<p>What’s wrong with Joe Biden? It seems that he can’t say anything without putting his foot in his mouth.
<a href=“http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071026/NEWS/710260393/1006/NEWS[/url]”>http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071026/NEWS/710260393/1006/NEWS</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Tommybill:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sensationalism according to dictionary.com:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Definition of ally (verb):</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hm…that sure sounds like interesteddad was insinuating that lealdragon is now cozy with the racists (fallacy by the way, guilty by association) which to me is an attack that was used to provoke a startling reaction which is sensationalism. </p>
<p>Apparently you must have taken the same “Sensationalism 101” class because now you’re attacking me with such a tactic:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Good job! Now it sounds like lealdragon is united with the racists and I’m follower of demagogue tactics! Talk about projecting! Your teacher would be proud of you both. You sure didn’t learn what words meant (which is ironic after reading your post) but you’re both fantastic at using fallacious arguments. I really hope you aren’t a lawyer.</p>
<p>interesteddad and tommybill:</p>
<p>Your insinuations are offensive and your logic flawed. Please allow me to instruct you in some Logic 101:</p>
<p>If entity A claims to be ‘aligned’ with entity B, but entity B finds entity A offensive and would never align with them, that is NOT an association, because an association must be **MUTUAL<a href=“see%20definition%20in%20post%20#282%20-%20thanks%20%20SmileDarling!”>/b</a></p>
<p>Furthermore, just because both entity A and entity B happen to eat at the same restaurant, or like the same movie, or support the same candidate, or buy the same brand of toilet paper, does NOT mean they have an association of any sort. It simply means that they have a few items of minutia in common, just as you and I may have something in common if we both drive a Toyota, for example, but that’s as far as it goes. You are not ‘aligned’ with me if you also drive a Toyota, except in the set of Toyota owners.</p>
<p>To insinuate that entity B is somehow associated with entity A based on their eating at the same restaurant, etc. would be considered demagoguery if you were an important leader of some sort. Since you’re not, it falls short of its mark and ends up a being mere insult.</p>
<p>People choose to support a candidate for many reasons. I know people who voted for bush on one issue alone: the abortion issue. Some of those same people now support Ron Paul, strictly on the abortion issue, instead of guiliani, who is prochoice. Others support him for different issues entirely. I know prochoice people who support Ron Paul because of other issues. Everyone picks their issues! I have no idea why some racists would support Ron Paul, but undoubtedly there are racists who support the other candidates as well. It means NOTHING. If you were to read his actual words, you would know that he supports liberty for each individual, with no regard to race. There are always various smear campaigns directed at the candidates - like the one claiming that Gore said he ‘invented’ the internet when in fact he only said that he was an instrumental supporter of the internet - see how words get misquoted and twisted? Smear campaigns are lies and distortions.</p>
<p>If bush were running for re-election today, many people who like war and violence would support him, even though other people who are generally against violence but support the war out of some seemingly ‘noble’ cause might interpret his actions differently and support him for entirely different reasons. Violent extremists might put his picture on their website. Does that mean they are ‘aligned’ with the gentle Christian folk who like him because of the abortion issue? Get it?</p>
<p>Post 283</p>
<p>Lealdragon with out going into any detail first let me say that I always question anyone who begins by saying allow me to instruct you in some Logic 101:</p>
<p>Setting that aside, you refer to the definition of ally as described by SmileDarling to make the foundation of your Logic 101 case. The word ally was not use by Interesteddad or me. We both use a similar sounding but different word, align. The Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines; align as, to array on the side of a party or cause. This is precisely what Interesteddad said you had done. </p>
<p>So you purposed to give me a lesson in Logic 101, but base you argument on a word that was not used by me. You make the claim I said something inappropriate, but once again you make up words for me, a word I did not use, so I repeat what I had to say in post 280.</p>
<p>I said in post 280; Words mean something, please read them carefully and respond to words as written. It is not appropriate the read something someone has written, and attack the person or what has been written, claming what has been written, says something it doesnt say. </p>
<p>While attacking someone or their statement using false descriptions of what has been said is inappropriate, it is a tactic that has be use by those who would govern by demagoguery for centuries.</p>
<p>Before you write back and say something like,ally and align are the same thing please check with a dictionary. You will save yourself the embarrassment and the rest of us the foolishness of you comments.</p>
<p>Sometime I really wonder why I continue to post on this forum. The level of rudeness displayed by the parents of college students (presumably somewhat educated themselves) continues to amaze me.</p>
<p>You are nitpicking. You know full well that, even though I missed the word, the difference in meaning is subtle and does not change the essence of my point: that interesteddad was making a jab at me, implying that just because some RP supporters may be racist, then I too must be racist. That’s like saying one is a racist if they eat at the same restaurant a racist eats at. Obviously this is ridiculous, so his comment had absolutely no meaning whatsoever (since it is irrelevant who else supports RP) therefore it was meant to be an insult.</p>
<p>‘Align’ means 6. to join with others in a cause.</p>
<p>Obviously, supporters of ALL the candidates range widely. Undoubtedly there are racists who support Giuliani, racists who support Hillary, etc. Just as there are hunters who support Giuliani, hunters who support Hillary, etc. as well as animal rights activists who support Giuliani, animal rights activists who support Hillary, etc. They may share no traits in common whatsoever except the 'cause of getting the candidate elected. So to point out their other values (or lack thereof) has no meaning other than a rude insinuation. The statement had no meaning except as a jab. A rude, tacky jab.</p>
<p>From Lealdragon in post 285 </p>
<p> .You are nitpicking. You know full well that, even though I missed the word, the difference in meaning is subtle and does not change the essence of my point . </p>
<p>I agree the difference is subtle, but that does not change the fact that the difference in the meaning of the two words is important. In fact, the more subtle the difference between two words the more important the distinction becomes. Almost no one would be confused by the meaning of the words, come and go, but many could be confused by the meaning of the words ally and align, you, yourself were. Let me give you an example of the importance of using these words properly. Because of the ethnic make up of the Xinjiang province of the PRC, the Chinese government has aligned its self with the USA with regard to Islamic Fundamentalism; however China is not our ally. </p>
<p>So the meaning of words is important. When they are misused to make a political argument, I point out the words are being misused. I do so because the right wing has a matter of tactics twisted many words to confuse the American people and advance their cause. The right wing uses this tactic which is bad for America to support a cause that is bad for America. </p>
<p>Lealdragon go on to say in post 285 </p>
<p> … interesteddad was making a jab at me, implying that just because some RP supporters may be racist, then I too must be racist … </p>
<p>I have no idea what interesteddad had in mind when he wrote the words he did, but I do know that the word he chose does not imply you are a racist, just that you have aligned yourself with one of the most racist organizations in modern American history, His statement is accurate, and he used the language correctly. All I did in my post is point out that he was correct in his statement and the words he used to made that statement. </p>
<p>Lealdragon go on to say in post 285 </p>
<p> .The statement had no meaning except as a jab. A rude, tacky jab … </p>
<p>Again I have no idea what interesteddad had in mind when he wrote these words, but I would suggest that perhaps he was giving you a warning and a reason to rethink your position.</p>
<p>Tommybill, are you a parent or a student?</p>
<p>parent…</p>
<p>Well, sounds like one of those ‘letter of the law’ vs ‘spirit of the law’ arguments…</p>
<p>Just for the record, I find racism in any form abhorrent. I do not believe Ron Paul is a racist. I support Ron Paul for his stance on many issues.</p>
<p>Well, sounds like one of those ‘letter of the law’ vs ‘spirit of the law’ arguments…</p>
<p>Interesting its generally the liberals who argue for the spirit of the law and the conservatives who argue for the letter of the law </p>
<p>Just for the record, I find racism in any form abhorrent.</p>
<p>I believe you and agree with you .</p>
<p>I do not believe Ron Paul is a racist.</p>
<p>I am not sure one way or the other, but I am quite sure many of his policy positions are supported by active racists and are harmful to racial harmony .</p>
<p>I support Ron Paul for his stance on many issues.</p>
<p>I oppose Ron Paul for his stance on many issues …</p>
<p>“I am not sure one way or the other, but I am quite sure many of his policy positions are supported by active racists and are harmful to racial harmony….”</p>
<p>Well, unless one takes the racist view that only whites can be racists, then one could just as easily make the statement that [Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, John Edwards] share policy positions that are supported by active racists as well. As far as what is beneficial or harmful to racial harmony, that is a very subjective issue - one that one may be “sure of” but be totally wrong.</p>
<p>From post 291 one could just as easily make the statement that [Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, John Edwards] share policy positions that are supported by active racists</p>
<p>This statement as far as it goes is correct. However it is not the same as the claim I made. I am quite sure not many of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards public policy positions that are supported by active racists, and that the areas of agreement have very little if anything to do with race questions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which of Ron Paul’s public policy positions have anything to do with race questions?</p>
<p>In the past RP has claimed the Supreme Court was out of it area of jurisdiction on many questions of law and civil rights. His position has been that Congress and not the Supreme Court should make these determinations. </p>
<p>Some of these Supreme Court decisions have been helpful to the minorities in this nation. Because the decisions have been helpful to minorities they have promoted racial harmony and as a result of that have been very helpful to the whole nation.</p>
<p>“Some of these Supreme Court decisions have been helpful to the minorities in this nation. Because the decisions have been helpful to minorities they have promoted racial harmony and as a result of that have been very helpful to the whole nation.”</p>
<p>Says you. But you are not the ultimate authority on race relations, political supporters or national harmony. Intelligent people of good will can disagree about what issues are rightly in the purview of the Congress versus the Supreme Court.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://washingtontimes.com/article/20071030/NATION/110300060/1001[/url]”>http://washingtontimes.com/article/20071030/NATION/110300060/1001</a></p>
<p>Watch out SJmom, you’re going to hear about it for quoting the Washington Times.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree. Some of these decisions can be made at the local level and still be beneficial, perhaps even more so in some cases.</p>
<p>At any rate, RP’s stance is one of defining the role of the federal govt. according to the Constitution. I particularly like his focus on the govt.'s responsibility to fiercely defend liberty - each individual’s liberty. If each individual has liberty, then the issue of racism becomes moot.</p>
<p>Zoosermom says …Says you. But you are not the ultimate authority on race relations, political supporters or national harmony. Intelligent people of good will can disagree about what issues are rightly in the purview of the Congress versus the Supreme Court.</p>
<p>I would like to thank her for being such an intelligent person of good will.</p>
<p>While she is correct in saying people can disagree, there is no legally based disagreement that the Supreme Court and not people of good will decides what is in the Courts purview.</p>
<p>I think all people of good will all agree that it was a good thing, and that we should all be thankful, the left wing didnt engage in massive resistance after Bush vs. Gore the way the right wing did after Brown vs. The Topeka School Board… </p>
<p>Dont you agree with both points Zoosermom?</p>
<p>"While she is correct in saying people can disagree, there is no legally based disagreement that the Supreme Court and not “people of good will” decides what is in the Court’s purview.</p>
<p>I think all people of good will all agree that it was a good thing, and that we should all be thankful, the left wing didn’t engage in “massive resistance” after Bush vs. Gore the way the right wing did after Brown vs. The Topeka School Board… </p>
<p>Don’t you agree with both points Zoosermom?"</p>
<p>Actually, I don’t, and I very much don’t appreciate your tone. Perhaps you should consider how many issues you’ve had with people on this forum lately.</p>