NCclimber

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    4,456

  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by NCclimber

  1. NCclimber
    ADD heaven
  2. NCclimber
    To: Non sequitur? There are other logical fallacies besides the oh so popular "strawman". Very "sequitur", you just need to cast aside the US-centric blinkers That might make sense if the discussion wasn't about the US government. Actually it's about the resignation of a GOP scumbag, take a look at the title I said discussion, not OP (or thread). Can you tell the difference? Who made you the arbiter of what comes up in discussion? Are we getting testy?
  3. NCclimber
    To: Non sequitur? There are other logical fallacies besides the oh so popular "strawman". Very "sequitur", you just need to cast aside the US-centric blinkers That might make sense if the discussion wasn't about the US government. Actually it's about the resignation of a GOP scumbag, take a look at the title I said discussion, not OP (or thread). Can you tell the difference?
  4. NCclimber
    To: Non sequitur? There are other logical fallacies besides the oh so popular "strawman". Very "sequitur", you just need to cast aside the US-centric blinkers That might make sense if the discussion wasn't about the US government.
  5. NCclimber
    Have their methods and protocols really improved since 2000? You know, when Gore was declared the winner of Florida, while the polls were still open, and then later Bush was declared the winner? How have their methods changed? Well, I still doubt they can predict outright thievery. You know. It's funny. I've noticed you calling people out for not honestly reponding to other's posts. It's funny because you seem to commit the same sin on a regular basis. Is this hypocrisy? Who is to judge?
  6. NCclimber
    Hey, they claimed they would fix certain things. That's what they ran on, now it's time to put up. I will be anxiously awaiting their "Secret Plan" for Iraq. My criticism won't contain the vitriol and hate that has come from the left the past few years. I doubt most conservatives have any interest in dishing out the level of bitchin', whinin', moanin', hatin' we've been subjected to for the last six years. It just seemed so juvenile... so petty.
  7. NCclimber
    How would this be different than WIC, food stamps and section 8 housing? I think that last paragraph is the kicker. It's a sliding scale for benefits. I may be wrong, but I thought the review process for welfare benefits were fairly far apart, which means if your income rose enough to disqualify you for benefits, there was a significant wait until you could re-enroll.
  8. NCclimber
    I've almost always sided with Israel, regarding conflicts with its neighbors, but in light of it's recent conflict in Lebanon and now this, I'm left wondering... WHAT THE HELL ARE THOSE PEOPLE THINKING??? I'll be waiting to see the Israeli explanation for this.
  9. NCclimber
    I seem to recall that right after the feds found the $100K in his freezer, a number of leading Democrats distanced themselves from him. While I don't recall if any Dems spoke against him, I did notice no one (except a few members of the Black causus) was defending him.
  10. NCclimber
    you're so Machiavellian I don't recall if they were right or not. It's not a very responsible thing to do when polls are still open over the rest of the country. Also, that particular 1% showed the race tipped the opposite of how they were calling it. I think you underestimate their prediction protocols. Maybe you even misunderestimate. They have detailed records precinct by precinct, so even if the 1% (which even in a small district is comparable to Gallup's standard sample size) is "opposite", it enables them to see the trend in the district and project an outcome. Were they right? And the 1st Amendment apparently allows them to do this without your interference Have their methods and protocols really improved since 2000? You know, when Gore was declared the winner of Florida, while the polls were still open, and then later Bush was declared the winner? How have their methods changed?
  11. NCclimber
    How did we get get from: To: Non sequitur? There are other logical fallacies besides the oh so popular "strawman".
  12. NCclimber
    You might check your revenues facts - it took years for revenues to just get back up to where they were in 2000. The cumulative revenue LOSS is why we have record debt. Next, the Dems have said they will restore pay-go rules that the GOP abolished, and that is likely to rein in spending increases. And maybe one of these years we'll actually see our federal debt reduced. How long has it been since that happened? 46 years?
  13. NCclimber
    Sure it was. That's irrelevant. Christians have been pushing their faith by legislating morality for a long time. It's certainly not a new problem. I'm guessing this has been the norm for about 217 years.
  14. NCclimber
    You do not make yourself look very smart by playing that silly "straw man" game, since too many of us here are well aware of what you're doing. Try debating what she actually said, You do not make yourself look very smart by resorting to simple diversionary tactics, since too many of us here are well aware of what you're doing. Try debating what I actually said. I've noticed a number of people around here seem inclined to look for ways to misunderstand a point or question, rather than actually respond to the obvious point. Some do it occasionally. For others it's standard fare. By and large I try to address people directly. If I use some logically fallacy, point it out. Just making generic attacks is just lame. Since you misrepresented her position, there's no point in debating what you actually said - it was a straw man. I see.The points I brought up address the position a number of people seem to support. Instead of addressing them, you seem inclined to elude them. Nice.
  15. NCclimber
    Lets try this again... If some fucking bigot... goes out and does the same thing he rails against.. he deserves everything that comes to him...he is a fucking hypocrite. I keep reading this over and over again, even though no one seems to be challenging this point. IOW everyone gets it. What so many seem to missing is those who espouse a "live and let live" philisophy, but abandon it when politically beneficial - they are also hypocrites. No..they're not as hypocritical as the hypocrite that was speaking out for whatever he got caught doing... so that hypocrisy doesn't count. Are you saying it's okay to be hypocritical if you're attacking a hypocrite? Then your hypocrisy is perfectly acceptable your hypocritical actions are done on the side of righteousness? The New Zeitgeist: Gaining the moral high ground through hypocrisy It's soooo righteous
  16. NCclimber
    You do not make yourself look very smart by playing that silly "straw man" game, since too many of us here are well aware of what you're doing. Try debating what she actually said, You do not make yourself look very smart by resorting to simple diversionary tactics, since too many of us here are well aware of what you're doing. Try debating what I actually said. I've noticed a number of people around here seem inclined to look for ways to misunderstand a point or question, rather than actually respond to the obvious point. Some do it occasionally. For others it's standard fare. By and large I try to address people directly. If I use some logically fallacy, point it out. Just making generic attacks is just lame.
  17. NCclimber
    Lets try this again... If some fucking bigot... goes out and does the same thing he rails against.. he deserves everything that comes to him...he is a fucking hypocrite. I keep reading this over and over again, even though no one seems to be challenging this point. IOW everyone gets it. What so many seem to missing is those who espouse a "live and let live" philisophy, but abandon it when politically beneficial - they are also hypocrites.
  18. NCclimber
    That's what they used to say in the old USSR. Saying their isn't a bias in the media, particularly "false but accurate" CBS, NPR and CNN, is likie saying their is no bias among college professors, especially those in the Humanities.
  19. NCclimber
    About 10 years ago, I got on a mailing list for the local scientologists. Somehow they got my first name wrong. It was always a giveaway when I got mail from them. The creepy thing is I've moved twice and they've found me both times. I've never had a thing to do with them. It's weird how they keep contacting me. Well, last night, they called. That was a first. Anyhow, the missus answered the phone and made it abundantly clear that their efforts to contact me unwelcomed and would they please take my name off their list!!! I'm on the Do Not Call list. Should I report them?
  20. NCclimber
    Haggart married a man?
  21. NCclimber
    China was accepted into the WTO in November 2001. Since then, the Dollar Index has dropped about 30%, the price of crude has increased 200% and copper has increased 400%.
  22. NCclimber
    I'll have to remember that one. Make some claims. When asked for supporting evidence... offer the Dewey Decimal Classification/Cutter number.
  23. NCclimber
    You may want to recheck the definition of hypocritical. It's been posted about a dozen (give or take) times in this or other recent threads. Your example is not consistent with the word's definition. If someone says "it's no ones business what a person does in private" and criticizes those who do, then, when the shoe in on the other foot, they "spew righteous indignation", they are hypocrites.
  24. NCclimber
    I agree. Those Republican "defenders of morality and family values", who are guilty of immoral behavior should be condemned for their hypocrisy. Who I'm talking about are those politicians (and run-of-the-mill citizens) that claim "personal behavior is no ones business" when defending one of their own, but spew forth righteous indignation when it involves an opponent.
  25. NCclimber
    No one said it was okay. However, it is not hypocritical. No. But it is hypocritical to use political affiliation as the determining factor in who one condemns.