Just wondering

U

USFREEDOM911

MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
President Obama was sworn into office and has been in office, for way over 1 year; but yet, the US still has troops fighting in the Middle East.

How come Sheehan hasn't set up camp outside of Obama's home in Chicago??
Where are all the "Peace Protesters", that marched to end the war??
What happened to the, what seemed like weekly, arrests of the Code Pink members??

There are some other items that probably "make you go hmmmmm"; but these seemed real important, at one time.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
President Obama was sworn into office and has been in office, for way over 1 year; but yet, the US still has troops fighting in the Middle East.

How come Sheehan hasn't set up camp outside of Obama's home in Chicago??
Where are all the "Peace Protesters", that marched to end the war??
What happened to the, what seemed like weekly, arrests of the Code Pink members??

There are some other items that probably "make you go hmmmmm"; but these seemed real important, at one time.
Click to expand...



Obama cannot walk on water. He's still looking for an advisor to do it for him; like all the other jobs he's incapable of doing.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
THAT'S IT!!

A Political add for Ron Paul and pink ribbons.

WELL, that will sure hold Obamas feet to the fire. :palm:
Click to expand...

A political ad for Ron Paul? The guy who posted the youtube video obviously likes Paul, but that is not relevant.

I gave you just a few sources, but you overlook one. Sheehan protested on Martha's Vineyard. Code Pink has been demonstrating against Obama as well. There are plenty more examples.

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=sheehan+on+obama&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=4b53d993194b88d
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=codepink+on+obama&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=4b53d993194b88d


You are right that you are not hearing about it anymore, but Sheehan and Code Pink are not responsible for the lack of media coverage.
 
RStringfield said:
A political ad for Ron Paul? The guy who posted the youtube video obviously likes Paul, but that is not relevant.

I gave you just a few sources, but you overlook one. Sheehan protested on Martha's Vineyard. Code Pink has been demonstrating against Obama as well. There are plenty more examples.

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=sheehan+on+obama&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=4b53d993194b88d
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=codepink+on+obama&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=4b53d993194b88d


You are right that you are not hearing about it anymore, but Sheehan and Code Pink are not responsible for the lack of media coverage.
Click to expand...

You're right, I missed the top link.

Are you asserting that Code Pink has had as many members arrested protesting Obama, as they did when they protested Bush??

Where are all the UTube videos of their protests?
Why hasn't Sheehan set up a camp by Obama's home in Chicago.

It ain't just the media, it's also that it was about anyone but Bush and had nothing to do with what they wanted everyone else to believe.
 
Well, the first link is where Cindy camped out on Martha's Vineyard. Does Obama spend as much time in Chicago as Bush did in Crawford? Is there any place to set up in Chicago (I would guess Crawford or Martha's Vineyard have more open places than wherever Obama lives in Chicago)? I don't know, but she's still on the warpath and has even criticized others in the antiwar movement.

http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2009/08/what-happened-to-antiwar-movement.html

I don't see any reason to criticize Sheehan. She is sincere and committed to ending the war.

As for Code Pink, here is some video...
http://www.ihatethemedia.com/code-pink-obama-you-prick-you-lied-to-us-you-dick

But they are a group, rather than one individual, like Sheehan. For Sheehan it's all up to her, while code pink relies on other volunteers and donors. I am sure they have had a significant drop in support.

I agree with you, the anti-war left have mostly vanished. But Cindy's the real deal. No one can say anything bad about her committment.
 
RStringfield said:
Well, the first link is where Cindy camped out on Martha's Vineyard. Does Obama spend as much time in Chicago as Bush did in Crawford? Is there any place to set up in Chicago (I would guess Crawford or Martha's Vineyard have more open places than wherever Obama lives in Chicago)? I don't know, but she's still on the warpath and has even criticized others in the antiwar movement.

http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2009/08/what-happened-to-antiwar-movement.html

I don't see any reason to criticize Sheehan. She is sincere and committed to ending the war.

As for Code Pink, here is some video...
http://www.ihatethemedia.com/code-pink-obama-you-prick-you-lied-to-us-you-dick

But they are a group, rather than one individual, like Sheehan. For Sheehan it's all up to her, while code pink relies on other volunteers and donors. I am sure they have had a significant drop in support.

I agree with you, the anti-war left have mostly vanished. But Cindy's the real deal. No one can say anything bad about her committment.
Click to expand...

While I'm not going to debate her commitment, I do have a problem with her reasons.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
While I'm not going to debate her commitment, I do have a problem with her reasons.
Click to expand...

Her reason is that her son was killed in the war. It does not seem to be because a Republican was in the WH. She does not seem to be partisan about it.

Anyway, like I said, I agree with you for the most part. So does Cindy.
 
RStringfield said:
Her reason is that her son was killed in the war. It does not seem to be because a Republican was in the WH. She does not seem to be partisan about it.

Anyway, like I said, I agree with you for the most part. So does Cindy.
Click to expand...

Would that be the son that she didn't raise, doesn't seem to have had much to do with his life, and appears to only become concerned, after he died??
The son that volunterred to join, volunterred to re-up, by all accounts knew what he was getting into and wanted to be in the service??
The son that she used, after he died, to try and promote her own agenda (which seemed to be in conflict with her son's ideals)??
The son who died with honor and whose death was then used dishonorably??
The son who seemed to have a different belief then she did, which she didn't honor??
That son??
 
Last edited:
Yeah, that son. I don't really know much about your other claims and it is not relevant to your original point. I am sure she opposed the war before her son's death, but that seems to be the event that inspired her to act.

It does not seem to be strictly partisan, as you originally claimed. Now you are implying a charge against her, that she did not really care about her son at all, that is even more unwarranted. She disagreed with her son's choice. Okay, that does not mean she did not love him or that she did not feel a great loss from his passing.

Disagree with her all you like, but if you are going to make an ad hominem attack against her, at least have something to back it up. She does not seem to be motivated by partisanship, on this issue.

BTW, was Len Bias's mother dishonoring her son when she campaigned against drug use because her son chose to use drugs? Not saying it's the same, but the fact that your child chooses to do something does not mean it is necessarily dishonorable to oppose it or be inspired by the consequences.
 
RStringfield said:
Yeah, that son. I don't really know much about your other claims and it is not relevant to your original point. I am sure she opposed the war before her son's death, but that seems to be the event that inspired her to act.

It does not seem to be strictly partisan, as you originally claimed. Now you are implying a charge against her, that she did not really care about her son at all, that is even more unwarranted. She disagreed with her son's choice. Okay, that does not mean she did not love him or that she did not feel a great loss from his passing.

Disagree with her all you like, but if you are going to make an ad hominem attack against her, at least have something to back it up. She does not seem to be motivated by partisanship, on this issue.

BTW, was Len Bias's mother dishonoring her son when she campaigned against drug use because her son chose to use drugs? Not saying it's the same, but the fact that your child chooses to do something does not mean it is necessarily dishonorable to oppose it or be inspired by the consequences.
Click to expand...

Then she should of had this discussion with him before he died and then honored his decision afterwards; but instead, she choose to figuratively drag his dead around behind her and then stand on his coffin to promote her agenda.

I never said she didn't love him; but she sure didn't seem to have had much to do with him, while he was living.

Would you care to show where I made an 'ad hominem attack against her'.

Attempting to equate the death of an American Soldier, with that of a drug user is low and you should be ashamed of yourself.

You probably agree with Jane Fonda's actions also, during the Viet Nam war. :palm:
 
You calimed her position was due solely to partisanship. That is, you attempt to argue that her position is invalid because she really only wanted to attack Bush. It is, specifically, ad hominem circumstantial. And it's innacurate.


An ad hominem, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), is an attempt to persuade which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.[1] The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy.[2] The argumentum ad hominem is not always fallacious, for in some instances questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.[3]

Ad hominem circumstantial
Ad hominem circumstantial points out that someone is in circumstances such that he is disposed to take a particular position. Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source).

Where the source taking a position seeks to convince us by a claim of authority, or personal observation, observation of their circumstances may reduce the evidentiary weight of the claims, sometimes to zero.[4]

Examples:

Mandy Rice-Davies's famous testimony during the Profumo Affair, "Well, he would [say that], wouldn't he?", is an example of a valid circumstantial argument. Her point was that since a man in a prominent position, accused of an affair with a callgirl, would deny the claim whether it was true or false, his denial, in itself, carries little evidential weight against the claim of an affair. Note, however, that this argument is valid only insofar as it devalues the denial; it does not bolster the original claim. To construe evidentiary invalidation of the denial as evidentiary validation of the original claim is fallacious (on several different bases, including that of argumentum ad hominem); however likely the man in question would be to deny an affair that did in fact happen, he could only be more likely to deny an affair that never did.
 
RStringfield said:
You calimed her position was due solely to partisanship. That is, you attempt to argue that her position is invalid because she really only wanted to attack Bush. It is, specifically, ad hominem circumstantial. And it's innacurate.


An ad hominem, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), is an attempt to persuade which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.[1] The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy.[2] The argumentum ad hominem is not always fallacious, for in some instances questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.[3]

Ad hominem circumstantial
Ad hominem circumstantial points out that someone is in circumstances such that he is disposed to take a particular position. Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source).

Where the source taking a position seeks to convince us by a claim of authority, or personal observation, observation of their circumstances may reduce the evidentiary weight of the claims, sometimes to zero.[4]

Examples:

Mandy Rice-Davies's famous testimony during the Profumo Affair, "Well, he would [say that], wouldn't he?", is an example of a valid circumstantial argument. Her point was that since a man in a prominent position, accused of an affair with a callgirl, would deny the claim whether it was true or false, his denial, in itself, carries little evidential weight against the claim of an affair. Note, however, that this argument is valid only insofar as it devalues the denial; it does not bolster the original claim. To construe evidentiary invalidation of the denial as evidentiary validation of the original claim is fallacious (on several different bases, including that of argumentum ad hominem); however likely the man in question would be to deny an affair that did in fact happen, he could only be more likely to deny an affair that never did.
Click to expand...

I never claimed her position was due solely to partisanship; so now you're just trying to circumvent what was presented and instead are just spinning this because you apparently find her cause, at that time, as just.

Thanks for the dictionary cut and past; but all it did was prove that my comments were not an ad hominem and instead that my presentations were factual.
Thanks :good4u:

I see that you at least made an attempt to regain some of your humanity and did not try to defend your position of equating the death of a drug user, to that of an American Soldier.
 
It does not appear that Len Bias was a habitual or frequent drug user. His use was probably isolated to a momentary lapse. If he was a frequent user that would only make my point stronger, as he would have demonstrated a commitment to drugs.

I am not comparing drug use to miltary service, but the reaction of the mother to the choices of her son. Sheehan, apparently, did/does not agree with the choice her son made. Whether you or I do is not relevant.

If your point was not that the anti-war movement was partisan, including Sheehan, then what was your point?

You did make an ad hom and it was not factual.
 
RStringfield said:
It does not appear that Len Bias was a habitual or frequent drug user. His use was probably isolated to a momentary lapse. If he was a frequent user that would only make my point stronger, as he would have demonstrated a commitment to drugs.

I am not comparing drug use to miltary service, but the reaction of the mother to the choices of her son. Sheehan, apparently, did/does not agree with the choice her son made. Whether you or I do is not relevant.

If your point was not that the anti-war movement was partisan, including Sheehan, then what was your point?

You did make an ad hom and it was not factual.
Click to expand...

1. If Sheehan respected her son, then she would have respected his military choice.
See, his choices shouldn't be abouit her and her agenda; but instead should have been about him, which she ignored to further her own agenda.

2. No it wasn't and yes it was.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top