On May 22, 9:06 am, Mitchell Holman <NoemailPle...@comcast.com> wrote:
Kurt Nicklas <nickl...@bellsouth.net> wrote innews:1179828628.336618.289730@b40g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
On May 21, 10:11 pm, Mitchell Holman <NoemailPle...@comcast.com>
wrote:
Kurt Nicklas <nickl...@bellsouth.net> wrote
innews:1179791818.280112.146850@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
On May 21, 7:39 pm, Mitchell Holman <NoemailPle...@comcast.com>
wrote:
Kurt Nicklas <nickl...@bellsouth.net> wrote
innews:1179790155.416472.203770@y2g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
On May 21, 7:20 pm, Mitchell Holman <NoemailPle...@comcast.com>
wrote:
Kurt Nicklas <nickl...@bellsouth.net> wrote
innews:1179788202.266433.21090@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
{Note that they're trying to pass their "minimum wage" bill by
including it in funding for the troops.
Whereas the Republicans got their "Bridge To Nowhere"
by tacking it on to a defense spending bill. How dare
those Democrats try to imitate Republicans!
The shortest interval of time ever measured is the time
between a fact noted critical of the democrats and a 'CLUNK'
indicating Hollowman
has dropped his CFS joystick and has begun posting a whine
attacking Republicans.
I call it a 'Hollowmanosecond'.
So tell us, NicklASS, what makes the "Bridge To Nowhere"
a more important defense expenditure than raising the minimum
wage for the first time in decades
First a tu quoque, then a strawman.... you really have nothing else,
do you?
NicklASS runs away from the question, yet again.
It wasn't a "question", Hollowman.
Yes, it is.
No, actually it isn't and the fact that you deleted almost of my
previous post
which explains why speaks volumes.
Let me rephase in words you can understand.
"Rephasing" doesn't really have any effect. You're still relying on tu
quoques and
strawmen, Hollowman. You're not fooling anyone here.
Why is the Bridge To Nowhere a legitimate defense
budget item but raising the minimum wage is not?
See, there you go again!
You're simply repeating the same tu quoque as before:
"Tu Quoque is a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend
oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against
the accuser. This is a classic Red Herring since whether the accuser
is guilty of the same, or a similar, wrong is irrelevant to the truth
of the original charge. However, as a diversionary tactic, Tu Quoque
can be very effective, since the accuser is put on the defensive, and
frequently feels compelled to defend against the accusation."
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html
In this case, rather than defending the inclusion of a minimum wage
provision in a bill to fund our troops, you attempt to charge
Republicans with doing something equivalent.
By the use of the tu quoque you not only imply that you have no
legitimate defense for the original accusation and simply want to
divert attention but in this case the facts you cite are untrue.
And, no, Hollowman, the Bridge was NOT part of defense spending bill.
It was part of a transportation bill. I really don't know how much
clearer I can be on this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravina_Island_Bridge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Transportation_Equity_Act
As I said before, if you would do proper research before posting these
things you would save yourself a LOT of embarrassment.
.
