If you don't have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare the voters. If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from. You make a big election about small things.
Make no mistake, I always want to win, but I never fight with an opponent. My fight is within me it is the struggle to be the best I can be at whatever I do.
The close games are usually lost, rather than won. What I mean by that is games are mostly won because of the opponent making mistakes during crucial moments.
Fischer does not merely outplay opponents; he leaves them bodily and mentally glutted. Fisher himself speaks of the exultant instant in which he feels the 'ego of the other player crumbling.'
All new ideas pass through three stages: first they are dismissed as nonsense, then they are rejected as being against religion and finally they are acknowledged as the truth, with the proviso from the initial opponents that they knew it all along.
It's always wise to seek the truth in our opponents' error, and the error in our own truth.
I don't give a f***. We're not fighting. I don't care what anyone thinks about me. All the stuff I have to do outside the fighting, the promotion, this, I don't give a f***. But when I am facing up for a fight, I know what they're thinking. I can read their minds. When I am going face to face with an opponent, nose to nose, I can smell the fear, and I'm feeling no fear at all.
It is a big embarrassment that a leader can say on the eve of an election that he cannot hand over power to an opponent, that he can only hand over power to a member of his political party.
Wrestling is a one-on-one experience and if something goes wrong you can't point a finger and blame somebody else. What you do is up to you. And yet it's a team sport, because whether your team wins or loses is a result of the cumulative effect of the matches. Wrestling is a great confidence builder because it's not all about strength. You have to use your balance and skill and technique and if you do, you can overcome a lot of muscle and bulk guys, and even those who have natural ability. Basically, you can out-technique an opponent.
I am fully and entirely concentrated on the board. I never even consider my opponent's personality. So far as I am concerned, my opponent might as well be an abstraction or an automaton.
If you could do what I do then you wouldn't be a hater/writer critiquing me, you would be my opponent facing me on the court.
Brain, v. [as in "to brain"]: To rebuke bluntly, but not pointedly; to dispel a source of error in an opponent.
Book critics or theatre critics can be derisively negative and gain delighted praise for the trenchant with of their review. But in criticisms of religion even clarity ceases to be a virtue and sounds like aggressive hostility. A politician may attack an opponent scathingly across the floor of the House and earn plaudits for his robust pugnacity. But let a soberly reasoning critic of religion employ what would in other contexts sound merely direct or forthright, and it will be described as a 'rant'.
We become distracted from productive labors by our perceived opponents; we become focused on them and not on our larger calling to advance our nation; our debate becomes more about scoring points against an adversary and less about advancing our common cause.
I don't think of my opponents in the sense that I don't think of them consciously, I don't steer it one way or the other.
To be a true comic, you have to have a signature move. You ever watch wrestling? And your favorite wrestler has the one move that he always does to finish his opponent off, right? Like when he climbs on the rope, and he always jumps off the top rope and finishes off his opponent - that's what a comic has.
Who? Who is that? (J.R.'s response when asked about opponent Jason Terry.)
I always believe when your political opponents are committing suicide, there's no reason to murder them.
Instead of 'counterrevolutionaries,' liberals' opponents are called 'haters,' 'those who seek to divide us,' 'tea baggers,' and 'right-wing hate groups.' Meanwhile, conservatives call liberals 'liberals'-and that makes them testy.
It's not enough to win the tricks that belong to you. Try also for some that belong to the opponents.
You cannot be sure that you are right unless you understand the arguments against your views better than your opponents do.
The cultural wars of the sixties are over. I've reconciled with those who were my critics and opponents years ago. I was at odds with some those who were Black nationalists. Yet when feminists attempted to end my career and leave me as literary road kill, it was the Black nationalists who came to my rescue.
There are many games I love to play. Which one I put on the table depends on the mood and the level of experience of my opponents; I don't have a clear favorite.
Unfortunately, every American citizen takes the same position... that we don’t like negative advertisements. But they work! And, as you see, many a candidate has prevailed by tearing down the reputation of an opponent in a more advantageous position.
I think that the best approach would be if the American people ever insist that we cut down on the massive amounts of money that moves into the campaigns from special interest groups, and if we resist publicly by saying "No more negative advertisements that destroy the reputations of one's opponents." In the meantime, just don't pay any attention to negative ads, if you can avoid them, and try to focus on the issues.
Follow AzQuotes on Facebook, Twitter and Google+. Every day we present the best quotes! Improve yourself, find your inspiration, share with friends
or simply: