The Glade 4.0

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

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.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

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.

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?

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

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.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

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.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

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.

But that's that point: "Obama" gets elected anyway if anyone but Paul wins the Presidential race.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Then let's just all throw in the towel now and go fishing.

Buliwyf - What is the point of the primary process of a party?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

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.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Poisoning the well?

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

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.

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."

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

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.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

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.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... -well.html



I think I'll accept the popular definition and reject the elmoistic definition, thanks.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

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?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Bachman FTW!

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

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.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

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.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

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?