How to Defend Yourself Against People Like Me

Unless you're arguing with a liberal. You can never reason someone out of something they weren't reasoned into. Originally Posted by joe bloe

Gawd I really like you. You express yourself so wonderfully in writing.

Gawd I really like you. You express yourself so wonderfully in writing. Originally Posted by LovingKayla

Aw shucks!

Unless you're arguing with a liberal. You can never reason someone out of something they weren't reasoned into. Originally Posted by joe bloe

That's what makes liberalism so intractable; it's based on lies, but they're lies believed with passion. Originally Posted by joe bloe

If there's a word for someone who continually states his opinion as fact, then you're that word.

Arrogant comes to mind, but i don't think that's quite it.

If there's a word for someone who continually states his opinion as fact, then you're that word.

Arrogant comes to mind, but i don't think that's quite it. Originally Posted by Doove

One of the quotes that you choose to attach to all of your posts is: "Religion is a convenient means by which millions dispose of reality" I can't think of a better example of expressing an opinion as if it were a fact. You're summarily dismissing 90% of the world's population as not living in the real world. Well, that's your opinion, and it sounds pretty arrogant to me. But then again, that's just my opinon!

PS
You say that arrogant is not quite the right word for "someone who continually states his opinion as fact". How about confidant?

If there's a word for someone who continually states his opinion as fact, then you're that word. Originally Posted by Doove

And what do you call someone who continually denies facts: 'liberal'.

For example: http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...&postcount=232

Since there was already a law protecting the life of a "living" infant, then this bill was either 1) needlessly duplicative, or 2) a bill that had nothing to do with protecting the life of a "living" infant. Originally Posted by Doove

Here, you are lying. The bill had everything to do with protecting the life of an infant.

Final analysis, in all of your wormy deceit you still haven't refuted the fact that Obama hypocritically voted against a bill which met every precondition he set; thus, he voted against protecting the life of a 'living' infant.

Here, you are lying. The bill had everything to do with protecting the life of an infant. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

No it didn't. Originally Posted by Doove

Doofus, you lie, obfuscate and deceive. This is from the cited article - paragraph #2:

"At issue is Obama’s opposition to Illinois legislation in 2001, 2002 and 2003 that would have defined any aborted fetus that showed signs of life as a "born alive infant" entitled to legal protection, even if doctors believe it could not survive."

This is Illinois Bill SB 1082:

LRB093 10540 MKM 10794 b 1 AN ACT concerning infants who are born alive. 2 Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, 3 represented in the General Assembly: 4 Section 5. The Statute on Statutes is amended by adding 5 Section 1.36 as follows: 6 (5 ILCS 70/1.36 new) 7 Sec. 1.36. Born-alive infant. 8 (a) In determining the meaning of any statute or of any 9 rule, regulation, or interpretation of the various 10 administrative agencies of this State, the words "person", 11 "human being", "child", and "individual" include every infant 12 member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any 13 stage of development. 14 (b) As used in this Section, the term "born alive", with 15 respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the 16 complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that 17 member, at any stage of development, who after that expulsion 18 or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of 19 the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary 20 muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been 21 cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction 22 occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean 23 section, or induced abortion. 24 (c) A live child born as a result of an abortion shall 25 be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate 26 protection under the law.27 Section 99. Effective date. This Act takes effect upon 28 becoming law.

You have repeatedly, but unsuccessfully, attempted to misdirect the argument, but you have failed to refute Obama's hypocritical vote against a bill which met every precondition he set. He voted against protecting the life of a 'living' infant. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

One of the quotes that you choose to attach to all of your posts is: "Religion is a convenient means by which millions dispose of reality" I can't think of a better example of expressing an opinion as if it were a fact. Originally Posted by joe bloe

Alright, fair point.

PS
You say that arrogant is not quite the right word for "someone who continually states his opinion as fact". How about confidant?

Nope, that's not it either.

For example:http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...&postcount=232 Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Come on, admit it - you've got that post set up in your favorites, dontcha?

Separate from that, let me just say that if you format your posts in such a way that it takes even a minimal amount of effort on my part to figure out who said what, i ain't reading 'em.

Come on, admit it - you've got that post set up in your favorites, dontcha? Originally Posted by Doove

Separate from that, let me just say that if you format your posts in such a way that it takes even a minimal amount of effort on my part to figure out who said what, i ain't reading 'em. Originally Posted by Doove

Come on, admit it - you've got that post set up in your favorites, dontcha? Originally Posted by Doove

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

And remember when i said this, a mere 10 posts ago in this very thread?

If i had a dime for every time i got into an argument with someone using point after point after point after point with them, to only have them rebut me continuously with the one singular point they'd make over and over again... Originally Posted by Doove

DOOFUS:And remember when i said this, a mere 10 posts ago in this very thread?

DOOFUS: If i had a dime for every time i got into an argument with someone using point after point after point after point with them, to only have them rebut me continuously with the one singular point they'd make over and over again...

REPLY: That is because you squirm and equivocate like a worm on a hook. Sometimes the worm has to be barbed two or three times to hold him in place.

Full disclosure @:


http://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=2303127&postcount=15 Originally Posted by Doove

.