Reply With Quote
First-term Republican Congressman Aaron Schock
Facts should not be presented because those facts might have political ramifications is Zosa's point?
First-term Republican Congressman Aaron Schock
I will accept your explanation of the first assumption -- how about this one.
@ this thread.
People are pissed because signs were put up that show how the GOP opposed putting Americans to work. Awesome.
I love those signs so much more now.
No, I do not. Stop making assumptions.
I reason it is politicized by pointing out many Americans did not want the act in place, and every single one of the minority faction's leaders opposed it.
The widespread MM coverage and polarizing nature of the act itself, you choose to ignore. I don't.
Prove it; I'm honestly curious. Also, for these similar signs you speak of, include the number of signs created, their size in relation to normal signs as well as this sign, and how much capital the act enabled.but signs like that are made all the time whether people oppose the laws or not.
A link with the info will do just fine.
Once again, I didn't. I stated clearly I was curious about this signs' size compared with other similar signs portraying the funding for an act/construction in general, and whether or not it is larger, smaller, or the same size as similar signs, as well as how much they cost.It could just be the kind of sign that is always made -- you assumed it is different somehow.
I commented that the size seems rather extravagant, but made no comparisons with any other signs.
meh. They are just signs. no big deal. I could care less.
It's actually fun watching you guys take responsibility for this great economy.
Yes, you restated your assumption quite nicely.
Do you realize it is an assumption?
Prove it; I'm honestly curious.
I have to now assume that you have missed a lot in your life.
This kind of signage is completely unprecedented!
Hard to make an assumption when you are stating facts.
I think you are unaware that what you consider an assumption, is actually my opinion, based on facts.
Feel free to continue calling my opinion wrong, unjustifiably.
Ad hominem attack.
I have to now assume that you have missed a lot in your life.
I'll be waiting for that proof.
We both know that I've seen signs similar.
So my work here is done.
Thanks for admitting that.
I never stated nor implied such.
It had to be political!
It's pretty laughable that you think my opinion is defined as an assumption, or that you'd resort to these ad hominem attacks, or that you'd focus in on something I never even argued about.
I never stated such signs don't exist. Never implied it; and not only that, you've not given me nearly enough info, to prove these signs are not the exception instead of the rule. A few pictures of like signs doesn't prove that the polarity/nature of the act behind them was anything like the stimulus bill. It doesn't give any info about how many of the signs were built, how much they cost, or anything else I asked for.
Second, I told you I was honestly curious as my reasoning behind "Prove it". Not "I think you're wrong and can't prove it."
And third, you can admit now that you were completely off-base in assuming what my arguments are.
Is there something you've given me that proves any of these signs aren't politicized to any degree?
Manny, could you say, or link, somewhere that lists who these men are? I will begin looking into these myself, and who was behind their enabling, but you could make it much quicker.
as·sume/əˈso͞om/Verb
1. Suppose to be the case, without proof
You did assume.
People often laugh at those.or that you'd resort to these ad hominem attacks
So you weren't arguing they are partisan?or that you'd focus in on something I never even argued about.
Wow.
Um, you are supposed to prove they are the exception, since we agree such signs are the rule.I never stated such signs don't exist. Never implied it; and not only that, you've not given me nearly enough info, to prove these signs are not the exception instead of the rule.
Again, it's your job.A few pictures of like signs doesn't prove that the polarity/nature of the act behind them was anything like the stimulus bill. It doesn't give any info about how many of the signs were built, how much they cost, or anything else I asked for.
I've seen enough of these signs to know that they are the rule as much as do you since you admitted it. It's up to you to prove they are the exception.Second, I told you I was honestly curious as my reasoning behind "Prove it". Not "I think you're wrong and can't prove it."
You are now demanding I prove a negative.
Good job.
Negative.
At those who make them.People often laugh at those.
I never argued about the size or commonality of the signs. Period. Which is what I was referencing, and what you have indeed, focused upon.So you weren't arguing they are partisan?
Whatever else you are referencing is due to a misunderstanding on your behalf.
Negative. What I am proving is that the sign is politicized; this other argument you've imagined me making is non-existent.Um, you are supposed to prove they are the exception, since we agree such signs are the rule.
Again, it's not about the sign itself, which I've demonstrated little more than curiosity - it's about the political nature underlying. Just because these types of signs exist, does not prove one or all of them are not political in nature - what I've been opining on, by the way.I've seen enough of these signs to know that they are the rule as much as do you since you admitted it. It's up to you to prove they are the exception.
Really not much else to say. I never argued about the physical nature of the signs. Didn't happen. Produce a quote concerning the physical nature of the signs where I express more than curiosity about the signs (ie, argue they are physically different than other signs of the same nature), or do more than ask you to prove they are mass produced behind the tenets of a very polarizing piece of legislature like the stimulus bill.
Last edited by z0sa; 07-16-2010 at 07:25 PM. Reason: phrase was wrong still, needed to clarify
I haven't demanded anything of you.
Positive. You supposed it to be the case without proof.
Now you are making yet another assumption about what makes people laugh. Do you even realize this?At those who make them.
We are focused on the partisan politics you assume to be behind these signs.I never argued about the size or commonality of the signs. Period. Which is what I was referencing, and what you have indeed, focused upon.
Without proof.
Stonewalling is probably a good tactic at this point.Whatever else you are referencing is due to a misunderstanding on your behalf.
What have you proved?Negative. What I am proving is that the sign is politicized
Nothing.
You are without proof.
Which makes it an assumption (see above definition).
Thanks for admitting it again.Again, it's not about the sign itself, which I've demonstrated little more than curiosity - it's about the political nature underlying. Just because these types of signs exist, does not prove one or all of them are not political in nature - what I've been opining on, by the way.
I will not assume what other are laughing at or even if they are laughing, but I am laughing at the one who posted this sentence.Really not much else to say. I never argued about the signs.
The stimulus is working.
The stimulus is working.
The stimulus is working.
The stimulus is working.
The stimulus is working.
Maybe if it's repeated enough times, the 15 million unemployed Americans will believe it.
EDIT> And I could care less about the signs.
Maybe if it's repeated enough times, you will believe it.
Wow. 52,000+ posts of weaksauce.
I have stated my proof clearly. And it is only my opinion. You seem very concerned about it.
I consider it a fact that people who use ad hominem attacks at any time during debate are laughable. You can disagree if you wish.Now you are making yet another assumption about what makes people laugh. Do you even realize this?
You are focused on the physical nature of the signs, and me proving this sign is any different from ones you posted; neither of which concerns me.We are focused on the partisan politics you assume to be behind these signs.
Negative. Once again, you have mistakenly identified my opinion, based on facts, as an assumption.Which makes it an assumption (see above definition).
No problem.Thanks for admitting [you have an opinion] again.
You're laughing at yourself?I will not assume what other are laughing at or even if they are laughing, but I am laughing at the one who posted this sentence.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
