|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Short-term-results-oriented thinking
Well, AC, I see your point. There is no credibility to be lost with the opposition, since there was none to begin with and the true believers in the cause are going to beleive everything no matter what. Just more spinning wheels trying to desparately get tracktion whereever they can.
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Short-term-results-oriented thinking
When looking at the words of the politician it is always interesting to see whether the words are designed to create a gulf between people of differeing opinions. If they are designed to do so, IMO, the underlying argument is weak.
When someone says that a poster is a hater of America, his underlying argument is likely week. Or if he says that a poster is a heil bushing fascists the same is likely true. I ofcourse am totally exempt from bias, inappropriate name calling etc. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Short-term-results-oriented thinking
"When looking at the words of the politician it is always interesting to see whether the words are designed to create a gulf between people of differeing opinions. If they are designed to do so, IMO, the underlying argument is weak."
That's why it's so important to have a uniter, not a divider. (shameless GWB campaign reference [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]) BTW, I agree with you about the strength of arguments litmus test. I find, though, that really strong arguments are typically drowned out by a chacophony of everyone serving their own agendas. It is always easier to reinforce division than it is to unite. This is the achilles heal of Democracy, and always will be. I may live it before it is all over. |
|
|