C,mon, fess up, are you regretting your vote?

[Joe_Penalty]

No no, you moron. It is emphatically and clearly UNTRUE that "everything" your idiot President has done is "Constitutional."

The ignorance is entirely yours.

Can you please list premises and or sources to support this conclusion.

 

[Joe_Penalty]

In his own words, a communist, in his own words, accuses whites of polluting black communities. In his own words accuses the Bush administration of 9-11. Just google it.

You can see all of the evidence, IT'S IN YOUR FACE, just google it all, it's right there in black and white on video on audio, maybe you can think of some fictional character who pretended to be all those people but I doubt that anyone would buy it.

Thank you for responding.

What does a Jeremiah Wright DVD, Bill Ayers being a domestic "terrorist," and some dude named Van Jones's opinion have to do with President Obama's ability to serve as President of the United States?

Are you serious?

When you know things about the man, you can ascertain things about how he will handle the job or why he is doing some of the amazingly f'd up things he is doing. The Rev. Wright is a racist thug who President Obama valued up until political expediency got in the way.

Bill Ayers was one of this President's compatriots -- notwithstanding the Presidents lying denials of how close they actually were. There IS a reason this President chose to lie about that relationship. Bill Ayers is an America-hating terrorist scumbag -- and part of the network of friends and supporters of the President.

The President APPOINTED Jones to be a freakin "czar" (whatever the f*** a "czar" is supposed to mean in our Republic) in the Obama Administration despite the fact that Jones is a racist, a 9/11 Troofer and a self-avowed communist -- or maybe BECAUSE of all those sterling attributes.

The real question is why you would even ASK a stupid question like you just did.

Thank you for your response.

I hope you realize you are committing an ad hominem circumstantial fallacy. Therefore your argument is invalid.

 

[Joe_Penalty]

The question still stands.

 

[Paulie]

I had 8 people in my family, including my husband who voted for Obama. None of them will vote for him again.

My husband is anti-union and found out after the fact that Obama is pro-union. Then last night he see's Van Jones on television making his racist statements and that just sent him over the edge. I warned all of them and told them that no-one goes to a church and listens to anti-american rhetoric and anti-white rhetoric for TWENTY YEARS and doesn't hear that stuff unless he believes it himself. The evidence is in:

Reverent Wright
Bill Ayers
Van Jones
and many more to come to light in the very near future.

So tell me about your freinds and family that would change thier vote now, if they could.

he honest to god didn't know until "after the fact" he was "pro union"?

Oh come on, don't act so surprised that a voter was uninformed.

 

[Liability]

Thank you for responding.

What does a Jeremiah Wright DVD, Bill Ayers being a domestic "terrorist," and some dude named Van Jones's opinion have to do with President Obama's ability to serve as President of the United States?

Are you serious?

When you know things about the man, you can ascertain things about how he will handle the job or why he is doing some of the amazingly f'd up things he is doing. The Rev. Wright is a racist thug who President Obama valued up until political expediency got in the way.

Bill Ayers was one of this President's compatriots -- notwithstanding the Presidents lying denials of how close they actually were. There IS a reason this President chose to lie about that relationship. Bill Ayers is an America-hating terrorist scumbag -- and part of the network of friends and supporters of the President.

The President APPOINTED Jones to be a freakin "czar" (whatever the f*** a "czar" is supposed to mean in our Republic) in the Obama Administration despite the fact that Jones is a racist, a 9/11 Troofer and a self-avowed communist -- or maybe BECAUSE of all those sterling attributes.

The real question is why you would even ASK a stupid question like you just did.

Thank you for your response.

I hope you realize you are committing an ad hominem circumstantial fallacy. Therefore your argument is invalid.

My responses are not even invalid in the margins. You asked a question. I answered and my answer has nothing whatsoever to do with ad hominem.

I believe what you are attempting to argue is that I have committed a fallacy often known as "guilt by association." But, of course, that's wrong, too. I made no such fallacious argument.

What I said is that (here, let me quote me):

When you know things about the man, you can ascertain things about how he will handle the job or why he is doing some of the amazingly f'd up things he is doing.

That happens to be perfectly true.

If I associate with mobsters, there IS (whether you care to admit it or not) an increased likelihood that I am mobbed up.

If I associate only with real patriots, there is a significantly increased chance that some of their beliefs will have rubbed off on me even if I didn't come to the association with such well defined views.

When the people with whom the President has associated have a dark problem with racism and anti-Americanism and anti-capitalism, it is probably not a coincidence that he sought out such associations. He pursued people of similar inclinations. For political reasons, as he has proved, he tried to distance himself from his own past.

You may see nothing in that kind of behavior which proivides you with any insight into the man. But that's probably only because you came to the table with a pre-closed mind.

Clearer thinking people DO see evidence of who and what he is based on the types of individuals his own CHOICE led him to seek out.

 

[Liability]

No no, you moron. It is emphatically and clearly UNTRUE that "everything" your idiot President has done is "Constitutional."

The ignorance is entirely yours.

Can you please list premises and or sources to support this conclusion.

If you had been paying attention, you might have noted that I have several times. But enough about that.

Thank you for your contributions consisting primarily of repeatedly asking questions.

Can you please now offer some statements of fact (offering links wherever possible) together with an approximation of a logical formula by which you can assert a position that we might have the pleasure of discussing?

 

[Joe_Penalty]

I thank you for your post as well.

When you know things about the man, you can ascertain things about how he will handle the job or why he is doing some of the amazingly f'd up things he is doing.

This statement is very ambiguous. What do you mean by things?

Are you serious?

When you know things about the man, you can ascertain things about how he will handle the job or why he is doing some of the amazingly f'd up things he is doing. The Rev. Wright is a racist thug who President Obama valued up until political expediency got in the way.

Bill Ayers was one of this President's compatriots -- notwithstanding the Presidents lying denials of how close they actually were. There IS a reason this President chose to lie about that relationship. Bill Ayers is an America-hating terrorist scumbag -- and part of the network of friends and supporters of the President.

The President APPOINTED Jones to be a freakin "czar" (whatever the f*** a "czar" is supposed to mean in our Republic) in the Obama Administration despite the fact that Jones is a racist, a 9/11 Troofer and a self-avowed communist -- or maybe BECAUSE of all those sterling attributes.

The real question is why you would even ASK a stupid question like you just did.

Thank you for your response.

I hope you realize you are committing an ad hominem circumstantial fallacy. Therefore your argument is invalid.

My responses are not even invalid in the margins. You asked a question. I answered and my answer has nothing whatsoever to do with ad hominem.

I believe what you are attempting to argue is that I have committed a fallacy often known as "guilt by association." But, of course, that's wrong, too. I made no such fallacious argument.

What I said is that (here, let me quote me):

When you know things about the man, you can ascertain things about how he will handle the job or why he is doing some of the amazingly f'd up things he is doing.

That happens to be perfectly true.

If I associate with mobsters, there IS (whether you care to admit it or not) an increased likelihood that I am mobbed up.

If I associate only with real patriots, there is a significantly increased chance that some of their beliefs will have rubbed off on me even if I didn't come to the association with such well defined views.

When the people with whom the President has associated have a dark problem with racism and anti-Americanism and anti-capitalism, it is probably not a coincidence that he sought out such associations. He pursued people of similar inclinations. For political reasons, as he has proved, he tried to distance himself from his own past.

You may see nothing in that kind of behavior which proivides you with any insight into the man. But that's probably only because you came to the table with a pre-closed mind.

Clearer thinking people DO see evidence of who and what he is based on the types of individuals his own CHOICE led him to seek out.

To ascertain is to know for sure, without doubt. But the strangely enough, you seem to state all of this is proven beyond any doubt. Using terms such as "increased likelihood" and "increased chance" helps your reasoning, but does not confirm. INCREASING the odds does not GUARANTEE a particular result.

Your Logic:

President Obama was associated with Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, and Van Jones. (premise)

Therefore, he will fail as President. (conclusion)

INVALID ad hominem circumstantial

By the way, how is Jeremiah Wright a racist?

Also, you failed to address my previous questions.

The health care system is already corrupt. If what President Obama proposes is deemed to fail, what should be proposed to change the health care system?

What do you believe a Communist to be?

What is your source for claiming President Obama’s agenda is to deny “us” access to any domestic energy?

What qualifies someone to be a terrorists?

 

[Joe_Penalty]

No no, you moron. It is emphatically and clearly UNTRUE that "everything" your idiot President has done is "Constitutional."

The ignorance is entirely yours.

Can you please list premises and or sources to support this conclusion.

If you had been paying attention, you might have noted that I have several times. But enough about that.

Thank you for your contributions consisting primarily of repeatedly asking questions.

Can you please now offer some statements of fact (offering links wherever possible) together with an approximation of a logical formula by which you can assert a position that we might have the pleasure of discussing?

It is called challenging statements. If one is not convinced by the listed conclusion, premises must be provided. To agree or disagree, one must first be clear of what another is stating.

 

[Liability]

I thank you for your post as well.

* * * *

I chose to snip the balance of your overly lengthy but largely meaningless post to remind you that I am not here to answer an endless litany of your boring questions.

So, I will give you another easy opportunity.

Make a contention about a political topic which you feel firm about.

Back it up with something roughly approximating a syllogism.

That is, use FACTS as premises (but provide links!) and then offer the form of logic you believe helps make your contention meritorious.

It might be interesting to dissect your political inclinations and views for a while. Perhaps, later, we can permit you to return to just posing question after question.

 

[Joe_Penalty]

Thank you for your time.

I thank you for your post as well.

* * * *

I chose to snip the balance of your overly lengthy but largely meaningless post to remind you that I am not here to answer an endless litany of your boring questions.

So, I will give you another easy opportunity.

Make a contention about a political topic which you feel firm about.

Back it up with something roughly approximating a syllogism.

That is, use FACTS as premises (but provide links!) and then offer the form of logic you believe helps make your contention meritorious.

It might be interesting to dissect your political inclinations and views for a while. Perhaps, later, we can permit you to return to just posing question after question.

It is stupid to have a firm opinion about a comment (statement) if some of the terms used were ambiguous. (premise)

Therefore, questions must be asked to "ascertain" clarification or provide proof for a given comment (statement). (conclusion)

Have a nice evening then.

 

[Liability]

Thank you for your time.

I thank you for your post as well.

* * * *

I chose to snip the balance of your overly lengthy but largely meaningless post to remind you that I am not here to answer an endless litany of your boring questions.

So, I will give you another easy opportunity.

Make a contention about a political topic which you feel firm about.

Back it up with something roughly approximating a syllogism.

That is, use FACTS as premises (but provide links!) and then offer the form of logic you believe helps make your contention meritorious.

It might be interesting to dissect your political inclinations and views for a while. Perhaps, later, we can permit you to return to just posing question after question.

It is stupid to have a firm opinion about a comment (statement) if some of the terms used were ambiguous. (premise)

Therefore, questions must be asked to "ascertain" clarification or provide proof for a given comment (statement). (conclusion)

Have a nice evening then.

So, in short, you aren't man enough to be up to the task.

Check.

As I suspected.

Have a wonderful night, ya wussie.

 

[Joe_Penalty]

Thank you for your time.

I chose to snip the balance of your overly lengthy but largely meaningless post to remind you that I am not here to answer an endless litany of your boring questions.

So, I will give you another easy opportunity.

Make a contention about a political topic which you feel firm about.

Back it up with something roughly approximating a syllogism.

That is, use FACTS as premises (but provide links!) and then offer the form of logic you believe helps make your contention meritorious.

It might be interesting to dissect your political inclinations and views for a while. Perhaps, later, we can permit you to return to just posing question after question.

It is stupid to have a firm opinion about a comment (statement) if some of the terms used were ambiguous. (premise)

Therefore, questions must be asked to "ascertain" clarification or provide proof for a given comment (statement). (conclusion)

Have a nice evening then.

So, in short, you aren't man enough to be up to the task.

Check.

As I suspected.

Have a wonderful night, ya wussie.

Funny!

 

[Maple]

Thank you for responding.

What does a Jeremiah Wright DVD, Bill Ayers being a domestic "terrorist," and some dude named Van Jones's opinion have to do with President Obama's ability to serve as President of the United States?

Are you serious?

When you know things about the man, you can ascertain things about how he will handle the job or why he is doing some of the amazingly f'd up things he is doing. The Rev. Wright is a racist thug who President Obama valued up until political expediency got in the way.

Bill Ayers was one of this President's compatriots -- notwithstanding the Presidents lying denials of how close they actually were. There IS a reason this President chose to lie about that relationship. Bill Ayers is an America-hating terrorist scumbag -- and part of the network of friends and supporters of the President.

The President APPOINTED Jones to be a freakin "czar" (whatever the f*** a "czar" is supposed to mean in our Republic) in the Obama Administration despite the fact that Jones is a racist, a 9/11 Troofer and a self-avowed communist -- or maybe BECAUSE of all those sterling attributes.

The real question is why you would even ASK a stupid question like you just did.

Thank you for your response.

I hope you realize you are committing an ad hominem circumstantial fallacy. Therefore your argument is invalid.

Good lord are you ever in denial or what????????????? "Birds of a feather flock together. " "A man is judged by the company he keeps."

I would really be interested in what you thought about the President and the professor Gates incident, when he stated clearly that the police acted, "stupidly," after acknowledging that he did not know any of the facts. Did you not think that was a racist statement??? Had a white President said that there would have been a very loud call across this nation for his resignation.

 

[Maple]

I thank you for your post as well.

When you know things about the man, you can ascertain things about how he will handle the job or why he is doing some of the amazingly f'd up things he is doing.

This statement is very ambiguous. What do you mean by things?

My responses are not even invalid in the margins. You asked a question. I answered and my answer has nothing whatsoever to do with ad hominem.

I believe what you are attempting to argue is that I have committed a fallacy often known as "guilt by association." But, of course, that's wrong, too. I made no such fallacious argument.

What I said is that (here, let me quote me):

When you know things about the man, you can ascertain things about how he will handle the job or why he is doing some of the amazingly f'd up things he is doing.

That happens to be perfectly true.

If I associate with mobsters, there IS (whether you care to admit it or not) an increased likelihood that I am mobbed up.

If I associate only with real patriots, there is a significantly increased chance that some of their beliefs will have rubbed off on me even if I didn't come to the association with such well defined views.

When the people with whom the President has associated have a dark problem with racism and anti-Americanism and anti-capitalism, it is probably not a coincidence that he sought out such associations. He pursued people of similar inclinations. For political reasons, as he has proved, he tried to distance himself from his own past.

You may see nothing in that kind of behavior which proivides you with any insight into the man. But that's probably only because you came to the table with a pre-closed mind.

Clearer thinking people DO see evidence of who and what he is based on the types of individuals his own CHOICE led him to seek out.

To ascertain is to know for sure, without doubt. But the strangely enough, you seem to state all of this is proven beyond any doubt. Using terms such as "increased likelihood" and "increased chance" helps your reasoning, but does not confirm. INCREASING the odds does not GUARANTEE a particular result.

Your Logic:

President Obama was associated with Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, and Van Jones. (premise) It's not a premise, it's a well known fact.

Therefore, he will fail as President. (conclusion)
No one said he would fail as a President, we just question the logic of having these kind of friends. People surround themselves with like people.
INVALID ad hominem circumstantial

By the way, how is Jeremiah Wright a racist?
Why don't you just take the time to watch his DVD, that's the tell all.

Also, you failed to address my previous questions.

The health care system is already corrupt. If what President Obama proposes is deemed to fail, what should be proposed to change the health care system?
HR 3400- the republican response to fixing health care. Read it.

What do you believe a Communist to be?
NO FREEDOM in communist countries, not even free to practice their own religions.

What is your source for claiming President Obama’s agenda is to deny “us” access to any domestic energy?
He is clearly opposed to nuclear energy, drilling for oil. Coal is not an option either. I guess we could all hang wind mills off the back of our automobiles and hope for a strong breese.

What qualifies someone to be a terrorists?

Blowing up buildings, airplanes, or people.

 

[Maple]

Obama's Pastor: God Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11 - ABC News

 

[Maple]

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2169

 

[PixieStix]

I had 8 people in my family, including my husband who voted for Obama. None of them will vote for him again.

My husband is anti-union and found out after the fact that Obama is pro-union. Then last night he see's Van Jones on television making his racist statements and that just sent him over the edge. I warned all of them and told them that no-one goes to a church and listens to anti-american rhetoric and anti-white rhetoric for TWENTY YEARS and doesn't hear that stuff unless he believes it himself. The evidence is in:

Reverent Wright
Bill Ayers
Van Jones
and many more to come to light in the very near future.

So tell me about your freinds and family that would change thier vote now, if they could.

I have had many aquaintances, and people from work, tell me that they wish they had not voted for Obama. One really stands out to me, she was crying, as if she was broken hearted, as if she was ridden with guilt, I actually felt sorry for her. But sorrier for our nation

 

[Maple]

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2169

Van Jones' 9/11 Truther Past Raises Questions About Obama's 'Czars' - Hannity - FOXNews.com

 

[Maple]

I had 8 people in my family, including my husband who voted for Obama. None of them will vote for him again.

My husband is anti-union and found out after the fact that Obama is pro-union. Then last night he see's Van Jones on television making his racist statements and that just sent him over the edge. I warned all of them and told them that no-one goes to a church and listens to anti-american rhetoric and anti-white rhetoric for TWENTY YEARS and doesn't hear that stuff unless he believes it himself. The evidence is in:

Reverent Wright
Bill Ayers
Van Jones
and many more to come to light in the very near future.

So tell me about your freinds and family that would change thier vote now, if they could.

I have had many aquaintances, and people from work, tell me that they wish they had not voted for Obama. One really stands out to me, she was crying, as if she was broken hearted, as if she was ridden with guilt, I actually felt sorry for her. But sorrier for our nation

I think there are a whole lot of people who are sorry. But she shouldn't feel that bad everyone makes mistakes.

 

[Maple]

Obama Criticizes Police in Henry Louis Gates Case - ABC News