Andrew Wilkow has a caller tell him that he does not understand since Andrew is not black. Andrew gives the caller the truth on this Martin Luther King day.
Andrew's 'arguments' are based in 'fact' therefore they can't be broken. Sorry for getting too simple but... FACT: The Yankees are a Baseball Team OPINION: The Yankees are the best Baseball Team Which one of those can you explain to someone that doesn't know about MLB and have all the factors 'unbreakable' if someone tried to argue against it? See my point? Once again, best teachers example, please offer back up for your claim Almost creating one that never happened 'is' a Strawman argument.
Andrew is one of my favorites. Like you and he both say, his arguments are based and backed by pure facts and statistics. While I may not fully agree with all he says, he does know what he's talking about. Now sometimes he has, according to some, "back pedaled" his statements, which I have found to be incorrect. Sometimes he has had to "reword" his statements in layman's terms for the simple minded leftist to understand lol. I also listen to Shawn Hannity, Mark Levine, Glen Beck and Mike Church, and whilst they all are very knowledged about the political affairs, Hannity sends a clear decisive msg against the presidential regime but also looks the part of a politician. Levine seems very intelligent and fluent at the political debates but reminds me of an angered Wallace Shawn from the movie The Princess Bride. Glenn and Church are both good debaters but seem just happy to to have an on air job, whilst Church peddles his goods on The Founders Trading Post. In closing, I enjoy the news programs on XM Sirius radio and will agree Andrew Wilkow is the leader of the new school.
2vincent hafford don't care or listen to hannity who talks over his callers. atleast andrew wilkow let's his left wing callers talk and get word in edge wise. andrew wilkow arguments can't be broken because his arugments is base in facts and what is in us constituion.
That's a borderline strawman argument. Andrew revolves the various topics in his show around his tag line that the arguments can not be broken. To do so he compartmentalizes on facts and never deviates from them during debate. i.e. this caller. Since best teacher is example and there are many Wilkow Majority calls posted.on UA-cam, please offer one to back up your claim. While you do your research & listen to the show you'll see what I'm claiming applies more so than what you're claiming.
1. The fact that you're a survivor of repeated sexual molestation would suggest a profound inability for understanding and arguing many definitions, Oh and if I'm wrong about your molestation then welcome to the assuming world of mvallin. 2. You don't know me and I don't have to justify myself but I'm well aware of all clinical social traits. Once again...try and 'break' the argument. Keep in mind that Facts Truth & History don't care whether you or I exists.
1. In fact if you had an open mind, and understood the definition of sociopath, you would have trouble arguing that label. 2. It's imposible to win an argument against a sociopath.
Straw man argument? Are you insane? It's his own words, his "arguments cannot be broken." His arguments "cannot be broken" because he never invites any disenting viewpoints onto his show to counter his own. Like I already said, he never consults experts. Likely because they would tell him he's crazy.
Andrew nailed this guy, you couldn't do it any better !!!
1. That label isn't applicable...insults are easy.
2. Try breaking his argument...now that's hard.
Winkow is 100X better than Hannity. though I love them both
Andrew's 'arguments' are based in 'fact' therefore they can't be broken.
Sorry for getting too simple but...
FACT: The Yankees are a Baseball Team
OPINION: The Yankees are the best Baseball Team
Which one of those can you explain to someone that doesn't know about MLB and have all the factors 'unbreakable' if someone tried to argue against it? See my point?
Once again, best teachers example, please offer back up for your claim
Almost creating one that never happened 'is' a Strawman argument.
Andrew is one of my favorites. Like you and he both say, his arguments are based and backed by pure facts and statistics. While I may not fully agree with all he says, he does know what he's talking about. Now sometimes he has, according to some, "back pedaled" his statements, which I have found to be incorrect. Sometimes he has had to "reword" his statements in layman's terms for the simple minded leftist to understand lol.
I also listen to Shawn Hannity, Mark Levine, Glen Beck and Mike Church, and whilst they all are very knowledged about the political affairs, Hannity sends a clear decisive msg against the presidential regime but also looks the part of a politician. Levine seems very intelligent and fluent at the political debates but reminds me of an angered Wallace Shawn from the movie The Princess Bride. Glenn and Church are both good debaters but seem just happy to to have an on air job, whilst Church peddles his goods on The Founders Trading Post. In closing, I enjoy the news programs on XM Sirius radio and will agree Andrew Wilkow is the leader of the new school.
2vincent hafford don't care or listen to hannity who talks over his callers. atleast andrew wilkow let's his left wing callers talk and get word in edge wise. andrew wilkow arguments can't be broken because his arugments is base in facts and what is in us constituion.
That's a borderline strawman argument.
Andrew revolves the various topics in his show around his tag line that the arguments can not be broken. To do so he compartmentalizes on facts and never deviates from them during debate. i.e. this caller.
Since best teacher is example and there are many Wilkow Majority calls posted.on UA-cam, please offer one to back up your claim.
While you do your research & listen to the show you'll see what I'm claiming applies more so than what you're claiming.
Wilkow kinda reminds me of Hannity.
ir10031981 No, Wilkow is smart
1. The fact that you're a survivor of repeated sexual molestation would suggest a profound inability for understanding and arguing many definitions, Oh and if I'm wrong about your molestation then welcome to the assuming world of mvallin.
2. You don't know me and I don't have to justify myself but I'm well aware of all clinical social traits.
Once again...try and 'break' the argument.
Keep in mind that Facts Truth & History don't care whether you or I exists.
1. In fact if you had an open mind, and understood the definition of sociopath, you would have trouble arguing that label.
2. It's imposible to win an argument against a sociopath.
Straw man argument? Are you insane? It's his own words, his "arguments cannot be broken." His arguments "cannot be broken" because he never invites any disenting viewpoints onto his show to counter his own. Like I already said, he never consults experts. Likely because they would tell him he's crazy.
Andrew wilkow is the classic sociopath.