Biden calls paying higher taxes a patriotic act

[Peikko 1,575]

Well, it explains a lot, but I have to wonder how you came out with the brilliant deduction that libruls (I assume that's who you are referring to, although it's not entirely clear) blame 'the white man' for all the world's ills. I mean, I can see there are specific 'white men who have been in power' who might attract a fair degree of criticism...but that's not even close to being the same as your claim.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well you see - there you go again with your flat-out provocations.

I don't "hide" my background - I just choose not to share it. There is a difference. Also because unless the background is directly relevant to the subject matter, then its of limited importance.

Moreover as others have pointed out to you before - you can find out quite a bit about my background from reading my posts. Its not my fault you choose to read only what you want to.

In which respect I still don't understand why you think that boasting about your money and property gives your arguments added weight. The way I read that - you're saying "I'm rich, therefore I am right". As reasoning goes - that's really very silly.

[Heracles 417]

Well you see - there you go again with your flat-out provocations.

I don't "hide" my background - I just choose not to share it. There is a difference. Also because unless the background is directly relevant to the subject matter, then its of limited importance.

Moreover as others have pointed out to you before - you can find out quite a bit about my background from reading my posts. Its not my fault you choose to read only what you want to.

In which respect I still don't understand why you think that boasting about your money and property gives your arguments added weight. The way I read that - you're saying "I'm rich, therefore I am right". As reasoning goes - that's really very silly.

Background is key to ones stance. If someone with a background in writing fictional novels, for example, is claiming that they know they world, this greatly influences discussions with them. This needs to factored in when chatting with them. Same way we consider a politicians background, qualifications and experiences when choosing candidates.

I do not ask about one's background to ridicule them, let alone boast. I just like to know who I am chatting. Therefore if I know someone is a liberal arts major, with dreadlocks, hippie, bohemian type, I probably will not bother chatting with them because I know we will not agree on anything.

I also ask for this info when someone thinks they are better, and smarter, than others. They should be able to back these statements, or attitude, with their background, credentials, wealth, knowledge etc etc.

Edited September 19, 2008 by Aficionado

[Peikko 1,575]

Yes, you carry on chatting to people based on your stereotypical preconcieved notion of what these people will be like. I'm a tree loving, hippy hugging, poodle ######, lesbian so clearly, you wouldn't have anything in common with me big guy! Please stop chatting with me.

[Peikko 1,575]

Sorry BY, but these people don't boast that they are smarter than you, that's your interpretation of how they post. Seems like you have an edcuational chip on your shoulder.

[rocks 494]

Yes, you carry on chatting to people based on your stereotypical preconcieved notion of what these people will be like. I'm a tree loving, hippy hugging, poodle ######, lesbian so clearly, you wouldn't have anything in common with me big guy! Please stop chatting with me.

prejudice = fail

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well you see - there you go again with your flat-out provocations.

I don't "hide" my background - I just choose not to share it. There is a difference. Also because unless the background is directly relevant to the subject matter, then its of limited importance.

Moreover as others have pointed out to you before - you can find out quite a bit about my background from reading my posts. Its not my fault you choose to read only what you want to.

In which respect I still don't understand why you think that boasting about your money and property gives your arguments added weight. The way I read that - you're saying "I'm rich, therefore I am right". As reasoning goes - that's really very silly.

Background is key to ones stance. If someone with a background in writing fictional novels, for example, is claiming that they know they world, this greatly influences discussions with them. This needs to factored in when chatting with them. Same way we consider a politicians background, qualifications and experiences when choosing candidates.

I do not ask about one's background to ridicule them, let alone boast. I just like to know who I am chatting. Therefore if I know someone is a liberal arts major, with dreadlocks, hippie, bohemian type, I probably will not bother chatting with them because I know we will not agree on anything.

I also ask for this info when someone thinks they are better, and smarter, than others. They should be able to back these statements, or attitude, with their background, credentials, wealth, knowledge etc etc.

I rather think that if you can't make a coherent argument that can stand up to scrutiny - that's on you. Regardless of your background or pedigree.

In short, I don't feel a need to boast. Its not something I do.

[Heracles 417]

Sorry BY, but these people don't boast that they are smarter than you, that's your interpretation of how they post. Seems like you have an edcuational chip on your shoulder.

Next you are going to tell me no one with left wing leaning views has ganged up and attacked others, usually the minority here, with differing views.

The only peaceful argument many here have is when one of their like-minded buddies is posting something ridiculing others with differing views. All of the other times the main offenders are simply attacking any thread or post created by someone with differing views.

A.J. and Fancy Pants, for example, posts quite a bit of ####### that I don't agree with. What do I usually do, skip over it. I don't camp here and respond to their every thread trying to flame it up.

[Heracles 417]

I rather think that if you can't make a coherent argument that can stand up to scrutiny - that's on you. Regardless of your background or pedigree.

In short, I don't feel a need to boast. Its not something I do.

That is bunch of bull #######. When have you ever sat there and said to someone you disagree with something along the lines of, "while this is a coherent argument I respectfully disagree".

You guys are now pretending that we are new comers or were born yesterday and simply do not know what we are talking about. Or are somehow fabricating past discussions.

Edited September 19, 2008 by Aficionado

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I rather think that if you can't make a coherent argument that can stand up to scrutiny - that's on you. Regardless of your background or pedigree.

In short, I don't feel a need to boast. Its not something I do.

That is bunch of bull #######. When have you ever sat there and said to someone you disagree with something along the lines of, "while this is a coherent argument I respectfully disagree".

You guys are now pretending that we are new comers or were born yesterday.

I'm saying that demanding someone's background when your argument is challenged is rather silly. Your response should be to justify your argument, not "how dare you".

[Heracles 417]

I'm saying that demanding someone's background when your argument is challenged is rather silly. Your response should be to justify your argument, not "how dare you".

As is saying all of someones posts are rubbish 24/7. Thus, there is a need to compare backgrounds.

If someone is arguing that a doctor, for example, does not know what they are talking about while they are a fictional conspiracy writer, then yes the doctor should demand to know what their background and knowledge level is. Yet you are suggesting this is irrelevant and that the doctor should simply waste their time debating with this person.

[rocks 494]

If someone is arguing that a doctor, for example, does not know what they are talking about while they are a fictional conspiracy writer, then yes the doctor should demand to know what their background and knowledge level is.

do you mean the discussion would be relating to the education of the doctor?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm saying that demanding someone's background when your argument is challenged is rather silly. Your response should be to justify your argument, not "how dare you".

As is saying all of someones posts are rubbish 24/7. Thus, there is a need to compare backgrounds.

If someone is arguing that a doctor, for example, does not know what they are talking about while they are a fictional conspiracy writer, then yes the doctor should demand to know what their background and knowledge level is. Yet you are suggesting this is irrelevant and that the doctor should simply waste their time debating with this person.

This would be one of your famous tangents - its not even remotely the same.

You don't need to be a doctor to post on message boards.

[rocks 494]

You don't need to be a doctor to post on message boards.

or to have knowledge/a valid opinion

[mud 0]

i like how noone ever sways at all on political opinions. what's the point, you all have your agendas, you all have you reasons for voting for whoever you vote for, but youre not going to change any opinions.. maybe you should all get naked and paint your opinions on your various body parts.. you might change more opinions.. or atleast make people laugh.