Non Sequitur by Wiley Miller for May 31, 2011

I know Danae is going to be a politician when she grows up!

Or a commentator for MSNBC or Fox News.

It works for the Republicans, Lucy.

Rayannina and Dragonmaster77: Spot-on.Now watch the Libs line up to swear that their favorite pols just don’t do that and it’s only the OTHER guys…I like Bill Hicks’ take on it: “I think the puppet on the left speaks to my views.”…“Oh no, you’re wrong! It’s the puppet on the RIGHT who’s correct!” And beneath it all is one guy with a puppet on each arm.Orion

“At the end of the day, it is what it is”.

That’s enough right there to shut up most.

Why would you want to clutter up a good argument with facts?

Facts don’t go away…..but they may increase in numbers.

Only us geeky guys joined debating club. Where do women learn to win arguments?I’m the Mom, that’s why.Because I said to.You sleeping on the couch tonight?You think you’re going where and with who?You wouldn’t mind if Mother stayed in your den?The game can wait, you’re painting the hall.If your mother cooked better, we’re eating at La Money tonightWhat is your hand doing on my side of the bed?Oh really?If you loved me————-Lucille Ball “WAH!”Face it guys, we’re out of our class Just put on your best disappointed look as you think, “I didn’t want to go to the game with the guys. I wanted to hear about her mother’s latest operation all weekend long. Methinks the fox was right.”

The difference between MSNBC and Fox is that Fox makes stuff up and MSNBC quotes Republics verbatim.

It’s the othe rway around…

Actually I can’t tell one party from the other. Members from either party are both corrupt, greedy, immoral and unethical. They both spend majority of their efforts trying to prove the other party inept and both are usually right.

Ignoring the facts. Sounds like politics or climate change.

Or take my late mother’s approach… my mind’s made up, please don’t confuse me with facts.

Ah practicing the passive aggression.

Aplilglasbie is most correct. It’s like republicans haven’t figured out that videos of what they said before, can be used to contradict what they’re saying now. They hate that! Smoke comes out of their ears…

Well, we could ignore things until they go away, or we could argue about them openly in public forums……

Ouch again Wiley! Biting the hand that feeds redux?

The Sophists had some pretty good arguments like this 2500 years back. Such as:Protagoras agreed to instruct a poor young man, Euthalos (from a working-class family) in law and rhetoric free of charge on the condition that he would pay the Sophist’s fee in full if, and only if, he won his first court case. Once Euthalos had completed his course of study with Protagoras he assiduously avoided taking any cases at all..Protagoras, finally out of patience with the young man, took him to court for payment and argued thusly: “ If I win this case, Euthalos will have to pay me what he owes me. If I do not win this case then Euthalos will still have to pay me because, under our agreement, he will then have won his first court case. Therefore, no matter what the outcome, Euthalos will have to pay me.” .Euthalos, however, contested this claim, stating, “If I win this case I will not have to pay Protagoras, as the court has declared his case invalid. If I do not win this case I still do not have to pay as I will then have not won my first court case. Therefore, no matter what, I do not have to pay.”

Euthalos in 2012!!!!