Communism-lite and why it doesn’t work for ‘Brown’ nations?

[Mac1958]

I don't see much attempts at discussion in real life from the libs.

I'd agree with that. The Left is more likely to just shut down conversation by immediately attacking and insulting. I've noticed that people on the Right are far more likely and willing to have a conversation.

You won't like my theory as to why, though. I think their willingness to have long-form conversations is rooted in their devotion to talk radio. I listen to Limbaugh, Levin and Hannity (the three real leaders of the Right), and then I hear the same words, phrases and (most importantly) thought processes repeated by righties. I see threads started on USMB on a news item discussed by Rush not three minutes after he brings it up. Fairly frequently.

So, in both cases, a normal conversation can be difficult. I have these conversations pretty frequently in real life, though, and they mostly consist of me asking questions and listening carefully to the answers. Both ends are intellectually impenetrable at this point, but they do provide some interesting material.
.

And this is a problem because...complete your point.

It's not a problem. I'm just not required to participate.
.

Don't be coy. YOu obviously presented it as a bad thing. Continue.

Okay, I'll try.

I presented what as a bad thing?
.

 

[Correll]

I don't see much attempts at discussion in real life from the libs.

I'd agree with that. The Left is more likely to just shut down conversation by immediately attacking and insulting. I've noticed that people on the Right are far more likely and willing to have a conversation.

You won't like my theory as to why, though. I think their willingness to have long-form conversations is rooted in their devotion to talk radio. I listen to Limbaugh, Levin and Hannity (the three real leaders of the Right), and then I hear the same words, phrases and (most importantly) thought processes repeated by righties. I see threads started on USMB on a news item discussed by Rush not three minutes after he brings it up. Fairly frequently.

So, in both cases, a normal conversation can be difficult. I have these conversations pretty frequently in real life, though, and they mostly consist of me asking questions and listening carefully to the answers. Both ends are intellectually impenetrable at this point, but they do provide some interesting material.
.

And this is a problem because...complete your point.

It's not a problem. I'm just not required to participate.
.

Don't be coy. YOu obviously presented it as a bad thing. Continue.

Okay, I'll try.

I presented what as a bad thing?
.

YOur words




"You won't like my theory as to why, though. I think their willingness to have long-form conversations is rooted in their devotion to talk radio. I listen to Limbaugh, Levin and Hannity (the three real leaders of the Right), and then I hear the same words, phrases and (most importantly) thought processes repeated by righties. I see threads started on USMB on a news item discussed by Rush not three minutes after he brings it up. Fairly frequently.

So, in both cases, a normal conversation can be difficult. "

 

[Mac1958]

I'd agree with that. The Left is more likely to just shut down conversation by immediately attacking and insulting. I've noticed that people on the Right are far more likely and willing to have a conversation.

You won't like my theory as to why, though. I think their willingness to have long-form conversations is rooted in their devotion to talk radio. I listen to Limbaugh, Levin and Hannity (the three real leaders of the Right), and then I hear the same words, phrases and (most importantly) thought processes repeated by righties. I see threads started on USMB on a news item discussed by Rush not three minutes after he brings it up. Fairly frequently.

So, in both cases, a normal conversation can be difficult. I have these conversations pretty frequently in real life, though, and they mostly consist of me asking questions and listening carefully to the answers. Both ends are intellectually impenetrable at this point, but they do provide some interesting material.
.

And this is a problem because...complete your point.

It's not a problem. I'm just not required to participate.
.

Don't be coy. YOu obviously presented it as a bad thing. Continue.

Okay, I'll try.

I presented what as a bad thing?
.

YOur words




"You won't like my theory as to why, though. I think their willingness to have long-form conversations is rooted in their devotion to talk radio. I listen to Limbaugh, Levin and Hannity (the three real leaders of the Right), and then I hear the same words, phrases and (most importantly) thought processes repeated by righties. I see threads started on USMB on a news item discussed by Rush not three minutes after he brings it up. Fairly frequently.

So, in both cases, a normal conversation can be difficult. "

Yes, having difficulty having a normal conversation is not a good thing when either (a) I'm trying to learn something or (b) I'm trying to solve something. I think communication is critical to any relationship, from marriage to business to politics. Without clear and honest communication, little of lasting substance can be achieved. In real life, anyway.

Okay, I answered your question. Now please make a point.
.

 

[Correll]

And this is a problem because...complete your point.

It's not a problem. I'm just not required to participate.
.

Don't be coy. YOu obviously presented it as a bad thing. Continue.

Okay, I'll try.

I presented what as a bad thing?
.

YOur words




"You won't like my theory as to why, though. I think their willingness to have long-form conversations is rooted in their devotion to talk radio. I listen to Limbaugh, Levin and Hannity (the three real leaders of the Right), and then I hear the same words, phrases and (most importantly) thought processes repeated by righties. I see threads started on USMB on a news item discussed by Rush not three minutes after he brings it up. Fairly frequently.

So, in both cases, a normal conversation can be difficult. "

Yes, having difficulty having a normal conversation is not a good thing when either (a) I'm trying to learn something or (b) I'm trying to solve something. I think communication is critical to any relationship, from marriage to business to politics. Without clear and honest communication, little of lasting substance can be achieved. In real life, anyway.

Okay, I answered your question. Now please make a point.
.

Just because someone was informed of something, or even walked though a thought process, by someone else, does not mean that they are not capable of normal discussion on the issue.


There have been times when I've seen people discuss certain issues, and make points about it, that I had not thought of, or were not informed on the issue enough to make, or even, that the person was smarter than me.


That does not mean that I cannot discuss the issue.

 

[Mac1958]

It's not a problem. I'm just not required to participate.
.

Don't be coy. YOu obviously presented it as a bad thing. Continue.

Okay, I'll try.

I presented what as a bad thing?
.

YOur words




"You won't like my theory as to why, though. I think their willingness to have long-form conversations is rooted in their devotion to talk radio. I listen to Limbaugh, Levin and Hannity (the three real leaders of the Right), and then I hear the same words, phrases and (most importantly) thought processes repeated by righties. I see threads started on USMB on a news item discussed by Rush not three minutes after he brings it up. Fairly frequently.

So, in both cases, a normal conversation can be difficult. "

Yes, having difficulty having a normal conversation is not a good thing when either (a) I'm trying to learn something or (b) I'm trying to solve something. I think communication is critical to any relationship, from marriage to business to politics. Without clear and honest communication, little of lasting substance can be achieved. In real life, anyway.

Okay, I answered your question. Now please make a point.
.

Just because someone was informed of something, or even walked though a thought process, by someone else, does not mean that they are not capable of normal discussion on the issue.


There have been times when I've seen people discuss certain issues, and make points about it, that I had not thought of, or were not informed on the issue enough to make, or even, that the person was smarter than me.


That does not mean that I cannot discuss the issue.

Of course you can. It's just that at some point the conversation goes nowhere, that's all.
.

 

[Correll]

Don't be coy. YOu obviously presented it as a bad thing. Continue.

Okay, I'll try.

I presented what as a bad thing?
.

YOur words




"You won't like my theory as to why, though. I think their willingness to have long-form conversations is rooted in their devotion to talk radio. I listen to Limbaugh, Levin and Hannity (the three real leaders of the Right), and then I hear the same words, phrases and (most importantly) thought processes repeated by righties. I see threads started on USMB on a news item discussed by Rush not three minutes after he brings it up. Fairly frequently.

So, in both cases, a normal conversation can be difficult. "

Yes, having difficulty having a normal conversation is not a good thing when either (a) I'm trying to learn something or (b) I'm trying to solve something. I think communication is critical to any relationship, from marriage to business to politics. Without clear and honest communication, little of lasting substance can be achieved. In real life, anyway.

Okay, I answered your question. Now please make a point.
.

Just because someone was informed of something, or even walked though a thought process, by someone else, does not mean that they are not capable of normal discussion on the issue.


There have been times when I've seen people discuss certain issues, and make points about it, that I had not thought of, or were not informed on the issue enough to make, or even, that the person was smarter than me.


That does not mean that I cannot discuss the issue.

Of course you can. It's just that at some point the conversation goes nowhere, that's all.
.

Never because I refuse to discuss it, or because I am lying or stonewalling.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Mac1958
What’s the point in being so insistent on exchanging substantive dialogue when you know full well you have zero intent to reconsider your position regardless of the facts, logic or reason you are presented with?

 

[BrokeLoser]

Mac1958
You have done exactly what you people always do. “I’m half brown, therefore I refuse to to accept and process the FACTS.”
It’s kind of silly to virtually beg folks to engage in meaningful conversation and then ignore real data, facts and truth.

 

[Mac1958]

Mac1958You have done exactly what you people always do. “I’m half brown, therefore I refuse to to accept and process the FACTS.” It’s kind of silly to virtually beg folks to engage in meaningful conversation and then ignore real data, facts and truth.

Mac1958What’s the point in being so insistent on exchanging substantive dialogue when you know full well you have zero intent to reconsider your position regardless of the facts, logic or reason you are presented with?

My goodness. Two right in a row.

Okay, I'll say it for the thousandth time:

I have long since given up on "exchanging substantive dialogue" here. If I stumble into it, great, that's a bonus. But mostly I come here to (a) observe behaviors & opinions and (b) belch out my opinion here and there. It's much easier to have normal conversations on these topics in real life, and I do that pretty regularly.

If you or anyone else here has a problem with that - and you clearly do - then you're free to put me on ignore, or engage in the standard USMB personal insults and name-calling, or stand on your head while whistling your favorite ABBA tune. Or you could mix it up and use all three strategies on alternating days to keep things fresh and lively.

I hope that clarifies.
.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Mac1958
Nobody in their sane mind can consider the data and believe real Americans are better off with one more illegal Mexican joining us....so when you ‘kinda support’ one more illegal entering you are basically saying “fuck you America, you owe Mexicans an opportunity to ride on your back.”
To reconcile such a notion one must disregard all simple logic...right?
More than likely one would have to have a big dog in the fight...and probably be at least half of exactly who we’re taliking about...right?
Do you see where I’m going?

 

[Mac1958]

Do you see where I’m going?

No, not really. I can't detect you saying anything new, anything that you haven't already said multiple times.

Make a normal, straightforward, non-hyperbolic point and we'll be mercifully done with this tedious "conversation".
.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Do you see where I’m going?

No, I don't. Make a normal, straightforward, non-hyperbolic point and we'll be mercifully done with this tedious "conversation".
.

Haha...see what you do. Now you’ll play stupid and pretend you don’t understand. This is why you can’t be taken seriously by anybody sane. Please spare us all that voice of reason bullshit you normally play.
Consider this....imagine trying to discuss real data as it applies to criminality and such within black communities with IM2 and Asclepias.
First they’d scream “RACIST” at anyone for even bringing it up...then they’d step outside of their normally logical minds and quickly claim it’s all “whiteys fault and the fault of the system”.
You’re that guy when discussing anything related to Brownies...WHY?
Because you’re half brown and therefore by default you have to step outside of your logical mind.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Do you see where I’m going?

No, not really. I can't detect you saying anything new, anything that you haven't already said multiple times.

Make a normal, straightforward, non-hyperbolic point and we'll be mercifully done with this tedious "conversation".
.

I suspect that all conversations you’re unable to stear and control are “tedious”....right?