Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Yes.

9 (90%)

Yes.

1 (10%)

Total Members Voted: 9

[mainiac]

I was sick of you trying to start shit when people were having honest discussions.

Yes, it's so annoying having someone bother to point out reality every time you want to have a peaceful and civil discussion based around falsehoods.

I call you guys liars.  You continuously repeat the same false statements based on a false premise.  You keep saying someone is a criminal without a shred of proof to back up that statement.

You guys on the other hand aren't arguing with my statements.  You are arguing with my character.

[pisskop]

I was sick of you trying to start shit when people were having honest discussions.

Yes, it's so annoying having someone bother to point out reality every time you want to have a peaceful and civil discussion based around falsehoods.

I call you guys liars.  You continuously repeat the same false statements based on a false premise.  You keep saying someone is a criminal without a shred of proof to back up that statement.

You guys on the other hand aren't arguing with my statements.  You are arguing with my character.

well no.

what you did was see the news story about HCs sloppy and completely unacceptable level of conduct, see that no criminal charges were being filed, and then run off here to extoll this as a sign.

there was no civil debate coming from yoy before this, and youve ignored points thats indicate that this benghazi bit was let slide because of her position as nominee.

but pat yourself on the back; youve defended her conduct as incompetence instead of criminal

[Orange Wizard]

You guys on the other hand aren't arguing with my statements.  You are arguing with my character.

Honestly if you don't realise that you're being really hostile I think we should just call it quits and ditch the thread

[Sergarr]

I like how people are all jumping on Hillary for basic administrative bullshit that may have not even caused any actual damage, while at the same time ignoring that a not-that-long-time-ago, an acting government of USA has intentionally fabricated false evidence in order to pull USA into an unnecessary war, costing USA ~4000 lives and causing organizations like ISIS to emerge - all with the active help and agreement of the then-President of the USA, Bush.

Just putting things into scale here, you know.

[Orange Wizard]

Bush isn't running for president this year so it's kinda irrelevant. Buttwipe should be standing trial at The Hague along with whatshisface, the other guy, but goddamn if international law isn't the most toothless thing ever invented

[mainiac]

Honestly if you don't realise that you're being really hostile I think we should just call it quits and ditch the thread

Because the quality of an argument depends on the preceived belligerance of the person making it?  I mean heck, OW, you ain't exactly sunshine and roses but you are perfectly capable of making an actual argument supported by facts, namely...

Bush isn't running for president this year so it's kinda irrelevant. Buttwipe should be standing trial at The Hague along with whatshisface, the other guy, but goddamn if international law isn't the most toothless thing ever invented

That would be by design.  Can you imagine how quickly an international organization would be dismantled if it went after the leader of an important country, let alone the US?

[darkrider2]

Every time anyone in the past year or so has said anything even remotely critical of Clinton you immediately jumped down their throat and started a mudslinging fight. It's the primary reason I stopped posting in the previous thread, I was sick of you trying to start shit when people were having honest discussions. I don't particularly like being this blunt, but it needed saying.

I just assumed anyone trying to preserve their own sanity was ignoring his posts in the last thread anyway.

[Sheb]

The quality of an argument doesn't, but the quality of the debate often does. If people feel aggressed, they will feel defensive and not adress your argument. A flaw in human nature if you want.

[mainiac]

The quality of an argument doesn't, but the quality of the debate often does. If people feel aggressed, they will feel defensive and not adress your argument. A flaw in human nature if you want.

You are really getting the chain of events backwards there.  I got salty several months after people steadfastedly refused to put up or shut up when it came to the allegations.  The one caused the other.

And it's this same damn navel gazing.  People are SOOOOOOO concerned with calling me angry.  If they devoted even 10% of that effort into providing some actually objective sourcing on these accusations this could be settled by now.  So why doesn't someone do that as a break between the OMG MAINIAC UR SO MEAN posts.

[Orange Wizard]

Because the quality of an argument depends on the preceived belligerance of the person making it?

People have addressed your arguments, though. The problem now is that you're often unnecessarily abrasive and it causes fights. No-one here wants fights, and it's getting old.
Obviously I'm not a model of good debating practise myself, so I'm not going to try to claim any moral high ground. I'm going to do my best to change my behaviour if people call me out on it though, so hopefully we can all have fun and learn about politics, or something.

That would be by design.  Can you imagine how quickly an international organization would be dismantled if it went after the leader of an important country, let alone the US?

"But OW", they ask me, "how can you be opposed to national sovereignty?"

"This is why," I respond, pointing to Planet Earth, "and so we need to replace all the nations with a single team of unelected bureaucrats. Nothing could possibly go wrong."

[mainiac]

That would be by design.  Can you imagine how quickly an international organization would be dismantled if it went after the leader of an important country, let alone the US?

"But OW", they ask me, "how can you be opposed to national sovereignty?"

"This is why," I respond, pointing to Planet Earth, "and so we need to replace all the nations with a single team of unelected bureaucrats. Nothing could possibly go wrong."

I'm sorry, is the EU trying to arrest Cameron?  I'll sign a petition to oppose that if it's the case.

Because the quality of an argument depends on the preceived belligerance of the person making it?

People have addressed your arguments, though.

Well, this thread has already gone through two waves of arguments.  So just point me to the post in this thread where someone has addressed my objections.

[Sheb]

Hey, I agree with the substance of your arguments, while not agreeing on the tone you use.

I'm starting to be disappointed in the amount of news this campaign produce. Donald Trump has moved so fare beyong truth and lie that there is no real point in paying attention to what he says. Clinton is  being her boring self, and since her coverage is constantly hijacked by "scandals" so we don't get any real meat.

[mainiac]

It's extremely depressing.  Clinton is proposing some really far reaching stuff.  As a democracy we should be debating that.  I'd bet money that most people wouldn't even know  the substance of Clinton's platform if you gave them 15 minutes on google to refresh their memory.

People bitch about politics becoming trivial but they are myopic about the actual way it becomes trivial.  It isn't some vague "Them" giving power to shadowy corporate overlords.  It's specific people like Boehner and Gowdy who realized that there was political gains to be made by banging that Benghazi drum until it broke.  They aren't even really lying, they're just advancing their cause in a pretty straightforward fashion. This lets them distract from the medicaid expansion and the minimum wage and immigration.  That is politics becoming trivial, when they divert away from the substantive issues.

[Sheb]

[Removed for not actually bringing much to the discussion]

[Frumple]

Also doesn't help that the guy's "policy" statements trend towards pretty vacuous. Hard to address something that's not really there, never mind it changing a few days later. Y'can say they're empty, but they do that anyway.