FREE TAPATALK APP

rwguinn · 29th September 2010, 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by sarge

Neither. I have an interest in rational discussion.

Again, you are mistaken.

Of course that is not all I've accomplished in this thread - and we are not engaged in politics. We are engaged in discussion, and your form of "discussion" is not credible.

That's fine. You don't seem to be breaking the rules, and it's of no concern to me. Your posts don't stand up to analysis - but that's your business.

You have failed to support your opinion.

Opinion does not need support.
Unless you are trying to convince somebody other than yourself that the opinion is the correct view...

sarge · 29th September 2010, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by rwguinn

Opinion does not need support.
Unless you are trying to convince somebody other than yourself that the opinion is the correct view...

Technically correct, but when the subject is a post to a discussion forum, I think it's a distinction without a difference.

XBoxWarrior · 29th September 2010, 01:30 PM

Originally Posted by sarge

Technically correct, but when the subject is a post to a discussion forum, I think it's a distinction without a difference.

Here's a pro tip, if you don't like my thread, pick one of the other 50,000 to make your debut in. 35% of your posts are here arguing with me, and you have yet to show me how the Party of NO (R) would like teh gheys to serve openly in the military.

Since the military has teh ghey soldiers right now, and the Party of NO (R) didn't want to give them a raise, I conclude that the Party of NO (R) hates the troops. If you are bigoted against one troop, you must hate them all. After all, teh ghey soldiers are putting their lives on the line, and dying, right along side the not ghey troops.

thaiboxerken · 29th September 2010, 02:20 PM

They don't hate the troops.they just hate mexicans and gay people so much that they will sacrifice the troops.

Grizzly Adams · 29th September 2010, 09:15 PM

So, XBoxWarrior, why is your support for the bill so ardent? Is it because you hate straight people or because you hate legal immigrants? Don't wait for the translation, answer now!!!

(I don't expect you to get that reference.)

thaiboxerken · 29th September 2010, 10:52 PM

Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams

So, XBoxWarrior, why is your support for the bill so ardent? Is it because you hate straight people or because you hate legal immigrants? Don't wait for the translation, answer now!!!

(I don't expect you to get that reference.)

What you are saying makes absolutely no sense at all. Nothing in the bill would hurt straight people or legal immigrants.

Grizzly Adams · 30th September 2010, 12:03 AM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

What you are saying makes absolutely no sense at all.

Of course it doesn't. All I can hope to do is converse on his level, so nonsense is the only recourse I have left.

sarge · 30th September 2010, 05:55 AM

Originally Posted by XBoxWarrior

Here's a pro tip, if you don't like my thread, pick one of the other 50,000 to make your debut in.

If a thread interests me, I'll post in it. I read the rules, and it appears I do not need your permission to post here.

Now, here's a real pro tip from someone with considerably more experience than your posting style would indicate you posses:

If you do not like it when it is pointed out that you have erred, err less often.

Quote:

35% of your posts are here arguing with me, and you have yet to show me how the Party of NO (R) would like teh gheys to serve openly in the military.

Perhaps you should actually read my posts before you respond to them. it would avoid the embarrasment that you must feel at having been so comically wrong.

I made no argument at all about the stance of the Republican Party on the "Gays in the Military" issue. My arguments so far have been pointedly directed at your contention that a threat of filibuster against this bill means that Republicans hate the troops. i have demonstrated that the notion isn't actually supported by your argument - that indeed you have failed to make a case that the Republican Party "hates the troops".

I have also offered a logical case that, by inserting the DADT language in a budget bill, the Democrat Party is actually responsible for the whole brew-ha.

Quote:

Since the military has teh ghey soldiers right now, and the Party of NO (R) didn't want to give them a raise, I conclude that the Party of NO (R) hates the troops.

It's fine for you to harbor misconceptions in private. When you post distortion on an internet discussion forum, then whine about it when the distortion actually generates discussion....well, you appear silly.

Quote:

If you are bigoted against one troop, you must hate them all. After all, teh ghey soldiers are putting their lives on the line, and dying, right along side the not ghey troops.

Nonsense, of course. It is entirely possible to be biggoted against a sub-set of anything and not "hate" the whole. That the Republican Party is wrong on the whole gays serving openly issue has no "hate the troops" component. More accurately, the Republican Party so loves the troops, they are willing to fight a bill that would damage the troops by allowing gays to serve openly. That they are wrong about this does not diminsih their "love" for the troops.

If you were posting honestly, you would simply lay the blame for the whole DADT debacle where it belongs - with the Commander in Chief.

29th September 2010, 11:57 AM	#81
rwguinn Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes Posts: 8,508	Originally Posted by sarge Neither. I have an interest in rational discussion. Again, you are mistaken. Of course that is not all I've accomplished in this thread - and we are not engaged in politics. We are engaged in discussion, and your form of "discussion" is not credible. That's fine. You don't seem to be breaking the rules, and it's of no concern to me. Your posts don't stand up to analysis - but that's your business. You have failed to support your opinion. Opinion does not need support. Unless you are trying to convince somebody other than yourself that the opinion is the correct view...
	__________________ "Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." "I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275

29th September 2010, 02:20 PM	#84
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 21,090	They don't hate the troops.they just hate mexicans and gay people so much that they will sacrifice the troops.
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

29th September 2010, 09:15 PM	#85
Grizzly Adams Muse Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 993	So, XBoxWarrior, why is your support for the bill so ardent? Is it because you hate straight people or because you hate legal immigrants? Don't wait for the translation, answer now!!! (I don't expect you to get that reference.)
Grizzly Adams Muse Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 993

29th September 2010, 10:52 PM	#86
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 21,090	Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams So, XBoxWarrior, why is your support for the bill so ardent? Is it because you hate straight people or because you hate legal immigrants? Don't wait for the translation, answer now!!! (I don't expect you to get that reference.) What you are saying makes absolutely no sense at all. Nothing in the bill would hurt straight people or legal immigrants.
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

30th September 2010, 12:03 AM	#87
Grizzly Adams Muse Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 993	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken What you are saying makes absolutely no sense at all. Of course it doesn't. All I can hope to do is converse on his level, so nonsense is the only recourse I have left.
Grizzly Adams Muse Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 993

29th September 2010, 12:14 PM	#82
sarge Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Fayetteville, NC Posts: 2,448	Originally Posted by rwguinn Opinion does not need support. Unless you are trying to convince somebody other than yourself that the opinion is the correct view... Technically correct, but when the subject is a post to a discussion forum, I think it's a distinction without a difference.

29th September 2010, 01:30 PM	#83
XBoxWarrior Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Down in the Treme... Posts: 1,232	Originally Posted by sarge Technically correct, but when the subject is a post to a discussion forum, I think it's a distinction without a difference. Here's a pro tip, if you don't like my thread, pick one of the other 50,000 to make your debut in. 35% of your posts are here arguing with me, and you have yet to show me how the Party of NO (R) would like teh gheys to serve openly in the military. Since the military has teh ghey soldiers right now, and the Party of NO (R) didn't want to give them a raise, I conclude that the Party of NO (R) hates the troops. If you are bigoted against one troop, you must hate them all. After all, teh ghey soldiers are putting their lives on the line, and dying, right along side the not ghey troops.

30th September 2010, 05:55 AM	#88
sarge Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Fayetteville, NC Posts: 2,448	Originally Posted by XBoxWarrior Here's a pro tip, if you don't like my thread, pick one of the other 50,000 to make your debut in. If a thread interests me, I'll post in it. I read the rules, and it appears I do not need your permission to post here. Now, here's a real pro tip from someone with considerably more experience than your posting style would indicate you posses: If you do not like it when it is pointed out that you have erred, err less often. Quote: 35% of your posts are here arguing with me, and you have yet to show me how the Party of NO (R) would like teh gheys to serve openly in the military. Perhaps you should actually read my posts before you respond to them. it would avoid the embarrasment that you must feel at having been so comically wrong. I made no argument at all about the stance of the Republican Party on the "Gays in the Military" issue. My arguments so far have been pointedly directed at your contention that a threat of filibuster against this bill means that Republicans hate the troops. i have demonstrated that the notion isn't actually supported by your argument - that indeed you have failed to make a case that the Republican Party "hates the troops". I have also offered a logical case that, by inserting the DADT language in a budget bill, the Democrat Party is actually responsible for the whole brew-ha. Quote: Since the military has teh ghey soldiers right now, and the Party of NO (R) didn't want to give them a raise, I conclude that the Party of NO (R) hates the troops. It's fine for you to harbor misconceptions in private. When you post distortion on an internet discussion forum, then whine about it when the distortion actually generates discussion....well, you appear silly. Quote: If you are bigoted against one troop, you must hate them all. After all, teh ghey soldiers are putting their lives on the line, and dying, right along side the not ghey troops. Nonsense, of course. It is entirely possible to be biggoted against a sub-set of anything and not "hate" the whole. That the Republican Party is wrong on the whole gays serving openly issue has no "hate the troops" component. More accurately, the Republican Party so loves the troops, they are willing to fight a bill that would damage the troops by allowing gays to serve openly. That they are wrong about this does not diminsih their "love" for the troops. If you were posting honestly, you would simply lay the blame for the whole DADT debacle where it belongs - with the Commander in Chief.