When you say,

you must be f---ed in the head to actually believe that your anecdotal experience must be the totality of truth and clear evidence that the media's polls are rigged and/or biased.

Jumpin...

You will notice the use of curses to personally attack, is the 'Last refuge of...'

It is a Poster admitting they have lost the intellectual argument. Perhaps they never really had an intellectual argument to begin with.

I think this is the 1st time Ozz ever used "demonstrating absurdity by being absurd". Perhaps coupled with another 1st, a bleeped curse. Perhaps some have not lost the intellectual debate but tire of having to repeat themselves every few months/years.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

At the close of a week that began with him trailing by seven points, Donald Trump still holds a slight lead over Hillary Clinton in today’s White House Watch survey despite a flurry of news reports alleging a history of sexual harassment on his part.

Well, good for him, but look at it this way: If you or I were running for political office, do you think completely fabricated sexual misconduct allegations would be made against us? I don't think so. I think the opposing party would find some legitimate skeleton in our closets to rattle. These sexual misconduct allegations against Trump have real bones(pardon the pun). I just can't dismiss it and say it's better to overlook it, and get him in the White House than Hillary.

The Real Problem?

Both Sexual Assaulter Trump and The Enabler of a Sexual Assaulter - Hillary, are being judged, by the voter's, the same. As it should be.

Perhaps that is why, despite 24/7 Anti-Trump (but not Hillary) Negative News Coverage. There doesn't appear to be 'movement' in the Polls.

Both sides are correctly accusing the other of Gross Hypocrisy.

Still waiting for what definition of "enabler" is being used here. Seriously. Because I don't think it's one I am familiar with.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

The Enabler of a Sexual Assaulter - Hillary

Still waiting for what definition of "enabler" is being used here. Seriously. Because I don't think it's one I am familiar with.

I guess the implication is Hillary enabled her husband by either sticking with him or intimidating his accusers.

---

The mind is a weird and mysterious place

The Enabler of a Sexual Assaulter - Hillary

Still waiting for what definition of "enabler" is being used here. Seriously. Because I don't think it's one I am familiar with.

I guess the implication is Hillary enabled her husband by either sticking with him or intimidating his accusers.

To me, one plausible use of "enabled" would be: she knew it happened, without a doubt, and made excuses for him and even provided opportunities for him to continue doing so. Much like enabling an alcoholic.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Many people defend Trump's "locker room" talk and say it's universal. It's not. I'm no saint, but I've never talked like that, and I don't even think like that. I love women, and I still have a lot to learn about them and human behavior in general. I don't want a President who is lower than me on the learning scale.

---

The mind is a weird and mysterious place

The Enabler of a Sexual Assaulter - Hillary

Still waiting for what definition of "enabler" is being used here. Seriously. Because I don't think it's one I am familiar with.

I guess the implication is Hillary enabled her husband by either sticking with him or intimidating his accusers.

To me, one plausible use of "enabled" would be: she knew it happened, without a doubt, and made excuses for him and even provided opportunities for him to continue doing so. Much like enabling an alcoholic.

Well, there are things like open marriages, where spouses look the other way. Maybe so with Bill and Hillary? Where are the Hillary lovers?

---

The mind is a weird and mysterious place

The Enabler of a Sexual Assaulter - Hillary

Still waiting for what definition of "enabler" is being used here. Seriously. Because I don't think it's one I am familiar with.

I guess the implication is Hillary enabled her husband by either sticking with him or intimidating his accusers.

To me, one plausible use of "enabled" would be: she knew it happened, without a doubt, and made excuses for him and even provided opportunities for him to continue doing so. Much like enabling an alcoholic.

Well, there are things like open marriages, where spouses look the other way. Maybe so with Bill and Hillary? Where are the Hillary lovers?

Quite, or Hillary only permits once a month and Bill wants twice a day, so they came to an understanding. That is between them. Only the utterly immoral jerks who want to control everyone in the bedroom would even think of it as some betrayal without asking the parties involved if they think of it as a betrayal.

I doubt anyone who is blasting her for enabling is for LGBTQ rights. Although I can't begin to imagine what mental circus act they have to go through to think Drumpf's sexual battery confession is moral.

---

I don't understand those who believe that Trump's sexual assaults shouldn't bar him from being President, the 'leader' of the country.

If a 'leader' in their community were to have done similar things, would they still be a 'leader'.
I'm thinking of all the cases where school teachers, scout leaders and faith leaders that have been accused of similar crimes.

---

I see that the angry old white fellows are still trying justify their positions on their low morality levels by trying the old "broad brush" ideology on all and that our local feminist has again fallen into the same trap by using the same "broad brush" ideology in a sexist comment including all men and in a way supporting the stupid statements made by our old dinosaur Clyde.

When will you people (and I use that term very loosely as it has yet to be proven to me that yous are) wake up to yourselves and realise that we all have to share this same world equally?

Dog I hope that the people taught by these pair actually learnt something useful instead of their all their stupid prejudices.

Cheers.

Sometimes I say I have two boys at home — I have my young son and I have my husband.

So Melania Trump admits, that her husband is mentally on kid level only.

And that's on a good day ... :)

---

I notice that you immediately take sides and go against me, rather than take on your usual "middle ground" approach in politics.

OzzFan...

Your belief, as stated IN BOLD above. Discloses what I have been saying about Religious Fanatics and Secular Idologues.

I am not, and have never been, 'Middle of The Road'.

Being against the deranged people and movements, who wish to Control us, or believe 'Others' are Inferior. Is 'Middle of The Road'??? Only to those who are living in La La Land.

In addition to Capitalism. I am Anti to following Hate Filled and Controlling Groups: Marxist, NAZI, KKK, Progressives, Right Wing, Left Wing.

They are disgusting, primitive and destructive to The People,

This Atheist is Pro the following: Free Speech, Tolerance, LGBTQ Human Rights, Women's Right to Control..., etc.

As you will see, if possible. What I am Pro, is not 'Middle of The Ground'.

OzzFan...

The World is much more complicated and nuanced. Than the La La Land of Anti-Intellectual Beliefs, the Religious Fanatic's and their Cousins in Stupidly: The Secular Ideologues, inhabit.

Middle-of-the-road... LOL

The only things in the middle of the road are yellow stripes and road-kill.

Or both....





<evil grin>

Now then, I can respect liberal-leftists or conservative rightists for having the courage to stand for something.... I may (and likely don't) agree with them, but I can respect them.

Middle-of-the-road moderates? They stand for nothing, with the exception of being in power. They pay attention to 'which way the wind is blowing, today...' (the polls) and vote accordingly. Bah!!!!!

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

I notice that you immediately take sides and go against me, rather than take on your usual "middle ground" approach in politics.

OzzFan...

Your belief, as stated IN BOLD above. Discloses what I have been saying about Religious Fanatics and Secular Idologues.

I am not, and have never been, 'Middle of The Road'.

Being against the deranged people and movements, who wish to Control us, or believe 'Others' are Inferior. Is 'Middle of The Road'??? Only to those who are living in La La Land.

In addition to Capitalism. I am Anti to following Hate Filled and Controlling Groups: Marxist, NAZI, KKK, Progressives, Right Wing, Left Wing.

They are disgusting, primitive and destructive to The People,

This Atheist is Pro the following: Free Speech, Tolerance, LGBTQ Human Rights, Women's Right to Control..., etc.

As you will see, if possible. What I am Pro, is not 'Middle of The Ground'.

OzzFan...

The World is much more complicated and nuanced. Than the La La Land of Anti-Intellectual Beliefs, the Religious Fanatic's and their Cousins in Stupidly: The Secular Ideologues, inhabit.

That's great and all... but how does this relate to your attacking me for being anti-intellectual or not having an intellectual argument? I attempted to show how using insulting commentary does nothing to further civil discourse, and <gasp> horror of horrors, I used a swear word! Now you further prove my point with your entire response centered around insulting those you dislike or disagree with - yet you hate it when it is done to you by others on this forum. Do you not see the irony?

Fine. You're not middle of the road. What are you doing to further the discussion to move things in the right direction? Telling people they're living in La La Land? Telling them they're anti-intellectual? Calling them deranged or stupid? Sarge was spot on. I tire of these types of conversations and I'd like to expect more out of people. I'd like people to expect more out of each other.

...You're not middle of the road. What are you doing to further the discussion to move things in the right direction?

OzzFan...

Yes... I am trying to further the discussion. By correctly pointing out (as what started this back-and-forth) the use of Cursing Attacks (guess who), when disagreeing.

So you missed that I wasn't attacking JumpinJohnny? Sarge was quick enough to understand what I was doing. Why weren't you? Is demonstrating absurdity by being absurd lost on you as a reader? Or did you just jump on any opportunity to attack the poster?

Yes... I am trying to further the discussion. By pointing out the foundation of a few (guess which ones). Who always have a need to place individuals in certain, really artificial groups (Race is one - we are all only One Race).

So you still don't see how you do exactly this as well?

Yes... I am trying to further the discussion by pointing out the foundation of their beliefs.

OzzFan...

The world is a more complicated and nuanced place of ideas. Than the Religious Right and Secular Left can understand.

No... I am not sorry for pointing out that fact.

I'm sure your not sorry, but you're unqualified to point out the "foundation of beliefs" of others if you don't know them at the all. How is it that you don't see you're doing exactly what you accuse others of doing? In order to point out the foundation of any belief of a group, you must place them in a group first. This placement is completely arbitrary based upon criteria you setup. You slap a label on them (an -ism or -ist if you will). Then you lambast these groups.

Then when others do it to you, you get involved in these spats like this, then blame it on your "mean streets" upbringing. Yet you still never see that you're as bad as the groups you lambast, therefore you are not furthering the discussion. You're only adding fuel to the divisive environment.

OzzFan...

You posted:

you must be f---ed in the head to actually believe that your anecdotal experience must be the totality of truth and clear evidence that the media's polls are rigged and/or biased.

Actually, I posted:

OzzFan wrote:

But just to keep the insults going in the spirit of the Politics Forum, you must be f---ed in the head to actually believe that your anecdotal experience must be the totality of truth and clear evidence that the media's polls are rigged and/or biased.

Within context, the first part of my statement indicates what I was about to do. That is, use an absurd example to point out that using insults isn't helpful. I even admitted later that it was rash, hoping my point was made. Had I been serious about the insult, I wouldn't have bothered admitting it was rash.

Then you posted:

Then when others do it to you, you get involved in these spats like this, then blame it on your "mean streets" upbringing. Yet you still never see that you're as bad as the groups you lambast, therefore you are not furthering the discussion. You're only adding fuel to the divisive environment.

Case closed.

Indeed. The fact that you purposefully left out the context of my full statement shows you were only taking the opportunity to jump on the poster instead of understanding what is being said. Thank you for proving my point.

Put down that bone you are gnawing and have a look outside. The sun is shining and it's a new day.
Good grief.
I now see clearly why we are having problems as a nation finding political compromises on local, state and national levels.
Little wonder it's so difficult to get a dialogue going about actual issues.
The baiting and twisting prevents actual communication.
Enough already.

Put down that bone you are gnawing and have a look outside. The sun is shining and it's a new day.
Good grief.
I now see clearly why we are having problems as a nation finding political compromises on local, state and national levels.
Little wonder it's so difficult to get a dialogue going about actual issues.
The baiting and twisting prevents actual communication.
Enough already.

Now you're getting it. :-D You can't have compromise or get a dialog going so long as one side levels insults at groups on the other side. You can't compromise with the other side if you disrespect them so much that you insult them for seeing things differently.

(And I like my bone! It was a juicy steak when I started and now I'm savoring the flavor and relishing in what it once was.)

Put down that bone you are gnawing and have a look outside. The sun is shining and it's a new day.
Good grief.
I now see clearly why we are having problems as a nation finding political compromises on local, state and national levels.
Little wonder it's so difficult to get a dialogue going about actual issues.
The baiting and twisting prevents actual communication.
Enough already.

Now you're getting it. :-D You can't have compromise or get a dialog going so long as one side levels insults at groups on the other side. You can't compromise with the other side if you disrespect them so much that you insult them for seeing things differently.

(And I like my bone! It was a juicy steak when I started and now I'm savoring the flavor and relishing in what it once was.)

+1!

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Put down that bone you are gnawing and have a look outside. The sun is shining and it's a new day.
Good grief.
I now see clearly why we are having problems as a nation finding political compromises on local, state and national levels.
Little wonder it's so difficult to get a dialogue going about actual issues.
The baiting and twisting prevents actual communication.
Enough already.

Compromise on principle is a very BAD thing. Gridlock (nothing at all getting done) is preferable to compromising on principles.

Case in point:

The big-government tax-and-spenders vs. the minarchists...

ANY compromise with the big-government people is a LOSS for the minarchists. A total Government shutdown is better. Better anarchy than authoritarian tyranny.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

Now you're getting it. :-D You can't have compromise or get a dialog going so long as one side levels insults at groups on the other side. You can't compromise with the other side if you disrespect them so much that you insult them for seeing things differently.

Nicely summed up... why bother.

+2

---

...