I guess it's because of his extensive military-background, that he can make such proclamations. :rolleyes:

http://www.newshounds.us/

At least Joe Biden knows how to handle him....by calling Rove a Hannity-fan!!

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/02/biden-reacts-to-rove-insult-2/

Benchmarks have been met.Democracy is slowly working.
Daily attacks are WAY down.It's safe to walk the streets
and do the business of shopping,goin to school and making
ends meet.
Unless yer notion is one of - Meet Joe Black -{1998} which is
Fantasy.Everything a Dimocrat does is Fantasy world.

Want to try making the arugment that we're not.

Shaman doesn't make arguments, he posts links. Why encourage him? ;)

I just like to point out how completely devoid of intellect he is.:)

I've always felt more comfortable letting him do that job...he's gotten so good at it.

Shaman doesn't make arguments, he posts links. Why encourage him?

I don't always agree with Shaman, but you cannot deny that he does both. He makes an argument and uses links to back his argument up. He does it much better than most people on internet message boards.

I just like to point out how completely devoid of intellect he is.
Pot...kettle...black... :)

I don't always agree with Shaman, but you cannot deny that he does both. He makes an argument and uses links to back his argument up. He does it much better than most people on internet message boards.

I don't consider one multi-colored sentence in huge letters followed by a dozen exclamation points to be an argument, I consider it a nuisance. Links do nothing to reduce the nuisance factor.

Pot...kettle...black... :)

Another way to show you are devoid of intellect. :)

The notion that in Iraq, Baghdad in particular is a place were you can walk the streets in safety, go about your daily business in peace is somewhat laughable.

No doubt if your some hot shot poitican, just off the plane outta Andrews, surrounded by a military SWAT team in the green zone, sure, Baghdad is a very pleasant place, for the 3 weeks your there.

Just go ask the people who live there what they think, I guarentee the story is a lot different.

The notion that in Iraq, Baghdad in particular is a place were you can walk the streets in safety, go about your daily business in peace is somewhat laughable.

No doubt if your some hot shot poitican, just off the plane outta Andrews, surrounded by a military SWAT team in the green zone, sure, Baghdad is a very pleasant place, for the 3 weeks your there.

Just go ask the people who live there what they think, I guarentee the story is a lot different.
Exactly. Iraq is better than it was before, but it's still nowhere near normal.

Another way to show you are devoid of intellect.
Settle down. :)

I don't consider one multi-colored sentence in huge letters followed by a dozen exclamation points to be an argument, I consider it a nuisance. Links do nothing to reduce the nuisance factor.

I agree with you on those types of posts, but when he isn't so hyper-gregarious you have to admit he does document his points well.

No doubt if your some hot shot poitican, just off the plane outta Andrews, surrounded by a military SWAT team in the green zone, sure, Baghdad is a very pleasant place, for the 3 weeks your there.

Just go ask the people who live there what they think, I guarantee the story is a lot different.

Please.

Do not confuse the moronic ConservaZombies in this country with simple facts.

Shaman.....makes an argument and uses links to back his argument up.

And gawd daaaayumm does it ever embarrass the ConservaZombies when he does that. ROTFL.

(as is demonstrated by the fact that they -the ConservaZombies- seem to be unable to offer the slightest refutation for the information presented in his links, as it regards the topic under discussion)

And gawd daaaayumm does it ever embarrass the ConservaZombies when he does that. ROTFL.

It embarrasses me too...he gives liberals a bad name. ;)


(as is demonstrated by the fact that they -the ConservaZombies- seem to be unable to offer the slightest refutation for the information presented in his links, as it regards the topic under discussion)

Well FT, the fact that people don't respond to Shaman doesn't necessarily indicate a lack of a rebuttal. In a lot of cases it's just evidence of no interest in debating the guy.

It embarrasses me too...he gives liberals a bad name. ;)

Pardon me, but I can not see how --in any sense of the word-- presenting evidence to back up one's arguments (as Shaman does in nearly every post) could possibly be considered 'embarrassing'..........except to those who -in typical rightwing fashion- steadfastly refuse to listen to what he is trying to communicate.

Well FT, the fact that people don't respond to Shaman doesn't necessarily indicate a lack of a rebuttal. In a lot of cases it's just evidence of no interest in debating the guy.

In most cases, I would say it is because they have very little interest in listening to or reading the facts about the topic, and even less interest in trying to refute what he is pointing out. They have **no interest** --if that's the way you want to put it-- because they cannot formulate any argument in rebuttal.

The reason, in the vast majority of instances, that they tend to fear/shun/ignore his arguments and his links is because they are entirely unable to mount ANY sort of a rebuttal to the info he is presenting.

And gawd daaaayumm does it ever embarrass the ConservaZombies when he does that. ROTFL.

(as is demonstrated by the fact that they -the ConservaZombies- seem to be unable to offer the slightest refutation for the information presented in his links, as it regards the topic under discussion)
I guess you two clowns (shaman and freestinker) are so far gone that the fact he posts links to the most left wing radical bullshit websites as his "backup" desn't even register with you. If I linked to a Rush Limbaugh site you would laugh me out of the forum, what is the difference? Oh ya, you agree with his bullshit, so it must be true.

I don't always agree with Shaman, but you cannot deny that he does both. He makes an argument and uses links to back his argument up.
I never could understand why too-many people (here) see that as a conflicted-tactic....especially when it's the Moderators. :confused:

I don't consider one multi-colored sentence in huge letters followed by a dozen exclamation points to be an argument, I consider it a nuisance. Links do nothing to reduce the nuisance factor.
Only during the Bush Years could facts (to support one's position) be considered a nuisance.

This makes sense, to you, huh?

Exactly. Iraq is better than it was before, but it's still nowhere near normal.
....Especially when you consider Iraq, Iran, Aghanistan, etc. were British/French-creations.

"A century ago, the map looked much different. There was no Iraq, no Jordan, no Israel, no Lebanon."

http://www.ranknfile-ue.org/uen_bloodandoil.html

It embarrasses me too...he gives liberals a bad name.
Actually, most-of-us think-things-thru, and have no fear of the (actual) facts.

My Country; Right Or Wrong hasn't been hip since we got our asses handed-to-us, in 'Nam.

Well FT, the fact that people don't respond to Shaman doesn't necessarily indicate a lack of a rebuttal. In a lot of cases it's just evidence of no interest in debating the guy.
Losing a debate, with me, should hardly ruin someone's entire Life.

The fact too-many Americans are so fearful at looking at both-sides of an(y) issue has put us in our present-position....and, we aren't (exactly) loved (or, respected...anymore); worldwide.

I guess you two clowns (shaman and freestinker) are so far gone that the fact he posts links to the most left wing radical bullshit websites as his "backup" desn't even register with you.
You mean, like, The Washington Post? :rolleyes:

I agree with you on those types of posts, but when he isn't so hyper-gregarious you have to admit he does document his points well.

I have no problem with a relevant link that's posted in a standard font. Those are always welcome.

Pardon me, but I can not see how --in any sense of the word-- presenting evidence to back up one's arguments (as Shaman does in nearly every post) could possibly be considered 'embarrassing'..........except to those who -in typical rightwing fashion- steadfastly refuse to listen to what he is trying to communicate.

I've explained the type of links I was referring to.


In most cases, I would say it is because they have very little interest in listening to or reading the facts about the topic, and even less interest in trying to refute what he is pointing out. They have **no interest** --if that's the way you want to put it-- because they cannot formulate any argument in rebuttal.

The reason, in the vast majority of instances, that they tend to fear/shun/ignore his arguments and his links is because they are entirely unable to mount ANY sort of a rebuttal to the info he is presenting.

And I would have to say that I disagree, and the problem isn't the "info", it's the way it's presented. :)

I never could understand why too-many people (here) see that as a conflicted-tactic....especially when it's the Moderators. :confused:

Shaman, let me be clear. Links aren't the problem, links presented in huge, bold, multi-colored fonts are. They're just annoying. I'd also like to say that if you wish to convince people that you have something intelligent and meaningful to tell them about Karl Rove, calling him "Porky" in the title of your thread is self-defeating. I have no problem with what you're trying to say, just how you go about saying it. Do yourself and all of us a favor and tone it down a bit.

I can't help but notice that, other than the title, in this thread you seem to have shown some restraint. That's what I'm talking about. Thank you. :)

Originally Posted by Freethinker
Pardon me, but I can not see how --in any sense of the word-- presenting evidence to back up one's arguments (as Shaman does in nearly every post) could possibly be considered 'embarrassing'..........except to those who -in typical rightwing fashion- steadfastly refuse to listen to what he is trying to communicate.

I've explained the type of links I was referring to.

??? I do not understand the criticism. At all.

Because the links are colored, that makes the information they impart less compelling or less true?


Originally Posted by Freethinker The reason, in the vast majority of instances, that they tend to fear/shun/ignore his arguments and his links is because they are entirely unable to mount ANY sort of a rebuttal to the info he is presenting.

And I would have to say that I disagree, and the problem isn't the "info", it's the way it's presented. :)

?!?!?

I find it odd that you have this aversion to brightly colored links.

If I wanted to better inform myself about the argument someone is making, I'd click on a link no matter how it is "presented" or colored.

The color of the words on the page is not what terrifies the ConservaZombies hereabouts; they are afraid they'll read something that confronts or contradicts their carefully pre-conceived notions about the world.

??? I do not understand the criticism. At all.

Because the links are colored, that makes the information they impart less compelling or less true?

?!?!?

I find it odd that you have this aversion to brightly colored links.

If I wanted to better inform myself about the argument someone is making, I'd click on a link no matter how it is "presented" or colored.

We disagree. :)


The color of the words on the page is not what terrifies the ConservaZombies hereabouts; they are afraid they'll read something that confronts or contradicts their carefully pre-conceived notions about the world.

FT, if I'm walking past an abortion clinic and a protester approaches me with a brochure and says "were protesting the fact that abortions are performed here, and this pamphlet outlines our reasons", I might take the thing and give it a read. If he approaches me waving a sign with a picture of an aborted fetus while screaming "baby killers work inside that building!", and then shoves a pamphlet into my hand, I guarantee that pamphlet will go unread. Personally, I think that's a reasonable reaction to the behavior of others, and I hope that doesn't make me a "conservazombie". ;)

Well abortion is illegal in Ireland, in both jurisdictions so,
these abortion clinics, are they designed so a woman can just walk in off the street and as for an abortion ?

We disagree. :)



FT, if I'm walking past an abortion clinic and a protester approaches me with a brochure and says "were protesting the fact that abortions are performed here, and this pamphlet outlines our reasons", I might take the thing and give it a read. If he approaches me waving a sign with a picture of an aborted fetus while screaming "baby killers work inside that building!", and then shoves a pamphlet into my hand, I guarantee that pamphlet will go unread.

I see.

So colorizing some words on a page --words that comprise a link-- is akin to a protester coming up in person waving a sign with a picture of an aborted fetus on it while screaming "baby killers"..........?!?!?!?!

Interesting viewpoint.

Bizarre. But interesting.