This is great!
You guys are getting a taste of what I get on here every day. The only difference is, EFox aka SixPointSlow and John aka Nova aren't calling you right-wingers, tea-bagger, and that all your sources are discredited right-wing propaganda.
Trust me, they're always right and will not accept anything you post when it opposes their political ideology or whatever. They cannot be shown that anything they believe is wrong, biased, politically slanted, etc.
It's fun being able to take a break for once and read the circle-jerk and mental-gymnastics that goes on with these two.
Reps to all who are trying to show them the difference in Capitalism, State Capitalism, etc., that I have tried to do on many occasions here.
---------- Post added at 02:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:10 AM ----------
You're trying to make up your own definitions, Eric. You don't have to keep trying to blur the lines. We all know what Capitalism is. We know what State Capitalism is, etc. Whatever Marxist blog you've been reading, it is corrupting your mind. You've got darn near everyone here trying to tell you what's right and you won't accept it, not even from Websters Dictionary, nor anywhere else. At this point, Karl Marx could come out of the clouds and tell you that you're wrong, but you still probably wouldn't accept it because YOU HAVE TO ALWAYS BE RIGHT AND WIN!
Want to know why they're getting the same treatment as you do? Because they are using the same information sources. You cry that we pick on you in particular when this is an excellent example of how it's not you personally but the sources you hold as truth.
Also, in this case, it's apparent that Eagle, while holding true to his beliefs, is still keeping an open mind to opposing views and is rebutting in a non-condescending, non-confrontational manner unlike your debate style. You are so certain that what you are being fed is the truth you are unflinching in your views or any outside or opposing views regardless of whatever fact gets presented to you.
Again, I invite you to be able to provide factual data that doesn't have an agenda attached to it. You are also more than welcome to debate with "verifiable" factual data that would counter whatever gets posted in rebuttal to your claims.
Your "Obamanomics" thread is an excellent place to start. I have responded in rebuttal with verifiable facts that counter the authors rendition of what is happening in our economy and that you have decided to accept as gospel because it paints the administration in a bad light which has been your end game through out. I know you won't respond because numbers don't lie and I took the numbers that disprove your authors claim directly from the source that they claim their inflated posit came from but, please, I invite you to rebut my post with whatever may counter it's logic.
I will say it again. I have no problem with right wing claims as long as they are based in verifiable factual data but a lot of the crap you post and claim is the undisputed truth is far from it. I've read a lot of sensible conservative viewpoints that have emerged from the party but it seems the only ones you concern yourself with by posting it on here are crazy, extreme right exaggerations or outright lies.
---------- Post added at 04:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:26 PM ----------
You are correct and you are also aware that he is well versed on the topic and just trying to pick a fight. Instead of demanding proof he could have posted recent data showing the ever decreasing size of the polar caps. He can't so he attacks.
But the onus isn't on him to prove or disprove it regardless of what he knows. You posted a claim. He is asking you to back up your claim with factual data. How is that picking a fight? Is it nitpicking? Possibly but refer back to my post that you agreed with. The devil is in the details. Again, I'm not trying to defend Eric. More so I am trying to keep the debate clean in that whatever claim gets made it should be backed up with verifiable data.
This made me smile and chuckle a bit. Such an innocent comment. Made as if you didn't know the difference between weather and climate. Poor little Sixpointslow needs a tutorial. It's a good thing that we aren't discussing this in person. I know you could not have kept a straight face saying that.
This is bordering on condescending. Let's try and keep the discussion in the factual range and not resort to belittling whoever we are debating by calling them names. "Poor little Sixpoint" does not advance the debate.