Current Affairs General US politics (ie, not POTUS related)

[ilikecheese]

Ah yes your best trick.

Answer someone crying foul that they didn't answer you.

What is wrong with you? You avoid people all of the time and change tact when they challenge you or reply to you.

I don't have an issue with your statement about memory and recollection etc... I already explained to you i quoted the wrong fecking statement you made. Sure people will remember things from yesterday clearer thats a given and such an obvious statement for you to even mention that sounds stupid. Like i would challenge that.

When he gets trapped in his contrarian logic he pulls it everytime.

 

[SteveSC]

You asked me this question:



To which I gave what I think is a pretty in-avoiding answer:


Followed up with:



And your response to that lengthy response was to pick out half of one sentence (leaving out the relevant context, and to come back with:



So tell me again how it’s me that’s avoiding addressing your point?

Remember you have answer the questions he poses to other people because apparently its never directed at just that person he is replying to haha!!

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

Remember you have answer the questions he poses to other people because apparently its never directed at just that person he is replying to haha!!

Ah, dammit.

 

[dholliday]

round and round we go, lads

we've reached the agree to disagree stage, we've made some progress here at least:

- i accept Kavanaugh is telling fibs about some stuff and that arguably makes him unsuitable for Supreme Court.
- yous accept the intense focus on 40-year-old memories may be a little unfair.

Not bad.

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

round and round we go, lads

we've reached the agree to disagree stage, we've made some progress here at least:

- i accept Kavanaugh is telling fibs about some stuff and that arguably makes him unsuitable for Supreme Court.
- yous accept the intense focus on 40-year-old memories may be a little unfair.

Not bad.

lol

 

[SteveSC]

When he gets trapped in his contrarian logic he pulls it everytime.

round and round we go, lads

we've reached the agree to disagree stage, we've made some progress here at least:

- i accept Kavanaugh is telling fibs about some stuff and that arguably makes him unsuitable for Supreme Court.
- yous accept the intense focus on 40-year-old memories may be a little unfair.

Not bad.

You truly are special... If several people tell you they have no idea what you are asking them or tell you they answered what you asked them why do you continue to play this game?

How about next time when you ask a question you tell us its to the crowd as it seems nearly everyone is not on the same page as you.

Clearly you live in your own realm.

For the record i answered your so called question, well the one i think you were asking me. I'll answer again (to again what i believe you asked me directly)... Of course memory from yesteray is better than that from 40 years i never questioned that... again i quoted the wrong post from you.

 

[dholliday]

You truly are special... If several people tell you they have no idea what you are asking them or tell you they answered what you asked them why do you continue to play this game?

How about next time when you ask a question you tell us its to the crowd as it seems nearly everyone is not on the same page as you.

Clearly you live in your own realm.

For the record i answered your so called question, well the one i think you were asking me. I'll answer again (to again what i believe you asked me directly)... Of course memory from yesteray is better than that from 40 years i never questioned that... again i quoted the wrong post from you.

You understand fine. We've reached that conclusion where the two opposing views come together a little. It's almost beautiful.

 

[ilikecheese]

round and round we go, lads

we've reached the agree to disagree stage, we've made some progress here at least:

- i accept Kavanaugh is telling fibs about some stuff and that arguably makes him unsuitable for Supreme Court.
- yous accept the intense focus on 40-year-old memories may be a little unfair.

Not bad.

In this country people appointed to the Supreme Court are impartial. Surely they have leanings, but impartiality is paramount. Kavanaugh proved immediately he is not qualified in his opening statement.

The other 90% of his joke hearing doesn't even matter. He is a political operative for the right wing.

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

You understand fine. We've reached that conclusion where the two opposing views come together a little. It's almost beautiful.

Aaaaand there goes the last vestige of thinking that MAYBE you were debating in good faith.

 

[dholliday]

Aaaaand there goes the last vestige of thinking that MAYBE you were debating in good faith.

I am, hence finding it quite nice when two opposing sides come closer together. Isn't that the good-natured aim?

 

[Harryflashman]

round and round we go, lads

we've reached the agree to disagree stage, we've made some progress here at least:

- i accept Kavanaugh is telling fibs about some stuff and that arguably makes him unsuitable for Supreme Court.
- yous accept the intense focus on 40-year-old memories may be a little unfair.

Not bad.

If your under oath it’s not a fib it’s perjury , it’s not like telling your Missus you only had two pints instead of four . It has or can have consequences including imprisonment otherwise they wouldn’t make you take an oath it’d just be a nominee having a chat and that’s clearly very different . Just ask Jeffrey archer or Jonathan Aitken both of whom received custodial sentences for perjury or telling fibs whichever you prefer .

From experience things happen in people’s lives and they’ve no desire to discuss them , I’ve written and deleted this about 6 times , but it doesn’t mean there aren't circumstances where you can imagine they have to be made public .

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

I am, hence finding it quite nice when two opposing sides come closer together. Isn't that the good-natured aim?

Ignore points
Ignore points
Ignore points
Claim “Both sides have come closer together”

is not debating in good faith.

Adios.

 

[dholliday]

Ignore points
Ignore points
Ignore points
Claim “Both sides have come closer together”

is not debating in good faith.

Adios.

Honestly I think the issue is our debating-style (all of us here in the last few pages) is offputting to each other somehow, rather than being gently-convincing. Regardless of how strong & correct mine or your argument is, if it's done in a style which the other finds a bit revolting then it's not gonna have the desired effect - this desired effect is surely to bring two opposing views closer together.

Maybe it's a talent, patience or consideration thing but many of us probably lack it. I'd say @LinekersLegs & @Bruce Wayne & @peteblue have it, as examples of how optimal the tone can be, even if one remains disagreed with what they're saying.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Honestly I think the issue is our debating-style (all of us here in the last few pages) is offputting to each other somehow, rather than being gently-convincing. Regardless of how strong & correct mine or your argument is, if it's done in a style which the other finds a bit revolting then it's not gonna have the desired effect - this desired effect is surely to bring two opposing views closer together.

Maybe it's a talent, patience or consideration thing but many of us probably lack it. I'd say @LinekersLegs & @Bruce Wayne & @peteblue have it, as examples of how optimal the tone can be, even if one remains disagreed with what they're saying.

I'm not sure @LinekersLegs will be happy in our company tbh

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

Honestly I think the issue is our debating-style (all of us here in the last few pages) is offputting to each other somehow, rather than being gently-convincing. Regardless of how strong & correct mine or your argument is, if it's done in a style which the other finds a bit revolting then it's not gonna have the desired effect - this desired effect is surely to bring two opposing views closer together.

Maybe it's a talent, patience or consideration thing but many of us probably lack it. I'd say @LinekersLegs & @Bruce Wayne & @peteblue have it, as examples of how optimal the tone can be, even if one remains disagreed with what they're saying.

You’re right.

I do object to a debating style that ignores my responses to that person’s point(s) while simultaneously criticising me for ignoring their point.