It took only 53 years for someone to come up with the perfect follow-up to “Lipstick on Your Collar.”
And a little more wit, and a lot more self-awareness, and good deal more raw intelligence, and a whole lot more subtlety.
But your point–that they’re basically equals because they’re both partisans–I approve of, and wish to subcribe to your newsletter.
Good fucking lord, did you, of all people, just type that? Not only did my irony meter explode; but it supernova’ed into its individual quarks. From this point forward, much like Twitter followers are measured in Wheatons, ironic statements will be measured in Hentors.
Not useful to most people. I’d surmise that most people who use the “skin in the game” argument with regards to taxes would deny it with regards to abortion. Now, there are pros and cons for abortion, but attacking some opponents of it because it doesn’t affect their body is not a morally sound argument. Similarly, there are pros and cons of high taxes but claiming you shouldn’t get to decide them unless you pay taxes is again not a sound argumentation.
It very well could be that those that argue that, all else being equal, a slightly higher tax rate for the very rich would be better are correct. Their personal income has no logical bearing on the correctness of their arguments.
So Shodan doesn’t understand what a No True Scotsman fallacy is. He knows so little, and much of what he does know isn’t true, yet he sees fit to tell other people they’re wrong.
<Hands Lobohan a banana and a WetNap>
IMHO **Sam **was as you describe, but on some subjects his partisanship and ideology got the best of him like on the Iraq war and the invasion; most recently, supporting the coup in Honduras was a very sore point specially when he deftly avoided looking at the evidence that the new “rulers” of Honduras never deserved support as on top of everything they were actively closing opposition tv and radio stations.
Regarding the climate change issue, at the beginning **Sam **got a lot of flack for swallowing hook line and sinker many of the talking points of climate change deniers, but he got better, I will go on a limb to say that one factor why he is not showing much on the board is that he is now on the record of calling people like **Starving Artist **to be just full of hot air and that means that not only flack from the left could come, but it guarantees that flack from the mad tea party right side would come, as **SenorBeef **is getting here; who needs that level of sniping, specially coming from people that were supposed to be your allies?
Garsh, I sure am honored! Thanks! But just so I can really feel comfortable in accepting, can you please give me an example of me taking a political position that was not based on some evidence?
I am certainly biased, and that does mean that I will give more scrutiny to a claim here on these boards from a conservative, but I am very dedicated to empiricism wherever possible. So, show me don’t tell me, please.
Again, if your definition of “piled on” is “has his arguments challenged in a forum designed for the purpose of having arguments challenged”, you’re only showing your conservative persecution complex.
Are you admitting then, that when you responded to my post in the Romney thread, you weren’t trying to present a serious interpretation of anyone’s position, or present an argument, but just to make fun of us?
John Mace called you worthess (paraphrasing) on page 1. Are you calling him a liberal now?
It’s sort of funny that you’ll say that essentially this board is nothing but liberals, but then use the fact that only liberals are around to bash you as proof that they’re off base.
If I ran an IMHO poll that had a series of checkboxes like “Shodan is dishonest” “Shodan is mean spirited” and also “eluicidator is dishonest” and “elucidator is mean spirited”, and the results came in overwhelmingly against you, would that mean anything to you? Would you consider that as evidence for my point? Or would your persecution complex kick in again and you’d just dismiss it all because hey this board is full of liberals anyway?
I didn’t say he was okay, I just said that he was your closest counterpart, except for being a lying dick. I also don’t get a troll vibe from him.
Is this like how I think deductions are evil because republicans do them, but reductions are good when liberals do them?
I would have to say that if you are not on a decade long mission to consistently stay in character at all times to consistently troll this board with your nonsense, then I think your inability to comprehend reality reaches the state of a mental disorder.
Considering the user name I guess you have a lot of those uh? 
:rolleyes: Seriously…
WetNaps? No, gave him my last one or would’ve given Hentor one, too.
I also found that to be a problem. I talked with him a bit privately about it once, saying that essentially when he sticks to ideas he truly believes are right, he’s among the best debators the board has to offer. But when he feels the need to align himself with the right wing tribe and act as an apologist, it taints his image. He could argue conservative ideas well (some of his counterproposals on health care reform were clever), but only when those ideas are true to his beliefs, rather than trying to make the best out of idiotic decisions like Iraq out of some sense of party loyalty. Which is ironic, since it’s not even his party, not being American.
Wait, I need to have stuff to say that couldn’t be said by anyone else?
Doesn’t that strike you as a little harsh? Someone else could have said what you said, so it’s irrelevant!
In any case, I substantiate what I say in GD, in general. If I make a snarky comment once in awhile, it’s mostly to illustrate how insane some comment is. If you have specific problems, I’m sure a pit thread would be in order.
Otherwise, I think you’re suffering from some confirmation bias here.
No, it’s dumb and baldly self-serving bullshit. You see, there’s this much larger game called “the Economy” and we all have skin in it.
Ferchrissake, if Mitt Romney said “Hey, only people who pay capital gains tax should have any say about increasing capital gains tax.” you see what’s wrong with that, right?
False. You’ve never seen me rush to curlcoat’s defense.
Somebody get Weird Al on the line. *Peehole *is exactly the sort of edgy terminology that will keep him relevant.
You’re right, of course. Sometimes you come up with half-cooked liberal counter-talking points that anyone else would be embarrassed to use.
Most of the time I think the other side is bullshit, and the liberal counter-talking points are spot on IMO, so it’s generally not a worry. But sometimes even when there’s a solid, good-faith discussion to be had, you simply do not shut up with your taunting and sneering. The tenor of your posts differs from Shodan’s, but neither of you act like adults in political threads.
That said, I stopped caring about the desire to have good-faith political discussions on the internet a long time ago. Difference is, that means I’ve stopped participating in them.
Very much so. So, whaddya got?
Example?
I’m sure I go over the line. I’ve been warned after all. But I don’t generally post if I don’t have a reasonable argument. You may disagree, but the way to deal with that is to trash my argument.
Have fun on the sidelines.