Quote: "Mouse, you are a fool."
Hate to break it to you, but it typically doesn't bode well for an argument when it's opened with an ad hominem. Let's see how this holds up.
Quote: "How does the Patriot Act stand for the rights of the people?"
Immediatly you sidetrack the topic from Republican policy to the actions of Bush and Ashcroft. Since I never allegated what you imply, I have no reason to defend it.
Quote: "How does Bush increasing the size of the government since Clinton left office stand for small government?"
And sidetrack the issue to Bush's policies...
Quote: "How does running up the biggest debt in history stand for fiscal responsibility?"
And take it completely off topic to what I was talking about.
Quote: "Bush is not a Republican. I'm a Green"
His party would know that rather better than you, then.
Quote: "How does experimental nation-building stand for anything but a large parent government taking care of everything?"
You pull the old 'spreading the Amerikkkan Empire' ploy out of nowhere; typical, but fallacious, and completely without evidence. So far this is looking like a typical Argument by Scenario (that's logically incorrect).
Quote: "How does the Department of Homeland Security stand for anything but an Orwellian nightmare?"
God forbid we have a department to defend America from terrorist attacks. Better resurrect Philip K. Dick quickly!
Quote: "Your normal paradigm of right/left good/evil does not apply this year. We are under attack by a revolutionary force."
Once again; big words, no evidence for the case.
Quote: "How can you possibly justify torture in concentration camps"
Appeal to Fear
and Coincidence. I don't need to formally riposte this, I think; suffice to say it's the same logical structure as saying that police forces are works of evil because crooked cops exist.
Quote: "suspension of the Bill of Rights"
Fun fact: Clinton declared eight national emergencies which granted him un-Constitutional power during his eight years of presidency. None were canceled. Another fun fact: You're still wildly off topic, when will you get back to the argument I actually presented?
Quote: "secret arrests"
An interesting mix of the above two fallacies.
Quote: "and unprovoked invasions of nonthreatening nations"
Threats to use nuclear power, development of illegal biological weapons and
use of those same weapons on religion enemies, complete lack of cooperation with UN investigations and repeated, well documented harboring of terrorist organizations is nonthreatening... ah,
sure.
Quote: "in the name of lower taxes(?) Your lower taxes, (even if they reall are under Bush) aren't going to mean much when they come to place you in the camps."
This is one of the funniest things I've read all year.
Ahh! They're coming to get me!
And again, since this is wildly off topic to my actual arguments, there is no need for a formal response.
Quote: "Doesn't it BOTHER you that the Bush regime is subverting our democratic process?"
It's an administration, not a regime; the regime would be the large government system that your darling left has created over several hundred years.
Quote: "Okay, maybe you trust Bush with dictatoral power, but what about his successor?"
Finally a valid argument, and an important one about the dangers of a totalitarian government system even under a benevolant leader. Unfortunatly for you it still has zilch to do with the argument at hand.
Quote: "These are fundamental tenants of America."
I take it you're refering to our Bill of Rights. Well, yeah.
Quote: "If a democrat were destroying the Constitution like Bush is, you would be calling for civil war."
Except Bush isn't destroying the constitution. Once again, you pull a 'everybody knows this' "fact" out of your... hat, with no evidence, no sources and thusly and soforth a fallacious conclusion.
Quote: "What is wrong with you? Why can't you see that it is possible that a Republican president who claims to be Christian might have bad intent?"
This is probably the worst, though not the funniest, of all the arguments I've seen here yet. Let's address its problems one by one.
1. You assume I support Bush because of his Christianity. I'm not a Christian; I don't consider myself to follow any organized religion.
2. You assume that I support Bush in denial of the obvious evidence against him you yourself have simply made up every 'argument' in your topic.
3. You assume I don't think Bush might have some 'bad intent'. I have never once defended his personal integrity in this thread.
Some pointers for you in the future.
In a debate, do not make assumptions, much less wild assumptions.
If you have to make assumptions, do not apply stereotypes to your opponent when making them. It rarely produces good results.
Do not sidetrack the issue into related matters. It is illogical.
Thank you.
Here we go again!
Whaddaya mean there's no such data type as a flaot?[/i]
