If you want me to prove to you that global warming skepticism was mainstream well before Barry O., then I could point you here: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Fear
Yawn. Next challenge.

I just did.TomViolenz wrote:And if something was demonstrably false in my argumentation, then why don't you go ahead and demonstrate that it was?!
LoopStationZebra wrote:Well, when TomV talks about brainwashing and propaganda or whatever it's always from the classic Lefty position that everyone loves Big Government and if you don't you've been brainwashed.
A stronger opponent would have arguments. Sam does not have arguments. His posts three parts straw person to one part argumentum ad hominem. With a bit of poisoning the well and shifting the burden of proof thrown in for good measure. Personally, I think you are wasting your time.TomViolenz wrote:You are not debatting a position now, just feeling good in your bubble.Samuel L. Jizzle wrote:Exactly, if you weren't a tree-hugging hippy, you'd see the folly of your beliefs.
Please be a stronger opponent!
You do realise that by saying this you are effectively attempting to justify your ad hominem position? Seriously, you're behaving like a right-wing parody of the left.TomViolenz wrote:I would say it does, especially if the funder has so much say towards what the movement wants.
I extend that position to any cause btw.
shadx312 wrote:No no no that was all mistranslated; he didn't like hankies that were stonewashed.
If you failed to see the arguments, explaining them to you further would be a waste of time. I'd be like trying to explain colour to a blind man. Or vagina to Chris Colfer.The Finn wrote:A stronger opponent would have arguments. Sam does not have arguments. His posts three parts straw person to one part argumentum ad hominem. With a bit of poisoning the well and shifting the burden of proof thrown in for good measure. Personally, I think you are wasting your time.