Hawaii verifies Obama birth records to Arizona

[CountDeMoney]

I wasn't made in america, but I have done more for America that you ever will.

Debatable.  And stop selling your gear on ebay.cn

[Berkut]

That actually reminds me of a family story.  The husband of my grandmother's sister, during a family gathering, was going on and on about another member of the family who wasn't present, and who has mental illness.  "She's crazy.  Nuts.  Coo-coo.  Crazy, crazy, crazy."  Nobody had the guts to point out that the guy himself had schizophrenia, either out of politeness, or out of awareness that the guy had a tendency to flip out, and often carried a gun illegally.

That actually reminds me of a family story.  The husband of my grandmother's sister, during a family gathering, was going on and on about how things reminded him of old family stories, even though they didn't.  "That actually reminds me of a family story," he would start each time.  Nobody had the guts to point out that we were all in the same family and would have heard of these stories before, if he wasn't just making them up; either out of politeness, or out of awareness that the guy had a tendency to flip out, and often started telling even more "family stories" when he got caught making shit up.

If you're attempting to imply that I made it up, you are, of course, off-base.  The guy unfortunately was very real (ironically, his nickname was Berka).  I'm not implying that Berkut is anything like Berka, because Berka was an utter piece of shit than no one except his emotionally battered wife missed when he passed away, but Berkut's unawareness of his own irrationality and inability to perceive reality in the same way as everyone else while habitually accusing others of it was a parallel too close to miss for me.

Again, I explained this before, but you ignored it, much like you "ignored" the parts of my post you so conveniently and honestly cut out in your previous response because they stated exactly the opposite of what you wanted me to state.

Of course it is possible I am irrational and don't know it - all you have to do to show that though is actually make an actual argumment pointing out my lack of rational argument. That is what is great about rationality - it can be pretty objectively shown.

I've done so, and stated in a very rational way why I think you are a extremist. All you've done is assert that I am as some sort of bizarre defense of your own irratioanlity, and then told us a story about your grandfather or something.

I am amazed you cannot see the difference.

[CountDeMoney]

Of course it is possible I am irrational and don't know it - all you have to do to show that though is actually make an actual argumment pointing out my lack of rational argument. That is what is great about rationality - it can be pretty objectively shown.

Thing is, you're irrational, so you wouldn't accept said objective arguments anyway.  That's what's great about irrationality.

[DGuller]

Again, I explained this before, but you ignored it, much like you "ignored" the parts of my post you so conveniently and honestly cut out in your previous response because they stated exactly the opposite of what you wanted me to state.

Of course it is possible I am irrational and don't know it - all you have to do to show that though is actually make an actual argumment pointing out my lack of rational argument. That is what is great about rationality - it can be pretty objectively shown.

I've done so, and stated in a very rational way why I think you are a extremist. All you've done is assert that I am as some sort of bizarre defense of your own irratioanlity, and then told us a story about your grandfather or something.

I am amazed you cannot see the difference.

What can I show you?  I can make yet again an argument as to why some level of party discipline is required, just not too much and not too little.  I can make an argument that being part of a party is about more than just a letter after your name, and that someone who votes against his party on most of the key issues that the party is representing is effectively not a member of his party.  But, as it happened in the past, you will choose to not get that argument, and in fact will use the fact of me making that argument as a proof that I'm an extremist.  And because I would only quote 18 out of the 20 paragraphs that you would vomit while calling me an extremist, I would also be accused of dishonesty.

So, no, I won't waste time arguing with you.  I will choose to devote that time to pointing out how I'm being called nuts by a nut, because I think that's the only argument that is relevant in these kinds of discussions.  Everything else is just a pretext.

[Berkut]

Again, I explained this before, but you ignored it, much like you "ignored" the parts of my post you so conveniently and honestly cut out in your previous response because they stated exactly the opposite of what you wanted me to state.

Of course it is possible I am irrational and don't know it - all you have to do to show that though is actually make an actual argumment pointing out my lack of rational argument. That is what is great about rationality - it can be pretty objectively shown.

I've done so, and stated in a very rational way why I think you are a extremist. All you've done is assert that I am as some sort of bizarre defense of your own irratioanlity, and then told us a story about your grandfather or something.

I am amazed you cannot see the difference.

What can I show you?  I can make yet again an argument as to why some level of party discipline is required, just not too much and not too little. 

Of course - and your definition of "just the right amount" includes everyone in the Party agreeing with your level of left wingedness, or else they are really republicans, and not Dems at all. And you *specifically* target the entire group of the center of your party as the definition of those who should be purged for not showing "party discipline". Their crime is by definition not being extreme enough for you.

I can make an argument that being part of a party is about more than just a letter after your name, and that someone who votes against his party on most of the key issues that the party is representing is effectively not a member of his party.

You can make such an argument, but of course you are simply defining "voting against his party" as "not voting how *I* think they should vote". Maybe they are boting for their party, and you are the one who is not?

A significant number of Dems are moderates and do not agree with much of the non-moderates views on some issues. That is fine, or it should be, in any two party system there is going to be serious divergence within a party on views. Handling that within the party is part of the process. Simply demanding that anyone not pure enough for the radical wing be purged pretty much defines who the radicals are.

There is no way to argue your way out of this. You are on the record stating that you think moderate Democrats who won't vote in the manner the most left wing portion of the party demands are not Democrats at all. There is nothing that defines "fringe" more than the hatred of the fringe towards the moderates in their own party.

But, as it happened in the past, you will choose to not get that argument, and in fact will use the fact of me making that argument as a proof that I'm an extremist.

I've never ignored the argument, I've shown it spuriousness every time you've made it. Just like I have now. "Party discipline" is somewhat important, but you don't have the Blue Dogs for not being "disciplined" you hate them because they are moderates. You claim they are not even Dems because on the 1-10 political scale they are only a 3.5, and you are a 1, and insist that anyone beyond 2 is a "Republican". Hatred of moderates is a fine indicator of the extremists. It's true in politics and religion.

And yes, arguing that those who do not agree with your views are not Dems is excellent evidence of your extremism. I appreciate your help every single time you repeat that crazy talk.

And because I would only quote 18 out of the 20 paragraphs that you would vomit while calling me an extremist, I would also be accused of dishonesty.

When the two you just so happen to leave out state something unequivocally and clearly, you cut them out, and then proceed to claim I said exactly the opposite of what I just stated, yes, that is very dishonest.

I will agree with you that their impact could be much more damaging than normal though, due to the fact that they seem to have much more control over the Republican Party than you guys ever had over the Dems. No matter how much you moaned and raged, the moderates/sane members of the party mostly were not forced to go to the nutbar end of the spectrum, while the Republicans have managed to get themselves somehow beholden to their most radical members.

Hence the reason I will not vote for any Republican this time around.

This is what I stated, and you cut out. So you could say this:

it's a figment of your straw-producing imagination and your persistent fallacy of middle ground.  You so depserately need to equivocate every single phenomenon, and wish pox on both houses equally and in a balanced way,

And when you quote the entire post except that one portion, you can hardly claim it was just an oversight, or an attempt to edit for brevity. You cut out the point I was making because it directly refuted your caricature of me that you so desperately cling to - that I am some kind of always in the middle person who cannot take a side ever. Which is so obviously not true it is silly. You've been around here more than long enough to know I am perfectly willing to take sides on both ends of the poltiical spectrum.

I am just not willing to do so based strictly on which end they fall on, like you, or Hans, or Raz, or such.

So, no, I won't waste time arguing with you.

Ad homs and strawmen are not really arguments though, so that won't be any kind of actual change.

Simply lying about what I've said isn't really an argument either. I don't at all understand why you so consistently do that. I guess when it comes to politics you just have to be right so badly you cannot help it?

[grumbler]

If you're attempting to imply that I made it up, you are, of course, off-base.  The guy unfortunately was very real (ironically, his nickname was Berka).  I'm not implying that Berkut is anything like Berka, because Berka was an utter piece of shit than no one except his emotionally battered wife missed when he passed away, but Berkut's unawareness of his own irrationality and inability to perceive reality in the same way as everyone else while habitually accusing others of it was a parallel too close to miss for me.

Dude, I was just telling a family story.  If you want to argue now that "family stories" are just made up by posters to artificially attack other posters, you should have started that when you posted  your "family story."

You remind me a lot of the person in my "family story," that's all.  If you think I am calling you a liar, well, that's just a matter of whether the shoe fits or not.  I am not aware that you've lied today, that I know of.

[DGuller]

If you're attempting to imply that I made it up, you are, of course, off-base.  The guy unfortunately was very real (ironically, his nickname was Berka).  I'm not implying that Berkut is anything like Berka, because Berka was an utter piece of shit than no one except his emotionally battered wife missed when he passed away, but Berkut's unawareness of his own irrationality and inability to perceive reality in the same way as everyone else while habitually accusing others of it was a parallel too close to miss for me.

Dude, I was just telling a family story.  If you want to argue now that "family stories" are just made up by posters to artificially attack other posters, you should have started that when you posted  your "family story."

You remind me a lot of the person in my "family story," that's all.  If you think I am calling you a liar, well, that's just a matter of whether the shoe fits or not.  I am not aware that you've lied today, that I know of.

I'm not sure where you're going with all those contortions, but everything I said is true, within the confines of reliability of memory, and the need to paraphrase from a different language.

[Razgovory]

Again, I explained this before, but you ignored it, much like you "ignored" the parts of my post you so conveniently and honestly cut out in your previous response because they stated exactly the opposite of what you wanted me to state.

[sbr]

Again, I explained this before, but you ignored it, much like you "ignored" the parts of my post you so conveniently and honestly cut out in your previous response because they stated exactly the opposite of what you wanted me to state.

Of course it is possible I am irrational and don't know it - all you have to do to show that though is actually make an actual argumment pointing out my lack of rational argument. That is what is great about rationality - it can be pretty objectively shown.

I've done so, and stated in a very rational way why I think you are a extremist. All you've done is assert that I am as some sort of bizarre defense of your own irratioanlity, and then told us a story about your grandfather or something.

I am amazed you cannot see the difference.

What can I show you?  I can make yet again an argument as to why some level of party discipline is required, just not too much and not too little. 

Of course - and your definition of "just the right amount" includes everyone in the Party agreeing with your level of left wingedness, or else they are really republicans, and not Dems at all. And you *specifically* target the entire group of the center of your party as the definition of those who should be purged for not showing "party discipline". Their crime is by definition not being extreme enough for you.

I can make an argument that being part of a party is about more than just a letter after your name, and that someone who votes against his party on most of the key issues that the party is representing is effectively not a member of his party.

You can make such an argument, but of course you are simply defining "voting against his party" as "not voting how *I* think they should vote". Maybe they are boting for their party, and you are the one who is not?

A significant number of Dems are moderates and do not agree with much of the non-moderates views on some issues. That is fine, or it should be, in any two party system there is going to be serious divergence within a party on views. Handling that within the party is part of the process. Simply demanding that anyone not pure enough for the radical wing be purged pretty much defines who the radicals are.

There is no way to argue your way out of this. You are on the record stating that you think moderate Democrats who won't vote in the manner the most left wing portion of the party demands are not Democrats at all. There is nothing that defines "fringe" more than the hatred of the fringe towards the moderates in their own party.

But, as it happened in the past, you will choose to not get that argument, and in fact will use the fact of me making that argument as a proof that I'm an extremist.

I've never ignored the argument, I've shown it spuriousness every time you've made it. Just like I have now. "Party discipline" is somewhat important, but you don't have the Blue Dogs for not being "disciplined" you hate them because they are moderates. You claim they are not even Dems because on the 1-10 political scale they are only a 3.5, and you are a 1, and insist that anyone beyond 2 is a "Republican". Hatred of moderates is a fine indicator of the extremists. It's true in politics and religion.

And yes, arguing that those who do not agree with your views are not Dems is excellent evidence of your extremism. I appreciate your help every single time you repeat that crazy talk.

And because I would only quote 18 out of the 20 paragraphs that you would vomit while calling me an extremist, I would also be accused of dishonesty.

When the two you just so happen to leave out state something unequivocally and clearly, you cut them out, and then proceed to claim I said exactly the opposite of what I just stated, yes, that is very dishonest.

I will agree with you that their impact could be much more damaging than normal though, due to the fact that they seem to have much more control over the Republican Party than you guys ever had over the Dems. No matter how much you moaned and raged, the moderates/sane members of the party mostly were not forced to go to the nutbar end of the spectrum, while the Republicans have managed to get themselves somehow beholden to their most radical members.

Hence the reason I will not vote for any Republican this time around.

This is what I stated, and you cut out. So you could say this:

it's a figment of your straw-producing imagination and your persistent fallacy of middle ground.  You so depserately need to equivocate every single phenomenon, and wish pox on both houses equally and in a balanced way,

And when you quote the entire post except that one portion, you can hardly claim it was just an oversight, or an attempt to edit for brevity. You cut out the point I was making because it directly refuted your caricature of me that you so desperately cling to - that I am some kind of always in the middle person who cannot take a side ever. Which is so obviously not true it is silly. You've been around here more than long enough to know I am perfectly willing to take sides on both ends of the poltiical spectrum.

I am just not willing to do so based strictly on which end they fall on, like you, or Hans, or Raz, or such.

So, no, I won't waste time arguing with you.

Ad homs and strawmen are not really arguments though, so that won't be any kind of actual change.

Simply lying about what I've said isn't really an argument either. I don't at all understand why you so consistently do that. I guess when it comes to politics you just have to be right so badly you cannot help it?

[11B4V]

Some people just got tooooo much time on their hands.

[Darth Wagtaros]

Some people just got tooooo much time on their hands.

Languish wouldn't be much fun if we were too busy to post here.

[PDH]

So this boils down, yet again to: "I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."

[11B4V]

Some people just got tooooo much time on their hands.

Languish wouldn't be much fun if we were too busy to post here.

Hence it's entertainment value.

[merithyn]

So this boils down, yet again to: "I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."

You have just defined Languish in one statement. Well done, PDH. 

[PDH]

It's a quote, but a good one to remember.