Truly Grim, Authoritarian Inauguration

So you didn't vote either old dude?

 

I guess the responses are a direct reflection of the baseless OP.

 

The chronology of the posts shows you are a liar, Sandy. Plain and simple, your revisionist clap trap non-withstanding. You do EXACTLY as I've described, and no amount of tripe like you spew here will change the record. You're done, Sandy...once I reduce right wing wonks to this level, I don't waste further time and space on them. you're free to follow me around and bark at my heels.

 

Yes, and over 17 million people agreed with Hitler in 1933, and your point is? (And no, Godwin told me I'm okay here).

Your reference, above, which is an allusion to my characterization of your opinion of the Inauguration thread, has nothing to do with what follows after the comma, this:

That anyone can instantly discover you have started few threads is an irrelevant point.

It doesn't improve nor validate or other wise strengthen whatever point you are trying to make, noting that that point is not clear to begin with, but, of course, you're going to tell me 'I'll figure it out' in short order, right? Right.

Unlike other posters, me for example?

Here you are engaging in a pseudo debate trick called posturing (as was your opening line), which is a term (or my term) for what debaters commonly do to puff themselves up in the mistaken notion that it improves their argument,

Posturing does not validate, or otherwise strengthen, etc., your point.

So far, you're using all the old, tired, tricks many debaters use.

You are entitled to your opinion, but care to back it up? As for as 'partisan' goes, who among us isn't partisan? Certainly not you.

Stacking the deck? You're implying I'm guilty of ignoring an abundance of counter evidence and overloading my argument with
one-sided points? That's what the 'stacking the deck fallacy' means, so if that is your meaning, feel free to engage. Point by point, I'm game, I'll go the distance. ( deck - stacking is common, and really not that big of a debate sin. So, engage, if you feel the argument is too one sided, let's hear your side of it ).

So far, all you have done with me is offer unsubstantiated claims of this and that colored with hyperbolical/loaded language. As the saying goes, 'talk is cheap'.

But, in case you make the attempt, (to engage) I suggest avoiding hyperbole and using loaded language, because loaded language does not validate or strengthen an argument. By the way, you have propensity for hyperbole. Who are you trying to impress?

Oh, it might impress some, or perhaps you do it merely to amuse yourself, but, again, what it does not do is validate or improve your point. And, if it doesn't validate your point, noting that, on top of it, you offer nothing to substantiate it, thus rendering it to a mere vacuous declaration, what is the point? Or, perhaps you are offering what you think is a valid excuse to avoid a debate. If you don't want to debate, fine, just say so, but if that is what you want, then why the vacuous hyperbole? That doesn't make sense. If you are going to put your feet in the water, for lawd sakes, mon, take the dive and swim the distance.

The above is not a complete idea, lacks a predicate or it simply doesn't make sense.

I get the idea you think 'just giving an opinion' is perfectly fine. For some reason, I thought the purpose of this forum, and all forums such as this, is to engage, to discuss, and to debate. But, if all one does is blurt out one's opinion, and someone counters it, and then you say, fine, I disagree. What is the point of that? I don't see it. For me, the greater pursuit is to continue the debate, and perhaps, at some juncture, who knows, there might be a meeting of minds, and a greater truth discovered.

You never know.

Ball is in your court.

PS, 'Pravda Press' ?

Really? I'm a commie pinko, eh?

If you are concerned that I might be a communist, it would be more courteous if you asked, rather than assume. Thank you.

 

False. Who is "barking at heels" though LOL? Not me.

Remember folks, always have a WRITTEN RECORD of ANY discussion attempted with a Leftist. Waste of time otherwise.

 

Stopped reading there, you lose posting that. Has nothing to do with Godwin btw, just plain dumb and disingenuous. Thanks for the bump though, gets the word out to more people concerned by the Authoritarian Empire Inauguration of 2020.

 

No, you tried to puff yourself up with 'most people agree with me' therefore, you are correct, logical fallacy, nothing proves that point that it is logical fallacy more than when we see history is replete with large blocks of people backing the wrong horse, hence the '17 million' reference (thus it's on point). Moreover, your claim, on it's face, is vacuous, in the first place, no evidence that it is true, notwithstanding the fact that even if it were true. it doesn't strengthen your point, whatever the hell point you are trying to make, and we won't even mention your tortured syntax.

Moreover, you are disingenuous -- you looked for the first thing you can use as excuse to avoid responding, in toto to my rebuttal, because to do that, you'd actually have to put some effort into it.

Please reply, to my rebuttal, otherwise I'm done with you.

1. You project, accuse others of that which you are culpable.
2. You traffic in hyperbole, loaded language, and vacuous opinions ( see #1 above, then you have the gall to accuse of 'deck-stacking' )
3. I find your responses to my rebuttals lazy, and sloppy in their execution.

For someone who claims to be a lawyer, the caliber of your replies, i.e., your tortured syntax, oozing bias trafficking in hyperbole and loaded language, your projectionism, etc., overall, are sub par for what I would expect of an attorney.

Therefore, I can only conclude you are first year law student, a novice to debating, and haven't evolved past the 'mind is mush' stage. That'll probably get me a hit by the moderator, but it needs to be said.

 

Make Hitler references in the first line, get no meaningful response from me, nor will the above ramble get one.

"i.e., your tortured syntax, oozing bias trafficking in hyperbole and loaded language, your projectionism,"

Read the many hyper-partisan threads that you post to this forum, then look in a mirror.

 

Cool story bro.

 

You have yet to give a meaningful response, so, that's an empty statement.
In fact, I tried being nice, thoughtful, etc., to you, well, it doesn't work, no meaningful statement, or at least not one that was compelling on any level.

That's not hyper partisan, it's not even partisan, it's an assessment of the caliber of your comments, and it's on point, and accurate.

yeah, nothing spells hyper-partisan more than "Authoritarian Empire Inauguration" and 'Pravda Press'.

Yeah, I get my info from 'Pravda' which is rich considering your boy Trump has been financed by Russians for years, which explains why he kisses Putin's butt.

Given your hyperbole, YOUR hyper partisanship, the unescapable truth is that it is YOU, who are the projectionist extraordinaire, you accuse me of the very thing you are guilty, and you do it in spades.

give me a ****ing break

See, you're just copping out because you know your debate skills are weak, and are no match for mine.

And please, your penchant for hyperbole is bad enough, spare this forum of boring clichés

 

FYI

Your 'likes received' to 'messages' ratio is a paltry 39%, whereas mine is 68%.

'Apparently' you're not that popular.

 

How big are you rally sizes though.....

 

Fallacious, not surprised. Thanks for the bumps though, gets the word out to more people about the Authoritarian Empire Inauguration.