Obama's Howard Dean Moment

[spike]

Was there some faulty logic somewhere?

I realize that you probably prefer to read silly generalizations about democrats rather than silly generalizations about republicans but I'm not sure if I care.

 

[SouthernN'Proud]

How are any of the insults you put in that post logical?

Because he knows I won't reply to him, so he uses that to insult me personally every chance he gets. Typical childish behavior. He's got no point to stand on, so he deflects issues to create the illusion of a point.

Besides, it's no worse a description than TV and Hollywood portay for us. Hell, I appreciate him making my point for me.



So. Y'all got yer defect nominated yet? Or are you still infighting like Roseanne and Rosie O'Asshole at a buffet line with one crab leg left? Who's it gonna be? The man who hates his own country, runs on race, and wants to surrender us...or the man who feels like she's owed the presidency, runs on lies, and wants to surrender us? Tick tock, tick tock...

Or maybe it's time to finally ask that all-important question. WWMMD?

 

[Cerise]

According to the tracking polls Obama's speech has beena big success.

It's a big success for Shrill, and ultimately for McCain.

Barack Obama has been significantly damaged by the controversy over his pastor’s inflammatory remarks and the issue has become a serious threat to his presidential ambitions, polls suggest.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3591359.ece

Two days after Barack Obama gave the most important speech of his life, it remains unclear what impact the controversy over Pastor Jeremiah Wright will have on the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination. However, early data suggests that it has already had a negative impact on Obama’s chances of winning the general election against John McCain.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...pastor_wright_and_the_speech_on_election_2008

Barack Obama’s speech about race on Tuesday impressed many who witnessed it or read it. But most of America did neither, and many of them -- white and black -- were less persuaded of the speech’s capacity to heal racial wounds, or to put the issue of race behind Obama as he continues his quest for the White House.

Of those who knew about the controversy and the speech, we asked, “Taking all this into account, are you more or less likely to support Obama for president?”

Less likely (52%)
More likely (19%)
About the same (27%)
No opinion (2%)

http://www.southernpoliticalreport.com/storylink_320_294.aspx

So much for the "Howard Dean moment".

 

[Inkara1]

Was there some faulty logic somewhere?

I realize that you probably prefer to read silly generalizations about democrats rather than silly generalizations about republicans but I'm not sure if I care.

Even though you completely failed to answer the question, I'll play ball.

The "generalizations" in SnP's post attacked stances on issues, not the people. You'll notice I didn't highlight the things in your post that attacked stances on issues and not people. I only highlighted your personal insults.

Ad hominem and tu quoque

Definitions: Like the appeal to authority and ad populum fallacies, the ad hominem ("against the person") and tu quoque ("you, too!") fallacies focus our attention on people rather than on arguments or evidence. In both of these arguments, the conclusion is usually "You shouldn't believe So-and-So's argument." The reason for not believing So-and-So is that So-and-So is either a bad person (ad hominem) or a hypocrite (tu quoque). In an ad hominem argument, the arguer attacks his or her opponent instead of the opponent's argument.
Examples: "Andrea Dworkin has written several books arguing that pornography harms women. But Dworkin is an ugly, bitter person, so you shouldn't listen to her." Dworkin's appearance and character, which the arguer has characterized so ungenerously, have nothing to do with the strength of her argument, so using them as evidence is fallacious.
In a tu quoque argument, the arguer points out that the opponent has actually done the thing he or she is arguing against, and so the opponent's argument shouldn't be listened to. Here's an example: Imagine that your parents have explained to you why you shouldn't smoke, and they've given a lot of good reasons—the damage to your health, the cost, and so forth. You reply, "I won't accept your argument, because you used to smoke when you were my age. You did it, too!" The fact that your parents have done the thing they are condemning has no bearing on the premises they put forward in their argument (smoking harms your health and is very expensive), so your response is fallacious.
Tip: Be sure to stay focused on your opponents' reasoning, rather than on their personal character. (The exception to this is, of course, if you are making an argument about someone's character—if your conclusion is "President Clinton is an untrustworthy person," premises about his untrustworthy acts are relevant, not fallacious.)

http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.html

So now that I've shown you why I think your logic is faulty, you should show me why you think it's sound.

 

[spike]

Because he knows I won't reply to him, so he uses that to insult me personally every chance he gets. Typical childish behavior. He's got no point to stand on, so he deflects issues to create the illusion of a point.

In reality you started the childish behavior by making a bunch of childish innaccurate generalizatins. If you don't want someone to respond in kind with generalizations about republicans just talk like an adult.

So. Y'all got yer defect nominated yet? Or are you still infighting like Roseanne and Rosie O'Asshole at a buffet line with one crab leg left? Who's it gonna be?

The funny thing is the conservatives have screwed up so bad that they don't even get a choice for president this time. You're getting a liberal for preseident no matter what you do.

 

[spike]

It's a big success for Shrill, and ultimately for McCain.

No the speech has been a big success and the trakcing polls show it had a very good effect.

A national poll released Friday showed that voters who had heard or read about Senator Barack Obama’s speech this week on race relations and on his relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. broadly approved of it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/22/us/politics/22poll.html?ref=politics

"Polls suggest Obama rebounding from pastor flap"

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/03/polls_suggest_obama_rebounding.html

Sorry Cerise.

 

[spike]

The "generalizations" in SnP's post attacked stances on issues, not the people.

No, they were a bunch of silly insulting inaccurate generalizations about democrats. Certainly wasn't about any issues discussed in this thread. In return he got a buch of silly generalizations about republicans.

So now that I've shown you why I think your logic is faulty, you should show me why you think it's sound.

I still don't think you understand the term since you've shown no faulty logic. In order to to have faulty logic I would have had to have been putting forth some sort of argument, trying to prove or demonstrate a point. SNP's genralizations or mine were not there's to prove any point. They were just insulting generalizations.

Given that he had just complained in his earlier post about "Broad stereotyping. Generalizations." it seems SNP really fit the hypocritical part.

 

[Cerise]

Sorry Cerise.

But you have to read past the "good news."

The Slimes sez:
"Still, the poll showed some erosion for Mr. Obama. Just over half of registered voters now say he would be a president who is able to unite the country, down from two-thirds a month ago."

"Swampy" sez:
"On the downside for Obama, only half of voters told the pollsters he could unite the country as president -- down from two-thirds in previous polls."

Strange. It sounds like they're looking at the same results. Oh, they are.


I wonder if it will be "burn baby burn" when the Obama-nation face the reality that he didn't get the nomination?

Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Tuesday that the Bush administration has done nothing to defuse a "quiet riot" among blacks that threatens to erupt just as riots in Los Angeles did 15 years ago.

The first-term Illinois senator said that with black people from New Orleans and the Gulf Coast still displaced 20 months after Hurricane Katrina, frustration and resentments are building explosively as they did before the 1992 riots.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/05/politics/main2888706.shtml

 

[spike]

But you have to read past the "good news."

The speech was obviously a big success. Uniting the nation is going to be tough for any of the candidates.

I wonder if it will be "burn baby burn" when the Obama-nation face the reality that he didn't get the nomination?

Not sure if you've been following things much but it's near impossible for him not to get the democratic nomination at this point.

 

[jimpeel]

Not sure if you've been following things much but it's near impossible for him not to get the democratic nomination at this point.

One more for us to keep so we can remind you of it later.

 

[spike]

I already made this thread a favorite so I could bring it up later. Want to put some money on it?

 

[jimpeel]

I'm sure that MRC hacked Nexis-Lexis and changed what Simon actually said.

http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2008/cyb20080324.asp#1

Simon on CBS: 'Obama Won Over His Base ... the American Media'

Roger Simon, chief political columnist for The Politico and former White House correspondent for the Chicago Tribune and political editor of U.S. News & World Report, acknowledged on Sunday's (3-23-08) Face the Nation that Barack Obama won over "his base," which he identified as "the American media," in his Tuesday speech in reaction to Reverend Jeremiah Wright's anti-American rants: "Obama really won over his base, he won over the American media. They loved that speech."

Indeed, over on This Week's roundtable, ABC News correspondent Claire Shipman trumpeted: "He gave a great speech, I think it was a brave speech."

Fill-in Face the Nation host Chip Reid followed up Simon's observation by fretting about what Republicans, who managed to "swift boat John Kerry" when "many people believed [he] was a war hero," might "do with what Reverend Wright said in the fall?"

Reid's question to Ana Marie Cox of Time magazine: "Now, if the Republicans could swift boat John Kerry on, you know, a guy who many people believed was a war hero, what can they do with what Reverend Wright said in the fall?"

...

The relevant portion of the first panel segment on the Sunday, March 23 Face the Nation:

DOYLE McMANUS, LOS ANGELES TIMES: Every day that goes by that there's not a new scary quote from Jeremiah Wright means that Jeremiah Wright may start to fade. The Clinton campaign has to raise questions about Obama's electability. That's the only way to move those super-delegates, and that's what Bill Clinton was doing.

CHIP REID: But Roger Simon, those scary quotes aren't going away in the fall, are they, even if they go away in the Democratic race?

ROGER SIMON: No, and I'm not sure they're going away in the Democratic race. They might drop off the nightly news and from the front pages of newspapers, but Senator Obama's speech, while I thought was an honest speech and that it's the speech he wanted to give rather than his political team wanted him to give, is still problematical for him in that white, ethnic voters in Pennsylvania may not react to it in the way that -- Obama really won over his base, he won over the American media. They loved that speech.

REID: Right.

SIMON: But they're not the voters. And he is going to face this below the radar screen trouble that Reverend Wright who, let us admit, made extreme statements. Those are still going to be there. And they're, they are still going to be on the minds of people.

REID: Now, if the Republicans could swift boat John Kerry on, you know, a guy who many people believed was a war hero, what can they do with what Reverend Wright said in the fall?

ANA MARIE COX: Well, what'll be interesting is how they do that and don't put John McCain's fingerprints on it. Just this week they fired a low-level staffer who had circulated a sort of video mash-up that included a lot of Reverend Wright's sermons. And they sent out a letter not to just their staff but to those -- their surrogates and supporters that they didn't want people using Barack Hussein Obama in references. And I also know that John McCain is very serious himself about trying to keep this all very civilized, and I'm sure the Obama team appreciates that. But the RNC probably doesn't see it the same way.

REID: Yeah.

COX: And it's going to be a lot like with the swift-boating in the sense that it's going to be somewhere from off center stage this time around.

 

[spike]

Why would they do that?

 

[jimpeel]

Why would they do that?

It's as good of an excuse to call them liars as any other.

 

[spike]

I don't see the motivation to change what Simon said. It's just a really strange thing for you to say.

 

[jimpeel]

I don't see the motivation to change what Simon said. It's just a really strange thing for you to say.

MRC is a Conservative website and we all know what you think of those, now, don't we.

 

[spike]

I posted an article on republican hypocrisy from a conservative site in this thread.

 

[jimpeel]

I posted an article on republican hypocrisy from a conservative site in this thread.

What you posted was an article on a guy who has written a book about his family and is hawking it.

The part you left out was this from the best man at his wedding and someone who lived with the family and claims to know Frank Shaeffer better than many in his own family:

The evangelical writer and social critic Os Guinness – who lived with the Schaeffers and became a close friend of Frank Schaeffer – declined to respond to Schaeffer's column. But in an article in the current issue of Christianity Today's Books and Culture review journal, he responded to Schaeffer's book, "Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All (or Almost All) of It Back."

Guinness challenges, "with everything in me," Frank Schaeffer's central premise that his parents lacked intellectual integrity and that there was a "lie at the very heart of the work of L'Abri."

"For six years I was as close to Frank as anyone outside his own family, and probably closer than many in his family," writes Guinness, who noted he lived in the Schaeffer home for more than three years and was the best man in Frank Schaeffer's wedding."

"There is all the difference in the world between flaws and hypocrisy," Guiness writes, "Francis and Edith Schaeffer were lions for truth. No one could be further from con artists, even unwitting con artists, than the Francis and Edith Schaeffer I knew, lived with, and loved."

Guinness argues the Schaeffers have left an enduring legacy.

"No one who witnessed the stature and diversity of the thousands who came to L'Abri's 50th-anniversary celebration in 2005 could doubt the depth of quiet, enduring gratitude that thousands owe to Francis and Edith Schaeffer," he writes. "For many of us, they changed our lives forever and set us off on the strenuous and costly path we are still pursuing decades later with no reservations and no regret."

Guinness says Frank Schaeffer's "broad dismissals of faith different from his own are often absurd, and his portrayal of recent Christian history is woefully ignorant."

"On the one hand, he routinely conflates evangelicalism with fundamentalism, or disdainfully dismisses evangelicalism as 'fundamentalism-lite,' the child of an older fundamentalism," he writes. "The reverse, of course, is true. Fundamentalism is the recent movement, and evangelicalism pre-dates it by centuries. On the other hand, he inflates his own role in founding the Religious Right, even if out of self-flagellating disgust."

Guinness says the "real truth is that Franky, as he then called himself, was spoiled. He was more like a poster child for Benjamin Spock than the son of 'fundamentalist missionaries.'"

"Having been born well after his sisters, and having survived polio as a child, he was rarely challenged, disciplined, or denied," he writes. "As a result, he grew up a 'little Napoleon,' as some of the L'Abri students called him. He would boast that he could twist his parents around his little finger, and time and again he proved it."

Guinness says Frank Schaeffer's idea that such a man as his father was "'crazy for God,' let alone a two-faced con man, is and will always be utterly anathema to me. I was there. I saw otherwise, and I and many of my friends have been marked for life."

Guinness says that with Frank Schaeffer's "prodigious but wayward talents, my old friend still has the air of the restless prodigal."

"But we all have journeying still to be done – in Frank's case, a long and winding journey home indeed," he writes, "but with both a waiting Father and a waiting father and mother at its end."

 

[spike]

The part you left out was this from the best man at his wedding and someone who lived with the family and claims to know Frank Shaeffer better than many in his own family:

What does any that have to do with republican's love of nutjob preachers?

 

[jimpeel]

What does any that have to do with republican's love of nutjob preachers?

He wasn't a nutjob preacher. His kid is trying to make some money off of his dead dad.

Frank Schaeffer's best man and someone who knows him says he is a liar; but not so boldly as that. I guess he is too nice to use the words "Lying little bastard."

We have plenty of clips of the good Rev. Wright in his own voice.

Have you got anything that Francis Schaeffer ever said?

I especially liked the part from your post which said:

Frank Schaeffer writes that when his father purportedly "denounced America and even called for the violent overthrow of the U.S. government, he was invited to lunch with presidents Ford, Reagan and Bush Sr."

BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!