Obama's job approval

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Ok Chuck, if you're going to take me that way, then all bets are off.

"You can't tell me Rumor Has It is going to win the Sycamore," obviously means that I disagree with your premise, not that you are NOT ACTUALLY ALLOWED TO SAY IT.

I would say such a reading is, in fact, disingenuous, but then you will say I'm blaming Bush for your overly literal interpretation of what I'm saying.

Useless. I give up. Uncle. You win. Drained me of my energy with disingenuous interpretations and straw man arguments. You would actually make a really good conservative commentator, since you've mastered their tactics.

It's like arguing with a less intellectually honest version of Sean Hannity....if that's even humanly possible.

Give me a break with your roundabout bullshi t.

You want to call me intellectually dishonest? Fine.

I will be the bigger man and say that is your view and you are entitled to it however distorted and simpleminded it may be.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I will be the bigger man and say that is your view and you are entitled to it however distorted and simpleminded it may be.

LOL. How big of you, Chuck.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

LOL. How big of you, Chuck.

I didnt say literally. The way you use twisted logic it could actually be a compliment.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I didnt say literally. The way you use twisted logic it could actually be a compliment.

Says the man who couldn't post an intellectually honest argument if someone else wrote it for him.

xo
The Bigger Man

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Says the man who couldn't post an intellectually honest argument if someone else wrote it for him.

xo
The Bigger Man

You arent really aware of the meaning of intellectually honest or dishonest are you? In order to be intellectually dishonest I would have to knowingly advance an argument that I knew was based on untrue information. Or I would have to knowingly withhold information that was relevant to my argument.

When exactly have I done this?

Just one example. And me saying that Democrats still "blame bush" is simply an opinion based on valid information. No honesty involved.

Keep up the the fight. Your party will need you the next few elections.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You arent really aware of the meaning of intellectually honest or dishonest are you? In order to be intellectually dishonest I would have to knowingly advance an argument that I knew was based on untrue information. Or I would have to knowingly withhold information that was relevant to my argument.

When exactly have I done this?

Just one example. And me saying that Democrats still "blame bush" is simply an opinion based on valid information. No honesty involved.

Keep up the the fight. Your party will need you the next few elections.

Is claiming that this is the complete definition of an intellectually dishonesst argument enough evidence of being intellectually dishonest? It is by your standard of such an argument....even though that's hardly a well-rounded, complete definition of an intellectually dishonest argument. Misrepresenting my position repeatedly is an example of being intellectually dishonest...which you have done ad nauseum in claiming I was blaming Bush when I was asking where you sudden concern for financial discussion came from.

Then again, in now a dozen tries, you've still yet to realize that I wasn't blaming Bush for anything when you tried to call me on it, so again, my participation is futile.

Of course, I'll still be more than happy to buy you a beer at Arlington again next year after all this, just like we always do.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Is claiming that this is the complete definition of an intellectually dishonesst argument enough evidence of being intellectually dishonest? It is by your standard of such an argument....even though that's hardly a well-rounded, complete definition of an intellectually dishonest argument. Misrepresenting my position repeatedly is an example of being intellectually dishonest...which you have done ad nauseum in claiming I was blaming Bush when I was asking where you sudden concern for financial discussion came from.

Then again, in now a dozen tries, you've still yet to realize that I wasn't blaming Bush for anything when you tried to call me on it, so again, my participation is futile.

Of course, I'll still be more than happy to buy you a beer at Arlington again next year after all this, just like we always do.

I cant misrepresent your position because I am only expressing my opinion of your position. If my interpretation of your "8 years" comment was inaccurate, it wasnt because of dishonesty, it was an opinion.

And Scavs will be buying all the beer at AP next summer.