Is Indofred alone in being ignorant of what constitutes a Valid Argument?

[Procrustes Stretched]

Is Indofred alone in being ignorant of what constitutes a Valid Argument? I don't think so and I do not want a Flame Thread. I am very curious. I used to think maybe many online posters were just playing troll games but it looks more and more like many are just ignorant or things like premises, false premises, valid and invalid arguments, conditional statements, logical fallacies..

How do some of you see it? Is it possible members could respond to what goes on here without flaming?

Ex:

Can anyone name an enemy of America where America didn't create that enemy through interference in that country or regional interference?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Indofred is not alone and jwoodie is here to back up the validity of Dante's argument

Ex:

Obama: ?I Am Constrained By A System That Our Founders Put In Place? « CBS DC
Thank God for that.

Did it ever occur to the Incompetent-in-Chief, or any of His useful idiot supporters, that the constitution was created for very purpose of keeping the government from running roughshod over the rights of the people?

Must realy suck for Him, not being able to dictate His agenda.

Another SCOTUS appointment and that won't be a problem...

Not true. If you admit the Constitution constrains you it constrains you. An amendment would be needed to change that, not an opinion.

If President Obama had said a 'ruling' constrained him you'd have a valid argument.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Another SCOTUS appointment and that won't be a problem...

Probably not... as the next vacancy is projected to be Ginsburg.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

3 in a row:

Another SCOTUS appointment and that won't be a problem...

Probably not... as the next vacancy is projected to be Ginsburg.

Way past due.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

3 in a row:

Probably not... as the next vacancy is projected to be Ginsburg.

Way past due.

another joined in

Aw the po baby! Maybe he can have a few union protests and change all that.

 

[g5000]

Is Indofred alone in being ignorant of what constitutes a Valid Argument? I don't think so and I do not want a Flame Thread. I am very curious. I used to think maybe many online posters were just playing troll games but it looks more and more like many are just ignorant or things like premises, false premises, valid and invalid arguments, conditional statements, logical fallacies..

How do some of you see it? Is it possible members could respond to what goes on here without flaming?

Ex:

Can anyone name an enemy of America where America didn't create that enemy through interference in that country or regional interference?

Such a question is based on the presumption that all interference is bad, and that the country on the receiving end of American "interference" was not a bad actor. Just some innocent savages minding their own business, and then one day, out of the blue, big bad America comes along and rapes and pillages them.

Japan was doing the Pacific region a favor by trying to take it over. The attack on Pearl Harbor was our fault for inflicting an oil embargo on Japan and screwing up their sacred duty. So forth, and so on.

Can anyone name an enemy of the police where the police didn't create that enemy through interference in that person's life?