Whats Next.......?
- Thread starter hanker
- 44 comments
- 1,578 views
- 10,832
Man. You guys are fighting everywhere! Campbell, you are wrong. Opinions need not be backed up with "facts" (facts are not as reliable as you might believe). Opinions are feelings and beliefs. You seem to have a problem with the fact that somebody might not agree with you. Demanding facts does not make you look "right"; it does not make your beliefs seem somehow more true. And saying something like "don't talk" contradicts the point of an online forum, and is rude.
Maybe we need to remember that this is a Gran Turismo website. We all came here for the sake of a video game and only later found something else here.
I think you should go and start your own forum where the rules are "agree with me," Campbell. That would make you happy you hyper-opinionated, name-calling, defensive human.
Was there ever a major terrorist attack perpetrated by another country when William Clinton was in office?
How was that? Clinton boosted the economy -- arguably artificially -- but that has extremely little to do with the overvalue of Internet stocks at the time.
Was the fact that he being in office for eight years and the country having the most booming economy in its history not enough for you? President Bush isn't a bad guy -- he's well-intentioned and does a good job -- but on the economy, he's nowhere near the man Clinton was. If you question that, then there's no sense arguing with you.
Yeah, he's got a fairly hard-line war policy (too bad it's totally wrong) but I still respect the man for his competency in doing what he thinks is right, as well as his consistency in doing what he believes needs to get done. Just the opposite, unfortunately, for the Bush economy policies -- neither competent nor consistent.
After a bit of a life-altering expericnce on Thursday, I'm in a light mood, so don't think this is an insult. Just remember that people get very protective and defencive of their political opinions, especially in a form where they are of the minority opinion. Additionally, remember that this forum is well-moderated, and is full of sensible members with differing opinions (not all forums on the site, but this one in particular).
I find it funny you call Campbell hyper-opinionated and defencive in the same sentence you accuse him of name-calling. Think about that a beat.
Campbell and DGB465 are two guys trying to have a well-spirited political discussion, and I'd leave them to it. If they want to argue, good on 'em. I remember a few months ago when that loser doctor brought the lawsuit about the word 'god' in the pledge of allegience. After long nights of arguing, they did indeed come to a conclusion about it (unfortunately, the wrong one, but let's not re-open it). Members who have the least sensibility will at some point reach a fair conclusion.
- 10,832
Meh...
I used adjectives, no name calling. Adjectives describe. Name-calling incites.
And I don't think it's "well spirited"... as you say. Campbell just get's nasty and I've seen it in other forums.
And there's nothing more annoying than demanding "facts." The reason people do this is because they know they have no facts themselves and it would work on them. This is not a congressional hearing or a court of law. All this facts BS is laughable.
"Facts" are a crutch.
- 209
Whatever. I was actually interested to hear what he thought. If you don't have anything to add, you don't have anything to say.
And you're right, opinions don't have to be backed up by facts. However, without them, they're called 'baseless opinions', and are fairly useless. This is especailly so in this instance, when there are facts involved and people are making substantial statements.
Just think about it. If you had a back problem, who are you going to listen to and trust - a doctor, who can substantiate what he says, or your three year old nephew, who thinks playing more Nintendo will help?
Just get off my back. At least DGB and I are arguing over some topic; you're just coming in threads to bash me.
