Bernie and wife under FBI Investigation

[Darth Executor]

The word you use to describe a concept doesn't determine the actuality of the concept. A triangle is a 2 dimensional object with 3 sides. If you want to call a square a triangle it doesn't make it a triangle. You can't defeat logic with semantics.

But your entire "logic" revolves around semantics. A 2 dimensional object with 3 sides is called a triangle because that's how we define triangle.

More importantly, while you can make the broad claim that something cannot defy its nature (IE: a 2 dimensional objet with 3 sides cannot be a 2 dimensional object with 4 sides), there's no actual way to PROVE this, it's just something we take for granted because we cannot conceptualize it any other way.

Heck if you could do that then I could say that A = B because I define B to be the same thing as A All Cats are Dogs because I define Dog to be a Cat.

Yes.

[Sparko]

But your entire "logic" revolves around semantics. A 2 dimensional object with 3 sides is called a triangle because that's how we define triangle.

More importantly, while you can make the broad claim that something cannot defy its nature (IE: a 2 dimensional objet with 3 sides cannot be a 2 dimensional object with 4 sides), there's no actual way to PROVE this, it's just something we take for granted because we cannot conceptualize it any other way.



Yes.

You sound like a liberal.

[Zymologist]

You sound like a liberal.

Darth Executor has slain men for less than this.

[Meh Gerbil]

Darth Executor has slain men for less than this.

So many men.

[Jin-roh]

Is this any worse than the liberal call to abandon the electoral college with the only reason given that Hillary lost?

Can I mention that replies. That sound "liberal this" or "obama/hillary that" are not usually helpful? They don't appear to be that engaging? They feel reactive and not reflective?

It grows tiresome after awhile.

I don't see the reasons for doing away with the college to be anymore intellectually astute than the founding fathers argument.

That wasn't the point.

BTW, what about those super delegates in the DNC?
Maybe democracy isn't as big of a deal with them as they'd have you think?

And yet I see people on the left opposing changes to Roe vs. Wade because it is 'settled law' and henceforth beyond debate.
Both sides engage in this behavior and both sides do it extensively.

Do I need to post the dozens of videos that show the progressives crying over the last election result - in a complete state of panic and emotional breakdown?
Who trained these people to act this way?

Again, not really the point.

I can agree with that.

Good to hear.

95% of journalists vote democrat.
The fake news problem is a much bigger problem on the Democrat side because they're doing most of the writing.

Equivocation. Bias and fake news are the same thing. Being the majority is not fake news. Overtly and shamelessly supporting one candidate over the another is not fake news. Writing op eds on how much you hate some politician, policy, or movement is not fake news.

Thank you though, for illustrating -again- that detractors use the term 'fake news' in an equivocated, appropriative, way.

The 'clean up your own house' thing is hard to take from a party that won't prosecute Hillary Clinton for her numerous and well documented crimes.

Seriously, is it not possible to respond to criticism without invoking some sin you see in Hillary/Liberals/Obamas/Democrats/Progressives?

I don't think it is fair to paint OBP as not caring about the poor.

I was referring to data and statistics, and whether those are things OBP cares about. No comment was intended to comment on whatever attitude he has towards the inner city poor, or the rural poor, or the anywhere poor.

I know what it is to be angry with other Christians but you don't know enough about his life to make this sort of a judgement.

Regardless, the back and forth is ridiculous.
The USA government is very corrupt on both sides and we'd better get it cleaned up.

A true point, but not deeply relevant to any of the points I see as deep failures in conservative thinking.

[demi-conservative]

Quite often, this is the case. E.g "why do we have Electoral college?"

"Because the founding fathers believed it would require the president to campaign across all the states, and therefore build a national coalition of support."

"Okay, that's nice, but does it actually do that?"

A paraphrase summary of course, but you get the idea.

No, you are not first nerd to find out that most people are not intellectual, they cannot give you good intellectual answer for 'why is this???'

This is cognitive bias that doesn't make a difference at all

Fixed!!!

[Meh Gerbil]

Can I mention that replies. That sound "liberal this" or "obama/hillary that" are not usually helpful? They don't appear to be that engaging? They feel reactive and not reflective?

They're helpful depending upon what one hopes to accomplish in a conversation.

For example, these sorts of replies can help one identify the motivations of the opposition.
If Candidate A (Party A) breaks the law and the commentator screams about it the commentator might really care about the rule of law OR he might just be a partisan hack.
If Candidate B (Party B) breaks the law and the commentator doesn't seem to mind at all then the commentator might not care about the rule of law OR he might just be a partisan hack.

^--- The response to A taken alone isn't definitive. The response to B alone isn't definitive. However, combining the response to A and B will teach a person if the commentator is really about the rule of law or just a worthless partisan hack.

I'm sure you're tired of communicating with partisan hacks.
I know I'm really tired of it.

Take Care.

[Jin-roh]

They're helpful depending upon what one hopes to accomplish in a conversation.

For example, these sorts of replies can help one identify the motivations of the opposition.
If Candidate A (Party A) breaks the law and the commentator screams about it the commentator might really care about the rule of law OR he might just be a partisan hack.
If Candidate B (Party B) breaks the law and the commentator doesn't seem to mind at all then the commentator might not care about the rule of law OR he might just be a partisan hack.

^--- The response to A taken alone isn't definitive. The response to B alone isn't definitive. However, combining the response to A and B will teach a person if the commentator is really about the rule of law or just a worthless partisan hack.

I'm sure you're tired of communicating with partisan hacks.
I know I'm really tired of it.

Take Care.

Or perhaps the speaker does not care to defend Candidate A any more than Candidate B. Yet, perhaps thinks that the sins of candidate B are not relevant to at least a particular part of a conversation.

You know, that crazy two wrongs don't make a right thing.

[JimL]

Is 'No-Refunds' commie-with-three houses-Bernie, guilty??

Hmmm, and all this time I thought you were a commie.

Btw you can pretty much bet the house that there is nothing to the story, a.k.a. "more conservative fake news.". Just the usual republican tactic of personally smearing those they fear. The request for an investigation came from Mr.Toensing, the Republican chair of the Trump campaign.

[Zymologist]

Hmmm, and all this time I thought you were a commie.

Btw you can pretty much bet the house that there is nothing to the story, a.k.a. "more conservative fake news.". Just the usual republican tactic of personally smearing those they fear. The request for an investigation came from Mr.Toensing, the Republican chair of the Trump campaign.

But how do you know? The investigation is ongoing.

[JimL]

But how do you know? The investigation is ongoing.

I don't, but I'd be willing to bet my bottom dollar on it. You see, I know the way that republicans operatives operate. They are a pretty nasty bunch!