You're attempting an ad hominem when you're immune from such by virtue of your anonymity.
You speak of records when you've gone out of your way to have none. In this context, you're a hypocrite by default and that robs you of any intellectual integrity in this context.
Next time you want to play the ad hominem game, login with an account with a record. If you don't... your ad hominem will backfire just like it did here, moron.;)
you're saying your citation as an entity with no record in this community is the same as having a record like me?
Fail. Login to your real account and then we can ACTUALLY play the game of who's rep is better. Till then, enjoy this complimentary bucket of steamed sweaty dicks. Don't let them get cold. Their flavor is unlikely to improve.
He's openly lobbying for given political positions that conflict with other people that are saying he is suppressing them. His statement of evidence merely means "HE" has said there is no suppression. But if there is suppression he would have a strong interest to lie about it. And what is more, he also has a motive to do it in the first place.
He saying at any given point... "oh I'm not doing it" doesn't really matter.
the list of articles goes on for pages and pages and pages.
As to whether it was applied nationally, what do you want... statements from the DNC at the time? What will make you drop to your knees on this issue? Because... you tell me what it is... and I'll do it.
You say "I WANT ARTICLES"... you got them. pages of them. Endless pages after pages after pages after pages of them.
If that doesn't do it... you need to be more specific. And that will just mean the inevitable kowtow.
Criteria for acceptance is a prerequisite. I detect sophistry in your position and I will not waste my time providing data unless you've already agreed to accept a given criteria of data.
You will obviously just reject anything I post arbitrarily without that condition. If I get you to agree before hand you will not be allowed that flexibility and I will be rhetorically rewarded for providing the data.
Your entire position is a blatant attempt to make information and facts meaningless. I will not cooperate with that strategy. You will either provide criteria or I will not bother citing anything. The reason conversations on the internet turn into insult fests is because a lot of people discussing things are not doing so honestly.
You get MAYBE one side trying to discuss something honestly and the other is just dicking around to fuck everything up. People like you will enter discussion and PRETEND they care about facts or figures when all they're really doing is wasting the time of people that are TRYING to have a legitimate discussion. I am shutting your bullshit down at the gate by forcing you to accept self identified criteria as a price of getting me to jump through any "where is the data" hoops. If you won't do that, then that reads to me like someone fucking the discussion up on purpose.
And that's fine. I saw you coming. Your troll was detected and shut down instantly. Get better.
The issue here is that you can't just get voters to choose you as the lesser of evils kinda sorta... you have to make them show up on polling day.
Trump and Hillary have huge negatives. People that don't like them REALLY don't like them. Those people can be relied upon to vote for the opposing candidate. Interestingly, these negatives don't line up perfectly with the party battle lines. So some democrats really don't like Hillary and some republicans really don't like Trump. So that introduces interesting dynamics in that the parties have to win over some of their own base to candidates that are seen by some of their own people as unacceptable.
What is more you have the middle... people that dont' have strong feelings about either party or who say the entire system is a joke and that's why they don't vote. Trump might actually have a big advantage there... he's running a more subversive campaign than is Hillary who is running more of a business as usual campaign. The middle might find subversion attractive. Regardless... nothing you make a voter "feel" will matter unless it changes what they do on polling day.
No, I have the data. I am attempting to stop you from goal post moving when I post it. Your refusal to cite acceptance criteria validates my suspicion. You have no interest in the data.
What you will TRY to force me to do is to get MORE data and then more and then more and then more and then more... Every time I provide data you will reject it on some grounds and tell me to get more.
I have no interest in playing that game. I want you to cite the criteria then I will post what I have and win.
The alternative is that you refuse to post criteria and your request for data will then become void. Thus ending the discussion.
... So... looking for a criteria you will accept... none offered. Suspension confirmed. You will reject all evidence thus rendering my previously hesitation to engage with you in this manner valid.
If you're pulling a global temperature trend of a degree from thousands of temperature records... and you can't see the pattern in that one chart... then really you're too blind to be talking about charts period.
This has already been cited... the methodology over time would predispose this data to look like this with a consistent number of hurricanes.
People that don't understand statistics shouldn't presume to cite them. And if you don't understand the relevance of data collection methods and methodology then you don't understand statistics.
If you want to play we can play. But if you're going to play coy on your location when you're citing your location as evidence is just a concession on your part. Cite where you are so I can show you're not paying attention or that the reason you were not targeted probably involves you living on the dark side of the moon.
Its one of the two. Cite where you live if you're honest. Make up a fake place after doing some research to try and find a reasonable dead zone if you're a shithead.
Either way... You can either give me what I want and I'll show you're wrong. Or you can dance and concede by default.
I have lots of data. To the contrary, I want you to cite the data you will accept so that YOU cannot goal post move. Tell me what you will accept now so I can win. If I just cite my data you're going to concoct some retarded reason to reject it.
So either give me criteria, admit your challenge was false and you're merely attempting to waste my time with bullshit, or keep tap dancing and prove to my satisfaction that your challenge was false.
Your move. Cite the acceptance criteria or I'm going to conclude one way or the other that your challenge was bullshit.
Well there are also generational distinctions about what "feminism" means. So when someone says they identify with something from one generation it doesn't mean the same thing as someone from a past era in politics and culture associating with that.
Polling data on what? You want exit polls? What would you accept as valid data. I want you to be explicit so I can know if you're asking for something unreasonable or if you're going to make it easy for me to instantly win.
Its going to be one of those two because we both know I'm right. The DNC pundits and political strategists are aware of it.
Any fool could use google to find lots of young people complaining about the corruption at hillary and bernie rallies... and if you talk to bernie supporters they will often cite that as an issue. And bernie's voters shift younger.
If you want to stick your head up your own asshole and pretend otherwise... that's your choice. But that's all you're doing.
Sticking your own head up your ass is not a counter argument. It merely makes you an object of pity.
Maximums and minimums are more empirical. The temps collected during the day that neither the max nor the minimum are variable based on the time of day they're taken. And that is not always consistent.
Slashdot Mirror
You're attempting an ad hominem when you're immune from such by virtue of your anonymity.
You speak of records when you've gone out of your way to have none. In this context, you're a hypocrite by default and that robs you of any intellectual integrity in this context.
Next time you want to play the ad hominem game, login with an account with a record. If you don't... your ad hominem will backfire just like it did here, moron. ;)
you're saying your citation as an entity with no record in this community is the same as having a record like me?
Fail. Login to your real account and then we can ACTUALLY play the game of who's rep is better. Till then, enjoy this complimentary bucket of steamed sweaty dicks. Don't let them get cold. Their flavor is unlikely to improve.
Really? And what have you been demonstrated as Anonymous Coward?
Do you have any more fucking stupid ad hominems you want to attempt or do you want cut your losses here, twit?
He's openly lobbying for given political positions that conflict with other people that are saying he is suppressing them. His statement of evidence merely means "HE" has said there is no suppression. But if there is suppression he would have a strong interest to lie about it. And what is more, he also has a motive to do it in the first place.
He saying at any given point... "oh I'm not doing it" doesn't really matter.
Any fool can type "war on women backfires" into a search engine and find it.
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek...
http://gazette.com/editorial-w...
the list of articles goes on for pages and pages and pages.
As to whether it was applied nationally, what do you want... statements from the DNC at the time? What will make you drop to your knees on this issue? Because... you tell me what it is... and I'll do it.
You say "I WANT ARTICLES"... you got them. pages of them. Endless pages after pages after pages after pages of them.
If that doesn't do it... you need to be more specific. And that will just mean the inevitable kowtow.
First link that came up when I did a search.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/10/...
yawn.
No criteria for data submitted... request for data null.
Try again.
Criteria for acceptance is a prerequisite. I detect sophistry in your position and I will not waste my time providing data unless you've already agreed to accept a given criteria of data.
You will obviously just reject anything I post arbitrarily without that condition. If I get you to agree before hand you will not be allowed that flexibility and I will be rhetorically rewarded for providing the data.
Your entire position is a blatant attempt to make information and facts meaningless. I will not cooperate with that strategy. You will either provide criteria or I will not bother citing anything. The reason conversations on the internet turn into insult fests is because a lot of people discussing things are not doing so honestly.
You get MAYBE one side trying to discuss something honestly and the other is just dicking around to fuck everything up. People like you will enter discussion and PRETEND they care about facts or figures when all they're really doing is wasting the time of people that are TRYING to have a legitimate discussion. I am shutting your bullshit down at the gate by forcing you to accept self identified criteria as a price of getting me to jump through any "where is the data" hoops. If you won't do that, then that reads to me like someone fucking the discussion up on purpose.
And that's fine. I saw you coming. Your troll was detected and shut down instantly. Get better.
That's not going to get anyone out to vote.
The issue here is that you can't just get voters to choose you as the lesser of evils kinda sorta... you have to make them show up on polling day.
Trump and Hillary have huge negatives. People that don't like them REALLY don't like them. Those people can be relied upon to vote for the opposing candidate. Interestingly, these negatives don't line up perfectly with the party battle lines. So some democrats really don't like Hillary and some republicans really don't like Trump. So that introduces interesting dynamics in that the parties have to win over some of their own base to candidates that are seen by some of their own people as unacceptable.
What is more you have the middle... people that dont' have strong feelings about either party or who say the entire system is a joke and that's why they don't vote. Trump might actually have a big advantage there... he's running a more subversive campaign than is Hillary who is running more of a business as usual campaign. The middle might find subversion attractive. Regardless... nothing you make a voter "feel" will matter unless it changes what they do on polling day.
We'll see what happens.
No, I have the data. I am attempting to stop you from goal post moving when I post it. Your refusal to cite acceptance criteria validates my suspicion. You have no interest in the data.
What you will TRY to force me to do is to get MORE data and then more and then more and then more and then more... Every time I provide data you will reject it on some grounds and tell me to get more.
I have no interest in playing that game. I want you to cite the criteria then I will post what I have and win.
The alternative is that you refuse to post criteria and your request for data will then become void. Thus ending the discussion.
You can either play or concede. Your choice.
Looks for criteria... none cited. Your request for data is void without criteria.
... So... looking for a criteria you will accept... none offered. Suspension confirmed. You will reject all evidence thus rendering my previously hesitation to engage with you in this manner valid.
Thanks for playing.
If you're pulling a global temperature trend of a degree from thousands of temperature records... and you can't see the pattern in that one chart... then really you're too blind to be talking about charts period.
This has already been cited... the methodology over time would predispose this data to look like this with a consistent number of hurricanes.
People that don't understand statistics shouldn't presume to cite them. And if you don't understand the relevance of data collection methods and methodology then you don't understand statistics.
Just saying.
Your dodge is noted.
If you want to play we can play. But if you're going to play coy on your location when you're citing your location as evidence is just a concession on your part. Cite where you are so I can show you're not paying attention or that the reason you were not targeted probably involves you living on the dark side of the moon.
Its one of the two. Cite where you live if you're honest. Make up a fake place after doing some research to try and find a reasonable dead zone if you're a shithead.
Either way... You can either give me what I want and I'll show you're wrong. Or you can dance and concede by default.
Either way... its heads I win or tails you lose.
I have lots of data. To the contrary, I want you to cite the data you will accept so that YOU cannot goal post move. Tell me what you will accept now so I can win. If I just cite my data you're going to concoct some retarded reason to reject it.
So either give me criteria, admit your challenge was false and you're merely attempting to waste my time with bullshit, or keep tap dancing and prove to my satisfaction that your challenge was false.
Your move. Cite the acceptance criteria or I'm going to conclude one way or the other that your challenge was bullshit.
Well there are also generational distinctions about what "feminism" means. So when someone says they identify with something from one generation it doesn't mean the same thing as someone from a past era in politics and culture associating with that.
cite your district please... we'll see if it didn't happen or you just weren't paying attention.
Polling data on what? You want exit polls? What would you accept as valid data. I want you to be explicit so I can know if you're asking for something unreasonable or if you're going to make it easy for me to instantly win.
Its going to be one of those two because we both know I'm right. The DNC pundits and political strategists are aware of it.
Any fool could use google to find lots of young people complaining about the corruption at hillary and bernie rallies... and if you talk to bernie supporters they will often cite that as an issue. And bernie's voters shift younger.
If you want to stick your head up your own asshole and pretend otherwise... that's your choice. But that's all you're doing.
Sticking your own head up your ass is not a counter argument. It merely makes you an object of pity.
As to playing to emotions, all politicians do that. "Hope and Change" is not a policy position. Its touchy feely position. All politicians do it.
So some are shitty at it and some are good at it.
As to attacking opponents, all politicians do that as well. All politicians do it.
Some are shitty at it and some are good at it.
I can't pull your head out of your ass if you're so desperate to be up there.
http://gazette.com/editorial-w...
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek...
http://www.newsweek.com/war-wo...
Look, I'm trying to make sense not advocate for a political position. You are trying to advocate. I don't care.
Maximums and minimums are more empirical. The temps collected during the day that neither the max nor the minimum are variable based on the time of day they're taken. And that is not always consistent.
And the point is that a guy walking down the street wouldn't notice.
Which was my point.
A point that people like you didn't get.
So first comment contained an insult but no rebuttal. My point is sustained.
Your second comment contradicted my point but did not actually rebut my point. Contradiction is not an argument.
Third comment contained a contradiction but no rebuttal... again, contradiction is not an argument.
Fourth... contradiction no argument.
Fifth, an ad hominem... no argument.