Dear Chris Lewis,

No not equally at all. I expressly used the terms “utter hoax”, “uncritical support” and “vastly superior” to make sure my points were unequivocal.

Yet here you are equivocating away.

Dear mhaze,

To translate English into English for you.

“That lot” obviously refers to Trump-Russia collusion.

“regurgitated” refers to the fact you drag this out whenever you get called out on something.

And “whimper” refers to the dog like behaviour you exhibit when you throw up in front of us and expect us to think it is anything other than vomit.

Dear Hasbeen,

Thank you. Right on cue.

yes, but in real world, those views do count, at least in democracies

Dear Chris Lewis,

The question which you seem to want to direct elsewhere is not whether the views should be heard but whether they are to be regarded as rational. That is all.

Just in case you need reminding this is what Foxy put;

"We can't afford to lose any more rational debaters."

She wasn't asking for them to be silenced as you have indicated.

I have listed positions I deem irrational and you haven't seriously challenged them. We are having a rational discussion. Why am I not being labeled rude as you did Foxy?

Perhaps you might reconsider.

SR, I am not saying u r rude.

As for your argument, what others say is rational to them.

For example, some on the right are correct to highlight recent decades of considerable budgetary spending which is merely stalling the harder policies ahead.

So i am not going to agree that everything the right states is irrational.

It does not always mean that i agree with the right on each issue.

I think both the ABC and Sky are biased, but that a great deal of their programming is informative.

I prefer the ABC and SBS, but i allow for its bias when I form my opinion.

I don't like Trump, but not all of his policies are crazy.

I do believe that human activity is the major cause of global warming, but i am not sure whether anything much will be done about it until the private sector itself imposes huge insurance costs from the damage.

But I try to avoid attacking the man, mostly.

Dear Chris Lewis,

But you attacked the woman.

If Foxy is regarded as rude then rationally you need to extend that to me.

And again you are equivocating which ain't pretty.

To repeat I expressly used the terms “utter hoax”, “uncritical support” and “vastly superior” to make sure my points were unequivocal.

Many posters here have taken one or more of those irrational positions therefore Foxy was quite right in pointing that out and should have been able to do so without being called rude.

SR,

just wondering; when you make a point or points, they are UNEQUIVOCAL!

Yet when someone else makes a point or points, they are EQUIVOCAL?

I submit, that to establish the TRUTH, it would require an impartial assessor, so given this fact, your comments and opinions on the subject are moot.
I draw your attention to your further explanation in justification, where you attempt a flawed argument by saying;

"I have listed positions "I" deem rational and you"..............

Just wondering?