The Drive-a-Toyota Act

Sure. Nice example of a straw man here.

 

Let us know when you figure out logic.

 

Umm, you were the one making the claim about Bush, not me. Nice Burden of Proof
fallacy!

 

Many years ago, ma'am, long before I taught electrical engineering. I am quite familiar with both the
philosphical and math/computer science aspects of logic. It is amusing to read your statement about
'figuring out logic' in the same context of you providing numerous examples of logic fallacies. Can you
actually answer the question above?

 

Ah, yes.

Circling back to the actual debate, OP claimed no one else but the
subject line individual had been caught in an OUI indiscretion or
benefited from a VIP record alteration.

In that respect, GWB was verifiably busted, and records buried and or
altered.

OP long ago retreated in the face of the facts.

 

So these were not your words?

"Yeah. If another windbag is making more unfounded wild accusations to
make a buck, it must be true!"

 

You introduced an assertion about the "the cocaine arrest record of a national figure,"
to wit George W Bush. Yet, you cannot offer any credible evidence to support your own
assertion. If it was a true assertion, I guarantee you Bush's media foes such as the
Los Angeles Times and the New York Times, and many of their peers would love to have
your evidence! Surely you must have evidence to your assertion to meet the NY Times
exacting regard for the facts, right?

 

Yes, emphasis on 'unfounded.' You wrote, "O'Really, Havenotty, Limpdick, or Ann Bee-atch Coulter define the
concept of "unfounded wild accusations". Where is this defined, exactly? Can you please explain?

 

Ask Faux News. More your speed.

 

Rely on Faux News to refute, perhaps?

 

And how did "Faux News" [sic] get into this discussion? If that is your argument, please
provide the context and the support for it.

 

No. You were the party who introduced "Faux News" [sic] into the discussion. Another fallacy, this time a 'straw
man fallacy.' Feel free to explain where you definition came from, if you can. ;-)

 

The Gores and the Clintons are politicians in the same way Joseph Stalin
was. They talk like they are concerned about the little people but all they
want is control.

Look at them bitching about taxes. The deficit is actually going DOWN
because of tax cuts and they bitch every damn day about the Bush Tax Cuts
because not only is it reducing the deficit, but it's also reducing their
control of Amerika. They want Amerika, not America. Jefferson should rise
up out of his grave and expel them from the Democrapic party.

Charles of Schaumburg

 

Notice, Greg, how he did not answer your question (i.e., did not give
specific examples of "ufounded wild accusations" of the
commentators/authors he listed). This guy so typifies his ilk. Right
out of the liberal play book - never answer the question, never address
the issue at hand - attack the individual you are arguing with (i.e.,
divert attention away from the real issue).

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

I realize that this is your way of obfuscating and drawing attention
away from the real present-day issue, and in that regard, by having
successfully diverted attention away, you have "won" the argument (so
your tactics in that regard were successful).

But which OP are you talking about, and please provide the quote wherein
whatever OP you are talking about did as you say ("OP claimed no one
else but the subject line individual had been caught in an OUI
indiscretion or benefited from a VIP record alteration.")

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

I thought LSD went out in the 70's.

 

Most amusing is that he supports his ridiculous claims by (falsely) equating it to someone else (that
apparently he doesn't like). So even if his equivalence was correct, he just attacked his own position!
Go figure. Sort of reminds me of our old friend LP.

And when you realize that it's too obvious you have no idea you're talking about, just start throwing
names around. And don't forget to say "faux news" a few times! Ok, now he *really* reminds me of our
friend.

 

You two are clearly enjoying your wingnut circle jerk. From the sound
of it, a frequent occurrence.

Please learn to spell "unfounded". Or use your spell checker.

Is that the common thread with wingnuts -- can't spell and won't check?

 

"Wingnut" [sic] = Using actual logic instead of just exclaiming, "Faux News!" [sic], "Ann Bee-atch" [sic],
etc. Thanks for the comic relief!

[And you're telling people how to spell!!]

 

That's right - so go phuck yourself. (I crack myself up)

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')