Originally Posted By dshyates But could you feed them. People like "interactive" attractions. And there will be multiple angle video cameras so after your "experience" you can edit it and post it to your MySpace page or email it to your BFF.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <How did I "distort what was said?"> As an example, you said, "Dabob2 asked you to show that it was political pressure that led to this. He asked you to show exactly what you claimed." But that's not what Dabob did. Instead he asked me to show that there had been "a marked increase in loans to the poor outside of the realm of home mortgages". <Well, that's probably right on one level, as it's obvious you can't prove it.> Of course not. It's also obvious you can't disprove it. <It was a baseless opinion to begin with.> No, it wasn't. It is an opinion that I formed through years of following politics and reading articles regarding such matters. <Several people here have done the latter. I'm not surprised you didn't notice.> Unlike some here, I'm not delusional, so I don't notice things that didn't happen. <You might care that, if recent comments from half a dozen people are any indication, that you don't have any credibility among any of them.> Since those half a dozen people pull the same tactics against other conservatives as they pull with me, it's obvious the problem is ideological, not personal, so no, I don't care what they think about my credibility. I don't find their opinions too credible. <I'm probably just feeding the troll.> No, what you are doing is wasting both of our time because you don't like my opinion but can't refute it with facts and logic.
Originally Posted By EdisYoda Instead of bitching about who said (or didn't say) what, can we please just get back on topic.
Originally Posted By jonvn I agree with certain disagreements, but I won't say which, because I wouldn't be believed anyway.
Originally Posted By Mr X lol. You know that means it's impossible to prove you to be incorrect, right? And yet, interestingly, it doesn't prove you right. Nice debating technique, Jon! 10 points!
Originally Posted By inlandemporer "As an example, you said, "Dabob2 asked you to show that it was political pressure that led to this. He asked you to show exactly what you claimed." But that's not what Dabob did. Instead he asked me to show that there had been "a marked increase in loans to the poor outside of the realm of home mortgages". " THAT's your distortion? Oh brother. You made this assertion that there had been this political pressure to increase loans to the poor. You couldn't show anything to illustrate this, but you said it. Dabob2 made the quite reasonable observation that if this were so, we should have seen a rise in all lending to the poor, not just in home mortgages. If it was limited to mortgages, it was more likely there was another reason for it, like lobbying on the part of finance companies. You were then implicitly given another opportunity to show that your assertion was true, either by showing an increase in lending to the poor outside of mortgages, or examples of pressure brought to bear, or ANYTHING. And you showed nothing. Instead you indulged in the adolescent "show me it's NOT true, then." The rest of your post is just more of your usual "I know you are but what am I?" mixed with a little "I'm not delusional, you are," with a little persecution complex thrown in. I'm done feeding the troll.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Since those half a dozen people pull the same tactics against other conservatives as they pull with me,> That's not true. And why? Because they're your tactics. And you're the one who pulls them. I engaged in lengthy and multi-pronged discussions with RC Collins a month or two ago in which we got into gay marriage, non-discrimination laws and even the desirability of compulsory primary and secondary education. We disagreed about almost everything, strongly. Yet it never degenerated into semantics, minutia, mindless naysaying of the Python type, or calling people delusional or the like. Nor does that happen when I discuss things with conservatives like vbdad55, WilliamK99, HyperTyper... Nor does that happen when people like ecdc or others engage in discussions with other conservatives. It happens when we have discussions with YOU. You are the common factor. Not conservatism. You. That's when it breaks down into semantics and the rest of the nonsense. When you're involved. Gee, what a coinkidink.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh It didn't use to happen with me. That was because I origninally tolerated a lot of your tactics. Just because other conservatives haven't reacted the way I do to you doesn't mean that your tactics are different toward them, or that the problem is with me. There's a reason liberal posts outnumber conservative posts here by such a wide margin.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <It didn't use to happen with me.> No, it always did. <That was because I origninally tolerated a lot of your tactics.> Nice try. They're your tactics. I wasn't even the first one to POINT OUT your nonsense, or the "argument clinic" nature of your posts. So it couldn't have been just a response to me. <Just because other conservatives haven't reacted the way I do to you doesn't mean that your tactics are different toward them, or that the problem is with me.> The weird thing is, I'm sure you've actually made yourself believe that. But the proof is in the pudding. My recent discussion with RC went on for dozens of posts, many quite lengthy, and we agreed on almost nothing. But there was none of the semantics or other nonsense, because he didn't indulge in them and so my responses didn't have to respond to that. There was something new in every post, because he was actually interested in having an intelligent discussion and not a Python-esque "argument." Same with discussions I've had with other conservatives here. You won't find that nonsense when I discuss something with vbdad55, for instance. Ever. You, on the other hand, employ the same tactics with most people you discuss things with. If they were my tactics, we wouldn't see them in your posts with others. But we do. We've seen it here just recently with inlandemporer. He just threw up his hands faster than most. Jon and SPP (where is he?) and me are tougher nuts, I guess. I also remember once upon a time when the ratio of substance to nonsense in your posts was higher, and I keep thinking maybe one day you'll go back to that. Jon says you won't, and maybe he's right. <There's a reason liberal posts outnumber conservative posts here by such a wide margin.> I think it's just because Bush is such a disaster. Even most conservatives don't defend him any more, and since he's still the president, he's still sort of topic one. And it must be tough to listen to Bush get raked over the coals by liberals, moderates, and some conservatives alike. I imagine when we have a new president, whoever it is, a lot of conservatives will return and it'll be more balanced like it used to be. But I'm sure you've convinced yourself it's all because of liberal persecution.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <So it couldn't have been just a response to me.> The "your" in that sentence was a plural. Sorry I didn't make that clear. But it was mostly you. The rest of your post I'm not responding to, because, as usual, it's just a bunch of assertions which are pointless to argue against. I will state that, as usual, they are incorrect. As I've pointed out in the past, many times, if you want to have an honest discussion with me, then you need to start. Repeatedly telling me that I need to prove an opinion or that your opinion is correct will not lead to an honest discussion.
Originally Posted By jonvn dabob, will you please stop crapping up these topics that are very worthwhile in their content by constantly trading these inane pythonesque comments with this troll? Don't you notice that he gets far more into those topics that show his viewpoint as being invalid, and they always devolve into this stuff? You think this is not on purpose? He thinks you don't want to have an "honest" discussion with him? Fine. Don't. Corporate welfare is an interesting thing to talk about. Not the constant lies and evasion this other person is interested in engaging in to stop the conversation.
