PoliCHARTZ - Thread of U.S. Politics & the Presidential Election

[Final-Fan]

halogamer1989 said:
Final-Fan said:
I know that most of us had already presumed halogamer's modus operandi, but at this point I'm willing to submit an actual hypothesis based on experimental evidence in the thread so far:

Halogamer1989 will
1. Make wild allegations
2. Defend them
3. In the face of strong contrary arguments/evidence,
3.1. Only respond to one or two points, usually tangents he's brought in which distract form the main argument, often avoiding specific questions of fact (which are easier to prove wrong); and/or

I "disappear" b/c I have work to do.  Don't you?
3.2. Make the "appeal to authority" fallacy; or
3.3. Change the subject (can be considered the extreme form of (3.1))

Give me an example.
4. Disappear for a little while (for the heat to die down); and/or

Again I am not a louse, I am busy.
4.1. Claim he never intended to get drawn into an argument and just wants to peacefully spread the good word (so can we all please stop talking about contrary evidence)

I try as hard as I can to appease liberal pussies.
5. See (1)

Well, I presume you mean an example of 3.2 or 3.3. 

3.2:  See this post and its predecessors.  I challenged you on some specifics about McCain's plan and why you thought it was better than Obama's, and you had NO rebuttal except to give me some campaign phone numbers and a link to the McCain website which (AFAIK, and I looked around) had NO specific information on point. 

More recently, in your response to this post, you chose not to address the main thrust of the post at all but one of the smaller points, and then you immediately proceeded to change the subject from the USA PATRIOT Act specifically to the topic of torture.  (AFAIK the main concern with the act under discussion is the extreme expansion of clandestine search and seizure, not torture.  I could be wrong, so I can't be sure if this is absolutely a (3.3) or just a rapid succession of multiple (3.1)s.)

3.3:  Then you said "I changed my mind and I just do not want to waste time with arguments!" (4.1) and yet you had time to post random newspaper articles that gave no new information on point.  THEN, when I challenged you on the pointlessness of what you did, you went off on a tangent of where you got the article (your campaign email) and, when I expressed befuddlement at the purpose of your revelation, proceeded to copy/paste the entire gigantic email.  If that's not an example of changing the subject, then I would like to know just what the hell would qualify. 

For another example of (3.3), see your response to (3.1).  Your response had NOTHING to do with (3.1) and was actually a duplicate response to (4)! 

Speaking of which:  your response to (4) would make a lot more sense if you were just gone some of the time.  But no, when you come back you often pretend that none of the prior posts IN THE SAME THREAD ever happened.  Either you have the attention span of a small child or you're fleeing losing battles.  And even ignoring that wouldn't explain the times you continued to post but still completely abandoned the conversation. 

Oh, and through it all, I could at least say that you mainly refrained from ad hominem attacks against the people you debated (although you didn't apparently feel the need to exercise the same restraint concerning the Democratic candidates).  Now I see that's gone out the window.  Also, you're an appeaser!  I never would have guessed. 

P.S.  Just before I posted this, I was double-checking some stuff and noticed that you seem to be banned.  I'm sure that when you come back you'll address my rebuttal instead of pretending it never happened.