Again, the asking for two examples was basically rhetorical, in order to point out the emphasis here on asinine ravings about the fraudulent “whitey” garbage and not anything of any valid substance.

But you either dont get that, or refuse to. Great, you provided two examples, I’m filled with joy for you. Would have helped if there had been an actual discussion here involving them.

So providing them proves what? That this thread is all about the issues and valid concerns, and not the irrational bashing of a political candidate for emotional reasons? Ignore the point, provide examples all you want. It wont change the content or intent of this blog one bit lol.

But wait Steve, you get even more off base.

For instance, here is a bit of your above post.

****) You said,

Show me ONE single intelligen observation ragarding the differences in the candidates suggested policies.

Since it’s very obvious nothing of the sort will happen here….

I gave you two examples.

Your response,

I was not attacking your failure to provide examples of policy differences. Thats YOUR assertion, which leads you into yet another logical fallacy known as “straw man”.

Clearly, you were attacking this site’s posters, so your claim that I created a straw man is false.********

Now Steve, you DO realize that ANYBODY can simply scroll up, and read what my actual response was right? Here, allow me to C&P it for you since you seem to have a problem with selectively quoting out of context.

Steve’s two examples

*******I’ll give you two, though it’s not difficult to find more. One, Hillary Clinton’s health care plan demands full user payment, something Obama is on tape as supporting, though he now says he never supported the idea and he no longer does. Two, Hillary Clinton supports public financing, whereas Barack Obama pledged in writing to support public financing, though he now rejects the idea.”******

MY ACTUAL RESPONSE
*******You didn’t get any of it did you? Since you dont understand what ad hominem is, I should be leery of asking if you understand what “rhetorical” is. The point was, that those are the sort of things such concerned folks as yourselves should be arguing about, examining, discussing. Instead it’s about whether or not the Obama’s hate Whitey. At least you have SOME idea of what the issues between Hillary and Obama were I guess, though you apparently choose to gloss over the entire context of the disagreements between the two on those subjects, or Obamas actual stance in the first place. But good for you anyhow, though the entire point sailed over your head.*********

Steve, your argument is weak, and without merit. This blog is nothing more than a vile propaganda piece, with a few faithful all too happy to embrace any nastiness published on its pages. A simple reading of the posts demonstrates this. There’s little more than insinuation, innuendo, lies, and slander published here, and no amount of denial can change that.

“That some theorists currently reject the notion of reverse racism does not mean the concept does not exist. You can find it under ‘reverse discrimination’ in wikipedia, for example. I like the distinction so I use it.”

You use it because you like it?
Do you hear yourself?

In California vs Bakke, a state supreme court ruled that discrimination was not dependant upon or defined by race, but the unfair practices against anyone because of their race. Meaning, Discrimination is discrimination and has nothing to do with the race of those practicing it.

It’s ANOTHER logical fallacy you insist on using Steve. The truth of the matter is that you cant reverse discriminate. But you like the term so it’s ok? Sure, thats one way to maintain denial.

Why don’t you just be honest, and say what you think? Or are you afraid to, because then your facade would fail? Lets accuse the Jews for banding together, and the Latinos, and the Japanese, and any other minority that has it’s own organisations dedicated to their own causes. By golly they’re racists!!!! lol

” Disappointingly, you pull the race card due to my use of the term master. Once again, you are cavalier with your use of an ad hominem attack. If you were good enough to apply your critiques to your own work, it might be worth sharing a conversation.”

Derhuh? YOU called Obama my “master” not me. I didn’t play a race card at all. I pointed out that your innuendo didn’t go by unnoticed. In fact, the entire problem here is this blog and it’s posters complete willingness to use race any way it can to denigrate the Obama’s. And you accuse ME of playing the race card? Thats high hilarity indeed.

So please, explain why the use of the term then, if it’s so innocent. And yet again, there is no apparent comprehension of “ad hominem” from you.

Trust me, replying to you is hardly a conversation. It’s more akin to grading a high school paper and balancing time against the effort of addressing and correcting every mistake.

Show me ONE single intelligen observation ragarding the differences in the candidates suggested policies.

Since it’s very obvious nothing of the sort will happen here….

I gave you two examples.

Your response,

I was not attacking your failure to provide examples of policy differences. Thats YOUR assertion, which leads you into yet another logical fallacy known as “straw man”.

Clearly, you were attacking this site’s posters, so your claim that I created a straw man is false.

2) You said,

I was attacking your propensity to embrace and propagate vile rumor and viscous slander despite the complete lack of evidence. All totally justified and valid.

If you search all of my posts you will discover that I have not engaged in the rumour mongering and slander to which you refer. In fact, you are guilty of slandering me.

3) That you claim something does not make it so. You said,

Actually, there’s reallly no such thing as “reverse racism”. Just as there’s no such thing as “reverse discrimination”. They both are just exactly what they are. A black can be a racist, or a bigot, just a white can be.

That some theorists currently reject the notion of reverse racism does not mean the concept does not exist. You can find it under ‘reverse discrimination’ in wikipedia, for example. I like the distinction so I use it. They do not so they do not. It does not change the fact that the Obama’s pledged themselves to a “black” and “African” affirmative church, which, because it furthers that positivity, is making a distinction based on race, which means it is a racist distinction. Accordingly, it counts as evidence.

4) Disappointingly, you pull the race card due to my use of the term master. Once again, you are cavalier with your use of an ad hominem attack. If you were good enough to apply your critiques to your own work, it might be worth sharing a conversation.

Your humble servant,
Steven

Hey, I got one for you. The Bush family has long ties to the Saudi’s!! They must be Muslims!!!

What you are doing is exactly the same as what Wright has done in his church. Allowing your credulity to lead you by the nose.

Find out what it is, and you’ll have your answer.

I like the “marxist” bit thrown in for added spice.

Uhuh. So, what about the white man the Rev Wright married to one of his black parishoners? After speaking to his black parishoner on behalf of the white man to go ahead with the wedding?

Wrights a moron, and that church is mired in denial, but it’s never a good idea to make assumptions without some sort of proof. Again, where is the proof they are racist? This blog is pathetic.

Actually they are far beyond racist. they are race obsessed.

Yes I did. Regarding the differences in the candidates political positions. You however immediately attempt to portray the Obama’s as racists which has nothing to do with the candidates positions, and is a perfect example of why I asked for such an observation. Because the issue here is not about the best candidate, or who’s position is better, or most likely to benefit the nation should they win. The focus here is on slander and attack. As you so nicely demonstrate Susan. Thank you. What would have been optimal, is a ref to an existing post which show me was really all about, but it’s ok, your response is even better.

“For someone who has an inkling of what constitutes an ad hominem argument, it is amusingly pathetic that you are so cavalier in using them yourself.”

Really. I’m glad you find it amusing, despite your apparently being unaware just exactly what ad hominem attack is.

“For example, you claim that most of the people who post on this blog are not driven by authentic moral concerns and that they are ONLY concerned with winning.

You make this assertion without providing evidence about these immoral posters.”

Yes, I certainly did make that generalisation. Which is quite reasonable and logical as all that is neccessary to make the reason for this generalisation clear is a perusal of the many fine examples spread throught the threads here.

In addition, had the intent of my post been to examine and disseminate the attitude the responses comprising these threads represent, I would have wasted my time and yours doing just that, and citing one post after another.

Which would have been quite pointless anyways, since they are already present and clear.

For example, (which should help you out since you apparently need details pointed out for you) the post leading to this thread attempts to protray Mrs. Obama as a racist, despite the videotape never having arisen, by making faulty leaps in reasoning as I mentioned earlier and in no way supporting it’s insinuations of racism. The article did little more, than continue the same rhetoric as videotape claims, without providing proof of anything.

Lets just forget, albeit conveneiently for you who claims to be concerned with truth and honesty, that the whole reason this trainwreck is here is because of a bogus videotape rumor in the first place.

Now, despite this, numerous posts arrive lauding this bit of broken logic as great work and throwing willy nilly one ad hominem attack after another at anyone pointing out the silliness of it all.

All this, when nothing of any substance has been provided. When nothing but rumor and attack has been created. Where is the critical consideration of the post leading to this farce eh? It’s so glaringly obvious as to be comical. He failed to provide anything to support the videotape rumor, so along comes this, “She wrote a paper in college, and cited and ref’d these guys, so she must believe, think and act just like them!” silliness. And those here swallowed it, without qualm.

And you ask ME where’s MY examples and proof? You do realize just how hilarious that is dont you?

Now, after all this, what do you think the reasoning is behind support of this ridiculous rumor mongering? Is it conviction built upon evidence? Obviously not, since the evidence is not in , ahem, evidence.

Or is it knee jerk emotional response, devoid of reasoned opinion, based upon an innate desire to have ones own position validated, by something such as Obamas failure to achieve vistory?

I’d bet the house on the latter. It’s in the same class as the “Obama’s a closet Muslim, Obama’s wants to socialize the U.S., Obama hates whitey” crap that too many seem to think are legitemite concerns and not the asinine ravings of those who would achive victory at the cost of integrity which it is.

“Then, hypocritically, because you provide no evidence that most of the posters at this blog are immorally ONLY concerned with winning, you demand that they provide evidence about their claims.”

Actually, I asked the evidence of Mrs. Obama’s racism be provided which is in fact not at all hypocritcal since I was not engaging in ad hominem argument but commenting on the obvious rumor mongering going on here and the complete lack of critical consideration. What I in fact did, was ak for proof of these claims, that were made well before my arrival. Proof which I might add, is sorely lacking.

Again, I have to note, you really dont understand Ad Hominem do you?

“You ask us to provide you evidence of one difference between the policies of the two candidates.”

Excellent, an actual suggestion of substance, and not “Mr.s O’s a racist I knew it” crap.

“I’ll give you two, though it’s not difficult to find more. One, Hillary Clinton’s health care plan demands full user payment, something Obama is on tape as supporting, though he now says he never supported the idea and he no longer does. Two, Hillary Clinton supports public financing, whereas Barack Obama pledged in writing to support public financing, though he now rejects the idea.”

You didn’t get any of it did you? Since you dont understand what ad hominem is, I should be leery of asking if you understand what “rhetorical” is. The point was, that those are the sort of things such concerned folks as yourselves should be arguing about, examining, discussing. Instead it’s about whether or not the Obama’s hate Whitey. At least you have SOME idea of what the issues between Hillary and Obama were I guess, though you apparently choose to gloss over the entire context of the disagreements between the two on those subjects, or Obamas actual stance in the first place. But good for you anyhow, though the entire point sailed over your head.

“You should apologize for your ad hominem commentary about our inability to provide you with examples of policy differences because you were implying that we did not have the intellectual chops to back up our claims.”

Thats utterly hilarious, and I thank you for the laugh. Sure, I’ll apologize. Soon as every person here who jumped on the “Mrs. Obama hates Whitey” bandwagon for no reason other than pettiness and failed reasoning apologize. Though what I’m supposed to apologize for isnt exactly clear.

I was not attacking your failure to provide examples of policy differences. Thats YOUR assertion, which leads you into yet another logical fallacy known as “straw man”.

I was attacking your propensity to embrace and propagate vile rumor and viscous slander despite the complete lack of evidence. All totally justified and valid.

Also, I did not imply you did not have the intellectual honesty to back up your claims. I said OUTRIGHT that no one here has any evidence to support the claims that Mrs. Obama is a racist. I also noted that it was decietful and dishonest to support such garbage without proof. And I am right.

So please, by all means, explain just what it is I am supposed to apologize for. Asking that should you call someone racist, you provide some damn good proof of this?

“Finally, and even though I have no problem whatsoever with enclaves of mutual support for marginalized people, reverse racism is a species of racism by definition.”

Actually, there’s reallly no such thing as “reverse racism”. Just as there’s no such thing as “reverse discrimination”. They both are just exactly what they are. A black can be a racist, or a bigot, just a white can be.

“You have now been provided with another source of evidence that you claimed we could not provide. Accordingly, and following your j’accuse, we are not full of hot air or wasting everyone’s time.”

No I have not. You are trying VERY hard to avoid the direct question, the ONLY question. Where is the proof Mrs. Obama is a racist? YOu have not provided anything of the sort, and the twisted attempt at “reverse racism” just isnt going to cut it at all.

“I find your tendency to generalize from the particular to be particularly offensive because of the pseudo-high-minded, intellectually arrogant posturing you adopt.”

Thank you.

“In this reagrd, you are like your master. He also likes to claim he is taking the high road, just before he says something like, “…and I also won’t be like my opponents: I am going to tell you the truth.””

Thank you again, very much. Interesting though. Note your use of “Your master”. That could easily be seen as a perjorative phrase connotating a reference to slavery in an attempt to depict myself as being slave to a master who oh so long agao would have been the slave himself. It could lead a person to wonder just why you would choose such a phrase, then perhaps think that maybe you yourself have some unspoken racial tensions building with the possibility of a half black man attaining the highest office in America.

“Unless you upgrade your training in informal logic, please do not bother us proles (my use of argumentum ad populum) again.

Yours,
Steven”

Well Steven. Tell you what. Comprehend the logic first before you deem it faulty and I’ll see what I can do:)

I should have figured that these Obambino supporters could not and would not respond.

Idiots in underoos drinking kook-aid (not a typo)