| The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/ |
|
| Ron Paul Stabs Newt In the Face With a Brick https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=7786 |
Page 1 of 3 |
| Author: | Rynar [ Thu Dec 01, 2011 2:16 am ] |
| Post subject: | Ron Paul Stabs Newt In the Face With a Brick |
| Author: | Rorinthas [ Thu Dec 01, 2011 2:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sounds about right. I will in the interest of fairness say that everything I've heard indicates that Newt's contract with Freddie expressly prohibited him from lobbying. |
|
| Author: | Buliwyf [ Thu Dec 01, 2011 4:37 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Ron Paul Stabs Newt In the Face With a Brick |
I have seen the light!! The true objective here is to discredit Newt! And all this time I thought the objective was to defeat Obama in 2012. I guess Ron Paul wants Romney as the Republican nominee. Seriously, if Ron Paul is the nominee, I will hold my nose and vote for Obama, this time around. Oh, and one more thing. With that ad, Ron Paul finally demonstrates that he is a tool of the Democratic re-elect Obama campaign. |
|
| Author: | Rynar [ Thu Dec 01, 2011 4:57 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Why bother defeating Obama if all you get is more of the same policies. We've had the same core policies in place for more administrations than I care to count, with a few subtle differences used for nothing more than to create political theater in order to drive the establishment's actual agenda. Tell me, in what substantial way do you feel Newt or Romney are different than Obama and Bush? |
|
| Author: | Buliwyf [ Thu Dec 01, 2011 5:09 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Rynar wrote: Why bother defeating Obama if all you get is more of the same policies. We've had the same core policies in place for more administrations than I care to count, with a few subtle differences used for nothing more than to create political theater in order to drive the establishment's actual agenda. Tell me, in what substantial way do you feel Newt or Romney are different than Obama and Bush? That's not what this thread is about, though. It's about Ron Paul slamming on another Republican as that Republican is climbing in the polls. The very same thing that the Democrats and liberal media does. Ron Paul is a tool, IMO. |
|
| Author: | Rynar [ Thu Dec 01, 2011 5:15 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Buliwyf wrote: Rynar wrote: Why bother defeating Obama if all you get is more of the same policies. We've had the same core policies in place for more administrations than I care to count, with a few subtle differences used for nothing more than to create political theater in order to drive the establishment's actual agenda. Tell me, in what substantial way do you feel Newt or Romney are different than Obama and Bush? That's not what this thread is about, though. It's about Ron Paul slamming on another Republican as that Republican is climbing in the polls. The very same thing that the Democrats and liberal media does. Ron Paul is a tool, IMO. Right, right... Because it's somehow more important that a Republican win than to have an udult conversation about how establishment Republicans are no different than establishment Democrats, and that it is the problem that we face today. God forbid that someone would point that out, and differentiate themselves in order to give Americans an actual choice for the first time in generations. |
|
| Author: | Buliwyf [ Thu Dec 01, 2011 5:28 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Ron Paul Stabs Newt In the Face With a Brick |
Right, right. Because a choice between a product of the left wing machine and a tool of the left wing machine is any choice at all. |
|
| Author: | Rynar [ Thu Dec 01, 2011 5:35 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Ron Paul Stabs Newt In the Face With a Brick |
Buliwyf wrote: Right, right. Because a choice between a product of the left wing machine and a tool of the left wing machine is any choice at all. You aren't terribly familiar with the American electoral process, are you? Or perhaps it's that you're just here to troll. Where did you come from anyway? You're beginning to remind me of someone who is no longer allowed to post here. I'd love to ping your IP and see what sorts of results I got. |
|
| Author: | Buliwyf [ Thu Dec 01, 2011 5:47 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Ron Paul Stabs Newt In the Face With a Brick |
Because it's so much easier to look at me than to face facts. Ron Paul is un-electable. Democratic ads will savage his policy stances, he won't get any support from Democrats at all and many Republicans will not support him. So have an adult conversation. But if Ron Paul guarantees that Obama is re-elected, all the conversations will end up as so many wasted words. |
|
| Author: | Rynar [ Thu Dec 01, 2011 5:51 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
But that's that point: "Obama" gets elected anyway if anyone but Paul wins the Presidential race. |
|
| Author: | Buliwyf [ Thu Dec 01, 2011 6:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Ron Paul Stabs Newt In the Face With a Brick |
Then let's just all throw in the towel now and go fishing. |
|
| Author: | Elmarnieh [ Thu Dec 01, 2011 6:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Buliwyf - What is the point of the primary process of a party? |
|
| Author: | Buliwyf [ Thu Dec 01, 2011 7:01 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Elmarnieh wrote: Buliwyf - What is the point of the primary process of a party? Rather than wander all over hell's half acre, I'd rather just stay on point: Ron Paul's camp put out an ad that the left wingers would have been delighted to put out. |
|
| Author: | Elmarnieh [ Thu Dec 01, 2011 7:08 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Buliwyf wrote: Elmarnieh wrote: Buliwyf - What is the point of the primary process of a party? Rather than wander all over hell's half acre, I'd rather just stay on point: Ron Paul's camp put out an ad that the left wingers would have been delighted to put out. The point of a primary is to find the best candidate for the job. This involves discussing the Pro's and Con's of each candidate and comparing and contrasting them. This cannot be done if the Pro's and Con's of each candidates are not identified. We cannot trust any candidate to identify their own Con's. The creation of this add does not create new negatives for Newt - it only highlights them. Thus it seems to me your real issue with this is you either you don't understand the point of a primary, or its process, or you've made up your mind while you didn't possess information contained in this piece and since this piece now threatens your current preference and you don't want to change it based on new information - you're expressing your internal conflict externally and blame-shifting. This explains why you wouldn't even address my question to you. Be a better man than that. Our opinions are not reflective of our character. Not examining our existing opinions in the light of new information is reflective of our character. |
|
| Author: | Taskiss [ Thu Dec 01, 2011 7:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Elmarnieh wrote: Buliwyf - What is the point of the primary process of a party? Poisoning the well? |
|
| Author: | Buliwyf [ Thu Dec 01, 2011 7:22 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Ron Paul Stabs Newt In the Face With a Brick |
What new information? The ad didn't add anything not already known. You, like Rynar, want to make this about me, for whatever reason. It's not about me. It's about a Republican candidate putting out an ad attacking another Republican candidate in the same manner that the left wing is delighted to do. And Ron Paul is doing their work for them, which is why I say he is a tool. Since he cannot convince many Republicans to support his ideas, he wants to drag others down. Tell me. When did this ad come out? Oh, right, yesterday. Now that Newt has risen in the polls. Where was this ad when Newt was just a blip at the bottom of the polls? Oh, yeah. I'll use one illustration from the ad, then I'm done and you can go back to whatever you were doing. This ad points out the Newt with Pelosi global warming ad. Fine, but Newt already has admitted that ad was one of his worse mistakes. Now, to me, that sounds like a mea culpa, and a man would accept that and move on. But not Ron Paul's camp, no sir! Classy, guys. |
|
| Author: | Elmarnieh [ Thu Dec 01, 2011 7:22 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Taskiss wrote: Elmarnieh wrote: Buliwyf - What is the point of the primary process of a party? Poisoning the well? If you mean in regards to my statement - no as Buliwyf already commented so I cannot create prior negative preferences to his introduction as hes already been introduced. If you mean in regards to the ad itself - no unless you assume Buliwyf never heard of Newt before seeing that ad. In order for poisoning the well to exist 1. There needs to be an argument made 2. There needs to be negative qualities presented of a target 3. the negative information needs to be used to entice the listening to reject everything the target has to say because of those negative qualities. This ad does not do that. It prevents negative information. It does not make the case that because of this information Newt should not be listened to outright. Poisoning the well would be: "And now I'll play a clip of racist anti-semite piece of **** XXXX so lets listen to what buffoonery is about to be presented" It is not: "Here is some information about how and where X has changed his stated position often and has taken positions in opposition to the ones you may believe to be the best course." |
|
| Author: | Talya [ Thu Dec 01, 2011 7:29 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ron Paul may be unelectable, but he's the only candidate with policies that won't eventually result in the complete and total collapse of the USA. Evidently electability requires insanity. |
|
| Author: | Elmarnieh [ Thu Dec 01, 2011 7:30 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Ron Paul Stabs Newt In the Face With a Brick |
Buliwyf wrote: What new information? The ad didn't add anything not already known. You, like Rynar, want to make this about me, for whatever reason. It's not about me. It's about a Republican candidate putting out an ad attacking another Republican candidate in the same manner that the left wing is delighted to do. And Ron Paul is doing their work for them, which is why I say he is a tool. Since he cannot convince many Republicans to support his ideas, he wants to drag others down. Tell me. When did this ad come out? Oh, right, yesterday. Now that Newt has risen in the polls. Where was this ad when Newt was just a blip at the bottom of the polls? Oh, yeah. I'll use one illustration from the ad, then I'm done and you can go back to whatever you were doing. This ad points out the Newt with Pelosi global warming ad. Fine, but Newt already has admitted that ad was one of his worse mistakes. Now, to me, that sounds like a mea culpa, and a man would accept that and move on. But not Ron Paul's camp, no sir! Classy, guys. It is about you since you interjected your opinion regarding a primary. A primary is the search for the best candidate and one cannot decide that without weighing pro's and con's. The simple fact that you may have known all of Newt's negatives does not mean that everyone did (since this ad was not created with just you in mind). So Paul should have put this ad out when Newt was so low in the polls as to be non-starter? Exactly why should any candidate waste resources in that fashion? Many people move to candidates based on obtaining very little information - this ad provides more information. The horror. So because Newt admitted it was a mistake does that negate the mistake? Are mistakes of candidates in the past no longer valid for including in our assessment of a candidates ability to judge actions because it was admitted? If you have an employee who screws up daily but always apologizes for it - does that mean those mistakes aren't occurring and reflect negatively on the employee's ability? You're simply looking for any avenue possible to reinforce your currently held opinion. You're over reacting because a defense mechanism has been triggered. All the while your entire critique is based on ignoring the fundamentals of why a primary occurs. |
|
| Author: | Taskiss [ Thu Dec 01, 2011 7:30 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Elmarnieh wrote: In order for poisoning the well to exist 1. There needs to be an argument made 2. There needs to be negative qualities presented of a target 3. the negative information needs to be used to entice the listening to reject everything the target has to say because of those negative qualities. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... -well.html Quote: Description of Poisoning the Well This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form: Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false. I think I'll accept the popular definition and reject the elmoistic definition, thanks. |
|
| Author: | Elmarnieh [ Thu Dec 01, 2011 7:35 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Taskiss wrote: Elmarnieh wrote: In order for poisoning the well to exist 1. There needs to be an argument made 2. There needs to be negative qualities presented of a target 3. the negative information needs to be used to entice the listening to reject everything the target has to say because of those negative qualities. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... -well.html Quote: Description of Poisoning the Well This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form: Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false. I think I'll accept the popular definition and reject the elmoistic definition, thanks. You do realize what you posted is what I posted correct? Restating the type of argumentative structure necessary to be in the form of poisoning the well does not change the structure of the ad to match it. But you bring the claim so lets see if you can match the burden of proof stated: Where is the second part of the requirement in the ad? |
|
| Author: | Müs [ Thu Dec 01, 2011 7:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Talya wrote: Evidently electability requires insanity. Bachman FTW! |
|
| Author: | Hannibal [ Thu Dec 01, 2011 7:54 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I think the ad dances on the line since it is drawing a parallel between Newts political stances and who currently has him on their payroll. Its fairly obvious looking at the information, but claiming causation is unknowable so hardly fact. |
|
| Author: | Taskiss [ Thu Dec 01, 2011 7:55 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I brought a claim? Where? When I posted the concise description of a fallacy as a contrast to your over-complicated defintion you tried to foster in order to support your argument? Thanks, but your efforts to move goalposts on that speak for themselves. Unless you think my interrogative in an earlier post was a "claim", in which case I suggest a really basic reading comprehension class, muppet. Claims NEVER end with a question mark, by definition. |
|
| Author: | Buliwyf [ Thu Dec 01, 2011 7:56 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Taskiss wrote: Elmarnieh wrote: Buliwyf - What is the point of the primary process of a party? Poisoning the well? If I understand your point correctly (And correct me if I'm wrong) you mean, in this instance, Ron Paul is poisoning the well by putting out an ad that will be used by the Democrats to attack Newt, should he become the nominee. Should the Republicans nominate a candidate because his ad says, "Vote for me because I want to do this, and this, and this, and I believe this is best for the country." Or because his ad says, "Vote for me because this other guy has negatives in his record." Which ad is the better allocation of resources? |
|
| Page 1 of 3 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|