Search results

She made an observation. A statement of an observable truth. Everything isn't meant to be an argument of parts. No, she was clear enough over a few posts that what she's noting is some around here would be fine with putting homosexuals to death. And that's true enough. No it isn't, but it does...

Well, it's more of a degree of sucking distinction, I suppose. :Plain: :eek:

You should start a thread about it. Though until you appear as interested in debate I don't know how well it will go over. Well, I can tell you that there aren't many here with a doctoral ease, so words like dialectic won't really mean much to anyone. I can't speak for liberals any more than I...

There are Marxists here? Maybe. I can't recall any though. So this is pretty much your game, making pronouncements and avoiding engagement. Okay. It's your dime...unless you stole it. :noid:

You're smart enough to realize I not only did, I went at the presumption in the question. So that leaves me wondering why you're playing this chrysostom/Trad like game of "Say it like I want you to". It smacks of a canned response. But okay, I'll pretend your off your game for a minute. Does...

A person who just wants to fight will be exposed if you meet the impulse with substance and they can't match or address it. I have a stalker who does that all the time. It's no great shakes. Now then, what's the word for a person who writes a great deal but avoids engagement when met on his own...

I did and more. You just have to read it. Impact doesn't carry a conflict inherently. I've set that case out clearly enough. You need to find the conflict and bias in the group you think would taint the judge. So far you haven't suggested it. And without it you're not asking a question that has...

It's framing the question in the context that gives it meaning. If you didn't believe that you'd have no point in asking the question. I think that absent the inference I noted it's too broad a question to be meaningful. That's why I gave you a couple of serious examples on the point. Things...

So it's much like your honesty, rationality or ability to see beyond a sentence. You're nearly a sympathetic character...and wouldn't that be something. :eek:

Sorry, but I'm full up talking to the other fool. I don't know how to tell you this, but not everyone who is Mexican is Latino and many who are Latino aren't Mexican. And everything that impacts you isn't necessarily something you champion. For instance, if your organization objects to...

Sure you do. Everyone does. See, that's how I know your narrative precludes a degree of objectivity. They objected because and you omit that, which is important. That's your narrative. I'm genuinely sad that you believe the reasonable answer to that is yes in a way that prejudices a judge...

He's ignoring a few things that don't serve his narrative. This group protested a program that it felt encouraged illegal immigration. The assumption that impacting illegal immigration would be contrary to their interests because they're Latino is itself a bit...Trumplematic. :Plain:

So are the dead. And I don't mean musically. That's what a rebuttal consists of, dr. Opinion driven by reason and factual information. In my case documents that literally make my point, unambiguously. Probably because I'm not. :Plain: And that encapsulates your problem of late.

Your posts are proof you'll say darn near anything. But then, I wasn't talking to or about you. I was talking to the parrot. You decided to step into that and make unfounded comments that I rebutted. And this is your ongoing nonsense on the non-responsive point. If this were FB I'd be having...

He reminds me of the lawyer character on Seinfeld...or an ill used parrot. :shocked:

Except that a) I haven't refused to engage and b) have routinely posted to multiple sources for information that aren't speculative in nature in addition to putting forth constructive arguments founded in reason and inviting reason in return. Which is a way of suggesting your analogy is as...

No, it was a commentary on your avoiding a few substantive attempts at engagement to essentially blog, repeating a theme and some information you acquired and presumably believe authoritative.

Actually and aptly enough, La Raza was founded in response to the stereotyping of people with Spanish surnames, according to immediate past president, Joe Murillo. "There were judges on the bench saying people with Spanish surnames were prone to be savages," Murillo said. "When we tried to...

So you're basically just here to conspiracy blog. :Plain: Okay> No, that was the grandfatherly racist part. The, "You know how those people are" wink at the camera. It was aimed at the audience least likely to consider the implications of it, his followers. The judge wasn't and isn't a...

Which will be an answer if she ever does that. I have noticed this tactic on the right. Take any particular unpleasant portrayal of any part of it as a blanket condemnation, so they can bring on the ever popular unreasonable persecution effect. Which would be a great rebuttal for someone...