[surveyor]

[quote=larrylujack]No. You have gone beyond your stated reasons by quoting Bolton’s article, and marrying yourself to it in your thread, and therefore aligining yourself to Bolton and the neocon ideology, so you must answer for it.
I have no love for Obama, but I despise the neocons due to their abject failure in Iraq, etc.[/quote]

Larry, I was ASKED for an example of Obama’s lack of qualifications in foreign policy and because his obviously lack of knowledge in history. The Bolton article was a pretty good one that had specific historical and statement criticism of Obama. Whether or not Bolton had a hand in Iraq (which he actually says in his book that he didn’t have a whole lot of input in) is irrelevant. The criticism remains.

Unfortunately, the only answer for this out of many people is, well, he was a neocon so of course he doesn’t know what he’s doing.

That is a logical fallacy called ad hominem. It does nothing to answer the criticism.

Description of Ad Hominem
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:

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

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

[surveyor]

[quote=larrylujack]No. You have gone beyond your stated reasons by quoting Bolton’s article, and marrying yourself to it in your thread, and therefore aligining yourself to Bolton and the neocon ideology, so you must answer for it.
I have no love for Obama, but I despise the neocons due to their abject failure in Iraq, etc.[/quote]

Larry, I was ASKED for an example of Obama’s lack of qualifications in foreign policy and because his obviously lack of knowledge in history. The Bolton article was a pretty good one that had specific historical and statement criticism of Obama. Whether or not Bolton had a hand in Iraq (which he actually says in his book that he didn’t have a whole lot of input in) is irrelevant. The criticism remains.

Unfortunately, the only answer for this out of many people is, well, he was a neocon so of course he doesn’t know what he’s doing.

That is a logical fallacy called ad hominem. It does nothing to answer the criticism.

Description of Ad Hominem
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:

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

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

[surveyor]

[quote=larrylujack]No. You have gone beyond your stated reasons by quoting Bolton’s article, and marrying yourself to it in your thread, and therefore aligining yourself to Bolton and the neocon ideology, so you must answer for it.
I have no love for Obama, but I despise the neocons due to their abject failure in Iraq, etc.[/quote]

Larry, I was ASKED for an example of Obama’s lack of qualifications in foreign policy and because his obviously lack of knowledge in history. The Bolton article was a pretty good one that had specific historical and statement criticism of Obama. Whether or not Bolton had a hand in Iraq (which he actually says in his book that he didn’t have a whole lot of input in) is irrelevant. The criticism remains.

Unfortunately, the only answer for this out of many people is, well, he was a neocon so of course he doesn’t know what he’s doing.

That is a logical fallacy called ad hominem. It does nothing to answer the criticism.

Description of Ad Hominem
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:

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

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

[surveyor]

[quote=larrylujack]No. You have gone beyond your stated reasons by quoting Bolton’s article, and marrying yourself to it in your thread, and therefore aligining yourself to Bolton and the neocon ideology, so you must answer for it.
I have no love for Obama, but I despise the neocons due to their abject failure in Iraq, etc.[/quote]

Larry, I was ASKED for an example of Obama’s lack of qualifications in foreign policy and because his obviously lack of knowledge in history. The Bolton article was a pretty good one that had specific historical and statement criticism of Obama. Whether or not Bolton had a hand in Iraq (which he actually says in his book that he didn’t have a whole lot of input in) is irrelevant. The criticism remains.

Unfortunately, the only answer for this out of many people is, well, he was a neocon so of course he doesn’t know what he’s doing.

That is a logical fallacy called ad hominem. It does nothing to answer the criticism.

Description of Ad Hominem
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:

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

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

[surveyor]

education

Larry, is it my job to educate you? Educate yourself. I can spend all day trying to refute you to death, but I am trying to stick to the topic and look forward, not backward. Whether or not the Iraq War was justified, a waste of time, a neocon adventure or otherwise is not up to us but up to later generations. You obviously have your own opinion and I have mine. What I am trying to point out to you is that there is more for you to learn besides the mainstream media soundbite.

You can call everyone in the world neocons all you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that Obama leans to the left and will negotiate based on a certain mindset. I will certainly agree that there were many mistakes made by neoconservatives, the Bush administrations, and whoever else you want to blame. If you want to say I’ve made mistakes, sure, I’ll said it, I’ve made mistakes.

But that doesn’t mean that Obama is going to be the best choice either. Or that criticism of him is wrong.

So basically the crux of your argument is to smear my sources, and me personally. Hardly a valid point.

I think if you delve a little bit more into history, you’ll find a lot more than you realized. That while there are negotiations with Israel and Hamas/Hezbollah, it has rarely worked to Israel’s favor and its enemies have become stronger. That North Korea has continually broken agreements and we keep sliding the scale down in order to get agreements, but it does nothing to make us safe. So keep calling me names all you want, but it doesn’t change the facts.

[surveyor]

education

Larry, is it my job to educate you? Educate yourself. I can spend all day trying to refute you to death, but I am trying to stick to the topic and look forward, not backward. Whether or not the Iraq War was justified, a waste of time, a neocon adventure or otherwise is not up to us but up to later generations. You obviously have your own opinion and I have mine. What I am trying to point out to you is that there is more for you to learn besides the mainstream media soundbite.

You can call everyone in the world neocons all you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that Obama leans to the left and will negotiate based on a certain mindset. I will certainly agree that there were many mistakes made by neoconservatives, the Bush administrations, and whoever else you want to blame. If you want to say I’ve made mistakes, sure, I’ll said it, I’ve made mistakes.

But that doesn’t mean that Obama is going to be the best choice either. Or that criticism of him is wrong.

So basically the crux of your argument is to smear my sources, and me personally. Hardly a valid point.

I think if you delve a little bit more into history, you’ll find a lot more than you realized. That while there are negotiations with Israel and Hamas/Hezbollah, it has rarely worked to Israel’s favor and its enemies have become stronger. That North Korea has continually broken agreements and we keep sliding the scale down in order to get agreements, but it does nothing to make us safe. So keep calling me names all you want, but it doesn’t change the facts.

[surveyor]

education

Larry, is it my job to educate you? Educate yourself. I can spend all day trying to refute you to death, but I am trying to stick to the topic and look forward, not backward. Whether or not the Iraq War was justified, a waste of time, a neocon adventure or otherwise is not up to us but up to later generations. You obviously have your own opinion and I have mine. What I am trying to point out to you is that there is more for you to learn besides the mainstream media soundbite.

You can call everyone in the world neocons all you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that Obama leans to the left and will negotiate based on a certain mindset. I will certainly agree that there were many mistakes made by neoconservatives, the Bush administrations, and whoever else you want to blame. If you want to say I’ve made mistakes, sure, I’ll said it, I’ve made mistakes.

But that doesn’t mean that Obama is going to be the best choice either. Or that criticism of him is wrong.

So basically the crux of your argument is to smear my sources, and me personally. Hardly a valid point.

I think if you delve a little bit more into history, you’ll find a lot more than you realized. That while there are negotiations with Israel and Hamas/Hezbollah, it has rarely worked to Israel’s favor and its enemies have become stronger. That North Korea has continually broken agreements and we keep sliding the scale down in order to get agreements, but it does nothing to make us safe. So keep calling me names all you want, but it doesn’t change the facts.

[surveyor]

education

Larry, is it my job to educate you? Educate yourself. I can spend all day trying to refute you to death, but I am trying to stick to the topic and look forward, not backward. Whether or not the Iraq War was justified, a waste of time, a neocon adventure or otherwise is not up to us but up to later generations. You obviously have your own opinion and I have mine. What I am trying to point out to you is that there is more for you to learn besides the mainstream media soundbite.

You can call everyone in the world neocons all you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that Obama leans to the left and will negotiate based on a certain mindset. I will certainly agree that there were many mistakes made by neoconservatives, the Bush administrations, and whoever else you want to blame. If you want to say I’ve made mistakes, sure, I’ll said it, I’ve made mistakes.

But that doesn’t mean that Obama is going to be the best choice either. Or that criticism of him is wrong.

So basically the crux of your argument is to smear my sources, and me personally. Hardly a valid point.

I think if you delve a little bit more into history, you’ll find a lot more than you realized. That while there are negotiations with Israel and Hamas/Hezbollah, it has rarely worked to Israel’s favor and its enemies have become stronger. That North Korea has continually broken agreements and we keep sliding the scale down in order to get agreements, but it does nothing to make us safe. So keep calling me names all you want, but it doesn’t change the facts.

[surveyor]

education

Larry, is it my job to educate you? Educate yourself. I can spend all day trying to refute you to death, but I am trying to stick to the topic and look forward, not backward. Whether or not the Iraq War was justified, a waste of time, a neocon adventure or otherwise is not up to us but up to later generations. You obviously have your own opinion and I have mine. What I am trying to point out to you is that there is more for you to learn besides the mainstream media soundbite.

You can call everyone in the world neocons all you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that Obama leans to the left and will negotiate based on a certain mindset. I will certainly agree that there were many mistakes made by neoconservatives, the Bush administrations, and whoever else you want to blame. If you want to say I’ve made mistakes, sure, I’ll said it, I’ve made mistakes.

But that doesn’t mean that Obama is going to be the best choice either. Or that criticism of him is wrong.

So basically the crux of your argument is to smear my sources, and me personally. Hardly a valid point.

I think if you delve a little bit more into history, you’ll find a lot more than you realized. That while there are negotiations with Israel and Hamas/Hezbollah, it has rarely worked to Israel’s favor and its enemies have become stronger. That North Korea has continually broken agreements and we keep sliding the scale down in order to get agreements, but it does nothing to make us safe. So keep calling me names all you want, but it doesn’t change the facts.

[surveyor]

I have a job

Meantime, if you have something worth discussing, like “What happens when Israel bombs Iran, and Iran tries to shut down Hormuz?”, that would be a good place to start. We’ve got some serious shit going on in this country.

Maybe it’s just me, but I have been approaching this thread and posting rationales and opinions on why I am not voting for Obama for President. Any discussions regarding Israel and Iran can be good in the presidential election context, but ultimately it is the President who will deal with these issues and not me specifically. I may have some ideas as to how to deal with Israel, Iran, North Korea, and other situations but it does not help make the case for Obama or McCain.

My point is that what approach will Obama take when dealing with these threats. His displayed lack of knowledge towards history, his “wife’s lawyer” context of negotiation towards hostile and enemy nations, the fact that many enemies of ours want to see him elected because they feel he will be more sympathetic to their cause – these are documented factors that I have identified and are important to me as why I will not be voting for him.

If you are willing to overlook these items and vote for Obama, be my guest.

[surveyor]

I have a job

Meantime, if you have something worth discussing, like “What happens when Israel bombs Iran, and Iran tries to shut down Hormuz?”, that would be a good place to start. We’ve got some serious shit going on in this country.

Maybe it’s just me, but I have been approaching this thread and posting rationales and opinions on why I am not voting for Obama for President. Any discussions regarding Israel and Iran can be good in the presidential election context, but ultimately it is the President who will deal with these issues and not me specifically. I may have some ideas as to how to deal with Israel, Iran, North Korea, and other situations but it does not help make the case for Obama or McCain.

My point is that what approach will Obama take when dealing with these threats. His displayed lack of knowledge towards history, his “wife’s lawyer” context of negotiation towards hostile and enemy nations, the fact that many enemies of ours want to see him elected because they feel he will be more sympathetic to their cause – these are documented factors that I have identified and are important to me as why I will not be voting for him.

If you are willing to overlook these items and vote for Obama, be my guest.

[surveyor]

I have a job

Meantime, if you have something worth discussing, like “What happens when Israel bombs Iran, and Iran tries to shut down Hormuz?”, that would be a good place to start. We’ve got some serious shit going on in this country.

Maybe it’s just me, but I have been approaching this thread and posting rationales and opinions on why I am not voting for Obama for President. Any discussions regarding Israel and Iran can be good in the presidential election context, but ultimately it is the President who will deal with these issues and not me specifically. I may have some ideas as to how to deal with Israel, Iran, North Korea, and other situations but it does not help make the case for Obama or McCain.

My point is that what approach will Obama take when dealing with these threats. His displayed lack of knowledge towards history, his “wife’s lawyer” context of negotiation towards hostile and enemy nations, the fact that many enemies of ours want to see him elected because they feel he will be more sympathetic to their cause – these are documented factors that I have identified and are important to me as why I will not be voting for him.

If you are willing to overlook these items and vote for Obama, be my guest.

[surveyor]

I have a job

Meantime, if you have something worth discussing, like “What happens when Israel bombs Iran, and Iran tries to shut down Hormuz?”, that would be a good place to start. We’ve got some serious shit going on in this country.

Maybe it’s just me, but I have been approaching this thread and posting rationales and opinions on why I am not voting for Obama for President. Any discussions regarding Israel and Iran can be good in the presidential election context, but ultimately it is the President who will deal with these issues and not me specifically. I may have some ideas as to how to deal with Israel, Iran, North Korea, and other situations but it does not help make the case for Obama or McCain.

My point is that what approach will Obama take when dealing with these threats. His displayed lack of knowledge towards history, his “wife’s lawyer” context of negotiation towards hostile and enemy nations, the fact that many enemies of ours want to see him elected because they feel he will be more sympathetic to their cause – these are documented factors that I have identified and are important to me as why I will not be voting for him.

If you are willing to overlook these items and vote for Obama, be my guest.

[surveyor]

I have a job

Meantime, if you have something worth discussing, like “What happens when Israel bombs Iran, and Iran tries to shut down Hormuz?”, that would be a good place to start. We’ve got some serious shit going on in this country.

Maybe it’s just me, but I have been approaching this thread and posting rationales and opinions on why I am not voting for Obama for President. Any discussions regarding Israel and Iran can be good in the presidential election context, but ultimately it is the President who will deal with these issues and not me specifically. I may have some ideas as to how to deal with Israel, Iran, North Korea, and other situations but it does not help make the case for Obama or McCain.

My point is that what approach will Obama take when dealing with these threats. His displayed lack of knowledge towards history, his “wife’s lawyer” context of negotiation towards hostile and enemy nations, the fact that many enemies of ours want to see him elected because they feel he will be more sympathetic to their cause – these are documented factors that I have identified and are important to me as why I will not be voting for him.

If you are willing to overlook these items and vote for Obama, be my guest.

[surveyor]

willful blindness

gandalf, this is the part where reading comprehension comes in. I assumed that you would actually read the entire treatise and know what you were talking about, so I apologize for my assumption. In Bolton’s article, he laid out the facts, put them into context of history, analyzed Obama’s statements and policy plans, and then concluded by saying this:

John Bolton: “It is an article of faith for Obama, and many others on the left in the U.S. and abroad, that it is the United States that is mostly responsible for the world’s ills.”

So you can say that there is no fact in that statement, but you would still be wrong because he uses the whole article to lay out those facts and make that statement based on those facts. You complain about talking points and yet YOU are the one who uses those talking points and fail to dig deeper and see the facts and details for those “talking points.”

Here is one of those “facts” that Bolton got from Obama:

“Indeed, he [Obama] has gone even further, arguing that the lack of negotiations with Iran caused the threats: “And the fact that we have not talked to them means that they have been developing nuclear weapons, funding Hamas, funding Hezbollah.”

Fact. Obama said this. Obama sounds a lot like he is blaming the U.S. for the problems with Iran. It is a known fact that Obama is on the left

I only bolded Bolton’s conclusion because most people here would like to get to the gist of the post. Try reading the rest of the post. The substance is there. You just were unable or unwilling to read it.

You also assume (wrongly) that Bolton (and me for that matter) is questioning the loyalty or citizenship of certain Americans associated with the left. That is not in the article either. Remember, reading comprehension. He questions the IDEOLOGY and the assumptions made by the left and analyzes whether it would be conducive to the application of foreign policy, whether it be through negotiation, diplomacy, or military action.

Finally, I have no problem with disagreements. I make my case, I put down facts, and I let people decide. I don’t call people names just because I disagree with them, nor do I dismiss them and try to categorize them as “neocons” and “douchebags”.

(By the way, go to a psychology textbook and look up “projection.”).

I love America, I love everything about her and I would certainly put down my life on the line for her, but my willingness to do that is not germaine to this discussion.

[Author]

Posts