In this single specific case, I described what I observed.
No, unless you have psychic powers, describing the thought processes of other posters is not describing what you observed, it's making a childish personal attack.
Do you have psychic powers?
You repeated a talking point slogan specifically designed to stop any further examination of the actual facts.
Apparently, while you are accusing others of engaging in mindless responses, your responses have been so mindless as to not notice that frank462 and I are different people.
Or are you claiming to have psychic powers
and to know that frank is my sockpuppet?
You fell for a persuasion tactic.
That is a completely contentless comment. It is a rhetorical version of cotton candy, looking substantial, but dissolving the moment you put it in your mouth. The truth is a persuasion tactic. So to say that someone's position is based on a persuasion tactic is simply a vacuous inanity.
Nuh-uh, you have. I'm rubber and you're glue. Geeze, how old are you, ten?
I apologized and explained what my intent was, to describe the persuasion tactic.
And I pointed out that when you said that that was your intent, you were simply being mendacious. Simply mindless insulting someone does not constitute "descrining the persuasion tactic".
You cannot discuss the 'facts' with someone if they do not see that they have fallen for a persuasion tactic designed to stop critical thinking about an issue.
You have it backwards. You cannot show that someone has fallen for a "persuasion tactic" (and, once again, I point out that this is a vacuous term, used in a pathetic attempt to try to cover the blatant fact that you have nothing of substance to say) without first discussing the facts. Simply declaring that their position is invalid, without providing any facts first, isn't going to convince anyone. And it's rather telling the lengths you'll go to in order to excuse your lacks of facts.
Yes.
The Straw Man FallacyThe straw man (red herring): This is about Bush's authority to fire federal attorneys.
No, clearly you don't. understand what the word means And that fact is highlighted by the fact that you link, not to a
definition of the term, but a
discussion of it. You really shouldn't use terms that you understand.
For the record, Art, the link was right at the top of the quote.
For the record, zombiegirl, normal practice is to put the link and quote together. You really expect me to go through every single link in your post to figure which quote goes with which link?
This reflects your lack of awareness about the case. Congress has all kinds of evidence.
No, this reflects your dishonesty. I respond to the argument that people make, not to the one that they could have made.
"It’s difficult to discern whether there is evidence of impropriety if no evidence is presented at all."
That's the claim. Now that I've pointed out the absurdity of THAT complaint, you've dishonesty tried to slip in a DIFFERENT claim and pretend that was the argument all along. Red herring indeed.
I briefly considered trying to explain the concept of arguing within the premises presented by the opponent, and the blazing dishonesty of presenting a premise, and then, when your opponent presents a counterargument accepting that premise, calling your opponent ignorant for accepting a premise that YOU presented, but I concluded that such concepts are beyond your intellect.
This is more akin to a prosecutor calling a Grand Jury and compelling testimony from witnesses under oath before proceeding with the indictment.
What, exactly, are the charges that have been filed?
The evidence which you seem to be unaware of consisted of, among other things, the fired attorneys coming forward with testimony that they were pressured to do illegal things by Republican law makers before they were fired for refusing to do those illegal things.
Would you be surprised to discover that I won't take the word of a blatant liar that this evidence exists and proves the claims that you say it proves?
How do you show someone they are being conned without pointing out to them their failure to see the con?
So when I pointed out that simply accusing them of repeating a talking point does nothing to point out their failure to see the con, did that just fly over your tiny little head? As did the fact that "con" and "talking point" are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CONCEPTS? This is like talking to a wall.
No Art, not liking the talking point has nothing to do with it and calling it a talking point is intended to reveal the tactic to people who for whatever reason are blind to it.
That's just plain BS. You have no problem mindlessly repeating your own talking points. Such terms as "talking point" and "echo chamber" are THEMSELVES talking points. And their veracity is of no concern, as seen in your lie that three fourths of Americans believe that Saddam was behind 9/11. The only time you have a problem with talking points is when you disagree with them. And they aren't really "tactics". "Talking point" is simply a deragoratory term for an argument.
People are trying to discuss with you
Name one person who is trying to have a discussion with me. You sure as hell aren't.
You recite the marketed talking point, "they serve at the pleasure of the President", (and it was indeed a marketed slogan repeated over and over by Gonzales and Tony Snow), as if that is all that matters. Repeat the slogan and cover your ears to any further discussion.
You had two options. You could have actually PRESENTED further discussion. Or you could have refused to provide any argument, and try to blaim your failure to do so on frank by citing an imaginary declaration on his part that nothing else matters. For some reason you chose the latter (and compound your sloppiness by attributing frank's posts to me).
How about responding to what people actually say, rather than what it is "as if" they said? As long as we're discussing what it's "as if" people are saying, I'm getting a very clear subtext from
you're saying:
"I'm allowed to make any argument I want, and no one is allowed to make any counterarguments, ESPECIALLY if that counterargument has been made anywhere else. Once a counterargument is made more than once, it becomes a 'talking point', and magically becomes invalid. Never mind that the only reason that COUNTERARGUMENT is repeated over and over again is because the ARGUMENT is being repeated over and over again. Also, if someone says that they find the counterargument convincing, that's the same thing as saying that they have simply decided that it's true, without thinking about it, and they won't consider any other points of views."
Do you truly not realize how fantastically insulting it is to be told, based on absolutely nothing, that one is "covering one's ears to any further discussion"?
Can you address the evidence and refute it if you are familiar with the case?
I have long since discovered that trying to have such a discussion with you is pointless.
I presented lots of the evidence in the post I linked to.
Posting a link is not presenting evidence. Why should I go through a bunch of links, especially considering your history of dishonesty?
You can't even justify why any of these issues are straw men. You just claim they are.
I'm not the one with the burden of proof. Where have I said that "The Department of Justice is the President's personal army of Democratic voter intimidation", etc.?
- Fired attorneys' testimony,
- Monica Gooding's testimony,
- Tim Griffin emails and list of addresses in caging scheme,
- 150 new attorney replacements right out of Pat Robertson's Regent School of Law, a school barely accredited and considered the lowest tier as far as law school grading goes, to replace skilled experienced career attorneys at the DoJ.
So, in other words, instead of actually presenting evidence, you're simply presenting a list of where I can allegedly
find evidence.
