DEBT: Republicans Versus Democrats - Page 2

Originally Posted by NoahJ

The Democrats have nothing like them? I wish that were true. And noit because they are some kind of evil group. Because then there would be some sort of choice between the 2 parties other than mostly rhetoric.

Originally Posted by jimmac

Uh no. The Democrats have their own brand of mistakes. Nothing even remotely like the Neocons who basically seem to want to control everything.

However this goes back to the idea of a two party system ( which I believe in whole heartedly ). You can't have one viewpoint in power too long. That would be like a monopoly of one part of the country controlling the other. I've stated this before. What you're seeing now is moods in the country that will inevitably swing in the other direction do so in more of an extreme. This will pass also but not quickly. The Republicans didn't have a short time at bat last time.

But I can see how someone wishing for a third party might perceive things differently.

Originally Posted by NoahJ

There is no two party system. It is a government that is elected by the people. There just happens to be 2 major parties dominating the political scene. I am not looking for a third party. I am looking for something more than that. I am looking for people to elect a representative based on what they actually believe, not what party they are affiliated with.

There is no two party system

I am looking for people to elect a representative based on what they actually believe, not what party they are affiliated with

Originally Posted by jimmac

What's the truth about something that's been going on for 40 years?

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

That it's been going on for far too long?

Originally Posted by jimmac

God! I want to go with who ever you're voting for! Who is it the " Razz " party?

Yeah they seem to have all the answers!

Originally Posted by NoahJ

Aren't you a founding member?

(Sorry, I tried but just could not resist! )

Originally Posted by jimmac

Well judging from your last post I'd say you were there before me!

Originally Posted by NoahJ

You caught me. My one post gave me away. We can just ignore all of your previous posts and move on.

Hope you have a great New Year with new snappy comebacks.

We can just ignore all of your previous posts and move on

Originally Posted by jimmac

You would anyway!

Happy New Year!

Originally Posted by NoahJ

Nope, I have ignored none of your posts. I have asked you what you really meant on many occasions and have tired very hard to understand your viewpoint. I only ask the same courtesy from you. I did not think it was too much, but I cannot make you. Nor will I try.

Hope your Christmas was filled with family and fun.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Good...don't try. You're wasting your time. He rarely states a clear viewpoint. When asked to clarify his position, he accuses his opponent of "playing dumb." He deflects, insults and posts smilies. It's very difficult to discuss anything with him.

Originally Posted by jimmac

Still peddling this crap? It's just that when I know someone is full of crap in their arguments I don't mind saying so.

Noah is a far more mature, reasonable, opponent in debate than you'll ever be.

There! You have a stated viewpoint.

Originally Posted by jimmac

It's just that when I know someone is full of crap in their arguments I don't mind saying so.

Originally Posted by Frank777

But you never say WHY the argument is wrong.
On the rare occasion that you bother to make an actual argument yourself, it's lacking in fact, full of holes and easily dismissed.

Insults and anger at the other side are all you have.
You have no business criticizing anyone on this board for crappy arguments.

But you never say WHY the argument is wrong.

Originally Posted by jimmac

Pssst! Frank! Look on the other thread I'm talking to SDW about this very subject!

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...=104515&page=6

Maybe you can help SDW in his quest to disqualify the Support I supplied for my arguments ( 2 years ago ).

That's the thing about you Frank you always talk about what I'm doing without looking and this time it's extra funny!

Ps. And before you start this is hardly an isolated case.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

You provided a link to a website that is clearly not objective, much less "proof" of you supporting your arguments. Even if said website was objective, you linking to it a handful of times (if that) over a period of years doesn't lend much credence to you "supporting" your arguments.

Originally Posted by jimmac

Perhaps you could tell us " how " it's not objective? Also how that relates to the facts listed there?

You forgot those parts if you want to make this a counter argument.

Also this is just one example I've chosen. Do you want more from the past because I can easily find it?

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Yes. I do.

Originally Posted by jimmac

Ok But you'll have to wait until I get home from work and assuming I can use the computer instead of my wife or daughters.

However off the cuff I could say look at the Climate debate page. There's plenty of links to support my argument that I looked up there.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Tell you what...in the interest of time: Just give me three examples of separate topics/arguments where you have supported your argument with logic, reason and most importantly, data.

Originally Posted by jimmac

You know I can do that however I did give you a place you can look and I think instead of attempting to put me on guard we should finish the issue at hand first.

Feel free to remind me later.

Now SDW in order to refute this you must question the facts on the website not the website itself because it doesn't make a direct statement ( editotrial ) about what's listed. You have to go after the facts.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Let's keep history commons to the other thread. Also, you said you would provide evidence of your supporting claims. Now you say "you know I can do that." No, I don't. I don't know that at all. It is my contention that you don't. When you do provide links, they are often to sites that are not impartial or to flat-out opinion pieces.

Let's keep history commons to the other thread. Also, you said you would provide evidence of your supporting claims.

Now you say "you know I can do that." No, I don't. I don't know that at all.

are not impartial or to flat-out opinion pieces.

Originally Posted by jimmac

Why should we since that's where it came from. I know what you're trying to do. Deflecting from the original question won't work.

Ok But you'll have to wait until I get home from work and assuming I can use the computer instead of my wife or daughters.

What about the climategate thread? Or is your memory really that short?

No I think we should answer this fundimental question ( which a gave supporting evidence for by the way ) first.

Do you mean CNN, MSNBC that sort of thing?

Originally Posted by SDW2001

You are unbelievable. This is what you posted:



So now you're unwilling. Once again, please demonstrate how you support arguments. "Look at the climate debate page" is not a reference or example, jimmac.



See above.



WHAT QUESTION? You didn't ask a question.




How can you roll your eyes when you yourself link to those sources? You don't provide data. For example, let's a I claim that federal revenue nearly doubled from 1980 to 1989. I would then post that data and show the source. That is the kind of thing you don't do. When you do post data, it's out of context. An example is when you posted all of the states' unemployment rates back in 2003 or 2004. You then said..."see! I told you things weren't as good as they should be!"---or something to that effect. This is the difference between how you and I argue a point .

How can you roll your eyes when you yourself link to those sources? You don't provide data.

I would then post that data and show the source. That is the kind of thing you don't do

Look at the climate debate page" is not a reference or example,

When you do post data, it's out of context. An example is when you posted all of the states' unemployment rates back in 2003 or 2004.

Originally Posted by jimmac

You know I don't link to just editorials. I link to polls and other items. You know the same things you do ( Except I don't use some obscure republican opinioon piece ). And no History Commons is facts not an editorial. What you're saying is bording on lying.

Like this :

Whjat do you think my link to the History Comkons was. I just didn't have to do the research myself. And you claim could be as padded as you're claiming them to be!

God! There really is no reasoning with you!

So you're willing to shoot your mouth off about it but are unwuilling to look for yourself. And this is really at the heart of things SDW. I stopped linking for you because you'd just ignore it if you didn't like what it said.

What I was pointing out was that things weren't as rosy as they were in your state at the time.

Really what did you do look back and find you'd have a difficult time with claims?

Originally Posted by SDW2001

That's your argument. "You know I do!" Pardon me, but you sound like my 6 year old daughter sometimes. As for opinion pieces, the ones I link to are labeled as such...if I link to them at all.



If you linked to specific claim on that site, it might be different. Instead, you post a link to the homepage or to a timeline and say..."see! I told you Bush's advisor's told him there were no WMD!" That fact that you cannot see the problem with this argument is amazing. It's not a balanced site. The timeline is cherry-picked and not comprehensive.



No reasonable person would agree that you have "proved" something by telling someone to "look at the _________ thread." That's just absurd.



No, that's not what your claim was. Not at all. You used it to support your assertion that "things are better but not as good as they should be."




That doesn't even make sense.

but you sound like my 6 year old daughter sometimes

Originally Posted by jimmac

I've tried to stay away from how immature you sound.

To be honest SDW you're not worth debating with as you don't use logic. You don't listen to what anyne else says. You just make up lame excuses for you to seem right.

That's it in a nutshell.

Originally Posted by Frank777

That's the lamest backpedalling effort I've ever seen at AI.
You said you could easily answer his request for just three examples "when you got back home" to your computer.

It's been two days.

Originally Posted by jimmac

Ok But you'll have to wait until I get home from work and assuming I can use the computer instead of my wife or daughters.

However off the cuff I could say look at the Climate debate page. There's plenty of links to support my argument that I looked up there.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Tell you what...in the interest of time: Just give me three examples of separate topics/arguments where you have supported your argument with logic, reason and most importantly, data.

Originally Posted by jimmac

You know I can do that however I did give you a place you can look and I think instead of attempting to put me on guard we should finish the issue at hand first.

Feel free to remind me later.

Now SDW in order to refute this you must question the facts on the website not the website itself because it doesn't make a direct statement ( editotrial ) about what's listed. You have to go after the facts.

Originally Posted by NoahJ

what is your word worth on this forum?

Originally Posted by Talon8472

I dunno if you've read my conversations with jimmac, but I've already established that it is pretty much worth nothing some months ago and I'm sure others around here have already established that way before I came and did so myself.

Originally Posted by NoahJ

I am gong to have to agree with Frank777 Jimmac, in case you forgot here are your own words below...







So, he has reminded you and asked you. You agreed, what is your word worth on this forum?

Have fun storming the castle

Originally Posted by jimmac

I thought you were going back off and let this be a SDW/jimmac thing ( )?



Anyway and I think I speak for several here SDW is famous for obfuscation and subterfuge ( and if you don't believe me look back through the forums in the past many have noted this when you back him into a corner he calls you a name and disappears ). So I ask him a question and he turns around before answering mine and wants me to meet his criteria? I'll answer him as soon as he answers in a clear fashion about the facts ( not that they left a few facts out because I asked if there were large gaps indicating bias ) on that website ( which I feel he'll never do but hope springs eternal ) and not dodge the issue.
Or the issue of if the facts are in error. If not they stand and there's a lot of them.

But I'll meet his criteria afterwards as I've linked to many places for support of my claims many times however I'm prepared to hear that I didn't really because linking to experts with data in the same articles isn't enough or that it's part of the " Criminal liberal media " and I should go to some more acceptable source ( not CNN, MSNBC, ABC or some other nationally recognized site ) some place that says he wants to hear.

If all of that kind of distraction doesn't work then he'll start to correct your spelling!

However this is a conversation that has gone on for better part of a decade. I doubt that you getting involved here will make much of a difference.

I think I'll sleep fine about my word but I don't think I should allow SDW to distract from the issue by trying to turn the focus on me before addressing what I've asked.

And agreeing with Frank777 is ok with me. He's almost never right when he does his drive by ( never looking at what's going on ) jabs.

Plus what the hell has this has got to do with DEBT and the Republicans vs the Democrats? He's derailed yet another thread that might be uncomfortable for his world view.

Originally Posted by jimmac

I would like that also. But I am a big believer in the two party system. It works the same way most things work in life. It has two sides keeping one viewpoint in the country from taking over. Both are good for the country. It just got way off track for awhile. I believe you'll see a comeback.

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

How is a choice of two brands of defective parts good for anyone? I'd look into switching suppliers.

Originally Posted by jimmac

I've tried to stay away from how immature you sound.

To be honest SDW you're not worth debating with as you don't use logic. You don't listen to what anyne else says. You just make up lame excuses for you to seem right.

That's it in a nutshell.

Originally Posted by jimmac

I thought you were going back off and let this be a SDW/jimmac thing ( )?



Anyway and I think I speak for several here SDW is famous for obfuscation and subterfuge ( and if you don't believe me look back through the forums in the past many have noted this when you back him into a corner he calls you a name and disappears ).

So I ask him a question and he turns around before answering mine and wants me to meet his criteria? I'll answer him as soon as he answers in a clear fashion about the facts ( not that they left a few facts out because I asked if there were large gaps indicating bias ) on that website ( which I feel he'll never do but hope springs eternal ) and not dodge the issue.
Or the issue of if the facts are in error. If not they stand and there's a lot of them.

But I'll meet his criteria afterwards as I've linked to many places for support of my claims many times however I'm prepared to hear that I didn't really because linking to experts with data in the same articles isn't enough or that it's part of the " Criminal liberal media " and I should go to some more acceptable source ( not CNN, MSNBC, ABC or some other nationally recognized site ) some place that says he wants to hear.

If all of that kind of distraction doesn't work then he'll start to correct your spelling!

However this is a conversation that has gone on for better part of a decade. I doubt that you getting involved here will make much of a difference.

I think I'll sleep fine about my word but I don't think I should allow SDW to distract from the issue by trying to turn the focus on me before addressing what I've asked.

And agreeing with Frank777 is ok with me. He's almost never right when he does his drive by ( never looking at what's going on ) jabs.

Plus what the hell has this has got to do with DEBT and the Republicans vs the Democrats? He's derailed yet another thread that might be uncomfortable for his world view.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Actually, that's what I was saying...you don't sound like an adult.



There it is. Your arguments and assertions stand on their own. No one may question them, or you will take your marbles and run away. At least, you saw you will. But then you're back.




First, you speak for no one but yourself. Secondly, you have never once been "backed me into a corner." Third...I don't answer to you or anyone else as to when I post. I have this thing called a life. Sometimes it gets in the way of me posting on AI. Imagine that.



At this point I've lost track of what question you even mean. It's not hard to do with your rambling posts. You've asked two recently, both of which I've responded to:

1. If the site [historycommons] is factual, what's wrong with it? ---I've answered this in-depth several times. I've even cited specific examples from the site's timelines.

2. What facts are left out? As I've indicated, this is impossible to answer completely. There is no way one can provide a comprehensive list of what's NOT there. That said, I did offer a few examples. One of these was that there was nothing in the Iraq War timeline about Bush being told about WMD by George Tenet.

It also occurs to me that anyone who would ask question #2 must believe that History Commons' timelines are all-inclusive and without omission. That is, they include EVERY event leading up to the subject of the timeline itself. Is that your position?



Go ahead. We're waiting.



No, I'll correct horrendous misuse of the English language.



I've answered you at least three times. You'll ignore it, though.



There it is again. "X is never right! Don't listen to him!"

Originally Posted by jimmac

As someone here would say " Thanks for your opinion ".

Originally Posted by Talon8472

@ NoahJ



Here we can see how much jimmac's words are worth - it is summed up by this response right here. Dismiss a point by point response without saying anything of value because he can't.