America's Independent Party

[Michael]

Mar 13, 2010 12:16:31 GMT -5 Stephen said:

Mar 13, 2010 11:47:39 GMT -5 Michael said:

Hallelujah!!

Tis looks as if we might be getting somewhere on this hopeless debate!

Debate is not hopeless.

Then sharing the "Good News" is not the equivalent of a "broken clock".

[Stephen]

Mar 13, 2010 13:51:53 GMT -5 Michael said:

Then sharing the "Good News" is not the equivalent of a "broken clock".

That is a presumptive statement which assigns a position to your opponent that he does not hold.

The routine generally goes like this - the party making the presumptive statement defends it by claiming, "AHA! You just said (fill in the blank) a few moments ago! AHA!" You will likely do this in your next post.

Then the party who actually made the statement offers clarification which:

1) Is usually quite obvious, but...
2) was ignored because it did not serve the agenda of the accusing party.

The accusing party then drops the presumptive statement quietly and moves on.

Presumptive statements are a terrible strategy. It virtually assures an automatic loss in any debate.

[Michael]

Mar 13, 2010 22:34:31 GMT -5 Stephen said:

Mar 13, 2010 13:51:53 GMT -5 Michael said:

Then sharing the "Good News" is not the equivalent of a "broken clock".

That is a presumptive statement which assigns a position to your opponent that he does not hold.

The routine generally goes like this - the party making the presumptive statement defends it by claiming, "AHA! You just said (fill in the blank) a few moments ago! AHA!" You will likely do this in your next post.

Then the party who actually made the statement offers clarification which:

1) Is usually quite obvious, but...
2) was ignored because it did not serve the agenda of the accusing party.

The accusing party then drops the presumptive statement quietly and moves on.

Presumptive statements are a terrible strategy. It virtually assures an automatic loss in any debate.

Well you never did truly answer the question, which is why Mr. Richeson ended up posting "This has all just gotten so bizarre and pointless. " This result is, in part, due to your question dodging and vague answers.

[Stephen]

Mar 13, 2010 22:51:41 GMT -5 Michael said:

you never did truly answer the question

I have not the slightest idea what you're talking about, but if you would like to post a non-presumptive, relevant question, I will answer it.

This result is, in part, due to your question dodging and vague answers.

And now a personal accusation rather than constructive dialogue directly related to the original topic.

Michael, don't ever enter a formal debate. Even if you're totally right, you'll still get slaughtered unless you learn to the basic, essential rules of discussion.

Speaking of dodging questions and returning to original topics, let's revisit the last one I asked you...

Your claims that the nation was founded with a standing army, a military draft and a national tax are wrong. This does not mean you must concede the entire argument. But I would ask that you either directly respond with factual historical data, or concede that on these particular points you were misinformed and that you will permit this new information to affect your views.

[Michael]

This exchange is what I'm referring to:


Mr. Richeson started by posting:
"Well considering that I've had the great joy of leading a Satanist, a former exotic dancer, and a Jehovah's Witness all to Christ using the Bible, I think I'll stick with God's Word which is a discerner of the hearts of men." In response to SD.

Then you posted:
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day."

Mr. Richeson responded:
"So are you saying using God's Word to evangelize is like a "broken clock"?"

Your following responses were vague enough to to cause the answer to elude myself and Mr. Richeson, who eventually posted:

"This has all just gotten so bizarre and pointless. "

So if you would care to explain, I would gladly listen.

[Michael]

Mar 13, 2010 23:28:17 GMT -5 Stephen said:

Speaking of dodging questions and returning to original topics, let's revisit the last one I asked you...

Your claims that the nation was founded with a standing army, a military draft and a national tax are wrong. This does not mean you must concede the entire argument. But I would ask that you either directly respond with factual historical data, or concede that on these particular points you were misinformed and that you will permit this new information to affect your views.

Ok fine I admit I misinterpreted some information that I researched, but then again it did come off wikipidea.

[albpilot]

Mar 12, 2010 16:53:56 GMT -5 KevinR said:

Rick if you want to come up with a condescending nickname for this political party I promise I won't take it personally.

Actually, I'll take a look at them and see what I think.

[albpilot]

Mar 14, 2010 12:34:06 GMT -5 Michael said:

Mar 13, 2010 23:28:17 GMT -5 Stephen said:

Speaking of dodging questions and returning to original topics, let's revisit the last one I asked you...

Your claims that the nation was founded with a standing army, a military draft and a national tax are wrong. This does not mean you must concede the entire argument. But I would ask that you either directly respond with factual historical data, or concede that on these particular points you were misinformed and that you will permit this new information to affect your views.

Ok fine I admit I misinterpreted some information that I researched, but then again it did come off wikipidea.

LMAO....wikipedia....that's funny.

[Michael]

Mar 14, 2010 15:43:53 GMT -5 albpilot said:

Mar 14, 2010 12:34:06 GMT -5 Michael said:

Ok fine I admit I misinterpreted some information that I researched, but then again it did come off wikipidea.

LMAO....wikipedia....that's funny.

Hey, at least it's unbiased, for the most part.

[Michael]

Mar 13, 2010 23:28:17 GMT -5 Stephen said:

Speaking of dodging questions and returning to original topics, let's revisit the last one I asked you...

Alright I answered your question so answer one of mine:

You claimed: "Osama Bin Laden repeatedly attempted, both before and after 9/11, to open diplomatic negotiations with the USA on multiple occasions."
I asked: "Do you have any evidence, about before 9/11?
And even if he wanted diplomatic negotiations it was on his terms only."

You responded: "No, but you do. You already have truth! So please tell me about both the negotiation attempts by Bin Laden, and throw in details about Saddam as well. Thank you."

I then explained that I am not omniscient and I asked for proof.

You never gave me any.

So, I will ask again, Did bin laden try to diplomatically negotiate with the United States before 9/11? And, if so, do you have any validated, unbiased, proof?

[Stephen]

Mar 14, 2010 12:20:12 GMT -5 Michael said:

"So are you saying using God's Word to evangelize is like a "broken clock"?"

No. I am saying that the mere fact that one experiences some measure of success after lengthy, repeated efforts may be more due to the level of repetition than the particular methodology employed.

Honestly, I thought that one was rather obvious.

[Stephen]

Mar 14, 2010 12:34:06 GMT -5 Michael said:

Ok fine I admit I misinterpreted some information that I researched, but then again it did come off wikipidea.

That's completely understandable.

I do not consider your statement above to be any sort of "victory" for me. I am not gloating or condemning in any way.

I am trying to get you to a point where you will fairly consider opposing views - and it is impossible to reach that point until you can admit that you were (at least in this instance) in error. Nothing more!!

I hope you will re-read my position below and - this time - hear me out completely and objectively.

_________________

I listed eleven of the primary, fundamental motivations that compelled the founders to fight the American War for Independence.

It is noteworthy that most people who claim to be conservative Christians neither understand nor adhere to a single one of the eleven primary reasons listed that caused the founders to fight in the Revolution.

It is therefore illogical for a conservative Christian to believe that he or she would automatically have sided with the revolutionaries merely because he or she is a conservative Christian.

The plain, raw facts of history strongly indicate that the vast majority of modern conservative Christians would have remained Tories and Loyalists. Modern conservative Christians mirror the Loyalist/Tory model to near perfection.

Therefore, we should re-examine our own beliefs, and ask ourselves - honestly, in the light of historical truth - whether we truly represent the belief system of the founding fathers that we so frequently attempt to align ourselves with.

And once we make that determination, we should allow it to impact and alter our current beliefs.

[KevinR]

I actually opened up this thread to gather some discussion regarding the America's Independent Party. There are a bunch of other threads we can debate our other issues on. I'd say it would be easier to focus each thread on the topics we're discussing.

[Stephen]

Good thought. Michael, let's move our last posts to another thread.

[Michael]

Stephan, since you continue to brush me off I shall move this topic to its own, separate thread.

Mar 14, 2010 17:24:34 GMT -5 Michael said:

Mar 13, 2010 23:28:17 GMT -5 Stephen said:

Speaking of dodging questions and returning to original topics, let's revisit the last one I asked you...

Alright I answered your question so answer one of mine:

You claimed: "Osama Bin Laden repeatedly attempted, both before and after 9/11, to open diplomatic negotiations with the USA on multiple occasions."
I asked: "Do you have any evidence, about before 9/11?
And even if he wanted diplomatic negotiations it was on his terms only."

You responded: "No, but you do. You already have truth! So please tell me about both the negotiation attempts by Bin Laden, and throw in details about Saddam as well. Thank you."

I then explained that I am not omniscient and I asked for proof.

You never gave me any.

So, I will ask again, Did bin laden try to diplomatically negotiate with the United States before 9/11? And, if so, do you have any validated, unbiased, proof?