So did you just not vote for president in 1996 and 2000 or did you vote for the 3rd party candidates?
And, yet again we are here. You argue that I am changing points and positions without providing any legitimate points to back up your statement. I guess if you can't defeat the argument, just try to impeach the messenger, huh? LOL
LMAO! Andy, I don't know how to break this to you, but keep in mind I type this after reading many, many of your posts. Your strident, self-righteous stance will most likely convert zero people here to your point of view. That leaves you with only the possibility of having a pep rally with people who feel exactly the same way you do. ... But in fact, it could be worse than that. I typically have similar views, but your tone may actually move some further from the liberal point of view. This is an argument I have tried to have with many of my pals in SF, but they are too convinced that everyone else is stupid. This smells strongly of the sort of elitism it pretends to attack (see wonderfully portrayed college student character in the film "Daytrippers" who admits that he ultimately wants an aristocracy instead of democracy). Bottom line: do you want to make a difference, to dialogue? or do you want to pat yerself on the back?
i'm just saying i'm not interested in engaging you in debate at all, quite frankly...i'll use Major's words from the abortion thread to tell you why: "Your arguments wobble in circles and have no logical center. You hop from argument to argument whenever someone points out an inconsistency. You have a bad habit of arguing a point, then when someone refutes it, pointing out that it doesn't matter anyway." we went round and round with this before...it's completely a waste of time...you define the argument one way and then redefine all your definitions when challenged. it's elusive, to be sure. you should have been a lawyer.
Don't start this again. Don't you remember the timeline that you admitted you were wrong in? I applaud you for doing that, but don't start saying that others don't have points or facts...again.
Thank you for your assessment. I guess it is pretty frustrating for me to listen to the types of attacks leveled by some of the people here and not say anything about it. Can you give me a couple of examples of the "tone" you are talking about along with a way to say it in a more constructive way? (email it to me if you don't want to discuss this in-thread)
never!!! i was just thinking off the cuff and trying to get a quick response so i could get back to work...
So, what YOU want to argue is a narrow, defined set of "facts" without taking into consideration anything else. That is fine, but I prefer to look at as many angles and viewpoints as possible before forming an opinion. This guarantees that once I have formed an opinion, it is an educated, deliberate choice. When I argue my opinion, I use every argument I can think of to show my side as fully as I can and I use every fact at my disposal to prove my points. I CAN see how Major would say that in the abortion thread as I was being barraged by 3 or 4 posters, each with a different point, and each of which I tried to answer. I was going to be a lawyer, but I know now that I am much happier as a geek.
i don't want to merely argue narrow points...you're doing it again! when you say variable x is important...and argue that variable x is a certain way...and then when others refute it, you say, "well variable x never mattered in the first place because xyz," that is not conducive to discussion. there's no sense to continuing it. that's it. my opinions on a lot of topics have been influenced by people i previously disagreed with on the very same subject. my view on the death penalty has done a 180 entirely. i do take into consideration the arguments of others...but if the argument is bait and switch, then it's useless. i don't learn anything from that. it's like talking to a wall or a dog chasing his tail.
andymoon, Thanks for taking my post constructively. Here's a clear example of the sort of tone that I believe is completely counterproductive: That just says "I don't respect you, dimwit," and even if that's how you feel, I don't see the good in airing it out. It's not the curse word at all, but it's telling someone that you know more about their poor little mind than they do. Moreover, if you believe that completely, I think you should step back and reassess it a bit. I don't think we ever really understand completely why someone else believes the things they do, even for Down's Syndrome patients. Please note that I don't really want to single you out, and I think there are plenty of examples from both "sides" (sic) of the aisle here to point out bad behavior. I for one admit to making some really counterproductive, hypocritical posts in my time.
So andymoon, I'm wondering, what do you believe in, and what do you base those beliefs upon, i.e. what is your logical bedrock for arguing, is it simply pure reason, or do you believe in something higher? You seem to complain about your idea of REpublicans and Republican leadership yet I haven't heard you take a stance for something...maybe because I don't post so often or maybe because you haven't made a post stating what it is you believe, so if you could please just help me out there maybe the whole discussion would be able to take a beneficial logical step forward from he said she said crap.
You wanna know why I so angry!! ERGHHHH!!! *smashing desk* No but seriously, take my wife, no really take her she's yours Ok I don't have a wife. I think there is an illusion out there that only liberals care passionately about things. I don't think thats true. I think liberals, by their nature, are just more outspoken about things. But I went to a private Catholic college full of white middle class geeks, and we were all very distressed with the way things are going in this country, the so called progressive spirit... I mean seriously, what are we trying to progress to, some HEgelian point in history where man's reason is going to culminate? It ain't gonna happen. REad Thucydides, read T.S. Eliot, the human condition has always been the human condition. It is not progress we seek but a return, a return to truth and to love. Thats what I get fired up about.
No, I just said that you believe much of what the leadership tells you about their motivation. I also said that I believe that their actions belie their claims as to this motivation. I have just looked at the policies and because of them, believe that liberals are, in general, more compassionate towards the less fortunate. This is not to say anything at all about you as you have already established that you are compassionate (volunteer work, etc.) In general, I think liberals throw money at problems WAY WAY too much. Usually, the "right" path would be somewhere between the Rep and Dem proposals, but both sides are so entrenched that this doesn't seem possible. If you interpreted my comments as insulting to you, I apologize deeply as this was not my intent. If I WERE to insult ANYONE it would be the leadership of BOTH the Dems and the Reps.
Can you show me what you are talking about in THIS thread? I remember a similar incident in the Roe thread, but I just read this one all the way through and don't see anything that could be remotely interpreted as the "variable x" example you used.
You can see much of what I believe at my website, specifically the political area. www.andymoon.com/middleparty I am of the opinion that we need a political party that represents the middle of the political spectrum, which is where I think most people really are. I think that if we stopped listening exclusively to the privileged few on the left and right and made some reasonable compromises, we would have a much better system.
Wow, you got all that from that one sentance? For the record, I do NOT think Ms. Valdez is a dimwit, I'm sure that she is as smart or smarter than me, and I am also aware that she knows more about her mind than I do. That statement was me venting about the crap that the leaders of both sides try to force feed down our throats and had nothing at all to do with Ms. Valdez.
Is this your idea of an apology? Why are you telling me what I believe about what "the leadership" tells me? What do you know about my beliefs? What do you know about my motivations? What do you know about where I get my information? Do you know what news sources I follow? Do you know which people in "the leadership" I converse with? Do you know my opinions of them? Do you really think people must be either stupid or gullibale in order to have a different viewpoint than you do? All of these are rheotrical questions. You are welcome to respond but if you want to make an apology for insulting my intelligence try this, "I'm sorry." Just that. Nothing else. PLEASE. Not, "I'm sorry to imply you are a dimwit, I just mean you don't know what's going on."
