SSDP = Same shit different post.
Avoid, deflect and demean. Typical.
Are you enjoying the misrepresentations of my opinions, putting words in my mouth, telling me what I do or don't stand for, what I like or dislike, what sources are or are not allowed, lumping posters together?
What can I say other than the same thing I’ve been saying? YOU choose who you want to believe and I'll choose who I wish to believe - In the end, that’s all that is going to happen. Feel free to believe what you wish with your Gov't sources. I'll take the independent source EVERY SINGLE time over them. I give them more credibility.
I bring up opinion pieces to discussion, whether I agree or disagree with what is said. You don't like it. You’ve made that clear. That is your opinion.
I learned a long time ago NOT to trust what the Gov't says – Our Gov’t is full of lawyers and politicians - two of the most UNtrustworthy types of people on the planet. They are more self-serving than looking out for their constituents. You disagree - I know that.
The post on Global warming as a perfect example of something I quoted for discussion. You ridiculed and disregarded it, that’s fine for you. You take the guys last 5 blog entries and dismiss him as unobjective. It was never supposed to be objective. That wasn’t the intention. It was to discuss – that’s all. Don’t like it? Don’t discuss it.
The author even prefaced it with:
“All right, I'm going to try to explain both sides of the Global Warming debate. I'll try to be as middle-of-the-road as possible, so spare me any over-arching partisan stuff. Well, enjoy:”
It was entered to open discussion, nothing more. Yet you, who claim that making blanket statements is narrow-minded and idiotic, have repeatedly done just that. This is just one example. I believe the term you’ve used to describe this behavior is hypocrisy. In this case, I agree.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redux
I try to post facts and try to cite sources (more often than most others)...and continually and repeatedly have those cites dismissed or ignored because they are counter to your opinion.
|
This is disingenuous and blatantly false. I have repeatedly disagreed with you about Gov’t links and my personal preference for sources independent of the Gov’t. You disagree – fine. We both know where we stand on this issue. We disagree. So be it. Move on.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redux
One day you point to "real unemployment numbers" in response to counter a post that unemployment decreased last month ~snip~ those "real unemployment numbers you pointed to are government numbers...the same government you don’t trust when it comes to stimulus job numbers! And posting those numbers with no context (similar "real" numbers in earlier years) is less than honest.
|
You missed the point again. In the first case they were used as a relative comparison. Both sets of data were used because they came from the same source. Independent sources have nothing to do with this example.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redux
Can you understand why some find it so fucking hard to have a conversation with you?
|
I believe there is an ignore function at your disposal. I suggest you use it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redux
I'm really not interested in attacking anyone.
|
Bullshit. You’ve been doing that for pages upon pages. It’s ok though whatever floats your boat.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redux
BTW, I think tw's posts are often the most informative and thought-provoking of any contributor to the political/current affairs discussions...and look at the crap he takes for it....primarily from you and Merc.
|
I’m curious if you would feel the same if his opinion differed from yours? Actually, I’m not. Oh, and by the way – his posts are probably on ignore more than mine.
At this point we'll just have to agree to disagree and try to be as civil a possible. That's what I'll try to do anyway.