You can't make this shit up

[pillars]

They're a newbie here and already whining and acting like they own the joint.
lovely

Oh, do you own the forum?

 

[pillars]

If so, thanks ever so much for putting it online. It's one of the most active forums I've happened onto lately.

 

[S.J.]

No, you tried to add your OWN definition.

"A strawman is mischaracterizing someone else's argument, such as you did when you asked a question which created an entirely new position for me, one that would be easier for you to attack."

You can t make this shit up Page 9 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

No, dear. I attempted to explain. But, now I am starting to understand that there are quite a few dense people here.


Straw man - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.

Here's my original post:

Speaking of desperation, this is the ONLY GUY that the Republicans could recruit to run in this area?

Here's your strawman:

Should they have waited for you to tell them who to run?

Do you see what you did there? Did I suggest that Republicans should have asked my opinion? NO. But, you implied I did, in an attempt to avoid what I did say.

That's how a strawman works.

Now, you can deposit some bitcoins in my account for taking the time out of having fun to give you this little lesson. Or perhaps it was just because I found you painfully stupid. Either way...

More desperation. You started this thread with the intention of creating a bad guy (strawman), then knock him down. The Grand Jury declined to indict, not the D.A. but you needed one bad guy (strawman) to knock down. Now you can attack my intellect all you want but that doesn't change what you are trying to do and it doesn't change the fact that you got your ass handed to you several dozen times. You didn't like my sarcasm so you called it a strawman. You used the wrong term and I made you eat it. And I really doubt if the other members are interested in your ongoing attempt to save face.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Well, the GOP can do it this way if it wants. Selecting someone to be a candidate to fill a vacancy saves time and eliminated the need for and the expenditures for a primary contest. Or course, if people are thinking that is is somewhat of a pain in the ass, well, it is. Grimm should simply have not run in 2014. That's one issue, for which I already suggested a fix in a VERY LARGE thread I made in the CDZ more than one year ago. That thread deals with completely retooling our system of electioneering in the USA:

Electioneering US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The 1000 representatives would be for all 50 US states, DC AND all US Territories where citizens have been issued a US-Passport, for instance, Puerto Rico and Guam.

Representative Term: 3 years.
Requirements: at least 30 years old, US citizenship
Term limit: 3 terms maximum, maximum 10 years. See: Ticket

"Ticket"

Representatives would be elected as a „ticket“, meaning a candidate + an alternate, whose name would be on the ticket, so that if the candidate elected would leave office during his term for any reason, the alternate would assume that Representative's duties. This would eliminate a lot of special elections.

If a representative were to leave office in his third year and the alternate then takes office, that person could then still run for and win up to 3 terms on his own. But if the Representative were to leave office in the 2nd year of his term and the alternate took office, than that person would only be able to run for 2 terms on his own. Thus, a term limit of 3 terms, but possibly 10 years total.

The second issue is their choice of someone who is indeed controversial, especially in light of a rash of cases of cop-vs.black person violence in the USA in the last months. And for a party that starts to uncork the champagne if it gets just 8% of the black vote in national prez elections (and in most state elections as well), this is probably not their smartest move. Compete locally, but think nationally.

 

[pillars]

You started this thread with the intention of creating a bad guy (strawman), then knock him down. The Grand Jury declined to indict, not the D.A. but you needed one bad guy (strawman) to knock down. Now you can attack my intellect all you want but that doesn't change what you are trying to do and it doesn't change the fact that you got your ass handed to you several dozen times. You didn't like my sarcasm so you called it a strawman. You used the wrong term and I made you eat it. And I really doubt if the other members are interested in your ongoing attempt to save face.

I didn't start the thread, and you don't seem very coherent.

 

[Carib Gyal]

You live in the real world, but you take note of threads to haul out in support of your arguments on USMB.

Interesting real life you go there.

Many times on internet forums, some posters repeatedly ignore factual information that is posted on a forum and runs counter to their worldviews. Why should one feel responsible to repeatedly repost information?

Like the location of old threads? Because you live in the real world, I suppose.

They're a newbie here and already whining and acting like they own the joint.
lovely

Well, the GOP can do it this way if it wants. Selecting someone to be a candidate to fill a vacancy saves time and eliminated the need for and the expenditures for a primary contest. Or course, if people are thinking that is is somewhat of a pain in the ass, well, it is. Grimm should simply have not run in 2014. That's one issue, for which I already suggested a fix in a VERY LARGE thread I made in the CDZ more than one year ago. That thread deals with completely retooling our system of electioneering in the USA:

Electioneering US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The 1000 representatives would be for all 50 US states, DC AND all US Territories where citizens have been issued a US-Passport, for instance, Puerto Rico and Guam.

Representative Term: 3 years.
Requirements: at least 30 years old, US citizenship
Term limit: 3 terms maximum, maximum 10 years. See: Ticket

"Ticket"

Representatives would be elected as a „ticket“, meaning a candidate + an alternate, whose name would be on the ticket, so that if the candidate elected would leave office during his term for any reason, the alternate would assume that Representative's duties. This would eliminate a lot of special elections.

If a representative were to leave office in his third year and the alternate then takes office, that person could then still run for and win up to 3 terms on his own. But if the Representative were to leave office in the 2nd year of his term and the alternate took office, than that person would only be able to run for 2 terms on his own. Thus, a term limit of 3 terms, but possibly 10 years total.

The second issue is their choice of someone who is indeed controversial, especially in light of a rash of cases of cop-vs.black person violence in the USA in the last months. And for a party that starts to uncork the champagne if it gets just 8% of the black vote in national prez elections (and in most state elections as well), this is probably not their smartest move. Compete locally, but think nationally.

And yet the Reps still demolished the Dems in the last mid-terms to take control of Congress. They may just be smarter than you would like to think.

 

[S.J.]

You started this thread with the intention of creating a bad guy (strawman), then knock him down. The Grand Jury declined to indict, not the D.A. but you needed one bad guy (strawman) to knock down. Now you can attack my intellect all you want but that doesn't change what you are trying to do and it doesn't change the fact that you got your ass handed to you several dozen times. You didn't like my sarcasm so you called it a strawman. You used the wrong term and I made you eat it. And I really doubt if the other members are interested in your ongoing attempt to save face.

I didn't start the thread, and you don't seem very coherent.

No, you just ran with it.

 

[pillars]

Is that all you've got? You entered this thread with no intention of actually discussing the topic; but rather, of trying to take it off topic.

And now this? You're clearly not worth paying attention to in the future.

 

[Carib Gyal]

I was just reading up on this district. Grimm was re-elected despite his legal troubles. Most expect this Donovan guy to win. It's some district out on Staten Island, very law and order. Although Big Al Sharpton - or Little Al Sharpton, whichever you prefer - is pretty upset about the whole thing.

 

[Freewill]

I don't know, I don't judge people by the press. I don't know the guy and neither did you. Your only protest is you don't like the GJ's decision and thus you want to push the racist issue. My gosh I thought liberals liked people but apparently only some.

I like people but sometimes, picking a certain person can send a message, whether the message is intentional or not is another story.

Oh my gosh, what point do you think is being sent by selecting that guy?

 

[pillars]

Oh my gosh, what point do you think is being sent by selecting that guy?

Oh, my gosh, I think I was clear in the posts above.

 

[S.J.]

Is that all you've got? You entered this thread with no intention of actually discussing the topic; but rather, of trying to take it off topic.

And now this? You're clearly not worth paying attention to in the future.

I know you thought you would come onto this forum and dazzle everyone with your super intellectual wisdom but you're no different than all the other liberal hacks on here who think they're hot shit but get their asses handed to them on a daily basis. You're not special.

 

[pillars]

Is that all you've got? You entered this thread with no intention of actually discussing the topic; but rather, of trying to take it off topic.

And now this? You're clearly not worth paying attention to in the future.

I know you thought you would come onto this forum and dazzle everyone with your super intellectual wisdom but you're no different than all the other liberal hacks on here who think they're hot shit but get their asses handed to them on a daily basis. You're not special.

You know nothing of my thoughts, silly man.

 

[S.J.]

Is that all you've got? You entered this thread with no intention of actually discussing the topic; but rather, of trying to take it off topic.

And now this? You're clearly not worth paying attention to in the future.

I know you thought you would come onto this forum and dazzle everyone with your super intellectual wisdom but you're no different than all the other liberal hacks on here who think they're hot shit but get their asses handed to them on a daily basis. You're not special.

You know nothing of my thoughts, silly man.

Nor do I care to. You're not important enough.

 

[pillars]

Nor do I care to. You're not important enough.

You cared enough to respond to me dozens of times.
smh

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Should they have waited for you to tell them who to run?

Your attempts at strawman arguments are both transparent and sad.

This THREAD is a strawman argument.

Oh, that's cute. You don't know what a strawman argument is, do you? Buy a damn dictionary.

straw man
noun
: a weak or imaginary argument or opponent that is set up to be easily defeated

It describes this thread and the argument you're trying to sell.

That you and most others on the right still don't get it comes as no surprise.

 

[Carib Gyal]

Nor do I care to. You're not important enough.

You cared enough to respond to me dozens of times.
smh

That's what we do here. But you already knew that. And I know your thoughts.

 

[squeeze berry]

Is that all you've got? You entered this thread with no intention of actually discussing the topic; but rather, of trying to take it off topic.

And now this? You're clearly not worth paying attention to in the future.

I know you thought you would come onto this forum and dazzle everyone with your super intellectual wisdom but you're no different than all the other liberal hacks on here who think they're hot shit but get their asses handed to them on a daily basis. You're not special.

yes special

call him ed

 

[Freewill]

Oh my gosh, what point do you think is being sent by selecting that guy?

Oh, my gosh, I think I was clear in the posts above.

I am slow I need it made clear.

Are you saying that because a GJ didn't indite that this guy should bring it to trial and waste tax payer's money? What do you think is the purpose of a GJ? Those at the scene with Garner were supervised by a black woman. Where I supervise if I supervised someone doing something wrong and did nothing then I would be the biggest one in trouble. But you barely hear of the woman.....why?

 

[Freewill]

Is that all you've got? You entered this thread with no intention of actually discussing the topic; but rather, of trying to take it off topic.

And now this? You're clearly not worth paying attention to in the future.

I know you thought you would come onto this forum and dazzle everyone with your super intellectual wisdom but you're no different than all the other liberal hacks on here who think they're hot shit but get their asses handed to them on a daily basis. You're not special.

It is not that they are ignorant, it just that they know so much that isn't so.....Thanks be to RR.