Page 3 of 6
Re: The Art of Politics
Posted:
Tue Nov 12, 2013 2:37 pm
by H. Muir
. . .
Re: The Art of Politics
Posted:
Tue Nov 12, 2013 2:38 pm
by JDHURF
Too many politicians are as described by Muir, but then also there are too many counterexamples (Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, etc.) to accept the descriptions as an accurate generalization.
Re: The Art of Politics
Posted:
Tue Nov 12, 2013 2:41 pm
by H. Muir
. . .
Re: The Art of Politics
Posted:
Tue Nov 12, 2013 2:49 pm
by JDHURF
Which indicates that they are counterexamples to your premises and they are hardly the only ones. Your "singularly unsuccessful" comment is fairly irrelevant and would serve as a poor premonition of the future.
Re: The Art of Politics
Posted:
Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:00 pm
by H. Muir
. . .
Re: The Art of Politics
Posted:
Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:05 pm
by exploited
Your snowflake is showing Muir.
Re: The Art of Politics
Posted:
Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:06 pm
by H. Muir
. . .
Re: The Art of Politics
Posted:
Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:10 pm
by JDHURF
I have not only looked at the "surface of things." I have looked at the entire abstracted imposing edifice. My descriptive observations are not a hope for the way things ought to be, they are the objective descriptive observations of how things in fact are. That is why I agreed that too many politicians are as you describe and also why I observe that even still your premises do not serve as an accurate generalization due to the far too many counterexamples.
I have not argued that the counterexamples render necessarily a better, more honest and fair future, only that they serve to undermine your fallacious generalizations formed in absolute terms.
What in the future will actually happen is known to no one.
Re: The Art of Politics
Posted:
Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:19 pm
by exploited
In the future, DWBH will say dumb things.
Proved you wrong, Hurf.
Re: The Art of Politics
Posted:
Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:21 pm
by H. Muir
. . .