Joanimaroni wrote: boards of FL wrote: Joanimaroni wrote:
An alternative to the Iran deal.....empty rhetoric?
This is a forum consisting of a handful of ordinary people. To my knowledge not one member has an advanced degree in political science nor a defensive warfare background.
Having a substantive opinion that can be communicated coherently is one thing. Saying "Bad ideas fail, comrade" or "Clinton lies!" is empty rhetoric.
If PkrBum doesn't know what good policy with respect to Iran looks like, how can he possibly tell us what bad policy looks like?
The difference is being able to discuss the issue substantively versus repeating talking points that one picks up on fringe media sites and then running away.
That this needs to be explained to you speaks volumes.
It did not need to be explained to me....once again you chose to do that for personal gratification.
You are assuming that you know what good policy with Iran looks like based on websites you frequent. So, you are actually arguing over media outlets. Once again it is about personal opinion.
You say I don't need to explain the difference between a substantive opinion and empty rhetoric to you, and then your very next comment suggests you cannot discern any difference between empty rhetoric and a substantive opinion. Someone can offer a very substantive, well thought out, well communicated opinion and simply be wrong. Empty rhetoric and PhD level analysis are not the only two options. Here again, that this need be explained to you speaks volumes.
Here, I'll dumb it down further.
This
is not empty rhetoric (Emerald was asked for an alternative to the Iran deal):
EmeraldGhost wrote:Yeah ... keep the pressure on. They came to the table once because it was starting to really hurt. They'll be back with more concessions when it starts to hurt more.
(in any case ... I don't think the Iranian populace in general are a bunch of crazies, they are fairly sane & mostly well-educated compared to some other Middle Eastern countries .... and especially compared to, say, Pakistan. It wouldn't be the end of the world if they did manage to develop a few nukes. The USA & Iran could get along famously with some slight changes in leadership in Iran.)
Also not empty rhetoric (my response to Emerald):
boards of FL wrote:We don't have that luxury. Our allies are doing us a favor at the expense of their economies in joining us in these Iran sanctions. We can't expect them (and they won't) to continue on that path indefinitely, particularly if we had a deal right in front of us and walked away.
Simply staying the course is not an option either.
The above is called a substantive discussion. Both myself and Emerald succinctly stated our opinion and qualified that opinion with an explanation.
On the other side of the coin, we have empty rhetoric:
PkrBum wrote:Lol... no chance. The iranians will cheat... the un will cave... while obama and useful idiots will call it a success.
Yea team..!!
And when asked for his opinion on what an alternative would be:
PkrBum wrote:It's too late for an alternative. Obama and kerry have set the path for a legitimized nuclear iran.
Save your strawman bs... useful idiot. Do you have anything to offer given the present reality... or just empty rhetoric?
This is an example of empty rhetoric.
Here, I'll give you another as I'm sure you need it. Wordsligner created a thread that shows us that the forces mentioned in the unredacted Benghazi email were in fact deployed. PkrBum's response is empty rhetoric:
PkrBum wrote:Does it surprise you when leftist propaganda tells you exactly what you so desperately want to hear and believe?
See that? That's empty rhetoric. My response to PkrBum, on the other hand, is not empty rhetoric. Here it is:
boards of FL wrote:PkrBum, you created this thread (below) which suggests that the DOD offered support on the Benghazi attack, and that offer of support was denied or perhaps ignored and - thus - Clinton lied and people died. Right? I mean, that was your intent when you created that thread, wasn't it?
Oddly enough, before you even created that thread, I had already shown you (in this current thread that we are in now) that the very support forces mentioned in the underacted email had in fact been deployed; hence, your entire narrative is complete bullshit.
PkrBum, now that someone has held your hand and dumbed this down for you, you agree that you were wrong, correct? You agree now that the forces mentioned in the underacted email were in fact deployed, don't you? And by extension, you agree that you were entirely full of shit when you created this thread (below), don't you?
https://pensacoladiscussion.forumotion.com/t22980-dod-offered-dos-forces-for-benghazi#266793I realize PkrBum is going to run away as usual, so do any other republicans want to take this one on or are we done here? Do any of our forum republicans still not understand what these new series of Benghazi articles are telling us? Do any other forum republicans need the articles read to them in a dumbed down fashion that is republican-voter-accessible?
See how I'm using facts to actually explain things and make assertions? That isn't empty rhetoric.
And then here we have PkrBum's response. More empty rhetoric:
PkrBum wrote:That was all the dos had provided to comply with the foia suit. Why was it redacted? Why was it unredacted?
Just a bunch of political bs imo. Y'all ignore the 1000+ classified emails... and want to play gotcha with one.
Not impressed.
And you're probably asking yourself "But how do we know that PkrBum's rhetoric is empty? He may very well know what he's talking about."
Well, no. He doesn't. Here's proof:
PkrBum's empty rhetoric:
PkrBum wrote:Hillary is more hawkish than any of the pubs. Do you just ignore that? My guess is you'll vote for her and support war.
This is empty because PkrBum isn't capable of even telling you who the "pubs" are. I think you agree that this is an example of rhetoric, correct? And if PkrBum can't support any of this, I think you would agree that this is empty as well, correct? When we put those two together, what do we get?
Another. This is not empty rhetoric:
boards of FL wrote:OK, Markle. You obviously cling to this economic data point. This is your chance to make your case and explain to all of us exactly why it is that you feel the Labor Force Participation rate is the end-all economic data point. You seem to be under the impression that posting the same chart again and again is a valid, substantive entry into any discussion, no matter the topic. This is your chance to lay out why you feel that is the case.
I'll just go ahead and get this out of the way now to save you the time. The labor force participation rate:
So there it is. This is the holy-grail of all economic data points in Markle-land. Notice the long rising trend that lasts between the years 1963 and 2000. Many would attribute that to cultural changes that took hold in the US during that time. We evolved from a society in which women had a very specific roll - a homemaker - to a society in which women are empowered to gain education and work. This is just one factor perhaps among many. That said, Makle likely discounts conventional wisdom and instead has his own theories to explain that increase, and I suspect they're all political.
Also notice the peak in the year 2000 and the subsequent decline. Some would say the peak was the end of the "dot com" era in which we saw massive gains in productivity in large part due to widespread adoption of computers and the internet in business. What followed was a steady trend of automation combined with a massive aging cohort (baby boomers) that were reaching retirement age and that began to exit the workforce. But here again, I'm sure Markle has his own theories and I'm sure they're all based in politics.
So, with that said, the floor is yours, Markle. Let's hear it. Tell us all why the labor force participation rate is the end-all economic data point that trumps everything from jobless claims, to GDP, to retail sales, to consumer confidence, to the employment situation. Enlighten us as to why we see the movements that we do in this data point, which clearly are long long running trends.
Please proceed, governor....
This, however, is empty rhetoric:
Markle wrote:Progressives can't stand the heat, FACTS on the LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION thread...magically disappears. Go figure!
They CANNOT support their argument, so they erase the FACTS.
BOF was so desperate that he, being the only one with the ability, attached his...shall we say misleading...thread to the top of the page.
Grow up kiddies.
One more example for you.
Empty rhetoric:
Joanimaroni wrote:Hillary lied about her emails.
2seaoat wrote:What did she say which was a lie?
No committee has come to that conclusion, but if you have a quote, I am all ears.
Joanimaroni wrote:Hillary said....“I never sent or received any classified e-mail, nothing marked classified, and I think it will all sort itself out. ....
boards of FL wrote:So what are you seeing that indicates to you that this is a lie?
boards of FL wrote:Were you able to come up with anything or should I just take your word for it?