McCain's Spiritual Guide calls for the destruction of Islam

Except Obama denounced those statements... and besides that...

Can you give me anything except guilt by association?

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=146892

And besides that, wearing a lapel pin is neither a "position" nor a "speech."

He and his wife are not the same person.

Can you give me anything except guilt by association?

Believe it or not, covering your heart isn't the only way to show respect.

And once again, not covering your heart during Star Spangled Banner is neither a "position" nor a "speech."

Can you give me anything except guilt by association?

It sure can, if all you do is play the "guilt by association" game. The entire point of asking you to back up your arguments was because you were arguing for why Hagee "slides right off McCain" and Wright "sticks to Obama." You're using your own proposition to prove itself. That's called begging the question.

Congratulations on giving no reason at all why Hagee "slides off McCain" and Wright "sticks to Obama." But it was a lovely logical fallacy.

 

Come on, let's keep this REAL. Those events and associations, taken collectively in particular, don't exactly bleed red, white, and blue. And they will slaughter Barakka Dukkaka.

 

Yes, let's keep this REAL: you gave COMPLETELY BS reasoning for why Wright "sticks to Obama" and Hagee "slides off McCain," and can't back it up.

You've given us:
*Three counts of guilt by association. Whoopee. We can play that game with McCain just as easily. It means NOTHING.
*The lapel pin thing, which also applies to McCain.
*Covering the heart during Star Spangled Banner, which means nothing at all. Standing respectfully is just as good.

Essentially, you're "proving" that the Obama-Wright association "sticks" BECAUSE Obama associates with Wright. Begging the question. Logical loop.

But keep going, TJ, your intellectually challenged logical fallacies make me feel smarter.

 

You can not just throw the 'guilt by association' accusation out the window. To do so would be foolish. Who Barakka Dukkaka associates with gives us an insight into his judgment. The President will need to select a cabinet, appoint advisors, judges, etc. He will be associating with these people. So therefore, any and all associations that Obama has are more than fair game -- they are critical.

So do you similarly dismiss those who associate with the KKK as being clean as a whistle? I mean, under your logic, guilt by association doesn't count, right? Right?

OWNED

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

So explain to me why guilt by association counts with Obama-Wright, but not for McCain-Parsley or McCain-Hagee?

Oh, right... that was the original question you were trying to answer when you presented us with your patented begging-the-question logical fallacy.


It greatly amuses me that you apparently cannot grasp the concept of "begging the question." Apparently, you have the logical reasoning ability of a small child.

Wait, my bad... that would be insulting the small child. Rather, you have the logical reasoning ability of a small child who suffers from mental r****dation. So I'm just going to go ahead and give you a gold star for your participation in class today.




...now get out to the parking lot. The short bus is waiting for you.

 

It's different because Obama attended this guy's church for 20 years, had him on his advisory team, and drew inspiration from him -- heck, his book 'Audacity of Hope' was inspired by a Jeremiah Wright sermon... probably not the one where Wright dry humps the podium on Sunday morning, but one of his sermons. 20 years. The associations McCain has with much less controversial figures are totally minor compared to this one, particularly when you consider the hate speech coming out of that 'church'. Not exactly Presidential.

 

Yes, and Parsley calling Islam the most evil force on Earth is somehow NOT "hate speech." And it also doesn't matter that Obama denounced Wright's comments, either.

Pick one: guilt by association is relevant, or it isn't. There is no "it counts for Obama but not for McCain" option.






And we've successfully circled all the way back to the beginning:

Do tell, TJ. Still waiting for you to back that one up with something other than a logical fallacy.

 

Yeah, denouncing Wright's actions meant a whole lot... Even Wright admits Obama saying it was just "acting like a politician". When you take your family to the man's church for 20 years, actions speak louder than words. Obama endorsed this man for 20 years. Words ain't worth squat, rook.

 

"rook"... even though I've been around longer than you.

What the denounced person says about being denounced matters now? Surely, if I denounce the KKK, everyone should care what the KKK has to say about it.

You're right... "actions speak louder than words." I guess McCain's association with hate-mongering Parsley can't be undone by simple words either, then.

Do tell, TJ. STILL waiting for you to back that one up with something other than a logical fallacy.

 

Don't forget McCain-Falwell.

 

i'm not sure who this "Barakka Dukakka" guy is.
could we clarify without using more pseudo-discriminatory, ignorant, intolerant, kindergarten babble?

or maybe, you know, he doesn't even deserve to be called by a proper name, given that he's a no-good, woman-hating, bomb-dropping, muslim antichrist who needs the love of Jesus our (and the world's) savior, lest he be damned to the fiery hell that is reason and educated discourse?

DUKAKKA it is! Barakka Hussein Dukkakka Osama-Obama bin Durka Durka!
down with DUKAKKA!

(now, do i have that right? )

 

ah, almost missed this one.

from http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel01.html :

"The religious persecution that drove settlers from Europe to the British North American colonies sprang from the conviction, held by Protestants and Catholics alike, that uniformity of religion must exist in any given society. This conviction rested on the belief that there was one true religion and that it was the duty of the civil authorities to impose it, forcibly if necessary, in the interest of saving the souls of all citizens. Nonconformists could expect no mercy and might be executed as heretics. The dominance of the concept, denounced by Roger Williams as "inforced uniformity of religion," meant majority religious groups who controlled political power punished dissenters in their midst."

in this article, as well as every history book from K-college, it appears that America was founded by folks who were tired of religious persecution enacted by those in power. god forbid i actually provide some facts in this thread, but Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson (you might know them as 'founding fathers') were actually Deists. deism is based off reason and observable nature. 11 major religious groups are represented by all the signed names on america's founding documents.

so, is it possible to state that the founding fathers were unified with a divine purpose? yes - but that divine purpose was, "you do your thing, i'll do mine, and we agree that we won't step on each other's **** or elect people who will try to take that right away."

it's like nobody read their history books for the last X years. fox news is pushing us into the dark ages.

 

crickets? Trader_Jorge? bigtexxx?

 

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/TS15ylEovg0&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/TS15ylEovg0&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>



<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/LRsYPfzWEaU&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LRsYPfzWEaU&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>



Videos



http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/4/30/142126/284

 

As a D&D n00b, you're probably not used to this but...

 

don't take it personally, it's just their way

good posts tho, hopefully it educated someone since it wont "stick" to The Conquistadork and littletexxie.

 

Yes, anytime you present them with legitimate points they can't counter, they stop replying. Because they're sissies.

 

Dukakis?