Liberal Forum

I will now present you with the DEFINING POST of Glory Hole Clem's career. You will be exposed to the difference between me, and the vast majority of right wing hacks on this board - the very worst elements of which are incorporated and incarnated (if he's human and not a bot) in the drivel we get from Glory Hole Clem. This is pasted from another thread:

RichClem » 17 Feb 2014 2:38 pm » wrote:
What, are you brain dead? The only sources you cited were for raw statistics, and the only thing supporting your wacky claim about Reagan and Carter is your ignorant, psychotic analysis.

Cite a mainstream source, i.e. opinion based on analysis, that backs up your claim that Carter was better on the economy than Reagan.

There it is, folks. There is Glory Hole Clem, in a nut shell.

He values "accepted" opinion over GENERATED opinion. A subject cannot be argued on its merits between us. We must always defer to authority. A PROPOSITION HAS LESS VALUE OR MORE VALUE BASED ON WHO IT COMES FROM.

Just think of it. His COMPLAINT is that my sources were only cited for raw statistics, and not opinions. That was his COMPLAINT - that I made my own case instead of repeating talking points generated elsewhere.

And now you see what a chump this guy is, from his own mouth, in his own words.

Please - vote in the poll.

Cannonpointer » 17 Feb 2014 3:03 pm » wrote:I will now present you with the DEFINING POST of Glory Hole Clem's career. You will be exposed to the difference between me, and the vast majority of right wing hacks on this board - the very worst elements of which are incorporated and incarnated (if he's human and not a bot) in the drivel we get from Glory Hole Clem. This is pasted from another thread:
There it is, folks. There is Glory Hole Clem, in a nut shell.

He values "accepted" opinion over GENERATED opinion. A subject cannot be argued on its merits between us. We must always defer to authority. A PROPOSITION HAS LESS VALUE OR MORE VALUE BASED ON WHO IT COMES FROM.

Just think of it. His COMPLAINT is that my sources were only cited for raw statistics, and not opinions. That was his COMPLAINT - that I made my own case instead of repeated talking points generated elsewhere.

And now you see what a chump this guy is, from his own mouth, in his own words.

Please - vote in the poll.

Hey, great job at utterly bungling reality.

Sure, informed, logical, sane people can argue on the merits.

But you're hopelessly ignorant, irrational and just plain insane, so the only opinion and analysis offered for your side was you. What a freaking joke.

But to answer your other compliant, yes, appeals to credible, informed authority carries weight, duuuh, and you didn't cite one single one.

Have a nice moonbat life.

I see that some of us, I will not name names, do not know or understand the difference between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. For shame.

RichClem » 17 Feb 2014 3:10 pm » wrote:
Hey, great job at utterly bungling reality.

Sure, informed, logical, sane people can argue on the merits.

But you're hopelessly ignorant, irrational and just plain insane, so the only opinion and analysis offered for your side was you. What a freaking joke.

But to answer your other compliant, yes, appeals to credible, informed authority carries weight, duuuh, and you didn't cite one single one.

Have a nice moonbat life.

Yes, thank you, Glory Hole. Happily, you did NOT "bungle" it. You clarified the issue - you underscored my basic premise: That retards such as you value the SOURCE of a proposition over the LOGIC of the proposition.

Your type of thinking is what creates glass ceilings in corporations - if an opinion comes from an alpha male, it resonates with more "truthiness" than if it comes form a mere skirt. You value sources over logic, sources over argument, sources over independent judgment.

The only real objection you had to my propositions in the cited thread, if one ignores the ad hominems and appeals to "common perception" and other logical fallacies, is that the propositions COME FROM ME instead of a more "authoritative" source.

That's not argumentation but cult worship and side taking, stepson.

Off topic spam.

Cannonpointer » 17 Feb 2014 3:03 pm » wrote:I will now present you with the DEFINING POST of Glory Hole Clem's career. You will be exposed to the difference between me, and the vast majority of right wing hacks on this board - the very worst elements of which are incorporated and incarnated (if he's human and not a bot) in the drivel we get from Glory Hole Clem. This is pasted from another thread:



There it is, folks. There is Glory Hole Clem, in a nut shell.

He values "accepted" opinion over GENERATED opinion. A subject cannot be argued on its merits between us. We must always defer to authority. A PROPOSITION HAS LESS VALUE OR MORE VALUE BASED ON WHO IT COMES FROM.

Just think of it. His COMPLAINT is that my sources were only cited for raw statistics, and not opinions. That was his COMPLAINT - that I made my own case instead of repeated talking points generated elsewhere.

And now you see what a chump this guy is, from his own mouth, in his own words.

Please - vote in the poll.

true, this cuts to his false methodology at his visceral level

but I still think the exposé you collected and presented some months back, that dissected his lack of comprehension of what "rights" are... and unveiled the bankrupcy of his entire believe system, was more telling.

Cannonpointer » 17 Feb 2014 3:15 pm » wrote: Yes, thank you, Glory Hole. Happily, you did NOT "bungle" it. You clarified the issue - you underscored my basic premise: That retards such as you value the SOURCE of a proposition over the LOGIC of the proposition.

Your type of thinking is what creates glass ceilings in corporations - if an opinion comes from an alpha male, it resonates with more "truthiness" than if it comes form a mere skirt. You value sources over logic, sources over argument, sources over independent judgment.

The only real objection you had to my propositions in the cited thread, if one ignores the ad hominems and appeals to "common perception" and other logical fallacies, is that the propositions COME FROM ME instead of a more "authoritative" source.

That's not argumentation but cult worship and side taking, stepson.

"Alpha male."

Holy cow, you are freaking insane.

"Cult worship?" No, psycho, after literally decades of reading diverse opinion and sorting out what has been accurate and what has not, I stand by my time-tested sources and have learned to reject deceitful moonbats like Paul Krugman and his ilk.

It's called "knowledge and good judgment."

RichClem » 17 Feb 2014 3:24 pm » wrote: Haff Kaff, Haff Kaff, Harrumph!

Edited for brevity, retard.

Cannonpointer » 17 Feb 2014 3:15 pm » wrote:Yes, thank you, Glory Hole. Happily, you did NOT "bungle" it. You clarified the issue - you underscored my basic premise: That retards such as you value the SOURCE of a proposition over the LOGIC of the proposition.

Your type of thinking is what creates glass ceilings in corporations - if an opinion comes from an alpha male, it resonates with more "truthiness" than if it comes form a mere skirt. You value sources over logic, sources over argument, sources over independent judgment.

The only real objection you had to my propositions in the cited thread, if one ignores the ad hominems and appeals to "common perception" and other logical fallacies, is that the propositions COME FROM ME instead of a more "authoritative" source.

That's not argumentation but cult worship and side taking, stepson.

All this utter hogwash to defend the astoundingly stupid proposition that Carter was better on the economy than Reagan!

All based on your ignorance and psychosis.

Brattle Street » 17 Feb 2014 3:20 pm » wrote:
true, this cuts to his false methodology at his visceral level

but I still think the exposé you collected and presented some months back, that dissected his lack of comprehension of what "rights" are... and unveiled the bankrupcy of his entire believe system, was more telling.

That WAS a beauty. I should find and bump that.

RichClem » 17 Feb 2014 3:26 pm » wrote:
All this utter hogwash to defend the astoundingly stupid proposition that Carter was better on the economy than Reagan!

All based on your ignorance and psychosis.

upon close examination, it has been concluded that the entire contents of that post is:
MORE TROLL CRAP

Cannonpointer » 17 Feb 2014 3:26 pm » wrote:That WAS a beauty. I should find and bump that.

Here's a beauty.

All this utter hogwash to defend the astoundingly stupid proposition that Carter was better on the economy than Reagan!

All based on your ignorance and psychosis.

RichClem » 17 Feb 2014 3:31 pm » wrote:
Here's a beauty.

All this utter hogwash to defend the astoundingly stupid proposition that Carter was better on the economy than Reagan!

All based on your ignorance and psychosis.

is that a rerun?, OK

upon close examination, it has been concluded that the entire contents of that post is:MORE TROLL CRAP

But.. but .. how would Clem reach an opinion if somebody didn't give it to him?

It's not reasonable to expect him to support his opinions either. He can't. You can even give him the facts. He doesn't know what to do with them.

For him, it isn't about debate. It's about expressing astonishment that anyone could disagree with the people he agrees with.

Simples.

Boring, though.

I generally give my own opinion and analysis of the facts and data as I see it and back it up with raw data when I can. Occasionally, I will defer to an expert opinion when I am a bit shy on personal expertise.

I find there's a few here do one of three things to excess.

1) Like the board's village idiot, clem, when they're backed into a corner by a barrage of demands to back up their bizarre, unsupportable ****, they link to the same biased opinion generator who gave them the bizarre, unsupportable ****.

I grade them accordingly with an F-

2) Some only give opinion and never link to a source for data or opinion to support it. D+ as I give a them credit for possibly having some anecdotal or life experience with the issue. But it depends on how intelligent I deem them to be. The real **** like truthwarrior get the same F- as clem.

3) Some give links to sources that have no earthly connection to their claim or actually support the opposite position. The main offender is consistently graded below par and NEVER manages a hole in one.

It's strangely satisfying to know that their intentions are sincere. Clem, as it's now been revealed, actually BELIEVES that the best source is the opinion piece written by a conservative who gets paid to skew the raw data in favor of his employer. I'd hate to think he was trying to actually convince anyone that his ideas had merit.

Anyone want to venture a guess as to who voted for option #2?

greatnpowerfuloz » 17 Feb 2014 3:45 pm » wrote: Like the board's village idiot, clem, when they're backed into a corner by a barrage of demands to back up their bizarre, unsupportable ****, they link to the same biased opinion generator who gave them the bizarre, unsupportable ****.

I grade them accordingly with an F-

Amazing that an ignorant imbecile would give so much weight to her own worthless opinion.

Hey moonbat, why do publications like the WSJ, IBD and Forbes sell? Because their informed, successful intelligent readers want false propaganda?

It's strangely satisfying to know that their intentions are sincere. Clem, as it's now been revealed, actually BELIEVES that the best source is the opinion piece written by a conservative who gets paid to skew the raw data in favor of his employer. I'd hate to think he was trying to actually convince anyone that his ideas had merit.

"Paid to skew raw data?" Thanks for showing everyone you've never, ever read a single one of the sources I cite, except maybe rarely in passing.

Silverfox » 17 Feb 2014 3:41 pm » wrote:But.. but .. how would Clem reach an opinion if somebody didn't give it to him?

Here's a hint, moonbat. I've read diverse opinion for many decades and learned through experience which ones are sound and which should be rejected.

And I can reject most liberal opinion from my own knowledge off the top of my head.

You people are hopelessly clueless.

RichClem » 17 Feb 2014 3:24 pm » wrote: "Alpha male."

Holy cow, you are freaking insane.

"Cult worship?" No, psycho, after literally decades of reading diverse opinion and sorting out what has been accurate and what has not, I stand by my time-tested sources and have learned to reject deceitful moonbats like Paul Krugman and his ilk.

It's called "knowledge and good judgment."

Amazing what passes for good judgement, Clem. Many would say good judgement would have been Jesus not walking barefoot and unarmed to Gethsemane that Thursday night. Especially considering he knew what was going to happen to him.

Maybe he'd still be around today to remind you of what a selfish, uncharitable prick Reagan was.

You don't cite sources, clemtard. More accurately, you ALMOST NEVER cite sources. When you do, it's paid hacks like the folks at Heritage who are, as she described, PAID TO SKEW RAW DATA TO THEIR EMPLOYERS' AGENDA.

That is how you found yourself arguing that Singapore's government generating more than a quarter of its GDP does not make it socialist, even though you're on record saying that Obiewan putting (relatively) a few pennies into some companies IS socialist.

Heritage merely changed the definition of words in order to maintain the meme that only capitalist economies work. You were on here extolling the virtues of capitalism and using a socialist country to back your premise - THAT is what relying on partisan hack sources results in.

Cannonpointer » 17 Feb 2014 3:53 pm » wrote:You don't cite sources, clemtard. More accurately, you ALMOST NEVER cite sources. When you do, it's paid hacks like the folks at Heritage who are, as she described, PAID TO SKEW RAW DATA TO THEIR EMPLOYERS' AGENDA.

Oooh, yeah, it's the vast Right Wing Conspiracy!

Imbecile.

So how is it after decades of reading, I've discovered it's the liberal-left that overwhelmingly gets caught in deceit and outright lies?

And very rarely found my sources to be wrong?

That is how you found yourself arguing that Singapore's government generating more than a quarter of its GDP does not make it socialist, even though you're on record saying that Obiewan putting (relatively) a few pennies into some companies IS socialist.

No, moonbat, as I pointed out several times, Singapore must be judged on the broad range of policies, not on your psychotic insistence to cherry pick only what you want to bleat about.

But that's too common sense for you to grasp.