Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon  You have a to quoque and ad homs for a rebuttal.
I think the ad homs may be the stronger and more practiced of your two techniques.
You seem to be taking this very, very personally. |
Perhaps you need to review the definition of Ad hominem? I haven't attacked your character in the least; I am attacking your gross exaggeration to make your political points.
I take lies and distortions about my party and my President seriously, particularly in a time where the men and women of our military are at risk fighting for the same Democrats and Americans who have decided to commit Jihad against their own.
I find it pathetic and disingenuous to attack the President on his position on Iraq unless you also attack all the Democrats who voted to send our troops in, attack the thugs, terrorists and murderers who are blowing things up in Iraq to prevent the Iraqi's from establishing a Democratic Government, and attack the previous Democrat Administration for the exact SAME rhetoric and intelligence. Otherwise, your rhetoric is nothing more than disingenuous political posturing to support a political view and philosophy that is rejected by a majority of Americans.
You can whine about ad hominems all you wish, but like your arguments, it doesn't make it so and is a poor substitute for honest intellectual debate.
Main Entry: 1ad ho·mi·nem
Function: adjective
Pronunciation: (')ad-'hä-m&-"nem, -n&m
Etymology: New Latin, literally, to the person
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made