I’m not sure of the context, not having listened to the exchange in question. But I’ve heard “I just can’t believe” used as the intro to many an emotional argument, i.e. the facts may totally support what you say, and totally negate what I say, but never mind that, because I Just Can’t Believe It!

(To people used to arguing from emotions, not facts or logic, this is indeed an accepted technique. It is also common in houses where teenagers reside.)

You might mean something else, which I’ve also encountered from some lazy thinkers (mostly on the liberal side), which is the attempt to reject you, everything you stand for, and everything you might say now or in the future, based on a single data point. “But Republicans say XXXX, which is not only wrong but ridiculously wrong; based on that, why should I listen to anything you have to say?”

I actually have a lot of fun with that argument… because it’s usually not based on anything I’VE said or done. I point that out, and cheerfully add that, since their entire premise was based on the one thing that I just rejected, nothing remains of their argument — nothing at all. (I also point out that it’s hardly reasonable to reject a person for the actions of others in a group.) Nice try, big guy. Now start again from scratch. Better luck next time.

And yet people continue using this technique, because they LIKE being able to reject someone utterly and never think about them again. Nice work if you can get it, I suppose…

The consequences ought to be simple. Let them Die by the Big Lie.

Call them what they are, the Slave Party. Over and over and over again.

It’s almost like the assumption is that there does exist a trustworthy news channel…

It’s not surprising that the neophyte to a chess game can’t see more than 4 moves ahead from beginning to End.

There are certain things in this world that Americans weren’t trained to do, or to win. It’s an individual aptitude and choice to receive the source. It wasn’t passed on in the American blood stream, it wasn’t passed on via citizenship papers and inheritances, and it certainly wasn’t passed on via “awards” and “degrees” from universities for doctors and lawyers.

Its not trust worthy news channel man

They’re not ignorant, and they have the learning and imagination. Rather, the activist game is the only social political game there is.

The 2008 secret agreement for favorable terms in post-Bush nuclear negotiations reported by Hinderaker at Powerlineblog.

The low support for the Green Revolution in 2009 in contrast with even the ‘lead from behind’ approach for the Arab Spring.

Stand-off orientation with Iraq from the outset at a critical stage of Iraq’s development, with the 2011 pull-out as the culmination, that has benefited Iran.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/02/19/irans-shiite-militias-are-running-amok-in-iraq/

The actual nuclear negotiations that have favored Iran.

Fool or knave? Knave.

I agree with you that many Democrats, such as the ones you name, and many others have committed treason.It’s been especially obvious since 9/11 when I started paying attention.

It’s also quite obvious that many of those traitors as well as the traitorous news media simply do not know what the Constitution requires regarding the three branches of government.

We are “governed” by ignorant, criminal, crazy people who haven’t the learning or imagination to understand what kinds of horrors a civilization collapse would bring. Iranians with nukes? Ho hum. What’s on TV?