So I take it you're not going to answer the question in the original post then?
Fine. Are you ready to admit then that Cheney is lying as are all the Republicans who've repeated this Obama-lied-about-terrorism-after-Bin-Laden mantra?
Very well, moving on to your latest round of hey-man-both-sides-do-it-so-stop-picking-on-us. As we've reviewed previously, this is the last line of defense when conservatives get caught being corrupt, abusive, dishonest, etc. The ad hominem tu quoque argument (mingled with a dash of red herring evasion) is a tacit admission of "guilty as charged" while still trying to run cover for the behavior by claiming persecution.
In the first place, these are recognized logical fallacies. Clinton's behavior can't be used to validate the behavior of W or Cheney.
In the second place, the tu quoque argument (once again) completely fails because the comparison isn't valid. Observe your own words:
But nothing. Stop right there.
1. Clinton dodged the draft during Vietnam.
2. Clinton didn't support the Vietnam war.
3. Ergo, Clinton was a conscientious objector to the War in Vietnam.
1. W Bush dodged the draft during Vietnam.
2. W Bush cheered on the war in Vietnam.
3. Ergo, Bush was a chicken hawk on the war in Vietnam.
The two are not analogous.
And here's where you try to prove that Kosovo was completely the same war as Vietnam. Good luck.
Fine. Are you ready to admit then that Cheney is lying as are all the Republicans who've repeated this Obama-lied-about-terrorism-after-Bin-Laden mantra?
Very well, moving on to your latest round of hey-man-both-sides-do-it-so-stop-picking-on-us. As we've reviewed previously, this is the last line of defense when conservatives get caught being corrupt, abusive, dishonest, etc. The ad hominem tu quoque argument (mingled with a dash of red herring evasion) is a tacit admission of "guilty as charged" while still trying to run cover for the behavior by claiming persecution.
In the first place, these are recognized logical fallacies. Clinton's behavior can't be used to validate the behavior of W or Cheney.
In the second place, the tu quoque argument (once again) completely fails because the comparison isn't valid. Observe your own words:
(May 18, 2013 at 5:27 pm)A Theist Wrote: Hypocrisy pretty much runs rampant on your side...Bill Clinton didn't cheer-lead for the Vietnam War but ...
But nothing. Stop right there.
1. Clinton dodged the draft during Vietnam.
2. Clinton didn't support the Vietnam war.
3. Ergo, Clinton was a conscientious objector to the War in Vietnam.
1. W Bush dodged the draft during Vietnam.
2. W Bush cheered on the war in Vietnam.
3. Ergo, Bush was a chicken hawk on the war in Vietnam.
The two are not analogous.
And here's where you try to prove that Kosovo was completely the same war as Vietnam. Good luck.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
