Something good to see
-
Then go ahead, I'm waiting with bated breathe. You posed the stupid question, as if it means something to admit that there is bigotry in the Republican party, as if there isn't in any other organization. Strawman indeed, I may have to start calling you that.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
Exactly what response did you expect that to elicit?
I was making the point that he didn't respond directly to my previous post. Instead he simply accused the other side of the same problem. That form of attack response automatically concedes that the original point is valid.
BoneSoft wrote:
And what do you imagine that response would prove?
Prove? Don't know what you mean by that.
oilFactotum wrote:
I was making the point that he didn't respond directly to my previous post. Instead he simply accused the other side of the same problem.
OK, so you were answering ad absurdum with ad absurdum in the hopse that they would see the irony. I can appreciate that, I've tried it on you several times. I guess I missed the original. It looked like you were initiating the "answer my loaded question to validate my false assertion". My apologies.
oilFactotum wrote:
That form of attack response automatically concedes that the original point is valid
False. It gives you reasonable doubt as to their convictions or that they themselves have an answer. It doesn't mean there isn't an answer or that your point is automatically valid.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
You're freakin' OLD!!!!!
It beats the alternative.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
BoneSoft wrote:
Strawman indeed, I may have to start calling you that.
An oil-soaked strawman makes a nice bonfire, don't you think?
It certainly gives off a lot of smoke.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Hey, Oak, the Democrats and other blacks would refer to him as an "Uncle Tom" since he was a (expletive) Republican. How quickly they forget that the Democrats are the party of bigotry (from 2 centuries ago, too, Oilfactotum). I am so sick of blacks playing the race card, and generally of Democrats being the ones to play it. Talk about hypocrisy!
John P.
jparken wrote:
Hey, Oak, the Democrats and other blacks would refer to him as an "Uncle Tom" since he was a (expletive) Republican. How quickly they forget that the Democrats are the party of bigotry (from 2 centuries ago, too, Oilfactotum). I am so sick of blacks playing the race card, and generally of Democrats being the ones to play it. Talk about hypocrisy!
Democrats -- Always Wrong When It Matters. And Damned Proud Of It!
-
oilFactotum wrote:
I was making the point that he didn't respond directly to my previous post. Instead he simply accused the other side of the same problem.
OK, so you were answering ad absurdum with ad absurdum in the hopse that they would see the irony. I can appreciate that, I've tried it on you several times. I guess I missed the original. It looked like you were initiating the "answer my loaded question to validate my false assertion". My apologies.
oilFactotum wrote:
That form of attack response automatically concedes that the original point is valid
False. It gives you reasonable doubt as to their convictions or that they themselves have an answer. It doesn't mean there isn't an answer or that your point is automatically valid.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
so you were answering ad absurdum with ad absurdum in the hopse that they would see the irony.
No. I was making the point the he didn't respond to my previous post. His response wasn't 'ad absurdum' and I was not responding with irony.
BoneSoft wrote:
It looked like you were initiating the "answer my loaded question to validate my false assertion".
No. I was making the point the he didn't respond to my previous post. I didn't ask a loaded question(there was no question at all) and there was no false assertion(are you saying that Powell was making a false assertion?).
BoneSoft wrote:
False
You're wrong again. A response of 'The other guy does it too!' does indeed concede the original point.
-
Gary Kirkham wrote:
Not so much an organ, as a tool. By all means, keep wearing your blinders.
You know a thing or two about both those states, don't you? edit: Amusingly, Dirk LongNose, you're saying that The Oily One is either: 1) stupid, or 2) ignorant (with the implication that he does not wish to correct the ignorance, which is to say, the implication is that the "ignorance" is really intellectual dishonesty), or 3) intellectually dishonest (i.e. a liar) You're just not openly using the words. And then you *dare* to condemn me merely because I do openly use the words.
Ilíon wrote:
And then you *dare* to condemn me
Nope, no condemnation...just expressing my views as to your lack of civility and manners. Yet, I doubt you will listen to sound council because of your mistaken notion that I care what anyone on this forum thinks about me. Who knows, there may be someone here that needs to hear what you have to say, but I suspect it will get lost in the noise. You seem to have this mistaken notion that I am standing against you. I was being honest before when I said that I agree with many of the things you are saying, I just don't care for the way you go about it at times.
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read
-
Yeah I'm sure it's all my fault. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with your presentation. :rolleyes:
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
Yeah I'm sure it's all my fault
On one thing, at least, we agree.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
I see that you are not disputing that anti-muslim bigotry is a problem within the Repbublican party.
I suspect there is some anti-muslim bigotry within the Republican party, but I refuse to paint the entire party with that brush. Is that what you are attempting to do? I see that you are not disputing that the Democrat's are playing the race card.
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read
Gary Kirkham wrote:
I suspect there is some anti-muslim bigotry within the Republican party, but I refuse to paint the entire party with that brush. Is that what you are attempting to do?
Did you actually watch the video? It paints the opposite picture to the one you are claiming, i.e., it shows Republicans standing up against bigotry. So who is the prejudiced one here?
John Carson
-
BoneSoft wrote:
so you were answering ad absurdum with ad absurdum in the hopse that they would see the irony.
No. I was making the point the he didn't respond to my previous post. His response wasn't 'ad absurdum' and I was not responding with irony.
BoneSoft wrote:
It looked like you were initiating the "answer my loaded question to validate my false assertion".
No. I was making the point the he didn't respond to my previous post. I didn't ask a loaded question(there was no question at all) and there was no false assertion(are you saying that Powell was making a false assertion?).
BoneSoft wrote:
False
You're wrong again. A response of 'The other guy does it too!' does indeed concede the original point.
OK, apology recended.
oilFactotum wrote:
there was no question at all
Right, it was a statement that you obviously meant to elicit a response, that was a trap. Kinda like a loaded question. :rolleyes: So again, what response were you expecting and what do you imagine it would reveal? Or was it that you mistakenly thought that no response would automatically validate your point? Nevermind, I'm tired of your game.
oilFactotum wrote:
You're wrong again. A response of 'The other guy does it too!' does indeed concede the original point.
Concession doesn't make your point automatically valid, it just means he himself can't refute it. Now I see how you've tricked yourself into thinking your never wrong. Lead them in circles until they throw up their hands, then you must be right since you 'won'.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Gary Kirkham wrote:
I suspect there is some anti-muslim bigotry within the Republican party, but I refuse to paint the entire party with that brush. Is that what you are attempting to do?
Did you actually watch the video? It paints the opposite picture to the one you are claiming, i.e., it shows Republicans standing up against bigotry. So who is the prejudiced one here?
John Carson
Yes, but oily being oily, it seemed (to obviously several people) that he was shocked. As if this were some oddity. As if the Republican party has a monopoly on bigotry. Maybe it was an unfair assumption and he actually deserves credit for making the first non-partisan move of his life. But that's what the confusion was about.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Sure, the plasma TV was an embelishment. But come on, we've been to third world countries, there are damn few people in America that are hurting. And most of those that are, have been for longer than the current mess. The point is most people don't have near as much to bitch about as they do bitch about, and playing to that helps politicians.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
But come on, we've been to third world countries
I don't think it's acceptable that any Americans live like third worlders simply because they are too old or too sick to fend for themselves. It may be too late to reverse the trend that has the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, but I regret that it is happening.
BoneSoft wrote:
The point is most people don't have near as much to bitch about as they do bitch about, and playing to that helps politicians.
You are unfortunately correct - Bread and Circuses are the natural result on the slide from a republic to a democracy to an oligarchy and more and more I think thats where we are going.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Gary Kirkham wrote:
I suspect there is some anti-muslim bigotry within the Republican party, but I refuse to paint the entire party with that brush. Is that what you are attempting to do?
Did you actually watch the video? It paints the opposite picture to the one you are claiming, i.e., it shows Republicans standing up against bigotry. So who is the prejudiced one here?
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
Did you actually watch the video?
Nope, stuff like that gets blocked by the IT Nazis where I work.
John Carson wrote:
It paints the opposite picture to the one you are claiming
I'm not claiming anything, I was only addressing what I perceived as Oily claiming that Republicans don't normally stand against bigotry...like he was shocked to see it.
John Carson wrote:
So who is the prejudiced one here?
I don't know, you tell me.
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read
-
You're absolutely right. Congress should be given half of the money it currently gets and not be allowed to spend a penny that they don't already have. They need to clean up their mess, and we need a way to make them. Social Security... I suppose it was necessary when it was created. But what a horrible idea, I can't believe they never thought about the possibility virtual certainty that there would be more people in the future. We need a way to fund it for those that are currently and near getting it. Then it needs to go away. Whatever happened to Bush's nationalized retirement accounts idea? I could deal with the government soaking me for thousands every year against my will if there was a chance in hell I'd get it back some day. As is, it pisses me off every time I get a check stub. I wouldn't mind being taxed a reasonable amount (which would certainly be less than currently) if it were going for things this country needs and if it were being managed responsibly. But right now none of those are happening. I feel bad for those of you who are close to retirement age, many who won't be able to retire. But unless we get things under control, I'm affraid those retiring in 10 years will be even worse off. And I'll never see a dime of Social Security.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
Whatever happened to Bush's nationalized retirement accounts idea?
Now that Social Security is going to the General Fund, do you think the Democrats and other Liberals are going to pass legislation that would eliminate all that extra money that they can spend buying our votes?
John P.
-
John Carson wrote:
Did you actually watch the video?
Nope, stuff like that gets blocked by the IT Nazis where I work.
John Carson wrote:
It paints the opposite picture to the one you are claiming
I'm not claiming anything, I was only addressing what I perceived as Oily claiming that Republicans don't normally stand against bigotry...like he was shocked to see it.
John Carson wrote:
So who is the prejudiced one here?
I don't know, you tell me.
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read
Gary Kirkham wrote:
I'm not claiming anything, I was only addressing what I perceived as Oily claiming that Republicans don't normally stand against bigotry...like he was shocked to see it.
His initial post was titled: "Something good to see". The text simply said: "Republicans opposing bigotry." He said nothing at all about Republicans not normally standing against bigotry. The video showed a guy outside a Republican rally promoting an anti-Muslim, anti-Obama message. He was then confronted by a group of Republicans (including a local official) who argued that Muslims could be loyal Americans. Out-numbered and out-argued, he packed up and left. Any person of reasonably generous spirit, reading the post and watching the video would have thought that oilFactotum was seeking to give credit where credit was due, celebrating goodness where he found it. You immediately jumped on him for promoting a partisan agenda, when in fact he was doing the opposite. Sure enough, when pushed about whether he believes that there is a bigotry problem among some Republicans, he agreed that he thought there was. No surprise that he thinks that. That, however, does not justify your response. oilFactotum has negative views about Republicans but went out of his way to give credit when he found them doing good. You, by contrast, have negative views of oilFactotum and went out of your way to attack him when you found him doing good. You stayed in partisan mode precisely when he was trying to step outside it.
John Carson
-
BoneSoft wrote:
Well, no it does not.
You have yet to actually support that there is anything illogical. The 'Apparently not' statement was not said in a vacuum.
BoneSoft wrote:
[correction]
I have already responded to your correction in the previous post. Simply restating yourself advances nothing.
The party is not bigoted, because he won the nomination... That logically does not follow. How can you argue otherwise? 49% of the party could be bigoted, 100% of the party could be bigoted toward something other than what the candidate is, or any combination or varying degrees of the two. "Because he won the nomination" is not enough information to deduce that "the party is not bigoted". So... That logically does not follow.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
Whatever happened to Bush's nationalized retirement accounts idea?
Now that Social Security is going to the General Fund, do you think the Democrats and other Liberals are going to pass legislation that would eliminate all that extra money that they can spend buying our votes?
John P.
I had wondered why they were against SS reform. Now it all makes sense.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Gary Kirkham wrote:
I'm not claiming anything, I was only addressing what I perceived as Oily claiming that Republicans don't normally stand against bigotry...like he was shocked to see it.
His initial post was titled: "Something good to see". The text simply said: "Republicans opposing bigotry." He said nothing at all about Republicans not normally standing against bigotry. The video showed a guy outside a Republican rally promoting an anti-Muslim, anti-Obama message. He was then confronted by a group of Republicans (including a local official) who argued that Muslims could be loyal Americans. Out-numbered and out-argued, he packed up and left. Any person of reasonably generous spirit, reading the post and watching the video would have thought that oilFactotum was seeking to give credit where credit was due, celebrating goodness where he found it. You immediately jumped on him for promoting a partisan agenda, when in fact he was doing the opposite. Sure enough, when pushed about whether he believes that there is a bigotry problem among some Republicans, he agreed that he thought there was. No surprise that he thinks that. That, however, does not justify your response. oilFactotum has negative views about Republicans but went out of his way to give credit when he found them doing good. You, by contrast, have negative views of oilFactotum and went out of your way to attack him when you found him doing good. You stayed in partisan mode precisely when he was trying to step outside it.
John Carson
You are probably right, but he also had ample oppurtunity to correct any misconceptions I had as to his intentions. He didn't take it.
John Carson wrote:
Sure enough, when pushed about whether he believes that there is a bigotry problem among some Republicans, he agreed that he thought there was. No surprise that he thinks that.
Is there any surprise that he doesn't seem to think that the same problem exists in the Democrat party? Do you think it exists in the Democrat Party?
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read