They, have been working overtime ever since , "the Hack" and more likely than not, will only metastasize further in the near future>......>......>
As usual some tool with a collectivist mindset loves to group.
Show proof he only pays lip service. Your bullshit post is lip service.
All he can do right now is propose what he wants to do, and the values he has. What do you expect him to do other than that in the position he is in now??? Sounds like you expect a savior. #POOF!!! everything is how ronin wants it... keep dreamin and get at us when your back from your fairytale land
he won't and can't prove a thing except for his own ignorance, and hatred for folks that think differently than him. He is guilty of the very attitude that he is blaming anyone who supports Rp of.
I did'nt accuse you of being anything, in fact you seem to be the one making the accusations... Feeling guilty are we??
That was a really good post, unfortunately I think it was totally lost on the person you intended to read it.I did'nt accuse you of being anything, in fact you seem to be the one making the accusations... Feeling guilty are we??
Here is a good explanation for this!
Exposing Obama’s PSYOPS Agents and Tactics
Psychological Operations (PSYOP, PSYOPS) are techniques used to influence a target audience's value systems, belief systems, emotions, motives, reasoning, and behavior. PSYOPS tactics are used on target audiences in order to induce confusion, or reinforce attitudes and behaviors favorable to the originator's objectives.
What do Tokyo Rose and Axis Sally have in common with “Patriot Lisa” and “All American Joe”? They are all PSYOPS agents. What is different is that Americans knew that Tokyo Rose and Axis Sally worked for the enemy.
False Flag PSYOPS agents
Patriot Lisa and All American Joe are “false flag” agents who feign loyalty to the cause they are attempting to harm,
Patriot Lisa will post a message on a conservative blog similar to this, “I want to get rid of Obama as much as the next person but all I see here is racism and hatred. We are never going to get rid of Obama with right wing rants and tin foil hat conspiracy theories. There is no use in even trying. We lost and the best thing to do is just adjust and wait for the next election.”
All American Joe will post, “We need to get torches and pitchforks and march on the White House. Obama is a Muslim Black Power Manchurian Candidate for everything that is evil in the world. If I had my way his own Secret Service detail would do America a favor and take Obama out.”
Then Patriot Lisa and All American Joe will get into an argument that detracts from all serious debate, ruining the experience for reasonable people, and giving the forum a bad reputation. Patriot Lisa and All American Joe will share private messages to compare tactics, chuckle, and congratulate each other at how good they are at their jobs.
Ask yourself if the message you are reading serves the goals of your cause. Not all misguided people are Obama’s PSYOPS agents. However their activity can damage your cause even if that is not their motive. Confront these attitudes and offer suggestions about what kind of thinking does make a contribution and is part of the solution. If they insist on posting damaging comments they probably are Obama’s PSYOPS agents rather than simply misguided.
“False flag” PSYOPS agents are just one type of Internet propaganda specialist. Let’s take a look at some of these specialists and their tactics.
The Obot Agents –
These are the robot like PSYOPS agents who can’t pass the Turing test. They say the same thing no matter what you say back to them. They have simple skills and seem to pick up their pre-scripted talking points from their more sophisticated handlers.
You can quote United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia saying that “We the People” are the source of Grand Jury power; “In fact, the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people." In spite of a direct quote from a Supreme Court Justice the Obots will respond “your pretend Grand Jury has no authority and won’t do anything for you and your neocon tinfoil hat buddies.”
If you then take the time to research and respond with a quote from Susan W. Brenner, NCR Distinguished Professor of Law and author of Federal Grand Jury Practice (West, 1996)., “The classic example of a grand jury’s acting as a sword is a runaway grand jury in New York in the 1930’s; the grand jurors ignored prosecutors and embarked upon their own investigation into municipal corruption.” The Obot will respond with, “Your pretend Grand Jury has no authority and won’t do anything for you and your neocon tinfoil hat buddies.”
And if you are foolish enough to continue posting to an Obot the information that a Grand Jury “has the power to subpoena witnesses and physical evidence, i.e., to require that testimony and evidence be brought before it. The failure to comply with a grand jury subpoena results in one being held in civil contempt and incarcerated until the witness complies; currently, the record for time served due to civil contempt is eight years.” Guess what the Obot will say.
These are the same people who go from blog to blog posting exactly the same comment everywhere they go.
The Logical Fallacy Agents
Description of Fallacies
In order to understand what a fallacy is, one must understand what an argument is. Very briefly, an argument consists of one or more premises and one conclusion. A premise is a statement (a sentence that is either true or false) that is offered in support of the claim being made, which is the conclusion (which is also a sentence that is either true or false).
There are two main types of arguments: deductive and inductive. A deductive argument is an argument such that the premises provide (or appear to provide) complete support for the conclusion. An inductive argument is an argument such that the premises provide (or appear to provide) some degree of support (but less than complete support) for the conclusion. If the premises actually provide the required degree of support for the conclusion, then the argument is a good one.
A good deductive argument is known as a valid argument and is such that if all its premises are true, then its conclusion must be true. If all the argument is valid and actually has all true premises, then it is known as a sound argument. If it is invalid or has one or more false premises, it will be unsound. A good inductive argument is known as a strong (or "cogent") inductive argument. It is such that if the premises are true, the conclusion is likely to be true.
A fallacy is, very generally, an error in reasoning. This differs from a factual error, which is simply being wrong about the facts. To be more specific, a fallacy is an "argument" in which the premises given for the conclusion do not provide the needed degree of support. A deductive fallacy is a deductive argument that is invalid (it is such that it could have all true premises and still have a false conclusion).
An inductive fallacy is less formal than a deductive fallacy. They are simply "arguments" which appear to be inductive arguments, but the premises do not provided enough support for the conclusion. In such cases, even if the premises were true, the conclusion would not be more likely to be true.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
Lawyers learn about the logical fallacies in law school. Since Aristotle is seen as the “father of logic” most philosophy classes include training about logical fallacies. Nowadays logic classes are about as rare as civics classes but some undergraduate curriculums still include a basic logic class. Following logical thinking guidelines are especially important as we make decisions that are going to affect our nation and our posterity.
Logic is a tool to help people arrive at dependable conclusions. Logic is related to such disciplines as epistemological protocol, scientific methodology, and rules of evidence. Many people are surprised to find out that there are rules for thinking. Aristotle aimed to unify all of these rules into a coherent system of thought by developing a common methodology that would serve equally well as the procedure for learning about any discipline.
Like most tools, logic can be used for good or evil. Lawyers will sometimes use what they learned about logical fallacies to create false impressions rather than reveal the truth. Propagandists and PSYOPS agents are very skilled at using logical fallacies to influence “target audience's value systems, belief systems, emotions, motives, reasoning, and behavior”.
How do they twist the truth and attempt to pollute your mind?
Let’s start with some simple examples and work our way up the list of classical logical fallacies complete with Latin names.
The false syllogism
A syllogism ("conclusion," "inference"), (usually the categorical syllogism) is a kind of logical argument in which one proposition (the conclusion) is inferred from two others (the premises) of a certain form. An example of an accurate syllogism is:
Major premise: All humans are mortal.
Minor premise: Socrates is human.
Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.
One of my favorite examples of a false syllogism is tinged with humor. A cartoon says across the top of the panel:
“Penguins Walk Funny”
A few more examples of logical fallacies with a humorous intent:
God is Love.
Love is blind.
Steve Wonder is blind.
Conclusion: Steve Wonder is God!
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I'm nothing.
Nothing is perfect.
God is Perfect.
So, I'm God !
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
If Steve Wonder is God,
I'm Steve Wonder.
Oh my God!...I'm going blind!
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
On the serious side, learning to recognize a bad argument when it comes your way and learning how to respond properly is a major part of what the study of logic is about – self defense.
See if you can demonstrate to yourself why the below syllogisms are false.
Slavery was work and slavery was evil, therefore all work is evil. It is more moral to be on welfare.
Vietnam War was a bad war, therefore all wars are bad wars.
Because people have killed in God’s name, religion is evil and should be abolished.
A really great short course on logic and how to disagree is written by Paul Graham.
Fortunately, most of Obama’s Logical fallacy PSYOPS agents aren’t very skillful.
The trademark personal insult, name calling, ridicule, and ad hominem attacks characterize the debate style of Obama’s people That tactic has worked quite well on the ignorant and those who value feeling more than reason. This is not new, transformational politics. This is the rise of a New American Fascism.
Often the best tactic is to ignore such low class debate tactics and simply say your piece without bothering to interact with ignorance and rudeness. Sometimes when posters use name calling or ridicule as a response to me I have this prepared post as a retort to their irrational rants.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
In case you need a little help with your Latin: An ad hominem argument, consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.
LOL is a form of Ridicule - Also Known as: Appeal to Mockery, The Horse Laugh.
Description of Appeal to Ridicule
The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an “argument." This line of “reasoning" has the following form: LOL or tinfoil hat idea, which is some form of ridicule, is presented (typically directed at the claim). Therefore claim is false.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because mocking a claim does not show that it is false. This is especially clear in the following example: "1+1=2! "That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard!"
Examples of Appeal to Ridicule
"Sure my worthy opponent claims that we should lower tuition, but that is just laughable."
"Support the ERA? Sure, when the women start paying for the drinks! Hah! Hah!"
See here's the thing I didnt say you are required too, just that when you open your piehole you should be able to back it up
I asked you to back up your statement and instead you're wanting me to to do it? I guess I could say "I'm not *required* to share your opinion of Paul . nor am I *required* to bow down to you OR him." butthen I'd be a douchebag like you.
You didn't say squat. My post right here has more substance.
