too much typing—since 2003



Jacob said...

This is amazing. I can understand why you'd want to make the case that this election was fixed. But you really take away from its believability by citing a socialist organization to do it. The KGB and North Vietnam were very good at putting out propaganda that the war in Vietnam was a crime. So was John Kerry. That didn't make it true.

So, if this is true, we can look forward to never seeing another Democrat elected President again!

You know, here in lies one of the real problems with liberalism. Liberals (and especially environMENTAL liberals) are not held accountable for their lies when they run off trash at the mouth like this. They rely on the people not remembering it and the media not reporting on it. In four or eight or twelve years when there is another Democrat elected President, what will the story be then? "This is a great victory for the New World Order!"? Probably not.

2fs said...

Just because a "socialist" says something doesn't make it untrue. ("Ad hominem" attacks are a well-known logical fallacy.) And I'm not necessarily saying every word in that article is true: I merely pointed to it. Still, CNN, USA Today, the New York Times, and also some other "socialist" organizations have also pointed out some suspicious patterns in the election. Finally, even if none of those allegations of fraud pan out, it's certainly true that little has been done to reform the voting system, that some electronic voting systems leave no paper trail and are unverifiable, and that some of them can be manipulated without detection. As for Kerry and Vietnam: first, he was there (as neither you nor I was); and what he said about its uselessness as a war is by this point pretty much universally accepted. What he said about the conduct of troops was that some (not all) U.S. soldiers had committed atrocities: this has been established beyond doubt (google "My Lai"). So I'm not sure what "lies" you're referring to.

Trickish Knave said...

Without getting too much into philosophy, the ad hominem attack on the "capitalist" website is not only a fallacy but also a poor source to prove a point. I could get all my information from FoxNews or but I would be suspect of the validity of those sources since they are clearly one sided.

I would agree that there are some strange things going on not only in FL with the voting machines but in in other states as well. I will violate my own rule rule, using a Post hoc ergo propter hoc, and cite Drudge to show an attack against the Democrats concerning voter fraud. SOURCEI feel like Doc Holliday in Tombstone with all this Latin thrown around.

So with both sides allegedly fixing voting machines I guess the Republicans outsmarted the Democrats? I would like to believe, based on other sources of electronic voting maching malfunctions, that these things are just pieces of shit. The states know this, the party candidates know this, but still they use them.

As for some Kerry lies about Vietnam I had to use another source since I was not there either. He may have pulled some people out of the water but I think he also embellished his stories. He started his political career when he met behind the United States back with the Vietamese leaders. He has groomed himself for November 2, 2004 his whole life and the grooming depended upon his Vietnam record. Well, more precisely, his career was founded in defaming the soldiers who fought in that war.

I have no doubt that Vietnam was a bad decision and agree with you on that point. My father served there and won 2 purple hearts (one short of Kerry but my father flew P-2's and was shot down). He, in his own words, "gave the medals back." I didn't get into any further detail because talking about the war always makes him choke up. This lends nothing to Kerry's credibility just a personal note from me in that although my father was against the war he didn't make sure the world was watching when he protested.

Here is one link about Kerry's dubious Vietnam record. SOURCE

Jacob said...

Well first of all, it's a bit of an assumption that I wasn't in Vietnam, don't you think? I'm sure you're assuming, from my previous posts, that I am one of your unfortunate students. Just because I know about your rhetoric... then again, maybe I am.

Yes, I know all about My Lai. And Lt. Calley was prosecuted for his actions. Kerry did not claim some soldiers were doing this. He jumped on Calley's actions and projected them on ALL soldiers in Vietnam - Lie. Does this sound familiar? Sounds kind of like Abu Ghraib. He even said he did these things himself, knowing full well they were wrong. If this is true, he should be in prison. If this is false, he lied.

It's pretty much universally accepted that the war in Vietnam was useless to those who propagandized our defeat. I disagree. Stopping the advancement of communism is not pointless, especially since South Vietnam asked for our help.

You're right. Just because a socialist says something doesn't make it untrue. But, if I want to start a business, I wouldn't go out and ask everybody I know who has failed in business for advice. Socialism has failed everywhere it's been tried. We don't need to take advice on political policy from socialist groups.

And as far as it being an ad hominem attack: pointing out that a socialist organization is socialist has everything to do with the argument. See previous paragraph. That's like saying pointing out John Kerry's voting record is an ad hominem attack and has nothing to with how he'd govern. Considering the record, I can see how some would like to believe that.

Is it argumentum ad hominem to call William Bennett "Casino Billy" in a post that has nothing to do with Bill Bennett or morality at all? Or does this actually somehow make the case against a mandate? Boy, looking through some of your other posts, your writing is riddled with "logical fallacies"!

2fs said...

You've apparently mistaken a weblog for a news or academic site. I write many different kinds of things here - it's absurd to expect every post to conform to standards of argument. The "Casino Billy" comment was parenthetical, i.e., clearly marked as being outside the main point about mandates. True, it gestures in the direction of a certain moral hypocrisy among so many virtuecrats, who not only can't live up to the values they espouse (in itself, that isn't hypocrisy), but deny those failings and continue to insist on imposing them upon others. And that might be tangentially relevant to a discussion of someone who can take the lowest margin of victory in years and call it a "mandate."

Trickish Knave said...

I find it ironic that exit polls supposedly showed a Kerry win but all the major pollsters predicted a Bush win. Are we to discard this information because it isn't "Kerry friendly"?


Jacob said...

That's interesting, Jeff. You decide to focus solely on my final paragraph pointing out your hypocrisy instead of actually addressing the meat of the issue. Well, fine. The fact that you put it in parentheses doesn't make it any less ad hominem.

Someone who doesn't live up to the values they espouse is just about everyone. What's worse is someone who decided doesn't espouse values, and then belittles others for doing so. You know the kind. They usually resort to names, like "Casino Billy". Bennett never denied his failings, he publicly admitted he had a gambling problem (which is really nobody's business anyway) and did so publicly because of his past espousal of values.

And, exactly what deviant behavior have you ceased because Bennett "imposed" his values on you?

Tangentially relevant? No. Maybe a bit sleazy. Actually, when I first read it I thought, is that the best you can do? (Just reaffirmed in me that I still think you're a fraud.) <-- Now, don't you attack that. It's parenthetical.

2fs said...

"Knave": I'm not sure what you mean...but at least one of the polls at the site you mention (sorry, no time right now to look at all of them) called the election for Kerry - and Zogby ( at 5pm on Election Day predicted a Kerry electoral victory, somewhere around 311 votes. (Evidently, that's different from the listed "Zogby/Reuters" - and I can't now locate that Zogby forecast. John Zogby himself was on The Daily Show the week before the election, and unhesitatingly said he felt Kerry would win. For what that's worth...) But of course: no, any investigation into election irregularities shouldn't disregard anything relevant, no matter which candidate such irregularities appears to favor.

Trickish Knave said...

Hey Jeff. I did put the link to the pollsters and, in fact, there were 3 that did call for Kerry, one of which being FoxNews!

I was just stirring up the proverbial poop pile; I would much rather talk music instead of politics.