O'Reilly nails it on the Iran "deal"

[Xavier_Onassis]

My point is that I know what O'Reilly will say, and how he will say it, and is will be just garbage. Reading O'Reilly is like sniffing a turd, in quest of the odor of roses in bloom. A totally worthless exercise.
And no argument, no matter how logical or factual it is, would evoke more than yet another incredible snide remark from sirs, who is incapable of rational thought and even original rhetoric.

No one knows what will happen with regard to Iran, its elusive and nonexistent nukes and  how the US will react. All we know is that Netanyahu is either pissed off or pretending to be pissed off, and a swarm of Republicans, hoping for fat donations from rich fanatical Zionists, will make up all manner of shit as they parrot Netanyahu.

[Plane]

And no argument, no matter how logical or factual it is, would evoke more than yet another incredible snide remark from sirs, who is incapable of rational thought and even original rhetoric.

.

   What I was writing was not only for the benefit of Sirs , I think you have a similar need to look around the corner.

     This is not  a plea to change your POV.

      It is a plea for reciprocity , so it should naturally be two handled.

   It may seem as if I am asking to give more than is due, but I am actually asking every possible POV to respect the others. This will always seem like a heavy load to everyone involved.

    A strong preference for ones own POV is to be expected, and perhaps thus tolerated for the sake of reciprocity.

[Plane]

And no argument, no matter how logical or factual it is, .....

   

Hey a video on this topic!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rE3j_RHkqJc

[Xavier_Onassis]

That is a really clever video. That seems to be exactly how it works. Except it does not get around to the Hegelian dialectic by which every idea provokes an opposing idea and then the two together merge inot a new idea,m after the formula action --> reaction--> syntheses then the synthesis becomes the next action, and the process repeats itself. There is no perfect state, because the world is in a constant state of change.

I do not think that the Iran deal will result in war. Nor do I believe that it will cause Israel to vanish. The exact results are not known because unexpected developments will queer any process people currently think will occur.

I have seen and heard and read enough of O'Reilly to know that he is an irritable lightweight that is totally predictable. Perhaps this is because they pay him to say the crap he says, or perhaps he is just so stupid he believes it, but the truth it, it is still crap, always has been crap and will always be crap.

[sirs]

Well then....I guess it's good to know that what he says in support of the minimum wage & corporate corruption is all crap

[Xavier_Onassis]

At no point did I say that I disagreed with every possible idea that O'reilly might come up with.
I only said that I have had enough experience reading his drivel to refrain from wasting my time reading it any longer. The same is true of Coulter.

Palin and Trump are entertaining as studies in mental derangement, but O-Reilly and Coulter are merely not worth reading.

[sirs]

You said he was full of crap.....no need to read or listen to anything he says.  So what he says in supporting it, must, by your logic, also be crap.  So which is it?

[sirs]

And no argument, no matter how logical or factual it is, would evoke more than yet another incredible snide remark from sirs, who is incapable of rational thought and even original rhetoric.

When are you going to grasp that nothing said here, has anything to do with me.  Your comments and opinions have squat to do with any expectation of changing my POV, so why lay claim to using that as an excuse for failing to support your POV??  I see that your projection is thick with the notion of snide remarks & incapable of rational thought.  Couldn't have described the vast majority of what you post, any better.  The point is, its transparent in your lack of ability to support claims your making or refuting points someone else is making, by claiming how it makes no difference if you were to try.  By NOT trying, you reinforce everything everyone else IS saying. 

It's not about me, or my grasp of logic or debate.  It's all about what YOU, a supposed learner-ed Professor, can demonstrate, as it relates to logic and debate.  So far, it's still severely wanting. 

The good news is, that isn't set in stone.  YOU, can make the effort to better demonstrate & highlight your POV.  YOU, can better demonstrate an ability to refute concepts O'Reilly is making.  And no manner of what I don't agree with can change that, since its not and never has been about me.  It's all about what YOU can deliver.  Civil substantive debate?  Or more standard derogatory insults & excuses as to why you can't be bothered to try. 

Again, it's not about me, (or Plane, of Cu4, or anyone one else for that matter), and why we might not agree with what you claim.  This is all you, and how you can demonstrate HOW, you are right in your claims, beyond just your say so

[Xavier_Onassis]

Your reasoning is defective, mine is clearly sane.

[sirs]

Your opinion of my reasoning is irrelevent, to the point being made.  Civil substantive debate?  Or more standard derogatory insults & excuses as to why you can't be bothered to try?  It's your road