BigGameHunt.net Hunting Forums

[SoCoKHntr]

expatriate wrote: Narrow minded attacks...HA. Narrow minded in SoCo's mind means exposing flaws in facts and logic. Of course, in his world refusing to answer challenges to his position doesn't make him "narrow minded." He's so busy railing on the Right that he doesn't realize how incapable of discourse he's become.

Here's his playbook:

1. Repeat liberal rhetoric.

2. Substitute emotion for facts.

3. When faced with a question about his position's validity, attack the questioner instead of defending his position. This consists of either a) attacking the questioner's intelligence; b) accusing the questioner of being unable to think for himself; c) twisting the debate to try to pigeonhole the questioner and thus shift the debate away from the subject at hand.

4. If #3 fails, claim victimization for being on a crusade to rid the world of closed-mindedness.

5. Repeat.

The important thing to remember in the process is to never actually engage an opponent point for point.

In my view you are the one who claims victimization. You are the one claiming an evil left movement is out to steal what you have and make you dependent on the state. Funny how every label you hang on me you yourself are guilty of.

Do you not just repeat right wing rhetoric?

Don't you get angry and respond emotionally when you refer to my posts? Hell, one person claimed I made up who I was. That's pretty emotional!

Engage point for point, huh? Instead of looking at the whole spectrum of an issue you study only the ones that bolster your view and then repeat, repeat, repeat them ad infinitum. You then only accept as right others that repeat exactly the mantra you do. If a person dares shows the desire to form their own opinion and share that opinion you deride them as part of the evil left out to castrate you.

The sad thing is that's not honest intellectually or otherwise. Maybe it makes you feel good or gives you a purpose and a target to direct your frustrations at.

How are you so capable of discourse? All you do is say here, here is my proof now believe me and tell me I'm right. You are as close minded as anyone else who gets on a forum to argue political ideology.

[Whelland]

Wow expatriate, you couldn't have been more "right." That was items 1 through 5 just as you predicted.

[SoCoKHntr]

Whelland wrote: Wow expatriate, you couldn't have been more "right." That was items 1 through 5 just as you predicted.

Well isn't that an earth shattering surprise whelland agreed with expat who used the exact talking points Rush taught him to say about 'Democrats'. :laugh: Nobody saw that one coming.

[GBoyd]

SoCoKHntr wrote: expatriate wrote: Narrow minded attacks...HA. Narrow minded in SoCo's mind means exposing flaws in facts and logic. Of course, in his world refusing to answer challenges to his position doesn't make him "narrow minded." He's so busy railing on the Right that he doesn't realize how incapable of discourse he's become.

Here's his playbook:

1. Repeat liberal rhetoric.

2. Substitute emotion for facts.

3. When faced with a question about his position's validity, attack the questioner instead of defending his position. This consists of either a) attacking the questioner's intelligence; b) accusing the questioner of being unable to think for himself; c) twisting the debate to try to pigeonhole the questioner and thus shift the debate away from the subject at hand.

4. If #3 fails, claim victimization for being on a crusade to rid the world of closed-mindedness.

5. Repeat.

The important thing to remember in the process is to never actually engage an opponent point for point.

In my view you are the one who claims victimization. You are the one claiming an evil left movement is out to steal what you have and make you dependent on the state. Funny how every label you hang on me you yourself are guilty of.

Do you not just repeat right wing rhetoric?

Don't you get angry and respond emotionally when you refer to my posts? Hell, one person claimed I made up who I was. That's pretty emotional!

Engage point for point, huh? Instead of looking at the whole spectrum of an issue you study only the ones that bolster your view and then repeat, repeat, repeat them ad infinitum. You then only accept as right others that repeat exactly the mantra you do. If a person dares shows the desire to form their own opinion and share that opinion you deride them as part of the evil left out to castrate you.

The sad thing is that's not honest intellectually or otherwise. Maybe it makes you feel good or gives you a purpose and a target to direct your frustrations at.

How are you so capable of discourse? All you do is say here, here is my proof now believe me and tell me I'm right. You are as close minded as anyone else who gets on a forum to argue political ideology.


I hate to get identified with the left-wing side, but this is too much.

You say that SoCoKHunter is ignoring reasoned debate and instead making personal attacks, repeating rhetoric from his side, and using emotional appeals.

That may be true (in more recent posts), but:
In this post, aren't you doing that too?

At the beginning of this, SoCoKHunter stated his view on gun control, but you never debated that view. I've read every word of this, and I still don't know your view of the issue or where you disagree. Everything written has been emotions and personal attacks.

[bitmasher]

SoCoKHntr wrote:
I own many guns and I hunt so, I am not in favor of any idiotic gun control legislation. That being said I believe most who are in favor of some forms of gun control are not extremists who want to take everyones guns away.


Hmmm... so what defines idiotic? Clearly any law that takes "your guns", whatever that may be, away is extremism, but what about my guns? Please do tell what constitutes idiotic?

SoCoKHntr wrote:
Rather I think after incidents like the Virgina Tech Massacre or Columbine they would like some measures put into place so mentally ill or mass murdering intent people can't easily get their hands on high capacity killing machines and succesfully kill high numbers of innocent people.


Lets think about this wide reaching statement just for a minute, because here in lies the heart of the gun control movement. First, lets take Cho at VT, he was adjudicated mentally defective a condition for which the laws already takes into account.

Cho lied on the 4473, the government however did not forward his adjudication to NICS and therefore was not denied at transfer time. No new laws are needed or were needed to stop Cho, enforcement of the laws on the books is what is needed. You should also note that a bill was passed by a bipartisan majority, backed by the NRA, and signed by Bush in order to make the adjudications more available to the NICS.

This topic is covered in an old forum thread here:

http://www.biggamehunt.net/for.....hp?t=14337

Now lets talk about Columbine. The weapons used by Harris and Klebold were purchased by Klebold's 18 year old girlfriend at a Colorado gun show. Two things happened, for one it was a straw purchase, two Colorado has since moved to require background checks at gun shows. Beyond that what other legislation would you propose?

Now about "mass murdering intent" people, it would also be great if we could know in advance about rapists, murders, robbers, and other lesser crimes. The problem is there is not a system that I'm aware of that could achieve this without throwing out a good deal of our other basic rights. No law can root out intent without tramping on rights.

Rather let responsible people arm themselves so they may at least defend themselves when the unfortunate and inevitable happens and evil comes knocking.

[expatriate]

GBoyd, I actually did make repeated attempts to engage SoCo on the gun control issue in the presidential poll thread, I believe. The issue was his assertion that Obama is not anti-gun, and that we're wrong to say that he is. I (and a few others) pointed out Obama's record on the issue, complete with facts to back the position. He responded much the same way he responded to my last post here -- no debate, just duck, dodge, howl, and personal attacks instead of addressing the points at hand.

The best analogy I've heard was that gun owners voting for Obama is like chickens voting for Col Sanders. Obama's legislative record and public statements back that analogy. SoCo blusters, but won't debate on any sort of academic level that focuses on positions derived from factual evidence.

[SoCoKHntr]

expatriate wrote: GBoyd, I actually did make repeated attempts to engage SoCo on the gun control issue in the presidential poll thread, I believe. The issue was his assertion that Obama is not anti-gun, and that we're wrong to say that he is. I (and a few others) pointed out Obama's record on the issue, complete with facts to back the position. He responded much the same way he responded to my last post here -- no debate, just duck, dodge, howl, and personal attacks instead of addressing the points at hand.

The best analogy I've heard was that gun owners voting for Obama is like chickens voting for Col Sanders. Obama's legislative record and public statements back that analogy. SoCo blusters, but won't debate on any sort of academic level that focuses on positions derived from factual evidence.

Blusters, I say the proof is in the pudding and I am so confident in my view that I am staking my guns on it by voting for Obama. What will be more unequivocally truthful then seeing what happens. You can cherry pick and distort all the info you want, but in the end after four years of Obama's Presidency we can see if our guns or taken or not. It don't get more real then that. I really believe Obama will win and I will own more guns over the next four or more years. I will gladly talk to and compare this with you every year of his Presidency.

[CVC]

How can you believe anything BHO says? He says that he is a Christian (which I don't doubt) and supports it by stating that he attended the same church for over 20 years, looked to the pastor as his spiritual guide, had his children baptized and so on, but then when the pastor becomes a politically liablity he dumps him.

He indicated that he would take public funds and then when the time comes he changes his mind on it.

He was firm in his resolve to get us out of Iraq (something I support) and not he is waffling on that issue.

So, how do you know who you're voting for?

I know you'll bring up McCain. I am no big fan of his, but he has a long political track record and while his war record doesn't qualify him to be President, it does give a unique insight into his character.

From reports I've read, he could have been released before other POWs but insisted that those that were imprisoned before him be released.

Do I agree with his views on immigration and other issues - definitely not. But do I respect him - absolutely.

Do I respect BHO? My mind isn't made up, but based on what I know of him, it isn't looking good.

[SoCoKHntr]

I've explained my views on his Pastor. In that situation he's damned if he does or doesn't. If he wouldn't have disavowed his Pastor I have no doubt you and others would say that was proof of his racism by sticking with him. Since he did cut ties with him you condemn him for abandoning his spiritual guide.

Running for office requires tactical maneuvering and both sides do it. The Pastor for whatever reason went off the deep end and was not concerned with Obama at all since anyone in their right mind would have known this action was going to hurt Obama. So, in my opinion Obama had to make a hard decision regarding a close person and in my opinion he made the right choice.

Again, I don't think he was fully aware of Right's ranting.

As far as the funding decision it was a bad tactical move and he is paying for it with people holding the view you do. But, c'mon you don't think this same type of thing can't be shown on Mccain? What about all the ranting he's done against lobbyists and his ties to them. What about all of his flip flops on many different issues? It seems he wants to be President so bad he will say anything that might get him there.

I think anyone who has been in combat and carried themselves bravely deserves a level of respect for holding it together in circumstances many can't. But, I don't automatically think that makes them smarter, more rational, or a better Presidential hopeful, then a non soldier warrior combat veteran.

There's brave soldiers from every military even our enemies. Does that mean they automatically would be a good President?

After the way Bush drug Mccain thru the slime in 2000 and now Mccains !@# kissing of him I don't have any respect for him.

[CVC]

Did you bother to read what I wrote?

Quote: I know you'll bring up McCain. I am no big fan of his, but he has a long political track record and while his war record doesn't qualify him to be President, it does give a unique insight into his character.



I already address what you were going to say about McCain in my post. You are predicatable so I answered the questions I know you'd raise about McCain.

I don't support McCain and his war record doesn't qualify him to be President. It simply provides an insight into his character. Has he flip flopped - sure. Do I agree with all his views. Heck no.

I just think he is the devil we know - no one knows who BHO is and I doubt that he really knows what he'll do if he gets into office.

[SoCoKHntr]

CVC wrote: Did you bother to read what I wrote?

Quote: I know you'll bring up McCain. I am no big fan of his, but he has a long political track record and while his war record doesn't qualify him to be President, it does give a unique insight into his character.



I already address what you were going to say about McCain in my post. You are predicatable so I answered the questions I know you'd raise about McCain.

I don't support McCain and his war record doesn't qualify him to be President. It simply provides an insight into his character. Has he flip flopped - sure. Do I agree with all his views. Heck no.

I just think he is the devil we know - no one knows who BHO is and I doubt that he really knows what he'll do if he gets into office.

So, you get to bring up predictable negatives on Obama, but then tell me I can't counterpoint in regard to Mccain??? They are after all both running for President and who this very debate is mostly about at this time. You want to set the rules to your favor? How nice of you.

[CVC]

I am not disagreeing about McCain's negatives so why debate it? I state his weaknesses but you then restate them as if they bolster your pro-Obama stance which they don't.

Somehow you believe if Republican is bad then that makes the bad actions of a Democrat ok.

[SoCoKHntr]

CVC wrote: I am not disagreeing about McCain's negatives so why debate it? I state his weaknesses but you then restate them as if they bolster your pro-Obama stance which they don't.

Somehow you believe if Republican is bad then that makes the bad actions of a Democrat ok.

My wild guess is that even though you 'express' doubt about Mcain you will be voting for him. So, you point out negatives about Obama and when I make comparisons of those negatives to similar actions of Mcain I'm saying 'Repub bad so bad Dem OK'.

No, that is not in fact what I am doing. I am pointing out standards you hold to one and not to the other.

[expatriate]

Personally, I'm disgusted at the sleight of hand being played by the left on McCain's military career -- the mantra that his military service doesn't qualify him to be president.

Nobody said that it did. But you can't escape the fact that we're at war -- like it or not. All other issues aside, one aspect (ONE) of either candidate's qualifications is his ability and judgment to lead the most powerful armed force in the world as Commander in Chief. You have two choices:

1. A man who graduated from Annapolis and spent 23 years in the Navy. He spent time in combat during Vietnam, to include narrowly escaping death when a plane exploded next to his during the Forrestal disaster. He was later shot down, badly wounded, and spent five and a half years in the Hanoi Hilton, where he was tortured. When the Vietnamese found out who his father was, they tried to release him earlier than other prisoners who had been there longer. He refused, and suffered harsher treatment afterward. When he was eventually reinstated, he pushed himself to get back on flight status. To this day, his wartime injuries prevent him from combing his own hair because he can't lift his hands above his shoulders. He has since served in Congress for 26 years.

2. A freshman senator with absolutely no military experience whatsoever that has been in Washington for less than four years.

The question at hand is not whether McCain's service is the sole qualifier for president. The question at hand is when it comes to the application of military power and the cost of war, which of those two candidates do you think has a clearer understanding? The Democrats seem to have absolutely no idea how stupid they look for trying to argue this point.

[jfrench]

I think the experience part of this campaign is a very important issue. When I first saw Obama, I remember saying "who is this guy? Where did he come from"? To me he came out of no where. I had never heard of him. I have taken the time to look over his campaign site to try and figure out who he is, and where he stands. I still don't know exactly where he stands, which only strengthens my original views. When I look at both campaigns right now, I see two major factors. McCain's campaign (to me) appears very organized, straight foward, and shows what he wants to accomplish. When I look at Obama's campaign his too appears well organized, but I noticed two things missing. First, no where on his site does he speak about the second amednment. Second, his campaign is very emotional and to me is not straight foward. In alot of his speaches, Obama sounds like he is selling a real estate program on some tv program, so we can make a better life for ourselves. Like those ads I'm not buying it. He also brings up the phrase Pluralistic Society many times. What exactly does he want for America? What is his plan? As for the war, why hasn't congress just pulled the plug? They have the power, and isn't the house majority Democratic right now? So exactly where does the Democratic Party stand on that issue? Is it they don't want to make a decision? Or is it they don't want people getting angry? We're talking about running a nation, not a five and dime.
If I sound ignorant, I'm sorry. Set me straight.