This alone speaks volumes of your positions. Once in a debate class a teacher told me in order to have conviction in your position you must first fully understand the argument. You will fully understand the argument when you can effectively argue both sides of the issue. Not all arguments have two sides although most do. (Including this year’s political choice). :usaflagwa :laflagwav :lsug:
when people are just contrarians, taking the other side of an argument to play devils advocate, it tires me out. because then you have to explain to them the things they already know, when you could be using those beautiful arguments on someone who needs them. i like when people say what they actually think.
I'd like to be reclassified as and 'blissfully ignorant bandwagon rider'. Which is true at least when it comes to national politics. I really don't care as much as I should and mostly post sh!t that I know will aggravate one of the locals.
I would agree with you. My point is that there are those on this board (every board for that matter) that settle on a position without ever understanding both sides of the issue. There are times that it is pretty clear that Red is just fanning the flames but for the most part he appears to understand both sides of the issues and has a basis for his position. How can you have conviction on your position if you do not understand the opposing point of view? :usaflagwa :laflagwav :lsug:
It's funny that you say that, because I was reading one of his post about watching the replay of CSPAN2's Charles Duerflur's testimony and I was watching the same thing last night for a few minutes. I love politics and I'm very gullible so I try to read everything I can. In the opposite way though, anything the Republicans say I question until I read something substantial. If the Democrats say something I didn't know, I believe it as the truth until I read otherwise. I realized when I was more interested in what Duerflur had to say than the baseball games, I was ready for November 3.
I don't blame the guy for not wanting to argue facts with a bunch of rented mules.......... getty up boy
Two viewers at once, I hope the ratings don't go to their heads. CSPAN is pretty good, if you are willing to suffer through it. I like it because instead of reading or hearing someone's version of the news, you get to see the news being made. I don't watch it too much, but if I'm flipping channels and an Armed Services Committee meeting is on, I'll watch a little. I do like watching the British House of Commons question and answer session with Tony Blair when they replay it. He is actually fun to watch and pretty entertaining. As bad as I hate to say, I don't think old GW would last five minutes in a setting like that, but then again, neither would John Kerry. That's the problem with most people. They'll read an article with a few quotes and take it for face value without understanding the context of what was said and the true meaning behind it. If you want to know what's going on, you've got to get the whole story, and we almost never have that given to us any more. Just like Rex using parts of the report to bash Bush, but writing off the part he didn't agree with as pure "speculation". The Republican and Democratic parties do the same thing, so you really can't fault him for that. He's merely falling in line with the precedent they have set.
Hey Red, I'm no more a hitler youth than you are a communal farm living, VW van driving, naked volleyball playing, no deoderant using liberal hippie sitting there picking your guitar and combing fleas out of your beard. Now take that back! :grin:
