Sarah Palin selected by McCain for VP slot

[KPO'M 0]

You inability to make distinctions and simple relevant observations through your sweeping arbitrary pronouncements and "assumptions" make your comments useless.

Maybe you need to take a look in the mirror before posting. You are trying to intimidate me into agreeing with you by calling most of my posts "sweeping" and "arbitrary" while making sweeping, arbitrary assumptions and pronouncements about me.

No one is trying to intimidate you into agreement and you have no business making such accusations. Your posts are in fact filled with baseless pronouncements, often no more than echoes of common progressive left conspiracy theories and other forms of ignorant speculation, and have been identified as such as they occur. Your repeated inability or unwillingness to address the refutations of your claims when confronted with factual evidence makes it unlikely that any method would get through to you.

Just because you keep on saying that my posts are filled with baseless pronouncements and are arbitrary doesn't make it so, ewv. You've just been repeating yourself. Actually, I HAVE presented evidence when asked. Just because it's ignored doesn't mean it isn't true (and yes, I do go back to the Rush Limbaugh thread here).

Have fun when McCain is president and does everything that you are afraid Obama is going to do. Don't blame me for what happens. After seeing Bush II do everything I was afraid Gore was going to do, and then some, I've had it with the GOP. They need to face their day of reckoning, even if it means a temporary setback for our causes.

[ewv 0]

You inability to make distinctions and simple relevant observations through your sweeping arbitrary pronouncements and "assumptions" make your comments useless.

Maybe you need to take a look in the mirror before posting. You are trying to intimidate me into agreeing with you by calling most of my posts "sweeping" and "arbitrary" while making sweeping, arbitrary assumptions and pronouncements about me.

No one is trying to intimidate you into agreement and you have no business making such accusations. Your posts are in fact filled with baseless pronouncements, often no more than echoes of common progressive left conspiracy theories and other forms of ignorant speculation, and have been identified as such as they occur. Your repeated inability or unwillingness to address the refutations of your claims when confronted with factual evidence makes it unlikely that any method would get through to you.

Just because you keep on saying that my posts are filled with baseless pronouncements and are arbitrary doesn't make it so, ewv. You've just been repeating yourself. Actually, I HAVE presented evidence when asked. Just because it's ignored doesn't mean it isn't true (and yes, I do go back to the Rush Limbaugh thread here).

Anyone here can see for themselves how your posts have been refuted and how you have ignored it. Your echoes of innuendos against Rush Limbaugh in comparison with actual transcripts of what he said is a classic case. I once had patience with you but no longer expect you to understand it.

Have fun when McCain is president and does everything that you are afraid Obama is going to do. Don't blame me for what happens. After seeing Bush II do everything I was afraid Gore was going to do, and then some, I've had it with the GOP. They need to face their day of reckoning, even if it means a temporary setback for our causes.

No one here is looking forward to having fun with McCain, far from it. If all George Bush did was what you feared from Gore then you didn't know very much about what to expect. If you think George Bush is worse than Gore than you don't know very much about either one of them or how much the Bush administration has struggled on many fronts to contain the bureaucracy in ways that Gore had made worse as Vice President and would have made much worse had he become President. You can stamp your foot and spit in your own face to punish the Republicans if you want to but it won't make them any better when they notice the loss of your support, which they won't anyway. Don't expect the rest of us to follow you over the cliff.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

If something in Palin's record makes you think she won't be susceptible to this, all while sitting a heartbeat away from the presidency (and undoubtedly looking ahead to 2016 and a possible coronation), let me know.

That would require proving a negative which is logically impossible.

It is very faulty reasoning to make an arbitrary assertion and then demand that those who disagree disprove it.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Actually, I HAVE presented evidence when asked.

Unfortunately, your evidence is neither logically nor causally related to your conclusions so it does not support your conclusions.

Just because it's ignored doesn't mean it isn't true (and yes, I do go back to the Rush Limbaugh thread here).

The only thing one can -- and should -- do with arbitrary assertions is to ignore them. (See the discussion of the arbitrary in Chapter 5 of OPAR.)

[KPO'M 0]

Actually, I HAVE presented evidence when asked.

Unfortunately, your evidence is neither logically nor causally related to your conclusions so it does not support your conclusions.

Just because it's ignored doesn't mean it isn't true (and yes, I do go back to the Rush Limbaugh thread here).

The only thing one can -- and should -- do with arbitrary assertions is to ignore them. (See the discussion of the arbitrary in Chapter 5 of OPAR.)

OK, which evidence are you referring to? I said that I don't think Obama will be very effective as president. When asked why, I pointed to his relative lack of influence in Illinois, and the ineffectiveness of the Democratic majorities in Illinois, along with the ineffectiveness of the previous two Democratic presidents who had Democratic majorities in Congress. How is Obama's lack of influence in Illinois not causally related to my conclusion, and how do these examples not support my conclusions? They aren't definitive, but then again, neither is the "evidence" that Bill Bucko et. al. post regarding Obama's supposed "Muslim terrorist" sympathies. The only difference I see is that you agree with him and not me.

As for your second point, you are committing a clear logical fallacy (undistributed middle). Just because evw ignored it, and things that are arbitrary should be ignored, doesn't mean that my conclusions were arbitrary.

[KPO'M 0]

Anyone here can see for themselves how your posts have been refuted and how you have ignored it. Your echoes of innuendos against Rush Limbaugh in comparison with actual transcripts of what he said is a classic case. I once had patience with you but no longer expect you to understand it.

What about my quotes about what Rush Limbaugh actually said in his books, supported by Rick Wilmes' actual citations? Furthermore, I presented quotes of what Limbaugh said, as well. You and others attacked the source instead of the quote. Your "full context" transcripts didn't refute my citations, either.

NO ONE here refuted my point that Limbaugh is anti-abortion, or was on welfare, or bases his social beliefs on religion. Instead, you rationalized them all away. The ridiculous argument that he accepted welfare simply as compensation for his previous taxes was a classic case. He took welfare because he was unemployed and had no savings. Plain and simple. For him to argue later against welfare is disingenuous, to say the least.

Once again, you are resorting to the "anyone can see you are wrong" argument. Repeating something a bunch of times doesn't make it true. I'm losing patience with group, as well. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but I don't expect to be smeared as a leftist or elitist when I'm not. My view on rejecting government handouts is stronger than most of yours, for example. I didn't attend public schools and won't even consider it for my children. I won't work for the government. While it's nearly impossible to completely avoid doing business with governments (they do make up about 40% of the economy and have their hands in so many industries), I won't work for a company whose primary source of revenue is government contracts. I despise federal matching funds and would rather live in a state, like mine, that depends on federal handouts less than 45 other states (while still having a total state tax burden below the national average), than rail against federal spending while living in a state that is rolling in federal money (like most GOP strongholds). If that makes me a leftist, so be it, but that's not how I recall the definition.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Actually, I HAVE presented evidence when asked.

Unfortunately, your evidence is neither logically nor causally related to your conclusions so it does not support your conclusions.

Just because it's ignored doesn't mean it isn't true (and yes, I do go back to the Rush Limbaugh thread here).

The only thing one can -- and should -- do with arbitrary assertions is to ignore them. (See the discussion of the arbitrary in Chapter 5 of OPAR.)

OK, which evidence are you referring to? I said that I don't think Obama will be very effective as president. When asked why, I pointed to his relative lack of influence in Illinois, and the ineffectiveness of the Democratic majorities in Illinois, along with the ineffectiveness of the previous two Democratic presidents who had Democratic majorities in Congress. How is Obama's lack of influence in Illinois not causally related to my conclusion, and how do these examples not support my conclusions?

There you go again -- in this case asserting that your evidence is causally related to your conclusion -- and then demanding that people prove it isn't so. That's demanding proof of a negative.

In fact, the burden of proof is on YOU. You're the one who has to prove that the evidence you cite is causally related to your conclusion.

They aren't definitive, but then again, neither is the "evidence" that Bill Bucko et. al. post regarding Obama's supposed "Muslim terrorist" sympathies. The only difference I see is that you agree with him and not me.

Please don't presume to read my mind or anyone else's for that matter. (In fact, it's against THE FORUM rules.) The reason I agree with Bill and not with you is that he showed why his evidence is causally relevant and you didn't.

As for your second point, you are committing a clear logical fallacy (undistributed middle). Just because evw ignored it, and things that are arbitrary should be ignored, doesn't mean that my conclusions were arbitrary.

That is not what happened. ewv and many others have judged your conclusions to be arbitrary and, as a result, decided to ignore them. The logical fallacy right here is trying to reverse cause and effect.