Obama pro/con (4)

[NeTrips]

That doesn't even make sense since Ad Hom is typically about directly insulting a debater. I'm reasonably discrediting a source because it's known for exaggerating or outright lying.

Technically, you're the one trying to drag it off topic by distracting the point into "YOU BAD BAD PERSON!"

sorry, you'll need to discredit the argument with facts, not unsubstantiated allegations about a cited source. Provide sourced information to support your argument.

ETA:

I'm reasonably discrediting a source because it's known for exaggerating or outright lying.

the bolded portion in your argument is another logical fallacy,

Appeal To Widespread Belief (Bandwagon Argument, Peer Pressure, Appeal to Common Practice):

-the claim, as evidence for an idea, that many people believe it, or used to believe it, or do it.


-If the discussion is about social conventions, such as "good manners", then this is a reasonable line of argument.

-However, in the 1800's there was a widespread belief that bloodletting cured sickness. All of these people were not just wrong, but horribly wrong, because in fact it made people sicker. Clearly, the popularity of an idea is no guarantee that it's right.
​

 

[invisible trousers]

Alerting the Secret Service might be a better idea.

 

[silentreader]

7. Right wingers have a real hard time attacking his policies, resorting to lies and smears.

actually i started a thread on his wealth redistribution policies and not a single liberal on the board would even attempt to discuss the details. i provided facts from his own website but no response. just more BDS...

 

[NeTrips]

actually i started a thread on his welath redistribution policies and not a single liberal on the board would even attempt to discuss the details. i provided facts from his own website but no response. just more BDS...

don't take it personally, I think the obama kool-aid does something to eyesite.

 

[MachZer0]

actually i started a thread on his welath redistribution policies and not a single liberal on the board would even attempt to discuss the details. i provided facts from his own website but no response. just more BDS...

If you want to discuss his policies, front and center must be a discussion on "change we can believe in" Try that next time

 

[tulc]

This was all done while being attacked at every turn by the Atheistic Liberal News Media and democrats that became traitors when they decided to use criticism of the Iraq War as way to gain control of the government.

DRINK!!

and I agree with this statement also:

The democrats have been hypocrites on the Iraq War, because they voted to authorize the war and have passed every funding bill, yet continue to criticize.

...but since the Republicans are just as hypocritical I hardly think they have much to be proud of.
tulc(sipping some great coffee)

 

[bunnytoes]

Obama's official campaign website, confirms what many have been suggesting. It identifies several political groups who are working real hard for an Obama victory in November -- Marxists/Socialists/Communists for Obama.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/group...unistsforObama

"This group is for self-proclaimed Marxists/Communists/Socialists for the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency."
This page and the following one have a legend at the bottom of each page, that says:
PAID FOR BY OBAMA FOR AMERICA. If one Googles "OBAMA FOR AMERICA," the first result returned is the official Obama Campaign Website.

"This blog is for those interested in learning how can we change this country from the current capitalist unfair system, into a real socialist, democratic system for all. This capitalist system of Bush and his cronies only benefit the upper classes. USA needs a 21st Century Socialist, Democratic and Participative system for the workers and people of this country, without fascism, without wars, but with peace, equality, socialism and love."
.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/commu...juancarloscruz

Obama actively sought and received the stamp of approval of a Marxist third party that operated briefly in Chicago between 1992 and 1998. The group was called the "New Party" and was started in 1992 by Daniel Cantor (a former staffer for Jesse Jackson’s 1988 presidential campaign) and Joel Rogers (a sociology and law professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison).
The New Party was a Marxist political coalition whose objective was to endorse and elect leftist public officials -- most often Democrats. The New Party’s short-term objective was to move the Democratic Party leftward, thereby setting the stage for the eventual rise of new Marxist third party.
Most New Party members hailed from the Democratic Socialists of America and the militant organization ACORN. The party’s Chicago chapter also included a large contingent from the Committees of Correspondence, a Marxist coalition of former Maoists, Trotskyists, and Communist Party USA members.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/g...asp?grpid=7434

All the commies are coming out of the closet for Obama -- Cuba’s Fidel Castro backs Obama too.
http://www.russiatoday.ru/news/news/25364

 

[IzzyPop]

I must have missed where you argued in favor of removing all but one restriction on marriage.... Along the same lines, where are all those lobbying for removal of the other restrictions? I recall Cheryl Jaques, fired former president of for the lobbying group Hypocrite Rights Campaign, saying on CrossFire she was only advocating for homosexual marriage because she agreed with the other restrictions. Here's the transcript:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0402/24/cf.01.html

So this is about the wants of some people, not abuot equall rights....

What do these have to do with same sex marriage, again? Or the repealing of DOMA?

 

[funyun]

sorry, you'll need to discredit the argument with facts, not unsubstantiated allegations about a cited source. Provide sourced information to support your argument.

You missing the point. She's questioning whether the "facts" being presented are really facts at all. It's not illogical to question the factual accuracy of a source if that source is known to have a preconceived agenda. Simply being a source doesn't make something a sacred documentation of reality.

You're mistaking a logical fallacy for subsequent empirical information which may or may not be useful in analyzing the validity of the original claim. Poisoning the well would be saying "Don't believe that source, it's written by conservatives." Rather, what is being said is "Don't believe that source, it's biased/distorts the facts."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

 

[NeTrips]

What do these have to do with same sex marriage, again? Or the repealing of DOMA?

I see your posts that advocate for the removal of one restriction, but can't find the others advocating for the removal of all marriage restrictions. Can you provide a link to them?

 

[NeTrips]

You missing the point. She's questioning whether the "facts" being presented are really facts at all. It's not illogical to question the factual accuracy of a source if that source is known to have a preconceived agenda. Simply being a source doesn't make something a sacred documentation of reality.

You're mistaking a logical fallacy for subsequent empirical information which may or may not be useful in analyzing the validity of the original claim. Poisoning the well would be saying "Don't believe that source, it's written by conservatives." Rather, what is being said is "Don't believe that source, it's biased/distorts the facts."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

you are again basing your argument on the assumption that it "...is known to have a preconceived agenda." That in itself is a fallacious argument. Try again.

 

[xMinionX]

Mod Hat

Please stick to the OP and refrain from personal commentary. Flaming groups of CF members is against the rules, and members who break those rules will be subject to staff contact up to and including warnings/infractions.

Thanks.

/Mod Hat

 

[keith99]

No, it's not silly. You would not say I have been to 57 states in 15 months even if you count double instances. I don't say I have been to 500 malls if I have simply gone to the same mall 500 times. That is the lamest excuse I have seen.

I have no problem with what Obama said on this. The tongue can trip. If you've been in all but a couple of states you start to say 50 as in all, then remember you missed 1 in the lower 48 and of course the other 2 and end up saying 57 and meaning 47. No real issue.

But I agree with you, the proposed explaination you are commenting on is absurd.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Why are we spending so much time dissecting the nuances of a statement that can most likely be laid to a slip of the tongue.

I mean...do the people doing the dissecting never misspeak?

 

[Maynard Keenan]

The people doing the dissecting don't CARE about the accuracy of the statement, ArnautDaniel. They don't CARE about anything, other than making the opponent look bad. They're desperate and they're pathetic. They know their agenda has lost and failed, so they desperately try to tear their opponent apart in any way possible, surrendering any and all values in order to see their "team" win the day.

 

[Grizzly]

< staff edit > quote removed

The GOP used to call itself the Party of Ideas. Unfortunately it turned out that most of them were bad.

 

[funyun]

you are again basing your argument on the assumption that it "...is known to have a preconceived agenda." That in itself is a fallacious argument. Try again.

The site's subtitle is "Exposing and combating liberal media bias." So there's no debate about this site having a preconceived agenda. Not among rational adults, anyway.

Look, it's pretty simple.

Imagine a lawyer telling a jury: "Don't listen to this witness because he's been convicted of robbing a bank."

Now imagine a lawyer telling a jury: "Don't listen to this witness because he's been convicted of perjury."

The former is poisoning the well; the latter is not. The reason is because robbing a bank in and of itself has nothing to do with lying on the stand, while perjury has everything to do with lying on the stand. Similarly, being a conservative in and of itself has nothing to do with distorting the truth but being a media outlet with a professed partisan agenda has everything to do with distorting the truth. This boils down to the same reason why it's not an argument from authority to say a geologist knows more about geology than someone who does not.

 

[IzzyPop]

I see your posts that advocate for the removal of one restriction, but can't find the others advocating for the removal of all marriage restrictions. Can you provide a link to them?

Look above where I say that I don't have a problem with it.

 

[NeTrips]

The site's subtitle is "Exposing and combating liberal media bias." So there's no debate about this site having a preconceived agenda. Not among rational adults, anyway.

Look, it's pretty simple.

Imagine a lawyer telling a jury: "Don't listen to this witness because he's been convicted of robbing a bank."

Now imagine a lawyer telling a jury: "Don't listen to this witness because he's been convicted of perjury."

The former is poisoning the well; the latter is not. The reason is because robbing a bank in and of itself has nothing to do with lying on the stand, while perjury has everything to do with lying on the stand. Similarly, being a conservative in and of itself has nothing to do with distorting the truth but being a media outlet with a professed partisan agenda has everything to do with distorting the truth. This boils down to the same reason why it's not an argument from authority to say a geologist knows more about geology than someone who does not.

Finally the support for your dismissal. Until this post, you failed to provide any reasons for your dismissal of the source other than those riddled with logical fallacies. If you had done so in your first post dismissing the source, this side bar could have been avoided.

 

[NeTrips]

That's what I expected, no links provided....