Who's embarrassed by Joe Biden?

[The Big Dog]

It wasn't a tu quoque, I stayed consistent throughout my argument. theprestige implied that getting shot in the face is part of the hobby, it just happens from time to time . As long as both people are consenting then it shouldn't be a problem. I applied that same line of reasoning to Biden. There's no goal post moving, no tu Quoque
I didn't even know I had "pals" around here, I guess I learned something new today. I don't need any points, I want you to admit that you're wrong in regards to my post, because you are. You're accusing me of being moving the goalposts and committing a fallacy, neither of which am I doing.

So when you're done chuckling feel free to address that.

Sure, you have consistently moved the goal posts and committed a tu quoque fallacy by bringing up Cheney in a thread about Creepy Joe.

Questions?

 

[plague311]

Sure, you have consistently moved the goal posts and committed a tu quoque fallacy by bringing up Cheney in a thread about Creepy Joe.

Questions?

Yes, do you read the things you are replying too? Have you looked at the words that I have been saying? I didn't bring him up. The point of my post, as well, was to point out that several things had been stated, but theprestige cherry-picked one point, while ignoring the rest of it. Then I specifically addressed the topic of the OP. I haven't moved the goalposts anywhere, they're exactly where they've been this whole time. Outrage by the right wingers about how Biden gets handsy. Noted.

Also, can you provide me with your definition, in your own words, of a tu quoque fallacy?

 

[The Big Dog]

The Republicans are just upset they didn't get their creepy VP candidate elected.

Yes, do you read the things you are replying too? Have you looked at the words that I have been saying? I didn't bring him up. The point of my post, as well, was to point out that several things had been stated, but theprestige cherry-picked one point, while ignoring the rest of it. Then I specifically addressed the topic of the OP. I haven't moved the goalposts anywhere, they're exactly where they've been this whole time. Outrage by the right wingers about how Biden gets handsy. Noted.

Also, can you provide me with your definition, in your own words, of a tu quoque fallacy?

Can I just show you? See the quote above. Can you provide me, in your own words, why that quote is or is not a tu quoque fallacy?

 

[plague311]

Can I just show you? See the quote above. Can you provide me, in your own words, why that quote is or is not a tu quoque fallacy?

That isn't my quote, so why would I care?

 

[The Big Dog]

That isn't my quote, so why would I care?

You don't care. Curious though that you asked, were presented with an OUTSTANDING example of the fallacy, and don't care.

Huh.

 

[plague311]

You don't care. Curious though that you asked, were presented with an OUTSTANDING example of the fallacy, and don't care.

Huh.

So you accuse me of a fallacy and then support that fallacy with someone else's quote? Perfect, I think I'm about done here. Good day to you.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

are we on the same page here???

I was pointing out another glaring example of a tu quoque fallacy....

I KNOW! It was awful!!

 

[Foolmewunz]

A thread like this would get more traction if the OP wasn't part of the partisan divide. The actual judge of creepy, stupid, idiotic, embarrassing, or any other negative you want to attribute to a pol is whether people on their side of the aisle would come out and say so.

Sort of like how conservatives with bona fide street cred (well, "drawing room cred") have made statements on "the future of the Republican Party".

As a liberal, there's a certain ick factor to Biden's repeated touching to me. But it's about the same as my Mother-in-Law insisting I hold her hand all through a dinner one time. I didn't think anything sexual or sensual of it, I just don't like to be in that sort of contact... with just about anyone who's not my kid or my significant other.

Embarrassing? That'd be a veep who can't spell at a fifth grade level. That'd be the guy who was taking chump change bribes while Veep.
Or the veeps who just took up office space and weren't allowed to do anything... Hamlin, Nixon, Humphrey... (and Biden, pretty much)
Or Hendicks. 20 years after the Civil War, signalling complete capitulation to the Jim Crow block, Cleveland runs with a guy who voted against BOTH the 13th and 14th amendments.


Oh, and loads of presidents have been accused of taking on a veep who was so preposterous that enemies would think twice about removing him from office for fear of handing the job over to someone worse. But usually it's political considerations. (List of Presidents I can recall hearing that about... Kennedy/Johnson, Nixon/Ford, Bush/Quayle, Bush II/Cheney, Obama/Biden.)

 

[LorenzoValla]

Cheney is actually a villain - he's a war criminal and probably a psychopath.

No, Cheney is a Republican. The US tortures a select group of terrorists and the media is aghast. The message is replayed continuously.

Yet, it's hardly mentioned that Obama's administration has been on a killing spree with drone strikes since just about the day he took office (3 days into it, to be exact).

At least 2,464 people have now been killed by US drone strikes outside the country’s declared war zones since President Barack Obama’s inauguration six years ago, the Bureau’s latest monthly report reveals.

Of the total killed since Obama took his oath of office on January 20 2009, at least 314 have been civilians, while the number of confirmed strikes under his administration now stands at 456.

Research by the Bureau also shows there have now been nearly nine times more strikes under Obama in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia than there were under his predecessor, George W Bush.

And the covert Obama strikes, the first of which hit Pakistan just three days after his inauguration, have killed almost six times more people and twice as many civilians than those ordered in the Bush years, the data shows.

http://www.commondreams.org/news/20...rone-strikes-obama-inauguration-six-years-ago

No, this doesn't mean that Cheney was a good guy. But it shows how easily the media and partisans on the left are willing to keep their head in the sand when the villains are someone they like.

 

[Upchurch]

Hee hee! I'd suspect that moving the goal posts means changing the subject to "Chaney" but what do I know, huh?

You're trolling again. And you've already been corrected about the "changing the subject", so you can't even claim that this is an honest mistake.

 

[Spindrift]

Do we really want somebody's loopy uncle to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency? I'll admit that Biden does know a lot about other cultures though. He knows about Indians from going to 7-11, and he knows about Somalis from taking cabs to the train station in Wilmington. And he seems to really be in touch with women's issues. If you know what I mean. Nudge nudge, wink wink.

All that knowledge pretty much overqualifies him for the job. Since when have Republicans ever cared about who was a heartbeat away from the Presidency?

 

[Spindrift]

No, Cheney is a Republican. The US tortures a select group of terrorists and the media is aghast. The message is replayed continuously.

Yet, it's hardly mentioned that Obama's administration has been on a killing spree with drone strikes since just about the day he took office (3 days into it, to be exact).

http://www.commondreams.org/news/20...rone-strikes-obama-inauguration-six-years-ago

No, this doesn't mean that Cheney was a good guy. But it shows how easily the media and partisans on the left are willing to keep their head in the sand when the villains are someone they like.

You mean the media was aghast the US was committing war crimes (torture) and isn't aghast when it isn't (drone strikes)?

 

[kookbreaker]

FTFY.

Oh, does that make it all better? I didn't know that.

 

[The Big Dog]

Cripes, my bad. You replied to my post responding to someone else about moving the goalposts and I conflated the two of you.

Perhaps you should spend more time reading the thread instead of just reacting? It might trim down on the... how did you put it In FM? Politics cess pool trolling?

By my count, you made three errors in this thread due to poor reading comprehension and it's not even two pages long. Your knee-jerk attempts to "Gotcha!" the other guy has set you up as the very thing you've complained to the mods about this forum.

My way to cut down the trolling is to (1) call you on it and (2) get you to slow down and use critical thinking when posting. Despite the common belief, it is possible in Politics.

You're trolling again. And you've already been corrected about the "changing the subject", so you can't even claim that this is an honest mistake.

WOOHOOO!!! Three straight posts in a row accusing me of trolling. In bowling they call that a turkey, and you get thirty points for every subsequent strike. So every time you accuse someone of trolling from here on in? 30 points for UpChurch! well done.

I have also learned a lesson. Never acknowledge minor insignificant errors in one's posts, because that is teh "TROLLING!"

Upchurch told me so.

 

[The Big Dog]

So you accuse me of a fallacy and then support that fallacy with someone else's quote? Perfect, I think I'm about done here. Good day to you.

actually you asked me to give you my definition. In reply, I showed you a classic example, you said you didn't care....

I was all like O-kayyyyyy...

and now you seem to have forgotten what you asked me in the first place...

Good day to you as well!

 

[eeyore1954]

Do we really want somebody's loopy uncle to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency? I'll admit that Biden does know a lot about other cultures though. He knows about Indians from going to 7-11, and he knows about Somalis from taking cabs to the train station in Wilmington. And he seems to really be in touch with women's issues. If you know what I mean. Nudge nudge, wink wink.

You left out he also knows about articulate clean black men.

I know Bush was known for his gaffs but Biden is right up there with the best of them.

 

[Tony Stark]

No, Cheney is a Republican. The US tortures a select group of terrorists and the media is aghast. The message is replayed continuously.

Cheney is a Republican who had people tortured thus he is a war criminal. It is that simple.

Yet, it's hardly mentioned that Obama's administration has been on a killing spree with drone strikes since just about the day he took office (3 days into it, to be exact).

You pretend as if it was a new policy. It wasn't Bush was doing the same thing. Which was why Obama was able to take over so quickly.

No, this doesn't mean that Cheney was a good guy. But it shows how easily the media and partisans on the left are willing to keep their head in the sand when the villains are someone they like.

Congress gave the President the power to fight the war on terror and it has never been a war crime to kill enemies in a war.

Torture is without any doubt a war crime.

PS: Bush/Cheney killed way more people than Obama.

 

[eeyore1954]

Hrmm... after seeing that post, it seems to me that it's a lot of tactile defensive belligerents failing to understand touchy-feely types. The one with the cop in particular sort of shows that it probably isn't some sort of sexual fetish for Biden. It sort of has to do with how you were raised... some people are less hostile towards touching than others, quite frankly. Those same people are also more likely to touch you unexpectedly.

In reality I think I do agree that he is just a touchy kind of person. But you can't deny those are some pretty funny pictures. Although the one with the officer reminds me of a game the guys and girls would play in the back of the school bus in high school. It was called further.

 

[plague311]

actually you asked me to give you my definition. In reply, I showed you a classic example, you said you didn't care....

I was all like O-kayyyyyy...

and now you seem to have forgotten what you asked me in the first place...

Good day to you as well!

The whole time I've been asking you to explain how I have committed the fallacy, which you have failed to do at every opportunity. When I ask for a description using your own words, you forego that and link to someone else's words. I didn't forget anything. You're trying to play semantics while tap dancing around the fact that you're wrong.

I didn't commit a fallacy, you're attempting to attribute other peoples arguments to me. That's called a strawman. Either admit you're wrong or fix it, or keep denying it. It just makes you look childish and foolish.

 

[The Big Dog]

I'm not sure, maybe you missed all of the posts above in regards to the creepy and stupid stuff Chaney has done, .

The whole time I've been asking you to explain how I have committed the fallacy, which you have failed to do at every opportunity. When I ask for a description using your own words, you forego that and link to someone else's words. I didn't forget anything. You're trying to play semantics while tap dancing around the fact that you're wrong.

I didn't commit a fallacy, you're attempting to attribute other peoples arguments to me. That's called a strawman. Either admit you're wrong or fix it, or keep denying it. It just makes you look childish and foolish.

See the post up above? Where you say "maybe you missed all of the posts in regards to the creepy and stupid stuff Chaney (sic) has done."

This thread is not about Cheney and even if Cheney did creepy and stupid stuff, that does not at all mean that Biden (the actual subject of the thread) did not do creepy and stupid stuff.

You are guilty of fallacious arguments, in this case what is known as a tu quoque fallacy, otherwise known as appeal to hypocrisy or YOU TOO!

As always, delighted to be of service.