AmishBengalFan Posted February 12, 2018 Report Share Posted February 12, 2018 Sigh. And now you drag new items into the debate, demanding that I acknowledge something that's never been a part of the discussion between us, without addressing a single question I've raised about your unsupported claims, and without even hinting at retracting out-of-bounds ad hominem comments you've made about my "motivation". I held you in higher regard, but this has proven to be a waste of time. My mistake, for which I apologize. Rest assured, it is not one I plan to repeat.... since it is apparent that I cannot change or influence your behavior positively, I'll modify my own behavior and just reach for the "ignore Jamie" button. If I may make a suggestion. It seems to me that your hatred of Trump is getting in the way of you talking clearly with others - particularly if it seems that those others don't share your hatred of Trump. Until *this* part of our exchange I have refrained from making comments about your motivation or demeanor, but as it appears that I will no longer be seeing things you'll be posting to this site it seems appropriate to share them with you now. You will do yourself a favor if, when debating topics that you feel passionate about, you can stay on topic and focus on what your opponent *says* rather than lashing out at what your believe your opponent *is*. During our exchange, I refused to allow you to turn the debate into a debate about me or my motivation, in spite of three attempts by you to do just that. Sure, it's easy to fall into the trap of dismissing what a person has to say because you don't agree with who that person is, but the "well, you smell bad!" argument doesn't really hold water when you're debating a topic unrelated to body odor. Similarly, trying to knock me down a peg personally when I'm not saying things you can argue against logically isn't going to do much except label you as someone who likes to go low when they have no other recourse within the debate itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted February 12, 2018 Report Share Posted February 12, 2018 I'm unsure as to what you think I have added. My original point was clear and remains unchanged. Two separate bi-partisian bills could have been put on his desk and he could have signed them then there would have been no shutdown. He didn't want that. If I question your motivations it is only because it appears to me you wish to divert the attention from that point to suggest because the Democrats didn't go along with what Trump wanted this is their fault. (I infer that because in your post showing names of senators, I did not see one Republican name). If your motivations are questioned it is only because you have tried to suggest my point was not valid, when what I said was fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted March 23, 2018 Report Share Posted March 23, 2018 So a bill is sitting on Trump's desk. If he veto's it that's his vote right Amish? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.