The bottom line here is that we all know what happened, or at least a reasonable scenario of the event...And the fact that the administration is going to such lengths to cover it up, should bother both demo's and reps alike...It says a lot that there is an active cover up going on and the press is in on it.
Pay particular attention to the sword so large I need both hands to hold it, the jealousy inducing chin goatee and the kickass bandana. Also know the incredibly large penis is being concealed because of the possibility of ladies swooning. Do you now understand I'm not attacking the original post, but rather the idea people are not allowed to question the source? I mean, if that fantastic drawing (done in MS paint, mind you) doesn't explain it to you in terms you can understand, I don't know what will.
So you can either debate the points of the article, or bow out in your utter defeat through the use of fallacies.One of the few fallacies known better by its Latin nomenclature than its English equivalent, the Ad hominem fallacy occurs when one makes an issue of the arguer himself, rather than his argument. The intent is more than just to hurl an insult, it's the act of insulting with the intent of undermining the credibility or competence of the arguer, so that one simply ignores the argument altogether. So the intent is to get people to simply dismiss the argument without ever considering it.
There are valid forms of ad hominem - in the case of testimony, the character of testifier is the source of credibility for the claim. However, to doubt or reject a valid deduction based on the source, is an ad hominem fallacy.
By the way, pre-emptively stating "but get ready for the bots to attack everything from the source..." is known as "Poisoning the Well", which is a type of ad hominem fallacy. So, really, you started it...and are kind of the only one engaging in it.
I didn't dispute the article, I disputed the idea we cannot ever question the validity of the source (which, by the way, is NOT a fallacy, no matter how much you want to make it one, until it's actually used as argument in opposition to the original platform). So, not only did I not engage in a fallacious argument, you've shown you don't truly understand fallacies. But my favorite part of your post is the next part...So you can either debate the points of the article
Considering you started this entire discussion with an ad hominem of poisoning the well, I expect your concession within your next post.or bow out in your utter defeat through the use of fallacies.
Early voting in Georgia. On the 20th of October this old Goldwater conservative voted against both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton by casting my vote for Gary Johnson. Neither Trump or Clinton belong within a million miles of the Oval Office.
Committee On Oversight & Government ReformHouse Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) made the following statement in response to President Barack Obama’s assertion that he’s “not familiar” with Benghazi whistleblowers being blocked from telling their stories:
“A lawyer for Benghazi whistleblowers has publicly stated that the State Department is blocking her client’s ability to talk freely with counsel. Over the past two weeks, I have sent four letters requesting that this Administration make information available about how lawyers – who already have security clearances and are representing Benghazi whistleblowers – can be cleared to fully hear their clients’ stories. I have yet to receive any response from the Obama Administration.
“Even if the President really doesn’t know anything about someone wanting to come forward, his position should be that whistleblowers deserve protection and that anyone who has different information about Benghazi is free to come forward to Congress. The President’s unwillingness to commit himself to protecting whistleblowers only aids those in his Administration who are intimidating them.”