Geez that Fetterman looks like the Grandpa from the Addams Family but at least he is fairminded on
the Iran matter.
Replies to: Geez that Fetterman looks like the Grandpa from the Addams Family but at least he is fairminded on
His transformation since his treatment at Walter Reed is remarkable
They are truly miracle workers there.
More Dems should seek treatment.
He is for a closed border & deportations. He also supports what we are doing in Iran.
John is a Democrat but he is also a patriot who has the support of his voters. The Dem left are all upset because he is not threatened by their hissy fits.
My girl and I were talking about it this morning. Politics aside, his recovery has been remarkable.
I haven't seen him walk, so I don't know if he is dealing with any physical paralysis but his brain sure does seem to be hittn on all 8
He’s mentally ill. Republicans took the cowards path, avoiding a vote on the war.
It is a war.
Not approved by Congress.
Hence, it is an unlawful use of military power.
Fetterman will get primaried. The cult demands 100% loyalty.
Isn't it a bit premature (by something like 85 days), before you can pronounce these strikes in violation of the War Powers Resolution?
I'm curious if you think:
1) Kosovo was an illegal war (which went beyond the initial 60 day limit?
2) Libya was an illegal war since it went well beyond the total of 90 days without Congressional approval?
3) Obama sending troops to Syria in direct contravention of the explicit Congressional prohibitions against doing so?
If you think Clinton's and Obama's actions are permitted, does that weaken your position against Trump regarding Iran?
Conor is afraid that the Iran intervention could be successful.
Conor has no concern for the Iranian people, he's concerned about the political ramifications at home if Trump was able to liberate the Iranians without troops on the ground.
Conor is not with the Iranians celebrating the death of the Ayatollah, Conor is with the lunatics protesting the death of the guy who just slaughtered 30K Iranians.
It's like Queers for Hamas or Feminists for Sharia Law, don't try to make sense of it.
The “intervention” better be successful.
It remains unlawful. We understand that the rule of law is meaningless to folks like you.
In one way, it's already successful.
The message is, if you kill 30K of your citizens, simply for protesting, we will kill you.
Whether that leads to liberation, we'll have to wait and see. But no one should shed a tear for the Ayatollah or that asshole Ahmadenijad.
Every president since 1973 when the War Powers Act was passed has called it unconstitutional. Every single one, Republican and Democrat. The Supreme Court has not ruled on it, and until they do, the Commander in Chief has broad constitutional authority for military action.
It’s unlawful and without precedent.
Cite an example where a US President without congressional approval, and without our nation having been attacked, deployed 40% of US Naval assets, launched a major air campaign against a foreign sovereign and killed its head of state.
There are no such examples.
You may like the result, but this attack is unlawful.
Don’t pretend otherwise.
As Hillary said: " We came, we saw, and he's dead, hahahahaha".
(no message)
What % of naval assets is permissible? Or is that a nonsense point?
(no message)
Straw Man after Straw Man...first it's debating the 50% increase for Defense, now it's 40% of Naval
assets...but never the crux of the argument...i.e. irresponsible spending or Illegal usage of resources. You are Insufferable...but very good at what you do..'-)
Directly questioning a point raised by you is a "Straw Man." Whatever.
I was going to whittle away, point by point, on conor's ridiculous post, but I don't feel like sparring with you, the king of the strawman, who brings up a new issue every post, hoping that the sheer weight of 5 terrible arguments will be perceived as a single strong position.
In light of your limited self-awareness, use the following as a mirror...note the frequency of the
term..."So You..." in your posts...fits you to a "T"...btw, "Straw Man" and "Disingenuous" go hand in hand..
---------------------
AI Overview
A straw man is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone distorts, exaggerates, or oversimplifies an opponent's argument to make it easier to attack. Instead of addressing the actual position held by their adversary, the person creates a "straw man"—a weakened or inaccurate caricature of the original argument—and then refutes that fake version to create the illusion of victory.
How the Straw Man Argument Works
The fallacy typically follows a three-stage structure:
Person A states position X.
Person B presents a distorted, extreme, or oversimplified version of that position (position Y).
Person B attacks position Y and acts as if they have successfully refuted Person A's original argument (position X).
Common Techniques
Arguer often use these methods to build a straw man:
Oversimplification: Reducing a complex, nuanced issue into a simple, black-and-white choice.
Exaggeration: Taking a reasonable claim and pushing it to an absurd extreme.
Taking Out of Context: Quoting specific words but ignoring the surrounding intent to change their meaning.
Fabrication: Attributing a claim or belief to an opponent that they never actually made.
Fringe Selection: Highlighting the most extreme or non-representative members of a group and parading them as typical of the entire group (sometimes called "nutpicking").
Examples of Straw Man Arguments
Original Position Straw Man Response The Distortion
"We should increase funding for public education." "Why do you want to throw unlimited money at schools and bankrupt the country?" Exaggerates "more funding" into "unlimited money" and "bankruptcy."
"I think we should regulate the use of plastic bags." "So you want to ban all plastic bags and make it impossible to carry things?" Turns "regulation" into a "complete ban."
"We should add more security cameras due to recent thefts." "So you're saying you don't trust any of your neighbors?" Shifts the focus from "security" to "personal distrust."
Origins and Etymology
The term is derived from the idea of a scarecrow or a military training dummy made of straw. These figures are inanimate, defenseless, and easy to knock down, much like a misrepresented argument.
Historical Use: While the concept of misrepresenting arguments was noted by Aristotle as far back as the 300s B.C.E., the specific name "straw man" was not formally recognized in textbooks as a fallacy until the mid-20th century, notably in Stuart Chase’s Guides to Straight Thinking (1956).
Early References: Martin Luther used the imagery in 1520, accusing his critics of setting up a "man of straw" to attack rather than engaging with his actual views on the Eucharist.
Related Terms
Hollow Man: A complete fabrication where an arguer invents a non-existent opponent and a non-existent viewpoint to attack.
Iron Man: Distorting one's own stance to make it easier to defend, often using vague terms or jargon.
Steel Man: The opposite of a straw man; it involves presenting an opponent's argument in its strongest possible form before attempting to refute it.
Red Herring: A broader category of diversionary tactics; while a straw man specifically misrepresents an argument, a red herring simply tries to change the subject.
------------------
Uncle Fester?
(no message)
Yeah that's the guy.
(no message)
Festerman?
(no message)
Consent Management