That's called a Straw Man. The fallacy includes any lame attempt to "prove" an argument by overstating, exaggerating, or over-simplifying the arguments of the opposing side. Such an approach is building a straw man argument. The name comes from the idea of a boxer or fighter who meticulously fashions a false opponent out of straw, like a scarecrow, and then easily knocks it over in the ring before his admiring audience. His "victory" is a hollow mockery, of course, because the straw-stuffed opponent is incapable of fighting back. When a writer makes a cartoon-like caricature of the opposing argument, ignoring the real or subtle points of contention, and then proceeds to knock down each "fake" point one-by-one, he has created a straw man argument. Why is it a Straw Man?? Because NOBODY has ever suggested we must assure "Equal Outcome". Only equal opportunity which of course is a Liberal Idea in the first place. It's wonderful that you agree to what Liberals have argued for forever. But equal outcome is not one of them. It's logically ridiculous to even suggest such a thing considering that no two people have the same talents and should never be expected to produce equal results. So we can dismiss your Straw Man for the BS that it is.
Next. the Preamble to the Constitution: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." What is there in this statement an endorsement of conservatism? The conservative movement didn't even exist until the 1950's. I see nothing. In fact I do see something at the very beginning calling for NOT a perfect union, but rather a MORE PERFECT union. That means we try to improve on what came before without every thinking that we've perfected it. It's a work in PROGRESS. Not something completely finished. The United States is the Great Experiment in liberal Democracy. It's work is never done. And it's problems are met by our ingenuity and originality and always in keeping with the rights of man. That included ridding ourselves of the cancer of slavery, and it's siblings Jim Crow and Segregation. It meant going against the original idea in the constitution of giving women the right to vote. It was not then, nor was the idea ever about creating personal wealth. The risk taking was obvious in the risk of Revolution itself. If we'd lost, men would hang. But wealth was NEVER the idea behind the founding of the country. It was always about freedom and liberty. So don't go hanging your ideology onto the founding. It was never there. It was announced in the Declaration of Independence. Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, and none of that is exlusive to creating wealth. If you want to try to get wealthy, go for it. But if you find success in being a great teacher, or a cop, or a fire fighter, or a soldier, then that's up to you and you aren't violating the purpose of the country to pursue it. You certainly aren't going to get wealthy doing those things.
So I'm sorry that YOU don't get the concept. But I'm not surprised.
Promote the general welfare, not PROVIDE for the general welfare. You cannot seem to grasp the concept.
Well then, congratulations, you are getting the country you want, high unemployment, high debt, low economic growth, and dependence on a large central govt.
In reading Adagio's responses in here one theme seems crystal clear. That is that he, as other liberals do, believe that they don't need the amendment process to change the constitution, or declare a "right"..... This I believe was always the goal ever since Marbury.
Reading Adagio's responses is like reading War and Peace but a lot more boring. Never have I seen someone write so many words that say so little but they do show the brainwashed ideology of a liberal. In spite of history showing the failures of liberalism liberals continue to promote their own arrogance by trying to restore failure though bigger govt. and more spending. Seems that previous liberals never spent enough or spent it wisely which this group is going to change. Interesting that it never happens.
Yeah. I'm well aware of it. I have a decent
vocabulary.
Well your suspicions would be wrong. Nobody wants to wade through a pile of crap to deal with you. Thats' WHY it's called the Kitchen Sink. You're tossing way too much garbage in your comment. Nobody is going to take the time to wade through all of it to satisfy your needs to seem relevant. Maybe some will, but they mean nothing to me, and if I did take the time you wouldn't believe it anyway. I told you before, I didn't come here to toss out somebody elses ideas. Obviously you have none of your own or you wouldn't need them. You're clearly over your head on this.
I object to them because I think they're stupid. I have no interest in them. And they dont come from you. You need them because you can't make a case on your own. And...above all, I don't play in your ballpark. You play in mine. :lol:
Well...finally. But tell me, why should I believe you? I'm interested in the truth, not a bunch of things that you can't demonstrate, so can you demonstrate for me right now, how everything you just said is true? I mean, how do I know that you were raised correctly? Do you have some empirical data or evidence to show that? You claim to have above average intelligence. I haven't seen any demonstration of that either. You say this: "I'm not susceptible to empty platitudes and ridiculous political promises," how do I know that's true? You probably voted for Bush. That would disprove that claim. Just because you say it is? Why would I believe you if you can't demonstrate it? You say this: "I value my freedom and liberty," ..well that's really special. So do I so that's a wash. Valuing freedom and liberty is not exclusive to conservatism despite what you may have been told from your talking points.
That's a logical fallacy that somebody with an above average intelligence should know. You present an either/or situation. Either you accept a concept of community OR you accept individualism, while overlooking that fact that you can have both. It's not an either/or situation. The fact is that you live within a society, unless you decide to live on some island. As such you have responsibilities to that society. That doesn't mean your own idividualism can not be asserted. We all do it every day. So your idea that you can't have the one by accepting the other is false. Pretty easy to understand with an above average intelligence.
Except when you voted for Bush. Your concern for our troops is very nice. Mine and all my friends were there for them during the Bush years when a totally unqualified man was elected. So you have no monopoly on that.
So you aren't a Christian then? I thought conservatives embraced Christian teachings. Apparently not.
Why? What makes that true? Our framers embedded racism into our constitution. You know that right? Are you saying that you embrace that? That this little flaw shouldn't have been corrected? The constitution is a framework. That's why we call these guys the "Framers". They couldnt account for, or think of everything, so they created a great outline for how we would function. But if you think that these forward thinking men didn't grasp that future generations would encounter things that they couldn't imagine, you're naive. If they didn't, they wouldn't be forward thinking would they?
Can you demonstrate for me that 1) you use the truth, and 2) that your ideology can demonstrate what makes itself true? If you could, I might even join you. The problem you have now is demonstrating that you use truth, and that your ideology demonstrates it? Telling me that doesn't demonstrate it. It's a statement that you can't back up. Your beliefs mean nothing to me. I don't care about them at all. I am interested in the Truth, and you haven't shown me anything here but a series of beliefs, and platitudes. I don't care about your beliefs in private property or the family and what you think about that. Beliefs don't demonstrate truth. What are they based on? You've offered a series of one belief after another, each one based on something without a basis to support it. Again...I don't care about beliefs. I do care about truth. You say that you use truth to shape your ideology. Ok. I get that. But there is a problem with that. You can't possess Truth. You can't hold it. You have no monopoly on it. It's not some object that you can hold in your hand. And another problem is that all ideologies hold their ideas as true again without demonstrating that they are. They are all man made, and man is fallible. Can your ideology be wrong? Is that possible? Or do you expect me to "believe" that it's infallible? Why would I when I know that it's prone to error? You tell me that truth informs your ideology but you can't demonstrate truth for me. So something that you can't demonstrate as true dictates your ideology?:roll: So, you have values that you can't demonstrate as true? That's interesting. Can you demonstrate objective truth for me? I don't think you can do that. I for one don’t think values can be demonstrated as true. Is not that hypocritical? If you accept that humans have values, then it’s their values. They are not dependent on demonstration, otherwise, why would we consider them "our" values? Truth is determined by human judgment or truth is determined unequivocally by demonstration. It can't be both. Which is it? Obviously you cannot demonstrate the truth of your values which make up your ideology, so why would I be interested in them or it? In fact, why would you?
If you claim that your ideology is based on something, then you are admitting that things require a basis. If everything requires a basis, then what is the basis for your basis? It can't be based on itself. No theory or ideology can use itself as it's own justification.
I'd say your conservatism is flawed. Recognizing the flaws is what brings you closer to the truth. If that's really what matters to you.
Reading Adagio's responses is like reading War and Peace but a
lot more boring. Never have I seen someone write so many words that say so little but they do show the brainwashed ideology of a liberal. In spite of history showing the failures of liberalism liberals continue to promote their own arrogance by trying to restore failure though bigger govt. and more spending. Seems that previous liberals never spent enough or spent it wisely which this group is going to change. Interesting that it never happens.
First, your'e a politico outcast ? It seems appropriate. Youv'e wasted a decent amount of bandwith and have said NOTHING.
You havn't addressed any of my comments. And no your generic gibberish doesn't a rebut make.
You won't "wade through my crap" because your'e incapable. Iv'e called you out specifically 3 times to address my points specifically and your response is just a bunch of subjective ego-centric dreck.
Even the other libs aren't comming to your rescue any more.
And "the basis for my basis ?....LOL.
Ive told you already, it's truth.
Why should we come to Adagios rescue?He's doing a fine job on his own of
handing up your collective ass's onna platter.Even someone with a room temp IQ should be able to figure that one out.eace
Why should we come to Adagios rescue?He's doing a fine job on his own of handing up your collective ass's onna platter.Even someone with a room temp IQ should be able to figure that one out.eace
| Moderator's Warning: |
LOL !!
First I'm pretty sure he is a "she". Anyone with a room temperature IQ should be able to figure that one out.
Note Addagio's efforts to do just about anything and everything to avoid discussing specific data and when challenged simply maxes out the post character count and just repeats the innane and superficial barely coherent rhetoric that was in the last post she was responsible for.
Look I realize that empty fillibusters and generic plattitudes impress you, but it doesn't equate to someone' ass getting handed to them. It actually means theyv'e admitted their failure at debating on the merits of their argument and have moved on to nonsensical rhetoric.
Since Addagio's too scared to address my challenge of rebutting my earlier sub-prime post, maybe you would like to take a shot at it.
Wow. This is really astonishing to me. So these people are credited with paying the corporate taxes, or at least that's the assumption? And they offset their actual income by claiming that they paid the corporate taxes? The corporation pays it and they are credited against their own private taxes???:shock: The Oligarchy is here isn't it? It is indeed the American Aristocracy. All that's missing are the slaves.
See this is why I think Chicago pols are crooked (look, same paper even) :
Obama donor received a state grant - latimes.com
This is not Politico. In case you havent read the forum rules, and judging by your posts, you havent:
The timeline has every bearing. You did it in response to me, I commented on it, Fenton did it in response to you, let me know the part where I have to comment on what he said in response to you, if I dont want to. Please stop baiting, you arent any good at it.
More baiting with an ad hom tossed in.
Except Liberalism has become the party of more and more government. Any challenge to government authority, no matter how recklessly that authority is asserted has become a challenge to liberalism. Liberalism is now resisting change....to government. Large writ guilt by association with the slavery argument, but its not very original, nor totally true---looks like a talking point
Values change, mores change, quick changes of either is not always good. The modern deterioration of family cohesiveness is a good example of this.
You do know politcal movements and their actors evolve dont you? Modern conservatism is not at all about racism, or slavery. As for war, whats going on Syria again?
Im not anywhere near as strident as you about being right. So I think you might be projecting a bit with bolded.
Oh yeah, its whining.
See this is why I think Chicago pols are crooked
"Business relationships between lawmakers and people with government interests are not illegal or uncommon in Illinois or other states with a part-time Legislature, where lawmakers supplement their state salaries with income from the private sector. Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs, who provided The Times with details of Obama's compensation from EKI, said Obama did nothing wrong acting on behalf of Killerspin. He said the state senator simply wrote a letter backing a worthy project developed by a constituent.
When Blackwell sought backing for his table tennis tournament in 2002, other politicians, including U.S. Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley, offered support for the event. Initially, the idea of table tennis receiving funds from a state tourism program -- designed to encourage overnight visits to Illinois -- was met with skepticism by one Republican state official. But the funding was granted at the $20,000 level that first year, grew to $200,000 in 2003 and totaled $100,000 in 2004.
Six months later Blackwell hired Obama to serve as general counsel for his tech company, EKI, which had been launched a few years earlier.
The monthly retainer paid by EKI was sent to the law firm that Obama was affiliated with at the time, currently known as Miner, Barnhill & Galland, where he worked part time when he wasn't tending to legislative duties. The business arrived at an especially fortuitous time because, as the law firm's senior partner, Judson Miner, put it, "it was a very dry period here," meaning that the ebb and flow of cases left little work for Obama and cash was tight.
The entire EKI retainer went to Obama, who was considered "of counsel" to the firm, according to details provided to The Times by the Obama campaign and confirmed by Miner. Blackwell said he had no knowledge of Obama's finances and hired Obama solely based on his abilities. "His personal financial situation was not and is not my concern," Blackwell said. "I hired Barack because he is a brilliant person and a lawyer with great insight and judgment."
Obama's tax returns show that he made no money from his law practice in 2000, the year of his unsuccessful run for a congressional seat. But that changed in 2001, when Obama reported $98,158 income for providing legal services. Of that, $80,000 was from Blackwell's company.
In 2002, the state senator reported $34,491 from legal services and speeches. Of that, $32,000 came from the EKI legal assignment, which ended in April 2002 by mutual agreement, as Obama ceased the practice of law and looked ahead to the possibility of running for the U.S. Senate. .
Blackwell said that "Barack worked extensive hours advising the company on compliance and human resource issues," negotiated contracts, reviewed confidentiality agreements and provided reports on topics requested by the company's senior management. Obama was not involved in soliciting city or state contracts for EKI, Blackwell said, and there was an agreement that he would not contact any government agencies.
It seems you left this stuff out. More selective outrage. Nothing illegal here, and no vast fortune accumulated.
See this is why I think Chicago pols are crooked (look, same paper even) :
Obama donor received a state grant - latimes.com
This is not Politico. In case you havent read the forum rules, and judging by your posts, you havent:
The timeline has every bearing. You did it in response to me, I commented on it, Fenton did it in response to you, let me know the part where I have to comment on what he said in response to you, if I dont want to. Please stop baiting, you arent any good at it.
More baiting with an ad hom tossed in.
Except Liberalism has become the party of more and more government. Any challenge to government authority, no matter how recklessly that authority is asserted has become a challenge to liberalism. Liberalism is now resisting change....to government. Large writ guilt by association with the slavery argument, but its not very original, nor totally true---looks like a talking point
Values change, mores change, quick changes of either is not always good. The modern deterioration of family cohesiveness is a good example of this.
You do know politcal movements and their actors evolve dont you? Modern conservatism is not at all about racism, or slavery. As for war, whats going on Syria again?
Im not anywhere near as strident as you about being right. So I think you might be projecting a bit with bolded.
Oh yeah, its whining.
The timeline has every bearing.
You did it in response to me, I commented on it, Fenton did it in response to you,
let me know the part where I have to comment on what he said in response to you,
Please stop baiting, you arent any good at it.
Im not anywhere near as strident as you about being right. So I think you might be projecting a bit with bolded.
Large writ guilt by association with the slavery argument, but its not very original, nor totally true---looks like a talking point
Values change, mores change, quick changes of either is not always good.
You do know politcal movements and their actors evolve dont you?
Of course they arent going to admit it, either side. The appearance of quid pro quo is definitely there. Obama helped them with something, they hired him. Appearance of impropiety is the first step to actually finding it. Your bias is talking, not your reasoning.
Before you go there, yes, I dont like it when republicans do the same thing.
Promote the general welfare, not PROVIDE for the general welfare. You cannot seem to grasp the concept.
Well then, congratulations, you are getting the country you want, high unemployment, high debt, low economic growth, and dependence on a large central govt.
Promote the general welfare, not PROVIDE for the general welfare. You cannot seem to grasp the concept.
In reading Adagio's responses in here one theme seems crystal clear. That is that he, as other liberals do, believe that they don't need the amendment process to change the constitution, or declare a "right"..... This I believe was always the goal ever since Marbury.
You said that Addagio didn't address any of your comments. What comments do you feel that he hasn't addressed? It looks to me that he addressed MORE than what was put on his plate. He didn’t address any of the canned rhetoric that you throw in a post as fact but it looks to me that he addressed what he feels was the central point of every post.
How’s it feel at room temp?:mrgreen: .....................Gender.
You failed to comment on your idea that we want to assure equal outcome. Why is that? Never mind. It's a false statement and you should know that. And we dont' provide for the general welfare. In fact, all forms of welfare are highly selective. It's not something provided to the general population. At the time of the constitution we had about 4 million population. Today we have 315 Million. We can't exist the way we did in the 1700's. And we can't let people in the wealthiest nation on earth, starve or walk around dying in our streets.
First, your'e a politico outcast ? It seems appropriate. Youv'e wasted a decent amount of bandwith and have said NOTHING.
You havn't addressed any of my comments. And no your generic gibberish doesn't a rebut make.
You won't "wade through my crap" because your'e incapable. Iv'e called you out specifically 3 times to address my points specifically and your response is just a bunch of subjective ego-centric dreck.
Even the other libs aren't comming to your rescue any more.
And "the basis for my basis ?....LOL.
Ive told you already, it's truth.
First, your'e a politico outcast ? It seems appropriate. Youv'e wasted a decent amount of bandwith and have said NOTHING.
You havn't addressed any of my comments. And no your generic gibberish doesn't a rebut make
You won't "wade through my crap" because your'e incapable.
Iv'e called you out specifically 3 times to address my points specifically and your response is just a bunch of subjective ego-centric dreck.
Even the other libs aren't comming to your rescue any more.
And "the basis for my basis ?....LOL.Ive told you already, it's truth.
Why should we come to Adagios rescue?He's doing a fine job on his own of handing up your collective ass's onna platter.Even someone with a room temp IQ should be able to figure that one out.eace
I think he thinks we all need somebody's help in dealing with them. Guess I left my talking points someplace else. What do you think about Dualing Talking Points? :duel
The poor lads got problems. More than likely to much time listening to hate radio. If you could come up with his addy you should send him a bill for the psychoanalyzing that you gave him; hope he takes it to heart.eace
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?