A Woman Asked How Mike Rowe Could Associate With Glenn Beck. This is How He Responded

[Pogo]

So how does this equate to my thread exactly? Does continually labeling it a fallacy excuse you from addressing my point? Come on Pogo, we can argue fallacies till doomsday, but you never gave a real answer to my thread. Lets go wiseguy. The idea that you think you are some sort of "enforcer" is hilarious. Your argument died some time ago. It was a non sequitur as far as my thread is concerned.

Back on topic you go.

I've been on topic the whole time, because as I said your OP depends on this rule of logic and cannot exist without it.

And the "answer" has been the same throughout. Let's run it in slo-mo:

Your OP poses this question, and you're absolutely right to pose it:
>> if we dissociate with everyone because of their political affiliation, just where are we as a country? <<

We must infer that you view such dissociation as a negative. And I agree with you.

In the instant case Shannon K. Walsh comes to a conclusion about Mike Rowe based on his association with a person she finds abhorrent.
Is that conclusion logical given its basis? No, it isn't. Rowe is correct to respond as he did.

In the other case offered here for comparison, you and some others came to a conclusion about Barack Obama based on his association with persons you find abhorrent.
Is that conclusion logical given its basis? No it isnt.

Notice that not only are both answers the same, but that they must be the same. It is not possible to declare that logic applies in A while it does not apply in B. It cannot be invoked selectively, because it's about how you reached the conclusion, not who's a participant in it. That is what makes it a fallacy. There isn't some kind of magical threshold where Guilt By Association kicks in. To suggest that based on our own view of the participants would not only be ludicrous but subjective.

In other words it doesn't matter who Glenn Beck or Bill Ayers threatened, or if they ever did any misdeed at all. That's irrelevant.

Is this making sense?

Moreover, Mike Rowe himself, quoting from your OP, makes this point:
>> How are we ever going to accomplish anything in this incredibly divisive time if we associate only with people that we don&#8217;t disagree with? <<

Rowe is absolutely right.

Now apply that to Obama and Ayers/Wright...

Bingo. Now you're consistent.

I did apply that to Ayers and Wright. Because the inherent hypocrisy here is, is that Obama can associate with a terrorist, but Mike Rowe cannot associate with a conservative firebrand like Glenn Beck. You have tried to explain why associating with a terrorist is not essentially a bad thing. My, oh my, how wrong you are.

Essentially you have tried to say that Obama has the same right to associate himself with a terrorist as Mike Rowe does with Glenn Beck.

THE ONE CRITICAL DIFFERENCE YOU IGNORE is that Beck is not a terrorist, he is a political commentator. So any associations he creates with others will not infer guilt of any kind. None.

Ayers is an avowed underground terrorist who has no regrets about what he did back in his hayday. You have a president who literally had his political career kickstarted this man. On top of that, Obama never explicitly rejected his endorsement for president.

Therefore, Pogo, any associations he as the President makes are subject to intense societal scrutiny, and in that regard would infer the guilt of sympathizing with a former terrorist.

Yours is an argumentum ad ignorantiam or an argument from ignorance. Do some investigating. Educate yourself, don't lecture me about consistency until you can learn to debate me directly instead of launching strawmen at me.

Wrong. And denialism is not a logical argument either.

Here's the one place you had it right:

Essentially you have tried to say that Obama has the same right to associate himself with a terrorist as Mike Rowe does with Glenn Beck.

That's it. And whether it's Glenn Beck or Barack Obama or Bill Ayers or a janitor or Adolf Freaking Hitler or Krishna the Redeemer or Rasputin, Beelzebub and Charles Manson all rolled into a tortilla and spread with a pico de gallo of Jesus Christ makes no difference whatsoever to the logic. NONE. Because this is about how you apply the argument -- not about who the players in it are.

And speaking of strawmen, I never suggested, said, opined or implied that "Mike Rowe cannot associate with a conservative firebrand like Glenn Beck". In fact I said the opposite from the beginning. That's called consistency. Nice try at putting words in my mouth, but that's dishonest.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I've been on topic the whole time, because as I said your OP depends on this rule of logic and cannot exist without it.

And the "answer" has been the same throughout. Let's run it in slo-mo:

Your OP poses this question, and you're absolutely right to pose it:
>> if we dissociate with everyone because of their political affiliation, just where are we as a country? <<

We must infer that you view such dissociation as a negative. And I agree with you.

In the instant case Shannon K. Walsh comes to a conclusion about Mike Rowe based on his association with a person she finds abhorrent.
Is that conclusion logical given its basis? No, it isn't. Rowe is correct to respond as he did.

In the other case offered here for comparison, you and some others came to a conclusion about Barack Obama based on his association with persons you find abhorrent.
Is that conclusion logical given its basis? No it isnt.

Notice that not only are both answers the same, but that they must be the same. It is not possible to declare that logic applies in A while it does not apply in B. It cannot be invoked selectively, because it's about how you reached the conclusion, not who's a participant in it. That is what makes it a fallacy. There isn't some kind of magical threshold where Guilt By Association kicks in. To suggest that based on our own view of the participants would not only be ludicrous but subjective.

In other words it doesn't matter who Glenn Beck or Bill Ayers threatened, or if they ever did any misdeed at all. That's irrelevant.

Is this making sense?

Moreover, Mike Rowe himself, quoting from your OP, makes this point:
>> How are we ever going to accomplish anything in this incredibly divisive time if we associate only with people that we don&#8217;t disagree with? <<

Rowe is absolutely right.

Now apply that to Obama and Ayers/Wright...

Bingo. Now you're consistent.

I did apply that to Ayers and Wright. Because the inherent hypocrisy here is, is that Obama can associate with a terrorist, but Mike Rowe cannot associate with a conservative firebrand like Glenn Beck. You have tried to explain why associating with a terrorist is not essentially a bad thing. My, oh my, how wrong you are.

Essentially you have tried to say that Obama has the same right to associate himself with a terrorist as Mike Rowe does with Glenn Beck.

THE ONE CRITICAL DIFFERENCE YOU IGNORE is that Beck is not a terrorist, he is a political commentator. So any associations he creates with others will not infer guilt of any kind. None.

Ayers is an avowed underground terrorist who has no regrets about what he did back in his hayday. You have a president who literally had his political career kickstarted this man. On top of that, Obama never explicitly rejected his endorsement for president.

Therefore, Pogo, any associations he as the President makes are subject to intense societal scrutiny, and in that regard would infer the guilt of sympathizing with a former terrorist.

Yours is an argumentum ad ignorantiam or an argument from ignorance. Do some investigating. Educate yourself, don't lecture me about consistency until you can learn to debate me directly instead of launching strawmen at me.

Wrong. And denialism is not a logical argument either.

Here's the one place you had it right:

Essentially you have tried to say that Obama has the same right to associate himself with a terrorist as Mike Rowe does with Glenn Beck.

That's it. And whether it's Glenn Beck or Barack Obama or Bill Ayers or a janitor or Adolf Freaking Hitler or Krishna the Redeemer or Rasputin, Beelzebub and Charles Manson all rolled into a tortilla and spread with a pico de gallo of Jesus Christ makes no difference whatsoever to the logic. NONE. Because this is about how you apply the argument -- not about who the players in it are.

And speaking of strawmen, I never suggested, said, opined or implied that "Mike Rowe cannot associate with a conservative firebrand like Glenn Beck". In fact I said the opposite from the beginning. That's called consistency. Nice try at putting words in my mouth, but that's dishonest.

Then why on Earth are you defending Obama's right to associate with a terrorist? Hmm? You keep forgetting that one little point. Ayers was an avowed domestic terrorist. That's called lying Pogo. Nice try though. If I were ever to say I associated myself with Osama bin Laden, I would automatically infer the guilt on myself of sympathizing with a mass murderer. In today's society, you don't ally yourself with perceived negative influences and not expect to be judged on it.

You're the one denying everything, Pogo. My points, my thread, you refer to everything as a fallacy, you speak of consistency but have yet to become so, and to add to that list you suggest that I am somehow in denial?

 

[Pogo]

I did apply that to Ayers and Wright. Because the inherent hypocrisy here is, is that Obama can associate with a terrorist, but Mike Rowe cannot associate with a conservative firebrand like Glenn Beck. You have tried to explain why associating with a terrorist is not essentially a bad thing. My, oh my, how wrong you are.

Essentially you have tried to say that Obama has the same right to associate himself with a terrorist as Mike Rowe does with Glenn Beck.

THE ONE CRITICAL DIFFERENCE YOU IGNORE is that Beck is not a terrorist, he is a political commentator. So any associations he creates with others will not infer guilt of any kind. None.

Ayers is an avowed underground terrorist who has no regrets about what he did back in his hayday. You have a president who literally had his political career kickstarted this man. On top of that, Obama never explicitly rejected his endorsement for president.

Therefore, Pogo, any associations he as the President makes are subject to intense societal scrutiny, and in that regard would infer the guilt of sympathizing with a former terrorist.

Yours is an argumentum ad ignorantiam or an argument from ignorance. Do some investigating. Educate yourself, don't lecture me about consistency until you can learn to debate me directly instead of launching strawmen at me.

Wrong. And denialism is not a logical argument either.

Here's the one place you had it right:

Essentially you have tried to say that Obama has the same right to associate himself with a terrorist as Mike Rowe does with Glenn Beck.

That's it. And whether it's Glenn Beck or Barack Obama or Bill Ayers or a janitor or Adolf Freaking Hitler or Krishna the Redeemer or Rasputin, Beelzebub and Charles Manson all rolled into a tortilla and spread with a pico de gallo of Jesus Christ makes no difference whatsoever to the logic. NONE. Because this is about how you apply the argument -- not about who the players in it are.

And speaking of strawmen, I never suggested, said, opined or implied that "Mike Rowe cannot associate with a conservative firebrand like Glenn Beck". In fact I said the opposite from the beginning. That's called consistency. Nice try at putting words in my mouth, but that's dishonest.

Then why on Earth are you defending Obama's right to associate with a terrorist? Hmm? You keep forgetting that one little point. Ayers was an avowed domestic terrorist. That's called lying Pogo. Nice try though. If I were ever to say I associated myself with Osama bin Laden, I would automatically infer the guilt on myself of sympathizing with a mass murderer. In today's society, you don't ally yourself with perceived negative influences and not expect to be judged on it.

You're the one denying everything, Pogo. My points, my thread, you refer to everything as a fallacy, you speak of consistency but have yet to become so, and to add to that list you suggest that I am somehow in denial?

You're blind, TK, and I fear intentionally so. You either haven't bothered to read my explanations or you were going while you read them, because it would be impossible to type what you just typed. I'm afraid it looks worse the longer you go on with it. I mean -- the words are right here above us. You didn't even notice the red bolded part.

I thought I read somewhere that you were the kind of guy who admits when he's wrong. Matter of fact I've seen it in action.

What happened this time? Is it too soon?

TK, OP: "f we dissociate with everyone because of their political affiliation, just where are we as a country?"
TK Here: "Then why on Earth are you defending Obama's right to associate with a terrorist?"

Self-contradiction doesn't get much more painfully obvious than that.

So stay in your bubble where you're right and everybody else is wrong, where the same logic that allows one guy you like to associate, simultaneously disallows a guy you don't like to do the same thing, making you Lord God Supreme of what associations people may engage in. Rest easy among the knowledge that of all the known sources of logic you alone have a line-item veto to stamp any time you don't like the results. Good luck with that in law too.

Hey, you want Aristotle's phone number? Maybe you can convince him.
555-1212.

And always remember, take your life vest when swimming in the River DeNial. Because those undercurrents will take you down.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Wrong. And denialism is not a logical argument either.

Here's the one place you had it right:



That's it. And whether it's Glenn Beck or Barack Obama or Bill Ayers or a janitor or Adolf Freaking Hitler or Krishna the Redeemer or Rasputin, Beelzebub and Charles Manson all rolled into a tortilla and spread with a pico de gallo of Jesus Christ makes no difference whatsoever to the logic. NONE. Because this is about how you apply the argument -- not about who the players in it are.

And speaking of strawmen, I never suggested, said, opined or implied that "Mike Rowe cannot associate with a conservative firebrand like Glenn Beck". In fact I said the opposite from the beginning. That's called consistency. Nice try at putting words in my mouth, but that's dishonest.

Then why on Earth are you defending Obama's right to associate with a terrorist? Hmm? You keep forgetting that one little point. Ayers was an avowed domestic terrorist. That's called lying Pogo. Nice try though. If I were ever to say I associated myself with Osama bin Laden, I would automatically infer the guilt on myself of sympathizing with a mass murderer. In today's society, you don't ally yourself with perceived negative influences and not expect to be judged on it.

You're the one denying everything, Pogo. My points, my thread, you refer to everything as a fallacy, you speak of consistency but have yet to become so, and to add to that list you suggest that I am somehow in denial?

You're blind, TK, and I fear intentionally so. You either haven't bothered to read my explanations or you were going while you read them, because it would be impossible to type what you just typed. I'm afraid it looks worse the longer you go on with it. I mean -- the words are right here above us. You didn't even notice the red bolded part.

I thought I read somewhere that you were the kind of guy who admits when he's wrong. Matter of fact I've seen it in action.

What happened this time? Is it too soon?

So stay in your bubble where you're right and everybody else is wrong, where the same logic that allows one guy you like to associate, simultaneously disallows a guy you don't like to do the same thing, making you Lord God Supreme of what associations people may engage in. Rest easy among the knowledge that of all the known sources of logic you alone have a line-item veto to stamp any time you don't like the results. Good luck with that in law too.

Hey, you want Aristotle's phone number? Maybe you can convince him.
555-1212.

And always remember, take your life vest when swimming in the River DeNial. Because those undercurrents will take you down.

Wow. Name calling is proof positive an argument has bitten the dust. Yours. But you like any other typical liberal will resort to such tactics after being so soundly routed by your conservative counterparts. Spare me the your childish invective. Seriously, Pogo, you lost. Deal with it.

Good night.

 

[Pogo]

Then why on Earth are you defending Obama's right to associate with a terrorist? Hmm? You keep forgetting that one little point. Ayers was an avowed domestic terrorist. That's called lying Pogo. Nice try though. If I were ever to say I associated myself with Osama bin Laden, I would automatically infer the guilt on myself of sympathizing with a mass murderer. In today's society, you don't ally yourself with perceived negative influences and not expect to be judged on it.

You're the one denying everything, Pogo. My points, my thread, you refer to everything as a fallacy, you speak of consistency but have yet to become so, and to add to that list you suggest that I am somehow in denial?

You're blind, TK, and I fear intentionally so. You either haven't bothered to read my explanations or you were going while you read them, because it would be impossible to type what you just typed. I'm afraid it looks worse the longer you go on with it. I mean -- the words are right here above us. You didn't even notice the red bolded part.

I thought I read somewhere that you were the kind of guy who admits when he's wrong. Matter of fact I've seen it in action.

What happened this time? Is it too soon?

So stay in your bubble where you're right and everybody else is wrong, where the same logic that allows one guy you like to associate, simultaneously disallows a guy you don't like to do the same thing, making you Lord God Supreme of what associations people may engage in. Rest easy among the knowledge that of all the known sources of logic you alone have a line-item veto to stamp any time you don't like the results. Good luck with that in law too.

Hey, you want Aristotle's phone number? Maybe you can convince him.
555-1212.

And always remember, take your life vest when swimming in the River DeNial. Because those undercurrents will take you down.

Wow. Name calling is proof positive an argument has bitten the dust. Yours. But you like any other typical liberal will resort to such tactics after being so soundly routed by your conservative counterparts. Spare me the your childish invective. Seriously, Pogo, you lost. Deal with it.

Good night.

Nice. A strawman followed by a Hasty Gen, wrapped up with Danth's Law. Lucky us.

You let me know when you get the laws of logic rescinded. I'd like to be in on the rewrite. I'm conservative that way.

S M H...

 

[TemplarKormac]

You're blind, TK, and I fear intentionally so. You either haven't bothered to read my explanations or you were going while you read them, because it would be impossible to type what you just typed. I'm afraid it looks worse the longer you go on with it. I mean -- the words are right here above us. You didn't even notice the red bolded part.

I thought I read somewhere that you were the kind of guy who admits when he's wrong. Matter of fact I've seen it in action.

What happened this time? Is it too soon?

So stay in your bubble where you're right and everybody else is wrong, where the same logic that allows one guy you like to associate, simultaneously disallows a guy you don't like to do the same thing, making you Lord God Supreme of what associations people may engage in. Rest easy among the knowledge that of all the known sources of logic you alone have a line-item veto to stamp any time you don't like the results. Good luck with that in law too.

Hey, you want Aristotle's phone number? Maybe you can convince him.
555-1212.

And always remember, take your life vest when swimming in the River DeNial. Because those undercurrents will take you down.

Wow. Name calling is proof positive an argument has bitten the dust. Yours. But you like any other typical liberal will resort to such tactics after being so soundly routed by your conservative counterparts. Spare me the your childish invective. Seriously, Pogo, you lost. Deal with it.

Good night.

Nice. A strawman followed by a Hasty Gen, wrapped up with Danth's Law. Lucky us.

You let me know when you get the laws of logic rescinded. I'd like to be in on the rewrite. I'm conservative that way.

S M H...

Grow up.

 

[Pogo]

Wow. Name calling is proof positive an argument has bitten the dust. Yours. But you like any other typical liberal will resort to such tactics after being so soundly routed by your conservative counterparts. Spare me the your childish invective. Seriously, Pogo, you lost. Deal with it.

Good night.

Nice. A strawman followed by a Hasty Gen, wrapped up with Danth's Law. Lucky us.

You let me know when you get the laws of logic rescinded. I'd like to be in on the rewrite. I'm conservative that way.

S M H...

Grow up.

--- says the 26-year-old

Look son, when I was your age I was like, seven.

You can learn from this or you can stay obtuse. I guess we know which way you're leanng, but you can always change your mind.

Good luck.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Nice. A strawman followed by a Hasty Gen, wrapped up with Danth's Law. Lucky us.

You let me know when you get the laws of logic rescinded. I'd like to be in on the rewrite. I'm conservative that way.

S M H...

Grow up.

--- says the 26-year-old

Look son, when I was your age I was like, seven.

You can learn from this or you can stay obtuse. I guess we know which way you're leanng, but you can always change your mind.

Good luck.

I don't care how old you are, Pogo. You acted like a child. I cannot stand older adults thinking they can condescend on other just because of their age. I am not your son either, unless you know something I don't.

"My argument is superior because I'm older than you." That's the biggest load of nonsense I've ever heard. You can list all the fallacies in the world and never address my point.

Why is it okay for Obama to associate himself with a terrorist?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Shannon:
I wasn't aware that I had to explaim myself in tis regard to you or anyone else -- thank you for having the unsupportable self-important arrogance to step up to the plate and annoint yourself She who Shall Approve of Any and All such things.

Just so you know, my papers are indeed in order.

 

[Pogo]

Grow up.

--- says the 26-year-old

Look son, when I was your age I was like, seven.

You can learn from this or you can stay obtuse. I guess we know which way you're leanng, but you can always change your mind.

Good luck.

I don't care how old you are, Pogo. You acted like a child. I cannot stand older adults thinking they can condescend on other just because of their age. I am not your son either, unless you know something I don't.

"My argument is superior because I'm older than you." That's the biggest load of nonsense I've ever heard. You can list all the fallacies in the world and never address my point.

Why is it okay for Obama to associate himself with a terrorist?

You're the one who brought up age, son.
Wanna see it again?

Grow up.

If you can't take the fire, well then don't walk into the kitchen, ya young whippersnapper.

I've already told you -- you can't switch guilt by association on and off according to whatever label you yourself put on the participant. Doesn't fricking matter who they are.

You sit down in a room with Charles Manson.
You talk about fried chicken recipes. You give him a cooking tip, he gives you a cooking tip.
You get up, you leave.
I watch from a distance. I don't know what you talked about.

----- Shall I conclude you are now a mass murderer?

..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ​

 

[Darkwind]

Looks like the Guilt by Association Fallacy just sailed over your head too

Not a fallacy here. Which is your problem.

It's politics that caused William Ayer to engage in terrorism. It seems pretty appropriate to ask questions about political associations one has with a terrorist. No fallacy involved. It's something to cause concern. It may be nothing. It may not be. We will never know since apparently asking is forbidden.

Somehow that is unimportant. But it is vitally important to question Mike Rowe's association with someone who has a long history of promoting virtues in society.

I will never understand the logic of this.

To me wanting to stop the wanton slaughter of millions of Asians and thousand of Americans is a virtue. Sell conspiracy theories to make a few bucks, not so virtuous.

But to each his own I guess.

By attempting to kill other humans? A conspiracy theory is nothing more than an opinion and harms no one in and of itself.

You have a strange notion of virtue and questionable morality.

 

[BDBoop]

Funny how temple virgin thinks it's okay for people to exercise their freedoms and talk or socialize with anyone they want, just don't let it be a socialist, progressive or a communist.

Also funny how the assumption is "You don't want to speak to him, because he thinks like I do." No, actually. I don't want to speak to him because mentally ill people who are undiagnosed and/or untreated are not people I wish to be speaking to, regardless of political slant.

 

[Peterf]

Nice. A strawman followed by a Hasty Gen, wrapped up with Danth's Law. Lucky us.

You let me know when you get the laws of logic rescinded. I'd like to be in on the rewrite. I'm conservative that way.

S M H...

Grow up.

--- says the 26-year-old

Look son, when I was your age I was like, seven.

You can learn from this or you can stay obtuse. I guess we know which way you're leanng, but you can always change your mind.

Good luck.

I am distressed to learn that when you were 26 you had a mental age of 7. But I think you have progressed well since then and now have a mental age of 12 - or even 13.

 

[Avatar4321]

well no, im just killing time, and i like making you people look like fools. which isnt that hard.

You are killing time in a thread that you don't care about trying to make people look like fools. And yet, we are the foolish ones.

You might want to try harder. You really havent made anyone look foolish. Or even really attempted to to any sort of degree.

sure i have. Its not a very difficult thread to begin with. its a trollish/hack thread created by an ultra partisan person who see's things one way and that way is the only way that is right. Regardless of how hypocritical it is.

Since you support Beck naturally you would be in here defending him.

Of course I would. I defend good people. Heck, I defend bad people.

Ill even defend you.

Personally, I don't see what's wrong with posting Mike Rowe's response to a question. Doesn't seem trollish at all. Whether you think it's significant is a different matter.

 

[Avatar4321]

To me wanting to stop the wanton slaughter of millions of Asians and thousand of Americans is a virtue. Sell conspiracy theories to make a few bucks, not so virtuous.

But to each his own I guess.

I agree. it would be a virtue. problem is that's not what the weather underground did in the slightest. In fact, millions of Asians were systematically murdered because we abandoned the region to communism as a result of their actions.

In fact, the weather underground was an extremely violent terrorist organization who wanted to overthrow the American government in favor of communism. They weren't for peace. They were for power. They just realized you don't let a good crisis go to waste.

 

[Avatar4321]

so you're saying we should shower republicans with everything they want ???? good luck with that ...

No. Im saying we should be kind to one another regardless of what party we are associated with, if any.

stay stupid is all I can say

There is nothing stupid about kindness. Quite the opposite. Kindness has much more power to enlighten the mind and expand man's influence than coarse conversation and contention.

 

[Newby]

To me wanting to stop the wanton slaughter of millions of Asians and thousand of Americans is a virtue. Sell conspiracy theories to make a few bucks, not so virtuous.

But to each his own I guess.

I agree. it would be a virtue. problem is that's not what the weather underground did in the slightest. In fact, millions of Asians were systematically murdered because we abandoned the region to communism as a result of their actions.

In fact, the weather underground was an extremely violent terrorist organization who wanted to overthrow the American government in favor of communism. They weren't for peace. They were for power. They just realized you don't let a good crisis go to waste.

Truth.

 

[Avatar4321]

Guilt by association is ok when we do it


Signed,

Republicans

Guilt by association only works if someone is guilty of something.

Which is completely off the topic of the original post. But you guys don't seem to see the point of the OP.

 

[Avatar4321]

Race baiting pimp, money baiting pimp, really isnt much difference. Both are out for attention in the end. Beck is just using your paranoia to make money and i applaud him for it. People like you have supported a lot of careers based on nothing.

Beck is the pimp that takes your money and you are too stupid to leave after he punches you in the face.

Regardless the OP took a hypocritical stance on the whole concept and now you have a bunch of partisan trash going back and forth trying to defend how its different. Its not no matter how many times you repeat it.

Yeah, except the current POTUS sat and listened for years and apparently agreed with one of them, that's not okay.

and you guys have sat and listened to beck for years and thats apparently ok. This is a case of do as i say and not as i do, which is typical of people of your party.
you can't complain about guilt by association and then turn around and use it for your own argument against someone you don't like.
Then again i am not one to stop someone like you from making a fool of themselves. So please have a ball.

Problems with your post:

1) No one is complaining about guilt by association except you and yours.
2) There is absolutely nothing wrong with sitting and listning to someone who is for good things.
3) You keep demonstrating that you have no clue what the conversation is about and yet you call other people fools. I think looking up the word fool in the dictionary might help you understand why it's not really applicable.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Wow. Name calling is proof positive an argument has bitten the dust. Yours. But you like any other typical liberal will resort to such tactics after being so soundly routed by your conservative counterparts. Spare me the your childish invective. Seriously, Pogo, you lost. Deal with it.

Good night.

Nice. A strawman followed by a Hasty Gen, wrapped up with Danth's Law. Lucky us.

You let me know when you get the laws of logic rescinded. I'd like to be in on the rewrite. I'm conservative that way.

S M H...

Grow up.

Danth’s Law (sometimes known as Parker’s Law) is an Internet axiom which asserts that if a person has to insist that he or she has won an Internet argument, it is likely the said person has lost.

Holy shit I didn't know this had a name. I've been calling it the Templar or the Rottwilder