(Other than impeachment charges against the Annoying Orange, for which we already have a thread.)
No, an argument isn’t weak if it fails to persuade those who are firmly on the other side. Persuasion doesn’t work that way. An argument is weak if it makes you look weak in the eyes of the fence sitters.
Let’s start with:
Some reference materials:
I think we can just combine all your posts here
Pastor Pete is leaning hard on this one, as is Booker, which is funnier as he’s accusing all the democrats of being racist. Of course many are, but not in the way he thinks.
Inadvertently making the case that nominating Obama was all about virtue signaling:
And of course no one outside of the Hodag Country Music Festical takes that statement seriously.
Even if it’s valid - and it probably is - this sort of thing looks like spin:
The Horowitz report is not the real deal. That’s still to come. It’s just a foretaste.
It was what was expected. Moved the needle a little, whether we ever get to the endpoint is up to Durham.
If Durham does his job, there will be no more reports, just indictments. Or not, they sweep it under the rug. Doesn’t change the facts, everyone figured out what happened a long time ago.
Plus the MSM has known since day one, they have been feeding garbage for years, knowingly, and still do.
Yes, it’s weak on both sides. Maybe that cancels out.
From the eternally unscripted Uncle Joe:
Terrifying to whom, dearie?
Guns + church = 2 innocents dead
No guns + church = 0 dead
The solution is obviously more guns.
Somebody doesn’t understand that you don’t get to plug in your own numbers and expect reality to adjust.
Lots of church shootings where you live?
No, I don’t live in the middle east.
The glurge is strong with this one:
An argument does not simply consist of contradicting the other side: or perhaps it is.
I don’t know…
I prefer my arguments type checked and passed by reference.
Well, I’m sold.
