Home        About Dan        News        Books        Forum        Art
 
   
Page 8 of 10 « First<678910>
Topic Options
#169540 - 12/29/19 03:51 AM Re: Tailgunner Schiff [Re: Enright]
Mike F Offline
enthusiast


Registered: 08/28/08
Posts: 155
Loc: Chico, CA.
He habitually employs (if I understand it right) the Begging the Question Fallacy.

From Wikipedia:

"In classical rhetoric and logic, begging the question is an informal fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it. It is a type of circular reasoning: an argument that requires that the desired conclusion be true."
_________________________
"Iím still the Presidentís wing-man, so Iím there with my boy." ~Eric Holder

Top
#169541 - 12/29/19 04:03 AM Re: Tailgunner Schiff [Re: Shrike1]
Epo9 Offline
enthusiast


Registered: 06/28/11
Posts: 238
Loc: US
 Originally Posted By: Shrike1
 Originally Posted By: Enright
 Originally Posted By: Mike F

 Originally Posted By: Shrike1

And you still didn't answer my question about whether or not it is okay for a president to ask or coerce a foreign country (be it a hostile country or a friendly country) to help him/her interfere in our elections by providing dirt on an opponent?

Greg, eagerly awaiting your answer

. . .


Mike, this example sort of shows what is off and confusing about many of Greg's arguments. He puts political inferences about what is going on on the same level of truth or falsehood as descriptions about what is going on (which are generally more secure and reliable than inferences), but these two forms occupy different logical levels and can't be mixed easily in the same thought without confusion. For example, "The text shows that Trump asked for an investigation," is a statement of description about the text of the conversation. It's descriptive because any observer of the text can easily verify it's truth or falsehood from the text and make a determination. Statements of description of that type are powerful in their reliability just because of that verifiability. "Trump asked a foreign country to interfere in our election," or some such, sounds equally descriptive and factual, but actually it is not verifiable to the same degree because in this case it is nowhere in the text. It is only masquerading as having the certainty of a verifiable description. Different observers (if so inclined) can possibly infer from the text at a higher level of thought that "asking a foreign country to interfere in our election" was what was happening, but inferences only offer varying degrees of probability and thus reliability of being correct. They are not facts.



So you're saying that Donald Trump didn't ask Russia to help him in the 2016 election? I'm just a simple Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer so you'll have to explain it to me. Your fancy words and modern technology befuddle me.

If Donald Trump didn't ask Russia to help him in the 2016 election why did Russia start hacking his opponent's emails and the DNC only hours after his request? They must've done so out of charity I guess.

It's just a simple question. I've had at least one person be able to answer it with a very understandable rationale behind his answer. No games or gimmicks involved. No hemming and hawing to be seen, just a straight answer to a simple question.

Is it okay for a future president to ask a foreign country to help him or her win an election by harming his opponent by any means you can think of? Give that country a Tootsie Roll or hold back funding or anything at all?

If it doesn't bother you why can't you just answer that it's okay and that the next president can do the same thing and that any Sen. or Congressman can do the same thing and that any mayor or local official can do the same thing. Nothing to see here.

Greg


I'll be the first to commit an answer to that. Whether done so legally or illegally, I don't think it's OK. I'd enjoy seeing the practice stemmed immediately regardless of the current administration. Perhaps some might argue otherwise, and I'll say nothing of whether or not either administration is guilty of either of these cases as things have been obfuscated to me considerably of late. I'm sure others would be happy to chime in and continue to proffer evidence for either case.

Having said that, I also think it's not OK to defend Donald Trump by raising actions done by Obama, the Clintons, etc., or vice versa. The spectacle of defending myself against murder charges by seeking out and exhibiting a more prolific murderer makes me chuckle, and I'm certain the point is to highlight the opposition's hypocrisy on criticizing a particular faction. It would be interesting to hear folks explicitly acknowledge and censure folks in their own camp while making their arguments, but I suspect this might make for a spectacle as plausible as my murder defense. To be fair, some folks here have definitely done this and have otherwise made counterarguments by quoting and arguing against faulty arguments or misinformation while not addressing what perhaps needs no defense.

Perhaps niches are naturally filled. I agree that activity is considerably lesser following 2016, though criticism of Trump -- plenty valid and absolute heaps of which are most definitely, and I shy away from the term less with time, fake news -- can be found virtually anywhere. It may be one of the most tiresome occurrences of this presidency, that I need to hear about Trump's twitter feed over any live TV in an airport, random google search, or across the hall at work from trigger-happy firebrands just waiting to join that club. It might also be as you suspect. Perhaps folks can weigh in, since I'm sure it varies per case. During Obama's presidency, he had overwhelmingly positive media coverage, despite similarly valid criticisms and a lower approval rating at similar times. Maybe that niche was also filled from 2008-2016 around these parts.

I'd be curious to hear what people think.

Top
#169542 - 12/29/19 04:12 AM Re: Tailgunner Schiff [Re: Shrike1]
Mike F Offline
enthusiast


Registered: 08/28/08
Posts: 155
Loc: Chico, CA.
 Originally Posted By: Shrike1


. . . and that the next president can do the same thing and that any Sen. or Congressman can do the same thing and that any mayor or local official can do the same thing. Nothing to see here.

Greg


It is the height of naivety to assume that this is not the regular state of affairs. That anyone offering dirt will be listened to. What sort of fairyland do you live in?

ETA:

5...4...3...2...1... count down to cartoonish virtue-signaling.


Edited by Mike F (12/29/19 04:16 AM)
_________________________
"Iím still the Presidentís wing-man, so Iím there with my boy." ~Eric Holder

Top
#169543 - 12/29/19 04:13 AM Re: Tailgunner Schiff [Re: Mike F]
Shrike1 Online   content
veteran


Registered: 09/27/05
Posts: 1359
Loc: Greenville, NC
 Originally Posted By: Mike F
 Originally Posted By: Shrike1


I think it should be made known that you are lying. Dan Simmons himself in his response mentioned that it had happened on several occasions. I provided you that evidence in a private message and you can't handle the truth so you go off and misrepresent the entire deal.


Look, rather than calling me a liar, why don't you man-up and post this evidence for all to see? You're trying to protect this alleged animal that advocates murder? You are a casual accuser of all sorts of horrific insults. It's like nothing to you.


I sent you the post because you asked to see it. It's still in your message folder. Why don't you post it. I've been in this situation before (several years back) and I did post again. If you're not afraid to be exposed as a liar, post it yourself. Be a man.

Greg
_________________________
Words can't define what I feel inside
Who needs them? -- Smashing Pumpkins "GEEK U.S.A."

Top
#169544 - 12/29/19 04:32 AM Re: Tailgunner Schiff [Re: Shrike1]
Mike F Offline
enthusiast


Registered: 08/28/08
Posts: 155
Loc: Chico, CA.
Done. Here follows Shrike's evidence that the advocation of the murder of the President of the United States was once ubiquitous on this site.

 Originally Posted By: Shrike1
 Originally Posted By: jmill

Hanson is right on the money with one exception: he is far too hopeful that this president can or will experience a sudden increase in wisdom or shift in policy. Obama is what he is going to be; he's not going to suddenly become Churchill or G. W. Bush or even Clinton. He is going to continue down this path of appeasement and apology, and our foreign policy (and thus the world's stability) are going to deteriorate steadily. It is a race between failure and the end of Obama's term, and should we win that race, it will still take years to undo the damage. Here's to hoping that sheer momentum will carry us past the Obama devastation, and that the next president (2012 or sooner!) will be able to right the ship without too great a cost in American life and capital.



 Quote:
DS writes: (bold above mine)

John, you're going to have to clarify something.

You've written several times about Obama "having to go" and suggested it be "soon" in enough ways that you were challenged by some here on what you meant. To my knowledge, you never answered them or explained. You've done it again above with your "the next president (2012 or sooner!)" in a deliberately provocative and in-your-face way.

We don't have to tell you that there are only three ways that a new president could take office "sooner" than 2012 -- 1)if Obama were to die of natural causes over the next two years and be replaced by Joe Biden 2) if Obama were impeached and then the articles of impeachment upheld by a trial in congress and Obama would then be removed from office or 3) if Obama were to be assassinated.

Option #2 makes no sense. Whatever mistakes you think that President Obama's made so far, it's obvious that none of them approach being impeachable offenses under the Constitution, much less removable offenses after a trial.

That leaves you actively and publicly hoping that Obama will die of natural causes or be assassinated -- both of which are obscene choices -- and both of which are reasons for immediate removal of anyone on this forum who suggests such a thing as a preferable course for the nation. (Just as I would have immediately removed anyone who wished harm to President George W. Bush.)

So you've played this game for a while now. Please explain what the hell you're saying or your removal from this forum will be long before 2012.

Dan Simmons


Do you still not believe me?

Greg


Edited by Mike F (12/29/19 04:33 AM)
_________________________
"Iím still the Presidentís wing-man, so Iím there with my boy." ~Eric Holder

Top
#169545 - 12/29/19 04:46 AM Re: Tailgunner Schiff [Re: Mike F]
Shrike1 Online   content
veteran


Registered: 09/27/05
Posts: 1359
Loc: Greenville, NC
Mike F,

This is what I said earlier on the topic. You called me unhinged and I said:

"If you think I seem unhinged you should have been around when a certain member of this forum (who is still posting) implied on more than one occasion that Obama be taken out early by other means than the 25th amendment or impeachment."

You said you do not believe me and that I was exaggerating.

I dare anyone to read Mr. Simmons response and tell me it is any different than what I said in this quote. I said he implied on more than one occasion. Simmons points out that there were several of these posts.

Greg
_________________________
Words can't define what I feel inside
Who needs them? -- Smashing Pumpkins "GEEK U.S.A."

Top
#169546 - 12/29/19 04:53 AM Re: Tailgunner Schiff [Re: Shrike1]
Mike F Offline
enthusiast


Registered: 08/28/08
Posts: 155
Loc: Chico, CA.
I guess I have to apologize. The first time that I read that my brain saw the word number in place of the word member. I still find your interpretation doubtful, however.

Edited by Mike F (12/29/19 05:06 AM)
_________________________
"Iím still the Presidentís wing-man, so Iím there with my boy." ~Eric Holder

Top
#169547 - 12/29/19 06:44 AM Re: Tailgunner Schiff [Re: Mike F]
springer2 Online   content
Pooh-Bah


Registered: 04/17/06
Posts: 1707
Loc: Temecula, CA
I remember this exchange, and from what I recall jmill did in fact clarify what he meant shortly after Dan's post. And clearly it was convincing enough that Dan didn't boot him from the forum.

Take this as you will.
_________________________
I never use a big word when a diminutive word will suffice.


Top
#169548 - 12/29/19 01:53 PM Re: Tailgunner Schiff [Re: Shrike1]
ColinFraizer Online   content
enthusiast


Registered: 12/15/13
Posts: 133
Loc: Indiana, USA
 Quote:
ďLet me make something 100% clear to the American public and anyone running for public office: It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election.Ē


Let me make one thing 100% clear, no matter what Ellen Weintraub says: it is beyond the power of the US Congress to restrict free speech or the free publication of information in the United Statesóeven by foreign nationals.

Asking for and/or receiving information from foreign nationals about Hillary Clinton's violations of public records laws or Joe Biden's use of his position to enrich his family is not illegal or wrong.

I, like Mrs. Clinton, remember the glowing press accounts of how clever the Clinton administration was in using two-way pagers [a sort of precursor to text messaging] to conceal their maneuvering from evil Republicans who were investigating Pres. Clinton's perjury. She sought to relive this triumph by communicating through a secret email server. Most people understand this is a much bigger issue than that the proof of it came (partially) from foreign nationals.

[Similarly, it is not illegal for Mrs. Clinton to hire former British spies to dig up opposition research. The cases are different, of course. Clinton really did have an illegal email server, but Trump never hired hookers to piss on him.]

Top
#169549 - 12/29/19 01:57 PM Re: Tailgunner Schiff [Re: jvs]
ColinFraizer Online   content
enthusiast


Registered: 12/15/13
Posts: 133
Loc: Indiana, USA
 Quote:
If Rudy Giuliani wants to work IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST, he needs to be doing so ON BEHALF OF THE US GOVERNMENT, not as a private citizen, and personal attorney of the president. If he is working as a government official, this is a different story. He is not.


I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying:

1. Reporters who work for, say, the NY Times or CNN do not work for the national interest?

OR


2. We should only believe reports from US government employees?

Top
Page 8 of 10 « First<678910>


Hop to:

Generated in 0.041 seconds in which 0.007 seconds were spent on a total of 13 queries. Zlib compression disabled.

Home    Books    Curtis on Publishing   Previews    Bio    Bibliography    Snapshots     Foreign News    Reader's Forum    Art