I don't understand the liberal mind. Can someone help me out here.
JasonC made the following statement -
I know you people remember as well as I do how often... (1)
I contend this is a fallacious argument, Appeal To Widespread Belief. (2)
Appeal To Widespread Belief (Bandwagon Argument, Peer Pressure, Appeal to Common Practice): the claim, as evidence for an idea, that many people believe it, or used to believe it, or do it. (3)
Instead of many people believing, he is saying many people remember. The effect is the same. Each individual in the crowd is forced to wonder if there is some flaw in himself in that he does not see/believe/remember as the rest of the crowd.
Apparently, I completely fail to understand logic, logical fallacies, and fallacious arguments. As this is JasonC's response.
It's used incorrectly because the Bandwagon argument implies that being part of the group is a positive thing, something to be encouraged. You jumped on my phrase "You people" because it suggested inclusion. But the you people I was referring to was not being referred to as a desirable group. Nor was it an abstract one, but rather a simple way of addressing the majority of people who had already posted in that thread. If I'd said "All the cool conservatives accept that the Iraq war was launched under the pretext of Hussein's links to 9/11", that would be a bandwagon argument. I have no doubt that I might have committed some other rhetorical fallacy in that forum, but not the one you suggest. (4)
Huh? I would say the above paragraph is an Argument by Gibberish but I do believe whatever he is trying to say is serious.
3. from http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I usually use the one website for my list of fallacies.
June 25, 2009 - 04:12 ET by JWFHere is another -
I know you people remember as well as I do how often...
This is a form of peer pressure. No, I don't remember as well as you do. But since you know all of the people do, I better keep my mouth shut or look foolish.
It meets the criteria for the Bandwagon argument under this second definition. What am I missing?
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
(1) http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/bandwagon.html
I take your point, but I
June 25, 2009 - 08:04 ET by JasonCI take your point, but I still don't think this quite falls under the bandwagon fallacy. Here's why:
Peer pressure in an argument relies on the idea that everyone but the person being argued at holds the same idea as the arguer. In this case, I was in fact pretty much the only one who believed that in later 2002 the Bush administration was going out of its way to link 9/11 to Hussein. In other words, I held the decidedly unpopular position on the matter.
By saying "I know you remember as well as I do", I was indeed deploying a rhetorical tactic - perhaps even a fallacious one - in that I was essentially positing my argument as "fact", and basically "calling out" those who denied it. But this was not directed at any one member of NB more than any other. It certainly did not have a subtext of "everyone else here will fess up to recalling things this way."
Put it this way, imagine that I was kvetching about the unfairness of Clinton being impeached for adultery. Would it be slippery rhetoric for you to say "I know you remember as well as I do that he was impeached for perjury, not adultery"? Probably not.
That is why I maintain that had I said "Even Rush Limbaugh concedes that Cheney tried to link 9/11 with Iraq" or "Look at all the conservatives here that agree with me", you would have a point. But my (admittedly not well-phrased) argument was merely and explicitly trying to convince its various targets to agree with me - there was no propped up mass of consensus, which is what a bandwagon argument requires - and that is the goal of any form of rhetoric, fallacious or otherwise.
I get it now binky. I get it. Thanks for that. Got it real good.
June 26, 2009 - 05:40 ET by JWFAppeal to widespread belief is not a large umbrella that can cover the different arguments when trying to convince someone. It just covers the one narrow argument Norman Smith made in 1952 whilst arguing at the barbershop that sausage indeed does contain pig snout.
Yes. Norman used it all up. Done.
the claim, as evidence for an idea, that many people believe it, or used to believe it, or do it.
Binky: I know you people remember as well as I do how often...
Can't be this at all now can it -
the claim, as evidence for an idea, that many people remember it, or used to remember it, or do it.
Binky is right. Now that we all look at it like that, it does look strikingly wrong.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Wow. Was I wrong. Binky sure did correct me.
June 26, 2009 - 06:01 ET by JWFBinky: Peer pressure in an argument relies on the idea that everyone but the person being argued at holds the same idea as the arguer.
the idea that everyone - you people
holds the same idea - remember
as the arguer - as well as I do
Wow, I was way off, huh?
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Quick Question Binky.
June 26, 2009 - 06:06 ET by JWFI was indeed deploying a rhetorical tactic - perhaps even a fallacious one...
Why is that Binky? A good argument based on fact or evidence or truth or law should be able to stand on its own.
Why the need for deploying a rhetorical tactic - perhaps even a fallacious one?
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Well whattaya know....I
June 26, 2009 - 09:12 ET by JasonCWell whattaya know....I actually thought we'd have a halfway civil conversation here. I mean, your original forum post, and the first comment you added to it actually showcased your polite, pleasant side. As such, I gave you my side of the argument in no uncertain terms, and respectfully to boot. And you revert back to the old bombastic, name-calling JWF we all know and love.
I think I've quite adeptly demonstrated my point. If you disagree, fine. No need to be caustic.
I'll reiterate one more time: by saying "I know you all remember as well as I do", you must see that I am calling other posters out to disagree with what was, in the context of that message board, an unpopular position on the issue. How can a call to an unpopular position be peer pressure?
Why is that Binky? A good argument based on fact or evidence or truth or law should be able to stand on its own.
Why the need for deploying a rhetorical tactic - perhaps even a fallacious one?
You do realize what rhetoric means, right? Its basic definition very broadly refers to the use of language to argue and persuade. It is not, although modern pundits tend to use it epithetically, necessarily synonymous with fallacy.
Meanwhile, are you really accusing me of excessive misuse of rhetoric? Glass houses, sir.
Right binky.
June 27, 2009 - 04:59 ET by JWFIt wasn't the rhetorical part binky, it was the fallacious part. My whole point of this was your constant use fallacious arguments, in particular the bandwagon one.
No I don't see binky. As you were just making stuff up, it would be unclear to others that you were referring to stuff you made up. Could explain the whole unpopular part of the conversation, most people don't like other people that have a tendency to just make stuff up and then use a fallacious argument to cover the whole making of stuff uppedly.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
JasonC
June 26, 2009 - 06:28 ET by WhichWingWow JasonC, you really got under JWF's skin with this one. He's replied to you 3 times in about a 20 minute period, on a thread he apparently started in your honor and links to comments you made sometime last year. I don't think he plans on waiting for you to return, or even respond, he's just going to keep talking at you. Oh, and calling you 'Binky.' (You're lucky on that one, I got stuck with 'Pumpkinhead.')
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
Anyone hear that? What was that sound?
June 27, 2009 - 05:03 ET by JWFOh fudge. Can someone help pumpkinhead? He got that huge noggin stuck in the doorframe again.
Yes he did... I do not even think JasonC wants to engage other
June 30, 2009 - 13:53 ET by pahuberthan to make noise. Clang Clang Clang...
Geez man, do you not see me
June 30, 2009 - 13:55 ET by JasonCGeez man, do you not see me trying to make my arguments with clarity here? And by the way, I apologized to you last week. Maybe you missed it or maybe it was payback for not replying to your bible-explanation thread, but you should know that I tried to find some common ground.
Mabe you should of quit, while you were behind?
June 30, 2009 - 08:13 ET by general companyIn this case, I was in fact pretty much the only one who believed that
in later 2002 the Bush administration was going out of its way to link
9/11 to Hussein. In other words, I held the decidedly unpopular position on the matter.
It was unpopular because you are wrong, you give the impression you were the only one paying attention, your wrong about that too.
By saying "I know you remember as well as I do", I was indeed deploying
a rhetorical tactic - perhaps even a fallacious one - in that I was
essentially positing my argument as "fact", and basically "calling out"
those who denied it.
So now you are going to spend the rest of the thread claiming victim, or pointing out other supposed poor behavior? Your wrong, simple as that. BTW why do liberals always have to exaggerate their points? Is it an insecurity thing?
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Where did I "claim
June 30, 2009 - 13:22 ET by JasonCWhere did I "claim victim"? I saw the events of 2002 from a perspective that others disagreed with. Our perspectives are linked to our ideology, granted, but in my mind there is just no denying that 9/11 was invoked by administration and media alike in order to rally support for the Iraq invasion. Oddly, it used to be that conversations with conservatives yielded arguments about whether or not such linkage was valid.
All of a sudden (well, a year ago, now) I have to argue that the link was ever even made. Very strange.
I disagree with you 100% that I am wrong. And if you're going to say I'm wrong on a year-old thread, some sort of ancilliary argument to that effect might be a basic courtesy. "Your [sic] wrong simple as that" seems like an ever weaker argumentative tack than the bandwagon rhetoric which Sporty misattributed to me.
What did I exaggerate? JWF started this forum specifically to argue about my year-old semantics. What would you prefer I do?
Come on now Jason?
June 30, 2009 - 13:38 ET by general companyI was around in 2002, show me a quote, show me a clip where Bush or his admin claimed Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. There is the one single quote from Cheney that he later clarified his meaning had nothing to do with Iraq and 9/11. So show me?
I disagree with you 100% that I am wrong.
Your wrong about the link, I dont need the year old thread. If this is your claim, your wrong. Prove it, you cant because it didnt happen
What did I exaggerate?
Show me your proof about the Admin linking 9/11 and Iraq and I will show you where you are exaggerating.
Not interested in why the thread was created, the media claimed the link, you parroted it.
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
“They misread Saddam
June 30, 2009 - 13:57 ET by JasonC“They misread Saddam Hussein's intent when he invaded Kuwait in 1990. They underestimated the extent of the Iraqi program to try to
acquire nuclear capability back in '90 and '91. They missed 9/11.” -Cheney (not an explicit comparsion, but pretty well implied)
"While we were there a large part of the time we were focused on trying
to establish a link between al Qaida and Iraq and we were not
successful in establishing a link between al Qaida and Iraq. The more frustrated people
got in not being able to establish that link . . . there was more and
more pressure to resort to measures that might produce more immediate
results." -Maj. Charles Burney, U.S. Army
"Mohammad Atta met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official." -Cheney
"His regime has had high-level contacts with al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to al Qaeda terrorists." -Cheney
"What the vice president said is that he [Hussein] has been involved with al Qaeda." -Bush, clarifying Cheney's Meet the Press appearance
"He's a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaeda. In my Cincinnati
speech I reminded the American people, a true threat facing our country
is that an Al Qaeda-type network trained and armed by Saddam could
attack America and leave not one fingerprint." -Bush
"Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to
terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda
have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent
bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq
has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons
training. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network,
headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner." -Bush
"He has trained and financed al Qaeda-type organizations before, al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations." -Bush
The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against
terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of
terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will
gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the
regime is no more." -Bush
QED
And notwithstanding that I have proven my point on the year-old thread, that's not even what this forum is supposed to be about. It started out with me defending myself against an incorrect charge of slippery rhetoric. Now that I've demonstrated myself not guilty of that, you're going after the argument itself. Now that I've demonstrated the correctness of that, what do you have left? Maybe there's a spelling error somewhere you can harp on.
Jason, this has little to do
June 30, 2009 - 14:16 ET by general companyWith linking 9/11 to Iraq, al qaeda yes. See I knew this would be your responce, the Bush admin correctly suggsted that Iraq and al qaeda. But never did they suggest that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. So you are wrong
and here
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
How many Americans were
June 30, 2009 - 14:23 ET by JasonCHow many Americans were aware of who al Qaeda were before 9/11? How about after?
I'm sorry, you are absolutely burying your head in the sand if you're going to claim that the sudden linkage of Hussein with al Qaeda in 2002 was just coincidental to the latter's involvement in 9/11. Would all of this rhetoric linking the two have had an impact whatsoever if not for the public's inextricable al Qaeda - 9/11 association? Come on now, there's splitting hairs and then there's being ridiculous.
It would be like if someone who hated Obama claimed not to have tried to associate the president with terrorism by constantly bringing up the "palling around with Ayers" meme last year: "Oh no, I wasn't trying to associated Obama with terrorism, I just thought the public should know that they're really good friends; yeah, that's it."
I believe that if you reread my remarks from over a year ago, I acknowledge the distinction you are now trying to booby trap me with:
August 7, 2008 - 12:34 ET by JasonC
Dee and DP:
What percentage of American citizens had even heard of al-Qaeda or
Osama bin Laden before 9/11? Not a whole lot. Both of them are
indelibly seared into Americans' minds as "Responsible for 9/11". What
were these connections made for if not to instill an association
between Iraq and 9/11?
I completely understand your argument here, but I see it not as
something that puts Cheney et al in the clear so much as a
demonstration of their cagey rhetorical skills. While you may be
literally correct that suggesting these connections and suggesting
connections to the 9/11 attacks are two completely different things, I
believe it is naive to discount what the administration was,
transparently in my opinion, trying to accomplish. I fully accept that
this is not something I can prove, that it is simply my own reading of
the rhetoric. But I nonetheless remain unconvinced of your argument.
And then a few posts
June 30, 2009 - 14:24 ET by JasonCAnd then a few posts later:
August 7, 2008 - 13:17 ET by JasonC
Candance:
The crucial step that you miss in your essentially airtight analysis is
the relentless alignment of al-Qaeda with Iraq. No doubt OBL should
have been paid more careful attention by the Clinton and Bush (Sr.)
administrations, but that is not the issue here. The issue is the
rhetorical sleigh-of-hand in which invading Iraq was presented as a
logical step in the WoT which was galvanized and redefined on 9/11/01.
To claim that 9/11 was not exploited for P.R. purposes concerning Iraq
simply based on what you've posted here is like taking Clinton's word
for it that he didn't inhale or that he really truly didn't think
fellatio counted as sex. It's giving the benefit of the doubt to
someone who has gone out of his way to not deserve it.
Really Jason,, REALLY?
June 30, 2009 - 18:20 ET by general companyHow many Americans were aware of who al Qaeda were before 9/11? How about after?
Did you really mean that? Duh, maybe if the press would had reported the attacks the previous 8yrs under Bill. Who in the press was talking al qeada?
I'm sorry, you are absolutely burying your head in the sand if you're
going to claim that the sudden linkage of Hussein with al Qaeda in 2002
was just coincidental to the latter's involvement in 9/11.
It was true, so we should ignore it, hell, thats what we did the prior 8yrs. This thought proccess of yours suggest we should not use prudence when dealing with situations like this. When we were hit, you were positive it was a one time thing, right Jason? Or were you damanding results like the rest of us? What were the results Jason, not good enough? Never understand folks like you who whine and exaggerate your injustices, then prod your Reps to steal rights and civil liberties using flawed science, fake disastors, and panic inducing rhetoric concerning a small minorities heath care. And if that wasnt enough,,,,,,then liberals BASH your own country and its leaders when they dare try to give others Liberty.
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
I never said any of those
July 1, 2009 - 05:41 ET by JasonCI never said any of those things. But you do seem to be coming around to the idea that 9/11 was aligned with Iraq in 2002; that is the issue at bar here. Please point out where I've bashed my own country, etc. And allow me to add that what used to pass for bashing one's own country (when liberals were supposedly doing it) is now de rigeur for disgruntled conservatives ("he's not my president", &c.)
Sorry Binky. It is just you as usual
July 1, 2009 - 06:34 ET by JWFOnly you, Binky, felt the equation was made as the yellow stain grew larger and larger on your leg.
The rest of us were busy reading the Authorization for use of military force against Iraq resolution of 2002, public law 107-243, which listed 23 reasons for going in. Only 2 reasons mentioned 9/11 and only then determining it not happen again.
You remember the guys that wrote public law 107-243 Binky? Congress. Only Congress can declare war Binky. Only Congress can fund it at not more than 2 years at a time.
So you keep yapping about Cheney and Bush making connections Binky. And keep that diaper pinned up tight.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Actually it's quite clearly
July 1, 2009 - 06:59 ET by JasonCActually it's quite clearly not only me. There are some others right on this page who agree with the basic assertion even if they disagree with my negative characterization of it. And I'm not trying to get you on a 'bandwagon' here, just pointing out that you are wrong to say I'm alone on this.
I'm quite clearly talking about the public rhetoric that was deployed in press conferences, interviews, and by proxy; not the official resolution which, yes, I'm sure Americans by the thousands were seeking out and understanding to be the sole textual document of our invasion of Iraq.
JasonC
July 1, 2009 - 07:24 ET by MrShy"There are some others right on this page who agree with the basic assertion even if they disagree with my negative characterization of it."
Well next time, make an absolute and concrete assertion, not a "basic" one... which then, of course, allows you to "characterize" it as you see fit.
I also love how you cleverly attempt to fully divide an assertion and it's "characterization", taking no responsibility for how negatively you present it.
You didn't characterize your assertion negatively. You made..... a negative assertion.
You're the next contestant on...
THE MESSIAH IS... LEFT !!
Binky thinks he is smart.
July 1, 2009 - 07:32 ET by JWF...Americans by the thousands were seeking out and understanding to be the sole textual document of our invasion of Iraq.
Yes Binky, it was the sole textual document and all that was needed. What is there to seek or understand in a PUBLIC law? I was smart enough to find it Binky. Why do you denigrate the civic duty of your other citizens, to seek and understand public laws?
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION
.—The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to—
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION
.—Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS
.—Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
War Powers Resolution -
SEC. 8. (a) Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred--
(1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution; or
SEC. 5(b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.
Speaking of sole textual documents.
July 1, 2009 - 07:43 ET by JWFHow did this country manage its first 150 years without Binky, TV, Radio and the Internet? Binky must wonder.
But you do seem to be
July 1, 2009 - 09:02 ET by general companyBut you do seem to be coming around to the idea that 9/11 was aligned with Iraq in 2002;
Not hardly,
Please point out where I've bashed my own country, etc.
Did you vote for Obama, did you agree with Reid and Murtha? Are you not making asnine comments about why we went to free the people of Iraq? But what really bothers me about you sorry responce, is you seem to be just fine when our freedom is being stolen, as long as it's a liberal stealing it. I have very little use for you folks, does cannon fodder mean anything to you?
And allow me to add that what used to pass for bashing one's own
country (when liberals were supposedly doing it) is now de rigeur for
disgruntled conservatives ("he's not my president", &
More typical liberal BS, when we disagree we state why, when liberals disagree they lie. This site is pure evidence of this.
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
JasonC
June 30, 2009 - 16:03 ET by MrShy"...but in my mind there is just no denying that 9/11 was invoked by administration and media alike in order to rally support for the Iraq invasion."
When you're the president of a country that was handed a declaration of war by way of 3,000 of your people being slaughtered in one day, of COURSE you invoke 9/11 everywhere you can when it comes to all foreign policy issues and strategies that relate to the security and protection of your country -- which, basically, ALL foreign policy in some way points back to your country's safety and security.
Why can't you stupid liberals let it go? Why do you stupid liberals NOT GET IT? Why do you stupid liberals hate Bush for no real, rational reason at all?
Do you not understand that Iraq is smack-dab in the center of...... THE MIDDLE EAST REGION ???? For any critical thinker, that's all one needs to know to validate any sort of war planning when going after an enemy that planted it's roots in that region, bases it's reasoning for attacks on Islam, and infiltrates itself and attacks soldiers and civilians alike around the world.
Seriously, after being on NB for so long, why are you still not getting it and not finally understanding things? Why are you stuck on stupid, still, about Iraq / 9/11 / Al Qeada, etc., and stubbornly wallowing on the wrong side of history?
You're the next contestant on...
THE MESSIAH IS... LEFT !!
Thank you, Mr Shy
June 30, 2009 - 16:10 ET by BO STINKSAfter JasonC's tortuous logic, your comments are a breath of fresh air. And I agree wholeheartedly!
The great Socio/Economic Experiments of the 20th cent. (communism, socialism, fascism) only killed a few hundred million. Let's give 'em another try! - me
When you're the president
June 30, 2009 - 16:15 ET by JasonCWhen you're the president of a country that was handed a declaration of
war by way of 3,000 of your people being slaughtered in one day, of COURSE you invoke 9/11 everywhere you can when it comes to all foreign policy issues and strategies that relate to the security and protection of your country -- which, basically, ALL foreign policy in some way points back to your country's safety and security.
Thanks, Shy, I appreciate the back up. The argument here was simply whether or not the Bush admin linked 9/11 to Hussein as a means of garnering support for the war. General Co. says no way. Glad to know you're on my side.
JasonC
June 30, 2009 - 16:41 ET by MrShyThe link of 9/11 to Hussein, of those two EXACT entities, may or may not have been "suggested" along the way, I don't know or care. Who DOES cares? Oh right, you and people who can't let it go care.
Here Jason, Al Queda:
- formed in the M.E., with members from various M.E. countries
- HATES democracy and modernity
Bush & Co. MADE EVERY EFFORT to gain authorization to go in, remove a dangerous tyrant from Iraq, and plant some sort of democracy in that country.
Think. THINK. REALLY THINK. Democracy, in a country that borders: Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Jordan. All trouble-spots and hotbeds of instability and radical Islam, struggling to catch up to the modern world.
Go look at a map.
And no, it hasn't been easy. It's still a mess. Another horrible bomb went off today in Kirkuk, killing dozens. You really think it's the Iraqi people/citizens setting off all these suicide bombs? Think again.
It's all connected, Jason. Don't you understand? Are you really one of those idiots that believe Bush wanted Hussein's head on a plate for some Bush-family reason, or for oil? After 9/11? They made a whole host of arguments for going in, as there indeed WERE a whole host of reasons -- all of which had to do with the long-term and very long, hard-fought battle* to bring security and peace to the M.E. and, by extension, the world. And our own security.
*I can find the speech somewhere, but Bush made it -- way back right after 9/11, that this fight was going to be long and hard. He go it. He knew he was going to take a lot of heat for someone FINALLY really doing something about the backwards mess in the M.E. that had been ongoing for decades.
You're the next contestant on...
THE MESSIAH IS... LEFT !!
Those are all perfectly
July 1, 2009 - 05:48 ET by JasonCThose are all perfectly reasonable points and reflect a logical strategy for a certain kind of worldview. I happen to be more isolationist and think we should put our national security ahead of nation-building and securing the security of others for its own sake (not that I believe 100% that's what Iraq was ever about). I'm not about to rattle off all the tired - but valid - arguments about why invading Iraq has been counterproductive as far as stanching the both the recruitment capabilities and underlying philosophies of terrorism. I'll readily concede that good and progress has emerged after six years of the war. I'm hesitant to say it was worth the death and destabilization along the way.
Just to confirm, though; we are on the same page as far as what I'm arguing with G.Co.?
JasonC
July 1, 2009 - 07:22 ET by MrShyWell, I scrolled up to the beginning of this debate, with the assertion you made as follows, to quote:
"...the Bush administration was going out of its way to link 9/11 to Hussein."
Based on what you came on here saying, in those words, framing it that way... no, we're not on the same page.
JWF and many here have given you ample proof that it was one of many items on their reasons-to-go-to-war list, i.e., the long list sent to Congress that had just two mentions, both basically expressing a concern that we not be attacked again.
This, like I stated, is what foreign policy is all about, and when an administration is setting out on theirs after the most historic and devastating attack on it's soil, Bush would be a TERRIBLE and STUPID commander-in-chief were he NOT to make some references to 9/11.
They were not "going out of their way" and were not "linking" the two, no. That's a fabrication on your part, and we've proven this over and over.
You're the next contestant on...
THE MESSIAH IS... LEFT !!
Gross...
July 4, 2009 - 07:36 ET by WhichWingWow. When are you are you stupid neo-conservatives going to figure it out? You fools run around denouncing gov't spending while saying we must take the role of "World Police Force." That's the biggest gov't spending of all! Just look at your post and the filth that it contains. As if we have the right, or even the responsibility, as a nation to do a fraction of the garbage in there.
You list "HATES democracy and modernity" as if this is some sort of atrocious crime that we must avenge for the sake of all liberty lovers everywhere! Why should we "remove a dangerous tyrant from Iraq," or any country? That is the job of the people in those nations. Americans would make that decision for ourselves if the situation arose here, wouldn't we? Or would you prefer someone else to make that decision for you? You seem to think that we should use our resources to "plant some sort of democracy in that country." Instead of preserving our republic by getting our spending under control, you want to ramp up the printing presses to build democracies for other people.
You people scare me way more than the liberals. And you spend more.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
What are you doing here Pumpkinhead?
July 5, 2009 - 08:28 ET by JWFI may hammer on JasonC but at least he has some measure of intelligence and I may be able to influence him a little.
You. You are too friggin stupid to even waste insults on.
Let's count the stupid.
1. ...we must take the role of "World Police Force." That's the biggest gov't spending of all! I have corrected Pumpkinhead on this once already.
My forum post refers to the White House Historical Budget tables. (1) Last historical year was 2007. Human resources (Education, Health, Medicare, Income Security, Social Security & VA) consume 63% of the budget. Social Security alone has a bigger budget than national defense.
So Pumpkinhead has been corrected and comes back with the same statement.
2. you stupid neo-conservatives
The entire point of this forum was to point out JasonC's perceived hostility to the community with his you all statements. Oh look, here comes Pumpkinhead bebopping along with his own broad brush flinging paint everywhere. The only neoconservative here would be JasonC once I get done with him. To be neo anything, you have to have been something else first.
neo - a. new, recent, latest
3. As if we have the right, or even the responsibility, as a nation to
I refer to the title of this forum. Huh? Nations don't have rights you idiot, individuals do. Read the Preamble to the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence again Pumpkinhead.
4. You list "HATES democracy and modernity" as if this is some sort of atrocious crime that we must avenge for the sake of...
Again, Huh? MrShy was referring to one of the many characteristics of Al Qaeda. The atrocious crime was killing more than 3000 innocent civilians on Sep. 11, 2001 you unholy idiot. In addition to the older crimes of bombing our embassies and attacking one of our ships.
You are frelled up flatter than hammered dren. (2)
5. Why should we "remove a dangerous tyrant from Iraq,"
Here is 23 reasons idiot. My apologies to others for the clutter.
6 Americans would make that decision for ourselves if the situation arose here, wouldn't we? Or would you prefer someone else to make that decision for you?
The duly elected representatives that Americans chose made that decision you idiot with an idiot stick stuck up your idiot poop-hole.
7. You seem to think that we should use our resources to "plant some sort of democracy in that country."
He does not have to think anything idiot. The duly elected members of Congress in 2002 said we should use our resources.
8. Instead of preserving our republic by getting our spending under control, you want to ramp up the printing presses to build democracies for other people.
Again, I point out my other forums on Bush spending, of which you read Pumpkinhead. Despite having troops on 2 fronts in 2 countries, our spending has been average for the 8 years of President Bush. YOU READ THAT.
9. You people scare me way more than the liberals. And you spend more.
No, what is scary is the fact that you can vote despite being rock stupid. And there is that you people again.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
(1) http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf
(2) http://farscape.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Slang
Liberals feel it's necessary
June 30, 2009 - 16:20 ET by Radical1979Liberals feel it's necessary to blame the U.S. for everything, even our being attacked on 9/11. If they were around during the Pearl Harbor attack they would have given away Hawaii.
Wow. That is a stunning,
June 30, 2009 - 16:26 ET by JasonCWow. That is a stunning, original, and ever-so-accurate insight. I truly have never heard that accusation before. Next you'll be telling me liberals are "scared" of Sarah Palin.
Any other groundbreaking political commentary you want to throw out there before Sowell or Friedman scoops it?
If only I could figure out how your penetratingly relevant comment has anything to do with what we're even talking about...
Pick on someone your own size bully.
July 1, 2009 - 05:07 ET by JWFHe did not say JasonC the liberal, he just said liberals in general.
Why so defensive Binky?
Maybe you would understand it if he put it like this -
I know you people remember as well as I do how often liberals feel it's necessary to blame the U.S. for everything, even our being attacked on 9/11. If they were around during the Pearl Harbor attack they would have given away Hawaii and you all know it.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Wow. I guess I was wrong after all.
June 29, 2009 - 20:59 ET by JWFThanks for all the pm's. JasonC was not engaging in fallacious arguments. Turns out JasonC is an elite liberal intellectual snob with a country bumpkin fetish. When not showing an alarming hostility to the community, he... Nah, that's it. He shows an alarming hostility to the community at NewsBusters.
A small display of the hostility of JasonC while pontificating at the riffraff that is NB:
This accusation that the joke was about statutory rape is beyond ridiculous and you all know it.
I'll let you all get back to fantasizing about manfully knocking out some lout who made a bad joke about a woman in your family.
You all sound about as stable as the 9/11 Truthers when you talk about how you're going to lose your first amendment rights under a democrat.
Ohhh, so you all get to bitch freely about the music you all hate, but I have a weak brain because I don't like Toby Keith's brand of country?
If the show was on the other foot - if children of so-called traditional families were being filmed and used in a pro-gay-marriage ad, you all would be losing your minds over it.
And you all are deluded if you think it matters one bit to him that his films tend not to succeed in America.
And you all hate NYT so much; they helped sell the Iraq War!
I suspect that what you all dislike has more to do with his tone than with his relaying important epochs of US History from a point of view other than the proverbial winners.
You're all missing the point.
You all sure do enjoy your broad stroke character assassinations of the big bad liberals.
You all freak out when blogging is denounced as inherently sub-standard journalism, but if a left-leaning blog is cited on the MSM, it's automatic proof of bias.
I don't like Olbermann, but you all are way off on this.
Every goddamn time someone of public note tries to express a (perceived as liberal) political position, it's the exact same reaction on NB.
Ah yes, the NB-posters' stand-by 1-2 combo against someone with whom they disagree:
And I can't take NB criticism of them at face value because a) NBers tend to believe that anti-war narratives are inherently anti-American and anti-military, and b) NBers also tend to criticize these films sight unseen.
It's pretty clear at this point that that was invented out of thin air by conservatives4palin and repeated as news by NB.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
And what exactly is the
June 30, 2009 - 07:51 ET by JasonCAnd what exactly is the proper way to direct an argument at more than one person? List them all by name every time? You have a real penchant for zeroing in on minute pieces of a person's style rather than really dealing with their arguments - not always, now and then you surprise me - but that seems to be your M.O. For instance, the long phase you went through of re-pasting my posts with every instance of 'I' set in boldface, as though no one on NB ever expresses themself in the first person. Or your sarcastic tableau about how I won't have anything to tell my grandkids about my involvement in the Iraq war other than my opposition to it (and everyone knows, all grandpas are good for is relegating the young 'uns with war stories, so I guess I might as well just hide in the attic during family visits forty years from now).
So anyhow, tell me, what is the JWF-style approved method of addressing a group of posters or the basic ideology of the site? See, when you're of a minority view on a message board site like this, it often happens that your posts have to address a variety of hostile (yes, hostile) people. "You all" or "NBers" is a fairly succinct shorthand. When I use that shorthand in your examples, it basically means one of two things. 1) I am addressing a literal group of posters who have replied to my initial post or to the story in question. 2) I am addressing the general philosophy and ideology of NB as a whole. And this, I think, is a fair assessment to make. The blog posts and comments adhere to a fairly predictable, demonstrable pattern of response-types, especially in reaction to a given kind of story. If the story pertains to, say:
-Tolerance for gay people in a secondary school...
...a scandal involving a democrat the coverage of which makes sure party affiliation is played down...
...a slight against the Palins
...a celebrity who expresses a (non-conservative) opinion...
Then there is a predictable set of responses and reactions to that story. Past posts demonstrate this quite adequately. Therefore, when I said:
If the show was on the other foot - if children of so-called
traditional families were being filmed and used in a pro-gay-marriage
ad, you all would be losing your minds over it
It was not so much a pseudo-bandwagon argument as an educated statement, backed up by plenty of time spent with such posters on other threads pertaining to gay rights and culture and marriage.
As for your sudden concern about etiquette and so-called hostility to the site, you've produced a dozen or so examples from my 3.5 years here. Give yourself a hand. I haven't been kicked off the site or even warned about same (as have dozens of fellow liberals) and my level of insulting language doesn't even compare to several conservative fixtures who still run rampant on the site, shrieking 'troll' at anything that posts an opinion left of Limbaugh. So you'll forgive me if I take your accusations of hostility and elitism with the tiniest grain of salt.
Whatever, Binky. Binky Braveheart.defends his honor.
June 30, 2009 - 10:34 ET by JWFStop giggling everybody. Binky does have honor. Now stop it. He does. You, I hear you snickering. Alright. I admit it. I said the same thing - Huh?
Sorry Binky. What was your involvement in the Iraq war then?
Sorry Binky, there is no JWF-style approved method of addressing a group of posters. The opportunity has never come up. I'll let you know when the JWF hostility committee meets should the occassion call for it.
Sorry Binky, See, when you're of a minority view on a message board, you post elsewhere. Too simple huh Binky? There are a billion message boards on the internet. Surely Binky could find one with a friendly venue. Hint Binky - use the term coprophagia in the google window.
Sorry Binky. 1) Am I now supposed to thank the liberal elite snob for slumming when he is addressing a literal group of posters? B) Or do I thank the elite liberal snob when he is addressing the general philosophy and ideology of NB as a whole? 4) Which one is it?
Sorry Binky. This is not hostile to the community in the slightest now is it? Then there is a predictable set of responses and reactions to that story. Past posts demonstrate this quite adequately. No No No No. Not hostile people. Binky is NOT hostile.
Sorry Binky. Done run all out of battle hardened bravery badges for binky braveheart. I haven't been kicked off the site... Wow, that is a long time to be slumming with the little people. We will submit a special request to the binky badge committee to get you sumtin' asap.
Yes everybody. Binky is a nice troll. You get that badge Binky. Lots of nice troll badges lying around. We don't have too many occasions to pass those out.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Ah, allow me to correct my
June 30, 2009 - 13:30 ET by JasonCAh, allow me to correct my confusingly-phrased statement. I had no involvement in the Iraq War, and that is just fine with me. Shall I hang my head in shame?
See, when you're of a minority view on a message board, you post elsewhere.
Um, that's kind of stupid. Do you really think message boards should just be hoardes of people with the same stance on everything? Half the people here would probably stop posting altogether if they lost the fun of mocking the libs who hang out here.
1) Am I now supposed to thank the liberal elite snob for slumming when he is addressing a literal group of posters? B) Or do I thank the elite liberal snob when he is addressing the general philosophy and ideology of NB as a whole? 4) Which one is it?
Why would you thank me? This doesn't even make sense.
Then there is a predictable set of responses and reactions to that story. Past posts demonstrate this quite adequately.
Call it whatever you want. It is demonstrably true. For instance, there is currently a thread about how some progressive type bashed country music for being racist, sexist, etc. If there's not a comment on there unfavorably comparing the respective misogyny and racism of rap music with country music by the end of the week, I'll eat my hat and request that my account be canceled.
I do like to think that I am not hostile until someone is not hostile with me. However, I don't think that operating under the assumption that I have a fairly solid understanding of the average NBers political/cultural philosophy quite equals hostility.
Heh, the wager I made was
June 30, 2009 - 13:37 ET by JasonCHeh, the wager I made was over before I even made it:
June 30, 2009 - 14:10 ET by Kekela Ward
Evidently this clown has never listened to a gansta rap album.
And I swear I didn't read that before posting this; oh well, I'll go double or nothing...
I do like too.
July 1, 2009 - 05:17 ET by JWFBinky Braveheart : I do like to think that I am not hostile until someone is not hostile with me.
I do like to think a lollipop will fall out of my butt but alas for it is only a fart.
You keep thinking Binky. It is working out so well for you now isn't it?
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
That's lovely.
July 1, 2009 - 05:55 ET by JasonCThat's lovely.
Binky Braveheart - wrong again.
July 1, 2009 - 02:40 ET by JWFBinky: JWF started this forum specifically to argue about my year-old semantics.
Is that right Binky? Your constant use of the "you all know it" rhetorical tactic - perhaps even a fallacious one is what led to the opening of this forum. I just happened to see it one too many times. The latest in the Palin/Letterman posts.
Binky last week: This accusation that the joke was about statutory rape is beyond ridiculous and you all know it.
Binky a year ago: I know you people remember as well as I do how often...
No Binky, we do not know the accusation was beyond ridiculous nor do we remember as you do. You live in your own little world Binky.
The year old thread would have stayed there had you not picked yet another argument with me in addition to the many others left open by your constant use of cut&run tactics.
----------
I am so terribly sorry JWF,
June 24, 2009 - 12:44 ET by JasonC
I am so terribly sorry JWF, the rhetorical fallacy term you accused me of - incorrectly - was "Bandwagon," not "stacked deck". The two are similar and I just plain confused which one you had used. It's in the year-old Cheney thread you recently resurrected, BTW...
---------
I took the bandwagon fallacy disagreement to the woodshed.
June 25, 2009 - 05:23 ET by JWF
-----------------------
You brought an argument to another thread. I opened a forum so we would not clog up the thread.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
PS: look who is apologizing again pahuber. He confused stacked deck with bandwagon. He is wrong so often on other things, but amazingly, so so so so correct on the big stuff like the war and politics and taxes and all the stuff liberals hold near and dear.
Binky Braveheart brings up Ayers.
July 1, 2009 - 04:00 ET by JWFBinky: by constantly bringing up the "palling around with Ayers" meme last year...
Odd that you would bring up Ayers, Binky. Look what I found. All bold emphasis in Mr. Huston's post mine.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
I cannot for the life of me
July 1, 2009 - 05:52 ET by JasonCI cannot for the life of me figure out the point of this post. An exchange with WTH. Where I bring up the palling around meme. OK. What's your point, other than your increased fascination with me, manifested in seeking out everything I've ever written?
Binky Braveheart thinks for us all so we don't have to.
July 1, 2009 - 04:57 ET by JWFI start a forum to point out Binky's constant use of peer pressure rhetoric and what do we get? Binky continues to know, think, presume what goes on in the minds of just about everybody that is not a JasonC in search of a binky.
Americans : How many Americans were aware of who al Qaeda were before 9/11?
the public: not for the public's inextricable al Qaeda - 9/11 association?
Americans again: Both of them are
indelibly seared into Americans' minds
NBers: those on NB who assume that specializing in rap culture means...
the People: Most of the people who claim to dislike it morally
American consumers: what a heartless, over-entitled, porcine rabble American consumers tend to be...
conservative Christians: Which is also what the vast majority of conservative Christians...
Everyone on the planet apparently: We all know that Guantanamo will not be...
The Royals: We (the royal we) invaded a sovereign nation that posed us no harm and exploited 9/11 emotionalism in order to sell it. It was and is wrong. I've never been so disappointed in my country as I was watching Shock and Awe live on cable news.
Cowards - I will gladly concede that many, if not the majority, of those who have claimed conscientious objection have done so disingenuously, out of fear or cowardice. And clearly, this man was foolish to join a volunteer military if he was going to react in such a way to deployment in an immoral war.
Binky Braveheart oughta know - However: To suggest that making such choices based on morality always and automatically indicates cowardice is to logically and conversely suggest that courageous men automatically lack moral conviction.
Huh? - Somehow, in the minds of many people, that (mis?)conception retroactively revised 100+ years of Democratically-sanctioned, reconstruction-era racial violence.
There is that Love/Hate Ann Coulter obsession again - It reminds me of the political authors who want to be taken seriously but put airbrushed glamour shots of themselves on the cover (esp. Coulter)
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Looks like Binky Braveheart the baby bottle master lost his bink
August 27, 2009 - 10:33 ET by JWFBinky: On that note, in the spirit of cutting way back on time spent here, this is my one post for the month of August.
Is it really that easy? You push back on one of these whiney elitist trolls and the scamper about looking for their binky? Speaking of binkys, where is whichwing, goldbar, & j. frank wilson?
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Nope, not that easy.
August 27, 2009 - 11:11 ET by JasonCNope, not that easy. Kennedy died and I exceeded my self-imposed limit by a good 15 posts. Oh well, back to exile I go, next time I'll do better...
Binky Braveheart does it again.
September 11, 2009 - 07:52 ET by JWFBinky posts a drive-by fallacious argument and runs for the hills as one person after another puts the smackdown on him. He leaves it for a drunk bigot clown, aka Binky Braveheart jr. to carry his water.
in the forum - Was Rep. Wilson Wrong to Call President a Liar?
Binky posted this -
First of all, he is quoting from the house bill. And it is a fallacious argument, Binky's first love, Exception that proves the rule. I posted this directly from the Legal Insurrection blog.
Did you catch that boys and girls? Illegal aliens can participate in Critical Aspects of the government. They can have government insurance! If you are really poor, the government will help out with the payments, illegal aliens are exempt from that. But they They can have government insurance!
Legal Insurrection links to the Congressional Research Service whose pdf states -
The Exchange boys and girls, aka the government option, aka the public option, aka Obamacare. Illegal aliens can get government coverage.
Now what was it President Obama said?
WHOA NELLY! PBO says it is false that we would insure illegal aliens.
But according to the House Bill that Binky Braveheart quoted from, this is not true. We will indeed give government insurance to illegal aliens.
Twice now, I have Proved it. I showed him something in black and white, something that's not just obstinate right-wing hysteria.
What gives Binky? You gonna get your drunk bigot clown to fill in for you again?
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
New Binky Braveheart Buster thread!
September 12, 2009 - 14:38 ET by JWFhttp://newsbusters.org/forums/woodshed/jasonc-acting-troll-i-am-calling-him-out-he-goon-media-matters-32723
This thread is officially over. Please move on to the new and improved Binky Braveheart Buster thread.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.