Bush...

Quote from cdbern:


As for JC bleeding for the poor and oppressed, give me a break. Go read your bible.
Your remark is so stupid its almost unworthy of comment.
More...

Your signature implies that those are the only ones JC bled and died for. And that is ... yes.... stupid (oh there's that word again).

If we're on the same playing field, and since I was talking about campaign tactics, lets level it, what are your thoughts and what would your tactics be??
 
"Mmmmmm well, what can you say to someone who is irrational..."[/QUOTE]

no my friend, the "irrational" was directed towards the budget remark. Everyone knows it comes from Congress. Yeah the Pres will submit one, but nothing says Congress even has to look at it.

I'll give credit to Clinton for not vetoing it. The movement to reduce spending, which generated from a Republican Congress, was too strong to buck.

Now, about tactics, which was my original post..............
 
Quote from ARogueTrader:

This painting of people as either all black or white, all good or evil, 100% socialist or capitalist, 100% liberal or conservative etc. is the primitive step taken by cultures as they attempt to create totality of thought. It is not progressive in nature, and breeds prejudice and bigotry.
More...

Wow, and I thought that's just what you were doing.
 
Here is exactly what you posted:


cdbern
Member

Registered: Nov 2003
Posts: 33


01-04-04 09:43 AM

Famous liberals/socialists:

Jesus Christ (his heart bled for the poor and oppressed)
Robin Hood (Robbed from the rich to give to the poor)
Gandhi

Famous powerful capitalists:

Julius Caesar
Genghis Khan
The Sheriff of Nottingham and Prince John

Very obscure and extremely confused capitalists:

marketsurfer


Mmmmmm well, what can you say to someone who is irrational...


__________________
Hell is that place where the person you are meets the person you could have become.

---------------------------------------------------------------------


My signature had nothing directly to do with the topic nor this thread.

Your comments were ad hominem as they were directed by your perceptions of my "rationality."

Rather than attack the logic of my comments, you attack my person, and question my reasoning ability.

Even if my signature were "irrational" that has nothing to do with previous comments that relate to the topic of this thread.

This is the technique that Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, Moore, Carville and the other political pundits of today use.

In as much as they cannot win an argument or secure a point on the basis of the point at hand or they lack the ability to make a stronger case than their opponent, they find some other area of issue to focus on, in an attempt to smear their opponent, and as such nullify their position on the topic at hand.

It is a low class move, and though common, typically used by one who cannot find a way to win an argument any other way.



Quote from cdbern:

"Mmmmmm well, what can you say to someone who is irrational..."
More...


no my friend, the "irrational" was directed towards the budget remark. Everyone knows it comes from Congress. Yeah the Pres will submit one, but nothing says Congress even has to look at it.

I'll give credit to Clinton for not vetoing it. The movement to reduce spending, which generated from a Republican Congress, was too strong to buck.

Now, about tactics, which was my original post.............. [/QUOTE]
 
Was just looking over an earlier post wherein I commented you were being irrational. Seems an additional remark made before your signature didn't make it onto the page. I can see why you thought I was calling your signature irrational.

For the record:
JC bleeding (only) for the poor etc. is what I thought stu****

The budget is what I thought irrational
 
The paramount goal in life should be to live like Christ. Regardless of one's religion. That is His beauty. It transcends theology. Way too often I fail.
 
I don't play with people who use ad hominem tactics, then rationalize those methods.

I also see no value in discussions with those who claim special authority but won't reveal it.

Anyone can claim anything, and then say they can't reveal who they "really" are. It is useless to even bring up in the first place. It is an invalid attempt to appeal to authority without being able to substantiate it. Reminds me of a little child who says, "If you knew who my daddy was you wouldn't talk to me like that."

All anyone really has on a message board like this, especially with a position of anonymity, is their ability to argue and make points with reason, back them up with reasonable discourse, and perhaps quote others or point to links of websites that support their position.


Quote from cdbern:

ARogueTrader, the topic was campaign tactics. Can you or can you not come out to play?
More...
 
Quote from ARogueTrader:

I don't play with people who use ad hominem tactics, then rationalize those methods.

I also see no value in discussions with those who claim special authority but won't reveal it.

Anyone can claim anything, and then say they can't reveal who they "really" are. It is useless to even bring up in the first place. It is an invalid attempt to appeal to authority without being able to substantiate it. Reminds me of a little child who says, "If you knew who my daddy was you wouldn't talk to me like that."

All anyone really has on a message board like this, especially with a position of anonymity, is their ability to argue and make points with reason, back them up with reasonable discourse, and perhaps quote others or point to links of websites that support their position.
More...

The long and the short of it is, my topic was campaign tactics and that isn't something you're prepared to talk about. Identity has nothing to do with it. Concepts and tactics is the only basis here. You've leapt off the subject completely then accused me of what???? not being able to provide reasonable discourse? I can provide reasonable discourse on the subject but you won't participate. Then you have the gall to accuse ME of ad hominem tactics?

If that isn't typical Demo crap tactics I don't know what is.

I don't claim special authority, only about 30 years worth of experience. Revealing who I am would be pointless, unless of course you are active in politics. Now if you want to learn something..... But obviously you would rather just throw darts then act innocent as hell.

Why should I quote others? Their views have absolutely no basis for my opinion. I wouldn't be any good if I formed my perspective and advice based on the opinion of others. What makes a consultant good? The same thing that makes a good trader. Their ability to read the signs.
 
More logical fallacy, classic example of poisoning the well.

Assumes fact not in evidence.

When arguments cannot be made logically, just assume and attack.

Classic. I call it Hannityism.

Description of Poisoning the Well

This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form:

Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.

Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.

This sort of "reasoning" is obviously fallacious. The person making such an attack is hoping that the unfavorable information will bias listeners against the person in question and hence that they will reject any claims he might make. However, merely presenting unfavorable information about a person (even if it is true) hardly counts as evidence against the claims he/she might make. This is especially clear when Poisoning the Well is looked at as a form of ad Homimem in which the attack is made prior to the person even making the claim or claims. The following example clearly shows that this sort of "reasoning" is quite poor.




Quote from cdbern:

If that isn't typical Demo crap tactics I don't know what is.

More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top