Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 28 Apr '10 22:40
    and, Gordon and Barry are ONLY the top two liberals in the top two English-speaking nations of the world.
  2. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    29 Apr '10 00:58
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    us, as in hoi polloi! the convenient tools of the elites, liberal or conservative!
    Like the media over here, you are struggling to make an intelligible argument out of a non event. The idea that your views - as expressed on this site - are somehow those of the hoi polloi is really not worth debating.
  3. 29 Apr '10 01:23
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    and, Gordon and Barry are ONLY the top two liberals in the top two English-speaking nations of the world.
    Who cares? Do you think that actually means that your idiotic generalization is valid?
  4. 29 Apr '10 02:28
    Originally posted by finnegan
    Like the media over here, you are struggling to make an intelligible argument out of a non event. The idea that your views - as expressed on this site - are somehow those of the hoi polloi is really not worth debating.
    really? FIVE of the top TEN election stories! how often does that happen except on election night?

    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    well, it is the topic of five of the top ten Election stories on BBC dot com today. ...[/i]
  5. 29 Apr '10 02:28
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    Who cares? Do you think that actually means that your idiotic generalization is valid?
    see above post.
  6. 29 Apr '10 02:36
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    see above post.
    Which one? I don't see any that changes anything.
  7. 29 Apr '10 02:55
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    Who cares? Do you think that actually means that your idiotic generalization is valid?
    if Obama and Brown can't be said to speak for liberals, then who can?
  8. 29 Apr '10 03:03
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    if Obama and Brown can't be said to speak for liberals, then who can?
    NO ONE. No one speaks for all liberals just like no one speaks for all conservatives.

    Do you really think any large group can be represented accurately in full by one or two people?
  9. 29 Apr '10 03:19
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    NO ONE. No one speaks for all liberals just like no one speaks for all conservatives.

    Do you really think any large group can be represented accurately in full by one or two people?
    I thought Z represented all 14-year-old unthinking quoters?
  10. 29 Apr '10 03:43
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    NO ONE. No one speaks for all liberals just like no one speaks for all conservatives.

    Do you really think any large group can be represented accurately in full by one or two people?
    there are not 6 billion prime ministers and presidents in the world, or hadn't you noticed?
  11. 29 Apr '10 06:30
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    you shouldn't tease KzN, he's not a native and might not understand.
    Oh but I do. I just don't think your black-and-white world where people can only have two possible sets of viewpoints does reality justice. You sure must get very confused if the US ever adopts a multi-party system and you find that people cannot be pigeonholed into two categories.
  12. 29 Apr '10 11:35
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    there are not 6 billion prime ministers and presidents in the world, or hadn't you noticed?
    I did notice that, but that is also irrelevant. The lack of 6 billion heads of states in the world doesn't give you any reason to say that because of that then one is enough.

    Just because someone is a prime minister or president and a liberal doesn't mean every liberal agrees with everything they do or say. That's just plain simple grade school logic, but apparently that's a bit hard for you.

    The fact that they are prime ministers or president means that there are enough who agree with their politics to vote for them, not that those who vote for them believe and agree with absolutely everything they do or say ever.
  13. 29 Apr '10 11:41
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    I did notice that, but that is also irrelevant. The lack of 6 billion heads of states in the world doesn't give you any reason to say that because of that then one is enough.

    Just because someone is a prime minister or president and a liberal doesn't mean every liberal agrees with everything they do or say. That's just plain simple grade school logic, ...[text shortened]... at those who vote for them believe and agree with absolutely everything they do or say ever.
    Particularly when you only have two choices, one should expect significant deviations between the viewpoints of candidates and that of the electorate. Heck, I have about 10 choices who have a realistic shot at power and I disagree with my choice on plenty of points.
  14. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    29 Apr '10 12:09
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    really? FIVE of the top TEN election stories! how often does that happen except on election night?

    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    [b]well, it is the topic of five of the top ten Election stories on BBC dot com today. ...[/i]
    [/b]
    Media coverage of politics is not unlike debating on these forums. You start with a topic, get distracted by a red herring and then get totally heated over some esoteric triviality.

    I used to write reports for discussion by political committees. Tiny proof reading errors generated endless debate among the politicians (and as much among senior managers prior to committee meetings). I adopted a policy of not correcting such errors. e.g. Two sets of figures differ by one digit owing to the way decimals are rounded up or down. I found that as long as the politicians had an enjoyable time picking up these proof reading errors, the content of the report was ignored and it was invariably approved.
  15. 29 Apr '10 17:09
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Oh but I do. I just don't think your black-and-white world where people can only have two possible sets of viewpoints does reality justice. You sure must get very confused if the US ever adopts a multi-party system and you find that people cannot be pigeonholed into two categories.
    ... the Liberal Democrats (or rather their ancestors, the Liberals) last provided a Prime Minister in 1922!