Experience you can believe in

[Dugout Dad]

I am a liberal!....my mind is like mush .

There, I fixed it for you

^^^^^ ^^^^^

[GSB]

That's some funny stuff right there. LOL

The problem with the conservative label is that far to many liberals embrace it during election time. Let's face it, no one will vote for a liberal who admits it.

[carolinafan]

I am a liberal!....my mind is like mush .

There, I fixed it for you

It's about time someone fixed me.....

OK...now you all can comment about my tubes being tied and not producing any more little liberals.. I think you know how much I like to entertain the HB boys!

[blackwidow]

Proving a negative is impossible, so you propose a ridiculous test...especially when one need only provide a SINGLE counterexample to disprove my claim. I assert that you never see conservatives bristling at the label on the simple "basis" that you in fact never see conservatives bristling at the label. Show me one who does or concede the point.

Provided that they are accurate, generalizations, like labels, are also perfectly valid and useful in argument. If you're going to be dismissive, you should do so on sound bases.

It's not about proving a negative , it's about the fact that your premise presents a logical fallacy, therefore I cannot concede the point. I'll concede that you have a point it's just not a very good one.


Personally, what I've found in my life are people searching for truth, beauty and a meaningful life. They are complex and don't want to be labeled, they wish to be seen as individuals. I'm always wary of people that want to put others in a neat little box so that they can feel confident in their own belief systems.

Label me this if you must:
A revolutionary–reactionary, an optimistic –pessimist,… a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.

Peace.

[Dugout Dad]

Proving a negative is impossible, so you propose a ridiculous test...especially when one need only provide a SINGLE counterexample to disprove my claim. I assert that you never see conservatives bristling at the label on the simple "basis" that you in fact never see conservatives bristling at the label. Show me one who does or concede the point.

Provided that they are accurate, generalizations, like labels, are also perfectly valid and useful in argument. If you're going to be dismissive, you should do so on sound bases.

It's not about proving a negative , it's about the fact that your premise presents a logical fallacy, therefore I cannot concede the point. I'll concede that you have a point it's just not a very good one.


Personally, what I've found in my life are people searching for truth, beauty and a meaningful life. They are complex and don't want to be labeled, they wish to be seen as individuals. I'm always wary of people that want to put others in a neat little box so that they can feel confident in their own belief systems.

Label me this if you must:
A revolutionary–reactionary, an optimistic –pessimist,… a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.

Peace.

Your favorite ice cream flavor is vanilla, isn't it?

[blackwidow]

PS....Did anyone see "conservative" Newt Gingrich on The Daily Show ??

Pretty good stuff!

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert ... wart-claim

[Skarp]

It's not about proving a negative , it's about the fact that your premise presents a logical fallacy, therefore I cannot concede the point. I'll concede that you have a point it's just not a very good one.


Personally, what I've found in my life are people searching for truth, beauty and a meaningful life. They are complex and don't want to be labeled, they wish to be seen as individuals. I'm always wary of people that want to put others in a neat little box so that they can feel confident in their own belief systems.

Label me this if you must:
A revolutionary–reactionary, an optimistic –pessimist,… a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.

Ummm, no, my premise presents no logical fallacy. Now if I had said that conservatives never resent the conservative label, that, while theoretically provable given the finite number of individuals on the planet, would essentially be fallacious. What I said is that you never see conservatives complaining about being labeled the way liberals do. If untrue, that's an easily disprovable claim. You need merely point to a single counterexample. Which apparently you can't do.

So, for instance, the claim "there is no God" is fallacious, because it claims to prove a negative...which is impossible. But making the more limited claim that there are no presently observable indicia of God's existence is not fallacious. It may be wrong, but it isn't fallacious.

I'm always "wary" of people who refuse to defend their own beliefs. It's easy to spout appealing platitudes...quite another to defend them against rigorous questioning and analysis. The "I've supported every expansion of government, voted for every Democratic candidate, protested every war, and applauded every curtailment of the free market, but how dare you 'label' me a liberal" crowd invariably ducks the label to avoid a principled defense of their beliefs. In fact, it's a favorite liberal tactic to always insist on discussion of specific policies, and to refuse to discuss the underlying principles that cause them to invariably support policies of a given type. We (or at least I) apply labels to extrapolate from the specific to the general, and thereby force that very discussion. Or at least force an amusing retreat under the cover of sniveling about "labels."

For the record, I wouldn't think of labeling you a liberal. No, you're far, far kookier than that. You're paranoid about everything...but at least that makes you right a lot more often than liberals are.

[amazing]

Newt Gingrich would make a very nice President. He would be the first candidate since Regan I would actually get excited about voting for.
I do not think that would ever happen though. He is way to logical and matter of fact for mainstream America. They would much rather "lean to the left, lean to the right"!!!! rather than deal with issues head on and in a way that would be best for the citizens of our great country.

[SoCalASABlue]

If Gingrich is the Republican nominee in 2012, I think that would guarantee that Obama will be re-elected.

Independents may be deserting Obama in droves, but Gingrich is just another Washington insider so why would independents vote for him?

Gingrich is a very smart man but consistently throws conservatives under the bus when it is politically expedient to do so, so why would conservatives vote for him?

Nominating Gingrich would be another example - IMHO - of the "it's my turn to be the Republican nominee", which has worked SO well in the past...

I want a candidate to vote FOR, not just vote AGAINST Obama...

[Skarp]

PS....Did anyone see "conservative" Newt Gingrich on The Daily Show ??

Pretty good stuff!

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert ... wart-claim

So let's see. Gingrich makes an inaccurate statement about an easily verifiable fact on an uber-liberal national television show (where you can guarantee that everything he says will be scrutinized under a microscope), and we're to believe that it wasn't a simple mistake, it was a deliberate lie. Mkay.

This, by the way, is another favorite tactic liberals use for avoiding any discussion of merits. They find one instance in which Republicans adopted a given policy, and then point to it as the complete justification for adoption of a similar policy. Nifty. That way you don't have to justify the decision to accord foreign combatants the evidentiary, procedural, and presumptive advantages of the U.S. justice system on its actual merits at all.

As long as you're giving logic lessons, perhaps you should write to Mr. Stewart and instruct him on the first lesson in logic that most of us are taught: two wrongs don't make a right.