Recall Election... Who are you guys voting for?
10-04-2003, 11:23 PM
#21
350Z-holic
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: teh interwebnets
Posts: 17,685
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by nbdyfcnsqnc
Ok, here ya go. And it's a hell of a lot more than Gray "Shade" Davis or Tax-Boostamante have ever done.
Ok, here ya go. And it's a hell of a lot more than Gray "Shade" Davis or Tax-Boostamante have ever done.
Those were good....
10-05-2003, 06:14 AM
#23
Registered User
As for Planet Hollywood, his involvement in that failed business seems to be about the same as his level of involvement in the other cited businesses.
But thanks for the link, as it was more then they mention on his website.
Last edited by Scafremon; 10-05-2003 at 06:22 AM.
10-05-2003, 07:32 AM
#24
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Alamo, CA
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nbdyfcnsqnc: I think you misread me. Just so I'm clear. Running a state involves more than running a business, becoming wealthy, being handsome, running in celebrity circles, or being buffed to the max. Regardless of whether AS has been successful in business or not, he is just now starting to formulate a political philosophy/vision and his current statements lack details. I don't dislike him. I'd like to have him develop some kind of track record, become involved in important things. I feel certain that, two months ago NO ONE knew that AS had political interests or what he thought about issues.
I'm very worried about the disruption of political process. Sure legal mechanisms are in place to kick out a governor when we think that he is a crook or incompetent. I don't think that we have reached that point with Davis. In two years we can vote him out of office. Let’s hope that someone with a clear vision emerges during that time.
To be attracted merely to AS’s celebrity and not care about details, thoughts, plans, who will be on the inside and who will be outside of his political plans, etc...it leaves out the importance of being informed before voting. When I see star struck supporters living for everything AS says, I really get worried.
Of course a surprising thing could happen during the next two years: voters could actually get interested in and become informed about politics. We could force all candidates to answer tough questions rather than sticking to slogans that sound good but are devoid of details.
I'm very worried about the disruption of political process. Sure legal mechanisms are in place to kick out a governor when we think that he is a crook or incompetent. I don't think that we have reached that point with Davis. In two years we can vote him out of office. Let’s hope that someone with a clear vision emerges during that time.
To be attracted merely to AS’s celebrity and not care about details, thoughts, plans, who will be on the inside and who will be outside of his political plans, etc...it leaves out the importance of being informed before voting. When I see star struck supporters living for everything AS says, I really get worried.
Of course a surprising thing could happen during the next two years: voters could actually get interested in and become informed about politics. We could force all candidates to answer tough questions rather than sticking to slogans that sound good but are devoid of details.
10-05-2003, 01:38 PM
#25
Thanks, jackwhale, I always appreciate the clarification. It's really crazy how people get so emotional about politics. If that were somehow removed from the picture, I think we could all discuss it openly and, more importantly, have a much better government. But that's exactly why it's so emotional: people don't want to have to defend their beliefs, because they don't always have reasons for those beliefs.
>> I don't think that we have reached that point with Davis.
I think we reached that point with Davis far before he was re-elected. That's why we have to vote on Tuesday in the most democratic process this state's constitution has to offer. Neither Democrats nor Republicans should be opposed to that, because it's a law of the republic that gives the democracy more power. The people are a little slow to find out, but now enough of us know we need to make a change ASAP.
>> I'm very worried about the disruption of political process.
At this point, I think you should be more worried about not disrupting it. In the last election, we knew what Davis was up to. We knew that he made wrong decisions about the power crisis, and the government was spending money like we were still collecting tech boom taxes. We knew it was Davis priority to sell us out for campaign money while he left the state on autopilot. But most people didn't, and they relected Davis anyway, because he spent more on his campaign than any governor in the history of this nation, to say how great of a guy he was, and what a piece of crap Bill Simon was. He had enough money to buy his own truth.
Now he's spending that money not to say what he'll do, but to bash Arnold for things he can't even prove were said or done when Arnold was in his 20s. At least I think the people of California, while not too well informed, do know than Maria Shriver would not marry a Hitler admirer without enough self-control to keep from grabbing women.
Even if Davis stays in, the people will know what's going on. Or, if Bustamante is elected and does what he said he'll do, we'll just get a republican next time.
>> Of course a surprising thing could happen during the next two years: voters could actually get interested in and become informed about politics.
That's what I hope, too. And that's exactly why democrats like Bill Clinton are here to help Davis. If Arnold is elected, I believe that he'll give us an education just like Reagan did, and the DP which has already deteriorated to the point of idiocy, will lose even more control.
I don't really care why people vote for Arnold, as long as they vote for him. From what I've seen and heard, he's good for this state and this country right now.
>> I don't think that we have reached that point with Davis.
I think we reached that point with Davis far before he was re-elected. That's why we have to vote on Tuesday in the most democratic process this state's constitution has to offer. Neither Democrats nor Republicans should be opposed to that, because it's a law of the republic that gives the democracy more power. The people are a little slow to find out, but now enough of us know we need to make a change ASAP.
>> I'm very worried about the disruption of political process.
At this point, I think you should be more worried about not disrupting it. In the last election, we knew what Davis was up to. We knew that he made wrong decisions about the power crisis, and the government was spending money like we were still collecting tech boom taxes. We knew it was Davis priority to sell us out for campaign money while he left the state on autopilot. But most people didn't, and they relected Davis anyway, because he spent more on his campaign than any governor in the history of this nation, to say how great of a guy he was, and what a piece of crap Bill Simon was. He had enough money to buy his own truth.
Now he's spending that money not to say what he'll do, but to bash Arnold for things he can't even prove were said or done when Arnold was in his 20s. At least I think the people of California, while not too well informed, do know than Maria Shriver would not marry a Hitler admirer without enough self-control to keep from grabbing women.
Even if Davis stays in, the people will know what's going on. Or, if Bustamante is elected and does what he said he'll do, we'll just get a republican next time.
>> Of course a surprising thing could happen during the next two years: voters could actually get interested in and become informed about politics.
That's what I hope, too. And that's exactly why democrats like Bill Clinton are here to help Davis. If Arnold is elected, I believe that he'll give us an education just like Reagan did, and the DP which has already deteriorated to the point of idiocy, will lose even more control.
I don't really care why people vote for Arnold, as long as they vote for him. From what I've seen and heard, he's good for this state and this country right now.
10-05-2003, 02:18 PM
#26
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Alamo, CA
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two months isn't enough time to decide who will best rescue us.
That's our main point of difference, I think. Even though our political inclinations are quite different.
I was listening to Peter Cameo (wow! I don't know how to spell his name) whose ideas and discussions I have appreciated. He made a point to say that McClintock was a decent human being who was driven by admirable motives. These guys are certainly on opposite ends of the spectrum and if they can admire the motives of their opponent....its a damn good example for all of us.
I must admit that I was relieved to read the opening paragraph of your last post...I've become somewhat gun shy on this forum. Thanks.
That's our main point of difference, I think. Even though our political inclinations are quite different.
I was listening to Peter Cameo (wow! I don't know how to spell his name) whose ideas and discussions I have appreciated. He made a point to say that McClintock was a decent human being who was driven by admirable motives. These guys are certainly on opposite ends of the spectrum and if they can admire the motives of their opponent....its a damn good example for all of us.
I must admit that I was relieved to read the opening paragraph of your last post...I've become somewhat gun shy on this forum. Thanks.
Last edited by jackwhale; 10-05-2003 at 02:22 PM.
10-06-2003, 06:47 AM
#28
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Alamo, CA
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Three days before the election, and AS provides us with an economic plan. page A22 in Sunday’s SF Chronicle
Key aspects of Schwarzenegger’s economic approach:
1. “Cut taxes: Repeal recent increase in vehicle license fees, eliminate anticipated 60% increase in unemployment insurance premiums.”
Question: How will we finance unemployment or will we eliminate it altogether? People lose their jobs and no income?
2. “Energy costs: Loosen cost controls to encourage conservation during peak demand periods and protect energy providers from wholesale price increases.”
Question: What will be the effect of these changes. Will theses changes save us from another set of crooks artificially controlling the market?
3. “Litigation reform: Reduce payouts when employees are improperly fired, impose higher standards for proving age discrimination. Make it more difficult to file class-action suits against businesses.”
Question: How will this help anyone other than businesses that choose to fire indiscriminately or discriminate against a certain group?
Question: If the ability to file suits is taken away, what other protections will we have?
4. “Workers’ compensation reform: Set clear guidelines for treatment, limit payments and restrict the right to sue in cases of on-the-job injury.”
Question: If one is injured on the job and can’t work, what protection will workers have?
4. “Regulatory reform: Find ways to minimize the economic impact of all rules put in place under Gov. Gray Davis.”
Question: Can you provide details and suggest alternate rules; or do we start all over with no rules.
We need more than three days or a month to really think about and discuss the issues. I have nothing against Schwarzenegger. I would want more than a few days to understand where he stands on issues.
rebuilding our infrastructure, bridges, dams, delta levies. Getting our schools back on track. Helping the 20% of our children who now grow up below the poverty level…etc
Key aspects of Schwarzenegger’s economic approach:
1. “Cut taxes: Repeal recent increase in vehicle license fees, eliminate anticipated 60% increase in unemployment insurance premiums.”
Question: How will we finance unemployment or will we eliminate it altogether? People lose their jobs and no income?
2. “Energy costs: Loosen cost controls to encourage conservation during peak demand periods and protect energy providers from wholesale price increases.”
Question: What will be the effect of these changes. Will theses changes save us from another set of crooks artificially controlling the market?
3. “Litigation reform: Reduce payouts when employees are improperly fired, impose higher standards for proving age discrimination. Make it more difficult to file class-action suits against businesses.”
Question: How will this help anyone other than businesses that choose to fire indiscriminately or discriminate against a certain group?
Question: If the ability to file suits is taken away, what other protections will we have?
4. “Workers’ compensation reform: Set clear guidelines for treatment, limit payments and restrict the right to sue in cases of on-the-job injury.”
Question: If one is injured on the job and can’t work, what protection will workers have?
4. “Regulatory reform: Find ways to minimize the economic impact of all rules put in place under Gov. Gray Davis.”
Question: Can you provide details and suggest alternate rules; or do we start all over with no rules.
We need more than three days or a month to really think about and discuss the issues. I have nothing against Schwarzenegger. I would want more than a few days to understand where he stands on issues.
rebuilding our infrastructure, bridges, dams, delta levies. Getting our schools back on track. Helping the 20% of our children who now grow up below the poverty level…etc
10-06-2003, 08:59 AM
#30
Registered User
>> people don't want to have to defend their beliefs, because they don't always have reasons for those beliefs.
>> I don't really care why people vote for Arnold, as long as they vote for him.
I'm fine with people voting for Arnold, but unlike you, I do care as to why. If they have good reasons, I want to hear them. Not to try and tear them apart, because hopefully they are valid enough reasons that cannot be easily dismissed as being simply emotional.
>> That's why we have to vote on Tuesday in the most democratic process this state's constitution has to offer.
I support the constitution having a recall process, though I disagree that the process as currently written is the most democratic process we can offer.
>> At least I think the people of California, while not too well informed, do know than Maria Shriver would not marry a Hitler admirer without enough self-control to keep from grabbing women.
Maria who? I'm one of those 'not too well informed' Californians that doesn't know her personally, and can only guess as to why she married Arnold. I do agree that most respectible women (and I would include Maria here - no reason not to) would not marry a Hitler admirer, or a person without self-control. If either of these recent allegations are true, I'd guess she wasn't aware of them.
I'm not buying this Hitler stuff anyway - if he did say something, I expect it was a misquote, or at least taken out of some context of the discussion. I do believe the accusations of Arnolds' groping of women. I can picture stuff like that happening on a rowdy movie set. I wouldn't be surprised if there are far worse 'groping' incidents, and that Arnold is hoping his 'mass apology' will appease any other women from coming forward.
(re the comment: voters could actually get interested in and become informed about politics)
>> That's what I hope, too.
I agree. That's what I am doing. Informed voters is what we need, not uninformed voters. I applaud BullishZ for voting for the first time. I appreciate his honesty as to why he is voting for whom he is voting for. I'm even ok with uninformed voters voting for their first few times, because I think it takes a few trips to the polls to really begin to understand how important it is to vote, and how important it is to really understand who or what you are voting for. We have to start somewhere.
For example: At this point, I won't be voting on Prop 53, because I really don't understand the implications of it. I don't even think Arnold understands it, as his website does not offer a position on it, like it does on Prop 54.
>> the DP which has already deteriorated to the point of idiocy
I know you hate Democrats (you've stated that before). I know anyone who votes for the Green Party Candidate is an idiot (you've stated that). I don't understand why you have to be so negative towards people that have differing views to yours.
You have alot of passion behind your views, which I sincerely appreciate, and I've learned alot about the issues from your posts. I hope that others that read and agree with your views understand that hating people with other views is not part of the conservative agenda, but an emotional addition to your posts.
>> I don't really care why people vote for Arnold, as long as they vote for him.
I'm fine with people voting for Arnold, but unlike you, I do care as to why. If they have good reasons, I want to hear them. Not to try and tear them apart, because hopefully they are valid enough reasons that cannot be easily dismissed as being simply emotional.
>> That's why we have to vote on Tuesday in the most democratic process this state's constitution has to offer.
I support the constitution having a recall process, though I disagree that the process as currently written is the most democratic process we can offer.
>> At least I think the people of California, while not too well informed, do know than Maria Shriver would not marry a Hitler admirer without enough self-control to keep from grabbing women.
Maria who? I'm one of those 'not too well informed' Californians that doesn't know her personally, and can only guess as to why she married Arnold. I do agree that most respectible women (and I would include Maria here - no reason not to) would not marry a Hitler admirer, or a person without self-control. If either of these recent allegations are true, I'd guess she wasn't aware of them.
I'm not buying this Hitler stuff anyway - if he did say something, I expect it was a misquote, or at least taken out of some context of the discussion. I do believe the accusations of Arnolds' groping of women. I can picture stuff like that happening on a rowdy movie set. I wouldn't be surprised if there are far worse 'groping' incidents, and that Arnold is hoping his 'mass apology' will appease any other women from coming forward.
(re the comment: voters could actually get interested in and become informed about politics)
>> That's what I hope, too.
I agree. That's what I am doing. Informed voters is what we need, not uninformed voters. I applaud BullishZ for voting for the first time. I appreciate his honesty as to why he is voting for whom he is voting for. I'm even ok with uninformed voters voting for their first few times, because I think it takes a few trips to the polls to really begin to understand how important it is to vote, and how important it is to really understand who or what you are voting for. We have to start somewhere.
For example: At this point, I won't be voting on Prop 53, because I really don't understand the implications of it. I don't even think Arnold understands it, as his website does not offer a position on it, like it does on Prop 54.
>> the DP which has already deteriorated to the point of idiocy
I know you hate Democrats (you've stated that before). I know anyone who votes for the Green Party Candidate is an idiot (you've stated that). I don't understand why you have to be so negative towards people that have differing views to yours.
You have alot of passion behind your views, which I sincerely appreciate, and I've learned alot about the issues from your posts. I hope that others that read and agree with your views understand that hating people with other views is not part of the conservative agenda, but an emotional addition to your posts.
10-06-2003, 09:58 AM
#32
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: ---
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Davis anti-business policies made me move out of Norcal. Via absentee Ahhhnold gets a chance. He may be of just the moderate temperment to make moving back worthwhile. I hope the mad gooser prevails.
10-06-2003, 04:25 PM
#34
Registered User
An Arnold quote from Sunday:
"It doesn't make any sense to go through details here with you," he told ABC's "This Week" on Sunday. "What is important is that I cannot remember what was happening 20 years ago, 15 years ago. But some of the things sounds like me, which I was the first one to come out and say, you know, some of the things could have happened, I want to apologize to the people if I have offended anyone because that was not my intention."
Now I know why they call this a 'recall' election.
"It doesn't make any sense to go through details here with you," he told ABC's "This Week" on Sunday. "What is important is that I cannot remember what was happening 20 years ago, 15 years ago. But some of the things sounds like me, which I was the first one to come out and say, you know, some of the things could have happened, I want to apologize to the people if I have offended anyone because that was not my intention."
Now I know why they call this a 'recall' election.
10-07-2003, 12:16 AM
#36
>> I know you hate Democrats (you've stated that before). I know anyone who votes for the Green Party Candidate is an idiot (you've stated that). I don't understand why you have to be so negative towards people that have differing views to yours.
The reason I'm negative sometimes is because I think it has more of an impact than dry logic. Emotions do make people think, and they do cause the brain to remember. Since you seem to recall those two things from among hundreds of posts, perhaps it worked too well!
I may have written similar things, but to deny the context is also to deny the meaning. I don't hate democrats, nor do I truly hate any individual. I do think that anyone who would vote for the green party is an idiot, at least in their capacity to reason during that instance. I'm rarely less than tactful, but when I think people are being stupid, sometimes I just say it.
>> You have alot of passion behind your views, which I sincerely appreciate, and I've learned alot about the issues from your posts. I hope that others that read and agree with your views understand that hating people with other views is not part of the conservative agenda, but an emotional addition to your posts.
Do you seriously believe, after all I've written, that I hate people with other views? To believe that you'd have to not understand what I really believe of people and views. (If you'd like, you can learn by reading this.)
Anyway, it doesn't matter. The hatred part is ad hominem, which is an extremely common tactic to pull in a debate. If you can paint me as the victimizer of innocent people, you can undermine my argument by creating an emotional reaction against me.
Attributing my position to passion is a different kind of fallacy, and I don't remember what it's called. The key is that my position is based on reason. Even if I were hateful, I could still support my positions with reasons.
Likewise, the fact that liberals are probably compassionate, does not make liberalism wrong. What makes it wrong is that there's no reasonable or even practical basis. It's an illusion.
I have recently explained how my political position has changed. I was a democrat, and believed it was right to tax and spend, and let the government transfer wealth among private individuals. If my position is so immune to change, then how has it changed so drastically? I've never had head trauma (that I know about). If I truly used emotion to guide me, instead of reason, I'd still be liberal. And if I call anyone stupid for it, I'm also knowingly calling my former self stupid.
This will sound extremely corny, but it's not spin. This thing I have that you think is passion for a position (whether it's idealism, conservatism, libertarianism, or capitalism) is not that at all. It is a passion for discovering ideas and truth that has always motivated me.
I appreciate your part, Scafremon, because you make me think about such things, in ways I otherwise would not have. Without you I wouldn't have written this. But even though you live somewhere around here, I never want to meet you in person, because what I just wrote sounds kind of gay. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)
The reason I'm negative sometimes is because I think it has more of an impact than dry logic. Emotions do make people think, and they do cause the brain to remember. Since you seem to recall those two things from among hundreds of posts, perhaps it worked too well!
I may have written similar things, but to deny the context is also to deny the meaning. I don't hate democrats, nor do I truly hate any individual. I do think that anyone who would vote for the green party is an idiot, at least in their capacity to reason during that instance. I'm rarely less than tactful, but when I think people are being stupid, sometimes I just say it.
>> You have alot of passion behind your views, which I sincerely appreciate, and I've learned alot about the issues from your posts. I hope that others that read and agree with your views understand that hating people with other views is not part of the conservative agenda, but an emotional addition to your posts.
Do you seriously believe, after all I've written, that I hate people with other views? To believe that you'd have to not understand what I really believe of people and views. (If you'd like, you can learn by reading this.)
Anyway, it doesn't matter. The hatred part is ad hominem, which is an extremely common tactic to pull in a debate. If you can paint me as the victimizer of innocent people, you can undermine my argument by creating an emotional reaction against me.
Attributing my position to passion is a different kind of fallacy, and I don't remember what it's called. The key is that my position is based on reason. Even if I were hateful, I could still support my positions with reasons.
Likewise, the fact that liberals are probably compassionate, does not make liberalism wrong. What makes it wrong is that there's no reasonable or even practical basis. It's an illusion.
I have recently explained how my political position has changed. I was a democrat, and believed it was right to tax and spend, and let the government transfer wealth among private individuals. If my position is so immune to change, then how has it changed so drastically? I've never had head trauma (that I know about). If I truly used emotion to guide me, instead of reason, I'd still be liberal. And if I call anyone stupid for it, I'm also knowingly calling my former self stupid.
This will sound extremely corny, but it's not spin. This thing I have that you think is passion for a position (whether it's idealism, conservatism, libertarianism, or capitalism) is not that at all. It is a passion for discovering ideas and truth that has always motivated me.
I appreciate your part, Scafremon, because you make me think about such things, in ways I otherwise would not have. Without you I wouldn't have written this. But even though you live somewhere around here, I never want to meet you in person, because what I just wrote sounds kind of gay. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)
Last edited by nbdyfcnsqnc; 10-07-2003 at 12:18 AM.
10-07-2003, 01:26 AM
#37
Registered User
>> The reason I'm negative sometimes is because I think it has more of an impact than dry logic. Emotions do make people think, and they do cause the brain to remember. Since you seem to recall those two things from among hundreds of posts, perhaps it worked too well!
I don't know if it has worked 'too' well, but yes, it works. Try the dry logic approach for a spell, and if I don't reply, feel free to go back to negativity.
>> Do you seriously believe, after all I've written, that I hate people with other views? To believe that you'd have to not understand what I really believe of people and views.
If you tell me you hate democrats, I will believe you. If you tell me now that you do not hate democrats, I will believe you. The strange part is that if you subsequently revert back to telling me you hate democrats, I won't believe this. For some reason, I think that once a person is beyond hating something/anything, you can never go back to really hating it. And I'm not saying you just did this evolution in the past week, but more along the lines that I am understanding you better. Regarding the weblink,I have read chapter 1, and will read the balance. Thank you.
>> The hatred part is ad hominem, which is an extremely common tactic to pull in a debate. If you can paint me as the victimizer of innocent people, you can undermine my argument by creating an emotional reaction against me.
This homie had to look up 'ad hominem'. Was I using this debate strategy? If so, it was not my intention. In my mind, I was trying to remove the chaf from the wheat, possibly strengthening your position, so I could determine the specific areas that I (or others) would need to understand more clearly.
>> Attributing my position to passion is a different kind of fallacy, and I don't remember what it's called.
You do this to me alot. I use a word such as 'passion', and I think most people who might read the statement (including yourself) will nod in agreement, and breeze on past it to my main point. But Noooooooo. You have to point out that I have not used the correct word, and created a fallacy! I'm not sure if this pisses me off, or if I am appreciative of the correction, or pissed off because I am appreciative of the correction. You did this to me on another thread, where, in passing, you commented that people should not be proud of their heritage (or something to that affect).
>> But even though you live somewhere around here, I never want to meet you in person, because what I just wrote sounds kind of gay. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)
What?!? I thought you were a 27 year old girl named Cindy, an 'all-american hottie'!?! I've been following you from thread to thread, trying to drum up the courage to ask you out on a date!
I don't know if it has worked 'too' well, but yes, it works. Try the dry logic approach for a spell, and if I don't reply, feel free to go back to negativity.
>> Do you seriously believe, after all I've written, that I hate people with other views? To believe that you'd have to not understand what I really believe of people and views.
If you tell me you hate democrats, I will believe you. If you tell me now that you do not hate democrats, I will believe you. The strange part is that if you subsequently revert back to telling me you hate democrats, I won't believe this. For some reason, I think that once a person is beyond hating something/anything, you can never go back to really hating it. And I'm not saying you just did this evolution in the past week, but more along the lines that I am understanding you better. Regarding the weblink,I have read chapter 1, and will read the balance. Thank you.
>> The hatred part is ad hominem, which is an extremely common tactic to pull in a debate. If you can paint me as the victimizer of innocent people, you can undermine my argument by creating an emotional reaction against me.
This homie had to look up 'ad hominem'. Was I using this debate strategy? If so, it was not my intention. In my mind, I was trying to remove the chaf from the wheat, possibly strengthening your position, so I could determine the specific areas that I (or others) would need to understand more clearly.
>> Attributing my position to passion is a different kind of fallacy, and I don't remember what it's called.
You do this to me alot. I use a word such as 'passion', and I think most people who might read the statement (including yourself) will nod in agreement, and breeze on past it to my main point. But Noooooooo. You have to point out that I have not used the correct word, and created a fallacy! I'm not sure if this pisses me off, or if I am appreciative of the correction, or pissed off because I am appreciative of the correction. You did this to me on another thread, where, in passing, you commented that people should not be proud of their heritage (or something to that affect).
>> But even though you live somewhere around here, I never want to meet you in person, because what I just wrote sounds kind of gay. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)
What?!? I thought you were a 27 year old girl named Cindy, an 'all-american hottie'!?! I've been following you from thread to thread, trying to drum up the courage to ask you out on a date!
10-07-2003, 02:17 AM
#38
>> What?!? I thought you were a 27 year old girl named Cindy, an 'all-american hottie'!?! I've been following you from thread to thread, trying to drum up the courage to ask you out on a date!
LOL. Here's a new bit of wisom I just aquired through experimentation: don't write that your name is Cindy and that you're a hottie on the internet unless you really mean it! It might seem funny at the time, but the best it will do is give you a new appreciation for what some of the girls around here have to go through!
>> I don't know if it has worked 'too' well, but yes, it works. Try the dry logic approach for a spell, and if I don't reply, feel free to go back to negativity.
I've been solid on the dry logic for a good 20 years. I need a break every once in awhile.
>> If you tell me you hate democrats, I will believe you. If you tell me now that you do not hate democrats, I will believe you. The strange part is that if you subsequently revert back to telling me you hate democrats, I won't believe this.
Strange, indeed. Strangely correct.
>> >> Attributing my position to passion is a different kind of fallacy, and I don't remember what it's called.
>> You do this to me alot.
Sorry. I don't think I have classified you, though. I usually argue against some classification without naming anyone, and wait for volunteers to classify themselves.
>> You have to point out that I have not used the correct word, and created a fallacy!
That's just part of my explanation. I don't think you can create fallacies, you can only fail to recognize them.
Oops, I'm doing it again, aren't I?
LOL. Here's a new bit of wisom I just aquired through experimentation: don't write that your name is Cindy and that you're a hottie on the internet unless you really mean it! It might seem funny at the time, but the best it will do is give you a new appreciation for what some of the girls around here have to go through!
>> I don't know if it has worked 'too' well, but yes, it works. Try the dry logic approach for a spell, and if I don't reply, feel free to go back to negativity.
I've been solid on the dry logic for a good 20 years. I need a break every once in awhile.
>> If you tell me you hate democrats, I will believe you. If you tell me now that you do not hate democrats, I will believe you. The strange part is that if you subsequently revert back to telling me you hate democrats, I won't believe this.
Strange, indeed. Strangely correct.
>> >> Attributing my position to passion is a different kind of fallacy, and I don't remember what it's called.
>> You do this to me alot.
Sorry. I don't think I have classified you, though. I usually argue against some classification without naming anyone, and wait for volunteers to classify themselves.
>> You have to point out that I have not used the correct word, and created a fallacy!
That's just part of my explanation. I don't think you can create fallacies, you can only fail to recognize them.
Oops, I'm doing it again, aren't I?
10-07-2003, 09:03 AM
#40
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Costa Mesa, CA
Posts: 1,780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can see where Scafremon is coming from. Nbdyfcnsqnc, you are quite the opinionated forum member... and I can tell you love to debate and force your views onto people.
I remember debating back and forth with you regarding the "racism" thread a LONG time ago. Since then, I've learned that I don't want to debate with you... simply because you make the opposing person feel horrible for their beliefs, in a very subtle way. You have a way of doing that...
I remember debating back and forth with you regarding the "racism" thread a LONG time ago. Since then, I've learned that I don't want to debate with you... simply because you make the opposing person feel horrible for their beliefs, in a very subtle way. You have a way of doing that...