Reid - be bipartisan, drop your extremism while we keep ours

[cybrsage]

You are acting like an absolute clown here...but that is not to be unexpected from you, as we all already know. When people call you out on poor argument style, you make worse arguments.

I know, I know, you do not agree with me so that makes me an extremist...

 

[zsdersw]

I'm saddened by the fact that there's a difference between the two. Perhaps some day conservatives will stop listening to their leaders and read their actions.

Yes, it is very unfortunate that Republican != conservative. They really haven't been conservative since Goldwater. Since then, instead of wasting taxpayer money on M&Ms and JuicyFruit like Democrats do, they waste it on Mike and Ike's and BubbleYum.

Democrats and Republicans sound like moderates with sensible proposals when running for office, but govern and legislate like extremists when in office.

 

[dank69]

So you think extremism is fine when YOU PERSONALLY agree with it. Fair enough, at least it explains why you think the dems do not need to get rid of their extremism.

What's that? You can't provide a single example to support your premise? Surely you can at least try.

I know, I know, you do not agree with me so that makes me an extremist...

I challenge you to point out where I called you extreme. Dance, clown. Dance.

 

[zsdersw]

Show me a thread you created where you are say you do not think elephants live on Mars. Until you do, it is not a bad assumption to say you think elephants do live on Mars.

Yes, it is a bad assumption... because no one, ever, has claimed that elephants live on Mars.

Republicans and Republican supporters have, however, been critical of Republicans in the past.

All of the posts you've made that are about politicians and their actions have been critical only of Democrats or groups strongly associated with the Democratic party.

I've never made a thread about elephants, Mars, or life on Mars.

 

[cybrsage]

What's that? You can't provide a single example to support your premise? Surely you can at least try.

Please follow along. You claimed that the extremist examples showed are not extreme. I explained that is because you only consider things you disagree with to be extremist. No matter what I show, if you agree with it you will say it is not extremist.

I challenge you to point out where I called you extreme. Dance, clown. Dance.

According to zsdersw, since you did not create a thread saying I am not extreme, then you must think I am.

 

[cybrsage]

Yes, it is a bad assumption... because no one, ever, has claimed that elephants live on Mars.

I have never claimed the republicans have not done things wrong. In fact, in your one thread about it, I showed things I felt they did wrong.

You replied after my post, so you should have read it. Thus, your assumption is not only wrong, but covered in bad logic.

I've never made a thread about elephants, Mars, or life on Mars.

Which means you think elephants live on Mars...according to what you claimed earlier. You claimed:

You:Show me a thread you've created that's critical of Republicans. Until you do, it is not a bad assumption at all.

Which means that unless I have created threads saying what you say I must say, I obviously have to believe the opposite. I am simply applying your own stance to you. Don't like it, change your stance.

 

[dank69]

Please follow along. You claimed that the extremist examples showed are not extreme. I explained that is because you only consider things you disagree with to be extremist. No matter what I show, if you agree with it you will say it is not extremist.

You are making claims about the current Democrats in Congress. The only two examples you provided in this thread are Cap & Trade and The Affordable Healthcare Act, both of which were introduced and/or passed before the current term. Post one example of an extreme issue introduced by Democrats during the current term or accept that you are full of shit.

According to zsdersw, since you did not create a thread saying I am not extreme, then you must think I am.

Challenge failed. Try using actual logic. Your interpretations of others' points do not apply to me.

 

[cybrsage]

You are making claims about the current Democrats in Congress.

Reid is a freshman? Really?

 

[dank69]

Reid is a freshman? Really?

Are you saying you can't find any evidence that shows Reid hasn't toned down his past extremism?

 

[cybrsage]

Are you saying you can't find any evidence that shows Reid hasn't toned down his past extremism?

I am saying you think Reid is a freshman. I thought the sentence was quite clear on that.

 

[dank69]

I am saying you think Reid is a freshman. I thought the sentence was quite clear on that.

Really? Not a single solitary shred of evidence to support your position that Democrats are hypocrites for asking Republicans to tone down their extremists? I guess that makes your whole thread one big failboat then. Make sure everyone else gets off safe before you abandon ship, Captain.

 

[zsdersw]

I have never claimed the republicans have not done things wrong. In fact, in your one thread about it, I showed things I felt they did wrong.

You've never created a thread about anything wrong they've done... which is what I asked for.

You replied after my post, so you should have read it. Thus, your assumption is not only wrong, but covered in bad logic.

This is what you posted in that thread:

"Congress should not have added the appearence that American Citizens and other US Persons could be held indefinately without use of a Writ of Habeus Corpus. Since the SC already said US Citizens have that right (recently, during the Bush administration), that portion of the law cannot be enforced, so they should have removed it."

There are no threads created by you about this.

Which means you think elephants live on Mars...according to what you claimed earlier. You claimed:

Which means that unless I have created threads saying what you say I must say, I obviously have to believe the opposite. I am simply applying your own stance to you. Don't like it, change your stance.

You're not applying anything correctly.

I started out with an assumption that you don't think Republicans are hyper-partisan or, in essence, partisan to a fault. I made this assumption because you have historically been critical only of Democrats in the threads you create, including this one.

Your evidence to the contrary is an impotent statement about Congress not removing a portion of a law that cannot legally be enforced. That isn't an indictment of Republican hyper-partisanship.

You then come in from left field with elephants not living on Mars. In order for that to be relevant to my assumption about you, either you or I would have had to be making claims in the past that life exists on Mars or that elephants exist on Mars. Since neither you nor I have said anything about Mars one way or another, it is a bad assumption.

 

[cybrsage]

You've never created a thread about anything wrong they've done... which is what I asked for.



This is what you posted in that thread:

"Congress should not have added the appearence that American Citizens and other US Persons could be held indefinately without use of a Writ of Habeus Corpus. Since the SC already said US Citizens have that right (recently, during the Bush administration), that portion of the law cannot be enforced, so they should have removed it."

There are no threads created by you about this.

Of course not, it would have been a duplicate thread. There already was one on the topic, in which I posted.

You are not implying I have to create duplicate threads in order to meet your arbitrary applied standards, are you?



I started out with an assumption that you don't think Republicans are hyper-partisan or, in essence, partisan to a fault. I made this assumption because you have historically been critical only of Democrats in the threads you create, including this one.[/quote]

There are plenty of threads already made which are critical of republicans. No need to create more just to satisfy your strange need to have everyone create a thread.

You then come in from left field with elephants not living on Mars. In order for that to be relevant to my assumption about you, either you or I would have had to be making claims in the past that life exists on Mars or that elephants exist on Mars. Since neither you nor I have said anything about Mars one way or another, it doesn't apply.

No one has made a thread about this for you to post in...and since you have not posted one way or the other on the subject, then you must think there are elephants living on Mars. This is using your own logic.

You claim that since I have never made a thread bashing republicans (even though many such threads made by others exist), you claim that must mean I think they are beyond reproach. The logic you use is the same I am using back...only taking your logic to the point where you can see why it is irrational.


Basically, it boils down to you making a bad assumption based on bad logic and now you feel the need to support it rather than simply admit you were wrong about it. Even though you read a post where I was critical of the republicans...you somehow still think I find them beyond reproach.

 

[cybrsage]

Really? Not a single solitary shred of evidence to support your position that Democrats are hypocrites for asking Republicans to tone down their extremists? I guess that makes your whole thread one big failboat then. Make sure everyone else gets off safe before you abandon ship, Captain.

You think extremism is fine when YOU PERSONALLY agree with it. Fair enough, at least it explains why you think the dems do not need to get rid of their extremism.

Please follow along. You claimed that the extremist examples showed are not extreme. I explained that is because you only consider things you disagree with to be extremist. No matter what I show, if you agree with it you will say it is not extremist.

 

[dank69]

You think extremism is fine when YOU PERSONALLY agree with it. Fair enough, at least it explains why you think the dems do not need to get rid of their extremism.

Please follow along. You claimed that the extremist examples showed are not extreme. I explained that is because you only consider things you disagree with to be extremist. No matter what I show, if you agree with it you will say it is not extremist.

Parrot says what? Current example please. Put up or shut up.

 

[zsdersw]

Of course not, it would have been a duplicate thread. There already was one on the topic, in which I posted.

Is that the only wrong thing they've done?

EDIT: A search of P&N for threads containing "habeus corpus" and posts by you generates 3 hits; my "I dare you" thread, this thread, and one other.. in which you don't mention Republicans at all.

You are not implying I have to create duplicate threads in order to meet your arbitrary applied standards, are you?

No, but you should create threads about bad things they have done. They don't always get new threads in here.

There are plenty of threads already made which are critical of republicans. No need to create more just to satisfy your strange need to have everyone create a thread.

Many threads critical of Republicans, many undeservedly so. Most of it is the usual partisan drivel because it comes from Democrats or Democratic supporters.

It is not unreasonable to ask for a Republican or Republican supporter to start a thread in which they're correctly critical of something wrong committed by Republicans.

No one has made a thread about this for you to post in...and since you have not posted one way or the other on the subject, then you must think there are elephants living on Mars. This is using your own logic.

You claim that since I have never made a thread bashing republicans (even though many such threads made by others exist), you claim that must mean I think they are beyond reproach. The logic you use is the same I am using back...only taking your logic to the point where you can see why it is irrational.

Many of the threads that bash Republicans do so undeservedly and are started by Democrats or Democratic supporters... and are not reliable evidence to support your statement.

Basically, it boils down to you making a bad assumption based on bad logic and now you feel the need to support it rather than simply admit you were wrong about it. Even though you read a post where I was critical of the republicans...you somehow still think I find them beyond reproach.

I wasn't wrong. Your criticism of Republicans has been soft-spoken and sparse, at best. That means you're either a partisan shill or think they're doing the right things almost all the time.

You appear to be up-to-date in your news, creating threads critical of the latest Democratic mistake or wrong-doing... yet you've never been first to create a thread critical of the latest Republican mistake or wrong-doing. Why is that?

 

[cybrsage]

Parrot says what? Current example please. Put up or shut up.

You think extremism is fine when YOU PERSONALLY agree with it. Fair enough, at least it explains why you think the dems do not need to get rid of their extremism.

Please follow along. You claimed that the extremist examples showed are not extreme. I explained that is because you only consider things you disagree with to be extremist. No matter what I show, if you agree with it you will say it is not extremist.

 

[cybrsage]

Is that the only wrong thing they've done?

If you want a thread about it, make one. This thread is about Reid demanding the reps do something he is not willing to do in his own party.

 

[dank69]

You think extremism is fine when YOU PERSONALLY agree with it. Fair enough, at least it explains why you think the dems do not need to get rid of their extremism.

Please follow along. You claimed that the extremist examples showed are not extreme. I explained that is because you only consider things you disagree with to be extremist. No matter what I show, if you agree with it you will say it is not extremist.

Keep up the broken record routine since you can't provide a current example.

 

[cybrsage]

Keep up the broken record routine since you can't provide a current example.

You keep forgetting that every example I have shown you, you simply say "I agree with what they did, so it is not extreme". No need to keep showing you things, as you will simply repeat your past performance.

 

[dank69]

You keep forgetting that every example I have shown you, you simply say "I agree with what they did, so it is not extreme". No need to keep showing you things, as you will simply repeat your past performance.

You keep forgetting that every example (all 2 of them) are from previous terms. We can keep doing this all day until you post a relevant example of the current Congress acting extreme, which you can't do.

 

[cybrsage]

You keep forgetting that every example (all 2 of them) are from previous terms. We can keep doing this all day until you post a relevant example of the current Congress acting extreme, which you can't do.

Why do you think Harry Reid is a freshman?

 

[dank69]

Why do you think Harry Reid is a freshman?

Wow! Five and a half hours and you still can't find a single example to support your claim? Sad. So sad.

 

[wirelessenabled]

If it was so bad then why not vote on it? This is what we need to focus on, Reid's extreme obstructionism and his do nothing senate.

You need to keep in mind how the Founders set up our Constitution and our Government.

The House or the Senate starts a bill, negotiates the differences, and then passes the bill. The other part of Congress decides if they agree with the bill. If not, then that part of Congress proposes changes. If agreed on in negotiation then a compromise bill is put forward in both parts of Congress. If passed by both, then the bill goes to the President. If the President agrees with the bill and signs it, the bill becomes law.

There is nothing in the Constitution requiring the Senate to look at, vote on, or pass anything proposed by the House. Vice versa is also true. No reason needs to be given.

Maybe someone should be looking at voting on some of the judgeship appointees as there is a serious shortage of them, from district judges to Appeals Court judges.

 

[zsdersw]

If you want a thread about it, make one. This thread is about Reid demanding the reps do something he is not willing to do in his own party.

I've made plenty of threads critical of Republicans. You haven't made one.