NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a standard tactic, claiming that any language other than that used by the opponent is derisive.
Hence the outcry over the use of Obama's middle name and the term pro-abortion.

The problem here is that we're speaking in a language that uses a spelling. He is using a spelling that he admits is archaic because he like British Imperial spellings.

The outcry about the use of Obama's middle name is because we don't call the current President G. Walker Bush. I don't even know Clinton's middle name. Once again you're being dishonest if you pretend you don't know the reason that Hussein even came out and became popular is because of what it implies.

As far as pro-abortion, it's inaccurate. People want you to be accurate. Poor you.

Changed does mean something is now different. My claim is as it always was in its content. I have clarified its form to reflect that content.

So "by your logic" is "S is P" false?

Because if you deny that, then you're changing your claim.

William Jefferson Clinton.

The problem here is that we're speaking in a language that uses a spelling. He is using a spelling that he admits is archaic because he like British Imperial spellings.

The outcry about the use of Obama's middle name is because we don't call the current President G. Walker Bush. I don't even know Clinton's middle name. Once again you're being dishonest if you pretend you don't know the reason that Hussein even came out and became popular is because of what it implies.

As far as pro-abortion, it's inaccurate. People want you to be accurate. Poor you.

It's Jefferson.
You're being dishonest in assuming that people use Barack Obama's middle name to imply a connection to Islam.
And yet, anti-choice is perfectly acceptable and an often-used barb by the hypocritical left.

You've inadvertently proven my point.

There are three possible constructs in question here:

All S is P.
S is P.
Some S is P.

The first and third are clear in their meanings. The second is ambiguous, and could mean either without further clarification. It tends to imply a meaning of the first construction, but need not do so.

My original statement was made in the construction of the second type. When, in a response to my original claim, I realized that this construction was ambiguous, and was being misconstrued as pointing to the first construction, I admitted that such an understanding of that statement's construction would indeed be false, and clarified my intended claim as being of the third type.

The fact that you consider the middle to be so "ambiguous" is inconsistent not only with prevailing usage in philosophy (and English), but even with your own usage.

For example, when you repeatedly emphatically said "I will not play semantic games with you", you did not clarify that you would not play ANY semantic games. You simple repeated "I will not do X", and even said you "couldn't make it any clearer". Yet now you claim that absent explicity categorical term, its inherently unclear. You thus again contradict yourself.

Quickly, what's the capital of China?

From the recognizable pronunciation (I had a Chinese-national roommate at one point), we'd spell it Peking. Pinyin, the Romanization by which it's spelled Beijing, happens to be a Chinese invention, with perversions of the alphabet that make no sense to anybody who hasn't specifically been taught them. We use Ch instead of Q or Ts and Sh instead of X, and D instead of T (Tsingtao (ching-dow), a Chinese beer, confounded friends of mine to no end). The exception in Pinyin has been Shanghai because everyone was already familiar with it by that name.

Tonal languages as a rule confound me. I still don't see anything wrong with spelling it the old way when you clearly know what I'm talking about.

So "by your logic" is "S is P" false?

Because if you deny that, then you're changing your claim.

No, my claim is that, by my logic, given the conditions presented in the response (that at least one person who listens to Hannity is a non patriot), the claim "People who listen to Hannity are patriots" is false if construed to be of the construction "All S is P."

Under no logic is "S is P" ever false, as this construct is ambiguous and requires an assumption as to its proper construction.

My statement, of the second construction, as being misconstrued as being of the first construction was false. Taken as it is, the statement

Those who listen to Hannity are patriots.

is neither demonstrably false or true; it is ambiguous. When it is assumed to be of the first construction, it is false.

Hmmm... then I suppose that this quote never happened...

No, according to my logic, the phrase "People who listen to Hannity are patriots" would be false, as would the phrase "People who listen to Hannity are not patriots."

Moving the goalposts is when you're now claiming that you weren't actually saying it was false. It's either false or it isn't. If you intended to say it could me misunderstood to be false, you should have said so.

This is just sad.

We're done here. I'm pretty sure everyone here can read. Seriously, at this point, you're not fooling anyone, and preventing you from fooling anyone was my goal.

And we all know all Clowns are part of secret cabal plotting to slip us the banana peel of destiny and send us plummeting into the manhole of doom. :p

Well, not all of us, there are a few good clowns left out there, but we'll get em. :)

From the recognizable pronunciation (I had a Chinese-national roommate at one point), we'd spell it Peking. Pinyin, the Romanization by which it's spelled Beijing, happens to be a Chinese invention, with perversions of the alphabet that make no sense to anybody who hasn't specifically been taught them. We use Ch instead of Q or Ts and Sh instead of X, and D instead of T (Tsingtao (ching-dow), a Chinese beer, confounded friends of mine to no end). The exception in Pinyin has been Shanghai because everyone was already familiar with it by that name.

Tonal languages as a rule confound me. I still don't see anything wrong with spelling it the old way when you clearly know what I'm talking about.

What about the name of the country between India and Thailand?

What about the name of the country between India and Thailand?

Sri Lanka?

My statement, of the second construction, as being misconstrued as being of the first construction was false. Taken as it is, the statement

Those who listen to Hannity are patriots.

is neither demonstrably false or true; it is ambiguous. When it is assumed to be of the first construction, it is false.

You've claimed to use "philosophy's terms", so, since that is the governing convention you specifically declare, shall we see what philosophy would say?

When the simple construct "S is P" is used, shall we see whether its considered ambiguous or whether it would be a categorical claim?

I remind you, you invoked "philosophy's terms", and expressly declared that philosophical training was your trained and chosen mode of language. So, given that you've appealed to the training of philosophy, let's go have a look...

Hmmm... then I suppose that this quote never happened...



Moving the goalposts is when you're now claiming that you weren't actually saying it was false. It's either false or it isn't. If you intended to say it could me misunderstood to be false, you should have said so.

This is just sad.

And if you will refer back to the point where I reposted that original post in its entirety, you will find clarification for your misconception.
The original statement, as it stands on its face, is neither false nor true, but ambiguous. As I stated in the original reply, it is all too likely to be understood as of a certain type of construction, which would make it false. Hence, I clarified the construction. Clarification of a claim is not changing that claim.

The problem here is that we're speaking in a language that uses a spelling. He is using a spelling that he admits is archaic because he like British Imperial spellings.

The outcry about the use of Obama's middle name is because we don't call the current President G. Walker Bush. I don't even know Clinton's middle name. Once again you're being dishonest if you pretend you don't know the reason that Hussein even came out and became popular is because of what it implies.

As far as pro-abortion, it's inaccurate. People want you to be accurate. Poor you.

Archaic means... old. That's all. They have their own alphabet. We have ours. Spellings will differ.

And for the record, I've gone by the G. Walker Bush format my whole life. I've got my father's first name but so does every other first son in the extended family. I wouldn't dream of using it.

Sri Lanka?

Only with a very imaginative atlas.

I'm speaking anecdotally.


Which has no bearing on reality at large, based on your minuscule experience of the full world and entire engineering demographic. Have you even met 25% of all the engineers in the world? Obviously not. Nobody can in a single lifetime.

But you're willing to claim it anyway, despite contrary witness statements from engineers themselves.


As for the rapists bit, I think you'll find they like Democrats' ideas about light sentences and furloughs.

Yes, I'm sure you like them, thank you for clarifying.

It's Jefferson.
You're being dishonest in assuming that people use Barack Obama's middle name to imply a connection to Islam.
And yet, anti-choice is perfectly acceptable and an often-used barb by the hypocritical left.

So why do you use his middle name? Are you afraid people will confuse him with some other Barack Obama?

If you wish to deny people the choice, you are anti-choice.

If you don't like abortion, but you are not willing to deny people the right to make their own medical decisions, you are not pro-abortion. You are anti-abortion. You are also pro-choice.

I'm also not pro-tonselectomy or pro-pencil-in-the-eye. I do think that people should be allowed to tonselectomy or to poke themselves in the eye with a pencil. I would think either would be a bad idea in general.

No, my claim is that, by my logic, given the conditions presented in the response (that at least one person who listens to Hannity is a non patriot), the claim "People who listen to Hannity are patriots" is false if construed to be of the construction "All S is P."

Under no logic is "S is P" ever false, as this construct is ambiguous and requires an assumption as to its proper construction.

Oh really?

So, if I were to claim "A false statement is a true statement", this could never be false, because its ambiguous?

You would take it to mean "Some false statements are true statements."?

Hang on, just saw Jocabia's post, gonna go back and look, aaaaannnddd...

Archaic means... old. That's all. They have their own alphabet. We have ours. Spellings will differ.

And for the record, I've gone by the G. Walker Bush format my whole life. I've got my father's first name but so does every other first son in the extended family. I wouldn't dream of using it.

You mean, you get to choose what you're called. The hell you say. /sarcasm

You've claimed to use "philosophy's terms", so, since that is the governing convention you specifically declare, shall we see what philosophy would say?

When the simple construct "S is P" is used, shall we see whether its considered ambiguous or whether it would be a categorical claim?

I remind you, you invoked "philosophy's terms", and expressly declared that philosophical training was your trained and chosen mode of language. So, given that you've appealed to the training of philosophy, let's go have a look...

Don't even try to bring Kant into this; he has nothing to do with it. If you've taken even basic philosophy, you know that what I refer to is the square of claims:

All S is P --------------------- No S is P
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
Some S is P ------------ Some S is not P

EDIT: Meh, I can't make the vertical lines properly. they connect All S is P with Some S is P, and No S is P with Some S is not P.

Since S is P does not fall on the square, it is ambiguous.

Only with a very imaginative atlas.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/Asia-map.png

Well, since via the land route, there are actually multiple countries between India and Thailand, rather than pick one I chose to pick the only country that can be the sole country to lie between India and Thailand if you drew a straight line. Sri Lanka. :)

What about the name of the country between India and Thailand?

Bangladesh? Pretty straightforward.

Except that I'm not that stupid. The British heard Burma, and called it Burma. If you hear Burmese spoken, it's understandable. The language and the people are both still called Burmese, the new name of the country aside. You still know perfectly well what I'm talking about, and haven't touched my point.

It's Jefferson.
You're being dishonest in assuming that people use Barack Obama's middle name to imply a connection to Islam.
And yet, anti-choice is perfectly acceptable and an often-used barb by the hypocritical left.

What, conservatives pull out his middle name just for shits and giggles?

And "anti-choice" is, in fact, a reasonable description of the position that women should not have the legal right to choose to have an abortion. "Pro-abortion," however, is not a reasonable description of the position that women should have the legal right to choose to have an abortion, as it implies no opinion on the ethical value of that choice.

I'm having a hard time believing you're not just trolling.

Here is the reply in question, in its entirety.

No, according to my logic, the phrase "People who listen to Hannity are patriots" would be false, as would the phrase "People who listen to Hannity are not patriots." What would be accurate, in these instances, would be the phrases "Some people who listen to Hannity are patriots." (Some S is P) and "Some people who listen to Hannity are not patriots." (Some S is !P).

Given that it is extremely unlikely that, in fact, all listeners to Hannity's program are, in fact, patriots, I shall give my assent to "Some people who listen to Hannity are patriots." rather than "People who listen to Hannity are patriots." as the latter implies an "All S is P" construct.

Note the final sentence, wherein I state that the original phrasing of the post implies an "All S is P" construct. Since I recognize this is an incorrect construction, I was free to make my first sentence, that, under the conditions described, the phrase I originally used, "People who listen to Hannity are patriots" would be false; it would be false due to the implication of the improper construct. Hence, in the very next paragraph, I clarified which was my true belief, that of the "Some S is P" construct.

Annnnnnddd....

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/Asia-map.png

Well, since via the land route, there are actually multiple countries between India and Thailand, rather than pick one I chose to pick the only country that can be the sole country to lie between India and Thailand if you drew a straight line. Sri Lanka. :)

Come again? There are multiple countries between India and Thailand? You mean Bangladesh?

I'm not sure where you're going with this, but the answer is Myanmar/Burma. I was curious what his answer would be.

Oh really?

So, if I were to claim "A false statement is a true statement", this could never be false, because its ambiguous?

You would take it to mean "Some false statements are true statements."?

Hang on, just saw Jocabia's post, gonna go back and look, aaaaannnddd...

If you go back to Nicea's post you'll find that he claimed that it's not ambiguous, but false. Right after it was true. Then it became ambiguous. Good thing the goalposts aren't moving.

I don't have an issue with how he worded it. We all know what he meant. The problem he has is that we commented on what he meant, and rather than simply man up and admit what he said, he lied, and then changed the lie, and then changed the lie, and then changed the lie, etc.

I prefer an opponent that just admits where they're coming from. But, he's not going to do so. Facing his opponents straight up is too much to ask. He is instead trying to obfuscate his own point, which makes me wonder why he would bother. Is it so he can snicker behind his hand? Or is he just afraid he'll get nailed by the mods if he just admits what he meant? Either way, it's sad.

Which has no bearing on reality at large, based on your minuscule experience of the full world and entire engineering demographic. Have you even met 25% of all the engineers in the world? Obviously not. Nobody can in a single lifetime.

But you're willing to claim it anyway, despite contrary witness statements from engineers themselves.



Yes, I'm sure you like them, thank you for clarifying.

Miniscule experience? Lived in 7 countries, visited 35. I've spoken 5 different languages, and currently speak 4 functionally.

Your move, Boris.

And calling me a rapist is low even for you. If you're going to bother with something that pathetic, at least try to make it funny or subtle. Don't insult the intelligence of both the audience and target of your sad excuse for a joke by trying to do something quasi-surgical with a jackhammer.

Annnnnnddd....

Exactly. My statement as it is is ambiguous, not false. With the improper implication, as I said, it is false.

Bangladesh? Pretty straightforward.

Except that I'm not that stupid. The British heard Burma, and called it Burma. If you hear Burmese spoken, it's understandable. The language and the people are both still called Burmese, the new name of the country aside. You still know perfectly well what I'm talking about, and haven't touched my point.

Right. Your point is that, despite the people who you are referring to wanting to be called a certain thing, you choose to call them what you want to. Their opinions be damned.

Exactly. My statement as it is is ambiguous, not false. With the improper implication, as I said, it is false.

No, you said it was false all by itself. You didn't mention anything about improper implications at the time. You admitted it was false and said it should contain the word some to be accurate. You later changed your claim.

Come again? There are multiple countries between India and Thailand? You mean Bangladesh?

I'm not sure where you're going with this, but the answer is Myanmar/Burma. I was curious what his answer would be.

I like Sri Lanka. :(

You mean, you get to choose what you're called. The hell you say. /sarcasm

I didn't defend calling the man B. Hussein Obama. It's sophomoric and irrelevant, and implies there's nothing legitimate to attack him with. It's worthy of the CDNC.

Don't even try to bring Kant into this; he has nothing to do with it. If you've taken even basic philosophy, you know that what I refer to is the square of claims:

All S is P --------------------- No S is P
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
Some S is P ------------ Some S is not P

EDIT: Meh, I can't make the vertical lines properly. they connect All S is P with Some S is P, and No S is P with Some S is not P.

Since S is P does not fall on the square, it is ambiguous.

A categorical claim has nothing to do with Kant's Categorical Imperative necessarily. That you assumed my use of the world "categorical" must mean Kant's Categorical Imperative says much more about your own verse in philosophy.

The fact is, "S is P" is not vague, it falls in the upper left hand corner, as you've repeatedly used it youself. Or don't you realize anyone can go back and look at your own post history and see where you've claimed "S is P" for various things, without stating explicitly ALL S?

Also, do you see where you've been directly quoted contradicting yourself, previously saying that your statement WAS false?

Miniscule experience? Lived in 7 countries, visited 35. I've spoken 5 different languages, and currently speak 4 functionally.

Your move, Boris.

And this has what to do with the engineers in America (where any realistic definition of conservative and liberal in regards to American politicans would be applicable)?

What is the relevance? You've demonstrated that your miniscule experience (which is what anecdotal experience would be when making the kind of claim you did) is not only miniscule but irrelevent.

If you go back to Nicea's post you'll find that he claimed that it's not ambiguous, but false. Right after it was true. Then it became ambiguous. Good thing the goalposts aren't moving.

I don't have an issue with how he worded it. We all know what he meant. The problem he has is that we commented on what he meant, and rather than simply man up and admit what he said, he lied, and then changed the lie, and then changed the lie, and then changed the lie, etc.

I prefer an opponent that just admits where they're coming from. But, he's not going to do so. Facing his opponents straight up is too much to ask. He is instead trying to obfuscate his own point, which makes me wonder why he would bother. Is it so he can snicker behind his hand? Or is he just afraid he'll get nailed by the mods if he just admits what he meant? Either way, it's sad.

I don't know why you're so intent on showing that an original ambiguity was a lie. It seems a rather bitter endeavor, but then again, I don't know you from Adam. I have explained, in detail, the entire process of my original claim,from my making it in its original form, to my realization that it was improperly worded, to my rewording it due to the likelihood that it could be construed in such a way that it was false. And yet, still you claim an intent to deceive.
I have admitted, clearly, where I am coming from, and what I believe. I have edited my own original formation of my claim to increase clarity.

A categorical claim has nothing to do with Kant's Categorical Imperative necessarily. That you assumed my use of the world "categorical" must mean Kant's Categorical Imperative says much more about your own verse in philosophy.

The fact is, "S is P" is not vague, it falls in the upper left hand corner, as you've repeatedly used it youself. Or don't you realize anyone can go back and look at your own post history and see where you've claimed "S is P" for various things, without stating explicitly ALL S?

Also, do you see where you've been directly quoted contradicting yourself, previously saying that your statement WAS false?

Wrong. It is ambiguous and is assumed often to fall in the upper left.
It is because I realize I have been claiming S is P without specifically stating which side of the left column I meant that I clarified it.
I stated my statement was false under certain conditions, namely, due to its assumption of being of the wrong construction.

Right. Your point is that, despite the people who you are referring to wanting to be called a certain thing, you choose to call them what you want to. Their opinions be damned.

Last time I checked it was still written in its own script. Were they using our alphabet I'd think differently. They don't call themselves Myanmarians. Everybody refers to them and their language as Burmese, regardless of what the country's called.

I don't know why you're so intent on showing that an original ambiguity was a lie. It seems a rather bitter endeavor, but then again, I don't know you from Adam. I have explained, in detail, the entire process of my original claim,from my making it in its original form, to my realization that it was improperly worded, to my rewording it due to the likelihood that it could be construed in such a way that it was false. And yet, still you claim an intent to deceive.
I have admitted, clearly, where I am coming from, and what I believe. I have edited my own original formation of my claim to increase clarity.

YOU claimed it was false. After defending it for two pages. That's lying, friend.

Now it would be good if you'd come clean, but instead you continued to change your own rules. I'm pointing it out, because your regard with truth should be used to analyze your posts. I'm happy to help people see that you regard false and true to be maleable concepts that change based on what you want to claim.

No, you said it was false all by itself. You didn't mention anything about improper implications at the time. You admitted it was false and said it should contain the word some to be accurate. You later changed your claim.

Incorrect. Look again at the place I reposted the original reply. I describe exactly where I make what claim.

Exactly. My statement as it is is ambiguous, not false. With the improper implication, as I said, it is false.

Your exact words:

No, according to my logic, the phrase "People who listen to Hannity are patriots" would be false, as would the phrase "People who listen to Hannity are not patriots."

You then said it could "never" be false, because its ambiguous.

So, you claimed it isn't false, then it is false under certain "implications", then you claimed under its "ambiguous" construction, it could not be false.

I've had my disagreements with Jocabia, but logically, he is artfully, starkly illustrating your contradictions.

Last time I checked it was still written in its own script. Were they using our alphabet I'd think differently. They don't call themselves Myanmarians. Everybody refers to them and their language as Burmese, regardless of what the country's called.

Wait, Muslims aren't using our language? No, Burmese are using our language? In what world?

Miniscule experience? Lived in 7 countries, visited 35. I've spoken 5 different languages, and currently speak 4 functionally.

Your move, Boris.

Which tells absolutely nothing about your experience with other engineers, which is minuscule from a statistical standpoint. Your attempts at obfuscation are absolutely pathetic, as is your insistence on anecdotal evidence. Try to do better than that.

And as I've said, we have engineers on this thread who prove the falsity of your statement.


And calling me a rapist is low even for you.

Which didn't actually happen.

Your exact words:



You then said it could "never" be false, because its ambiguous.

So, you claimed it isn't false, then it is false under certain "implications", then you claimed under its "ambiguous" construction, it could not be false.

I've had my disagreements with Jocabia, but logically, he is artfully, starkly illustrating your contradictions.

It's amazing how often people agree with me when I'm not talking to them.

;)

YOU claimed it was false. After defending it for two pages. That's lying, friend.

Now it would be good if you'd come clean, but instead you continued to change your own rules. I'm pointing it out, because your regard with truth should be used to analyze your posts. I'm happy to help people see that you regard false and true to be maleable concepts that change based on what you want to claim.

Wrong, I claimed it was false under the assumed construction. As is, it is not false but ambiguous. Again, the bitter accusation of lying.
And a further fallacy, assuming the lie and then decrying the opponent for not owning up to it.
And you, apparently, regard debate as a means to one-up the other side, rather than to arrive at the truth. Clarification of an ambiguity is an admirable action, not a lie.

And this has what to do with the engineers in America (where any realistic definition of conservative and liberal in regards to American politicans would be applicable)?

What is the relevance? You've demonstrated that your miniscule experience (which is what anecdotal experience would be when making the kind of claim you did) is not only miniscule but irrelevent.

Fellow cons, brace yourselves for the total amputation of context:

Nothing by itself. But living in the third world causes you to meet a lot of EWB types (and even these have been conservative), and military engineers (predictably conservative). The definitions still apply because the people and issues are still American.

Wrong. It is ambiguous and is assumed often to fall in the upper left.
It is because I realize I have been claiming S is P without specifically stating which side of the left column I meant that I clarified it.
I stated my statement was false under certain conditions, namely, due to its assumption of being of the wrong construction.

You yourself have used it as if it falls in the upper left.

In this very sentence, you say "It is ambiguous"...you do not say "It is always ambiguous". Yet you claim it is categorically ambiguous (nothing to do with Kant, mind you).

No, you state it is false under certain conditions, yet earlier, you claimed that an "S is P construction" is vague and could never be considered false because of its (supposed) ambiguity. You again contradict yourself.

Which tells absolutely nothing about your experience with other engineers, which is minuscule from a statistical standpoint. Your attempts at obfuscation are absolutely pathetic, as is your insistence on anecdotal evidence. Try to do better than that.

And as I've said, we have engineers on this thread who prove the falsity of your statement.

'Falsity' is not a word. 'Untruth' or 'falsehood' would be fine, but inventing words speaks volumes about your actual intelligence.

Further, I never denied the existence of liberal engineers. I said they were rare. That after 2004 the Congress was 'overwhelmingly' red-controlled doesn't mean we didn't have Bolsheviks.

Wrong, I claimed it was false under the assumed construction. As is, it is not false but ambiguous. Again, the bitter accusation of lying.
And a further fallacy, assuming the lie and then decrying the opponent for not owning up to it.
And you, apparently, regard debate as a means to one-up the other side, rather than to arrive at the truth. Clarification of an ambiguity is an admirable action, not a lie.

Pointing out that someone who is defending their admitted falsehood is lying is just rational. You can attempt to call it bitter if you like, but others see through it.

Meanwhile, I don't have to assume. You called your own construction false. You pointed out that a term "some" was necessary. You said so, because you'd rather admit that than admit that you implied bad things about those who disagree with you. You're fooling no one.

I regard debate as a means to analyze information and to delve into beliefs, opinions, and find what stands up to logic. You molest logic. So much so that you can't even agree with yourself.

You're not clarifying. You're contradicting yourself.

Your exact words:



You then said it could "never" be false, because its ambiguous.

So, you claimed it isn't false, then it is false under certain "implications", then you claimed under its "ambiguous" construction, it could not be false.

I've had my disagreements with Jocabia, but logically, he is artfully, starkly illustrating your contradictions.

Again, look at the post in its entirety. For ease of discussion, I have previously reposted it, describing exactly where I said what.

Again, I stated it could never be false as is, only under certain implications, which implications were attributed to it when I originally said it was false.

No, rather, he is attempting to cast into a bad light the clarification of an ambiguity, a clarification I have, on numerous occasions, explained as necessary and why it was necessary. There are no contradictions in my statements.

From the recognizable pronunciation (I had a Chinese-national roommate at one point), we'd spell it Peking. Pinyin, the Romanization by which it's spelled Beijing, happens to be a Chinese invention, with perversions of the alphabet that make no sense to anybody who hasn't specifically been taught them. We use Ch instead of Q or Ts and Sh instead of X, and D instead of T (Tsingtao (ching-dow), a Chinese beer, confounded friends of mine to no end). The exception in Pinyin has been Shanghai because everyone was already familiar with it by that name.

Tonal languages as a rule confound me. I still don't see anything wrong with spelling it the old way when you clearly know what I'm talking about.

This post is filled with nonsense.

It's pronounced Bay-jing in Mandarin Chinese, Shang is certainly the pinyin spelling for 上 and I'm not sure if you're aware that you've used the old form of spelling for Qingdao

Wait, Muslims aren't using our language? No, Burmese are using our language? In what world?

A) Thank you for proving my point.

B) They used their language for the purpose first. They use our language, *with us.* We, however, are the ones who control the use of the alphabet, SO it's perfectly acceptable to spell things in a way that makes them better understood or more easily conveyable (Enfanta del Castillo becomes "elephant and castle") in our language.

Fellow cons, brace yourselves for the total amputation of context:

Nothing by itself. But living in the third world causes you to meet a lot of EWB types (and even these have been conservative), and military engineers (predictably conservative). The definitions still apply because the people and issues are still American.

Incidentally, guess what? I'm also a former Marine. 2841. 8 years. I also taught NBC. Guess who all my friends are voting for?

Meanwhile, by no stretch of the imagination would I claim that everyone I encounter is of one party or another. It would be silly. Nor would I try to make the types of sweeping generalizations you made.

So come on, just admit you were taking a piss. Because you're trying to be reasonable now, which is admirable, but it doesn't match at ALL with your original silly claims about the necessary relationship between "real jobs" and political affiliation.

Which tells absolutely nothing about your experience with other engineers, which is minuscule from a statistical standpoint. Your attempts at obfuscation are absolutely pathetic, as is your insistence on anecdotal evidence. Try to do better than that.

And as I've said, we have engineers on this thread who prove the falsity of your statement.



Which didn't actually happen.

Implying it with all the subtlety of a bellowing hippo then. Don't bullshit me about your intent.

A) Thank you for proving my point.

B) They used their language for the purpose first. They use our language, *with us.* We, however, are the ones who control the use of the alphabet, SO it's perfectly acceptable to spell things in a way that makes them better understood or more easily conveyable (Enfanta del Castillo becomes "elephant and castle") in our language.

Of course. Because it's a different language. In THIS language, it's spelled Muslim. They use that, we use that. They aren't asking you to use your spelling. In fact, a fair few of them find it offensive.

Nicea Sancta, this is you, post #257:


Under no logic is "S is P" ever false, as this construct is ambiguous and requires an assumption as to its proper construction.

Then you said this:

Wrong. It is ambiguous and is assumed often to fall in the upper left.
It is because I realize I have been claiming S is P without specifically stating which side of the left column I meant that I clarified it.
I stated my statement was false under certain conditions, namely, due to its assumption of being of the wrong construction.

Here, you've twice used plain language that clearly and utterly shows you are contradicting yourself.

Pointing out that someone who is defending their admitted falsehood is lying is just rational. You can attempt to call it bitter if you like, but others see through it.

Meanwhile, I don't have to assume. You called your own construction false. You pointed out that a term "some" was necessary. You said so, because you'd rather admit that than admit that you implied bad things about those who disagree with you. You're fooling no one.

I regard debate as a means to analyze information and to delve into beliefs, opinions, and find what stands up to logic. You molest logic. So much so that you can't even agree with yourself.

You're not clarify. You're contradicting yourself.

You have not so pointed out, you have argued. And when I have explained your misconceptions, you have responded with the same arguments that were just explained. This is the bitterness, the clinging to an already overthrown argument in an attempt to call the opponent a liar.
As I have stated repeatedly, I called the original construction false under the implication of the improper construction. As constructed, it is not false, but ambiguous.
Further, even were it granted that all people who listen to Hannity are patriots, it still would not imply a thing about those who do not. Now you are reaching beyond the current argument into the previous one in an attempt to conflate the two. Further bad form.
My positions are coherent. If you cannot fathom the coherency, then I think perhaps you might want to brush up on logic.

Incidentally, guess what? I'm also a former Marine. 2841. 8 years. I also taught NBC. Guess who all my friends are voting for?

Meanwhile, by no stretch of the imagination would I claim that everyone I encounter is of one party or another. It would be silly. Nor would I try to make the types of sweeping generalizations you made.

So come on, just admit you were taking a piss. Because you're trying to be reasonable now, which is admirable, but it doesn't match at ALL with your original silly claims about the necessary relationship between "real jobs" and political affiliation.

I didn't say everyone with a real job was conservative. I said conservatives tended to have real jobs, and that the jobs I outlined as non-real tend to be held by liberal.

Of course. Because it's a different language. In THIS language, it's spelled Muslim. They use that, we use that. They aren't asking you to use your spelling. In fact, a fair few of them find it offensive.

I find public flag-burnings and demonstrations against Israel offensive. I'll stop when they stop.

Nicea Sancta, this is you, post #257:



Then you said this:



Here, you've twice used plain language that clearly and utterly shows you are contradicting yourself.

This is not a contradiction. Under no logic is "S is P" ever false. Under certain conditions, it is, conditions such as the assumption that it points to an implied "All S is P" construction.

I didn't say everyone with a real job was conservative. I said conservatives tended to have real jobs, and that the jobs I outlined as non-real tend to be held by liberal.

Heh. See, people who are being themselves don't slowly morph into someone else. So just drop the charade and let's meet one another.

I'm Eric, but you may call me Jocabia. And you are? Please, use your real identity. Let's stop being silly.

This is not a contradiction. Under no logic is "S is P" ever false. Under certain conditions, it is, conditions such as the assumption that it points to an implied "All S is P" construction.

By no logic is "S is P" ever false.

However, by your logic, "S is P" is false.

No contradiction there.

'Falsity' is not a word. 'Untruth' or 'falsehood' would be fine, but inventing words speaks volumes about your actual intelligence.


Or maybe it just speaks of your very limited vocabulary, and desperate need to look intelligent in spite of your tenacious ignorance.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/falsity
http://aolsvc.merriam-webster.aol.com/dictionary/falsity
http://www.answers.com/topic/falsity
http://dictionary.sensagent.com/falsity/en-en/


Further, I never denied the existence of liberal engineers. I said they were rare.

Which you have done absolutely nothing to prove beyond saying that it is so and insisting that it is true, further lending credence to the "all conservatives as rapists" hypothesis, wouldn't you say?

Implying it with all the subtlety of a bellowing hippo then. Don't bullshit me about your intent.

Oh my. I was under the impression that verbal excrement was your preference, given your penchant for dispensing it.

This post is filled with nonsense.

It's pronounced Bay-jing in Mandarin Chinese, Shang is certainly the pinyin spelling for 上 and I'm not sure if you're aware that you've used the old form of spelling for Qingdao

The bottles read Tsingtao, and this was the root of the confusion. An even that wouldn't be old-form spelling (the Q). A considerable portion of the people I know have at least some experience in tonals. I and the confused friends did not.

Heh. See, people who are being themselves don't slowly morph into someone else. So just drop the charade and let's meet one another.

I'm Eric, but you may call me Jocabia. And you are? Please, use your real identity. Let's stop being silly.

The name's Graham, but K&K works fine for me.

Gold star for anyone who can tell me where the first part of that comes from.

Again, look at the post in its entirety. For ease of discussion, I have previously reposted it, describing exactly where I said what.

Again, I stated it could never be false as is, only under certain implications, which implications were attributed to it when I originally said it was false.

No, rather, he is attempting to cast into a bad light the clarification of an ambiguity, a clarification I have, on numerous occasions, explained as necessary and why it was necessary. There are no contradictions in my statements.

So, do you mean all of your statements are claimed to be free of contradiction, or just some of your statements?

Because if you were actually applying the premise you're preaching to us, even your most recent claim (the one right above) is ambiguous and could mean that you're admitting some of your statements might be contradictions.

To so urgently insist on a rule of construction and then repeatedly fail to abide by that rule is an overarching contradiction. Shall we look at your post history and see how often you've used "S is P" to mean "All S is P", while now claiming that it doesn't?

By no logic is "S is P" ever false.

However, by your logic, "S is P" is false.

No contradiction there.

Under no logic is "S is P" false. However, under the conditions that "S is P" is assumed to mean "All S is P" then it is false. No, no contradiction there.

Nicea Sancta, this is you, post #257:



Then you said this:



Here, you've twice used plain language that clearly and utterly shows you are contradicting yourself.

Seriously, what is so hard about this? He can't just say, "yeah, I did say that. It was a mistake. Sorry for causing a misunderstanding. Here is what I really meant..."

Unfortunately, he can't because we nailed what he meant. It was rather obvious and now rather than be caught suggesting such ludicrous things, he'd rather suggest other ludicrous things.

Under no logic is "S is P" false. However, under the conditions that "S is P" is assumed to mean "All S is P" then it is false. No, no contradiction there.

So if I were to quote your statement where you said "by my logic, s is p is false", then it would have that additional statement, right?

Seriously, what is so hard about this? He can't just say, "yeah, I did say that. It was a mistake. Sorry for causing a misunderstanding. Here is what I really meant..."

Unfortunately, he can't because we nailed what he meant. It was rather obvious and now rather than be caught suggesting such ludicrous things, he'd rather suggest other ludicrous things.

Because I really meant both statements, which are non contradictory.

This is not a contradiction. Under no logic is "S is P" ever false. Under certain conditions, it is, conditions such as the assumption that it points to an implied "All S is P" construction.

Well, since you prefer "philosophy's terms", let's try the following:

Let's try a simple subset of formal logic, mathematics.

Let S = 3, and let P be the property of being an even number, commonly defined as being of the form 2k where k is an element of the integer set.

Nicea Sancta's claim: "Under no logic is 'S is P' ever false."

Thus, deductively, by Nicea's Sancta's use of logic, to say that 3 is an Even number is never false.

Now, remember, Nicea Sancta has pointed out that he is a philosophy graduate.

Nicea Sancta, please level with us:

Are you Donald Rumsfeld?

So if I were to quote your statement where you said "by my logic, s is p is false", then it would have that additional statement, right?

You may quote the entire original statement, where I say that, by my logic, "S is P" is false due to the condition that it has been misconstrued to mean "All S is P." However, you have shown a penchant for posting an apparent contradiction while ignoring the rest of the same post wherein it is proven not to be contradictory. Why you intentionally distort the facts, I will not speculate.

Nicea Sancta, please level with us:

Are you Donald Rumsfeld?

I wish I had his measure of intelligence and depth of commitment to his country. He is a better man than I am.

Nicea Sancta, please level with us:

Are you Donald Rumsfeld?

I thought he was Karl Rove.

Because I really meant both statements, which are non contradictory.

Unless one considers them English.

Seriously, do you really want to hang your credibility on this? Really?

One time you said "by no logic, is s is p false?" and another time "by my logic, s is p is false" both times with none of the of the stuff about the added assumption or anything else.

You're completely nailed to the wall as has been pointed out. Instead of simply conceding the point, you continue this sad effort. As such, it can be assumed that you are simply unable to addmit when you're wrong.

Well, since you prefer "philosophy's terms", let's try the following:

Let's try a simple subset of formal logic, mathematics.

Let S = 3, and let P be the property of being an even number, commonly defined as being of the form 2k where k is an element of the integer set.

Nicea Sancta's claim: "Under no logic is 'S is P' ever false."

Thus, deductively, by Nicea's Sancta's use of logic, to say that 3 is an Even number is never false.

Now, remember, Nicea Sancta has pointed out that he is a philosophy graduate.

A perfect example of the fallacy of conflating two terms which are alike only on the surface.
Of course, if Hammurab were truly versed in philosophy, he would know that the constructions I mentioned fall in context of the square of claims, and that "S is P" is ambiguous, and thus never true or false because it does not fall on that square, and thus its meaning is unclear.
But he apparently finds it more fun to insult my intelligence.

You may quote the entire original statement, where I say that, by my logic, "S is P" is false due to the condition that it has been misconstrued to mean "All S is P." However, you have shown a penchant for posting an apparent contradiction while ignoring the rest of the same post wherein it is proven not to be contradictory. Why you intentionally distort the facts, I will not speculate.

You did. So if you cannot highligh in the quote where you said that, you'll admit you were wrong? And I mean, you better be able to quote EXACTLY that.

Agreed? I'll post the entire post.

Unless one considers them English.

Seriously, do you really want to hang your credibility on this? Really?

One time you said "by no logic, is s is p false?" and another time "by my logic, s is p is false" both times with none of the of the stuff about the added assumption or anything else.

You're completely nailed to the wall as has been pointed out. Instead of simply conceding the point, you continue this sad effort. As such, it can be assumed that you are simply unable to addmit when you're wrong.

Wrong, I said, in the second instance, following my logic, it was false, due to the condition that there was an assumption of an improper construction.
You're engaging in the fallacy of deliberately ignoring part of a person's argument in order to weaken it. Why you feel the need to "win" this discussion is beyond me, as I have already made a clear cut case of what exactly occured in the development of my claim.

I thought he was Karl Rove.

Karl Rove is sane. Evil, but sane.

I wish I had his measure of intelligence and depth of commitment to his country. He is a better man than I am.

Donald Rumsfeld deserves nothing more than a horrible, slow, painful and humiliating death.

Under no logic is "S is P" false. However, under the conditions that "S is P" is assumed to mean "All S is P" then it is false. No, no contradiction there.

So, there is no logic under which the following are false (and I do mean false, rather than "not true")?

A dog is a reptile.

This real thing is unreal.

This outcome in Boolean Logic is simultaneously both True and False.

Canada is an American State.

A mammal is a bird.


By your logic, I would have to say "All dogs are reptiles" for it to be false, and saying "A dog is a reptile" can't be deemed false, under any logic.

You said I may ask, so please answer: What kind of philosophy program did you graduate from?

No, according to my logic, the phrase "People who listen to Hannity are patriots" would be false, as would the phrase "People who listen to Hannity are not patriots." What would be accurate, in these instances, would be the phrases "Some people who listen to Hannity are patriots." (Some S is P) and "Some people who listen to Hannity are not patriots." (Some S is !P).

Given that it is extremely unlikely that, in fact, all listeners to Hannity's program are, in fact, patriots, I shall give my assent to "Some people who listen to Hannity are patriots." rather than "People who listen to Hannity are patriots." as the latter implies an "All S is P" construct.

You may quote the entire original statement, where I say that, by my logic, "S is P" is false due to the condition that it has been misconstrued to mean "All S is P." However, you have shown a penchant for posting an apparent contradiction while ignoring the rest of the same post wherein it is proven not to be contradictory. Why you intentionally distort the facts, I will not speculate.

See, you'll note that he claims I cut something out of his original quote in the second post. The first post, which links back to the post itself, is the post in its entirety. Notice what is missing? The qualifiers he claim I cut out.

I challenged him to SHOW what I cut out. Notice he doesn't. Instead he just keeps making accusations. What do we call a debater who keeps making claims but won't back them up?

So, there is no logic under which the following are false (and I do mean false, rather than "not true")?

A dog is a reptile.

This real thing is unreal.

This outcome in Boolean Logic is simultaneously both True and False.

Canada is an American State.

A mammal is a bird.


By your logic, I would have to say "All dogs are reptiles" for it to be false, and saying "A dog is a reptile" can't be deemed false, under any logic.

You said I may ask, so please answer: What kind of philosophy program did you graduate from?

Again, the same fallacy. "S is P" refers to an imaginary statement of the kind found on the square of claims. Since this construction is not on that square, it is ambiguous. As you no doubt are aware, "S" and "P" refer to categories of objects, not individuals.

There is the entirety of your post.

You'll notice you don't mention assumptions at all. You simply say it would accurate to add "some" and say to remove the word makes the statement false.

Now, please highlight were you said "due to the condition that it has been misconstrued"?

I'll explain it, once again:

No, according to my logic, the phrase "People who listen to Hannity are patriots" would be false, as would the phrase "People who listen to Hannity are not patriots." What would be accurate, in these instances, would be the phrases "Some people who listen to Hannity are patriots." (Some S is P) and "Some people who listen to Hannity are not patriots." (Some S is !P).
Given that it is extremely unlikely that, in fact, all listeners to Hannity's program are, in fact, patriots, I shall give my assent to "Some people who listen to Hannity are patriots." rather than "People who listen to Hannity are patriots." as the latter implies an "All S is P" construct.

Here, bolded, is the place where I show the reasoning for my claim that "People who listen to Hannity are patriots" would be false under the given conditions. This is the condition under which the falsehood can be said to apply. Without the bolded portion, the falsehood could not be said to apply.

A perfect example of the fallacy of conflating two terms which are alike only on the surface.
Of course, if Hammurab were truly versed in philosophy, he would know that the constructions I mentioned fall in context of the square of claims, and that "S is P" is ambiguous, and thus never true or false because it does not fall on that square, and thus its meaning is unclear.
But he apparently finds it more fun to insult my intelligence.

Conflating? You said "Under no logic" could it be considered false.

Thus, claiming it can be judged only within the square of claims, and ignoring the many, many, many arenas of logic wherein "S is P" has been used (as you have many times used it yourself) as a categorical claim is yet another contradiction.

Note, you again use a construction you continue to claim is unclear, or do you mean that only some of your mentioned constructions fall in the context, or do you mean all of them?

After all, since the "constructions you mentioned" could be divided into some or all, your statement can't be false (or true), by your claim. More contradiction.

I'll explain it, once again:

No, according to my logic, the phrase "People who listen to Hannity are patriots" would be false, as would the phrase "People who listen to Hannity are not patriots." What would be accurate, in these instances, would be the phrases "Some people who listen to Hannity are patriots." (Some S is P) and "Some people who listen to Hannity are not patriots." (Some S is !P).
Given that it is extremely unlikely that, in fact, all listeners to Hannity's program are, in fact, patriots, I shall give my assent to "Some people who listen to Hannity are patriots." rather than "People who listen to Hannity are patriots." as the latter implies an "All S is P" construct.

Here, bolded, is the place where I show the reasoning for my claim that "People who listen to Hannity are patriots" would be false under the given conditions. This is the condition under which the falsehood can be said to apply. Without the bolded portion, the falsehood could not be said to apply.


You claimed I cut it out of your post. I just posted the post in its entirety. Highlight it in the original post. Or were you lying again when you said I was cutting your posts.

Karl Rove is sane. Evil, but sane.

If the combination required is senility and evilness, wouldn't that make NS McCain then?

Conflating? You said "Under no logic" could it be considered false.

Thus, claiming it can be judged only within the square of claims, and ignoring the many, many, many arenas of logic wherein "S is P" has been used (as you have many times used it yourself) as a categorical claim is yet another contradiction.

Note, you again use a construction you continue to claim is unclear, or do you mean that only some of your mentioned constructions fall in the context, or do you mean all of them?

After all, since the "constructions you mentioned" could be divided into some or all, your statement can't be false (or true), by your claim. More contradiction.


Honestly, I don't know anymore if he actually sees the contradictions at all. They are just so glaring. I would expect someone to give up if they could see them. This argument is just so illogical.

Conflating? You said "Under no logic" could it be considered false.

Thus, claiming it can be judged only within the square of claims, and ignoring the many, many, many arenas of logic wherein "S is P" has been used (as you have many times used it yourself) as a categorical claim is yet another contradiction.

Note, you again use a construction you continue to claim is unclear, or do you mean that only some of your mentioned constructions fall in the context, or do you mean all of them?

After all, since the "constructions you mentioned" could be divided into some or all, your statement can't be false (or true), by your claim. More contradiction.

Yes, you are conflating the "S is P" construct within the square of claims with other instances where "S is P" might be said to apply. This is a fallacy. Under no logic can "S is P" as it is properly understood within the square of claims by itself be said to be false. In order to do so, you must come up with another "S is P" which has an entirely different meaning and say that my statement applies to that as well. That is conflation of terms.

well, my feeling is this, as for associating with known terrorists, rumsfield CREATED the tallibon under raygun.

if palin would rather kill people then negotiate with them, that to me, is one more reason NOT to want her "one heartbeat away from the presidency". you know we've got too much of that already, and a world screwed up because of it. that and this whole nonsense of symbolic value and putting it ahead of the cycles of nature the existence of our species depends upon.

If the combination required is senility and evilness, wouldn't that make NS McCain then?

He's not old enough. NS is Rick Santorum. :eek:

Yes, you are conflating the "S is P" construct within the square of claims with other instances where "S is P" might be said to apply. This is a fallacy. Under no logic can "S is P" as it is properly understood within the square of claims by itself be said to be false. In order to do so, you must come up with another "S is P" which has an entirely different meaning and say that my statement applies to that as well. That is conflation of terms.

There go those goalposts again. You keep adding qualifiers and then acting like the qualifiers you just added were always there.

You're a child molester.

(Don't worry, later, I'll add a qualifier that makes it a true statement. Thus it's not lying, right?)

Again, the same fallacy. "S is P" refers to an imaginary statement of the kind found on the square of claims. Since this construction is not on that square, it is ambiguous. As you no doubt are aware, "S" and "P" refer to categories of objects, not individuals.

You said "Under no logic is 'S is P' ever false."

Thus, you can't turn around and limit it to the square of claims, when there are many other logical models, including simple mathematics where "3 is even" certainly can be deemed false.

And the taxonomy of animals is quite clearly a case of "categories of objects", but by all means, here are both, including examples that can fall easily onto the square of claims, and still be found false (remember, you said "Under no logic is 'S is P' ever false."

Classes of objects, demonstrating that Nicea Sancta's claim "Under no logic is 'S is P' ever false" is false:

A circle is a square.

A point is a plane.

An airplane is a tomato.


Individuals, demonstrating that Nicea Sancta's claim "Under no logic is 'S is P' ever false" is false:

The current vice-president is an extra-terrestrial.

The president is a supreme court judge.

I am omnipotent.



Now, here's a logic question, for those who like "philosophy's terms":

If you claim "Under NO logic is 'S is P' ever false", how many kinds of logic does it have to be demonstrably false in for the claim itself to be false?

Must I prove it false for ALL logic, including the model of square of claims, or merely false in at least one logical construct, such as mathematics, taxonomy, Boolean logic, or any number of others, for the claim to be false?

For those of you just joining us, a brief recap:

I was asked what sort of people listen to Sean Hannity's program.
I responded that those who listen to Hannity's program are patriots
Jocabia accused me of implying in this statement that people who do not listen to Hannity's program are not patriots.
I disproved this, by showing that "All S is P" does not imply "All P is S" or "All not-S is not-P"
Upon a reply to this, I realized that my original statement, "People who listen to Hannity's program are patriots." was ambiguous, and likely to be taken as meaning that all people who listen to Hannity's program are patriots. As I do not believe this to be the case, I clarified, saying that, if taken under this misconstruction, the statement would be false, and that the intended meaning of this statement should be "Some people who listen to Hannity's program are patriots."
Jocabia accused me of lying for ten pages.
And here we are.

You said "Under no logic is 'S is P' ever false."

Thus, you can't turn around and limit it to the square of claims, when there are many other logical models, including simple mathematics where "3 is even" certainly can be deemed false.

And the taxonomy of animals is quite clearly a case of "categories of objects", but by all means, here are both, including examples that can fall easily onto the square of claims, and still be found false (remember, you said "Under no logic is 'S is P' ever false."

Classes of objects, demonstrating that Nicea Sancta's claim "Under no logic is 'S is P' ever false" is false:

A circle is a square.

A point is a plane.

An airplane is a tomato.


Individuals, demonstrating that Nicea Sancta's claim "Under no logic is 'S is P' ever false" is false:

The current vice-president is an extra-terrestrial.

The president is a supreme court judge.

I am omnipotent.



Now, here's a logic question, for those who like "philosophy's terms":

If you claim "Under NO logic is 'S is P' ever false", how many kinds of logic does it have to be demonstrably false in for the claim itself to be false?

Must I prove it false for ALL logic, including the model of square of claims, or merely false in at least one logical construct, such as mathematics, taxonomy, Boolean logic, or any number of others, for the claim to be false?

Hehe. He doesn't seem to realize that when you say "ALL" or "NO" that it only takes one exception.

The answer is that one exception to an all or none claim is all it takes.

For those of you just joining us, a brief recap:

I was asked what sort of people listen to Sean Hannity's program.
I responded that those who listen to Hannity's program are patriots
Jocabia accused me of implying in this statement that people who do not listen to Hannity's program are not patriots.
I disproved this, by showing that "All S is P" does not imply "All P is S" or "All not-S is not-P"
Upon a reply to this, I realized that my original statement, "People who listen to Hannity's program are patriots." was ambiguous, and likely to be taken as meaning that all people who listen to Hannity's program are patriots. As I do not believe this to be the case, I clarified, saying that, if taken under this misconstruction, the statement would be false, and that the intended meaning of this statement should be "Some people who listen to Hannity's program are patriots."
Jocabia accused me of lying for ten pages.
And here we are.

Ah, the last bastion of hope for you. You're hoping you can falsly recap the argument and pretend you said something else and people will believe you. It's not hard to truly recap. Let me go back and quote.

You said "Under no logic is 'S is P' ever false."

Thus, you can't turn around and limit it to the square of claims, when there are many other logical models, including simple mathematics where "3 is even" certainly can be deemed false.

And the taxonomy of animals is quite clearly a case of "categories of objects", but by all means, here are both, including examples that can fall easily onto the square of claims, and still be found false (remember, you said "Under no logic is 'S is P' ever false."

Classes of objects, demonstrating that Nicea Sancta's claim "Under no logic is 'S is P' ever false" is false:

A circle is a square.

A point is a plane.

An airplane is a tomato.


Individuals, demonstrating that Nicea Sancta's claim "Under no logic is 'S is P' ever false" is false:

The current vice-president is an extra-terrestrial.

The president is a supreme court judge.

I am omnipotent.



Now, here's a logic question, for those who like "philosophy's terms":

If you claim "Under NO logic is 'S is P' ever false", how many kinds of logic does it have to be demonstrably false in for the claim itself to be false?

Must I prove it false for ALL logic, including the model of square of claims, or merely false in at least one logical construct, such as mathematics, taxonomy, Boolean logic, or any number of others, for the claim to be false?

Using a term outside its given context, with a different meaning, is in fact conflation. Its original context was within the square of claims, and any use of it outside that context is conflation.
You are using the same argument which proves that one may safely store one's money in the side of a river, because it is a bank. It is a classic fallacy.
Further, "S is P" does not even refer to discrete categories; it refers to a type of claim which does refer to discrete categories.
At first I believed you to be attempting to use your knowledge of philosophy against me. Now I begin to doubt that you have any such knowledge, if you cannot judge conflation of terms, an easy fallacy to avoid.

Yes, you are conflating the "S is P" construct within the square of claims with other instances where "S is P" might be said to apply. This is a fallacy. Under no logic can "S is P" as it is properly understood within the square of claims by itself be said to be false. In order to do so, you must come up with another "S is P" which has an entirely different meaning and say that my statement applies to that as well. That is conflation of terms.

Your exact words: "Under NO logic is 'S is P' ever false". Thus, you explicitly claim it can never be false under any instances, including under any logic.

So, you first claim "Under NO logic", now you say "Under NO logic, as properly understood within the square of claims", thus limiting your premise to SOME logic.

But this time, it wasn't just leaving out "All" or "Some"....this time you expressly said "Under NO logic is 'S is P' ever false."

Even though its been repeatedly shown to you there are many logical systems where you are wrong. Do all those logical systems limit themselves to the "square of claims"? No, but they don't have to because YOU SAID: "Under NO logic is 'S is P' ever false."

Does the irony escape you that if you were actually applying the square of claims as universally as you insist, you would know that "Under NO logic is 'S is P' ever false" means that we need only show one logic, such as mathematics, wherein "S is P" can be false, to prove you wrong?

No, according to my logic, the phrase "People who listen to Hannity are patriots" would be false, as would the phrase "People who listen to Hannity are not patriots." What would be accurate, in these instances, would be the phrases "Some people who listen to Hannity are patriots." (Some S is P) and "Some people who listen to Hannity are not patriots." (Some S is !P).

Given that it is extremely unlikely that, in fact, all listeners to Hannity's program are, in fact, patriots, I shall give my assent to "Some people who listen to Hannity are patriots." rather than "People who listen to Hannity are patriots." as the latter implies an "All S is P" construct.

You may quote the entire original statement, where I say that, by my logic, "S is P" is false due to the condition that it has been misconstrued to mean "All S is P." However, you have shown a penchant for posting an apparent contradiction while ignoring the rest of the same post wherein it is proven not to be contradictory. Why you intentionally distort the facts, I will not speculate.

See, you'll note that he claims I cut something out of his original quote in the second post. The first post, which links back to the post itself, is the post in its entirety. Notice what is missing? The qualifiers he claim I cut out.

I challenged him to SHOW what I cut out. Notice he doesn't. Instead he just keeps making accusations. What do we call a debater who keeps making claims but won't back them up?

Your exact words: "Under NO logic is 'S is P' ever false". Thus, you explicitly claim it can never be false under any instances, including under any logic.

So, you first claim "Under NO logic", now you say "Under NO logic, as properly understood within the square of claims", thus limiting your premise to SOME logic.

But this time, it wasn't just leaving out "All" or "Some"....this time you expressly said "Under NO logic is 'S is P' ever false."

Even though its been repeatedly shown to you there are many logical systems where you are wrong. Do all those logical systems limit themselves to the "square of claims"? No, but they don't have to because YOU SAID: "Under NO logic is 'S is P' ever false."

Does the irony escape you that if you were actually applying the square of claims as universally as you insist, you would know that "Under NO logic is 'S is P' ever false" means that we need only show one logic, such as mathematics, wherein "S is P" can be false, to prove you wrong?

Unfortunately, he's proven he'll never admit what is blatantly obvious to everyone else. However, you've done an admirable job of further pointing out his contradictions. I'm sure soon he'll be claiming you're cutting things from his posts despite not actually being able to show that what he claims was in the original posts.

That said, it's lights out for me. You should be studying. *shakes finger*

Good night, friend, if I may call you that.

See, you'll note that he claims I cut something out of his original quote in the second post. The first post, which links back to the post itself, is the post in its entirety. Notice what is missing? The qualifiers he claim I cut out.

I challenged him to SHOW what I cut out. Notice he doesn't. Instead he just keeps making accusations. What do we call a debater who keeps making claims but won't back them up?

Deep Kimchi?

Now, I have demonstrated, with more than adequate patience, the progression of my claims, such that any reasonable person may understand it. It has come to my attention that my current opponents are not reasonable, at least with regard to this argument, but are intent merely on playing "gotcha" to the point that they will, deliberately or ignorantly, I cannot decide which, misconstrue and distort my claims to further their own interests, despite repeated clarifications as to their meaning. Perhaps it was my error bringing philosophical terms to bear against people who clearly cannot grasp their meaning. Regardless, I deem my case sufficiently proved, and will cease defending it; I leave it on its own merits. Doubtless my opponents will claim victory; I give them leave to do so. As I stated, my position should be clear, by this point, to any reasonable person with enough patience to actually read through the vast pile of accusations and misinterpretations.
Personally, I tire of these games.

It should be unsurprising that the strongest supporters of the left are students, academics, community organizers, the civil service and other people who've never held a real job.

Engineers (the most real of all jobs, as the universe happens to be the creation of one) are overwhelmingly conservative people. Their education has taught them that there are immutable facts in the world, and their profession keeps them too busy dealing with immutable facts to consider liberalism.

Food for thought.

Three engineers were sitting on a bench one day, eating their lunches. Eventually, they started having an existential debate about what kind of engineer God must be.

The mechanical engineer said "He's obviously a mechanical engineer. Just look at the skeletal and muscle systems, it's plain as day."

"But without the nervous system, those muscles don't work," said the electrical engineer. "God built the human body a vast network to control the muscle and skeletal systems, he must be an electrical engineer."

They of course, could not agree, so they asked the third engineer, a civil engineer.

He said, after a moment's pause, "God is a civil engineer."

As one, the other two exclaimed "What?!"

The civil engineer then calmly explained "Who else would put a waste dump next to a recreation area?"

Frankly, you're both looking pretty childish.

Now, I have demonstrated, with more than adequate patience, the progression of my claims, such that any reasonable person may understand it. It has come to my attention that my current opponents are not reasonable, at least with regard to this argument, but are intent merely on playing "gotcha" to the point that they will, deliberately or ignorantly, I cannot decide which, misconstrue and distort my claims to further their own interests, despite repeated clarifications as to their meaning. Perhaps it was my error bringing philosophical terms to bear against people who clearly cannot grasp their meaning. Regardless, I deem my case sufficiently proved, and will cease defending it; I leave it on its own merits. Doubtless my opponents will claim victory; I give them leave to do so. As I stated, my position should be clear, by this point, to any reasonable person with enough patience to actually read through the vast pile of accusations and misinterpretations.
Personally, I tire of these games.

Once again, I have repeatedly shown the original post, the post you claimed I'd cut content from. Show what content I cut? Or is it your own games you tire of?

Personally, I tire of these games.Mmm-hmmm.
So how's the view?

Three engineers were sitting on a bench one day, eating their lunches. Eventually, they started having an existential debate about what kind of engineer God must be.

The mechanical engineer said "He's obviously a mechanical engineer. Just look at the skeletal and muscle systems, it's plain as day."

"But without the nervous system, those muscles don't work," said the electrical engineer. "God built the human body a vast network to control the muscle and skeletal systems, he must be an electrical engineer."

They of course, could not agree, so they asked the third engineer, a civil engineer.

He said, after a moment's pause, "God is a civil engineer."

As one, the other two exclaimed "What?!"

The civil engineer then calmly explained "Who else would put a waste dump next to a recreation area?"

I always loved that joke.

Frankly, you're both looking pretty childish.

It's 3 in the morning. What do you want? I'm bored.

Who ever thought that "This statement is true" follwed by the same poster saying "This statement is false" followed by the same poster saying "this statement is ambiguous" would require 12 pages of argument? It's nuts.

I always loved that joke.

Yeah, it's one of my favorites.

Using a term outside its given context, with a different meaning, is in fact conflation. Its original context was within the square of claims, and any use of it outside that context is conflation.
You are using the same argument which proves that one may safely store one's money in the side of a river, because it is a bank. It is a classic fallacy.
Further, "S is P" does not even refer to discrete categories; it refers to a type of claim which does refer to discrete categories.
At first I believed you to be attempting to use your knowledge of philosophy against me. Now I begin to doubt that you have any such knowledge, if you cannot judge conflation of terms, an easy fallacy to avoid.

Ah, but you didn't say "Within the square of claims, S is P is never false", you said "Under NO logic is 'S is P' ever false".

Now, you say "Under this specific context, 'S is P' is never false".

To use your parallel, what you said is much closer to "There is NO definition of bank in which you may safely store money, because I am here using bank as the side of a river".

S and P are not solely used in the square of claims, they are simple place holders for any number of ideas. You confess to ambiguity then accuse others of conflation when you can't take responsibility for your ambiguity.


(Note, you again break your own rule, saying "Using a term a term outside its given context, with a different meaning, is in fact conflation". But notice, you don't state whether its "All" such uses, or "Some", thus again being ambiguous and neither true nor false by your own statement".)

The biggest contradiction in Nicea Sancta's posts was the one where he said he wasn't going to argue semantics.

Unfortunately, he's proven he'll never admit what is blatantly obvious to everyone else. However, you've done an admirable job of further pointing out his contradictions. I'm sure soon he'll be claiming you're cutting things from his posts despite not actually being able to show that what he claims was in the original posts.

That said, it's lights out for me. You should be studying. *shakes finger*

Good night, friend, if I may call you that.

Good night, friend.

Now, I have demonstrated, with more than adequate patience, the progression of my claims, such that any reasonable person may understand it. It has come to my attention that my current opponents are not reasonable, at least with regard to this argument, but are intent merely on playing "gotcha" to the point that they will, deliberately or ignorantly, I cannot decide which, misconstrue and distort my claims to further their own interests, despite repeated clarifications as to their meaning. Perhaps it was my error bringing philosophical terms to bear against people who clearly cannot grasp their meaning. Regardless, I deem my case sufficiently proved, and will cease defending it; I leave it on its own merits. Doubtless my opponents will claim victory; I give them leave to do so. As I stated, my position should be clear, by this point, to any reasonable person with enough patience to actually read through the vast pile of accusations and misinterpretations.
Personally, I tire of these games.

I teach a class that includes various facets of formal logic. Under fair use, I can quote your posts for various excerpts. If you truly feel that your case is "sufficiently proved", you wouldn't mind if I showed them this thread in its entirety, (this post excluded naturally) without telling them who I am here.

We'll see, even if in just your post above, how many fallacies they can find...

The biggest contradiction in Nicea Sancta's posts was the one where he said he wasn't going to argue semantics.

Heh, when semantics, or some attempt thereto, have been the primary substance of his arguments. I don't mind that in and of itself, but for him to do so after frequently claiming he wouldn't....

You're quite right, that is the most sizable contradiction, although its smaller siblings are many.

I teach a class that includes various facets of formal logic. Under fair use, I can quote your posts for various excerpts. If you truly feel that your case is "sufficiently proved", you wouldn't mind if I showed them this thread in its entirety, (this post excluded naturally) without telling them who I am here.

We'll see, even if in just your post above, how many fallacies they can find...

I most loved the reference to playing "gotcha". That term is so funny to me. It's used so frequently these days in reference to getting caught saying something stupid and acting like the person who caught you is being unfair. E.g. Sarah Palin states her position to a voter and when it turns out it was recorded, calls it 'gotcha' journalism because she really didn't want it recorded. Not because her position was misconstrued, because it's simply a full video of what she said and what she was replying to, but because she didn't know it would end up being analyzed.

well you know, i don't know what a one size fits all deffinician of "going too far" would be, but i do see the remark in question as being rather self evidently pointless and self serving.

she didn't know it would end up being analyzed.There's a whole line o'folk just lined up to analyze her.
Casting couch & all.

I most loved the reference to playing "gotcha". That term is so funny to me. It's used so frequently these days in reference to getting caught saying something stupid and acting like the person who caught you is being unfair. E.g. Sarah Palin states her position to a voter and when it turns out it was recorded, calls it 'gotcha' journalism because she really didn't want it recorded. Not because her position was misconstrued, because it's simply a full video of what she said and what she was replying to, but because she didn't know it would end up being analyzed.

I'd reply to this, but I don't see any words. After all, you're an ex-military engineer who doesn't agree with some supposed monolithic idealogy that you're supposed to, so you're so rare as to be non-existant.

I can only assume you have partial ocular albinism and chimaeric disorder, and some other disease so rare that they would name it after you, but nobody expects to see it again so they didn't publish, but that's okay because you win the lottery every 4 months.

Perhaps it was my error bringing philosophical terms to bear against people who clearly cannot grasp their meaning. Regardless, I deem my case sufficiently proved, and will cease defending it; I leave it on its own merits.

Here are some philosophical terms: You've repeatedly stated your claim was limited to the context of the "square of claims", classically referred to as the "square of opposition", with its roots in ancient Greece and with continued development through the middle ages and on into some contemporary philsophy. Its a subset of certain syllogistic logical systems.

Since you prefer that context, let's try some meta-logic, and for clarity I will not assume any existential import in the following propositions:

Not all logic is syllogistic logic.

There is some logic that is not syllogistic logic.

Not all logic employs the square of opposition.

There are some logical systems that do not use the square of opposition.

Not all logical systems use the symbols S and P to represent certain things.

There are some logical systems that use S and P in other ways.

Some logic is mathematics.

In some mathematics, S and P can represent numerical values, or sets, or members of sets.


If we can construct some dynamic where the above propositions are true, we now introduce Nicea Sancta's claim: "Under no logic is 'S is P' ever false."

Notice, we have established that there is some logic that is not governed by the symbolism and syntax of the square of claims.

Thus, we can say, "Under some logic, S can be the number 3 and P can be the set of even numbers".

Or even "Under some logic, S can be the number 3 and P can be the number 4."

Thus, under some logic systems, 'S is P' is false.

Nicea Sancta's claim that "Under no logic is 'S is P' ever false" is thus refuted, easily using his beloved square of opposition (or as he introduced it, the square of claims).

QED.

Here are some philosophical terms: You've repeatedly stated your claim was limited to the context of the "square of claims", classically referred to as the "square of opposition", with its roots in ancient Greece and with continued development through the middle ages and on into some contemporary philsophy. Its a subset of certain syllogistic logical systems.

Since you prefer that context, let's try some meta-logic, and for clarity I will not assume any existential import in the following propositions:

Not all logic is syllogistic logic.

There is some logic that is not syllogistic logic.

Not all logic employs the square of opposition.

There are some logical systems that do not use the square of opposition.

Not all logical systems use the symbols S and P to represent certain things.

There are some logical systems that use S and P in other ways.

Some logic is mathematics.

In some mathematics, S and P can represent numerical values, or sets, or members of sets.


If we can construct some dynamic where the above propositions are true, we now introduce Nicea Sancta's claim: "Under no logic is 'S is P' ever false."

Notice, we have established that there is some logic that is not governed by the symbolism and syntax of the square of claims.

Thus, we can say, "Under some logic, S can be the number 3 and P can be the set of even numbers".

Or even "Under some logic, S can be the number 3 and P can be the number 4."

Thus, under some logic systems, 'S is P' is false.

Nicea Sancta's claim that "Under no logic is 'S is P' ever false" is thus refuted, easily using his beloved square of opposition (or as he introduced it, the square of claims).

QED.

Did I mention that I love you? Your persistence and superior philosophical knowledge has totally decimated NS. And I mean that in both senses. This post? Already decimated before I posted it. Yet the sheer awesomeness of your posts, however, cause severe time delays before NS realises what's hit it (or him).

I met Lec Walesa when I was 11. Does that make me a Polish revolutionary?

I met Vaclav Havel last week, does that make me a playwright?

Yep and McCain palled around with Manuel Noriega. They're both from Panama after all. I'll bet you there is eve na picture out there of them shaking hands. McCain is a drug dealer.

Well... There sure is this:
http://wonkette.com/images/thumbs/f4b282ef2df443194141ec69ffef35e3.jpg

Here is Bush "palling around" with a turkey:

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/S/H/bush_turkey.jpg

And everything it implies. ;)

I think I just found this year's Thanksgiving card. :D

This sort of thing is easy enough to do with a couple of selective media quotes. Observe:



JOHN MCCAIN'S LINKS TO VIETNAMESE TORTURERS
Republican Candidate Endorsed by Communist Prison Guard

The McCain presidential campaign was rocked today by revelations that the Republican candidate for president had spent several years during the Vietnam War associating with known communist torturers. McCain was unable to deny that he had spent October 1967 to March 1973 in the company of anti-American communists based in the notorious Hoa Lo Prison, also know as the "Hanoi Hilton".

According to the BBC, former prison guard, and amateur ballroom dancer, Tran Trong Duyet (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7459946.stm) has described Mr. McCain as a friend. "If I was American, I would vote for him" said Mr. Duyet before nostalgically reminiscing about the 'informal chats' he often enjoyed in his office with the Republican candidate. Mr. McCain's flight suit now enjoys a position of honour on display in the Hoa Lo Prison Museum.

How McCain will react to these explosive revelations in the last month of the election remains to be seen, though Governor Palin was said to have remarked that she always enjoyed staying in Hilton hotels when travelling across the United States, and that she assumed that the one in Hanoi was just as comfortable.

This sort of thing is easy enough to do with a couple of selective media quotes. Observe:



JOHN MCCAIN'S LINKS TO VIETNAMESE TORTURERS
Republican Candidate Endorsed by Communist Prison Guard

The McCain presidential campaign was rocked today by revelations that the Republican candidate for president had spent several years during the Vietnam War associating with known communist torturers. McCain was unable to deny that he had spent October 1967 to March 1973 in the company of anti-American communists based in the notorious Hoa Lo Prison, also know as the "Hanoi Hilton".

Former prison guard, and amateur ballroom dancer, Tran Trong Duyet (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7459946.stm) has described Mr. McCain as a friend. "If I was American, I would vote for him" said Mr. Duyet before nostalgically reminiscing about the 'informal chats' he often enjoyed in his office with the Republican candidate. Mr. McCain's flight suit now enjoys a position of honour on display in the Hoa Lo Prison Museum.

How McCain will react to these explosive revelations in the last month of the election remains to be seen, though Governor Palin was said to have remarked that she always enjoyed staying in Hilton hotels when travelling across the United States, and that she assumed that the one in Hanoi was just as comfortable.

Get a blog!





















And post this in it! This is gold! GOLD!

Get a blog!

And post this in it! This is gold! GOLD!

I'm glad you liked it, but wouldn't that lower me to McCain / Palin's level? ;)

You guys are missing the point a report I saw on this issue has Palin quoted as saying she read about it in the New York Times, meaning that she does read at least this paper. And since this paper is the only one worth reading then she does read all of them. See she was right I tell you she was right.

Under the heading of "Think Before You Say These Things":
(Quotes reorganized to facilitate connecting the dots)

Derisive? I've never heard this.

I just rather like British Imperial names and spellings for places, and they're usually equally correct for the same reasons. The exception is Ankara, because they do use our alphabet (though they didn't when the place was called Angora).
They're usually correct because they date from the British Empire and because you like them? Really?

From the recognizable pronunciation (I had a Chinese-national roommate at one point), we'd spell it Peking. Pinyin, the Romanization by which it's spelled Beijing, happens to be a Chinese invention, with perversions of the alphabet that make no sense to anybody who hasn't specifically been taught them. We use Ch instead of Q or Ts and Sh instead of X, and D instead of T (Tsingtao (ching-dow), a Chinese beer, confounded friends of mine to no end). The exception in Pinyin has been Shanghai because everyone was already familiar with it by that name.
Right, because we wouldn't want to let the Chinese decide what to call their own capitol city now, not after some British guy already made up a name for it long ago that you like better.

Tonal languages as a rule confound me. I still don't see anything wrong with spelling it the old way when you clearly know what I'm talking about.
Oh, yes, we do know what you are talking about. Very clearly indeed. See below:

I find public flag-burnings and demonstrations against Israel offensive. I'll stop when they stop.
So in other words, you know perfectly well that the games you play with language and place names are offensive, and you do it deliberately to be offensive? Thanks for admitting that.


Not in formal writing. I may have done it once or twice in chatspeak, but only for the same reason people spell 'Christmas' with an X.

The word went from Aramaic to Hebrew to Latin and then into various Romance languages and Romance-based languages (like English) and in those is spelled according to applicable convention. 'Christian' isn't what's said in Arabic anyway.

Besides, spelling it 'Xian' would confuse about a sixth of the world's population. Hopefully everyone's worldly enough that I don't have to say which.
Bullshit like the above goes over better if you don't follow it up with obvious gaffes like this:

'Falsity' is not a word. 'Untruth' or 'falsehood' would be fine, but inventing words speaks volumes about your actual intelligence.
As has been pointed out to you, "falsity" most certainly is a word in English. Here, I'll point it out again, just for laughs:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/falsity

Question: How did you get to be such an expert in language without ever learning how to use a dictionary?

Further, I never denied the existence of liberal engineers. I said they were rare. That after 2004 the Congress was 'overwhelmingly' red-controlled doesn't mean we didn't have Bolsheviks.
"Bolsheviks"? :D Tell me, are you one of those obsessive historical reenactors? Do you light your house with gas lamps? Do you own any pants that have zippers?


Bangladesh? Pretty straightforward.

Except that I'm not that stupid. The British heard Burma, and called it Burma. If you hear Burmese spoken, it's understandable. The language and the people are both still called Burmese, the new name of the country aside. You still know perfectly well what I'm talking about, and haven't touched my point.
OK, please re-read this slowly. Compare it to a map. And a history textbook. And ask yourself this question:

Did you or did you not just conflate Bangladesh with Burma?

Obviously you made an error and left out a chunk of text from your post. Or perhaps you were trying to change the subject and forgot to make that clear and, thus, made yourself look silly. Because, clearly, a big expert on the world like you could not have forgotten that:

A) The country that was Burma was renamed Myanmar.

B) Bangladesh has never been renamed.

And in any event, whether we call it Burma or Myanmar will ultimately be up to the people whose country it is, won't it? Oh, and your aesthetic preferences notwithstanding, that does not mean the British Empire. Not anymore. Contrary to all expectations, the sun did indeed set on that one. A long time ago.

Another question: Since you pefer the old names for things -- and apparently feel no need to keep up with current events -- do you still refer to the separate nations of the Czech Republic and Slovakia as the one nation that was called Czechoslovakia? And if so, are you really John McCain?

Here is Bush "palling around" with a turkey:

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/S/H/bush_turkey.jpg

And everything it implies. ;)

Which one's the turkey?

I'm glad you liked it, but wouldn't that lower me to McCain / Palin's level? ;)

Nope.

Or I don't care. I want to keep the White House off the hands of a damn Republican.

*snip*
awesome :D

I met Vaclav Havel last week, does that make me a playwright?
I'd like to meet Vaclav Havel. I always wanted to write plays.

(By the way, I actually am jealous. Please tell me he was a smelly bore.)

Well, my entire history of posting on this thread is more or less an answer to this question, but in short, I believe it is none of the government's business to interfere with who a business chooses as its clientele. If a given person wishes to sell his sandwiches only to people who are left-handed, it is none of the government's business to tell him he can't.

EDIT: Forgive me, got my threads mixed up. The discussion in question took place on the thread Gays should have to use separate gyms in General.
oh fair enough . . .I'll read up :)

This sort of thing is easy enough to do with a couple of selective media quotes. Observe:



JOHN MCCAIN'S LINKS TO VIETNAMESE TORTURERS
Republican Candidate Endorsed by Communist Prison Guard

The McCain presidential campaign was rocked today by revelations that the Republican candidate for president had spent several years during the Vietnam War associating with known communist torturers. McCain was unable to deny that he had spent October 1967 to March 1973 in the company of anti-American communists based in the notorious Hoa Lo Prison, also know as the "Hanoi Hilton".

Former prison guard, and amateur ballroom dancer, Tran Trong Duyet (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7459946.stm) has described Mr. McCain as a friend. "If I was American, I would vote for him" said Mr. Duyet before nostalgically reminiscing about the 'informal chats' he often enjoyed in his office with the Republican candidate. Mr. McCain's flight suit now enjoys a position of honour on display in the Hoa Lo Prison Museum.

How McCain will react to these explosive revelations in the last month of the election remains to be seen, though Governor Palin was said to have remarked that she always enjoyed staying in Hilton hotels when travelling across the United States, and that she assumed that the one in Hanoi was just as comfortable.

You sir, have won the thread.

I just had an epiphany!


Sarah Palin is not a Republican.. in fact she is a DEMOCRAT! She is a spy sent to infiltrate republican ranks and destroy thier election bid from the inside.

In a few short months she has done as much if not more than anyone else to destroy the Neo-Conservative's image. She is single handedly tearing down McCain's bid for presidency and ensuring more people will vote for Democratic candidates. She's a genius!

I bet Franklin Roosevelt's brain still living in a mason jar somewhere in the foothills of the rocky mountains devised this plan! Its too brilliant to have been Al Gore's doing...

I have no idea what you're talking about.

*stuffs mason jar back under bed*

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20081005/pl_bloomberg/a1f8yut_qo0

Even the most impartial of observers should probably be disturbed by the outright sinister turn taken by the McCain campaign. Sarah Palin's suggestion that Barack Obama "pals around with terrorists" is a platter of outrage served with a side of stupefaction. The move, of course, is consistent with an ideological movement that is intellectually and morally bankrupt. John McCain can hardly point to glowing successes in Republican policy for the past eight years, and he does not differ with his conservative base overmuch on the core issues.

Instead of trying to spin off his own ideas about the direction in which he would take the country, he has now launched his campaign on a crusade to tear down Barack Obama. This might almost make some type of sense if McCain were not attempting to pin the sins of a homegrown terrorist (Ayers) onto the-then eight year old Obama. In launching such a reprehensible and glaring attack on personality, Palin and McCain have demonstrated that they are willing to say virtually anything in order to win...even something as blatantly false as the accusation that Obama is somehow rooting for or even affiliated with terrorists. Have you at last, Mr. McCain, no shame? I do not pretend to know your motivations, but your actions certainly seem to be at odds with your lofty stated goals. I find myself questioning what type of President you will be should you win, because if you are perfectly willing to allow such lies to be told, then how will we, the public, be able to trust in anything you would say as President?

This is not your finest hour, Mr. McCain. I could have voted for you in 2000, when you behaved far differently than you are behaving now. There was a time a decade ago when I was just as open to Republican messages as any other. But the Republican Party has changed over the past two decades or so, and it has become increasingly apparent that the change was not a good one. It pleases me, then, as a former Clinton supporter to vote against you. I hope that many other Independents and Democrats will follow suit and not reward you for your quite frankly disturbing political behavior.

How dare anyone tie Obama to a terrorist that is unrepentant and who helped Obama start his political career! Outrage! Outrage! Next thing you know people will question his ties to a racist church or his illegal campaign financing or even his ties to the criminal Chicago political machine! Outrage!

McCain needs no shame to tell people about Obama's shameful past. It's about time people were told the truth about Obama and the slimebags he enjoys "palling" around with.

How dare anyone tie Obama to a terrorist that is unrepentant and who helped Obama start his political career! Outrage! Outrage! Next thing you know people will question his ties to a racist church or his illegal campaign financing or even his ties to the criminal Chicago political machine! Outrage!


All extremely tenuous links, or just complete bullshit, as has been shown over and over again. But please explain to me how a 'terrorist' helped start Obama's career, I need a good laugh.

All extremely tenuous links, or just complete bullshit, as has been shown over and over again. But please explain to me how a 'terrorist' helped start Obama's career, I need a good laugh.
Of course Obama has to have terrorist links. Just look at his name. And his skin colour. And his Dad's a foreigner.
Those three proofs should be more than enough for any right-minded individual to draw the correct conclusions.

Of course Obama has to have terrorist links. Just look at his name. And his skin colour. And his Dad's a foreigner.
Those three proofs should be more than enough for any right-minded individual to draw the correct conclusions.

I see what you did there...

FDR was DOA from a cerebral hemorrhage. That would require alien technology to get that brain whole again.It must be in a Mason jar in Roswell, then

I see what you did there...
I'm as subtle as a brick.

I'm as subtle as a brick.

I'm as observant as a brick

we make a great pair then don't we?
"what's that?"
"what's what? OW!"

Torture for being brown? Forgive me for thinking people picked up off the battle field after shooting at you doesn't constitute proof of guilt.
According to the Pentagon, only 3% of those in Gitmo were picked up on anything like a "battlefield", and not a single one, so far as I know, is even accused of having actually shot at troops.
The prisoners in Gitmo were, for the most part, arrested in their homes after anonymous denunciations by their neighbors, who may have been motivated by grudges or by the promised rewards.

I wish I had his [Donald Rumsfeld's] measure of intelligence and depth of commitment to his country. He is a better man than I am.
Here is he palling around with terrorists (http://forum.skycode.com/pic/29887-saddam-rumsfeld.jpg).

My roommate was telling me about this bullshit last night. I though "Where'd this idiot pick up such a moronic story. He must have his facts confused." I owe the roomie an apology.

According to the Pentagon, only 3% of those in Gitmo were picked up on anything like a "battlefield", and not a single one, so far as I know, is even accused of having actually shot at troops.


While it's clear that we share a fairly similar perspective on this issue, it's worth noting that you could potentially be called up on this point.

Leaving aside, for the moment, the question of whether or not the indictment was justified and provable in a civilian court, Australian David Hicks (who was imprisoned at Guantanamo for several years) was initially charged with, among other items:


On returning to Kabul, Hicks was assigned by Mohammed Atef to the defence of Kandahar, and that he joined a group of mixed al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters at Kandahar airport, and that at the end of October, however, Hicks and his party travelled north to join in the fighting against the forces of the US and its allies.

After arriving in Konduz on 9 November 2001, he joined a group which included John Walker Lindh. This group was engaged in combat against Coalition forces, and during this fighting he was captured by Coalition forces.


The combat-related charges were later modified to:

'On or about 9 November 2001 Hicks spent about two hours on the front line at Konduz "before it collapsed and he was forced to flee"'.

Eventually, Hicks pled guilty to a single charge of 'supplying material support to terrorism' (the charge of attempted murder was dropped), and became the first US War Crimes trial conviction since WWII.

More detail can be found here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hicks).

Which is a long-winded way of saying that at least one Guantanamo detainee was at least initially charged with having a combat role, and was involved in a combat zone - though the troops he was opposing were Northern Alliance rather than Western.

As to whether Hicks was actually guilty of being anything more than an idiot is, however, open to question. He's also arguably the exception who proves the general point you were trying to make.


Which is getting rather off-topic for a thread regarding whether Palin's terrorist remarks go too far - but the Hicks case, like Palin's 'quoting' of the New York Times, and my example a couple of pages ago of how you could accuse McCain of associating with anti-American Vietnamese torturers, shows how easily selective quotation of sources can be used to support a tenuous case.

But I hope that very few people reading this thread needed me to tell them that.

Oh sweet Gods. As someone who is somewhat of a Medieval History peson, I feel it is my duty to point out how little you fucking know.

Wrong again. It's kinda in the old testament... "Thou shalt do no murder"

Yeah, theres also a lot of stuff about stoning gays and non-virigins.

The Spanish Inquisition.

Back by the Catholic Church. Also, there were other inquisitions aside from Spain. Italy had one. France had one (and it was very powerful). Germany had one. Denmark had one.

What overwhelming cultural force ruled spain for the 8 preceding centuries? ISLAM.

Not true. The Arabs never really had total control over Spain, and ever since Tours their control was gradually decreasing. They were also never an "overwhelming culture force". By the time Reconquista was "complete" in the 16th century, the Arabs controled very little in Spain.

What overwhelming cultural force completely Arabized Spain? ISLAM. Spain is culturally quite similar to the middle east, and has been since before the discovery of the New World.

If Spain was culturally Moorish and the Moors had completely Arabized Span as you claim, its probable the Spanish Inquestion never would have happened, because religious tolerance would have been a virtue (in fact, outside of the Middle East and Arab controled territories the only place with religious tolerance was probably the Holy Roman Empire under Frederick II).

Besides that, the United States is rooted in Protestantism of one form or another. The only protestants who didn't come to America to avoid the persecution of institutional churches were the Puritans, who came to persecute via their institutional church, and in doing so laid the groundwork for Massachusetts as we know it today.

Ah, well, it seems you know as little about American history as you do about Europian history.

I won't dignify the remainder of your idiocy with a response.

Funny how you said this after to tried to.

*Snip* its not worth it . . .they guy clearly has no idea what he's talking about and trying to convince him he's wrong is just entirely a waste of time lol

This sort of thing is easy enough to do with a couple of selective media quotes. Observe:



JOHN MCCAIN'S LINKS TO VIETNAMESE TORTURERS
Republican Candidate Endorsed by Communist Prison Guard

The McCain presidential campaign was rocked today by revelations that the Republican candidate for president had spent several years during the Vietnam War associating with known communist torturers. McCain was unable to deny that he had spent October 1967 to March 1973 in the company of anti-American communists based in the notorious Hoa Lo Prison, also know as the "Hanoi Hilton".

Former prison guard, and amateur ballroom dancer, Tran Trong Duyet (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7459946.stm) has described Mr. McCain as a friend. "If I was American, I would vote for him" said Mr. Duyet before nostalgically reminiscing about the 'informal chats' he often enjoyed in his office with the Republican candidate. Mr. McCain's flight suit now enjoys a position of honour on display in the Hoa Lo Prison Museum.

How McCain will react to these explosive revelations in the last month of the election remains to be seen, though Governor Palin was said to have remarked that she always enjoyed staying in Hilton hotels when travelling across the United States, and that she assumed that the one in Hanoi was just as comfortable.

Brilliant. :)

Which is a long-winded way of saying that at least one Guantanamo detainee was at least initially charged with having a combat role
Note I was careful to say "as far as I know..."
Thank you for filling in a hole in my knowledge.

Yep and McCain palled around with Manuel Noriega. They're both from Panama after all. I'll bet you there is eve na picture out there of them shaking hands. McCain is a drug dealer.

WOW this thread got big overnight...

Many people appear to be missing the point. No one's saying that because Barack and Ayers are from the same country that they must both be terrorists. It's because Ayers gave Barack money and ate with him in his house.

And the rebuttal "you're a liar" is not very effective.
Also, saying: "the media is mad at Palin, therefore Palin must be wrong" is also unconvincing.

This sort of thing is easy enough to do with a couple of selective media quotes. Observe:



JOHN MCCAIN'S LINKS TO VIETNAMESE TORTURERS
Republican Candidate Endorsed by Communist Prison Guard

The McCain presidential campaign was rocked today by revelations that the Republican candidate for president had spent several years during the Vietnam War associating with known communist torturers. McCain was unable to deny that he had spent October 1967 to March 1973 in the company of anti-American communists based in the notorious Hoa Lo Prison, also know as the "Hanoi Hilton".

Former prison guard, and amateur ballroom dancer, Tran Trong Duyet (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7459946.stm) has described Mr. McCain as a friend. "If I was American, I would vote for him" said Mr. Duyet before nostalgically reminiscing about the 'informal chats' he often enjoyed in his office with the Republican candidate. Mr. McCain's flight suit now enjoys a position of honour on display in the Hoa Lo Prison Museum.

How McCain will react to these explosive revelations in the last month of the election remains to be seen, though Governor Palin was said to have remarked that she always enjoyed staying in Hilton hotels when travelling across the United States, and that she assumed that the one in Hanoi was just as comfortable.

Yeah, Bill Ayers held Barack Obama captive and tortured him for years. That explains their relationship.
Way to point out that little-known fact.

How dare anyone tie Obama to a terrorist that is unrepentant and who helped Obama start his political career! Outrage! Outrage! Next thing you know people will question his ties to a racist church or his illegal campaign financing or even his ties to the criminal Chicago political machine! Outrage!

McCain needs no shame to tell people about Obama's shameful past. It's about time people were told the truth about Obama and the slimebags he enjoys "palling" around with.

How dare anyone tie McCain to his actual role in preventing regulation of the criminal acts of Keating! How dare people notice that McCain actually protecting this person while he committed crimes unlike Obama who simply had a loose tie to someone who was not tried, will never be tried and no longer commits anything that could be regarded as a crime.

Here are two acts.

1. You join a committee that is active in the community and has a positive effect. You discover that the leader of that committee once planted bombs 25 years earlier, but no longer does and has settled their debt with the government over it. (Yes, if the government says you can never be tried, your debt is settled. It's called the law.)

2. You actively protect a person who is currently committing illegal acts. You later get caught and admit your poor judgement.

Which of these two things would you be willing to do if you had to do one of the two?

It's rather simple for me. It's 1. One was asked to be engaged in the community. There isn't even any evidence that Obama was aware of what Ayers had done. I wouldn't be. But then, I wasn't even born when Ayers did it.

The second was involved in a crime and actively participated in the bilking of people through preventing regulation.

Hmmm... let's see, which is worse? Anyone here willing to sit on a committee that helps people? I bet you there will be other raised hands. Anyone here willing to protect someone while their bank bilks elderly people out of their life savings? Anyone?

WOW this thread got big overnight...

Many people appear to be missing the point. No one's saying that because Barack and Ayers are from the same country that they must both be terrorists. It's because Ayers gave Barack money and ate with him in his house.

And the rebuttal "you're a liar" is not very effective.
Also, saying: "the media is mad at Palin, therefore Palin must be wrong" is also unconvincing.

So you wanna talk about how McCain is "palling around with people who run banks into the ground while stealing millions"?

How dare anyone tie McCain to his actual role in preventing regulation of the criminal acts of Keating! How dare people notice that McCain actually protecting this person while he committed crimes unlike Obama who simply had a loose tie to someone who was not tried, will never be tried and no longer commits anything that could be regarded as a crime.

Here are two acts.

1. You join a committee that is active in the community and has a positive effect. You discover that the leader of that committee once planted bombs 25 years earlier, but no longer does and has settled their debt with the government over it. (Yes, if the government says you can never be tried, your debt is settled. It's called the law.)

2. You actively protect a person who is currently committing illegal acts. You later get caught and admit your poor judgement.

Which of these two things would you be willing to do if you had to do one of the two?

It's rather simple for me. It's 1. One was asked to be engaged in the community. There isn't even any evidence that Obama was aware of what Ayers had done. I wouldn't be. But then, I wasn't even born when Ayers did it.

The second was involved in a crime and actively participated in the bilking of people through preventing regulation.

Hmmm... let's see, which is worse? Anyone here willing to sit on a committee that helps people? I bet you there will be other raised hands. Anyone here willing to protect someone while their bank bilks elderly people out of their life savings? Anyone?

Sadly, I'm sure someone will try and argue against this, which will do nothing but prove their own stupidity and/or ignorance. The standards of McBush's supporters are getting lower by the day.

So you wanna talk about how McCain is "palling around with people who run banks into the ground while stealing millions"?

I'm afraid I don't know enough about that subject to have such a discussion.
But if McCain is truly befriending and receiving campaign aid from the people who have destroyed our economy, I hope Obama calls him on it.

EDIT: I'll read up on this, though.

I'm afraid I don't know enough about that subject to have such a discussion.
But if McCain is truly befriending and receiving campaign aid from the people who have destroyed our economy, I hope Obama calls him on it.

EDIT: I'll read up on this, though.

Not befriending. He protected a tycoon while he bilked people out of billions. Billions that were paid by the American taxpayer. It's amazing how similar that is to what is going on. You might say McCain was ahead of his time.

You might say McCain was ahead of his time.

And now he's beyond it.

Palin's comments are reckless in the most serious sense of the word. Obama, barring some truly incredible turn of events, is going to win the Presidency. When a ticket in the position of McCain/Palin -- candidates who simply can't win the election on their own -- starts insisting that their opponent is a dangerous terrorist sympathizer, they're treading dangerously close to incitement of violence.

Considering that crowd members at recent McCain and Palin rallies have been caught by news microphones yelling "Terrorist!" and "Kill him!" in response to such remarks, I'd have to agree. I am wondering just what kind of people are calling themselves Americans nowadays.

Not befriending. He protected a tycoon while he bilked people out of billions. Billions that were paid by the American taxpayer. It's amazing how similar that is to what is going on. You might say McCain was ahead of his time.
I would argue befriending as well. He was given thousands in campaign donations by Keating ($112000 to be exact), offered the use of Keating's personal jet and spent his holidays in Keating's Bahama multi-million $ retreat.
He'd known Keating for years before the scandal broke: Keating supported McCain's first successful bid into the Senate.
Sounds like 'befriending' to me.

Some more dirt on McCain:
McCain tied to the Iran-Contra Affair
WASHINGTON - GOP presidential nominee John McCain has past connections to a private group that supplied aid to guerrillas seeking to overthrow the leftist government of Nicaragua in the Iran-Contra affair.

McCain's ties are facing renewed scrutiny after his campaign criticized Barack Obama for his link to a former radical who engaged in violent acts 40 years ago.

The U.S. Council for World Freedom was part of an international organization linked to former Nazi collaborators and ultra-right-wing death squads in Central America. The group was dedicated to stamping out communism around the globe.

The council's founder, retired Army Maj. Gen. John Singlaub, said McCain became associated with the organization in the early 1980s as McCain was launching his political career in Arizona. Singlaub said McCain was a supporter but not an active member in the group.

'New guy on the block'
"McCain was a new guy on the block learning the ropes," Singlaub told The Associated Press in an interview. "I think I met him in the Washington area when he was just a new congressman. We had McCain on the board to make him feel like he wasn't left out. It looks good to have names on a letterhead who are well-known and appreciated.

...

Elected to the House in 1982 and at a time when he was on the board of Singlaub's council, McCain was among Republicans on Capitol Hill expressing support for the Contras, a CIA-organized guerrilla force in Central America. In 1984, Congress cut off CIA funds for the Contras.

Months before the cutoff, top Reagan administration officials ramped up a secret White House-directed supply network and put National Security Council aide Oliver North in charge of running it. The goal was to keep the Contras operational until Congress could be persuaded to resume CIA funding.

...

McCain has said previously he resigned from the council in 1984 and asked in 1986 to have his name removed from the group's letterhead.

"I didn't know whether (the group's activity) was legal or illegal, but I didn't think I wanted to be associated with them," McCain said in a newspaper interview in 1986.

Singlaub does not recall any McCain resignation in 1984 or May 1986. Nor does Joyce Downey, who oversaw the group's day-to-day activities.

"That's a surprise to me," Singlaub said. "This is the first time I've ever heard that. There may have been someone in his office communicating with our office."

"I don't ever remember hearing about his resigning, but I really wasn't worried about that part of our activities, a housekeeping thing," said Singlaub. "If he didn't want to be on the board that's OK. It wasn't as if he had been active participant and we were going to miss his help. He had no active interest. He certainly supported us."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27062761

Let me guess: It's appalling when Obama meets a man who 30 years earlier had committed a crime but it's an 'error of judgement' long in the past when McCain sits on the board of a group funding Nazi collaborators and terrorists.
Have I got the right response? Do I win anything?

Palin's comments are reckless in the most serious sense of the word. Obama, barring some truly incredible turn of events, is going to win the Presidency. When a ticket in the position of McCain/Palin -- candidates who simply can't win the election on their own -- starts insisting that their opponent is a dangerous terrorist sympathizer, they're treading dangerously close to incitement of violence.
Anyone else think this is a total capitulation by McCain?
He's basically telling the USA that even he thinks Obama is going to win, and because of this the US voter should now be looking at Obama's character in order to see what sort of President Obama will make.

That's what I take from his new campaign strategy.

Let me guess: It's appalling when Obama meets a man who 30 years earlier had committed a crime but it's an 'error of judgement' long in the past when McCain sits on the board of a group funding Nazi collaborators and terrorists.
Have I got the right response? Do I win anything?

Just accusations of being a communist supporter by ignoramuses and pathetic dodging excuses from Nazi terrorist supporters.

Just accusations of being a communist supporter by ignoramuses and pathetic dodging excuses from Nazi terrorist supporters.

Don't forget accusations of being a Sleeper Muslim.

Well. That'll about do it.
I'm writing in Paris Hilton.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20081005/pl_bloomberg/a1f8yut_qo0

Even the most impartial of observers should probably be disturbed by the outright sinister turn taken by the McCain campaign. Sarah Palin's suggestion that Barack Obama "pals around with terrorists" is a platter of outrage served with a side of stupefaction. The move, of course, is consistent with an ideological movement that is intellectually and morally bankrupt. John McCain can hardly point to glowing successes in Republican policy for the past eight years, and he does not differ with his conservative base overmuch on the core issues.

Instead of trying to spin off his own ideas about the direction in which he would take the country, he has now launched his campaign on a crusade to tear down Barack Obama. This might almost make some type of sense if McCain were not attempting to pin the sins of a homegrown terrorist (Ayers) onto the-then eight year old Obama. In launching such a reprehensible and glaring attack on personality, Palin and McCain have demonstrated that they are willing to say virtually anything in order to win...even something as blatantly false as the accusation that Obama is somehow rooting for or even affiliated with terrorists. Have you at last, Mr. McCain, no shame? I do not pretend to know your motivations, but your actions certainly seem to be at odds with your lofty stated goals. I find myself questioning what type of President you will be should you win, because if you are perfectly willing to allow such lies to be told, then how will we, the public, be able to trust in anything you would say as President?

This is not your finest hour, Mr. McCain. I could have voted for you in 2000, when you behaved far differently than you are behaving now. There was a time a decade ago when I was just as open to Republican messages as any other. But the Republican Party has changed over the past two decades or so, and it has become increasingly apparent that the change was not a good one. It pleases me, then, as a former Clinton supporter to vote against you. I hope that many other Independents and Democrats will follow suit and not reward you for your quite frankly disturbing political behavior.


No they don't go far enough.

Ayers had a large hand in "creating" Obama's career as a politician.

Ayers was his mentor, just as Wright was.

You're now going to tell me that you can have one mentor who believes that bombing the US didn't go far enough, and another mentor who believes in "fuck America" - and that these mentors have absolutely zero input into Obama's beliefs and thought processes.

Riiiiight.

Anyone else think this is a total capitulation by McCain?
He's basically telling the USA that even he thinks Obama is going to win, and because of this the US voter should now be looking at Obama's character in order to see what sort of President Obama will make.

That's what I take from his new campaign strategy.

That or he's trying to encourage some crazy "Patriot" to kill him.

No they don't go far enough. Any further and they'd outright declare treason, and then they really would have a shitstorm.


Ayers had a large hand in "creating" Obama's career as a politician. Yeah he introduced Obama to some of the local politicians at a get together.


Ayers was his mentor, just as Wright was. What? I don't see where you're getting that.

That or he's trying to encourage some crazy "Patriot" to kill him.

Any further and they'd outright declare treason, and then they really would have a shitstorm.

Yeah he introduced Obama to some of the local politicians at a get together.

What? I don't see where you're getting that.

Obama wrote in his own book that Ayers was his political mentor.

Do you not know what a mentor is? He also says that Wright is his mentor.

Ayers did far more than be "introduced".

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212856075765367.html

Go ahead, stick your head in the sand.

Don't forget accusations of being a Sleeper Muslim.

With a radical Christian preacher.

No they don't go far enough.

Ayers had a large hand in "creating" Obama's career as a politician.

Ayers was his mentor, just as Wright was.
Prove the above claims, please. I'll wait. And when you do, make sure you cc your evidence to the McCain camp, as they seem to be completely unaware of its existence. Bcc Hillary, too; I'm sure she'd appreciate it.

You're now going to tell me that you can have one mentor who believes that bombing the US didn't go far enough, and another mentor who believes in "fuck America" - and that these mentors have absolutely zero input into Obama's beliefs and thought processes.

Riiiiight.
What I will tell you is that your baseless speculations are not persuasive. They don't convince me that the smears against Obama are true, and they dont convince me that you aren't just blowing smoke.

Obama wrote in his own book that Ayers was his political mentor.

Do you not know what a mentor is? He also says that Wright is his mentor.

Ayers did far more than be "introduced".

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212856075765367.html

Go ahead, stick your head in the sand.

They were, at separate times, heads of the board of the same community program. A five-member team on which Ayers sat, promoted Obama to the board.

And... a whole load of speculation and arguments made based on belief rather than evidence.

There's a reason why it says 'opinion' on that source.

No more misleading than the original smear. If you look at the actual "connections" between Ayers and Obama, they hardly exist, let alone amounting to "palling around." I'm surprised McCain/Palin didn't try to work Kevin Bacon into the mix so they could scream about the liberal Hollywood elite being in on it.

Barack Obama was in Swing State with Fisher Stevens.

Fisher Stevens was in Undiscovered with Kuma (II) (That'd be a dog, just FYI).

Kuma (II) was in Saving Angelo with Kevin Bacon.

Unfortunately, McCain links to Bacon one step quicker on account of his Wedding Crashers cameo.

Actually, this was his radio program.

And who would watch (or listen) to Hannity? People who love to hate half the people that live in America, think Bush has kept America safer, think that Barack Obama would be a terrible choice for President, people who believe in convenient, circumstantial and hypocritical morality, in obscuring the truth and arbitrarily denying justice to people we only possibly suspect as terrorists by shipping them off to isolated prisons where we never have to bother proving anything. In short, idiots.

I think you might be onto something.

I meant what I said.


If we were judging NEO conservatives, the number would have been 100%. There is no sane or realistic neocon.

Well I resent that. I'm a moderate conservative and I think that the Neo-Cons are traitors to America. I tend to believe that liberals are just as insane and irrational as hard core conservatives. Granted, I think ANYONE who isn't moderate is insane and irrational...:tongue:

But what do I know? I'm just a Libertarian...RON PAUL FTW!

If you're a libertarian, why the hell do you like a paleoconservative?

Barack Obama was in Swing State with Fisher Stevens.

Fisher Stevens was in Undiscovered with Kuma (II) (That'd be a dog, just FYI).

Kuma (II) was in Saving Angelo with Kevin Bacon.

Unfortunately, McCain links to Bacon one step quicker on account of his Wedding Crashers cameo.


:D Well, that would be par for the course, since so far, there's not a single smear/accusation against Obama that people have not been able to turn back against McCain.

:D Well, that would be par for the course, since so far, there's not a single smear/accusation against Obama that people have not been able to turn back against McCain.

There is one...

There is one...
Which one? The ebul Mozlemz thing? Possibly, but I'd bet a savvy debater could use the religious shiftiness angle against McCain due to his various flip-flops in attacking then courting the relgious right. So, not a perfect match up, but still a potential backfire on McCain.

And then of course, there's the "he fathered a black baby" thing. Yep, even that...

:D Well, that would be par for the course, since so far, there's not a single smear/accusation against Obama that people have not been able to turn back against McCain.

Sarah Palin is the only one of the four that can't be linked back to Kevin Bacon, but that's primarily because the Oracle doesn't recognize her name.

Sarah Palin is the only one of the four that can't be linked back to Kevin Bacon, but that's primarily because the Oracle doesn't recognize her name.

OMG!! She's not real!! :eek2:

Does anyone else get the distinct impression that the pundits digging up dirt on Bill Ayers had no freaking clue who Bill Ayers was until a year ago? Or less?

To take just one small quibble, the WSJ article that Hotwife posted characterizes the "small schools movement" as a fount of radical politics. The author must never have stepped inside a Chicago public school to see how said "movement" is actually being implemented. (Hint: it's not political.)

On some other stupid blog someone was claiming that a) Bill Ayers killed a policeman and b) Obama would of course know who Ayers was since Obama was 20 when the Weather Underground pulled their Brinks robbery in 1981. Both of these allegations simply fly in the face of simple and readily accessible facts.

I said earlier this year how doggone annoying it is when people draw far-fetched conclusions about Obama based on something they read about Chicago politics in an email their cousin's friend forwarded to them. It's triply annoying when it's someone actually in the press doing this and not just some yahoo on a comment board. I'm not claiming to be an expert, but sheesh, Chicago is a fairly major media town. We're just chock-full of investigative reporters, who publish in papers with websites that have searchable archives. Is it so freaking hard to look at what was written about Obama et al. before the national press sashayed into town and started making assumptions?

Sorry. Rant over.

Which one? The ebul Mozlemz thing? Possibly, but I'd bet a savvy debater could use the religious shiftiness angle against McCain due to his various flip-flops in attacking then courting the relgious right. So, not a perfect match up, but still a potential backfire on McCain.

And then of course, there's the "he fathered a black baby" thing. Yep, even that...

Not so much fathered a black baby...

Well I resent that. I'm a moderate conservative and I think that the Neo-Cons are traitors to America. I tend to believe that liberals are just as insane and irrational as hard core conservatives. Granted, I think ANYONE who isn't moderate is insane and irrational...:tongue:

But what do I know? I'm just a Libertarian...RON PAUL FTW!

Then how can you call yourself a Libertarian?:p

Obama wrote in his own book that Ayers was his political mentor.

Do you not know what a mentor is? He also says that Wright is his mentor.

Ayers did far more than be "introduced".

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212856075765367.html

Go ahead, stick your head in the sand.

that source is ridiculous. . . and the writer doesn't source ANY of what he said. Hotwife...I thought you were better than this

that source is ridiculous. . . and the writer doesn't source ANY of what he said. Hotwife...I thought you were better than this

What, seriously?

Hotwife...I thought you were better than this

Why the fuck would you think that? What in his history of posting here would cause you to reach that conclusion?

Why the fuck would you think that? What in his history of posting here would cause you to reach that conclusion?

It can be a manner of speaking.

Obama wrote in his own book that Ayers was his political mentor.

Do you not know what a mentor is? He also says that Wright is his mentor.

I'm afraid you have little credibility without support for your statements.

Which book(s)? What page? I've read both of Barack Obama's main books and remember no such comment.

Regardless, neither Ayers nor Wright are the bogeymen you'd like them to be.

Ayers did far more than be "introduced".

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212856075765367.html

First, even this bit of tripe never uses the term "mentor" or supports that allegation.

Second. Mr. Kurtz's highly-biased and tenuously-supported "opinion" has been thoroughly rebutted. See, e.g., link (http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/09/23/annenberg_1.php)

Go ahead, stick your head in the sand.

Go ahead, make stuff up and throw meritless mud.

BTW, have you read the Rolling Stone article about John McCain (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain)? Or do you just read journalistic hit pieces against Democrats?

*snip*
What would you expect from Palin, a known Muslim?
Sooner or later this lie will spread. It has to; this is the Internet.

Go ahead, make stuff up and throw meritless mud.


Cat, you're a lawyer, do you think it's possible to throw a defamation or libel suit with any chance of working at Hotwife?

Cat, you're a lawyer, do you think it's possible to throw a defamation or libel suit with any chance of working at Hotwife?

defamation...is....libel

Sorry, pet peeve of mine.

And defamation suits for statements made against public figures are very hard to win.

Cat, you're a lawyer, do you think it's possible to throw a defamation or libel suit with any chance of working at Hotwife?

No. Beyond the whole problem of identifying Hotwife and/or proper jurisdiction, one would face in the U.S. the problem of proving actual malice. See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/376/254.html), 376 U.S. 254 (1964).

Here (http://www.abbottlaw.com/defamation.html) is a good overview of U.S. defamation law that explains why comments about a public figure are particularly difficult to base a defamation suit on.

No. Beyond the whole problem of identifying Hotwife and/or proper jurisdiction, one would face in the U.S. the problem of proving actual malice. See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/376/254.html), 376 U.S. 254 (1964).

Here (http://www.abbottlaw.com/defamation.html) is a good overview of U.S. defamation law that explains why comments about a public figure are particularly difficult to base a defamation suit on.

Identifying Hotwife is not so difficult if a legal order can be scrounged up, forums already track post IPs, and those can be tracked to physical addresses, but I see what you mean about the whole actual malice thing for public figures. Oh well.

No they don't go far enough.

Ayers had a large hand in "creating" Obama's career as a politician.

Ayers was his mentor, just as Wright was.

You're now going to tell me that you can have one mentor who believes that bombing the US didn't go far enough, and another mentor who believes in "fuck America" - and that these mentors have absolutely zero input into Obama's beliefs and thought processes.

Riiiiight.
While you're off flinging dirt, feel free to explain why Palin's pastor and the AIP have zero input into Palin's beliefs and thought processes.
Pastor Kalnins who she has very close relationship with is the one who, among other things claimed:
1. Terrorist attacks in Israel are God's punishment to Jews who don't convert to Christ;
2. Anyone who criticizes Bush is condemned to hell;
3. People who voted for Sen. John Kerry in 2004 would not be accepted to heaven;
3. Jesus operated from a 'war mode';
4. The Apocalypse is coming and only Alaska will be saved;
5. Believed Palin's Governor election victory was due to the power of his prayers;
6. Believes he receives direct "words of knowledge" from God, providing him information about past events in other people's lives.

And - unlike Rev Wright who said inflammatory statements after Obama had left his church, the above were said not only while Palin was in Church but at times while she was on the podium alongside Kalnins.
Her Pastor of whom she says, "This is such a special, special place. What comes from this church I think has great destiny."

And then there's the AIP, who Palin's husband was a member of for 7 years and who Palin has spoken to on several occasions telling them to "keep up the good work" (this just 7 months ago).
Good work?
It's primary goal is succession (from their website)
It's founder Joe Vogler had this to say about the USA:
"I'm an Alaskan, not an American. I've got no use for America or her damned institutions."
"The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government."
"And I won't be buried under their damn flag,"

You're now going to tell me that you can have one mentor who believes that they have supernatural powers, that killing Jews is okay & that anyone who disagrees with them is condemned to Hell, and another one who believes in "fuck America" and hates America passionately - and that these people have absolutely zero input into Palin's beliefs and thought processes.

Riiiiight.

While you're off flinging dirt, feel free to explain why Palin's pastor and the AIP have zero input into Palin's beliefs and thought processes.
Pastor Kalnins who she has very close relationship with is the one who, among other things claimed:
1. Terrorist attacks in Israel are God's punishment to Jews who don't convert to Christ;
2. Anyone who criticizes Bush is condemned to hell;
3. People who voted for Sen. John Kerry in 2004 would not be accepted to heaven;
3. Jesus operated from a 'war mode';
4. The Apocalypse is coming and only Alaska will be saved;
5. Believed Palin's Governor election victory was due to the power of his prayers;
6. Believes he receives direct "words of knowledge" from God, providing him information about past events in other people's lives.

And - unlike Rev Wright who said inflammatory statements after Obama had left his church, the above were said not only while Palin was in Church but at times while she was on the podium alongside Kalnins.
Her Pastor of whom she says, "This is such a special, special place. What comes from this church I think has great destiny."

And then there's the AIP, who Palin's husband was a member of for 7 years and who Palin has spoken to on several occasions telling them to "keep up the good work" (this just 7 months ago).
Good work?
It's primary goal is succession (from their website)
It's founder Joe Vogler had this to say about the USA:
"I'm an Alaskan, not an American. I've got no use for America or her damned institutions."
"The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government."
"And I won't be buried under their damn flag,"

You're now going to tell me that you can have one mentor who believes that they have supernatural powers, that killing Jews is okay & that anyone who disagrees with them is condemned to Hell, and another one who believes in "fuck America" and hates America passionately - and that these people have absolutely zero input into Palin's beliefs and thought processes.

Riiiiight.
In reference to Kalnins, you forgot about the anti-witchcraft mojo, and the scapegoating of a woman in Africa to the point where she was hounded out of her home and town, an act on which Kalnins based the launch of his career and about which he still brags. And don't forget the casting of anti-witchcraft charms on Palin herself in a special ritual in their church, something which I'm sure Hotwife can explain implies absolutely nothing about Palin's thinking.

In reference to Kalnins, you forgot about the anti-witchcraft mojo, and the scapegoating of a woman in Africa to the point where she was hounded out of her home and town, an act on which Kalnins based the launch of his career and about which he still brags. And don't forget the casting of anti-witchcraft charms on Palin herself in a special ritual in their church, something which I'm sure Hotwife can explain implies absolutely nothing about Palin's thinking.

Remember...

IOKIYAR...

There is one...

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jzQtw1kATj1xCqPcAmwgCKDtNpDQD93M2FQO0
That one?

Quick question: Why do we even care about Palin any more? McCain's campaign is lost, Palin is irrelevant but slightly aggravating and they're noisy.

Quick question: Why do we even care about Palin any more? McCain's campaign is lost, Palin is irrelevant but slightly aggravating and they're noisy.

Because she's presently running her mouth.

In reference to Kalnins, you forgot about the anti-witchcraft mojo, and the scapegoating of a woman in Africa to the point where she was hounded out of her home and town, an act on which Kalnins based the launch of his career and about which he still brags. And don't forget the casting of anti-witchcraft charms on Palin herself in a special ritual in their church, something which I'm sure Hotwife can explain implies absolutely nothing about Palin's thinking.

You don't seem to understand how the world has changed.

Sure, back during the cold war, we only had to defend against Russian folk magic, and the Baba Yaga Class Hex Submarine.

But are you so naive as to ignore the new kinds of witchcraft that will be used against Americans, now that we are at war with terror?

China has a wide array of advanced witchcraft, including Taoist Curse Missiles that are impossible to interdict conventionally, because they both launch and don't launch, simultaneously. North Korea has stolen plans allowing them to make functioning Druids, which anyone with a basic grasp of witchraft knows, can cast both Wizard and Priest Spells.

Mock Palin if you will, but her +2 saving throws against witchcraft will leave her with a 10% better chance of being able to cast tie breaking votes in the Senate when a rogue African Warlord has one of his little booga booga men cast a yeast infection on her.

Who'll be laughing then?

Because she's presently running her mouth.
Ah, so that's what that sound coming from my TV is...it's ghastly.

little booga booga men cast a yeast infection on her.

Who'll be laughing then?It would appear we've had that laugh already.

Because she's presently running her mouth.
I know a lot of dudes who've been fantasizing a quick cure for that for some time now.

Mock Palin if you will, but her +2 saving throws against witchcraft will leave her...

Without any protection from psionics and mental domination spells. :p

mental domination spells. :p
Those same folk i mentioned have a spell in mind for her there, too, 'cept it's not the mental kind. Not primarily, anywho.

Without any protection from psionics and mental domination spells. :p

Psionicists don't launch attacks at politicians...its like sandblasting a soupcracker.

Without any protection from psionics and mental domination spells. :p

There's a reason zombies and constructs are immune to enchantments. The same reason Palin is.

I know a lot of dudes who've been fantasizing a quick cure for that for some time now.

I take it they'll be watching the movie then?

I take it they'll be watching the movie then?You mean the one Larry Flynt just finished filming?
Hehheheheh. At least, you can purchase the thong.
http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/514160.html

There's a reason zombies and constructs are immune to enchantments. The same reason Palin is.

This is a racist comment and I'm reporting it to the mods as soon as I can find documentation that zombies and contructs are races and not monster types.

Fucking bigot.

This is a racist comment and I'm reporting it to the mods as soon as I can find documentation that zombies and contructs are races and not monster types.

Fucking bigot.

Uhm... Costructs are objects and "undead" is a condition. ;)

Psionicists don't launch attacks at politicians...its like sandblasting a soupcracker.

Who said psionics had to attack their minds?

Uhm... Costructs are objects and "undead" is a condition. ;)

So, you admit to being an objectivist! Just like an Ayn Rander, to think that being "undead" is some kind of disease, or "condition"...those Liches have every right be viewed as human bei---okay, well, maybe not human, but they are living, breathin--no, well....they're often bipedal! And that means they have rights!

You'll fit in well with Palin's camp.

Who said psionics had to attack their minds?

Any telekinetic attack against Palin would cause her makeup to resonate and come off, causing something far scarier than that movie "Scanners"...even you filthy liberals won't risk that.

Any telekinetic attack against Palin would cause her makeup to resonate and come off, causing something far scarier than that movie "Scanners"...even you filthy liberals won't risk that.

Much easier for a psionic to absorb the kinetic energy of a swinging wrecking ball, store it, and pass it onto Palin in a brief handshake after a stump speech and let all that energy loose.

Much easier for a psionic to absorb the kinetic energy of a swinging wrecking ball, store it, and pass it onto Palin in a brief handshake after a stump speech and let all that energy loose.

(1/2)(m)(v^2) = m(s)(t), where the left side is the transferred energy, and the right side is the mass of her lipstick times the specific heat of her lipstick times the rising temperature in Kelvin...

(1/2)(m)(v^2) = m(s)(t), where the left side is the transferred energy, and the right side is the mass of her lipstick times the specific heat of her lipstick times the rising temperature in Kelvin...

So all that energy will burn her lips off? Exxxcccellent.

So, you admit to being an objectivist! Just like an Ayn Rander, to think that being "undead" is some kind of disease, or "condition"...those Liches have every right be viewed as human bei---okay, well, maybe not human, but they are living, breathin--no, well....they're often bipedal! And that means they have rights!

You'll fit in well with Palin's camp.

You're only saying that because I'm Chaotic Neutral! You alignmentist!

Much easier for a psionic to absorb the kinetic energy of a swinging wrecking ball, store it, and pass it onto Palin in a brief handshake after a stump speech and let all that energy loose.

And risk the orgasmic equivalent of an Ultrablast from such a clearly repressed and uptight woman? I think not.

You don't seem to understand how the world has changed.

Sure, back during the cold war, we only had to defend against Russian folk magic, and the Baba Yaga Class Hex Submarine.

But are you so naive as to ignore the new kinds of witchcraft that will be used against Americans, now that we are at war with terror?

China has a wide array of advanced witchcraft, including Taoist Curse Missiles that are impossible to interdict conventionally, because they both launch and don't launch, simultaneously. North Korea has stolen plans allowing them to make functioning Druids, which anyone with a basic grasp of witchraft knows, can cast both Wizard and Priest Spells.

Mock Palin if you will, but her +2 saving throws against witchcraft will leave her with a 10% better chance of being able to cast tie breaking votes in the Senate when a rogue African Warlord has one of his little booga booga men cast a yeast infection on her.

Who'll be laughing then?
Me, as I watch her try to call the Senate to order and scratch her crotch at the same time.

Any country where the media can say "Well, now that the bailout bill has passed, we can FORGET ABOUT THE ECONOMY AND GET BACK TO THE ELECTION!" is fucked, and deservedly so.

Any more pointless horseshit to spew? Exactly what "media" are you listening to, exactly? If all you're getting US news from is network TV, then YOU are fucked (we knew that already, but this just confirms it). I hear about the economy every time I turn on NPR, whether it's a segment on Morning Edition or the ENTIRE FOCUS of Marketplace or On Point or Talk of the Nation.

So here's an idea, blow it out your ill-informed ass, hey?

All the sensible Conservatives are Libertarians. *nod*

Sensible conservative?

Wait as second, he does pal around with terrorists and the like. He even got his house from a convicted bomber..

And risk the orgasmic equivalent of an Ultrablast from such a clearly repressed and uptight woman? I think not.

All the better if it happens on national TV. The puritan bloc has commonly held with the conservative base, and such an act would probably be more than their moral compasses can handle.

All the better if it happens on national TV. The puritan bloc has commonly held with the conservative base, and such an act would probably be more than their moral compasses can handle.

The death and insanity of a few million innocents for the greater good, eh Ozymandias?

The death and insanity of a few million innocents for the greater good, eh Ozymandias?

Puritan neocons are not innocent.

Puritan neocons are not innocent.

Who said they'd be the only ones damaged by Caribou Barbie's Orgasm Ultrablast?

Who said they'd be the only ones damaged by Caribou Barbie's Orgasm Ultrablast?

Point.

Much easier for a psionic to absorb the kinetic energy of a swinging wrecking ball, store it, and pass it onto Palin in a brief handshake after a stump speech and let all that energy loose.

Personally I like the "transmute your arm into a seething mass of organs and teeth and devour people" trick, but I'm old-school like that.

Personally I like the "transmute your arm into a seething mass of organs and teeth and devour people" trick, but I'm old-school like that.

So how did you manage to get out of Antarctica?

I have no idea what you're referencing.

I have no idea what you're referencing.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c1/ThingPoster.jpg

The death and insanity of a few million innocents for the greater good, eh Ozymandias?

I am Ozymandias, King of Kings! Look ye upon my works mortals, and despair! :p

That had arms turning into giant masses of organs that ate people?

Rather than focus on the issues, and their plans for how to deal with them, the McCain/Palin ticket are panicking, reacting wildly, making themselves look even less like leaders.

No one running has had a perfect life. They have all come in contact with people who are less that palatable.

focusing on those things makes you seem petty, and certainly not a leader.

What are they going to do about the problems we face?

After all, McCain has his own flirtings with criminals: Take a look at Charles Keating.

That is a far greater error in judgment than having a fundraiser at the home of someone whose mistakes happened (and were atoned for) 40 years prior to the fundraiser.

McCain/Palin are acting out of fear and panic.

That is sad.

That had arms turning into giant masses of organs that ate people?

Well, lots of mutating body parts that ate people anyways. Classic.

FDR was DOA from a cerebral hemorrhage. That would require alien technology to get that brain whole again.

And your point is... ;)

Ok, so this is comparable to saying that every senator or representative who's worked with Robert Byrd an ex-KKK member, are paling around with nazis

FDR was DOA from a cerebral hemorrhage. That would require alien technology to get that brain whole again.

It was on TV here after the bill passed.

That sounds like an opinion piece on your local/national news. Not an actual statement by anyone in the US. You know what opinion is, right? Not the same as fact in most cases...

Originally Posted by Knights of Liberty View Post
Wow. Are you fucking kidding me. In the first one she flat out said that women shouldnt vote.

Ok, its official. Your blind. I know now how seriously to take your future posts. Thank you.


EDI: Here you go

"If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president. It's kind of a pipe dream, it's a personal fantasy of mine, but I don't think it's going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women."

So, now are you going to tell me that her saying its a fantasy that we take away womens right to votes is something else?

http://www.observer.com/2007/coulter-culture
Except that the Politically Incorrect quote doesn't have the word 'ban'. In fact one of your compatriots slanderously added that [in brackets] in a later post. It simply isn't actually there.

Stephen Colbert noted that in Michelle Obama's DNC speech, it gets VERY offensive if you replace every instance of the word 'hope' with 'sodomy.'

The problem is that 'sodomy' isn't found anywhere in the speech. Get the point?

From the dictionary.com page for the word Take:

To take away, to carry off; to remove; to cause deprivation of; to do away with; as, a bill for taking away the votes of bishops. "By your own law, I take your life away." --Dryden.

So, does "take away" not have the same meaning as the word ban? Did you not understand that?

Me, as I watch her try to call the Senate to order and scratch her crotch at the same time.

I'm going to wake up with nightmares tonight... :(

Man, they have gotten really dirty.

They're completely avoiding the economy and all the time talking about Obama and Ayers.

My favorite part is how they don't ever say what it is they think he's not disclosing. It's been analyzed. He's got a loose association with him. That's all.

The best bit is how "radical" the education charity they were involved was. You know, the one that got Ayers the award for his work.

Man, they have gotten really dirty.

They're completely avoiding the economy and all the time talking about Obama and Ayers.

My favorite part is how they don't ever say what it is they think he's not disclosing. It's been analyzed. He's got a loose association with him. That's all.

The best bit is how "radical" the education charity they were involved was. You know, the one that got Ayers the award for his work.

Just being at war isn't enough this time. People aren't scared enough. The only way to ratchet it up, is by pulling the 'terrorist' trick.

What I don't quite get is - who do they think they're talking to...? The Republican core voter already supports the McCain ticket. The Republican that is thinking of voting against the Bush regime is (probably) going to need a LOT more than "Obama-stood-in-x-room, y-number-of-years-ago, with-z-person-of-questionable-ethics". And, the average Democrat is going to prefer the Obama explanations of the lie.

Is this ad supposed to be scoring with Independants?

As far as I can see - the only people who DO buy this crap, are already subscribing pretty hard to the GOP party line.

Je suis très perplexe. :(

Just being at war isn't enough this time. People aren't scared enough. The only way to ratchet it up, is by pulling the 'terrorist' trick.

What I don't quite get is - who do they think they're talking to...? The Republican core voter already supports the McCain ticket. The Republican that is thinking of voting against the Bush regime is (probably) going to need a LOT more than "Obama-stood-in-x-room, y-number-of-years-ago, with-z-person-of-questionable-ethics". And, the average Democrat is going to prefer the Obama explanations of the lie.

Is this ad supposed to be scoring with Independants?

As far as I can see - the only people who DO buy this crap, are already subscribing pretty hard to the GOP party line.

Je suis très perplexe. :(

I wonder if they're actually trying to kill Obama by proxy...

I wonder if they're actually trying to kill Obama by proxy...

Well, the first assassin cell pretty much got busted after they'd got no further than the get-the-weapons stage.

I have to wonder if the GOP has actually put any thought into that kind of scenario. Not that I think they're deliberately trying to encourage assassination, I suspect the upper levels of the campaign are maybe just fucktarded enough to not consider the possibility.

I suspect, if they HAD thought about it, they'd be shutting down that kind of rhetoric, because Obama assassinated would probably mean Hillary and a landslide of Revelation proportions.

I suspect, if they HAD thought about it, they'd be shutting down that kind of rhetoric, because Obama assassinated would probably mean Hillary and a landslide of Revelation proportions.

Or Biden and a Democratic VP, maybe, yes, Hillary. I'd not mind it - I have nothing against Obama and wish him well, but if it ensures that Republicans lose power, I'm fine with it. Again, not that I hope for it. The ideal scenario might be a failed attempt.

I'm tired of Republicans!

To be sure, now that they DID pull this crap, it WOULD be traced back to them by the voters. I think we might see Texas turn blue under such a scenario.

On another note - I don't know whether to be amused or distressed...

The "Overhead Projector" that McCain blasted Obama over (which as we all know, was a reference to a dome-projection device for a planetarium)... didn't even get funded, in the end.

Talk about swinging at shadows.

"Last night, during the presidential debate in Nashville, Tennessee, Senator John McCain made the following statement:

McCain: “While we were working to eliminate these pork barrel earmarks he (Senator Obama) voted for nearly $1 billion in pork barrel earmark projects. Including $3 million for an overhead projector at a planetarium in Chicago, Illinois. My friends, do we need to spend that kind of money?”

To clarify, the Adler Planetarium requested federal support – which was not funded – to replace the projector in its historic Sky Theater..."

What's really sick about it is that they're allowing their introducers to use his middle name and basically not saying anything about the threats and racism that is being launched during their rallies. As has been pointed out in numerous articles, they would be jumping up and down if this was happening at an Obama or Biden rally.

They've even had supporters calling black journalists "boy" and various epithets.

What's really sick about it is that they're allowing their introducers to use his middle name and basically not saying anything about the threats and racism that is being launched during their rallies. As has been pointed out in numerous articles, they would be jumping up and down if this was happening at an Obama or Biden rally.

They've even had supporters calling black journalists "boy" and various epithets.

This is no surprise really. McCain and his lackeys have been fanning hate from day one of the election contests. Now that it's clear that they're absolutely incompetent in the actual policy field, they're trying to fan even more hate, now with racist flavor, maybe to the point where it spills out in violence and intimidation come election day.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that at least more than a few in the party hope that the hate fanning will lead to someone seriously attempting to assassinate Obama.

This is no surprise really. McCain and his lackeys have been fanning hate from day one of the election contests. Now that it's clear that they're absolutely incompetent in the actual policy field, they're trying to fan even more hate, maybe to the point where it spills out in violence and intimidation come election day.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that at least more than a few in the party hope that the hate fanning will lead to someone seriously attempting to assassinate Obama.

I seriously think we need the Black Panthers out in force on election day.