I have no problem giving and taking. But when someone present a conspiracy theory claiming that the US govt murdered its own people, I'm going to call them an idiot or fool. When SLC comes here with his holier than thou attitude and calls me a liar and offers no other form of response to the question, I'll call a spade a spade. Basically if you're argument is something found in the World Weekly News, I'm gonna call bullshit.
You don't? Look back at the exchange in this thread. Certainly seems like you have some problems....and when your "evidence" was ultimately shredded (and not from the Weekly World News)...what happened? Certainly not what any reasonable person would term "discussion".
You're not calling a "spade" a "spade". You're saying if you disagree with me, you're a idiot or a fool. And by doing so, you pretty much eliminate any chance for real discussion. Because your news comes from Fox, and someone else's comes from someplace else, they're instantly wrong, and idiot, a conspiracy theorist, etc. That's precisely what I said. If you want to call bullshit on someone, perhaps it's time to look in the mirror.
You have a long history of pretend objectionism on this forum.
The word you're looking for is objectivity.
Pretend? Pretend because I disagree with you, largely, on the social issues, you mean. I'm a registered independent. Socially liberal, Fiscally conservative. Never claimed to be anything but (But don't think I didn't notice the sly attempt at an ad hominem attack, rather than addessing the points of the post). NOT objective, independant. I think we've covered the difference before...if not with you, personally, at least in a myriad of threads in the past.
But lets face it...you couldn't determine Objectivity if it bit you on the ass, anyway. You're so far from objective (which isn't the problem), and so far from being capable of reasonable discussion (which IS the problem), as SLC said earlier, it's pointless to engage you. It's not "wimping out" when people fail to respond....it's being tired of banging our heads into the same wall over and over again. You post, someone responds, and suddenly it decends into madness. You tend to drag it there. You did it as Flagg...you're doing it agan. You want to complain about "off topic"? How about you stay on topic, dispense the ad hominem attacks, the baiting, the sarcastic crap, the antagonizing, and the hostility...and simply talk about the topic? When presented with credible, competent responses, with legitemate facts, how about providing more than just your opinion to refute it? In other words...engage in the civil give and take I mentioned originally.
If that past week hasn't shown you anything, it's that SLC isn't the nice, intellectual forum goer some would like to believe. I never claimed SLC or anyone else had to have others post for them with regard to replies to actualt topics. I simply stated the obvious, their is a group of followes here who repeat the exact same crap verbatim and are willing to make blatant lies and false accusations to take a topic off course.
I don't think SLC has ever claimed to be nice. We've had discussions, before, when I think he's gone a bit too far (but I take them to PM....another good suggestion for keeping threads on topic). But he is smart. I don't care HOW deeply you disagree with him, you have to give him that
You accused SLC's "minions" of accusing you of things, falsely. Sounds pretty similar to me.
As opposed to you repeating the exact same crap in every post, making false statments (knowingly or not), and telling blantant lies (depending on ones perspective)? You villianize people for something you do , constantly, simply because they think, and believe, differently than you do. Pot. Kettle. Black..
Other than that, there is no reason for me to coninue in this who did what shit. It's obvious how I and others feel regarding each other's behavior. I'll probably reply to your retort, but I love how another topic that goes against what the liberal leader believes has gotten sidetracked.
The topic got side tracked, originally, with these words:
"How many times do you need to be told that your loosely correlated and poorly proven evidence does not count as fact?"
"I've always been honest. Some people can't make that same claim (at least while being honest)."
and finally, your attempt to bait SLC:
"You never did respond. Can't say I'm suprised."
Notice, up until that last one...up unti YOU decided to ASK him to basically smack you down....it had pretty much stayed on topic.
But you couldn't...or rather your ego couldn't...just let it go.
So..here's my suggestion: If you want the thread to go BACK on topic...let it go. Get back to discussing the topic.
Author