aceventura3

I have asked more questions than I have attempted to make arguments. Again, my number one concern is not an argument, it is an emotional based concern! How is the government going to allocate limited health care resources? Please show me where this has been "dispensed", this is a long thread perhaps I have missed it. Then I have other concerns, perhaps I have missed the dispensing of those too, i.e. - Medicare going broke but private insurers being financially sound as required by law - seems to me that private companies have a discipline they operate under that the government has not I am curious how you take these concercerns/questions to be arguments?

You miss the point. I am not saying and never said my response to a set of facts is legit relative to someone else. I have never had a problem with people reaching different conclusion. I will argue my position, explain it, try to persuade, but I don't make value judgments. I accept differences, I generally don't insult people because of those differences unless they insult me first (I am still an imperfect human subject to childish responses occationally), but I know my weaknesses and work on them.

I give some pretty specific examples to illustrate my point of view, I could be wrong but I know that two people of similar intellect/training/experience/etc can have the exact same set of facts and respond in very different ways, I think I know why - emotion. Your answer is...what?

where does that come from??? How did you read what I wrote and conclude the above? How does that happen?

How do you explain something as simple as what I presented, absent an emotional response to the question do I want to use an umbrella in the rain. complicated political theories are not worth crap if they can not address simple decision problems. A good politician knows, perhaps intuitively, how people emotionally respond to facts.

I generally start with a point of view, pro or con on an issue. I provide an opening statement in support of my view. I read responses or opposing points of view and I ask questions and present counter points. It is what I do, it gives me pleasure. It challenges me to think things through. If forces me to read opposing points of view. It helps me understand opposing trains of thought. Occasionally I change my point of view based on an exchange.

Why do I need to tell you this? Do you really care why I do what I do? Or, are you just trying to be condescending? Is it some kind of backdoor personal attack or what? Is this "trolling"? Are you trying to incite an emotional response? How is your question adding value to the topic? This is why I don't understand what "trolling" is. because I think based on the definition - you are guilty of it, here.

All of this is directed at me, and not the topic. I am not going to change who I am. You don't like me, the way I communicate, structure arguments, debate, ask questions, why don't you ignore me as an individual and stick to the topic? I have asked you this several times, what the deal? In my post #317 I ask a simple question and I get your response in post #318, why not just address the question and information, why direct you comment at me as an individual? Why is what you do any better or worse than those you think should be embarrassed based on TH meetings?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."