Barack Obama is not black.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Why is it that Dems can't answer a simple question about character?

Now let's talk about her platform, her perfomance. I understand you don;t understand what an Ad Hominem argument is, but guys like Lawrocket can tell you it's an argument based upon a character attack. I also understand you think it's viable and reasonable to base your arguments on these character assessments and attacks, but inthe world of professional debate, this is considered a failure.

That is TRULY priceless, coming from the King of Ad-homs.

Quote

I don't even think of her character either way when deciding if she's a good pres candidate. People who have zero else to debate about a person resort to character, I can say plenty of things that I like about her performance and her platform.

But yet, you have NO problem attacking the character of the current administration - just a bit of hypocrisy there, don't you think?

Quote

What questionable events and how do they affect her ability to lead the country? You guys are so about the facade of people and not about the core, yet you claim to be of some moral fiber; quite a paradox.

Whitewater, Travegate, Rose Law Firm records, illegal FBI records, to name a few.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Yes, I do. You consider a discussion of character to be a failure. I find that truly sad.

What I find is sad is that you think if a person has good character, according to your subjective definiton, they are then competent. Furthermore and also sad is that you think Bush fits that model of high character. Bush:

1) 1st president to be a criminal and elected
2) 1st Pres to not post his military record as public record

Aslo sad is that you won;t address these character atributes, just gloss over. See, if you unilaterally assign someone as being of high character, refuse to talk about why when people impeach it, then thumb your nose at them, well, that is sad.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html

A debater commits the Ad Hominem Fallacy when he introduces irrelevant personal premisses about his opponent. Such red herrings may successfully distract the opponent or the audience from the topic of the debate.

I'm not saying the Dems have poor character, but even if they did, it is irrelevant to their performance unless you can apply a logicla reason as why it would. For example, you could argue that a registered pedophile would make a poor daycare worker, but that he has a degree in engineering so he would make a great engineer. But to say he is a child fucker, hence is a poor engineer is an Ad Hominem.

I don't think Bush is a shitty pres becuase he's a criminal and has refused to post allof his military record, I think he's a poor president due to his performance as governor of Texas and his performance as president. Can you understand this basic concept of logical fallacy?

Quote

You eagerly accept any transgressions on the part of the Virgin Hillary as ok. I hope that, in the interests of fairness, you equally apply this to all political figures as unimportant.

Which transgression(s)? So far I've heard she wears dirty underwear, what relevant attributes are there that have been surfaced that are not Ad Hominems that I have ignored? Post em minus the Ad Hominems.

Quote

One item that would affect her candidacy is her memory. It seems to fade in and out.

And yet you praise Reagan. Give me a fucking break.

Quote

When writing her memoirs, it was detailed and acute. When testifying about Whitewater, she "had no clear recollection" quite often.

OK, cite what you're talking about. Writing her memoirs is not specific to being a president. Testifying and not being convicted means what? Although we all know that Reagan/Bush/Ollie really knew all about it, the systme we have been given requires that good liars with big lawyers go free. Was she lying? I didn;t follow Whitewater but don;t think there was even a charge filed, just an investigation. So your point is moot. Again, grabbing at straws. Lose the Ad Hominem, esp the ones that yield no result and show me how Hillary won;t make a good pres based upon her performance as a senator.

Quote

There is a difference between innocent and not-guilty.
One of the examples of her using her education.

So now the Ad Hominem argument is that she is educated, ence automatically sleezy? As for innocent and not guilty, was there even a trial or just an investigation?

Are you capable of arguing why Hillary won;t make a good pres based upon her qualifications and performances that are relevant?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

So if you were interviewing a peson for a job, their actually job performance, education and job experiences have no relevance. What is important is that he/she is fucking whom, if he/she looks like they have dirty drawers, and the sort. Can you blame me for being critical of that kind of logic?

It's the same logic as drives quotas and set-asides.

What is teh same logic as that that drives quotas? It's a bit vague, define what you mean.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

That is TRULY priceless, coming from the King of Ad-homs.

No way, just saying that this is an argument forum, if you're unable to understand how to argue, that is relevant to your ability to make an argument. Doesn’t mean that you can't skydive or aren’t welcome to your opinion, just that a constant flow of arguments about Hillary being a poor candidate due to dirty underwear relegates the entire argument to zip.

Of course when a person is out of gas, that's all there is.

Quote

But yet, you have NO problem attacking the character of the current administration - just a bit of hypocrisy there, don't you think?

Sure, Bush is a sleazebag criminal, coke head, etc.... now let's talk about his ability to be an effective pres..... Let's see, as give he fried record numbers of prisoners never denying to sign one execution order, that's a bad start. As pres he doubled the rate of debt growth over even Reagan/Bush, which was then a massive record. And hell, he even took over a surplus or at least a break-even for the sake of argument. He failed to do shit before Katrina, I mean fuck Neal, I can go on for hours of the JOB-RELATED fuck-ups Bush has accomplished. So although I despise the garbage, if he was a good pres then he would be a good pres.

So true, I have no problem criticizing the garbage currently in control, but I don't assess their ability to govern based on their personal kinks - the other side does due to desperation.

Quote

Whitewater, Travegate, Rose Law Firm records, illegal FBI records, to name a few.

OK, post what was done and how that makes her culpable and a poor pres candidate. Not charges, not guesses, facts taken from there by the courts and how it makes her a bad pres candidate.

[Royd 0]

Quote

Are you capable of arguing why Hillary won;t make a good pres based upon her qualifications and performances that are relevant?

Are you saying that personality flaws like a seething anger problem, harboring resentment, and making efforts to destroy people's lives that cross you, in no way would affect her ability to make sound decisions in other areas?

If a sound bite of her screeching voice can wake someone out of a dead sleep, I would definately have pause to vote for her on that alone.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Are you saying that personality flaws like a seething anger problem, harboring resentment, and making efforts to destroy people's lives that cross you, in no way would affect her ability to make sound decisions in other areas?

Quit asking questions and post something relevant if you have anything. Remember, the argument must have a direct relevance to the point, or it is Ad Hominem. Again, a pedophime would not make a good daycare worker, but based upon his/her other education/vocational experience they might do ther things well. Try to seperate the elements and cast an argument as to why Hillary is a bad presidential candidate.

If a sound bite of her screeching voice can wake someone out of a dead sleep, I would definately have pause to vote for her on that alone. ***

1st - dirty underwear

NOW - sound bites played that wake people from REM.

Are you guys funnin or do you take yourselves seriously.

Post Cngressional performances that make you leary.

***

[Lucky... 0]

Alright, even tho it's an assertion from the other side, being the Dem here I must do the research, just the way it goes. Here is a complete list of Hillary's Congressional votes. Now I know someone will take an obscure line on this and find 1 vote that they feel is questionable and build a house out of it, but the Repubs rely on rhetoric, dems on fact, data, empirical research, so I must post this.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/c001041/votes/

Let's see your reaction to this, minus the dirty underwear and shrilling voice.

[sundevil777 102]

It would be just as correct to say he is white as to say he's black.

Native American tribes (at least in Alaska) require a certain percentage of 'blood' line to be shown before being included in the tribe. That seems reasonable when the group is given benefits from the government. Of course those that discriminated in the past didn't need proof, but it seems reasonable to prevent fraud now.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[NCclimber 0]

From the recent State of the Black Union symposium:

Quote

HAMPTON, Va. — African-American voters should judge Sen. Barack Obama and other 2008 presidential candidates on how they will handle issues affecting the African-American community and not on race, gender or ethnicity.

That was the message of several key speakers Saturday at the annual State of the Black Union symposium. The two-day conference offered an examination of the progress African Americans have made and the problems they still confront.

"I think the identity politics should not be based on race," said the Rev. Al Sharpton, a 2004 presidential candidate. "It should be based on agenda and policy. Who stands for our best interests? We cannot put our people's aspirations on hold for anybody's career, black or white."

As the conversation at Saturday's session shifted from health care to education to politics, it quickly went to Obama, who formally kicked off his presidential candidacy Saturday in Springfield, Ill. Among the panelists were two black men who have run for president, Sharpton and the Rev. Jesse Jackson.

Sharpton strongly urged the nearly 10,000 people who filled Hampton University's Convocation Center not to select a candidate next year just because they want to see an African American or a woman or a Hispanic in the White House for the first time.

Without naming Obama, Sharpton added that "just because you're our color doesn't make you our kind." He pointed to President Bush's secretaries of state, Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell, as examples of African Americans he said haven't necessarily worked in the interest of the black community.

Sharpton also chided Obama for making his presidential announcement in Springfield rather than before the predominantly black audience at Hampton and said he needs to declare "what's his embrace of our agenda."

Some people wonder whether Obama's mixed-race heritage dilutes his effectiveness on African-American issues. Others complain that he didn't earn his political stripes in the 1960s civil-rights movement. Still others wonder about his Ivy League education and upscale Chicago address.

Jackson, who ran twice for president, said Obama's heritage shouldn't be an issue. "Most of our forefathers were black, and most of our forefathers were white," he said.

Hmm.

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

According to Debra Dickerson, author of The End Of Blackness, in her comments on The Colbert Report "black" is defined as "the descendant of west African slaves brought here to labor in the United States," and that because Barack Obama's father immigrated here from Kenya he is "African African-American" and not "black."

She also said that embracing a black person who is not actually a black person is "white self congratulation."

Thoughts?

What a load of bollocks. The woman is a fucktard... Yep, that pretty much covers it.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

What a load of bollocks. The woman is a fucktard... Yep, that pretty much covers it.

How about when al Sharpton essentially says the same thing?

[happythoughts 0]

If I was you, I wouldn't talk about the Virgin Queen Hillary either. Since you fear a discussion about Hillary, please continue to discuss every other politician since Pilate.

The behavior of any politician in the past has no relevance to your excusal of the VQHs behavior.
However, it is a great avoidance mechanism.

If you don't wish to discuss the issues, continue to ascribe opinions to me that I have never stated and then attack those opinions with vigor.

Feel free to continue to invent my opinions and then argue with yourself.

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

Quote

What a load of bollocks. The woman is a fucktard... Yep, that pretty much covers it.

How about when al Sharpton essentially says the same thing?

Who the hell is Al Sharpton???

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Royd 0]

If a sound bite of her screeching voice can wake someone out of a dead sleep, I would definately have pause to vote for her on that alone.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote

NOW - sound bites played that wake people from REM.

Are you guys funnin or do you take yourselves seriously.

Post Cngressional performances that make you leary.

Have you never met someone, who, with very few words, you formed an adverse opinion about? A red flag, if you will. You said to yourself,"There's just something about him that bothers me."

Well, I've watched Hillary long enough to recognize that she is a very underhanded person.

She may have the ability to charm and bewitch some, but she doesn't have me fooled.

[happythoughts 0]

Remember in the Wizard of Oz how the witch would squint with one eye and look at you from the side?

Same body language, but without the attractive, basic-black evening wear.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Who the hell is Al Sharpton???

[Royd 0]

Remember in the Wizard of Oz how the witch would squint with one eye and look at you from the side?

Quote

Same body language, but without the attractive, basic-black evening wear.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

It would be just as correct to say he is white as to say he's black.

Native American tribes (at least in Alaska) require a certain percentage of 'blood' line to be shown before being included in the tribe. That seems reasonable when the group is given benefits from the government. Of course those that discriminated in the past didn't need proof, but it seems reasonable to prevent fraud now.

wrote about that already early in the thread, it's called, "Blood Quantum."

If Obama walked down teh dtreet in America, he would be a black man.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

If I was you, I wouldn't talk about the Virgin Queen Hillary either. Since you fear a discussion about Hillary, please continue to discuss every other politician since Pilate.

The behavior of any politician in the past has no relevance to your excusal of the VQHs behavior.
However, it is a great avoidance mechanism.

If you don't wish to discuss the issues, continue to ascribe opinions to me that I have never stated and then attack those opinions with vigor.

Feel free to continue to invent my opinions and then argue with yourself.

This totally avoids my reply to you. I guess this is your post to avoid responding. Here is my response, pls address it:




______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
reply]

Quote

Yes, I do. You consider a discussion of character to be a failure. I find that truly sad.

What I find is sad is that you think if a person has good character, according to your subjective definiton, they are then competent. Furthermore and also sad is that you think Bush fits that model of high character. Bush:

1) 1st president to be a criminal and elected
2) 1st Pres to not post his military record as public record

Aslo sad is that you won;t address these character atributes, just gloss over. See, if you unilaterally assign someone as being of high character, refuse to talk about why when people impeach it, then thumb your nose at them, well, that is sad.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html

A debater commits the Ad Hominem Fallacy when he introduces irrelevant personal premisses about his opponent. Such red herrings may successfully distract the opponent or the audience from the topic of the debate.

I'm not saying the Dems have poor character, but even if they did, it is irrelevant to their performance unless you can apply a logicla reason as why it would. For example, you could argue that a registered pedophile would make a poor daycare worker, but that he has a degree in engineering so he would make a great engineer. But to say he is a child fucker, hence is a poor engineer is an Ad Hominem.

I don't think Bush is a shitty pres becuase he's a criminal and has refused to post allof his military record, I think he's a poor president due to his performance as governor of Texas and his performance as president. Can you understand this basic concept of logical fallacy?

Quote

You eagerly accept any transgressions on the part of the Virgin Hillary as ok. I hope that, in the interests of fairness, you equally apply this to all political figures as unimportant.

Which transgression(s)? So far I've heard she wears dirty underwear, what relevant attributes are there that have been surfaced that are not Ad Hominems that I have ignored? Post em minus the Ad Hominems.

Quote

One item that would affect her candidacy is her memory. It seems to fade in and out.

And yet you praise Reagan. Give me a fucking break.

Quote

When writing her memoirs, it was detailed and acute. When testifying about Whitewater, she "had no clear recollection" quite often.

OK, cite what you're talking about. Writing her memoirs is not specific to being a president. Testifying and not being convicted means what? Although we all know that Reagan/Bush/Ollie really knew all about it, the systme we have been given requires that good liars with big lawyers go free. Was she lying? I didn;t follow Whitewater but don;t think there was even a charge filed, just an investigation. So your point is moot. Again, grabbing at straws. Lose the Ad Hominem, esp the ones that yield no result and show me how Hillary won;t make a good pres based upon her performance as a senator.

Quote

There is a difference between innocent and not-guilty.
One of the examples of her using her education.

So now the Ad Hominem argument is that she is educated, ence automatically sleezy? As for innocent and not guilty, was there even a trial or just an investigation?

Are you capable of arguing why Hillary won;t make a good pres based upon her qualifications and performances that are relevant?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

If a sound bite of her screeching voice can wake someone out of a dead sleep, I would definately have pause to vote for her on that alone.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote

NOW - sound bites played that wake people from REM.

Are you guys funnin or do you take yourselves seriously.

Post Cngressional performances that make you leary.

Have you never met someone, who, with very few words, you formed an adverse opinion about? A red flag, if you will. You said to yourself,"There's just something about him that bothers me."

Well, I've watched Hillary long enough to recognize that she is a very underhanded person.

She may have the ability to charm and bewitch some, but she doesn't have me fooled.

Right, what you're saying is that your intuition is ringing. Fine, but don;t sell it to us as intellectual, cogent argument, just your hunch. I did the crazy thing and posted her voting record, what was I thinking?

[Lucky... 0]

BTW, here's her voting record again, not that you want to read empirical research:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/...mbers/c001041/votes/

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

BTW, here's her voting record again, not that you want to read empirical research:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/...mbers/c001041/votes/

I clicked on your link. It took me to a Washington Post web page with...










We are unable to locate the page you requested.
The page may have moved or may no longer be available

Looks like Hillary is covering her ass yet again.

[Lucky... 0]

This is the first page:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/c001041/

Then for a full list I went to:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/c001041/votes/

Let's see if these work now.

[Lucky... 0]

It tooka few tries, but came up. Or do a search, "Hillary Clinton's senatorial voting record"

I would like to see some substantial reason, based on her voting performance, why she would make a bad president.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

It tooka few tries, but came up. Or do a search, "Hillary Clinton's senatorial voting record"

I would like to see some substantial reason, based on her voting performance, why she would make a bad president.

Unlike you, some people don't think she's the greatest person in the world.

Sometimes, there's more reasons than JUST voting records to approve/disapprove of a person. Former Rep. McKinney is a prime example.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706