|
||||
07-14-2009, 07:47 AM
To much to quote right know..so I'll answer by paragraph and in order.
QueenNanami, did you answer the question that was posted at you? Yes, I treat what you have said as WRONG. Point being calling this the real world? Who here sees things differently? Also do not those who do such an thing GET branded? Feeling sympathy for others is an part of being human and on that you have an contradiction. You say won't fight battles for other people, but will defend your family and friends. That said this is not about her personal life but people who have unjustly and unfairly went after her. This relates to the above in that it is an contradiction. If you say you won't fight battles for others then you must also say you won't do it for other women. Point is there are SAYING things about her because SHE is an women! Tell me one man that would get the same treatment. "Just as you wouldn't do for Obama. The way you talk about him you can tell you dislike him. Im not going to call you out on it and tell you something that isnt true. Im not going to shove words in your mouth." Those are your words. Contrast that to what you are saying now. NOT an excused, to call yourself lazy. Are we playing word games now? Petty. Look up both dif. and tell me that I couldn't use the word in the context of the sentence and have someone not know what I'm talking about. No I did not. You never said what she says you only made the generalizing that she makes women into "jokes". That also stands true for "women who can handle herself". Now these two are in conflict with each other because only one can be true. What you are looking for is that she is not an good public speaker, not an generalized wording. Symantics, Saying she makes women look like an joke is also saying she is an joke of an women, because you know she is an woman! Your point, I don't get, for the very reason that other politicians usually don't give strait answers. What? You seriously put an drug addicted person above the value of an child. You don't get it. It's not about the mothers right but the child! Short answer yes. Long answer it's not just your life and how are to put the blame on an child for the reason of it's existence? That said I would want it to be illegal to abort the child, not force you that is an huge difference. Point also to add you don't have to raise the child. Care to challenge it? Think more of why I said that. Do you need the definition of an joke? Seriously calling someone an joke implies that they are not worthy to be considered, what more do you use the word for? No I'm not trying to get you to say anything, I just point out. we agree on this point, so no further comment is needed. Look are you going to answer the question or beat around the bush? Serology? again how does that even constitute an answer? Barone1551 , Works both ways. Also read my post, I said you would "reserve the right of people". Danger to society point still stands. So you say shes game, right? Regardless of that legally she is an child, psychological is still an child (unless you provide evidence contrary). SO I would be correct in calling her an child. It's not about what you would do. Would you say stealing is wrong, would you say lying is wrong, and would you say murder is wrong? there is an connection between those. No, because there is an general consent about this. AND on that, you want to attack someone you better expect to be challenged on it. Hence what is happening here. Don't have the time is not an excuse. Telling me to go look it up is NOT an excuse. Hearsay is no an excuse. Even looking at the title of that made me cringe. After reading WoW, what an lie ( I had to say it, the bias was clawing at my eyes). Can I ask you how many times that he referred to "right wing bloggers"? I seriously laughed when I read "authoritarian right". I point this to you, if Sarah Palin base is conservatives why does the author continually make the mark that this is an conspiracy by the right? When this is about comments made by Lettermen? It also tries to say "right-wing" bloggers blatantly told an lie that it was about Willow. Here's the problem Willow was the one at the game. Indeed interesting, But I ask you how much stock do you place in such writing? In seriousness I was taken back by the tone of the article. Tsuwabuki, Ok after coming back and reading some things again I noticed that in the first posting I completely misread the bush part. My huge fault and sorry for that. What are you trying to say with that first comment? Ok, where can you provide that I question your loyalty? Good goal on calling me Neoconservative, shall we continue with the labeling? Thinking that it WAS an simple question to be answered. So I never made that claim. I gave reasoning being that the CIA Memos does offer evidence of polices by the BUSH administration, that lead one to believe he did protect the country. It is no way an respect issue to which you want to make it into. One gives credit when there is evidence do they not? Not an issue about what the national community thinks about us. This is about wither the CIA Memos give Bush credit that his polices protected the country. (Bradbury May 10, Bradbury May 10 long, Bradbury May 30, and byee). In context of what I posted No, because one can read one can come to the conclusion. Evidence being the topic here, wither you believe it was right worked we had threats they where stopped. Like the wording there. Nothing more needs to be taken when in was in context of the CIA Memos. Point being in pointing that out? The memos also refer to policies put in place by the Bush administration. I'll keep my comment short as I addressed that in the above. One does not need knowledge of said subject to read of results. can't comment anymore. Life story again. Self serving also. Statement is in response to the posting of ones accomplishments to support ones argument. I'm not arguing against your life. Your life also does not validate what you can freely say. Depending on your point of view that is argumentative. Same as with Bush. Maybe what I'm trying to say is both had goal's and did not care about popularity contest. Maybe both had there faults but got down and dirty on there goals. Really, when I made these types of statements throughout this thread? How can I say he was worst when Bush had an MUCH lower approval rating when he left office! (around the 20s). Like the wording here too. Completely missed the point. You did say failure in the one I quoted above that. That though was not what I was aiming at. I wanted you to look at what you said about Carter and apply it to Bush. Obama does continue a lot of his policies does he not? 9.5 percent unemployment. Did he not say it would not go about 8.0 percent? Joe is on record as saying they misread how bad the economy is. When did I say there are equal? I said that they still are negatives that is all. Stimulus spending finally starts to trickle down - USATODAY.com Labor Leaders Push Obama for Second Stimulus Package - Political Punch On Health Care, Obama Has Stern Words For Critics - ABC News Read these. Articles of Impeachment Andrew Johnson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Historical rankings of United States Presidents - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia You said MOST. Arguably I don't think you can discount Nixon. This is about Bush, in any way I don't not think Sarah Palin name is Bush. Ayers And Obama: What Is Their Relationship? Read that about Ayers. Point being that if your going to do the same for the right do the same for the left. WoW, did not think you would do something like that. Way to bash the protestants (that really doesn't belong here for it is incredibly off topic and will spiral in something that will go against the rules of this site). Really OFFER EVIDENCE to support that line of thinking. That said I do believe you should replace the wording "far right" with REPUBLICANS in general. I really don't like the Republicans right now. Special Report: Ideologically, Where Is the U.S. Moving? Yeah keep calling her radical right, that really works without proof. McCain was an moderate and a pretender the reason why he lost. QueenNanami, Really again? FactCheck.org: Did Sarah Palin make rape victims pay for their own rape kits? You really can't say either way, and no if you did look it up you would know about this. I do hope I got everything that was posted while I was gone. I ask if I messed anything point it out. (Note My grammar and spelling may still not be up to task, so forgive me on that part). 31 Whether therefore ye eat or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. 32 Give none offense, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God. 33 Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved. |
|
||||
07-14-2009, 08:22 AM
Some other perspectives: Sarah Palin's Constitutional Train Wreck:
Shannyn Moore: Sarah Palin's Constitutional Train Wreck In-the-know Repubs want her to disappear: Republican pundits open fire on Sarah Palin - Los Angeles Times |
|
||||
07-14-2009, 11:03 AM
If you plan on having me understand what you are referring to, you really needed to quote. It's been days at least, if not a week, and I do have a daily life. I can't keep track of the conversation without quotes. I'd have to go back and construct one based on your ordering of sentences, which would take a lot of time I just don't want to spend on a forum.
I will say that your accusations of that I lack the ability to reason, argue, provide justification, or how I need to handle what constitutes evidence is just silly. Quite the opposite, I broke down your logic and showed where you had said something nonsensical. I'm a philosopher. We deal in arguments and counter arguments regularly. Now, if you're interested in continuing the discourse, I suggest you quote me, structure your responses to my quotes, so I can continue. Otherwise, I will guess you aren't serious, and I'll go back to having completely forgotten about this. |
|
||||
07-15-2009, 12:53 AM
MMM,
It's no surprise that the Republican party is back biting and attacking each other. One of the very reasons why I considering going independent. What do you think of Shannyn and her reporting? I wouldn't deny what she posts without first looking up the information and doing it myself. I would warn people she has and axe to grind against Sarah. Shannyn Moore: Sarah Palin’s Not-So-Grand Inquisitor | Verum Serum Interesting blog, but take what you want from it. Quote:
When did I accuse you of having no ability to reason, argue, or provide justification? Even then I would also throw that phrase "how I handle what constitutes evidence" in that lot. That's a big swallow and I ask that you quote as what sentences, phrases, or paragraphs that lead you to believe I made those assumptions. I'm at a lost as to why, and would like to know how you came to those. This whole "logic" answer doesn't satisfy. I addressed what you have said about the post, either you respond to what I have said or acknowledge what I have said has merit. This whole "I'm an philosopher" does not in no way constitute an answer to my arguments. In respect to this debate in what way does pointing that out merit you to have more credibility over me? I'll go an little bit further and ask why do yo keep pointing these "accomplishments" out, what do you gain to benefit? I'm sorry, but in what why do you account for special treatment? I did that for EVERYONE that posted after me last time. I'm not going to keep double posting so that I can treat you above others. I really seriously doubt that you cannot tell which response is to what. Writing that I'm not "serious" is not an excuse to quite this debate, even then saying that so that I would account for your "special" requests. I'll ask this in what why do I treat yo above others, in the process break (minor) site rules continually in this thread? I'm not going to appease you. "Daily life" is an incredibly poor excuse. Why you ask, well did you take time out to put in some response to what has been posted, yes you did. You can also put time in to respond to others. In essence don't expect others to treat your "time" above theirs. That said if you cannot keep track without quotes that is your problem not mine. You spent time to post you surely can spend time to respond. 31 Whether therefore ye eat or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. 32 Give none offense, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God. 33 Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved. |
|
|||||
07-15-2009, 05:28 AM
I was pretty sure this was a dead subject... Im so done with Sarah Palin. She's a idiot why do we keep talking about her -.- ...
Quote:
I have no sympathy for Sarah Palin what so ever. You can not convince me other wise. It's hard for me to feel emotionally to someone I hate. Thats right i hate her now because im so sick of hearing about her. Im so sick of you tell me how great she is, i couldnt care less if she died. Of course if she died right as i typed this I may feel a tiny bit bad. You sure like that word contradiction now that i told you about it. Sarah Palin is neither my family or friend and i dont like her. So I dont care. Thats right Iam all full of venom and hate! [/rant] Well maybe it is! Maybe i did contradict myself when i said that, but there are some people i would stick up for and others i would not. If someone said Hilary Clinton wasnt smart enough I would say she was and I would stick up for that. But if i agree that Sarah Palin is stupid and is like the separated female twin to George W. Bush then No. I wouldnt stick up for her if i felt the same way. I would then be a Hypocrite. I dont care if that contradicts anything else Ive ever said because i dont really give anymore. I would never stand up for Sarah Palin because I believe that she is a idiot and she makes woman look like a joke. That i stand firm on. Oh yeah and... Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
"The ignorant are mere stepping stones on the path to enlightenment." "People can always have a judgment about anything you do. So it doesn't bother me. Everything can be strange to someone." - Michael Jackson |
|
||||
07-15-2009, 06:06 AM
[quote=solemnclockwork;746645]
Barone1551 , Works both ways. Also read my post, I said you would "reserve the right of people". Danger to society point still stands. So you say shes game, right? Regardless of that legally she is an child, psychological is still an child (unless you provide evidence contrary). SO I would be correct in calling her an child. It's not about what you would do. Would you say stealing is wrong, would you say lying is wrong, and would you say murder is wrong? there is an connection between those. No, because there is an general consent about this. AND on that, you want to attack someone you better expect to be challenged on it. Hence what is happening here. Don't have the time is not an excuse. Telling me to go look it up is NOT an excuse. Hearsay is no an excuse. Even looking at the title of that made me cringe. After reading WoW, what an lie ( I had to say it, the bias was clawing at my eyes). Can I ask you how many times that he referred to "right wing bloggers"? I seriously laughed when I read "authoritarian right". I point this to you, if Sarah Palin base is conservatives why does the author continually make the mark that this is an conspiracy by the right? When this is about comments made by Lettermen? It also tries to say "right-wing" bloggers blatantly told an lie that it was about Willow. Here's the problem Willow was the one at the game. Indeed interesting, But I ask you how much stock do you place in such writing? In seriousness I was taken back by the tone of the article. Ok yes i say she is game... were just going back and forth on the subject. It is my belief that you can be an adult with out the legal status of being and adult. I use trial and criminal cases as example to show that people under the legal age to be an adult are seen as adults. This was just one example of why I think this. I just want to know what do you think makes an adult? Is there some magical being that changes you into an adult the second you turn 18? Are you telling me that you are more of an adult at 17 years and 364 days that you are at exactly 18. I wonder. Thats all I am trying to say. I dont think you need to be the age of 18 to be considered an adult. And I dont completly understand your point about being a physical threat. Do you mean to say that you can only be an adult if you 18 or if you kill people? I really dont know what you are saying or trying to prove by the bolded part. And you need to calm down a bit. I never used any excuses. I really didn't have time to find articles, and then post them. Then the topic kind of died down and I completely forgot about it. My bad, but you need to chill a little bit. You can say that about any side. Every side has its extremists. I could go find things about the far right and post an identical post to yours. |
|
||||
07-15-2009, 08:01 AM
solemnclockwork,
Tell you what, give me two days, and I'll try to construct something. I'm leaving for America soon, and I really need to make sure my ducks are in a row, so I'm sorry, but I do not have time to write a huge essay of a response tonight. I assume I won't have internet for the 18 hours I'm on the plane, and I will want to sleep when I get to Texas. Give me two days, my parents have broadband, I will go back and structure a response. However, I think you're taking this far too personally, I think you're projecting emotional content into my posts that simply isn't there, and I think that you need to quote everyone you respond to, not just me. It's hard for everyone to follow. There are certain academic standards to be met in a debate in order to act dispassionately. I do not believe you are meeting those standards. As a philosopher, I am intimately familiar with those standards, and thus I have the credibility to say that you are not following them. There is nothing unusual about this. |
|
||||
07-15-2009, 10:34 AM
Quote:
That really helps when you don't provide an source. Easy find. So next time post the full debate. Alaska Wolf and Bear Protection Act (2008 - Ballotpedia) What does uncertain mean? When you read the definition you would then know you can't make an accusation of wither she knew or not. THAT is the point. That said I don't care to compare "sites" this isn't an game or "I got more then you" is it? You cannot make an factual guess without evidence to support it. Palin's town charged women for rape exams - CNN.com Read it. found something weird about Sarah Palin. At first i didnt think it was true but then I looked further into it and found it was. Your words. Now think of how I'm supposed to take that? Saying something is true means I should take it as fact. Now if you meant to say the story had merit then point out the difference. Hmmm, I remember Elementary school when you say "I don't want to keep talking to you". That said I would like you to think about what you are saying. Do you honestly expect me to believe that you harbor such extensive feelings toward her? In the great phrases I would say.... Quite being childish. Then say you would only stick up for certain people, much simpler then making an generalized saying then negating it the second later. If someone said Hilary Clinton wasnt smart enough I would say she was and I would stick up for that. But if i agree that Sarah Palin is stupid and is like the separated female twin to George W. Bush then No Do you know the connecting between those two? I'll tell you this time. In what way do you see that one can have assumption and deny another theirs? Either A you agree that both are branded along the same line. B You deny both are branded along the same line. Reason being you ask? Well first off that is an very broad generalizing, secondly saying unfounded things about someone does nothing. Thirdly that phrase is an mirror opposite of what your doing (if I was doing it to Clinton and you where defending her.) You should care about your public perception. Lastly I might add, since you made the comment that "I'm telling you how great she is", I'm defending her against such attacks. I have comments along the lines that I do like her, but I do believe that is as far as I gone (quote me if you think otherwise), as I do believe a LOT of the attacks against her is very unwanted. Quote:
Barone1551, Your writing, to which I responded is not an excuse. You never supported your argument that she "paraded" her children around. the bold part was in response to your fourth paragraph. I'll enlighten you to what I meant by it. There is an connection between the three parts, that universally all agree are wrong. Now an person could believe murder was right, but does that make it right no. Once could believe that because someone is rich they should take part does that mean they can steal it no. One tales an lie, does that mean there honest, no. Apply this to what has been shown to the Palin's family. Second part stands as to what is happening now. Who decides which children will be tried as adults? - By Harlan J. Protass - Slate Magazine Children charged with murder… should they be tried as adults? | Lawinfo Weblog Youths Shouldn't Be Tried As Adults, Study Says Read them in response to children and crime. Enough with the smart talk you know what I meant. when I said I was going by psychologically and legally what constitutes and adult. In what way did I say that someone comments murder they are an adult? Tsuwabuki, Second paragraph I'm going to begin with. I "think" doesn't mean I do does it? That said offer evidence as to why when you get back. To quote everyone would be the best possible scenario. AS I have said in context of the rules of this site I wasn't going to keep double posting, hence why I posted the way I did and gave the structure of the post. What academic standards are you using? You do know the broad term "debate" stands for do you not? As I have said before don't make accusations without offering evidence. Even then I relate this to you, why do you continue prop you accomplishments up and then try to challenge me on "academic standards" in an internet debate? IDEA :: International Debate Education Association Is this what you refer to? How can you then exist on an rules that have not taken place at the beginning of this thread? It's like putting things in an middle of an game. To add I don't know what debate format you are talking about, and we have no judge so there are really no set standards in this type of discussion (how can there be, it's not regulated). Question then points towards me and why I adamantly ask people to provide evidence to support there argument. Simple, claims and accusations remain false until it's given merit by support. That said, I put no stock into what "you think" without you offering evidence as to why. I also would say your being above yourself with the "philosopher". If I haven't made it clear yet I will now; you don't bring personal accomplishments into an debate. When two come together the only thing that matters is argument and evidence that supports that point. NOTHING ELSE. So in retrospect your only serving yourself when you keep bring up what you "are". Can't really respond to the first paragraph, other then have an good time. (I ran out of text space so I had to cut out out two quotes, sorry) 31 Whether therefore ye eat or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. 32 Give none offense, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God. 33 Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|