And the great admission tour continues..

[Dill]

(12-20-2016, 06:42 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You fail in this thread, and many others, due to your dogged insistence that one side or the other has a monopoly on "X".  Anyone with a grain of common sense knows this is hardly the case, yet you seem enamored of the idea.  Fakenews?  Only the right engages in that.  Violent rhetoric/action?  Only the right wing engages in that.

You will continue to be wrong on this type of issue until you realize how blindly partisan you are.  Notice the most respected posters around here; Belsnikel (sp?), Zona, Benton and others all have the ability to divorce themselves from their personal opinion and comment based on fact.  Your comments suggest you have yet to acquire this skill.

What apparently started this dust up was my implication that Hillary's rhetoric was not nearly so violent as Trump's. A factual record of Clinton calling reporters scum, desiring to punch protestors, and offering to pay legal fees for people who do violence to protestors, would effectively refute my implication.

 But until I see evidence of that, Trump definitely has a MONOPOLY on this "X".

In any case my issue is not "monopolies" but false equivalencies--as if Clinton's rhetoric were really no different than Trump's because she once called a portion of Trump supporters "deplorables".

Then look at the mad scramble to lever the subject to "actual violence" to find some shred of "just as bad" to create an equivalence.


This is not different from previous disputes I have had with you. I provide you with a list of links of "right" news sources doing X and liberal doing Y, and wait for your counter factuals. But they don't come.  Just a lame insistence no one has a “monopoly”; “both sides” do it. And you muddy the waters additionally by attributing claims to me I have never made. I suggest you "unacquire" that skill if you want to have productive discussion with people who support their claims with factual record.

It is not logically consistent to continually ignore a presentation of factual record, then accuse the presenter of ignoring facts while refusing a similar presentation yourself.