[surveyor]

gandalf:

I hardly think that calling Obama uninformed qualifies as an “ad hominem” attack. Please know the definition of the phrases you use. Your stretching of the definition of “ad hominem” is practically “Clintonian”, for lack of a better term.

Translated from Latin to English, “Ad Hominem” means “against the man” or “against the person.”

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of “argument” has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A’s claim is false.

Correct application of ad hominem attack:

Gandalf: Obama is right on foreign policy.
surveyor: Obama is a dumbass.

Incorrect application of ad hominem attack:

Gandalf: Obama is right on foreign policy
surveyor: Obama is not right on foreign policy because he knows little history.

Besides, I’ve supported my arguments that he knows little of history. And, (which I will emphasize here), if Obama’s slip-up was a singular event, I would have disregarded it. However, his slip-ups are a pattern that I have already established, and these slip-ups show a fundamental lack of understanding regarding history.

Note that I have never said anything derogatory towards Obama’s character, intelligence, or beliefs. I have stated certain things, and I have backed them up with facts, with things he has said. By the way, pointing out how I disagree with his policies is not an ad hominem attack. Maybe to Obamatons like they can seem like that, but that doesn’t make it correct.

As for my views on foreign policy, who cares? I’m not in government, I’m not a policy maker. Besides, if you had a good control on reading comprehension, you would see that I’ve already answered with my thoughts on the Israel/Palestine, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq. And like I’ve said many times, who cares what’s the conservative view on it. While you’ve improved your arguments by not saying “neocon” to me at the end of your statements, you’re still living by labels that are ultimately irrelevant. The argument is about Obama, and I’ve been able to keep my statements about that. Any discussion of what I think is the solution to the middle east is irrelevant because we are voting for the ones who are going to do it. Suffice it to say that my thoughts on the middle east solution is not embraced by either candidate or the majority of the american people.

I will say it is odd that you are asking me to stick to the theme of the post, and then encourage me to go off the theme (by going into the middle east).

As for McCain, if his policies are more in line with Bush, that is more or less apt. Like I’ve said, history will decide whether what Bush did was correct or not.

Lastly, based on the pattern of Obama’s statements, including the “bomb in Pearl Harbor”, I can at least deduce that he has little knowledge of history. Your assertion that Obama “couldn’t possibly” be unaware of his state’s history is an assumption and is not backed with any identifiable facts. It is an ASSUMPTION. In debating, that means there is more evidence to my arguments than yours.

(hahaha, if I ever wrote a thesis on my solution to the middle east, I think even Allan would be disturbed. I will give you a hint though – I would start by giving all muslim women refugee status. I know, I know, too crazy).

[surveyor]

gandalf:

I hardly think that calling Obama uninformed qualifies as an “ad hominem” attack. Please know the definition of the phrases you use. Your stretching of the definition of “ad hominem” is practically “Clintonian”, for lack of a better term.

Translated from Latin to English, “Ad Hominem” means “against the man” or “against the person.”

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of “argument” has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A’s claim is false.

Correct application of ad hominem attack:

Gandalf: Obama is right on foreign policy.
surveyor: Obama is a dumbass.

Incorrect application of ad hominem attack:

Gandalf: Obama is right on foreign policy
surveyor: Obama is not right on foreign policy because he knows little history.

Besides, I’ve supported my arguments that he knows little of history. And, (which I will emphasize here), if Obama’s slip-up was a singular event, I would have disregarded it. However, his slip-ups are a pattern that I have already established, and these slip-ups show a fundamental lack of understanding regarding history.

Note that I have never said anything derogatory towards Obama’s character, intelligence, or beliefs. I have stated certain things, and I have backed them up with facts, with things he has said. By the way, pointing out how I disagree with his policies is not an ad hominem attack. Maybe to Obamatons like they can seem like that, but that doesn’t make it correct.

As for my views on foreign policy, who cares? I’m not in government, I’m not a policy maker. Besides, if you had a good control on reading comprehension, you would see that I’ve already answered with my thoughts on the Israel/Palestine, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq. And like I’ve said many times, who cares what’s the conservative view on it. While you’ve improved your arguments by not saying “neocon” to me at the end of your statements, you’re still living by labels that are ultimately irrelevant. The argument is about Obama, and I’ve been able to keep my statements about that. Any discussion of what I think is the solution to the middle east is irrelevant because we are voting for the ones who are going to do it. Suffice it to say that my thoughts on the middle east solution is not embraced by either candidate or the majority of the american people.

I will say it is odd that you are asking me to stick to the theme of the post, and then encourage me to go off the theme (by going into the middle east).

As for McCain, if his policies are more in line with Bush, that is more or less apt. Like I’ve said, history will decide whether what Bush did was correct or not.

Lastly, based on the pattern of Obama’s statements, including the “bomb in Pearl Harbor”, I can at least deduce that he has little knowledge of history. Your assertion that Obama “couldn’t possibly” be unaware of his state’s history is an assumption and is not backed with any identifiable facts. It is an ASSUMPTION. In debating, that means there is more evidence to my arguments than yours.

(hahaha, if I ever wrote a thesis on my solution to the middle east, I think even Allan would be disturbed. I will give you a hint though – I would start by giving all muslim women refugee status. I know, I know, too crazy).

[surveyor]

gandalf:

I hardly think that calling Obama uninformed qualifies as an “ad hominem” attack. Please know the definition of the phrases you use. Your stretching of the definition of “ad hominem” is practically “Clintonian”, for lack of a better term.

Translated from Latin to English, “Ad Hominem” means “against the man” or “against the person.”

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of “argument” has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A’s claim is false.

Correct application of ad hominem attack:

Gandalf: Obama is right on foreign policy.
surveyor: Obama is a dumbass.

Incorrect application of ad hominem attack:

Gandalf: Obama is right on foreign policy
surveyor: Obama is not right on foreign policy because he knows little history.

Besides, I’ve supported my arguments that he knows little of history. And, (which I will emphasize here), if Obama’s slip-up was a singular event, I would have disregarded it. However, his slip-ups are a pattern that I have already established, and these slip-ups show a fundamental lack of understanding regarding history.

Note that I have never said anything derogatory towards Obama’s character, intelligence, or beliefs. I have stated certain things, and I have backed them up with facts, with things he has said. By the way, pointing out how I disagree with his policies is not an ad hominem attack. Maybe to Obamatons like they can seem like that, but that doesn’t make it correct.

As for my views on foreign policy, who cares? I’m not in government, I’m not a policy maker. Besides, if you had a good control on reading comprehension, you would see that I’ve already answered with my thoughts on the Israel/Palestine, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq. And like I’ve said many times, who cares what’s the conservative view on it. While you’ve improved your arguments by not saying “neocon” to me at the end of your statements, you’re still living by labels that are ultimately irrelevant. The argument is about Obama, and I’ve been able to keep my statements about that. Any discussion of what I think is the solution to the middle east is irrelevant because we are voting for the ones who are going to do it. Suffice it to say that my thoughts on the middle east solution is not embraced by either candidate or the majority of the american people.

I will say it is odd that you are asking me to stick to the theme of the post, and then encourage me to go off the theme (by going into the middle east).

As for McCain, if his policies are more in line with Bush, that is more or less apt. Like I’ve said, history will decide whether what Bush did was correct or not.

Lastly, based on the pattern of Obama’s statements, including the “bomb in Pearl Harbor”, I can at least deduce that he has little knowledge of history. Your assertion that Obama “couldn’t possibly” be unaware of his state’s history is an assumption and is not backed with any identifiable facts. It is an ASSUMPTION. In debating, that means there is more evidence to my arguments than yours.

(hahaha, if I ever wrote a thesis on my solution to the middle east, I think even Allan would be disturbed. I will give you a hint though – I would start by giving all muslim women refugee status. I know, I know, too crazy).

[surveyor]

gandalf:

I hardly think that calling Obama uninformed qualifies as an “ad hominem” attack. Please know the definition of the phrases you use. Your stretching of the definition of “ad hominem” is practically “Clintonian”, for lack of a better term.

Translated from Latin to English, “Ad Hominem” means “against the man” or “against the person.”

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of “argument” has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A’s claim is false.

Correct application of ad hominem attack:

Gandalf: Obama is right on foreign policy.
surveyor: Obama is a dumbass.

Incorrect application of ad hominem attack:

Gandalf: Obama is right on foreign policy
surveyor: Obama is not right on foreign policy because he knows little history.

Besides, I’ve supported my arguments that he knows little of history. And, (which I will emphasize here), if Obama’s slip-up was a singular event, I would have disregarded it. However, his slip-ups are a pattern that I have already established, and these slip-ups show a fundamental lack of understanding regarding history.

Note that I have never said anything derogatory towards Obama’s character, intelligence, or beliefs. I have stated certain things, and I have backed them up with facts, with things he has said. By the way, pointing out how I disagree with his policies is not an ad hominem attack. Maybe to Obamatons like they can seem like that, but that doesn’t make it correct.

As for my views on foreign policy, who cares? I’m not in government, I’m not a policy maker. Besides, if you had a good control on reading comprehension, you would see that I’ve already answered with my thoughts on the Israel/Palestine, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq. And like I’ve said many times, who cares what’s the conservative view on it. While you’ve improved your arguments by not saying “neocon” to me at the end of your statements, you’re still living by labels that are ultimately irrelevant. The argument is about Obama, and I’ve been able to keep my statements about that. Any discussion of what I think is the solution to the middle east is irrelevant because we are voting for the ones who are going to do it. Suffice it to say that my thoughts on the middle east solution is not embraced by either candidate or the majority of the american people.

I will say it is odd that you are asking me to stick to the theme of the post, and then encourage me to go off the theme (by going into the middle east).

As for McCain, if his policies are more in line with Bush, that is more or less apt. Like I’ve said, history will decide whether what Bush did was correct or not.

Lastly, based on the pattern of Obama’s statements, including the “bomb in Pearl Harbor”, I can at least deduce that he has little knowledge of history. Your assertion that Obama “couldn’t possibly” be unaware of his state’s history is an assumption and is not backed with any identifiable facts. It is an ASSUMPTION. In debating, that means there is more evidence to my arguments than yours.

(hahaha, if I ever wrote a thesis on my solution to the middle east, I think even Allan would be disturbed. I will give you a hint though – I would start by giving all muslim women refugee status. I know, I know, too crazy).

[surveyor]

oh one more thing, gandalf:

Just because McCain and Obama made similar mistakes does not disprove the notion that Obama knows little of history and has little experience, which was my assertion.

So I see little to “retract.”

[surveyor]

oh one more thing, gandalf:

Just because McCain and Obama made similar mistakes does not disprove the notion that Obama knows little of history and has little experience, which was my assertion.

So I see little to “retract.”

[surveyor]

oh one more thing, gandalf:

Just because McCain and Obama made similar mistakes does not disprove the notion that Obama knows little of history and has little experience, which was my assertion.

So I see little to “retract.”

[surveyor]

oh one more thing, gandalf:

Just because McCain and Obama made similar mistakes does not disprove the notion that Obama knows little of history and has little experience, which was my assertion.

So I see little to “retract.”

[surveyor]

oh one more thing, gandalf:

Just because McCain and Obama made similar mistakes does not disprove the notion that Obama knows little of history and has little experience, which was my assertion.

So I see little to “retract.”

[surveyor]

I’ll bite:

I don’t mind the political discussions so much, I was avoiding them earlier because I didn’t want to waste time debating who was better, Hillary or Obama, McCain and Romney, etc. Now that the candidates have been chosen, I’ve been willing to partake in the discussion in order to sharpen my arguments and analyses of the policies. (And to me, debating is an intellectual exercise).

I’m on another blog site and it’s dedicated to surveyors, and most of the posts are “off-topic”, dealing with politically sensitive subjects. (on that site, I am considered “deficient” in my knowledge of history, hahaha) The true “surveying” subjects are outnumbered. So I’m not surprised at this development. It usually happens to pretty mature blogs that don’t have a subject limitation.

There’s also the curiosity factor – many of us are in the same boat regarding housing, and so it would only be natural to look and see what the others thought of other subjects. Even with this unity regarding housing and finances, it’s interesting to note how different the political stands are for certain people. =shrug= Personally I find it interesting.

Well, with name-calling no longer allowed, I am curious as to how I will find out when the other person has no argument…

Anyways, until Rich outlaws boring people to death, I suppose I will be safe from being banned.

[surveyor]

I’ll bite:

I don’t mind the political discussions so much, I was avoiding them earlier because I didn’t want to waste time debating who was better, Hillary or Obama, McCain and Romney, etc. Now that the candidates have been chosen, I’ve been willing to partake in the discussion in order to sharpen my arguments and analyses of the policies. (And to me, debating is an intellectual exercise).

I’m on another blog site and it’s dedicated to surveyors, and most of the posts are “off-topic”, dealing with politically sensitive subjects. (on that site, I am considered “deficient” in my knowledge of history, hahaha) The true “surveying” subjects are outnumbered. So I’m not surprised at this development. It usually happens to pretty mature blogs that don’t have a subject limitation.

There’s also the curiosity factor – many of us are in the same boat regarding housing, and so it would only be natural to look and see what the others thought of other subjects. Even with this unity regarding housing and finances, it’s interesting to note how different the political stands are for certain people. =shrug= Personally I find it interesting.

Well, with name-calling no longer allowed, I am curious as to how I will find out when the other person has no argument…

Anyways, until Rich outlaws boring people to death, I suppose I will be safe from being banned.

[surveyor]

I’ll bite:

I don’t mind the political discussions so much, I was avoiding them earlier because I didn’t want to waste time debating who was better, Hillary or Obama, McCain and Romney, etc. Now that the candidates have been chosen, I’ve been willing to partake in the discussion in order to sharpen my arguments and analyses of the policies. (And to me, debating is an intellectual exercise).

I’m on another blog site and it’s dedicated to surveyors, and most of the posts are “off-topic”, dealing with politically sensitive subjects. (on that site, I am considered “deficient” in my knowledge of history, hahaha) The true “surveying” subjects are outnumbered. So I’m not surprised at this development. It usually happens to pretty mature blogs that don’t have a subject limitation.

There’s also the curiosity factor – many of us are in the same boat regarding housing, and so it would only be natural to look and see what the others thought of other subjects. Even with this unity regarding housing and finances, it’s interesting to note how different the political stands are for certain people. =shrug= Personally I find it interesting.

Well, with name-calling no longer allowed, I am curious as to how I will find out when the other person has no argument…

Anyways, until Rich outlaws boring people to death, I suppose I will be safe from being banned.

[surveyor]

I’ll bite:

I don’t mind the political discussions so much, I was avoiding them earlier because I didn’t want to waste time debating who was better, Hillary or Obama, McCain and Romney, etc. Now that the candidates have been chosen, I’ve been willing to partake in the discussion in order to sharpen my arguments and analyses of the policies. (And to me, debating is an intellectual exercise).

I’m on another blog site and it’s dedicated to surveyors, and most of the posts are “off-topic”, dealing with politically sensitive subjects. (on that site, I am considered “deficient” in my knowledge of history, hahaha) The true “surveying” subjects are outnumbered. So I’m not surprised at this development. It usually happens to pretty mature blogs that don’t have a subject limitation.

There’s also the curiosity factor – many of us are in the same boat regarding housing, and so it would only be natural to look and see what the others thought of other subjects. Even with this unity regarding housing and finances, it’s interesting to note how different the political stands are for certain people. =shrug= Personally I find it interesting.

Well, with name-calling no longer allowed, I am curious as to how I will find out when the other person has no argument…

Anyways, until Rich outlaws boring people to death, I suppose I will be safe from being banned.

[surveyor]

I’ll bite:

I don’t mind the political discussions so much, I was avoiding them earlier because I didn’t want to waste time debating who was better, Hillary or Obama, McCain and Romney, etc. Now that the candidates have been chosen, I’ve been willing to partake in the discussion in order to sharpen my arguments and analyses of the policies. (And to me, debating is an intellectual exercise).

I’m on another blog site and it’s dedicated to surveyors, and most of the posts are “off-topic”, dealing with politically sensitive subjects. (on that site, I am considered “deficient” in my knowledge of history, hahaha) The true “surveying” subjects are outnumbered. So I’m not surprised at this development. It usually happens to pretty mature blogs that don’t have a subject limitation.

There’s also the curiosity factor – many of us are in the same boat regarding housing, and so it would only be natural to look and see what the others thought of other subjects. Even with this unity regarding housing and finances, it’s interesting to note how different the political stands are for certain people. =shrug= Personally I find it interesting.

Well, with name-calling no longer allowed, I am curious as to how I will find out when the other person has no argument…

Anyways, until Rich outlaws boring people to death, I suppose I will be safe from being banned.

[surveyor]

gandalf:

I’ve already said something about it to that effect. I said that if it were a one-time thing, I would have disregarded it. Also, I’ve always said that McCain and Obama were clueless. I just regard Obama as more clueless.

I’m certainly willing to excoriate and criticize McCain on his shortcomings. However, he has a better grasp on the islamofacism angle than Obama. Unfortunately, that is a terribly important issue to me.

However, most of the threads here started out as “wow, Obama is really worthy of being president” and “Obama is really knowledgeable.” I’ve pointed out arguments that poke holes in that theory. If the subject was “Vote for McCain, he knows what he’s doing” I would be posting up the policy objections I have with McCain.

And honestly, I’m no supporter of McCain either (which is what most everyone assumes I am). Does he have my vote? Probably, because I see Obama and his policies as a threat to the U.S. Still, voting in a state like California for McCain, I have no illusions that my vote will matter… Usually I vote Libertarian (now that’s a wasted vote!).

Still, I would think that any criticism of Obama for his lack of knowledge of history is warranted. I think he’s displayed it often enough. I’ve said this before as well – there is no doubt he’s intelligent, bright, and articulate. However, he comes across to me as a person who’s been in school way too long and hasn’t had the hard experience to give him the judgment he needs to be president. He’s just too green. Until that changes, I don’t believe he will be an effective president.

[Author]

Posts