Would YOU debate S.Lindsey?

sniffles5's picture

Blogger S.Lindsey has issued a challenge: He will debate anyone, anytime, on political issues of the day. His only stipulation is that only "facts" will be debated.

"Facts"? Let's take a look at some of S. Lindsey's "facts"...

Case #1:
S.Lindsey "fact": "60% of the pork belongs to the Democrats... 40% belong to the Republicans" LINK
In reality: Sniffles points out that Democrats accounted for only 50.3% of earmarks LINK
S.Lindsey's reply: People disagreeing with him just want to "Attack the messenger" LINK

Case #2:
S.Lindsey "fact": "Under Reagan, America had record growth in GDP and employment compared to Carter" LINK
In reality:JeffC points out that GDP and employment grew faster under Carter LINK
S.Lindsey's reply: Attempted to redefine both GDP and employment, then declared Reagan "winner" LINK

Case #3:
S.Lindsey "fact": The Roman Empire fell due to high taxes LINK
In reality: Sniffles responds that the Roman Empire fell due to a reliance on mercenaries and attacks by barbarians LINK
S.Lindsey's reply: Cut and paste of an article referring to Julius Caesar(who died nearly 500 years before the fall of the Roman Empire)raising taxes as "proof" that Rome fell due to high taxation LINK

Case #4:
S.Lindsey "fact": Obama doubled the "federal debt" in 50 days LINK
In reality: ManOfGreatLogic responds that S.Lindsey has confused the total "Federal Debt" with the yearly "Federal Deficit" LINK
S.Lindsey's reply: Non-sequitur cut and paste of an article defining the federal debt LINK

Case #5:
S.Lindsey "fact": Bush left office with a $5.1 trillion Federal Debt LINK
In reality: Sniffles responds that Bush's own Treasury department listed the total "Federal Debt" at $10+ trillion dollars at the end of Bush's second term LINK
S.Lindsey's reply: Ad hominem attack, criticized Treasury dept website of liberal bias LINK

So there you have it, Citizen Bloggers....would YOU want to debate someone whose definition of a "fact" appears to be "something I really really want to be true!"?

sniffles5's blog | login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
S. Lindsey's picture
Submitted by S. Lindsey on Mon, 03/23/2009 - 8:25am.

I find it amazing that you are incapable of taking a point as it was stated.. Instead you have to warp it to fit your ideological narrow minded views..
Take the Roman Empire tax debate.. I NEVER SAID IT FELL BECAUSE OF THE HIGH TAXES that was you bonehead.. You took a little comment I made and blew it out of proportion.. One of the other "cases" you state was the 60%/40% Earmark debate.. At the time that was what CNBC was reporting.. They of course was only pointing out the Republican votes as being 40% of the earmarks.. Lets see 40% from 100% = 60%.. BUT AS USUAL YOU DID NOT ARGUE THE POINT ABOUT THE EARMARKS.. YOU DEFLECTED IT TO THE ACTUAL PERCENTAGE POINTS.. I HAVE TO ASK WHO CARES.. Many of these so called Case points are summerizations not meant to reflect any one particuler point, but an overall view on the discussion in general..
The rest of your so called case points.. if taken in CONTEXT with the entire debate proves many of my summerizations.. YOU ARE VERY GOOD AT SHIFTING THE ARGUMENT TO THE ARGUER NOT THE POINTS MADE It is called CONTEXT.. Taking the entire postings from a dozen or so posters then thoughtfully reply in CONTEXT to the discussion.. It is called Nuance..
I simply made a comment about empires The US being one.. and in the ENTIRE context of the blog YOU TAKE ONE LINE and make a career on it.. Many here know all about you and your propensity
to take out of context anyone in which you have a difference of opinion.
Addtionally Francis I said I WILL DEBATE FACTS WITH YOU not everyone.. So pull your head out from your RECTUM and lets meet.. I am not DD.. I will meet with you and we can discuss your particular warped views on the World in General.. Who knows maybe you can change my mind.. Lets find out... I will be in PTC almost everyday this week.. Lets go grab a cup of joe and talk about it.. Who knows each of us my learn something..Jeffc and I have the same taste in authors.. Who woulda figured.. I am easy to spot.. I have the ROLL TIDE window decal on my truck

I will not lower my standards.. So UP YOURS.. Evil


Submitted by MacTheKnife on Mon, 03/23/2009 - 9:48am.

... with the assessment of S. Lindsey in this case.

In my opinion, Sniffles5's blog had a flock of Red Herrings and a more than a pair of straw men.

Perhaps you two SHOULD debate live and in person as opposed to drawing on the resources or others to parse the statements of each other.

The part that I don't understand is why are some bloggers so personal, mean, and angry rather than accepting the fact that people have differing opinions based on their emotional and philosophical views and their life experiences.

What is thought to be true and correct for one person may not be so for another. Can't we all just be civil and not make personal attacks or discount the opinions of others?

sniffles5's picture
Submitted by sniffles5 on Mon, 03/23/2009 - 12:40pm.

Thank you for sharing your opinion, and more importantly, taking the time to point out specifically that this WAS an opinion.

I (obviously) disagree with your premise that my analysis consisted of red herrings and straw men, I think that the issue is even more basic: the fundamental difference between "fact" and "opinion".

The great statesman Daniel P. Moynihan once had a fantastic quote attributed to him: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. I truly believe that S. Lindsey does not recognize this distinction.

Let me give you an example: If I were to say "Ronald Reagan was an incompetent president", that's me on my soapbox offering my opinion. However, if I were to say "Ronald Reagan was an incompetent president, and thats why voters threw him out in 1984 and elected Mondale president", my statement is no longer simply an opinion, as it contains a demonstrably false "fact". "Truth" and "correctness" have no bearing in this matter, I've spoken something that is simply not true.

I'm not going to rehash my blog, but I'd like to use one case as an example of Lindsey's duplicity, in case #2. A poster named DaisyHeadMaisy posted her opinion that Reagan was not a good president. Like a good "libertarian", S. Lindsay responded in a full-throated roar in a reflexive defense of Reagan. He offered specific "facts" to "prove" that Reagan was a better president, and had the audacity to challenge people to "look it up".

Well, a few of us took Lindsey up on his challenge and lo and behold, we found out that what Lindsey was stating just wasn't true. In fact, his "facts" were 100% wrong, the exact opposite was true. Again, "truth" and "correctness" had NOTHING to do with Lindsey's allegations...he was simply mistaken....or else he deliberately lied.

Next, look what happened when Lindsey was confronted with evidence that his allegations: he attempted to bluster his way out. Lindsey lacked the moral character to own up to his mistakes.

Time after time, for the past two months, we've seen Lindsey post "facts" that just aren't true. He's not interested in meaningful debate, he's interested only in promoting his position via any means necessary.

So tell me, JMartinez, since Lindey lacks the moral character to show respect to his fellow bloggers by admitting he was wrong, why should we bloggers in turn have any respect for Lindsey?

S. Lindsey's picture
Submitted by S. Lindsey on Mon, 03/23/2009 - 11:26am.

JM.. You are very correct.. I have attempted to be courteous and “ADULT” with Sniffles, however after the personal attacks and the attempted cyber bullying unfortunately I find myself falling to his level more often the not..
His act is easy to do hiding behind a anonymous identity.. he can post away his attacks never fearing having to face the consequences of his attacks.. I do find it the height of hypocrisy to criticize “Fred” for him saying this is his real name while hiding behind the moniker of “SNIFFLES5”.
However all that being said sometimes when all you have is a weak defense a strong offense is all you have left. I would truly like to have Sniff just occasionally answer the point of these postings and not deflect the issues with pointless semantics.. and attacks on the poster..
Sniff.. I do apologize for changing your “Name” not very adult of me.. you of course may continue to call me lil snipy if it helps..
The offer stands.. have a cup of coffee with me.. any time.. I love a good heated debate.. We will just have one rule.. Politics and Politics only please.. no personal attacks..
We must all stand as one.. Divided we will fall..

I will not lower my standards.. So UP YOURS.. Evil


sniffles5's picture
Submitted by sniffles5 on Mon, 03/23/2009 - 2:42pm.

"I have attempted to be courteous"....

Let's see, you joined on New Years Eve. Five short days later, you are spewing quotes such as "You liberals said it was fine.. Oh that's right it's ok as long as your (sic) an ass.. oh I mean a Democrat.."

That's a rather unusual way for you to demonstrate your "courtesy", don't you think?

S. Lindsey's picture
Submitted by S. Lindsey on Mon, 03/23/2009 - 3:27pm.

being a smarta$$ and being an A$$.. I can be a smart a$$ which sir are you..I think I said "with Sniffles" not everyone.. once again you can not handle a "fact" without warping it to fit your point of view..
(all can read for themselves above) and besides you have to go all the way back to when I first started posting..and to another poster.. want to share that entire link.. and see I was slammed first..hmmm..
.... and since you so quickly threw the olive branch I extended down.. I guess coffee's out right?

I will not lower my standards.. So UP YOURS.. Evil


Submitted by Incognito on Mon, 03/23/2009 - 3:11pm.

I find it bizarre and unsettling that you are wrapping yourself in the bloody shirt of the aggrieved. You, who are quick to attack any critique of criminal behavior as originating from a racist heart, or Mainstream with her viseral hatred for all things crinoline-especially to a blogging "noob", long for a courteous exchange? I will not hold my breath for that CHANGE to happen.

sniffles5's picture
Submitted by sniffles5 on Mon, 03/23/2009 - 12:42pm.

Muddle, would you care to help this noob out and share your experiences about the wonderful benefits of posting on this blog under your own name?

S. Lindsey's picture
Submitted by S. Lindsey on Mon, 03/23/2009 - 8:54pm.

Try again.. in the next round...

I will not lower my standards.. So UP YOURS.. Evil


muddle's picture
Submitted by muddle on Mon, 03/23/2009 - 4:19pm.

I'm not sure I can help here.

After all, I always posted under "muddle" and never once--not even once--mentioned my own name or the name of my (former and regrettable) employer. It took a rabid fundamentalist (or two) to "out" me (of course, anonymously and incognito), based upon my several unintentional indiscretions, and the rest is history.


"Puddleglum" by Weatherwax (one of the Muddlings).

Jeeves to the Rescue

Submitted by Incognito on Mon, 03/23/2009 - 4:47pm.

I haven't been on these blogs that long. I am "Incognito", not the incognito that "outed" Muddle

muddle's picture
Submitted by muddle on Mon, 03/23/2009 - 5:16pm.

No. Of course not! The person responsible here did not know who her true friends were.

She opted to hurt someone who, generally, offered up an articulation and defense of her overall worldview, but who, unfortunately, did not toe the line on every single point.

She not only contacted someone connected with the employer, but then, later, threatened even more retribution, based upon a perverse interpretation of scripture.

Also, I happen to know that Cal banned her from this site for her actions, and so, as a professing Christian, she would never return under a different moniker and lie about her actual identity. Therefore, she is no longer blogging here.


"Puddleglum" by Weatherwax (one of the Muddlings).

Jeeves to the Rescue

S. Lindsey's picture
Submitted by S. Lindsey on Mon, 03/23/2009 - 8:53pm.

that no one would use multiple Personalitie$ uhh I mean Identitie$ to post then agree then disagree then agree again all with one$elf..

I will not lower my standards.. So UP YOURS.. Evil


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.