Meet Tom Daschle and Nancy Killefer and Bill Richardson and Reverand Wright and, oh, you know Grandma Dunham….
(Now, could all of you squeeze over and make room?)
Meet Tom Daschle and Nancy Killefer and Bill Richardson and Reverand Wright and, oh, you know Grandma Dunham….
(Now, could all of you squeeze over and make room?)
What’s to be surprised about?
American Liberals still do not believe that Slick Willie was anything but a GREAT president… or that His Wife is anything but an intelligent and competent lady.
Delusion …. runs through to the core.
And the new White House?
Ever see Night of Living Dead?
ET
The term ‘ad hominem’ is understood to be the practise of attacking a person’s character rather than answering their argument.
Your use of the term towards me is unfounded in that I presume you are referring to my characterization as your tactics as ‘racism and lies’.
Your bizarre argument that President Obama is insisting that critics of the bill are ‘bigots’, and relating that to Jeremiah Wright is itself racist. You cannot make your argument in any other way, so you latch into the President’s race and try to make that an issue – somehow connecting the stimulus bill to the angry rhetoric of Wright.
There is no mention of the word ‘bigot’ in Obama’s op-ed or speech of today, no mention of race. It is you who make this unfounded connection. Your claim is parallel to Limbaugh’s injection of the issue of race when he made the statement about having to ‘grab the ankles and bend over” for Obama because his father was black.
In both cases, yours’ and Limbaugh’s, one discerns an intellectual impotence in the inability to frame an opposing arguement to Obama’s policies that doesn’t involve playing the race card. The playing of this card is certainly evidence of desperation, but it’s also revealing of the deeply held racist prejudice of the debater – both in that you guys don’t mind using this card to ‘advance’ your argument, and also that you really don’t think anything’s wrong with it.
The sad part is: if you genuinely had a convincing argument against Obama’s policies or tactics, you wouldn’t have to fall back on an ‘argument’ which is, by definition, racist. So: no ad hominem there on my part.
In the first paragraph of the President’s op-ed he describes the dimensions of the crisis. the next paragraph is a sentence describing what Americans expect from their government. The next paragraph describes the possible repercussions of doing nothing in the face of worsening condition; then the next speaks of the bill.
You’re free to insist that what Obama describes the American people wanting is the same as the bill he brings up 2 paragraphs later. But please understand that it’s your interpretation only. It would be different if he said ‘my plan is wise, bold, etc’. He didn’t.
In the essay form one describes a problem, outlines a solution, then brings the argument to conclusion. You’ve mistaken – disingenuously, one suspects – Obama’s description of what Americans expect as his assessment of his own plan.
Again, you’re free to perform linguistic gymanstics to cobble together any sort of interpretation which supports your views.
But please understand it’s only your creative interpretation, and has little connection to the facts and issues at hand.
The unfortunate problem about your arguments is that they rely so much on your idiosyncratic interpretation and your linguistic gymnastics in which words mean only what you want them to mean.
To wit: you say CNN had ‘someone else on’ who criticized Obama’s leadership. Do you really consider it convincing that you heard ‘someone’ on TV who criticized the President? Would it make any difference to you if I cited ‘someone’ on the radio who argued differently? What on earth is this sort of argument supposed to mean?
You “think” he’s blaming Bush in the op-ed. So what? More creative interpretation. You can’t straight out say he’s doing it because the evidence isn’t there.
And again: your argument that his strategy is “rejecting rational criticism of him and his ‘policies’ (nice dig with the ‘parentheses’!) by defining the cause of criticism as ‘your bigotry'”.
Where on earth is the evidence for you to make such a claim? Please show us where the President accuses opponents of his bill of bigotry. Until you can present such evidence your claim is simply what it is: a bizarre accusation which has no basis in reality.
Surely it’s possible to have a reasoned opposition to the stimulus bill. But you do your position no service with your unfounded suppositions and ungrounded accusations. Keep to the facts, please.
And they’re off, ladies & gentlemen, wait, yes, the referee says, yes, it’s a clean start and they’re well on their way into the first turn of this rather muddy (for this time of year) 1¼ mile track. We’ll get back to you as soon as there’s any development here, possibly in the stretch, but probably in the club-house turn.
(Ouch, ouch, hey, stop hitting me 😉
The whole concept of using retired generals as ambassadors in areas where they commanded troops or achieved victory is contradictory.
The purpose of the American Military is to defeat those countries that are an escalating security threat to the US.
The purpose of the State Department is to turn any American victory into defeat no matter how long it takes or how many serial incompetents must be appointed to achieve it.
real – I repeat – don’t use ad hominem. And your assertion that I am lying and a racist is an example of such.
My claim that Obama uses the same tactics of argumentation as Wright stands. The tactics are misinformation, emotional manipulation using the emotions of hope and fear – and accusations of bigotry/racism if you disagree with him.
Don’t be naive; words are synonyms. Because Obama doesn’t use the word ‘race’ or ‘bigot’ doesn’t mean that [his accusation that criticism of ‘his’ stimulus package is a product of partisanship] is not in the same SET of synonyms. The words ‘race’, bigot, partisan’ are all in the same SET.
Again, to accuse someone of ‘racism’ or ‘bigotry’ or ‘partisanship’ is the same mode of accusation. It asserts that your decisions are not based on reason but on prejudice. OK?
How on earth can you define my argument based on a SET of metaphors as an act of racism? That is bizarre. And ad hominem. Oh well.
And I’m not ‘latching on to the President’s race’ in this argument about the infamous Rev. Wright. That’s another weird accusation on your part. I have no interest in ‘race’ – actually, I don’t even accept that there is such a thing, but that’s another issue.
I certainly don’t connect the ‘stimulus bill’ to ‘the angry rhetoric of Wright’. My goodness, do read what I said. I connect Obama’s tactics of persuasion to the persuasion rhetoric of Wright. Nothing to do with the ‘stimulus bill’.
Also, I’ve no idea why you keep mentioning Limbaugh; I didn’t refer to him; I haven’t read or heard him recently. OK?
I’m certainly not offering an ‘opposing argument to Obama’s policies’ that is, or is not, racist.
My only comment on Obama’s policy of ‘economic stimulation’ is that it was put together, not by him, but by the Democratic backroom gang (Pelosi, Reid, etc) and is a huge hodge podge of pork to special interest groups, with a minimal ability to provide job or economic stimulation. What the heck is racist about that?
My criticism has been about Obama’s mode of ‘governance’, which is based, not on leadership, not on analysis of policies and programs, but only on the tactics of persuasion. I’ve outlined his three main tactics: misinformation, emotional manipulation, and accusation of bias if you criticize. That’s my argument about his tactics. He has no policies.
What’s racist about that?
Don’t be naive – if Obama is writing an op-ed about the stimulus package, – and you’ll note that’s in his first sentence, and he then refers to ‘wise, bold action’, then he’s not talking about putting in a new garden in the White House; he’s talking about that package.
Your oft-repeated claim that my interpretation is strictly and only my own is of course valid. Who else is writing this post other than me? Others happen to agree; others disagree. So?
As for the ‘other person’ I heard on CNN, I’m terrible with names; his name is Tony Blankley – and he said the same – no leadership, a travesty of a bill..
I repeat, Obama has accused anyone who doesn’t pass this bill, as being partisan. That means bias; that’s another word for bigotry – which means someone obstinately devoted to his own ideology.
Now, apart from your numerous errors in attacking my argument, you really haven’t provided any counter argument in favour of Obama’s gigiantic ‘stimulus package’. Nor have you provided any counter argument to my analysis of his mode of governance – which I term, metaphorically, as The Salesman.
Indeed, current online, radio and TV comments on Obama are that he should ‘stop campaigning’ and get down to working on policies.
The problem, as I’ve pointed out, is that I doubt if he has the ability to do that; he can only campaign. And that is a serious flaw because it means that there is a vacuum of leadership in Washington..and backroom boys are going to move in to fill that role.
ET
No, ET. The words race and bigot are not synonyms for ‘partisan’ nor are they in the same ‘SET” of synonyms. This is just malarkey, utter nonsense.
Obama did not inject race into this debate, through ‘sets of synonyms’ or otherwise. You injected race by asserting, through more bizarre linguistic gymnastics, that Obama seeks to coerce support for his bill by implying that those who disagree are racists.
There is no empirical basis for such a claim. You try to make the intellectually shameful claim that partisanship is a synonym for race. It is not.
The fact that you seek to inject race into this debate – by making the unfounded accusation that Obama is using the concept of partisanship as a synonym for race (how bizarre!) – means you are seeking to attach a racial stereotype to Obama – that of the black man trying to use his race to influence events on which race should have no influence.
In short, your unfounded accusation is, flatly, racist.
That is not ad hominem. That is fact. For it is you, and no-one else, who has chosen to make race an issue in this conversation.
In future, you really should try to make your points without declaring that words are synonyms when they’re not, or that they mean what you want them to mean. Such ganmbits were fine for the Cheshire Cat in Alice in Wonderland, but as I presume you’re trying to make a point which bears some relation to reality…well, let’s stick with the generally understood meaning that the words are supposed to have. Because you’re coming dangerously close to losing all coherence.
Speaking of “Change”, my old college roommate used to tell this joke: Some US prisoners of war were lined up outside their barracks when the German Commandant said: “I have some good news and some bad news.” “What’s the good news?”, said one prisoner. “The good news is that you each get a change of underwear.”, said the German. “What’s the bad news?”, said another American. The warden replied: “John, you change with Bill. Ed, you change with George….”
And they’re comming out of the first turn now, and it’s racist by a nose…
oh, for heaven’s sake, real, try to understand the nature of semantics and language. And logic.
To accuse someone who criticizes your argument that their criticism is not based on reason but on prejudice, in this case, partisanship.. is EXACTLY the same type of argument as when you accuse someone who criticizes your beliefs/behaviour ..and you declare that their criticism is not based on reason but is based on prejudice, in this case, racism.
These two modes of dealing with criticism are exactly the same. Got that?
Both modes deflect criticism by asserting that the person who criticizes is not doing so based on reason but on prejudice.
One prejudicial mode is partisanship. Another prejudicial mode is racism.
The logical mode of these two actions of deflecting criticism is identical.
Partisanship and racism are both expressions of prejudice; that is, they belong in ONE SET.
The fact that you can’t see that these two statements are logically and semantically IDENTICAL – well, that’s your problem.
No, I’m not injecting ‘race’ into this argument. But you sure are – as a silly tactic to try to deviate from my argument. You still haven’t dealt with Obama’s methodology of ‘getting things done’.
Obama’s skin colour (I happen to reject the biological reality of race) is totally irrelevant.
Now, how about dealing with Obama’s strategies, lack of leadership, indifference to policies and so on?
Fox and CNN both are expressing concern about these factors. As one individual said (and no, I can’t remember the name)….when asked..how on earth could Obama have come up with such a package? Didn’t he think that it would be examined? Why doesn’t he sit down with people and go over its programs and policies? And tellingly – they were saying – ‘He’s got to stop campaigning and get down to policy development’.
Hmm. Quite the criticism.
They were wondering why he’s not doing all of this. My answer is that Obama has no ability to develop or analyze or debate policy. None. He has no ability to even consider short-term and long term infrastructural effects.
He’s one thing only. A salesman. All he can do is campaign. And he doesn’t care what he’s campaigning about; his ‘need’ is only to make people follow him. He doesn’t ‘want’ any particular policy; he wants only that people will be under his control. A very dangerous neurosis.
Ahh, vitruvius – accusations of racism are a common mode of Fallacious Argumentation. I fear that real’s use of it is a rather desperate whipping of the beast. Doesn’t usually succeed.
Oh, for heaven’s sake, ET, I’ll try to understand
semnatics and logic and language and…well, all the other terms you utilize to make your poppycock bear some semblance to the utterings of a rational person.
Yes, ET, a criticism based not on reason but on prejudice is the same whether the criticism is based on partisanship, race, religion, nationality, gender, etc.
The fact that one chooses to a member of a political party, a choice ideally based on philosophical predilections, while one does not choose one’s race or skin colour – that has no bearing on anything. They’re all EXACTLY IDENTICAL and should be treated as such.
Further, it is universally understood that when one says partisan – that means ‘race’, too. Or at least it does in the Cloud Cuckoo Land of ET.
Oh, wait – now ET’s heard some voices on Fox and CNN, everybody! They agree with her! That helps make her case airtight, yes indeedy! I’m convinced.
ET, you give every sign or priding yourself on being able to phrase your absurdities in a superficially impressive manner. But I wonder who it is you think you’re fooling with your word games. Your constant reliance on the voices from your teevee makes me think you need to get out a little more, into a world where words have objective meanings and you actually need to provide proof for your assertions – rather than engage in the intellectually disgraceful semantic tea-leaf readings you do here.
Vitruvius at February 5, 2009 10:08 PM
LOL, Vit. Who tied down the bunnies?
The bunnies are not tied down, Paul,
they’re over here at the Roulette wheel.
It’s a very amusing progression in the argument here. Real starts off offended by ET’s analysis of the President’s role, or lack thereof, in the omnibus bill. He shifts the discussion into accusations of racism. Seems to me we’ve heard this dismal trope before from the watermelon goons. The horserace is over, VT, one of the competitors wandered off the track.
real ?
seriously…you need your head read.
you’re utterly divorced from what is real and what is not…i’ve never read such irrelevant meaningless clabber in many a year…
as my kids say..’what is your point?”