Originally Posted by jimmac
More like embarrassed for a grown man who can't use logic.
Yet, you've failed to demonstrate a single statement or position of mine that is "illogical."
Ad-homs like the time you called me " Dick " or was it " A piece of work "?
You can't even play by you own rules. I really loved it when Lundy started laying down the new rules here and you were all paranoid about someone reporting you.
See, this is what I mean by my comments on your ability to read and understand English. You don't know what ad-hominem is. In that situation, I got irritated with you and called you a name
. While that is an infraction-worthy event, it's not arguing ad hominem. Here is the definition of ad-hominem:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Gratuitous verbal abuse or "name-calling" itself is not an argumentum ad hominem or a logical fallacy. The fallacy only occurs if personal attacks are employed in the stead of an argument to devalue an argument by attacking the speaker, not personal insults in the middle of an otherwise sound argument or insults that stand alone.
In other words, ad hominem arguments are those made about the person, rather than issue. This is something that is the basis for your posts here. Of course, you consider my comments on your usage of English arguing ad hominem, but they are not intended to be. I point those out because they often make your statements difficult if not impossible to understand. They also can alter the very meaning of what (I think) you're trying to write.
Crow all you want SDW. You didn't really win anything so it's is really kind of lame.
I don't know what we're trying to "win." I thought we were discussing and debating various issues. We have different opinions...that's fine. However, after years of discussion it's clear that yours aren't based on facts, just a few key phrases and visceral reactions.
Oh by the way I missed the part where you picked apart my arguments. Funny coming from someone who runs when he gets backed into a corner. But then again there's that logic thing.
It would be hard to miss every post over 9 years, wouldn't it? Your central points in that time can be boiled down to a few points:
- No WMD
- Where's bin laden?
- SDW is always wrong
- I'm older than you
Really...that's it. Those six things comprise everything you've ever said on this board. Ever.
By the way none of this has anything to do with the fact that it's still Bush's fault.
My mistake...7 things. And yes, I realize you're just trying to be cute. Didn't work.
I see no problem with that quote nor with my current statements. The Bush presidency...like any presidency...cannot be judged in total in years down the road. That doesn't mean one had to agree with his actions at the time. However, it does invalidate all of the "worst president in history" comments that were going on near the end of second term.
Notice that I've made no such judgements about Obama. I disagree strongly with his policies in most areas. I think they are wrong and have been proven not to work, historically speaking. I believe that adding piles of debt, ramming through healthcare, massive goverment control over private industry, apology tours (etc) are all wrong and will have serious consequences, but I have no idea how Obama will be judged historically. For all I know, 2012 or 2016 could look very different. We could have an economy in rebound. We could be out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran could sign a treaty with Israel. GM and the big banks might be stronger than ever. We could be running a surplus. Of course, pigs could fly, too.