#1 Munchies?

EFFETEPOSER asked, "How long until Jethro shoots up a massage parlor with his newly legal pistol? "

My guess is it would be about the same amount of time as if there wasn't permitless carry. People who commit an illegal act with a gun don't worry too much about whether they are carrying their weapon legally or not.

Madscientist asked, " have you ever been deposed in a Civil case for 10 hours. "

No, I have not. However here I have the prerogative to opt out of incessant questioning whereas a litigant in a court of law does not.

As the faux Latin saying goes, ". Illegitimi non carborundum".

#326 I believe a wise interrogator can come to the correct assessment of the witness with a handful of questions eschewing the 'wear them down' tactic.

#324 I like that. The last sentence says it all to me because above all, I try to be courteous. Being an imperfect human, I sometimes falter. But I remain undaunted in my attempts.

Madscientist said, " I've seen him tear just about everyone here new --------. "

Perhaps I haven't seen enough of his posts. Based on the ones I've seen, he strives to wear people down with endless and often pointless questions. I don't really see that as tearing new --------. I see it as attempting to overtax the one they have.

Snoofy said, "You're dodging the very issue you brought up."

Actually no. I've seen your posts and I know your MO. I do not wish to engage you. I mean no offense, so please take none.

It seems t be a conflict as he is giving something to a constituent. But I applaud him for donating his time to the effort.

#315 Yav asked, "so your idea it to let the lie be out there unchallenged? "

I clearly stated not. Please read my response again.

#314 Do what you want

Snoofy asked, "Are we wrong to call him out?"

If you've done it before, he obviously won't be persuaded otherwise. If you never have, perhaps you should.

Danforth said, "Good teachers also redirect when the pupil has gone off course."

No, good teachers do not redirect. You are assuming the teacher knows what is correct. They may not. That's why a good teacher teaches how, not what. In your example the teacher would teach the student how to stay on course, not redirect. Teachers are fallible, too.

Do you really want a right wing nut job determining what is off course and redirecting the student into into the path he wants? Or do you want him to teach the student how to stay on couurse?

Danforth said, "I've alw"ays seem myself as a teacher"

That is very noble and deserving of much respect. But if you are going to be a teacher, be a good one. Good teachers teach others how to think, not what to think.

OK.

Just remember, your chances of changing anyone's mind on political matters are the same as him changing yours. In fact the chances of changing his mind are probably less. You are a liberal (I think) and as such have a more open mind Rightwingers' minds are welded hut.

Me? I have better things to do with my life than futilely shoving memes in a conservative's facce and repeating talking points.

Danforth said, "If you look at the GA and TX voting laws and proposals, that threat isn't imagined."

You know that. I know that. But here are people who believe otherwise. You cannot change a Trumper's mind. That is the truth. And you say you want people to believe the truth. Believe that one. If you can't accept that truism, , how can you expect others to accept your truths?

Danforth said, "Sometimes, folks are getting the concept wrong."

Yes, you are absolutely correct. But again, why is it so important to you that you make them think like you?

Guess what? That person whose mind you are so intent on changing believes you have the concept wrong. What are the chances that he's going to change your mind? Right. So why do you think you can change his? And why is it so important to you that you do so?

Danforth said, "The frustrating part is say, when a poster gets corrected with irrefutable facts and figures, then pops up later to regurgitate the same lies."

Why do you feel this person is worthy of your time, especially when you will not change his mind? State your case and move on. If you changed his mind (highly unlikely) then great! If you didn't (most likely) you never will. And again, why is it so important to you to make someone think like yourself? I guess you and I are different. I don't waste my time on lost causes like trying to change a Trumper's mind. Why do you?

Snoofy said, "And yes, there is reason to keep crying wolf, so long as the wolf remains."

Either you do not understand the fable of the boy who cried wolf, or you endorse a continual pattern of lying. The fable is about a boy who who craved attention and lied about the presence of a wolf amongst the sheep to get that attention. One day a wolf showed up and no one believed him when he needed help against it.

Is this what you advocate? Lying about an imagined threat because one day there might be one? Your rationale is irrational.

Snoofy said, "They deserve to know they are being groomed. "

So you think repeatedly saying, "Hey you dumb ----, you are being groomed" is going to change their minds? I've never seen any evidence of that approach working. I believe it causes targeted person to dig in deeper.

Do you have evidence of that approach ever working?

Snoofy continues, "So, there's nothing wrong with letting people know what they're getting into."

OK. So let them know and move on. No need in continuing the denigration which doesn't work anyway.

Et al said, "There are far more lurkers than posters here. Sometimes the argument continues to educate those that lurk."

I agree that a sound argument may change a mind. But repetitive name calling and denigration of a poster? Nope. That will never change anyone's mind. In fact, I think a sound argument could be made that it further distances a person from their point of view.

Danforth said, "Heck, I refer to that as my rational side.

"I can't come to bed, honey...someone is wrong on the internet!!!""

Do you think that is rational?

I said, " If you can't change his mind with facts, do you really think you can do it by calling him names? "

I would like to add to that, why is it so important to try to change an idiot's mind? You never will. Have you any evidence at all that a Trump lover ever changed their mind?

Danforth said, "Heck, I refer to that as my rational side."

I wholeheartedly disagree. It is not rational to continue an argument worth someone who irrationally embraces a lie. If you can't change his mind with facts, do you really think you can do it by calling him names? Of course not. You only encourage him to dig his heels in deeper.

Ignore these idiots, for ----- sake. Futile grammar school name calling simply proves you are no better than they are. Is that what you want?

(can we say "----" on this site?)

#204 Fair enough. I think we have all succumbed to the dark side of the blogshpere at one time or another. The hard part is ignoring its siren song. Idiots who continue to embrace their lies in the face of cold hard facts don't have the intellectual capacity to win a fair fight. Their objective is to drag you down to their level. If they succeed in doing that, they win.