Wait…Alex Jones is an Actor?! Actually, He’s Not the Only One

[Rolfe]

You'll do what?

Throw an Ad Tantrumem.

 

[Rolfe]

As many times as you guys have claimed 'Fake News', I would have expected one when [false accusation edited].

Evidently, "your icons of truth are challenged" is considered a false accusation. Someone needs thicker skin.

 

[rsr]

The New York Times (not a radical right wing news source) posted an interesting article a couple days ago:

I can't read the entire piece because my free stories for the month have been exhausted (mostly Paul Krugman), but I would note that the opinion is not that of The New York Times but of a special adviser to Erdogan.

 

[Benjamin]

You'll do what?

Call a duck a duck when I see it waddling and quacking like one...

 

[Use of Time]

Call a duck a duck when I see it waddling and quacking like one...

Whoa, sounds pretty serious.

 

[Brent W]

It seems somehow you believe you don’t own a side

I don't. It is simple as that. I could careless about either party. They are trash in my opinion. I could also careless about arguing this Liberal vs Conservative unproductive labeling that some people love to get into. Debate the issues, not the labels. Instead of complaining about liberals, complain about issues that are important to this country and stop blaming one side of a political spectrum for your misery in politics.

 

[InTheLight]

The reporting on Jones' child custody trial is a gold mine for entertainment. Example:

Jones also acknowledged that he had smoked marijuana in Texas, in violation of state law, in the last year-and-a-half or two years. He said it was part of his practice to test marijuana once a year so that he can determine its strength, a practice that he said had led him to believe it is too strong and and should not be legalized but simply decriminalized.

Of his marijuana testing protocol, Jones said, “That’s what police do. They smoke it once a year too.”



Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo.

 

[Benjamin]

I don't. It is simple as that. I could careless about either party.

Saying so doesn’t make it true.

They are trash in my opinion. I could also careless about arguing this Liberal vs Conservative unproductive labeling that some people love to get into.

You just did get into labeling.

Debate the issues, not the labels.

Sometimes the "debate" is about the side one (clearly) stands on and supports. (Whether or not he/she denies it.)

Instead of complaining about liberals, complain about issues that are important to this country and stop blaming one side of a political spectrum for your misery in politics.

As soon as you and others quit complaining about Trump who has stood up for more conservative values than anyone in memory by using common liberal rhetorical arguments and complaining by usingTrumpian labels.

 

[Brent W]

Saying so doesn’t make it true.

and suggesting I am lying isn't very friendly.

You just did get into labeling.

Whom on here did I label? I simply talked about two groups. I did not call anyone on here a liberal or conservative directly and in a judging manner.

As soon as you and others quit complaining about Trump who has stood up for more conservative values than anyone in memory by using common liberal rhetorical arguments and complaining by using Trumpian labels.

I complain about his policies. Just because he does a few things conservative does not mean he can not be criticized. What are the common liberal rhetorical arguments?

 

[Benjamin]

and suggesting I am lying isn't very friendly.

Wrong, I am looking at the statement you made as have no logical value of drawing out the truth in the argument. - which is supposed to be objective and purpose in engaging in (logic) debate (and the basic definition of the science of Philosophy). Your statement, which I called you out on and I would have thought for an Administrator would/should be common knowledge for the role you assume to be commanding here with as a counselor of debate ethics was more like, "Because I said so and that is is that" which is more like a street argument than a logic debate argument. That said, I see these types of tactics you are calling "debate" almost instantly being I have probably put 40 times the thought into philosophical debate ethics, being I've probably been doing it since you were a teenager, young man ,and frankly right now I'm thinking this condescending suggestion of yours, which first missed the point where you presume to "counsel" me, after using your "authority" to censor me and considering the gentleness mixed with humor in my response to a blatant attack compared to what goes on in this board, ...sorry to say rather reeks of things I would object to but won't go into being it is against the rules to address this matter publicly.

Whom on here did I label? I simply talked about two groups. I did not call anyone on here a liberal or conservative directly and in a judging manner.

You just got finished saying "either party" referring to Conservatives and Liberals, are "trash"! I consider my view by most part a Conservative one BTW.

I could careless about either party. They are trash in my opinion.

I can only assume that you consider your supposed 3rd party neutrality position does not fall under the label "trash". SO you have right to label others views as well as call them unproductive by some odd reasoning...By which then you assume to "counsel" me to "debate the issues, not not the labels" ??? Again, I've thought these types debate tactic through, which is why I mentioned "Reverse Ad Hominem" earlier...

I complain about his policies. Just because he does a few things conservative does not mean he can not be criticized. What are the common liberal rhetorical arguments?

Once again, you seem to have missed the point of where I am coming from... ...but being I am held to a disadvantage of addressing and spelling out these issue for you publicly on this forum and am not into dealing with you making policies as you go along which seem to suit "your style" of debate I'll leave there...

 

[Brent W]

I can only assume that you consider your supposed 3rd party neutrality position does not fall under the label "trash".

I don't have a party. This is what you and others seem to fail to wrap your head around. I donate to no political party. I vote no party line. I vote for individuals. What party they claim to be a part of does not matter to me.

You just got finished saying "either party" referring to Conservatives and Liberals, are "trash"! I consider my view by most part a Conservative one BTW.

I didn't say conservatives or liberals are trash. I said the Democratic and Republican parties are.

Wrong, I am looking at the statement you made as have no logical value of drawing out the truth in the argument. - which is supposed to be objective and purpose in engaging in (logic) debate (and the basic definition of the science of Philosophy). Your statement, which I called you out on and I would have thought for an Administrator would/should be common knowledge for the role you assume to be commanding here with as a counselor of debate ethics was more like, "Because I said so and that is is that" which is more like a street argument than a logic debate argument. That said, I see these types of tactics you are calling "debate" almost instantly being I have probably put 40 times the thought into philosophical debate ethics, being I've probably been doing it since you were a teenager, young man ,and frankly right now I'm thinking this condescending suggestion of yours, which first missed the point where you presume to "counsel" me, after using your "authority" to censor me and considering the gentleness mixed with humor in my response to a blatant attack compared to what goes on in this board, ...sorry to say rather reeks of things I would object to but won't go into being it is against the rules to address this matter publicly.

If you are going to use the get off my lawn argument and talk down to me because of age difference, can you at least break up your thoughts into easier to follow paragraphs?

sorry to say rather reeks of things I would object to but won't go into being it is against the rules to address this matter publicly.

But you literally did the sentence before that?

I have answered your questions. You asked if I have a party and I do not. You accuse me otherwise and I still tell you that I do not own a party. Never have, never will. I have voted for many individuals in my life and the party they belonged to had nothing to do with why they received my vote. I would have happily voted for a select few people this last Presidential cycle that had a D or R in front of them for President but unfortunately the people I supported did not make it. Therefore I looked to a better candidate that was running for President than the two that were running on the Republican and Democrat ticket.

 

[InTheLight]

That said, I see these types of tactics you are calling "debate" almost instantly being I have probably put 40 times the thought into philosophical debate ethics, being I've probably been doing it since you were a teenager, young man

So why are you slumming here on BB? Why not go somewhere else where your extensive knowledge of debate tactics would get a proper workout?

 

[TCassidy]

I've probably been doing it since you were a teenager, young man

Does that make you right? If so, since I am much older than you, does that make me right all the time?

I wish somebody had told me. Instead of researching and doing good exegesis I could just say "I'm older so I'm right?"

And all this time I thought the below was the reason I am always right:

 

[Rolfe]

So why are you slumming here on BB? Why not go somewhere else where your extensive knowledge of debate tactics would get a proper workout?

Probably because it is too quiet there.

Perhaps he should run an ad for it on the Baptist Board.

 

[InTheLight]

Does that make you right? If so, since I am much older than you, does that make me right all the time?

I wish somebody had told me. Instead of researching and doing good exegesis I could just say "I'm older so I'm right?"

And all this time I thought the below was the reason I am always right:

I did not know you went to CBTS. Did you attend PU as well?

 

[Rolfe]

I can only assume that you consider your supposed 3rd party neutrality position does not fall under the label "trash". SO you have right to label others views as well as call them unproductive by some odd reasoning...

This from someone who has made ragging on NeverTrumpers a sport.

How delightfully ironic.

 

[777]

But Brent there just modifying his FB there isn't enough, he can't erase his whole paper trail and believe me, he has one. He is saying the same old things about how evil and corrupt both parties are, but "alabamastangguy" has mode the following statements:

Nope. Religion is the cause of so many of todays problems.

Wanted to throw this forum out there: http://www.discussatheism.com/

I don't believe in a God

I wish you guys would be more out spoken in politics so we could take down the Religious right a notch or twelve. (For those in America, obviously)

some of his other old posts contains vulgar language and there's no evidence he has changed his religious views at all, much less any conversion to Christianity. Find this ironic, too?

 

[Benjamin]

Find this ironic, too?

Indeed, but recognized the agenda as suspicious, is the why I took this issue up as a little test to see him try to back his "moral superiority" on counseling other's debate ethics here...and questioned his sudden appearance and title as "strange"...

How about: "Richard Dawkins is the man. I own his God Delusion book."

Or: "This is one of my favorites on Intelligent Design:" ...referring to video: "What does Neil Tyson think about Intelligent Design?"



Are you religious?

 

[Benjamin]

I find it odd that you talk about this “fascination” as if to scold others and as if you don’t, whether discreet or not, take ownership of these Us vs Them arguments yourself. I don’t know who you are, to me it appears someone who nobody knew that suddenly and rather strangely showed up as an Administrator on this long established board.

And in fact it looks like BB has been trolled big time! Thank you 777.

 

[Brent W]

But Brent there just modifying his FB there isn't enough, he can't erase his whole paper trail and believe me, he has one. He is saying the same old things about how evil and corrupt both parties are, but "alabamastangguy" has mode the following statements:

Nope. Religion is the cause of so many of todays problems.

Wanted to throw this forum out there: http://www.discussatheism.com/

I don't believe in a God

I wish you guys would be more out spoken in politics so we could take down the Religious right a notch or twelve. (For those in America, obviously)

some of his other old posts contains vulgar language and there's no evidence he has changed his religious views at all, much less any conversion to Christianity. Find this ironic, too?

I have no problem responding to this at all. What you are referring to is a client I had and worked with to set up their site. I was also 22 years old when doing it if I recall correctly but feel free to dig deeper and let me know.

Cast the stone my friend. Let's make it really personal.