So where's Rodeo?

[island911]

Originally posted by speeder
He never lost an argument here once . .., so enjoy your fantasies.

Who's fantasies?


Dude....

[speeder]

Originally posted by fintstone
I honestly cannot remember an argument where Rodeo held his own...much less won. He quickly resorted to name-calling and misrepresentation. If you want to talk about someone who was rarely bested in an argument here...that would be the much maligned Mul.

This would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic. No one is so blind as one who will not see.

Mul basically parroted party propaganda lines and stonewall tactics such as hysterical mockery and shouting-down people when challenged on anything. He never won an honest argument once. Not once.

[island911]

uh. . I'm speechless.

[tabs]

Rodeo went to prison. I just hope Rodeo can keep telling himself that the guys who are bending him over nightly are just misunderstood victims of society. That by being a willing puppet he can bring out the Good in his new playmates. Keep the good fight up Rodeo, we are all rooting for u.

As far as arguments go, Rodeo would get so emotional about his issues that he would lose sight of reason. Rodeo like Pat never had a balanced arguement, it was all one sided. Only difference was Pat was from Pluto with his ideas and Rodeo was just an emotional bit(h.

[Tim Hancock]

Originally posted by tabs


As far as arguments go, Rodeo would get so emotional about his issues that he would lose sight of reason. Rodeo like Pat never had a balanced arguement, it was all one sided. Only difference was Pat was from Pluto with his ideas and Rodeo was just an emotional bit(h.

Spot on.... 100%..... ditto......+1

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by speeder


Mul basically parroted party propaganda lines and stonewall tactics such as hysterical mockery and shouting-down people when challenged on anything. He never won an honest argument once. Not once.

He did it with strawman arguments. He was the king of strawman.

[RoninLB]

He parroted an ACLU argument then slowly dug his own hole. He was easy to push in as he was a one trick pony. I guess everyone needs something to believe in. As soon as he's programed that Gen Petraeus is a Bush hack out to sink the Dems in 2008 he'll be here to polish up his delivery to his believers.

[lendaddy]

He may be gone but I still have his goat

[Joeaksa]

Originally posted by speeder
He never lost an argument here once. Some of the smarter conservatives on the board have shared that with me in private. And he is as happy-go-lucky as anyone I've ever met, so enjoy your fantasies.

There you go wearing those rose colored glasses again.

Rodehard may say he never lost but what he meant was that he never gave up arguing. He lost several that I can remember and just refused to admit it.

[kach22i]

Originally posted by Joeaksa
There you go wearing those rose colored glasses again.

Rodehard may say he never lost but what he meant was that he never gave up arguing. He lost several that I can remember and just refused to admit it.

Maybe he was Bush's good twin.

[legion]

1) Troll for argument (either by starting a thread or joining another)
2) Argue
3) When that fails, change the subject
4) Repeat steps 2 and 3
5) When all subjects are exhausted, use personal attacks

[the]

Originally posted by speeder
I mostly remember the warrantless wiretap discussions where he fairly well slaughtered the Bush-lickers.

Did a search for warrant and wiretap.

THIS is his glorious, memorable, signature "slaughtering" victory?!?!

[RallyJon]

Rodehard may say he never lost but what he meant was that he never gave up arguing.

Exactly. I guess on the internet, if you're the last one still posting the same thing over and over again, you win the argument.

[Overpaid Slacker]

I'm with tabs (2nd para) and legion. I love a good debate, but never got (or saw) one from Rodeo. Though I think we did agree on a couple of things... I don't "block" anybody.

As for strawmen, there is a world heavyweight strawman champion hereon (and several who could take a legitimate shot at the title) but I never got that treatment from Mul.

Well, to be charitable maybe it's not so much deliberate use of strawmen, but just many folks' abyssmal logic discipline and/or reading comprehension. Which results in a penchant for not only taking one line (usually obiter dictum) out of context and distorting or deliberately mischaracterizing it, but then claiming it represents the crux of "your" argument. In my little professional world, that type of tactical brilliance gets you crushed and fired, dayum lickety.

Hey, some people are bad at algebra, some have a poor sense of direction, and others can't put an argument together (though they feel strongly) and it's not uncommond for such people to respond explosively when their deficiencies are pointed out.

JP

[creaturecat]

Just mentioning Rodeo's name has gotten all the right wing ignoramuses lined up like pigs at a trough.

[Tim Hancock]

I smell something foul, who let the cat in?

[speeder]

Originally posted by Joeaksa
There you go wearing those rose colored glasses again.

Rodehard may say he never lost but what he meant was that he never gave up arguing. He lost several that I can remember and just refused to admit it.

JP, is this an example of the reading comprehension problem you refer to? IE., "Rodehard" never said that he never lost an argument here, I never said that Rodeo claimed such a thing, etc..

Classic Joe.

Come on; the rest of us are naming names, what's the matter? I'm curious as to whether you are willing to impugn any right-wingers for their abysmal lack of honesty and debating skills, I know that you would have no problem pointing out the deficiencies of those whose views you do not agree with. How about the Bush dead-enders?

And if it's me that you think is a fool, go ahead and say it. I can take it.

[island911]

Originally posted by creaturecat
Just mentioning Rodeo's name has gotten all the right wing ignoramuses lined up like pigs at a trough.

WOW

. . .and I bet you weren't even trying to puctuate JP's post with such high contrast.

[Overpaid Slacker]

Island, ever the chiaroscuro afficionado. Impervious to irony is how I'd put it.

Denis -

Good point on your first one... qualified by what I'm about to say generally. And, no, bud, you're not intended to be collateral damage in my earlier description of certain folk.

I don't nit-pick most posts that have nothing to do with what I'm interested in. Frankly, I don't nit-pick with folks who are generally aligned with my p/o/v unless I take serious exception to them and want not to be painted with the same brush.

Heh. Like that ever works. I can disagree with Mul (or whomever the neocon bete noir du jour is) but later we'll be lumped in together by a person unaware of or uninterested in such distictions, so it really doesn't matter.

You'd find if you looked that I seldom posted on threads that Mul and/or some of the more vocal conservatives were stalking. I'm not interested in "piling on" most of the time, and fuses can get short round here (mea culpa, too). Nor does it often make much sense to begin a subtopic of subtle distinction in the midst of a napalm orgy. Who's right/who's wrong is long gone by the middle of page two of many threads (which is about the time I tend to waddle in).

As for naming names, this is not an all-out hatefest, and I'm on record as to whom I malign, when, why and how. And, frankly, in non-adversarial proceedings, when their wit is not strangled and steamrollered by frustration or apoplexy, most of these folks can be prodigious fun. Like I said, if this was a math forum, I'd be picked on mercilessly for my algrebraic ineptitude. It's not, though.

At least, for entertainment purposes, there's often what I call the Jerry Springer audience effect, where a party of the limited acumen and stunted MO of which I refer will post in "response" to mine (or others) a ... er ... vociferous, if non-sequitur opinion (that's as polite as I can muster). Then there will be a "yeah" or "+1" from a like-minded, probably equally stunted rhetorician. which really amounts to "WoooooOOOOoohhhooooh" or "it's been brought-un" Jerry Springer audience response. Throw in the chicken-neck "taunt" for extra flavah!

The good-hearted barbs and one-liners are great stuff, but don't put yourself out there unless you're willing to take a shot .... and take it in good humor even (especially) if it's a great zinger!

JP

[speeder]

Maybe Joe reads this while he's flying the plane or something. Have to give him the benefit of the doubt.