#1. To: Original_Intent, TwentyTwelve, Uncle Bill, scrapper2, christine, noone222, buckeye, Rotara, nobody, James Deffenbach, farmfriend, Hayek Fan, Tom007, X-15, IndieTX, gengis ghandi, bush_is_a_moonie, Pinguinite, texaslvr77, who knows what evil, Tauzero, All (#0)
That's as many names as I could fit.
Happy WWIV.
"...This is not a government of, by and for the people it is a government of, by and for the corporation and by definiton, when business controls government that is inescapably; Fascism." ~ David Von Kleist
"...This is not a government of, by and for the people it is a government of, by and for the corporation and by definiton, when business controls government that is inescapably; Fascism." ~ David Von Kleist
Argumentum Ad-hominem: Shoot the messenger fallacy.
This is a common logical fallacy. Argumentum ad hominem basically means that the argument becomes directed towards the individual as opposed towards the crucial issues being discussed. It is succinctly described as, attack the messenger not the message (hence – shoot the messenger). It is often seen in both politics and pseudoscience. Its aim is to undermine the position of ones opponent, by undermining the opponent personally (in a manner that is actually completely irrelevant to the debate). The hope here is that if one can discredit the individual, this by default, discredits his / her argument. It does not. The fallacy here relates to the irrelevance of the attack. It is not viable to argue against a position and then justify that argument by criticising the individual who holds it.
Identification of the form of my rhetorical attack offers no protection against the fundamental vulnerability here, which is the association of the liberty campaign with intellectual garbage.
Jim Marrs is attacking it. He calls it 'National Socialism'.
Do you disagree?
Just because you don't understand or agree with something doesn't mean it's intellectual garbage. You'd be better to address the issues. Using strawman arguments and ad hominem attacks doesn't benefit the liberty campaign.
If you ask you're wife if she's cheating on she answers you, "Is that what you think I'm doing." Wouldn't you prefer if she'd just say, "No."?
I'm not exactly sure what you're doing except that I can see you're employing logical fallacies in your arguments and I consider that to be counter-productive.
It's a consensus on this forum that our government has verged into nationalist socialism. Now that opinion is associated with conspiracy researchers who believe in aliens. Outstanding work.
And be ignored because of the association with little green men, which probably have nothing to do with our problems. Oh well, you don't mind. It's all good.
And you haven't the foggiest idea, either. But it's fun to talk about it, isn't it? A lot of fun, apparently. However, I do know that my country has lost its legal basis on account of its refusal to adhere to its own constitutional underpinnings. I can identify the people responsible for that without asking Jim Marrs a single question.
But by all means, do pursue your flights of fancy wherever they take you.