight a battles that have a chance of success. I'm sorry we could not structure a meaningful environment for debate, I really am. I do have one request though: stop reading condescension into my words. I mean the things I say literally, and with sincerity. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faisul Posted September 18, 2012 Report Share Posted September 18, 2012 Fair enough, though I do find some difficulty in accepting your assertion that you have not been condescending in your manner towards mine and others' opinions and statements, but that is neither here nor there. As I've already intimated this is not about 'winning' the 'debate' because it is both impossible to 'win' this sort of argument (because no one really listens) and the fact that this is really not a 'debate' because people (me included) either ignore sources or zoom in on he-said she-said argumentation and farcical satire. I'm not saying that there haven't been really good points raised or that there haven't been opinions stated respectfully and with admireable sourcing, however, just that we're very fond of 'steamrolling' (as you say) what we see as terrible fucking opinions and outright fabrications. What I find interesting is when I do begin to analyse your sources you begin rolling up the carpet, though I won't find any satisfaction in you doing this unless you either attack my assertion that your sources are flawed or you begin to admit you are inherently biased towards a political ideology. I pretty much have a solid idea at what altar you worship at this point but I don't feel you're entitled to back down from this until you've stated it. You're free to refuse, but it'll be a very empty surrender. To sweeten the pot I'll shut up for a 24-hour period in the Counterpoint if you tell us what your political convictions really are; maybe that will help put down some of the opposition you feel is so oppressive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
"User" Posted September 18, 2012 Report Share Posted September 18, 2012 Fair enough, though I do find some difficulty in accepting your assertion that you have not been condescending in your manner towards mine and others' opinions and statements, but that is neither here nor there. I've known Mr. Krystal for years and I can safely assure you he's the last person who would ever deliberately be condescending towards others. That, however, hasn't stopped people in the past from misreading or misinterpreting his posts or not seeing the message that he's trying to convey. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drasiana Posted September 18, 2012 Report Share Posted September 18, 2012 I'm so sad for those of you voting for Obama, I really am. *sigh* I can't respond to this anymore. It's too depressing. I'd say "wait and see that I'm right" but even that won't work Laughable. If you don't already know the problems with Obama, you simply aren't listening to any side other than your own. *posts aforementioned unsubstantiated talking head opinions from an established right-wing group* I'm sorry, User, but what does that look like to you? He's prefaced half his posts in here with a sneer about how those who disagree with him are pitiable creatures who just aren't "enlightened" enough. Most of it as a tool to derail or dodge people with legitimate points, sources, or questions. You telling us that he isn't condescending doesn't make him magically not condescending in the easily-quotable examples of him being as much (passive-aggressive "pet peeve" posts don't help at all, by the way, you don't need to drag this shit out of the Counter Point). Now, It is unreasonable for you to expect me to be able to respond to every single thing said Yes, but we do expect you to respond to *something*, especially the responses to points that you yourself raised. It'll do wonders for your opinion here. I only fight a battles that have a chance of success. It's not "fighting battles" if you're preaching to an echo chamber. I'm sorry we could not structure a meaningful environment for debate, I really am. Again with the condescending douchery. Seriously, you can't go from basically admitting to ignoring everything we've posted, then crying about how we haven't "structured a meaningful environment for debate". You are the one who has shown no interest in debate by continually finding cute little ways to dodge everything that's being said or requested of you. Give us reason to believe our assertations about your party are incorrect, give us reason to believe that your opinion is based on something factual. Someone who plugs their ears and screams "I'm right, you're wrong, lalalallaa" is what degrades a debate environment and here you are the worst possible offender. No one here would be writing such lengthy paragraphs if they weren't actually interested in the debate and what you have to say, but it's falling apart because you are not reciprocating. do have one request though: stop reading condescension into my words. I mean the things I say literally, and with sincerity. The fact that your condescension is sincere does not make it less condescending. What's weird here is that there are perfectly legitimate reasons to criticize Obama and everyone on the democratic side of the debate has admitted as much and even given you examples to work with. Why you stick with throwing extremely biased, unsourced videos of other dude's opinions at us and then acting like we "just don't get it" is really kind of odd. As well, User, in continued response to your passive-aggressive whinging in the Pet Peeves topic: this is not about "disrespecting other people's opinions", but about calling them into question when they state their opinions as fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faisul Posted September 18, 2012 Report Share Posted September 18, 2012 In lighter news... clicky for video tee-hee 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DZComposer Posted September 18, 2012 Report Share Posted September 18, 2012 I'm going to lock this thread for a day to let things ice-down. Let's be a little more respectful of people's opinions. Also, try not to throw -isms around everywhere if possible please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts