You can make justification for anything if you really have the mindset.
Neither situation needed the attention of our elected officials.
Yeah, I know about Boxer's amendment and Cornyn's amendment.
Like I said to aps...
It all depends on where you sit.
“I’m worried that I will be the last Republican president.” - George W. Bush
do brush up on your debate concepts, however.
...ad hominem, and unnecessary. all that is needed is to address the arguments.Originally Posted by Zyphlin
and why drag yourself thru all of this, anyway? since we already seem to agree about Rush?An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.
Last edited by niftydrifty; 01-28-09 at 01:43 PM.
You posted some quotes, gave no source, gave no context, gave NOTHING but your word that they were true. NOTHING in your post indicated, at all, taht you were giving a "factual claim" because for it to be factual it'd need to be backed up by at least SOMETHING proving it.An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.
There was nothing to go off of as to the likely truth of them but your history and personal opinion and knowledge of those quotes.
If you make a claim, and provide NO EVIDENCE at all to back it up, then yes expect people to use the only things they can to make a judgement on this statement...their knowledge of your history and their own knowledge.
If you had provided me with the quotes, some kind of link or reference pointing me to something I can go to to verify that it really IS a fact that he said it, and allows me to see context to see it really is FACT that this is his opinion and not just him using hyperbole then yeah...i'd have no need to make a judgement based on my own knowledge of the situation and of your views.
The burden of proof lies first on the person making the initial claim, NOT on the person disagreeing with said unfounded claim.
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.
And what context am I ignoring? Did I illustrate what was meant by this in any direction? Did I say that Obama's failure would lead to the nation's failure? Did I impugn Rush for saying this?
No. I made a statemnt of fact.
You invented the idea that I took him out of context in order to try and defend him.
Did he or did he not say: "Why would I want that to succeed? I don't believe in that. I know that's not how this country is going to be great in the future; it's not what made this country great. So I shamelessly say, "No! I want him to fail.""
If those are Rush's exact words, and I make no claims about what he means by them, there is no context for me to consider.
Does he want Obama to fail?
Yes, he has admitted this quite clearly.
Did I state what that means?
Absolutely not. So your complaint about me taking things out of context clearly ignore the context of my statements. and illustrates that you are more interested in defending than discussing.
So please, don't invent arguments for me which I have not made.
Thanks for making up another claim for me. I have never once in my entire life called Rush listeners "stupid" or "uneducated". I don't mean "disenfranchised" as a negative term.Not to deny you your speculation, but demographics long ago destroyed the claim that Limbaugh’s audience is disenfranchised, stupid, uneducated and insert claim here.
Now, perhaps "disenfranchised" was not the right word. Perhaps "Pissed off at the government because they are not having their voices heard" would be a better one. Oh... wait... That is basically what the word actually means!
Although the term is technically relating to the right to vote, it is often used colloquially to illustrate a group of people who feel that they are not being represented by government, or feel "voiceless".
With liberals in office, this would most definitely include those who are Rush Limbaugh fans. In essense they turn to him as the "voice" of the people.
That is what I meant by disenfranchised.
If you have demographical data to refute my claim, please feel free to actually cite it instead of mention that it exists.
Tucker Case - Tard magnet.
These people, Limbaugh, Maddox, Olbermann, Coulter and others are all cheap entertainers and should be paid little heed.. But they are good at baiting others .. I guess this is taught in our colleges..along with propaganda and
When I first heard RL years ago, I was impressed...but no more....and KO nauseates me..
Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.