Romney Blames Obama For Arab Spring

[*censored*]

When you are making an argument, you need to use precisely defined terms to get your point across. If I don't know what he means, how can I argue with him?

If your definition of "Turkey" is "large North American flightless bird," mine is "country in Eurasia whose capital is Ankara," Wickabee's is "the sliced white meat on my sandwich for lunch yesterday," and veggie's is "Sean Hannity," technically we're all correct. Your Turkey is not my Turkey is not Wickabee's Turkey is not veggie's Turkey.

Simply, you use your own definitions of those terms and if the person disagrees with the definition, they'll let you know. But they should give their own definition as well, and not just ask for your definitions. So if you want to ask for Wickabee's definitions, then give us your own too.

While we're at it, I'd like to request that everyone please give me precise definitions for "conservative," "liberal," "Republican," Democrat," "blames," "Arab Spring," "passed," "allowed," "the," "is," "for," "tax," "censored," and "antediluvian." I just want to make sure we're all on the same page here.

[AUTaxMan]

If your definition of "Turkey" is "large North American flightless bird," mine is "country in Eurasia whose capital is Ankara," Wickabee's is "the sliced white meat on my sandwich for lunch yesterday," and veggie's is "Sean Hannity," technically we're all correct. Your Turkey is not my Turkey is not Wickabee's Turkey is not veggie's Turkey.

Simply, you use your own definitions of those terms and if the person disagrees with the definition, they'll let you know. But they should give their own definition as well, and not just ask for your definitions. So if you want to ask for Wickabee's definitions, then give us your own too.

While we're at it, I'd like to request that everyone please give me precise definitions for "conservative," "liberal," "Republican," Democrat," "blames," "Arab Spring," "passed," "allowed," "the," "is," "for," "tax," "censored," and "antediluvian." I just want to make sure we're all on the same page here.

Your point is well-made, but it still doesn't solve my problem. If you make a statement and I ask you to clarify so that I can formulate a response, you should be able to do so. Otherwise we have discussions like this:

"The rich need to pay their fair share!"

"They already do pay their fair share. The top 1% of income earners pay 80+% of the nation's income taxes."

"But they still need to pay their fair share and stop being overseas-hiding, loophole-using tax cheats."

"I've just shown you that they pay their fair share. How do you know that they are tax cheats? Isn't a tax cheat someone who isn't paying taxes that they are legally obligated to pay? What loopholes do they use?"

"They just are. It doesn't matter which ones they use, we all know they use them. Isn't it obvious?"

"No. Please elaborate."

"This board sucks."

[Wickabee]

Your point is well-made, but it still doesn't solve my problem. If you make a statement and I ask you to clarify so that I can formulate a response, you should be able to do so. Otherwise we have discussions like this:

"The rich need to pay their fair share!"

"They already do pay their fair share. The top 1% of income earners pay 80+% of the nation's income taxes."

"But they still need to pay their fair share and stop being overseas-hiding, loophole-using tax cheats."

"I've just shown you that they pay their fair share. How do you know that they are tax cheats? Isn't a tax cheat someone who isn't paying taxes that they are legally obligated to pay? What loopholes do they use?"

"They just are. It doesn't matter which ones they use, we all know they use them. Isn't it obvious?"

"No. Please elaborate."

"This board sucks."

AUT, the problem is, no matter how much someone clarifies, you still ask for further clarification. When someone can't clarify to your impossible standards you take that as proof the other guy is wrong. If you truly don't understand everything you say you don't, I have to wonder if you can even read.

The people who are captured in semantics are the reason nothing can get done.

[AUTaxMan]

AUT, the problem is, no matter how much someone clarifies, you still ask for further clarification. When someone can't clarify to your impossible standards you take that as proof the other guy is wrong. If you truly don't understand everything you say you don't, I have to wonder if you can even read.

The people who are captured in semantics are the reason nothing can get done.

That's not exactly true. My standards are not impossible, and if we want to have a real discussion about politics around here, we need to get beyond generalizations, clarify our assumptions, and get into specific facts.

[Wickabee]

That's not exactly true. My standards are not impossible, and if we want to have a real discussion about politics around here, we need to get beyond generalizations, clarify our assumptions, and get into specific facts.

Well and good so long as you stop looking for specific examples of what you know to be true but don't want to admit.