Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad
It's completely fair game, and by the way, you do it constantly. I chose that term "big dic" for a reason.
|
You also provided the reasons for your reasoning. Just like I defined the concept of 'big dic' with supporting facts.
I never challenge anyone without supporting facts - the always required reason why. You know that quite well when I overtly challenged your beliefs in Saddam's WMDs and justification for "Mission Accomplished".
I also stated up front when and why I was challenging classicman's constant cheap shots with cheap shot. And I remind everyone of that event that was necessary due to a destructive tone encourages by so much silence.
If I do 'it' constantly, then post examples of posts not provided with the supporting justificiations? If you are making an accusation, then you have examples.
It is an insult to post without supporting facts. 70% of Americans did just that - which is why so many blindly accepted a Saddam WMD lie. And therefore sent 4000 American servicemen irresponsibly to a useless death. Many even get angry when the 'reasons why' are provided. For some, anything more complex than the Daily News makes some angry. That also is insulting.
Let's not forget a perfect example: "Mission Accomplish" that made you so angry. I posted unpopular facts and numbers constantly. Overtly challenged what we now know were lies and myths. We know today facts back then could not support the 'Saddam WMD' myths. And I keep posting the reaons why back then in 2003. Very unpopular to oppose conclusions based only in emotion.
Demonstrated not only were reasons necessary to justify war - which everyone should remember today. And that the administration was overtly lying - which is no longer in dispute. But the point. Despite what you accuse me of, I provide fundamental supporting facts which is why my posts are so often unpopular - and longer.
I would hope you learned, for example, why facts necessary to justify war - as so bluntly posted in 2003. I would hope you never forget those so many reasons why. Even though that reality made you so angry back then, those underlying reasons why were accurate.
Remember how I cautioned (in maybe 2004) of the resulting economic damage what would occur? Well I was wrong. I only put the number at $400 billion. But again, I made statements that a majority disagreed with. And I said why - ie $400 billion -well above what anyone else was saying. Well I was wrong. The number is closer to $1trillion. I did not just post the unpopular. Included (routinely) were reasons why.
Welcome to an economy that happens when the predicted bills come due. Another example of something you did not like - but that I predicted WITH the underlying reasons why and without being politically correct. Something I due routinely - and therefore are not popular for demanding the irrefutable fact.
Posts not based in logic - based only in emotion - without supporting facts - that overtly challenge another - that is called what? For some, that is why they carry big guns. What kind of people are they called?