I'm putting this up as Mrs. Cairns was late to our discussion several posts below and the comments had closed out. Clearly, we have room to revisit the issue.
Hi,
I'm a USMC Mom, and I've come all the way here to the wrong spot because I couldn't work out how to leave a comment on your original post about Section 102 of HR3200.
1. You read it wrong. It says what it's supposed to and it ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT SAY that all private insurance companies will be forcibly ended by the fifth year from now.
2. Please respect our Commander-in-Chief, he has treated the US armed
forces and our vets very well, he is respectful of you boys and does not deserve to be insulted by you.
3. If you're getting your information on HR3200 from the Liberty Counsel's own line-by-line interpretation of it, don't be fooled - they're version is horsesh*t. It is complete fabrication, it's disgustingly inaccurate, it adds entire phrases, words and even sentences that aren't in the original. Obviously the LC guy that wrote it has an agenda.
Hope you don't mind, but everyone in uniform seems like my son. So I had to set the record straight for you, even though I had to push a lot of keys to get here.
Here's to you.
MOM C
I have never even heard of the "liberty counsel", and I doubt that any of us here are using someone else for our opinions. Also, I object to you calling the folks here "boys". Some of us vets are women, the others are men. If being called out on his facts when it comes to Health Care is disrespect to the President, then I suggest that the President's skin is too thin to take criticism.
One more thing - are you being paid by any Soros entity to visit blogs and write down the proper talking points?
Which means that insurers cannot accept new individuals after 1 January of the year the bill becomes effective, any coverage not meeting grandfathering requirements *must* be purchased under ObamaCare, and excepted benefits may *not* be purchased as health insurance unless it's purchased under ObamaCare.
The kicker is
which means an insurer cannot raise the premiums of an individual requesting coverage for an additional condition *unless* the insurer also raises everyone else's rates -- even if they aren't requesting the coverage. And you don't have to take my word for it -- the House Republican Conference has produced a reading guide.
Anyone desiring to wade through the whole HR3200 mess can download it here.
When you have a chance, thank your son for his service. He must be a very fine man to be a Marine.
Logic is a very unknown quantity in Congress. There have been many unintended consequences for many of the laws written. Unknown, because they don't think things through to a logical conclusion. There is only one economic system in the world - Capitalism. Everything else is a political system governing at what level Capitalism is applied. Socialism applies in at the State level with countries competing in business. Democracy and a Republic (which we are) applies it at the individual level. When a government competes against a private business company using the governments vast resources to tax and make laws, the private company has no chance.
Next month I have to join Medicare. I told them I didn't need or want it as I have a job and can pay for the insurance I want. Sorry, they said, it's the law and I must join. I can't even save the government some money by taking care of myself. Oh well.
And please check out Mr Obama's voting record in the Senate before you tout him as a friend of the Military.
Mom - have a good and happy Sunday and I hope your son stays safe.
If so, I cannot imagine her ever allowing her son to join the USMC.
I'm just saying ... people with agendas have a history of making stuff up.
I do NOT respect President Obama, and he has earned that lack of respect from his serial lies about topics too numerous to mention here.
Do not believe a single word that so glibly passes his lips or is delivered with seeming sincerity. Instead you must watch what he actually does.
Note that he claims "his health care program" would or would not do certain things, but that in fact he DOES NOT HAVE A PROGRAM. Instead we are left to noodle through 1,000+ pages of a House bill, while waiting for competing version of Senate schemes to spring forth from committees and be suddenly voted upon with the Congresscritter not even having time to read the bills, let alone understand them. As the sections quoted by Bill T. above show, this is a confusing maze of lawyerly legalisms, buried in a graveyard full of new bureaucracies to be staffed by bumbling petty bureaucrats responsible and responsive to no one. The unintended consequences of this bill probably exceed the intended consequences, and will prove nearly impossible to undo if passed.
As us veterans of older generations have learned, government promises about health care simply cannot be relied on. We were induced to enlist and remain until retirement with lies about "free health care for life." These promises have been unfulfilled, and steadily degraded to rationed care with out of pocket costs for co-pays, uncovered services, and the need to purchase costly "supplemental" insurance.
Perhaps you missed the trial balloon where Obama wanted military members with private insurance to have their insurance pay for treatment for combat casualties.
Given the impending bankruptcy of the current Medicare and Social Security systems only a lying politician or an idiot can believe that Obama or Congress can deliver, let alone afford a massive new entitlement program. Your son, and his progeny are already doomed to an eternity of confiscatory taxation to pay for current debts and programs.
Meanwhile, we are paying billions of borrowed dollars of “cash for clunkers” and spending millions for birth control for wild horses at a time when Obama is slashing funding for military programs.
After watching how the current administration has turned it's meetings into greenhouses full of "plants", how Axelrod & Soros are paying people to exthol the party line, how SEIU members are pretending to be anti-Obama folks, and how the government OUR OWN government has begun the STASI-fication of the nation with "flag@whitehouse,gov", I have concluded that no one, and I mean NO ONE who supports this administration can be trusted to be who they say they are, or believe what they claim to believe.
I have lost all faith in this administration to do anything legal, ethical, moral, or responsible.
So, Mrs Cairns, I believe you are lying through your teeth with everything you wrote.
Dear Mrs. Cairns,
How convenient that you, a civic minded, mother of a Marine stumbles upon our modest little niche of the blogosphere. How fortunate that you showed up to help us realize the error of our ways & chastise us "boys" in your folksy way.
Hmmmm, "...he is respectful of you boys.." I wonder what that sounds like in a nice little "Central Park West" accent.....probably not so folksy. And was that a hint of something Scottish? Are you even a citizen? How does American health care concern you?
So here you are, in a nick of time to reassure us.... your fellow Milsupporters, that "The One" means us no harm. When you forked over that $350 check to the great bringer of hope & change did you say - "I hope that young'un gits all the way to the White House!" No, probably not.
Of course, one can't help but forgive your talking down to us. I think it's safe to say that a lot of your clients in Westchester probably think that those of us trying to save ourselves from ObamaCare are hicks and rubes.
Oh and I love your little red herring about the Liberty Council, whoever they are. Were we supposed to be led off track defending them? Eh. No sale. We here at the Castle don't take "talking points" from anyone. We do our own reading and make up our own minds. I realize - to my everlasting shame - that my junior Senator told the country that if you don't read you end up in Iraq. However, the amount of higher learning represented here, in the posts and comments, would stun you.
So, you came here under false pretenses, you made ridiculous and offensive assumptions, and you spoke to us condescendingly.
You lack all credibility Madam. Be gone.
signed,
BostonMaggie
I am really from Boston. Although I am not a vet, and not a "boy"......but I never pretends to be anything but what I am.
This man has shown great disrespect towards servicemen. This is simple observable fact.
2) ad hominem fallacies suck so bad I want to vomit on those of you who employ them, literally. What happened to The Rulez block here, BB? I'd like to point to #1. Maybe we can make it flash and go neon for a few seconds?
3) I stand on the tracks of history leading to us becoming the negative image of the Kossacks, and scream, "Stop!"
That's ry shorthand for Big Bear(as in when he gets in his moods of 'Don't F with the...') or Big Brother or Armorer. Basically, John.
You oughta see what neeto shorthand I've got for Unkle Bill. ;)
How does playing the anti-intellectual/faux colloqualism card, which, again, attempts to discredit the person as believable instead of dealing with the actual ISSUES not fit the proem of ad homiem, please?
(Never saw the movie referenced. Sorry. Doom on me.)
Please, do show me a post, any post, that relied on something called the Liberty Counsel.
Also, Ry, the lady's email address did indeed divulge exactly what her name was, and by doing a little simple investigation, Maggie and I were both able to easily find out her true agenda.
But, to be honest, I didn't need to do that. Why? Because I know a skunk when I smell it - ask John - I have great intuition. That lady's post smelled false from the first sentence.
Mrs. C. used her son's service to make what amounts to a kinship claim to the group as a whole, yet did so in ways that caused some members of the group to be suspicious of the claim, and to go looking for background via the perfectly legitimate tool of Google.
I myself, until shown otherwise, will take her claim of a son in the Marines at face value.
The pedigree of people here to comment on the subject from a perspective militant is well known to the general readership, but certainly not so obviously to newbies, so I chose to overlook her thought that we were mere boys, so to speak. We exchanged pleasant emails on the subject where she rather persisted in her assertion of youth on our part (oh happy day were that the case!) and through the same emails, however, chose to dismiss ourselves as mere callow tools of the Liberty Counsel [sic].
I think, Ry, you overstate your case a touch, but you see things from where you stand.
But it *is* fair to ask someone to show their colors, especially when they are trying to leverage a what amounts to a cadet membership in your group.
If people in this group were, perhaps a bit tart in response, I would assert that Mrs. C was a touch condescending, and would aver the fouls, such as they are, offset.
Yellow cards, at best, on both sides.
Which, on this subject in these days, is pretty good.
But you, sir, step a bit wide of the marked path when you assert a Kossackian level of discourse, methinks. 'Ware the meadow muffins...
We haven't said "You are wrong because you are stupid" - even though she has basically said the same to us by attacking us of taking talking points from the Liberty Counsel (?). And again, I don't care if we have ever cited that particular group, it doesn't matter. It's a red herring. If you get off track arguing about the Liberty Counsel - did we ever cite them in an ancient thread - are they right or wrong on ObamaCare - yada yada, you lose sight of what's happening here. Ms. Cairns accused us of being led by the Liberty counsel. We weren't, move on.
We haven't said she is wrong because she is a Democrat....or a woman.....or a New Yorker..... As a matter of fact I am not engaging her on legislation at all.
We have called her on being a wolf in sheep's clothing. Had she come out here and said "I feel you have incorrectly interpreted a particular passage of the proposed legislation. Here is the passage and here is what I think it means." We would have discussed the merits.
But she didn't. She came out here all folksy "Mom C" & "Hope you don't mind, but everyone in uniform seems like my son." *gag*
Ms. Cairns is the one who violated the Rulez
We are objecting to her blatant and condescending (and not well executed) attempt to disarm us with false flags.
Think of it in military terms....after all, we are comfortable with those here. You treat prisoners of war in one manner and spies another. Ms. Cairns has, figuratively speaking slipped on the uniform of our compatriots and is attempting infiltrate our camp disguised as a friendly. How can we do anything other than to assume ill will on her part?
I regularly engage solidly blue liberals on my blog and will happily supply you with the names of two of my more spirited opponents. They appreciate the courteousness of our jousting to the point that they have both "friended" me on Facebook. But they came to me in the open, not skulking about under a false flag.
While several in this thread have easily refuted her allegations that we can't read, Beth & I are battling back against Ms. Cairns' subterfuge. I don't care what she has to say about ObamaCare. I care that she came here with the specific intent to mislead.
"I'm pretty sure we have used" and "we've posted" are two different animals -- you may be thinking of Jay's stuff from Stop The ACLU.
And her agenda is obvious -- play the "Mom-Knows-Best, Kids" card in an attempt to stop criticism of ObieCare by equating it with disrespect for Obie Himself, especially since he's been sooooooo nice to us "boys."
Pfooey. Code Stink in action.
It is not an ad hominem attack to verify someone's bona fides when they make a statement. If I were to write a TINS! about my feats in Laos, checking my background to see if I'd ever *been* in Laos is only common sense. And no, I didn't fly in Laos, just to nip *that* in the bud.
It *is* an ad hominem attack to dismiss someone's statement by saying the person who made the statement is too immature to possibly say anything worthy of contemplation.
So, ya gonna go all technicolor burp on Mrs. C?
She used that to establish herself as being 'real,' so in the responses, it was confirmed that she was indeed an Obama supporter, but her claim as to Obama being 'nice' to service people is bogus and she was called on it. In other words, the posters followed the Rulez and attacked the message.
It's also rather difficult (and often pointless) to defend the moral high ground when your enemies could care less about morals. You don't try and play nice with a junkyard dog. All you'll get a bitten, and a large doctor's bill afterward.
"but her claim as to Obama being 'nice' to service people is bogus and she was called on it." Really? In what manner? THe only person I saw working that angle was Murray. He said it was easily verifiable. He's right. He didn't provide the verification himself. There may or may not be an inference there, intended or not. I don't know. I don't know Murray well enough. He tends to tinker with his warmachines more oft than not, and is rather terse. Not a lot for me to build a 'this is what Murray means when he says this' mental translation card like I have for many others 'round here. (So, Murr, were you looking cross eyed at Obama or merely saying it would be easy to check only?) My POV? Obama has as yet pulled a Clinton irt Military. To me that's the baseline of mistreatment. Therefore Obama has not yet, though he might, gone there so his is as of yet at least 'nice', nice being a euphemism for providing decent treatment. Of course, one could go into the budget he's offering up for DoD, but that's something else.
I just tire of this continuous 'Holden Caufield' crap. The constant race for authenticism, with moving goal posts so that the other side can never prove that it is.(this does get more treatment below, there's a problem with the deductive and inductive logic employed by those attacking the 'authenticity' of the 'guest') Which is, somewhat your complaint, Crick. She felt the need to 'establish' herself rather than simply say what she had to say and let it stand for what it is. Of course, there's reasons for *why* people do that---like the name calling, the 'who is she' fallacy of appeal to authority. Which is why I try to come at these things disppassionately and rely on tools of logic. I fail, but I do try. It makes things so much neater, cleaner, honest, and, well, *polite*. (And, no, you can't have my apple fritter back. I already ate it.)
It does (d)evolve into ad hominem. Basically, your whole thing relies on yelling, "Liar!", SWWBO. Which itself relies on the proem of 1) Liars cannot be trusted. 2) This woman is a liar. 3) Therefore this woman cannot be trusted. So what if she's an Obamanation netizen? What has that to do with the claims she makes? Okay, she makes use of a fallacy in her missive(forget the title it gets, maybe argent can provide it since he has a list, but it's not appeal to authority, which is when one says, 'It must be true because X says so"), so? The *honest* way of this was showing a) we didn't parrott LC(easy exercise, simple text comparison) b) avoiding the mudslinging. Why? Cindy Sheehan(tb). Whackado lefty, son in the military. Some played a silly, and false since the logic tree has an untrue statement in it, deduction(small to big). Others an inductive misstep(large to small). Both basically rely on the concept that lefty parents don't produce children who go into the military or that lefties reflexively hate the military. I need go no further to prove my point, empirically, then by pointing at the author of the now defunct Kaboom. Lefty parents. Kick butt warrior son. THe politics of parents and status of children are mutually exclusive properties. QLD.(Quad Libet Demunstratum--I have sorta shown this), since this lacks the rigor for QED(Blam! I have shown this!).
I trust your instincts. My bravo-sierra-dar went off at first glance too. I too have instincts that, when I actually listen to them, tend to keep me out of trouble(but, since I don't often listen it explains why I'm constantly retreating from one intractable problem or another). I didn't fall back on 'I'll just call her a liar, 'nuff said,' or 'I'll call her a dirty, no good, NYC liberal liar, 'nuff said.'
Maggs. Really? She plays on an emotional appeal so she's wrong and evil and has violated the Rulez? I don't follow that train of thought, at all. Quite the contrary. I find it to be a sentiment, the 'they're all my boys', to be quite common amoung Service Families. Founder of Soldier's Angels, anyone? (Deductive and inductive logic failure below). Firefighters and cops also have the 'extended family' routine. And, as Unk has talked about more than once, his 'adopted' kids. Quite common. Fallacy by emotional appeal? Si, but we all do that often, and loudly too, and it is not a violation of The Rulez to do so(just bad thinking). Rule #1, if you'll allow the paraphrase is 'Attack the message, not the messenger.' Rule #2, paraphrasing, was, 'if you don't I'll dig out the hairy eyeball, if you're ry, but I'll mock the rest of you mercilessly by altering your post or simply erase and block'.
Where do *I* see the violation of the Rulez? You're making it about her. You *are* casting aspersions on her character to carry the day.
Military logic: Magg's sometimes a stop thrust, using fencing terms to describe what you are calling for, works. Other times it just gets you impailed. SOmetimes you HAVE to parry-riposte(defend/disrupt, and then counter attack).
You're saying that one must always be on the attack, which is different from maintaining the initiative. Nappy and Alexander won whole empires by playing parry-riposte. It was a script Nappy followed almost un-erringly(find good terrain, set up there, let enemy come to me, counter attack.)
And, words have meaning. "If" was the term used. "If you are..." That's more an attempt to discrebit LC than *you*. There's no attempt at attacking anyone here in Mrs. C's commentary. Liberty Council? Da. Denizens? Nicht. So, to go from her statment to 'I've been insulted' seems to me mroe likely to be a thing of partisanship. She's saying something counter what i hold as true, ergo she's insulting me, and RABBITT SEASON FIRE! It's a chain I see as invalid. The deduction is false and hence the claim it's 1) discourteous 2) become about the person and not the issue.
Alternatively, one could simply show where we diverge from LC. Ask to show how we have used LC in our collective response to ObamanationCare(disproving an axiom, and thereby the entire argument---see there's a reason why you deal with that thrust). Or simply showing that LC is actually right---again, dealing with the argument---and not lies, meadow muffins(heh, this is now part of the gollum dictionary, you'll regret this one, BB), or other Bravo Foxtrot Sierra.
Violation of the Rulez? Nai desu. At least on what I can see. Explain it, please.
Incrementalism, BB. I have my position. I see what I see and the trends they portend. Avalanches start from mere pebbles. though, I did use a little rhetorical flourish. I was talking about Argghhh!, but also the rightosphere in general. Someone has to push back.
Unk. "It *is* an ad hominem attack to dismiss someone's statement by saying the person who made the statement is too immature to possibly say anything worthy of contemplation." Que?
This statement baffles me. Where did Mrs. C even infer this? Where did I infer this? In my case, I did contemplate on it, obviously, since I went to the trouble of actually delineating the proems/lines of reasoning. I don't get it. I went for the kendo or boxing official instruction shots to remain in the permitted, legal range of the body.
Gotta go be abused by an employer now. Or, I'd waste more 'trons, all.
This statement baffles me.
Where’s the bafflement? That’s a straightforward example of ad hominem usage.
Where did Mrs. C even infer this?
Here
he is respectful of you boys
and here
We exchanged pleasant emails on the subject where she rather persisted in her assertion of youth on our part (oh happy day were that the case!) and through the same emails, however, chose to dismiss ourselves as mere callow tools of the Liberty Counsel [sic].
Maggs. She plays on an emotional appeal so she's wrong and evil and has violated the Rulez?
No, her violation of the Rulez lay not in the emotional appeal itself, it was in her hoisting a false flag by doing it. She attempted to pass herself off as a friendly whose only interest was in setting the record straight -- and she's *not*.
No, you have misread my statement. I have no problem with an "emotional appeal". I have a problem with *pretending* in order to make your "emotional appeal".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Don't understand them, so your point(s) is(are) lost on me.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~No, again you misread me. I think we must be vigilant. Quite different.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~No, she is insulting my by lying.
I've worked in the mental and behavioral health industry for the past 12 years, dealing primarily with CEOs and top management staff of various provider organizations. They are overwhelmingly liberal and vote Democratic.
While I respect all of them individually very much, and have the greatest admiration for their skills and the work they do in their communities, I have personally experienced numerous incidents of condescension, rolling eyes, and questions about my intelligence when some discover that I don't share their views or am, in fact, a Neanderthal conservative Republican.
For the vast majority, their fetish for "open-mindedness", "tolerance" and "diversity" definitely does not extend to political views.
Second, I think you mistake what this thread is about. This is not a rational discussion of the merits of ObamaCare. This is a discussion about a ill-conceived attempt to influence someone via nothing more than emotion. Paraphrased and stripped of deception, Mrs. Cairns’ arguments, if they can be called such, are thus: “I’m part of the family, so you should listen to me”; “You don’t know what you’re talking about”; “Obama is nice to military people [a highly objectionable opinion for numerous reasons; curious, also, how you read Mrs. Cairns’ mind to learn that she did not mean “nice” as in “good”, the sense most people would take it], so you should trust him”; “Arguing against Obama’s plan is disrespectful to him”; “You got too much of your information from a bunch of liars pushing agendas”; and, again, “You don’t know what you’re talking about”. There is no logic to be found in her arguments, so expecting mostly pragmatic folks to respond in anything other than kind is unreasonable. Fighting fire with fire may be a poor choice in firefighting and scrutinized debate, but this is neither. This is response to little more than trolling by a political agent.
PS: While ad hominems are improper for a purely logical debate, they absolutely serve a purpose in the nebulous realm of political discussion. To wit, when facts are constantly twisted, hidden, and fabricated, examining the source of any given claim is a proper precaution. Refusing to evaluate political claims based on their source because doing so would be fallacious is being naïve, especially when the claims are unsupported “I say so”s.
Corty, I've been on the recieving end around here a little too often and too much to my liking. I've been on the recieving end of some very short----rhetorical---triggers. This argument is somewhat meta to the actual debate taking place. For that, sorry. Stick around a while and you'll see the emperical evidence for why I say that. Right now, talk to John if you find you can't take my word on faith on the subject. I'm willing to give empirical---look at the 'skunk woodpile thread' where right out of the gate I get called to stupid to breath. I employ the fallacy of 'specialized knowledge so listen to me,' sorta, but also offer up evidence of why I think this meta argument is important.
But, the rather "I told you off!" tear downs employed around here at times? Not so much. It didn't persuade. It didn't say anything to someone who hadn't already decided to agree. Which is my point in this whole exercise. I'm more about how do we make a bigger cohort than sitting in one assured that everyone agrees with me. You know, blogging for influence(looks to the South West).
Maggs, a stop thrust is where one simply attacks into an opponents attack hoping to have a bigger impact or landing faster---the Charge of the Small Boys at Leyte would be a Naval(and we all know you're all about the Navy) equivalent. Which is what you're saying we should do. "If you get off track arguing about the Liberty Counsel - did we ever cite them in an ancient thread - are they right or wrong on ObamaCare - yada yada, you lose sight of what's happening here." Look, I understand having pet peeves. I've got more than a few myself. But the topic is actually how bad Obama care is and the info surrounding it. If you go the other way, making it about destroying one person for attempting to 'falsely claim military kinship'---okay, she's been found on some lefty agenda stuff but has anyone actually found anything that says she doesn't have a son in the Corps? If not, shut up about it because you've not proven it and are operating on unfounded assumption about lefties.--- you're losing sight of the big picture for some enjoyment in pounding some spear carrier into scrap. tactical victory, with loss of operational and strategic goals. Nicht gut, ja?(And, yes, anyone who's actually gamed out Leyte knows that a completely valid action would be for the small boys to give up the single jeep carrier to protect the other two while waiting for the rest of the battle group to reform and take on Kurita's force and protecting the beaches. So that the Charge worked is not an indicator that it is always a good idea, or even was then. Brave, but had Kurita, already not a fan of the plan and wanting any reason to scuttle it, not turned around, it would've been the Charge of the Light Brigade: The Naval Version. Brave, but futile.)
Okay, since unlike Unk or Argent I don't have an 18 hour offset and I have to work 1230 to 2130 tomorrow I need to go to sleep, I'll try to brevity, just this once.
a) No one has prooved that Mrs. C has no son in the military. No proof of false flag. They've shown she's a lefty involved with lefty causes. Relies on stereotypes. Bad logic.
b) The argument has become 'she's not really authentic' and not about what she says. Wrong course of action. That's making it about who she is and not what she says. Bad logic.
c) The argument should be about Obamacare and our own reasoning for why we dislike it, not about who she is, what she's involved in, or use of a rather common play off of 'our boys in uniform'(would any of you be pissed if Bader-Patton used it? so why here? Would you be pissed if my Mom used it? So why here?)
d) Better course is to, ask Corty did, ID the fallacies and bad thinking. hump that like a prison ho. Politely. Honestly. Red meat is for rallies, not winning the bigger IO battles.
Dang, that actually was hard, John. Brevity SUCKS. ;)
(And, Cortillean, please don't be offended if I'm including humor here. I'm really tired after a stressful day and not meaning to be offensive, just trying to stay sane and not get too low. Sorry if it is off putting.)
Yanno, ry, for someone who keeps harping on "Keep it factual," you play *damn* fast and loose with the facts -- you get under people's skin when you do that, and then you complain people get annoyed with you. You ignore or twist the basic statements, then set up a straw man and attack that, instead. For example:
a) No one has prooved that Mrs. C has no son in the military. No proof of false flag. They've shown she's a lefty involved with lefty causes. Relies on stereotypes. Bad logic.
Straw man. Whether she does or does not have a son in the Marines is immaterial to the fact that she posed as a friendly in order to induce people to accept her position -- that's the false flag, which you keep ignoring.
b) The argument has become 'she's not really authentic' and not about what she says. Wrong course of action. That's making it about who she is and not what she says. Bad logic.
Straw man. The post *is* about a tactic the Obots use.
c) The argument should be about Obamacare and our own reasoning for why we dislike it, not about who she is, what she's involved in, or use of a rather common play off of 'our boys in uniform'(would any of you be pissed if Bader-Patton used it? so why here? Would you be pissed if my Mom used it? So why here?)
Straw man. She introduced the topic of "Shut up about ObamaCare because it's dissing Obie Himself," which is not only a valid subject for discussion, but has been the reason for the discussion. And once again, the emotional appeal is not the issue -- it was her hoisting the false flag.
Ry, you still seem to have missed my two points, so I'll reiterate more succinctly: First, why doesn't your concern over illogic seem to extend to the person who perpetrated at least a couple offenses to start this? Second, adherence to logic is not even necessary to this situation. Dealing with what amounts to an ill-conceived trolling (notice how the lady has not bothered returning to expand and clarify?) does not require a rational refutation of claims any more than throwing a rotting thing-in-a-bag into the garbage requires opening the bag and picking through the contents. Dispose of it, find out who left it there, mock the source; these are appropriate responses, and responding to Mrs. Cairns' poor attempt at swaying hearts deserves no more.
On other matters, I take issue with your 'a)' beyond Bill's explanation that you missed the point again ('b)' and 'c)' fall under point the second above). While I would normally take her statement as true until proven otherwise, the fact that she used it to try to play up credibility for unsupported BS changes matters. I take claims made solely for impact as inherently false, especially in the political arena, so this is a positive proof situation to me. Until she proves (within reason) that she does have a son in the military, I will not accept her claim as true.
Also, I've been around longer than you may think. I don't comment often since I typically have little enough to add, but I've been visiting for close to three years, plenty long enough to get a feel for the usual suspects. Bill's second paragraph above sums up most of my opinion. While people, especially those given more to the real world than the world of theory, will drift away from purely rational discourse, that is neither always a bad thing nor made better by misconstructing their arguments to cry foul. You have a rather bad habit of doing the latter, often by playing at mind-reading over the web. For someone who asserts that Mrs. Cairns' claim of "kinship" is to be taken at face value, it's odd that you refuse the same courtesy to those more deserving of it. Before you claim that you know them well enough to do so, consider that such a claim is a case of the same inductive reasoning you decried when applied to liberals producing warriors. You can't have it both ways.
goatcritter slivers with peppers*Hey! You said you'd been here nigh on three years. Ya should know where stuff is by now!
Macon Phillips, the new WH media director, has announced that the source was -- *koff* -- "fear-mongering sinister conspiracy theorists."
At this point, anything I could possibly add to that would be superfluous...
We transferred here from Fort Lost-in-the-Woods...I practically lived in Rolla at a particular yarn/fabric shop.
We go back once or twice a year so we will definitely consider that, as we love calzone and gyros. We make it here at home, but I do like a break from cooking.
To Bill's curried rice pilaf and critter with peppers, I will add collards with cornbread dumplings and pecan pie, vanilla ice cream and hot fudge sauce. Also some cole slaw.