Arguing with Leftists

[CrackerJax]

Yes, we weren't racist then .. only now we are...

Wodaz' logic is overwhelming me.... wait.... no, no it isn't.

 

[RickWhite]

I'm a conservative and I don't think Obama's blackness is the ONLY thing that got him elected. It was an important trait though,

America was ready for a change from the Bush policies. But ... every liberal I know voted for Obama PARTLY because he's Black.

Every Black person I know, regardless of party affiliation, voted for Obama because he's Black. It made them feel good. Hell, even I, as a conservative, felt proud of the fact that America has come far enough in race relations to elect a Black man to the presidency.

Most of the politically naive people I know voted for Obama because they believed his lies that he was a centrist and would move us away from Bush's rediculous spending policies.

So, there is a whole panoply of reasons why people voted for Obama. They ranged from blind faith, to racism, to ignorance ... and on, and on ...

To just assume that the only reason people voted for Obama is because he's black is a racist mindset in its own right.

Great points but the fact is, he was nominated pretty much soley due to his race. Beyond that many people did vote for hm because they felt McCain was another Bush.

 

[CrackerJax]

It was a combination of the two..... I didn't vote for either since neither was the best choice.

I do feel that McCain would have damaged the country much much less. This is what we need though.... flush out the crazy liberal ideas every thirty years or so and then stick them back in the political attic.

Having progressive liberals in the family is like that......sometimes the best place for that crazy uncle is in the attic......locked attic.

 

[PVS]

i love how nobody fesses up when they've been called out for spouting misinformation.
they just carry on like it didnt happen. some of you people are so childish.

maybe someone should post a thread about it.
"arguing with repugnicans"

 

[Wordz]

i love how nobody fesses up when they've been called out for spouting misinformation.
they just carry on like it didnt happen. some of you people are so childish.

maybe someone should post a thread about it.
"arguing with repugnicans"

yeah but we don't have to argue we just present facts they argue because they don't have any

 

[CrackerJax]

Where's the misinformation? Try actually backing up what you say ... for a change... instead of whining and running away....

 

[PVS]

Where's the misinformation? Try actually backing up what you say ... for a change... instead of whining and running away....

"running away". oh the drama *jazz hands*
i do that thing called "life" and on occasion "sleep". its what happens when you're not home in your mom's basement sucking on the glass dick. ffs man.

anyway in this particular case i was referring to all the bitching from you and others that i was receiving over the definition of the logical fallacy known as 'straw man'. after all the cunting and crying thrown at me, i posted the english definition and *zomg* you all just dropped it and moved on to other threads to whine in. yet here you are, with nothing relevant to say about it because you know you were wrong again.

typical in the politics forum and of you especially.

 

[Green Cross]

Let's see what the leftists are up to this week:

Nationwide Protests Against AIG, Citi, BofA: Send In Your Reports

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/17/nationwide-protests-again_n_175894.html​

​

​

The same story is being reported by USA Today and the rest of the leftist media complex by the way.

But who are these "protesters" and what is their agenda?

People's Organization for Progress

Core Demands of the Political Platform of the People's Organization for Progress

1. We demand reparations for the descendants of Africans enslaved in America. We want full and just compensation to all African Americans for the centuries of brutalization and forced labor that their ancestors were made to endure.
2. We demand an end to police brutality, and demand the establishment of elected civilian review and control boards with subpoena and prosecutorial powers over all police forces at all levels in the U.S.
3. We demand an immediate end to all racial inequity and racial discrimination in all areas of life in the U.S.
4. We demand the immediate creation of jobs programs that will eliminate unemployment and provide jobs at union ages for every person that is willing and able to work.
5. We demand a guaranteed minimum income for all people of working age that will allow them to adequately support themselves and their families and eliminate poverty and hunger in this country.
6. We demand the establishment of a system of universal free health care in the U.S. which will enable all people to receive adequate and proper medical and dental care at all times.
7. We demand the establishment of a system of free higher education that will enable all students to attend colleges and universities free of charge.
8. We demand that all federal government fully subsidize all child care programs so that working parents will not longer have to pay for this service.
9. We demand the abolition of the death penalty.
10. We demand adequate food, clothing, housing, employment, health care, education, legal represenation, recreation and culture for every person in the United States of America.

Now you have to wonder why they have organized this protest at this specific time in history. Why would they want to sway public opinion this week?

From the Washington Independent (not CNN, NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, ABC, or CBS)

It’s a big day for banks today: The Obama administration is expected to unveil new “too big to fail” proposals for dealing with troubled financial giants, Reuters reports. The proposals would “give the government the power to dismantle large financial companies that get into crises.”

The new draft bill is expected to take a tougher stance toward troubled financial firms than the administration’s original plan, and may take out some language that would allow for temporary bailouts.
​

Robert Reich argues that a stronger approach regarding too big to fail is long past due. It should have been a reality earlier, but was blocked by the fact that Congress and the White House have strong financial and other ties to Wall Street, he contends. Anything short of truly breaking up big banks won’t be enough, Reich writes...."

Breaking up Big Banks? Hmmm but are the American People going to benefit from this action, or is this just another attempt to "spread the wealth (communism)"?

 

[CrackerJax]

"running away". oh the drama *jazz hands*
i do that thing called "life" and on occasion "sleep". its what happens when you're not home in your mom's basement sucking on the glass dick. ffs man.

anyway in this particular case i was referring to all the bitching from you and others that i was receiving over the definition of the logical fallacy known as 'straw man'. after all the cunting and crying thrown at me, i posted the english definition and *zomg* you all just dropped it and moved on to other threads to whine in. yet here you are, with nothing relevant to say about it because you know you were wrong again.

typical in the politics forum and of you especially.

ur delusional.....

You simply misapplied the definition .. no surprise... I did respond .. you ignored it..

Rick simply made a generalization of liberals.... nothing wrong with that...if it's correct. All of ur responses affirm the generalization, not in content (which was minimal), but in methodology.

 

[PVS]

ur delusional.....

You simply misapplied the definition .. no surprise... I did respond .. you ignored it..

sure, you're right. the dictionary is retarded. how stupid of me to trust that load of liberal faggotry.

Rick simply made a generalization of liberals.... nothing wrong with that...if it's correct.

strawman IS a generalization. thats the whole point i made. he accused someone else of doing exactly what he did.

he opened up his argument by making a characature of anyone who is progressive. thats what strawman is. arguing against an effigy of your opponent. instead of spewing your special brand of horseshit and feeling superior on the internet, maybe you should try some research.

All of ur responses affirm the generalization, not in content (which was minimal), but in methodology.

it just goes to show you have no grasp of logical fallacy since you continue to spew them.

 

[CrackerJax]

No one is arguing the definition... reading comprehension plz...

Strawman may incorporate a generalization, but you have it exactly backwards.....Rick made a generalization.... which does not necessarily constitute a straw man argument.

In this case, it wasn't a straw man argument.... just accurate. that's what is bothering you.... that's why you deflect the real issue... as usual.

 

[PVS]

In this case, it wasn't a straw man argument.... just accurate.

oh i forgot that your opinion on any subjective matter is fact.

 

[CrackerJax]

No, but you had it backwards... not every generalization is a straw man argument.

See how that works?

 

[medicineman]

This thread should be entitled Bricks arguing with leftists. The right is never wrong, period. I've been on this forum for over 3 years and have never heard a right winger admit they were wrong. Now that would be considered a very high statistic, never being wrong, but in reality, it is being just like a brick and being Blind to any other points of view. Arguing with the right is a huge exercise in futility. One may as well argue with a Brick.

 

[CrackerJax]

That's because the folks on the right ARE right. the folks on the right....have the support of actual economic data, not wishful thinking.

That's because the folks on the right pay attention to the constitution. We are on the side of right.... u r not.

 

[ChChoda]

For three years a man argues with a brick? Forget about the brick...how dense is the man?

 

[Haul me to Heaven]

This thread should be entitled Bricks arguing with leftists. The right is never wrong, period. I've been on this forum for over 3 years and have never heard a right winger admit they were wrong. Now that would be considered a very high statistic, never being wrong, but in reality, it is being just like a brick and being Blind to any other points of view. Arguing with the right is a huge exercise in futility. One may as well argue with a Brick.

I see it differently- I see many on the left always blaming others instead of admiting a mistake. Example:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - -
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999


And Bush was said to have lied about WMD.

And theres more even after 911

How do you explain that?; that Bush lied??

By the way, I still reserve the right to be wrong.
Why?
I'm and Amrican- both left and right inside !!
j

 

[RickWhite]

sure, you're right. the dictionary is retarded. how stupid of me to trust that load of liberal faggotry.



strawman IS a generalization. thats the whole point i made. he accused someone else of doing exactly what he did.

he opened up his argument by making a characature of anyone who is progressive. thats what strawman is. arguing against an effigy of your opponent. instead of spewing your special brand of horseshit and feeling superior on the internet, maybe you should try some research.




it just goes to show you have no grasp of logical fallacy since you continue to spew them.

Both the explanation I gave and the definition you posted demonstrated that your understanding of a straw man is wrong. Evidently you are not capable of comprehending the clear and obvious meaning of words.

A generalization may or may not be fallacious. If it is fallacious that still does not make it a straw man argument. Maybe an example might help you understand what this term means.

Suppose someone says that the vast majority of terrorists are Muslim. One might counter this by saying that McVeigh was a Christian so that proves that not all terrorists are Muslim so you are wrong.

You see, the second point is a straw man because it spins the real issue (the statistical fact regarding terrorists) into a much weaker argument. The original statement was that MOST terrorists are Muslim. The person applying the straw man spun it into "ALL Muslims are terrorists" and then easily defeated the weaker claim with a single exception.

Another straw man might be to say that the majority of Muslims are not terrorists and you are therefore wrong. Again, this spins the other person's argument - he never said all Muslims were terrorists, just that most terrorists are Muslim. One point is strong, the other weak. A straw man is an attempt to distort the other persons point in order to make it a weaker argument that is more easily knocked down.

 

[Haul me to Heaven]

Heres the rest of the facts regarding "Bush" lied to America about their being weaponds of mass destruction.
(It's sad how the left never took any blame for what THEY told the world.

ready?.....

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted (i'm dead in the head) Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, ever significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real . "
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
The above is an excerpt from a Peter D. Wells Vice President, ISSO document.

 

[Haul me to Heaven]

That's because the folks on the right ARE right. the folks on the right....have the support of actual economic data, not wishful thinking.

That's because the folks on the right pay attention to the constitution. We are on the side of right.... u r not.

Data of any kind. They can't fight the facts. And they make it known- that when they lose a battle of whits- they have an insulting shit fit after words.
Note the lack of coments regarding the above posts.

Maybe theres one waiting.

THX Crakerjax for the level headed statement of fact.- you too rick