DTB's School of Political Debate

[Trench]

1. Someone makes a fact based post that doesn't support Wayne's political ideology.

2. Wayne counters by completely disregarding the facts presented by the original poster and presents his own grammar and spelling challenged argument comprised of barely coherent ramblings about "Gumby" or "Da Base".

3. Several other members make follow-up posts supporting the facts presented by the original poster, while pointing out the fallacies of Wayne's "argument".

4. Wayne then ignores all of the evidence presented by other members supporting the original poster's argument and subtly hijacks the thread by posting an article or segment of an article that's often unrelated to the thread topic but supports his ideology.

5. Wayne insures a successful thread hijacking by then asking a question of the other members that either asks them to disprove his argument, which may or may not be related to the thread topic, or defend an allegation he levels against ?Gumby? or ?Da Base?.

6. Several members provide facts, articles and links debunking Wayne?s argument or allegations and Wayne ignores ALL of it. Wayne counters by re-posting his question or allegations, as if no one has even responded to his previous post.

7. Wayne concludes his posts with :0corn , thereby insuring this cycle will be repeated until it?s played out.

 

[THE KOD]

damn thats funny and spot on

alot of people stopped talking to DTB because of this, ie kosar, smurph, etc

it can make you crazy. I think thats his purpose

he makes no sense most of the time, but that is the conservative agenda these days. Move and confuse and point fingers.

 

[THE KOD]

Saudi female journalist sentenced to 60 lashes
Program on Lebanese cable TV dealt with man's frank sex talk

updated 2 hours, 4 minutes ago
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia - A Saudi court on Saturday convicted a female journalist for her involvement in a TV show, in which a Saudi man publicly talked about sex, and sentenced her to 60 lashes.

Rozanna al-Yami is believed to be the first Saudi woman journalist to be given such a punishment. The charges against her included involvement in the preparation of the program and advertising the segment on the Internet.

Abdul-Rahman al-Hazza, the spokesman of the Ministry of Culture and Information, told The Associated Press he had no details of the sentencing and could not comment on it.

The program, which aired in July on the Lebanese LBC satellite channel, Mazen Abdul-Jawad appears to describe an active sex life and shows sex toys that were blurred by the station. The same court sentenced Abdul-Jawad earlier this month to five years in jail and 1,000 lashes.

The man's lawyer, Sulaiman al-Jumeii, maintains his client was duped by the TV station and was unaware in many cases he was being recorded.

On Saturday, he told the AP that not trying his client or al-Yami before a court specialized in media matters at the Ministry of Culture and Information was a violation of Saudi law.

"It is a precedent to try a journalist before a summary court for an issue that concerns the nature of his job," he said.

200 legal complaints
The program, which aired July 15 on LBC and was seen in Saudi Arabia, scandalized this conservative country where such frank talk is rarely heard in public. Some 200 people filed legal complaints against Abdul Jawad, who works for the national airline.

The program, "Bold Red Line," begins with Abdul-Jawad, dubbed a "sex braggart" and "Casanova" by the media, describing the first time he had sex at 14. He then leads viewers into his bedroom, dominated by red accessories, and then shows off blurred sex toys.

He is later joined by three male friends for a discussion on what turns them on. Abdul-Jawad's lawyer maintains his client was referring to other people's sexual experiences and the toys were provided by the TV station.

The government moved swiftly in the wake of the case, shutting down LBC's two offices in the kingdom and arresting Abdul-Jawad, who works for the national airline.

Three other men who appeared on the show, "Bold Red Line," were also convicted of discussing sex publicly and sentenced to two years imprisonment and 300 lashes each.

The kingdom, which is the birthplace of Islam, enforces strict segregation of the sexes. An unrelated couple, for example, can be detained for being alone in the same car or having a cup of coffee in public.

Saudis observe such segregation even at home, where they have separate living rooms for male and female guests.
...........................................................

It is truly hard for me to believe that this goes on in 2009

I guess I will never understand it

 

[Jabberwocky]

1. Someone makes a fact based post that doesn't support Wayne's political ideology.

2. Wayne counters by completely disregarding the facts presented by the original poster and presents his own grammar and spelling challenged argument comprised of barely coherent ramblings about "Gumby" or "Da Base".

3. Several other members make follow-up posts supporting the facts presented by the original poster, while pointing out the fallacies of Wayne's "argument".

4. Wayne then ignores all of the evidence presented by other members supporting the original poster's argument and subtly hijacks the thread by posting an article or segment of an article that's often unrelated to the thread topic but supports his ideology.

5. Wayne insures a successful thread hijacking by then asking a question of the other members that either asks them to disprove his argument, which may or may not be related to the thread topic, or defend an allegation he levels against ?Gumby? or ?Da Base?.

6. Several members provide facts, articles and links debunking Wayne?s argument or allegations and Wayne ignores ALL of it. Wayne counters by re-posting his question or allegations, as if no one has even responded to his previous post.

7. Wayne concludes his posts with :0corn , thereby insuring this cycle will be repeated until it?s played out.

Trench, if understanding the dynamics of the DTB blog pattern was a science, you would be world win a nobel prize.

 

[marine]

1. Someone makes a fact based post that doesn't support Wayne's political ideology.

2. Wayne counters by completely disregarding the facts presented by the original poster and presents his own grammar and spelling challenged argument comprised of barely coherent ramblings about "Gumby" or "Da Base".

3. Several other members make follow-up posts supporting the facts presented by the original poster, while pointing out the fallacies of Wayne's "argument".

4. Wayne then ignores all of the evidence presented by other members supporting the original poster's argument and subtly hijacks the thread by posting an article or segment of an article that's often unrelated to the thread topic but supports his ideology.

5. Wayne insures a successful thread hijacking by then asking a question of the other members that either asks them to disprove his argument, which may or may not be related to the thread topic, or defend an allegation he levels against ?Gumby? or ?Da Base?.

6. Several members provide facts, articles and links debunking Wayne?s argument or allegations and Wayne ignores ALL of it. Wayne counters by re-posting his question or allegations, as if no one has even responded to his previous post.

7. Wayne concludes his posts with :0corn , thereby insuring this cycle will be repeated until it?s played out.

very adorable. I'll toss in one of my own observations.
1. Right wing poster creates thread arguing Obama or Obama point.

2. Left winger doesn't bother reading article, but scans it and realizes it is against Obama. Responds to post with "Yea, but Bush sucked and Cheney is a meanie pants."

3. 10 more left wingers chime in and sing that "bush sucks/cheney is a meanie farty pants"

4. Thread successfully hijacked.

 

[Chadman]

Well, marine, you do have to admit Cheney is a meanie farty pants.

 

[Trench]

damn thats funny and spot on

alot of people stopped talking to DTB because of this, ie kosar, smurph, etc

it can make you crazy. I think thats his purpose

Well, I've gotta give him points for staying power Scotty.

He's the...

... of neoconservative dogma.

 

[The Sponge]

1. Someone makes a fact based post that doesn't support Wayne's political ideology.

2. Wayne counters by completely disregarding the facts presented by the original poster and presents his own grammar and spelling challenged argument comprised of barely coherent ramblings about "Gumby" or "Da Base".

3. Several other members make follow-up posts supporting the facts presented by the original poster, while pointing out the fallacies of Wayne's "argument".

4. Wayne then ignores all of the evidence presented by other members supporting the original poster's argument and subtly hijacks the thread by posting an article or segment of an article that's often unrelated to the thread topic but supports his ideology.

5. Wayne insures a successful thread hijacking by then asking a question of the other members that either asks them to disprove his argument, which may or may not be related to the thread topic, or defend an allegation he levels against ?Gumby? or ?Da Base?.

6. Several members provide facts, articles and links debunking Wayne?s argument or allegations and Wayne ignores ALL of it. Wayne counters by re-posting his question or allegations, as if no one has even responded to his previous post.

7. Wayne concludes his posts with :0corn , thereby insuring this cycle will be repeated until it?s played out.

:mj07: :mj07: :mj07:

 

[smurphy]

1. Someone makes a fact based post that doesn't support Wayne's political ideology.

2. Wayne counters by completely disregarding the facts presented by the original poster and presents his own grammar and spelling challenged argument comprised of barely coherent ramblings about "Gumby" or "Da Base".

3. Several other members make follow-up posts supporting the facts presented by the original poster, while pointing out the fallacies of Wayne's "argument".

4. Wayne then ignores all of the evidence presented by other members supporting the original poster's argument and subtly hijacks the thread by posting an article or segment of an article that's often unrelated to the thread topic but supports his ideology.

5. Wayne insures a successful thread hijacking by then asking a question of the other members that either asks them to disprove his argument, which may or may not be related to the thread topic, or defend an allegation he levels against ?Gumby? or ?Da Base?.

6. Several members provide facts, articles and links debunking Wayne?s argument or allegations and Wayne ignores ALL of it. Wayne counters by re-posting his question or allegations, as if no one has even responded to his previous post.

7. Wayne concludes his posts with :0corn , thereby insuring this cycle will be repeated until it?s played out.

:00x3






:0corn

 

[kosar]

:0corn

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Interesting--1st don't think Matt and my relationship has changed any--we have never let politics get between our friendship--and Smurph--while I like him can't say we ever had any relationship--not a lot in common.

I value severals opinion here who disagree politically and they often make very vaild points--but I know backrounds of most these people and their opinions are valued on experience in their perspective areas.

Your prob Trench is being able to seperate fact from opinion. Granted there are some areas such as merits of war in Iraq that are generally based on opinions so they come into play.

When we look at opinions we consider the source. Handicapping is excellent example--who's opinion on next weeks football game do we value most--a consistent winner or perennial loser.

I do have opinions concerning war-small businesses-healthcare because I have experienced them--while my opinion may not be correct I have a base for them.

You on the other hand are unknown.No one can verify anything you say. You are just a avatar behind a keyboard. The only fact we know for sure is you are for redistribution of wealth-higher taxes and socialism--so I can form only one opinion on what I know.

Da base--one of my favs--why???
Conservatives also have their own "da base"
Only prob liberals have is demonizing conservative attributes/people that have conservative base. Pretty hard to look at voting demographics and make a case-- tough to demonize those againt-big gov-socialism-higher taxes-sactuary cities- etc
When you have to make arguement against the productive in favor of the freeloaders--your shit won't float.

--back to your issues and supporting facts-
Here are 2 threads we had lenthy debates on.

One on who was responsible for banking disaster and the other on econmy in Clintons reign vs GW.

Now heres your test-after viewing you will have three opinions--
You can agree with conclusion arrived at
You can disprove conclusion with new facts
you can ignor or change topic.
Which will it be
:0corn
How did we get in this financial crisis
http://www.madjacksports.com/forum/showthread.php?t=358028

I don't get it--(who created more jobs Bush or clinton)
http://www.madjacksports.com/forum/showthread.php?t=343671&highlight=calculator

 

[Jabberwocky]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,242424,00.html

Job Growth Under Bush Much Slower Than Under Clinton and Reagan

Wayne, are you serious? Here is a Fox article for you.

If you would like, I will bury this thread with evidence, and "FACTS" about how the Bush economy was the biggest transfer of wealth in the history of the world. The Dow Jones ended up exactly where it started. The national debt was almost quadrupled (I know there was a hurricane). His job growth was the worst in 50 years. But don't let the FACTS get in the way of your story.

 

[Jabberwocky]

"Lets start with pres # 1 priorty--keeping america safe--

1--Has did what he called his top priority of keeping america safe after 911 by taking it to terrorist on their turf.

2 disarmed lybia without firing a shot--

3 Korea Ended supplying them with money to build their nukes--instead went multi lateral route and now are disarming them.

4 Our # 1 enemy AQ was training openly and rampant in lybia-yemen-afgan-pakistan-etc after
1st attack on trade towers by UBL-- they have hide like roaches now with all the above now fighting them. Quite a turn around

5 Accomplished in days what Russia couldn't do in 10 years in Afgan

would you like more in this area or move to different area--how about economics?

1 Inheirted dot com bust and recession--

2 Worldcom/enron fiasco

3 911 greatest man made disaster in history

4. Kartina greatest natural disaster in history

5. July 2007 Markets hit all time high--unemployment less than 5%--interest rates at all time lows.

enough?? OK your turn

Now give us any 5 accomplishments of Obwanna in any catagory--ok will settle for just ONE"

Wow. Really Wayne? "July 2007 Markets hit all time high" yet the markets at the end of the Bush presidency were where they were when he started...hmmm. Tough FACTS to swallow. Let's just give him credit for the advancements and ignore the DOUBLING the size of government and QUADRUPLING the national debt. Lets just ignore the FACTS and talk about "Da Base". What an absurd fiction you spin.

 

[Trench]

I value severals opinion here who disagree politically and they often make very vaild points--but I know backrounds of most these people and their opinions are valued on experience in their perspective areas.

I don?t need to see a guy?s resume or know his golf handicap to determine the depth of his political awareness. It's revealed in his words.

Your prob Trench is being able to seperate fact from opinion. Granted there are some areas such as merits of war in Iraq that are generally based on opinions so they come into play.

There?s only one way to separate fact from opinion: Know what you?re talking about. The rest is just noise.

I do have opinions concerning war-small businesses-healthcare because I have experienced them--while my opinion may not be correct I have a base for them.

You can?t be serious with this statement. By your rationale, ANY opinions, no matter how misguided they may be, could be justified because you ?have a base for them?.

You on the other hand are unknown.No one can verify anything you say. You are just a avatar behind a keyboard. The only fact we know for sure is you are for redistribution of wealth-higher taxes and socialism--so I can form only one opinion on what I know.

1. Yes, I?m for redistributing the wealth that?s been systematically siphoned from the middle-class and redistributed to the wealthiest 5% in this country since Reagan and his band of neoconservatives introduced us to trickle-down economics. I don?t understand why you?re not?
2. No, I?m not for higher taxes. You?re dead wrong about that. I?m for shifting the hundreds of billions of dollars we throw away every year by continuing to perpetuate our imperialistic, post cold war ?defense? policies, to rebuilding infrastructure, pursuing energy independence and providing healthcare for all Americans.
3. Socialism? I doubt most people throwing that word around these days even know what it is. I?ve never considered myself a socialist but the events of the past 12-18 months have convinced me more than ever that a progressive society is one that embraces the best aspects of both capitalism and socialism.

Da base--one of my favs--why???
Conservatives also have their own "da base"
Only prob liberals have is demonizing conservative attributes/people that have conservative base. Pretty hard to look at voting demographics and make a case-- tough to demonize those againt-big gov-socialism-higher taxes-sactuary cities- etc
When you have to make arguement against the productive in favor of the freeloaders--your shit won't float.

I think I just addressed this but I?m always amused by your attempts to paint all liberals as freeloaders and all conservatives as hard-working, salt-of-the-earth patriots. I?ve not been unemployed for more than a 3 month stretch since I was 16 years old and from what I?ve observed, political affiliation bears no determination whatsoever on a person?s work ethic.

--back to your issues and supporting facts-
Here are 2 threads we had lenthy debates on.

One on who was responsible for banking disaster and the other on econmy in Clintons reign vs GW.

Now heres your test-after viewing you will have three opinions--
You can agree with conclusion arrived at
You can disprove conclusion with new facts
you can ignor or change topic.
Which will it be

See Step# 5 of DTB?s School of Politcal Debate.

:0corn

See Step#7 of DTB's School of Political Debate.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,242424,00.html

Job Growth Under Bush Much Slower Than Under Clinton and Reagan

Wayne, are you serious? Here is a Fox article for you.

If you would like, I will bury this thread with evidence, and "FACTS" about how the Bush economy was the biggest transfer of wealth in the history of the world. The Dow Jones ended up exactly where it started. The national debt was almost quadrupled (I know there was a hurricane). His job growth was the worst in 50 years. But don't let the FACTS get in the way of your story.

Ok Jabbers--evidently you didn't read thread

Heres the # (facts)add em up and report back back to us--


http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm

Annual average unemployment rate, civilian labor force 16 years and over (percent)
Year Ann Avg
1948 3.8
1949 5.9
1950 5.3
1951 3.3
1952 3.0
1953 2.9
1954 5.5
1955 4.4
1956 4.1
1957 4.3
1958 6.8
1959 5.5
1960 5.5
1961 6.7
1962 5.5
1963 5.7
1964 5.2
1965 4.5
1966 3.8
1967 3.8
1968 3.6
1969 3.5
1970 4.9
1971 5.9
1972 5.6
1973 4.9
1974 5.6
1975 8.5
1976 7.7
1977 7.1
1978 6.1
1979 5.8
1980 7.1
1981 7.6
1982 9.7
1983 9.6
1984 7.5
1985 7.2
1986 7.0
1987 6.2
1988 5.5
1989 5.3
1990 5.6
1991 6.8
1992 7.5
1993 6.9
1994 6.1
1995 5.6
1996 5.4
1997 4.9
1998 4.5
1999 4.2
2000 4.0
2001 4.7
2002 5.8
2003 6.0
2004 5.5
2005 5.1
2006 4.6
2007 4.6
2008 5.8

These were years of worst economy since great depresion--Good thing they Dems got in there in and saved us.
P.S. you might note Clinton #'s under Dem congress till 94 when Rebs took over congress with their contract with america.
In fact ley me high light the years with Reb congress. Does anything jump out at you?