Profanity.

Why don't you guys get a room, for christ sake do I make you guys so frustrated because I don't post a back-up for every rant? Hey, These are my feelings based on 65 fucking years of observance of life on this planet. I have no agenda. I am not trying to convert anyone to (communism) or whatever Vired says. If what I say so offends you that you have to get the encyclopedia of bullshit out to refute me, I apologize. Look anyone can back up a position if he wants to by going to a partison publication and pulling out a few paragraphs, going to a partison web site and backing up his position. I don't do that because I really don't give a fuck if you believe me or not. Sure you can get refuting positions from the above mentioned publications, so what. Does that make them facts or just someone elses opinion. So I guess what your trying to tell me is that if you get more opinions backed up by the partisan bullshit, then your right and I am wrong. I could go to web sites by democrats or liberals or libertarians or unions or theologans etc. to back up my rants, I don't want to. So just call me fucking lazy. I know what I know and could back every thing I say up as much as Vi or anyone else on this site, I just will not be bullied into a duel of opposing rhetoric. when I post, I post my beliefs, not someone elses. Yes I am confrontational when I am be-littled or made out to be ignorant, but I will not be stifiled by narrow minded bigots. If you don't have or have not made up your mind about your position, then how can you question mine with someone elses Ideas. I rest my case. If you think I'm makling this shit up, try reading rhetoric from the other side as I often do. There are a few things I agree with the "other side" about, immigration, gun control, personal freedom come to mind, I'm sure there's more. I just have more concern for the human condition than they do, so if you think I'm full of shit, please do me a favor, look in the mirror, if you see God almighty looking back, I'll believe every thing you say, Well most of it anyway!

I'm not frustrated with you, I like debating you. And I'm interested in your views. I'm here to learn and take something away from our debates. By debating back and forth, I (and hopefully you too) gain a better perception of reality.

My problem is that if you deny a fact (any fact) and don't give me a logical reason for denying it, I won't be able to understand your position. And then our debate becomes nonsensical and neither one of us benefits from that.

Like I've said, If you want facts, read an encyclopedia, My posts are based on my observances of life for 65+ years. Any one on this forum can go to a partisan website and come away with the facts as seen on that site, does this mean they're facts, of course not. they are someone elses opinion. There are very few facts in political debate, I believe it's called rhetoric. A person can by quoting other peoples ideas porport them to be facts as it is not a first person rhetoric. That is what some on this site are doing. As an example: putting Ann Coulter on this site was designed to infuriate me as I know her rhetoric to be highly anti-liberal, and it suceeded. That bitch is a raving lunatic. Is what was posted by her a set of facts? I think not. Is posting some right wing economists views facts, I think not. sure I could spend hours looking for counter views on websites, but that is not what I'm about. I'm honest enough to say up front: these are my opinions and I don't care if you like them or not. To say that there are no facts in my opinions is like saying all your opinions (borrowed or not) are greater than mine. Hey opinions are opinions whether you borrow them from someone on your side of the debate or pursue your own rational thinking. I'm not saying that you or anyone else has to step into my beliefs, just don't use someone elses beliefs to be-little me. Thanks!

Yes, I agree with you to some extent.
You can't debate opinions based on personal taste, because there is no right or wrong answer. However it can get very complicated when people (like some of the ones you mentioned) mix undisputed facts with personal opinions. They usually spin the truth to support their opinion.

Take the economy for example. The folks on the right love to say how great the economy is doing right now (Which is a fact), but when they say that, they imply that the country is doing great (which is a matter of opinion). They mix the two together and everyone is confused and in conflict with each other. The two have nothing to do with each other.

It's true when they say that the economy is doing well and unemployment is low (the numbers don't lie), but what they don't say is who benefits from this great economy. The majority of the country (the middle class) is unhappy because while the economy is doing well, they are not. Their wages have gone down, they have credit card debts, and they can't keep up with the high cost of living. When some rich businessman tells them the country is in great shape they are confused and frustrated and assume his facts are wrong.

That's why it's important to distinguish between facts and spin.

Oh and BTW, Ann Coulter is nothing but a Cunt!

Hey doobie, you say everything I want to say, only much better... well put!

Med's right though, it's much better to say how you feel on the observations you make, not on the statistics they want you to read. It's more real to be yourself, say what you think not what they tell you you're supposed to.

I agree with that.
My views are based on my own personal experiences and my knowledge. I like to back up my claims with facts though, sometimes people take you less seriously if you don't, you know?

there are probably some facts in what is posted here, from both sides, but just because I don't spend hours looking for oposing views that someone else has said to back me up, does not make my opinions any less valuable or interesting than the other sides "facts" which in essence are just someone elses opinion> take the Ann Coulter thing, does anyone besides Viredd think she speaks facts. The notion that he even bothered to post her speaks volumnes about his "facts". I would like to get along with people on this site, but when someone calls me ignorant just because I didn't spend the time to dig up someone elses opinion to back mine up, it leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth. I don't think that in a political debate there are very many "facts". We've disagreed on many things, some un-proveable, like the body count in Iraq, like the higher power thing. There are some things you just can't prove and to be told that the opposing side has the facts in these debates and I don't is immature at best and generally foolish! Facts are like: there's 12 eggs in a dozen, unless it's a bakers dozen then there are 13! Water is wet is a fact, ice is cold, the sun is hot etc. those are facts. Bush is a genious is not a fact, it is an opinion expressed by Neo-cons, and I think, not too bright of ones!

"Facts are like: there's 12 eggs in a dozen, unless it's a bakers dozen then there are 13! Water is wet is a fact, ice is cold, the sun is hot etc. those are facts. Bush is a genious is not a fact, it is an opinion expressed by Neo-cons, and I think, not too bright of ones!"


Can't argue with facts.

BTW Don't like to repeat my self but;
Ann Coulter is CUNT!

Doobie06 ------> A voice of reason in the room.

Med sez ...

"but when someone calls me ignorant just because I didn't spend the time to dig up someone elses opinion to back mine up, it leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth."

Having a complete lack of knowledge on a particular subject, free market forces for example, doesn't mean that a person is stupid. On the contrary, it only means the person doesn't have enough information to form a valid, logical opinion. In other words, that person is ignorant about the subject at hand. There is a huge difference in referring to a person as stupid as opposed to ignorant. Calling someone stupid is a personal attack in my opinion. Stating that someone is ignorant (lacking information) is nothing more than a statement.

Vi

Exactly right.
I find so many people who confuse the two.

Also, I want to say that I love this site, and I really enjoy talking with all you guys. Our discussions may get heated at times, but don't take things too personally.

Were not in here to "Box" and beat the shit out of each other, were here to "spar" so that we can become better "boxers".
(Hope that makes sense)

As in any agenda it depends on the context of the ignorance inferance. To infer that someone is ignorant because they don't agree with your "facts", is in and of itself a form of Ignorance, Like the pot and the kettle. I'll probably never agree with V and his Neo-con agenda, That is not sufficient evidence to be labeled Ignorant. The act of labeling is in fact a dreadful form of ignorance. I could extrapolate here but I think you'll get my drift, racial slurs and the like!

Statistics are not fact they are supposition. It helps to have some knowledge of what you are talking about rather than going on pure feeling alone but pure feeling is what the common man has the most of. Normal people can't be arsed with trawling through masses and masses of stat's, they go by their gut instinct. Which to my mind is better; stat's can bog you down, make you believe the author's point of view, stop you being yourself.

I totally agree with you. Anyone can go on the web and find stats (facts) as V likes to call them, from any point of view. I speak from my observations of society and refuse to play the stats game. Does that make me ignorant as V portends or does it make him ignorant for calling me ignorant? I could spend hours looking up other peoples Ideas (Facts) or I could do something I enjoy instead. I have never stated my views were "facts", only questioned Vs view and "Facts"! I will continue to post my views and corrupt young minds as V says and V, well I guess you know what I think he can do!

medicinaluseonly said:

As in any agenda it depends on the context of the ignorance inferance. To infer that someone is ignorant because they don't agree with your "facts", is in and of itself a form of Ignorance, Like the pot and the kettle. I'll probably never agree with V and his Neo-con agenda, That is not sufficient evidence to be labeled Ignorant. The act of labeling is in fact a dreadful form of ignorance. I could extrapolate here but I think you'll get my drift, racial slurs and the like!

Click to expand...

Now, here is a perfect example. You've called me a "NeoCon" several times now. That's nothing but a red herring, Med. I'm curious ... do you know the meaning of the term NeoCon and from where they came politically? You might want to look that one up. I think your opinion may change. I'm about the furthest thing from a NeoCon as you can find.

Vi

You're right, when you're right you're right! I was more or less using Chris Mathews view of Neocoservatism as a model. There are so many explanations of it that I can't define anyone with that label. Acording to google ( god Bless google) it seems there is no right definition of it, so excuse me, I'll have to find another label for you, I'll try and refrain from "asshole", although that covers a wide range of character defects!

Now there you go ... being all nice and stuff.

Vi

you ought to try it, you might like it!

profanity wut is profanity i mean fuck wuts so worng wit it wut does it mean sure its dirogative but i mean "homie ur fuckin sweet" so bad?? but... " i fuckin hate you" ok now.... "i hate you" much difference??? one word and lookin at " i fuckin hate you." the strongest word i see there is hate

Dammit, oggunna ... will you PLEASE stop trying to keep this thread on topic! *lol*

Vi