Posted on 09/29/2011 8:43:31 AM PDT by Politics4US
Mark Levin says Rubio is a natural born citizen, and threatens to ban birthers on his social sites.
“Ann Coulter is a vehement Anti-Birther, yet her argument in this article dovetails precisely with the birther argument.
[...]
Though I have no knowledge regarding George Will’s specific opinion of the Birther issue, He too makes an argument that dovetails nicely with the birther argument.”
So you cannot find a single example besides my note of Keyes? Coulter and Will’s arguments do not apply to Rubio, who’s parents were here legally, and even if the change they advocate is adopted, it wouldn’t apply retro-actively.
Argument from authority is not a fallacy, as long as the authority really is expert on the point at issue, and really does say what argument claims.
“These are not difficult questions. Please answer them.”
First show me they are relevant. Show me, with quotes, where a court said that Twitter has the legal authority to decide court cases. If you are looking at the case I think you are, then you are falsely representing the Court’s opinion.
“Your comments in support of 0h0m0’s legitimacy are as transparent as freshly washed glass.”
Obama? This thread is about Rubio. I do understand your confusion though, as the only deniers of Rubio eligibility we’ve seen are birthers boxed into the stupid position against Rubio because they so vehemently, albeit uselessly, asserted it against Obama.
“Do you ever visit any other threads but those about natural born citizenship? Why do you feel so threatened by what I post?”
So that would be ‘no’, you have no evidence for the serious accusation you made against the judge. That’s called ‘bearing false witness’, and where I come from it is not a conservative value.
LOLOLOLOL!
Judge Gonzalez will be going to prison along with a host of others, at the DOJ for example, who’ve violated laws at the direction of BHO2.
Get ready for November 2012. You, Kleon, and Mr.Rogers should all be looking for another job!
The guy who has never posted one negative thing about Obama—and who freaks out and starts hurling wild (false) accusations when he’s even *asked* if he’s ever posted anything critical about The Won—is now lecturing us on what it means to be a conservative. That is just plain weird.
These are not “Have you stopped beating your wife?” type questions. They are straightforward. Answer them first and then when you find out why they are relevant you can give all the excuses why you think these aren’t the right questions. But first let’s just do a basic honesty check. Easy questions, easy answers. Are you willing to give honest, easy answers? That’s all I need to know about you. If not, then this conversation is pointless.
“and starts hurling wild (false) accusations”
I try for scrupulous accuracy on matters of fact, but no one is perfect. If you will point out what I wrote that was false, I’ll check and if appropriate, retract.
You said I was attacking you when I never did any such thing, or even came close. It was a false charge.
You accused me of ad hominum which, if you believe it, means you don’t know what it means, and if you do know, then you said it falsely. There was zero ad hominum in my simple, honest question.
I’ll give you this. You’re either copying from thefogbow, or they are copying from you. The similarities to what’s on that site and what you post are beyond uncanny.
Rubio is tainted goods, I doubt anyone will touch him as a running mate.
Some people just don’t qualify and this Presidential election isn’t looter mentality that if your neighbor got away with looting the liquor store so can you.
Just becaue Obama looted America it does not condone another individual to skip past the NBC laws to be even close to becoming POTUS.
“You said I was attacking you when I never did any such thing, or even came close. It was a false charge.”
You went after the person, not the argument, which is what ‘ad-hominem’ means. I had already conceded that ‘attack’ may have been too strong, though it now seems vindicated.
There’s no evidence for SatinDoll’s claim that Judge Gonzalez dismissed Donofrio’s petition in exchange for a promotion. The president doesn’t even select bankruptcy court judges, as I cited.
So again, or rather, still, you go ad-hominem. What about the argument? On what point was I wrong? Do you think the president selects bankruptcy judges? Is there evidence of this exchange of a dismissal for a promotion? Do you think accusing a judge of doing that is not a serious charge? Do you think making a serious charge without evidence is not false witness? Do you think false witness comports with conservative values?
You are obsessed w arguing. I wasn’t arguing w you at all. I was asking a question. You are either really thick, purposefully misunderstanding, or else so obsessed w arguing you see arguments where none exist. I did not go after you. Do I have to type that a hundred times for it to penetrate? I asked you an honest, straightforward question. You freaked out. What kind of person freaks when they are asked, ‘have you ever posted critically about Obama?’? It is very bizarre that you went wild over such a simple question, and you still, to this minute, hurl false accusations about it. Something’s wrong somewhere Blade, and that is just a fact, not an attack or whatever you choose to call it this time.
“These are not ‘Have you stopped beating your wife?’ type questions.”
No, they are what I called them: misrepresentations of the issues in the courts’ opinions. If not, why can you not quote a court saying that Twitter has the legal authority to decide court cases.
“You are obsessed w arguing.”
So, no answer to the arguments then. 100% ad-hominem, as old BladeBryan has been saying all along.
Are you dense? There was no argument. Go back and read the question. I was at pains to note that I was asking you because I was curious. I asked in order to elicit information. You, w your most recent reply, illustrated my point beyond belief. You are incapable of understanding the concept of an honest, unloaded question. All you can fathom is argumentation.
I asked the question originally because I did not know the answer and I was curious—and I have stated as much REPEATEDLY. You’ve been freaked out ever since. It is really, really weird that the question, ‘have you ever posted critically of Obama’ should be still freaking you out hundreds of posts later. Why did you find that question so inflammatory? Why has it so addled your brain that you just can’t stop hurling false accusations at me?
Look, only a troll insists on going over the same points ad infinitum. A normal, fellow conservative is able to grasp simple questions and answers and move on. The fact that you keep forcing me to answer the same false charges over and over and over and over and over does not speak well of you. Yes, I’m beginning to see you as very dishonest...or else genuinely thick.
“You are incapable of understanding the concept of an honest, unloaded question.”
Yet I sure made you.
You seem to be refusing to answer the questions (which are not “representing” anything at this point) and if you don’t want to pin yourself down to something so mathematically basic as 20,000 > 500 or the year 1967 is earlier than the year 1978, you fail the basic honesty test so this conversation is futile.
It would be so easy to just answer the question and say, “No, Twitter does not have the authority to decide court cases, and no judge has ever said that it does.” At which point I could give you the quote where a judge wanted to slap punitive damages on somebody for seeking a LEGAL answer in the courts instead of simply trusting Twitter for LEGAL answers.
But you won’t even answer the basic question so we can’t even make it up to the batter’s box. I’m not interested in playing that kind of game. If I have to pull teeth just for us to agree on something as basic as these things, this is gonna be less fun (and productive) than dragging a mule across Texas. Life is too short for me to waste my time like that.
You got the same kind of response to your question as I got to my questions about basic math facts. Seems to be a consistent problem with this guy.
That is either an incoherent or a very puerile reply. How old are you? Fourteen? If so, act it. You answer sounds more like a first or second grade, ‘I know I am but what are you’ kind of thing.
Blade’s conduct is turning increasingly trollish. I’m on my way out the door, but I will plan to elaborate upon my return.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.