I would really like to know why you'd call me a conservative when I have clearly stated many times that I am not. I am highly offended that you have called me a conservative. Besides how did you ever come up with the conclusion that me, kaias, and falk were teaming up on Centreri?

I wasn't using it to support my argument. I was stating that that generality applied true in that case. I had used it in an argument I had thrown away, yes, but it has nothing to do with my more valid points. You can argue for or against my intentions on the matter all you want, but there really isn't that much to it.
Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the quote right above it. I say that I won't argue your case for you and you say that you won't deny my valid arguments. Unrelated.
A very nice way to put it. I'll keep trying until sense comes back. It's a weakness I have.
Well, you three were arguing with me . MA isn't a conservative, he's just a poor azn soul trying to find the right path to... economic prosperity. He actually argued about Palin - Kaias and Falkoner decided to argue on the finer, less relevant points and poke holes in my logic. Which didn't really work so far.

That is very true. I really am trying to find the right path, but when I get strange responses like CAFG's post, it really gives me a bad outlook towards the liberal side. However, I won't let things like this affect what I believe in. Nobody should.

stfu.
MA is a conservative. He's from texas. nuff said.

and for all the liberals out, tell me why big government is better than small government.

In this context, a position is as strong as it ever will be, regardless of how many person one's arguing with. If he has indeed confirmed his stance to be the "correct" one, then whether or not he's debating with one or three shouldn't make the slightest difference.
- Palin is, on the basis of her religious affiliation, unintelligent.
- Palin is an implied aspect of McCain's presidency.
= Therefore, McCain is a bad vote.
Now, to switch things around a bit:
- Obama is, on the basis of being black, unintelligent.
- Obama is an implied aspect of Obama's presidency.
= Therefore, Obama is a bad vote.
You're choosing between two outcomes - Obama being president, or McCain being president. An argument against one is an argument against the other, so someone using your logic to determine that your side is just as incompetant as theirs is in no way irrelevant. Of course, there's an easy point that could be made against the logic behind Obama's incompetance... but you've not brought it up.
"Value" refers, in this context, to recognition and appreciation. Arguing without granting appropriate consideration to points made against one's position is an exceedingly irrational thing to do, the sort that results in fundamentalist bible-following.

LOL! This has to be the most hypocritical post I have ever seen! I can't even count how many times I've been arguing alone against 3 or more people, all of which are against my views, heck, it happened just a page ago, and then as soon as the tides turn, you immediately comment on how we team.. Lulz..

It's more fun to observe than logically dismantle their argument.

Well to clarify a few things. First, we didn't team. You have said a lot of things that I don't necessarily agree with . Besides the stuff me and Cent talked about is different from what you and kaias discussed with Centreri. Second, based on the content of his post it is apparent that he never read any of the posts (or at least any of mine.) And third, he uses a hit and run tactic. He makes a post regarding his observations, which will most likely provoke people, and then fades away.

and cheeze, I happen to come from the most liberal part of Texas. Actually, the only significant liberal county.

The counties that touch Mexico in Texas vote 90% Democratic.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Oct 2 2008, 6:38 am by WoAHorde.

go ask your friend george dubya bush first

I find it rather sad that no one seems to comprehend that the generality was the addition rather then the argument. A generality on its own is nothing. I simply pointed out that according to my conclusions, the generality is in this case correct. I have made no similar conclusions about Obama, so the generality that 'blacks are stupid' has no basis in that instance.
I will recognize any argument given to me and will argue against it if I disagree. Now, if someone would give me an actual argument... I can't grant appropriate consideration to points made when there are no points made. And I'd love for you to point one out that I missed.

And refusing to acknowledge when someone has made a point is extremely irrational as well.

And yet, you still don't point out what that point was. You're awfully bad at this, Falk.

summary of vice presidential debate debate:

palin: "also also though also though also also also though but also i'd like to also though JOHN MCCAIN '08!!! also though ALASKA also though also also ORIGINAL MAVERICKS"

biden: "scranton neighborhood values my mom says fairness my wife died personal story joey at the gas station has no moneys"

I really was hoping Biden would try and make her cry.

Palin isn't unintelligent, she's just not knowledgeable. She knows how to defend herself--i.e by not answering the question.

She got owned.

And I think saying who did better is stupid because the things that one person point out as reasons why the candidate sucked is the same reason why another person thinks they did great. And then there are those fools who may be for one party but then praise the other party when in reality they have no idea what they're talking about and neither does anyone else.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Oct 3 2008, 3:08 am by Mayor.

Oh, I forgot to comment on this one. If you had actually read the article, you would have noticed this part:


The top five is paying 53.25 percent, even though they only earn 31.99, the top 10 then is earning 43.11%, but they are paying 64.89%, and the top fifty are earning 86.19%, yet they are paying 96.03% of the taxes.


People made the point that your little bash on religious people is ridiculous, and rather than admitting your error, you simply brush it aside, saying:

So, you can just ignore other's conclusions, yet they are supposed to listen to yours? The point makes just as much, if not more sense than yours, even if that's not saying much, but you continue to ignore it.

So I thought Biden would do much better in this than he did. He kept attacking McCain for some reason, instead of addressing issues. McCain didn't agree to so-and-so, but I don't have to make an argument now because he was wrong and I can point that out.
Palin made some rather lame missteps, and on several topics I liked how she simply came out and said her position. She didn't repeat the same phrase over and over again.

The top 10% earns 43.11% and pays 64.89%, yes? Let's find out what the people between the 50% and the 90% are paying. They're paying 100-65%, yes? So they're paying 35%.

So the top 50% of people excluding the top 10% actually pays 35% of the taxes. That means 40% of wage earners (basically our middle class) are paying 35% of the taxes. That's alright with me. The top 10% honestly doesn't need 40% of the money, does it? They aren't doing 40% of the work, why should they get 40% of the money?


Agreed, I'd like to see less partisanship and more substance from my fellow Obama supporters.