• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Irritation - Liberal Google Hounds

I

irwincur

Golden Member
Is it just me, or does it both anyone else here that most of the liberals never make a single original argument. All they do is cut and paste article after article from known liberal activists, and then act like they are the end all and be all.

What a joke. Were is the real debate? I would rather argue someone and their original ideas than a pack or people who have no innate ability to argue, but rather act as the librarians of the liberal alleys of the Internet. I just read through an entire Social Security debate and there was not a single original liberal argument. Sorry, but debate is a lot more than comparing sources and acting like they speak for you. Their arguments usually exist in the form of one line attacks, or the words of partisan editorials.

OK, I am done. Just hoping that some people on the other side learn the fine art of real debate.
 
Yeah! google is teh libural evil!
So what are you bringing to the table in this thread but more partisan whining?
 
Most good arguements require: evidence, theorizing from proffessionals, and current events.
If you do not have these, you are just spouting off jibberish...goes for both sides.
 
Originally posted by: irwincur
Is it just me, or does it both anyone else here that most of the liberals never make a single original argument.
Click to expand...
You mean, instead doing as some of the tin foil beany wearing neocons who cut and paste complete runs of drivel from the looney fringe sites like worldnetdaily.com? :roll:
 
Their arguments usually exist in the form of one line attacks, or the words of partisan editorials.
Click to expand...

Looks like I have proven half of my point.

Just waiting for someone to drum up a few negative editorials and articles about me.
 
Originally posted by: irwincur
Just waiting for someone to drum up a few negative editorials and articles about me.
Click to expand...
Are you well known enough for anyone to care?

 
Yes, as we all know we have never seen a conservative poster continually post articles regarding abortion, condoms, planned parenthood, homosexuality, liberalism, the UN, or Clinton that he or she dug up from conservative "news" sites with no commentary (except for a trolling question at the end, perhaps). :roll:
 
Originally posted by: irwincur
Just waiting for someone to drum up a few negative editorials and articles about me.
Click to expand...
Well, how else are we gonna' hear the female pygmy pony's side of the story? As if you didn't notice the tail! 😉

 
Originally posted by: irwincur
Is it just me, or does it both anyone else here that most of the liberals never make a single original argument. All they do is cut and paste article after article from known liberal activists, and then act like they are the end all and be all.

What a joke. Were is the real debate? I would rather argue someone and their original ideas than a pack or people who have no innate ability to argue, but rather act as the librarians of the liberal alleys of the Internet. I just read through an entire Social Security debate and there was not a single original liberal argument. Sorry, but debate is a lot more than comparing sources and acting like they speak for you. Their arguments usually exist in the form of one line attacks, or the words of partisan editorials.

OK, I am done. Just hoping that some people on the other side learn the fine art of real debate.
Click to expand...

Well then why don't start a debate that has not been debated before. You will find it impossible to do so, as a result people use articles to further prove their point. As i learned in debate 101, you must use credible evidence to make your point stronger. Though some "evidence" or "expert testimony" might be questionable, it is necessary to make point stronger. Remember the presidential debates and how they quoted statistics..etc from other sources, it applies here too.
 
I used to argue with whatever you want to call these people who refer to themselves as conservatives today -- corrupt conservatives -- predatory capatilists -- whatever. They always demanded links and proof and such. So I started posting the links before they asked. It didn't matter. They simply ignore the facts presented. As a matter of fact, I've had several of them admit to me they don't read the information put right in front of their noses anyway.

Now they're starting threads about liberals cutting and pasting instead of debating. How can you debate anything when you ignore the facts?

This has nothing to do with Googling liberals. IMO, you people just hate to see your fantasies refuted in print.

 
People of both political persuasions have helped to create a culture in this forum by constantly asking (as an attack): "where's the quote", "what's your source", "you're guessing, prove it", "your source is BS, this one is more reputable/reliable/etc.". Some people seem to demand that the discussion be based on argumentum ad verecundium, which does lead to a lot of cut-and-paste. Personal opinions evoke name calling/sterotyping. Conjecture makes you a "conspiracy therorist".

Want to start a separate discussion on SS? I think we need to move slowly on any major changes. I have no faith that this administration will present all of the pertainent data or that the data presented will be accurate (my personal conclusions, based on past performance). Massive changes in SS will involve such huge amounts of money, with such long term ramifacations, that we court disaster if we make serious errors. The government is somewhat notorious for passing laws with unintended consequences as well. Every point claimed to show the need for change, and all aspects of the proposed solutions need to presented scientifically (leaving out references to crap like "culture of ownership", etc.), analysed and vetted for accuracy. Alternate solutions must also be examined, and projections must be compared. This has not really been done yet, and, until it is, I don't see how we can make intelligent choices. Even GWB should understand by now the pitfalls of acting on poor or incomplete information.
 
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
People of both political persuasions have helped to create a culture in this forum by constantly asking (as an attack): "where's the quote", "what's your source", "you're guessing, prove it", "your source is BS, this one is more reputable/reliable/etc.". Some people seem to demand that the discussion be based on argumentum ad verecundium, which does lead to a lot of cut-and-paste. Personal opinions evoke name calling/sterotyping. Conjecture makes you a "conspiracy therorist".

Want to start a separate discussion on SS? I think we need to move slowly on any major changes. I have no faith that this administration will present all of the pertainent data or that the data presented will be accurate (my personal conclusions, based on past performance). Massive changes in SS will involve such huge amounts of money, with such long term ramifacations, that we court disaster if we make serious errors. The government is somewhat notorious for passing laws with unintended consequences as well. Every point claimed to show the need for change, and all aspects of the proposed solutions need to presented scientifically (leaving out references to crap like "culture of ownership", etc.), analysed and vetted for accuracy. Alternate solutions must also be examined, and projections must be compared. This has not really been done yet, and, until it is, I don't see how we can make intelligent choices. Even GWB should understand by now the pitfalls of acting on poor or incomplete information.
Click to expand...
Link?

 
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: irwincur
Just waiting for someone to drum up a few negative editorials and articles about me.
Click to expand...
Well, how else are we gonna' hear the female pygmy pony's side of the story? As if you didn't notice the tail! 😉
Click to expand...

bwahahahahhahaa. Nice.
 
Originally posted by: irwincur
Is it just me, or does it both anyone else here that most of the liberals never make a single original argument. All they do is cut and paste article after article from known liberal activists, and then act like they are the end all and be all.

What a joke. Were is the real debate? I would rather argue someone and their original ideas than a pack or people who have no innate ability to argue, but rather act as the librarians of the liberal alleys of the Internet. I just read through an entire Social Security debate and there was not a single original liberal argument. Sorry, but debate is a lot more than comparing sources and acting like they speak for you. Their arguments usually exist in the form of one line attacks, or the words of partisan editorials.

OK, I am done. Just hoping that some people on the other side learn the fine art of real debate.
Click to expand...

Yea they're called zealots. Got to love em. Throw them a right wing bone and they will it up all day long. No sense for intense debate with a zealot it will only go in one ear and out the other. Just sit back and enjoy the carni show. It's truly amazing what some of these freak shows have to offer.
 
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
People of both political persuasions have helped to create a culture in this forum by constantly asking (as an attack): "where's the quote", "what's your source", "you're guessing, prove it", "your source is BS, this one is more reputable/reliable/etc.". Some people seem to demand that the discussion be based on argumentum ad verecundium, which does lead to a lot of cut-and-paste. Personal opinions evoke name calling/sterotyping. Conjecture makes you a "conspiracy therorist".

Want to start a separate discussion on SS? I think we need to move slowly on any major changes. I have no faith that this administration will present all of the pertainent data or that the data presented will be accurate (my personal conclusions, based on past performance). Massive changes in SS will involve such huge amounts of money, with such long term ramifacations, that we court disaster if we make serious errors. The government is somewhat notorious for passing laws with unintended consequences as well. Every point claimed to show the need for change, and all aspects of the proposed solutions need to presented scientifically (leaving out references to crap like "culture of ownership", etc.), analysed and vetted for accuracy. Alternate solutions must also be examined, and projections must be compared. This has not really been done yet, and, until it is, I don't see how we can make intelligent choices. Even GWB should understand by now the pitfalls of acting on poor or incomplete information.
Click to expand...
Link?
Click to expand...

Factual information is superfluous for crazed ideologues like the Bushies.




 

[/quote]Factual information is superfluous for crazed ideologues like the Bushies. [/quote]


Here is fact, Bush won in November. Ceteris Paribus, "factual information is superfluous for crazed ideologues like," left-wing zealots.

He didn't win. I know I'll wake up any second now. Rummy is that you....
 
It's just you 😀

And by real debate with original ideas and devoid of personal attacks, do you mean whiney posts that stereotype everyone in a group with little or no evidence to back up your opinion? Cause I could do without those, I think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top