General Discussion

kenfrequed

(7,865 posts)

45. So...

Mon May 18, 2015, 02:35 PM

May 2015

I am the Gish Galloper here?

This is getting absurd.

I will be honest, I am going to support whoever gets the Democratic nomination, but you are actually making people less interested in supporting Hillary with your method of argumentation, MaggieD. You don't seem to add much to the discussion and the only conclusion I can reach is that you are following a thousand threads and only reposting on each of them long enough to repeat the same arguments without any consideration.

Seriously, stop and think about what you are doing, what you are communicating, and how you are communicating. If you were supporting my candidate's side I would tell you to "Get off my side!" If Hillary wins the nomination, then I reserve the right to tell you that then!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

101 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

NYT: The Right Baits Democrats to Help Take Down Hillary [View all] nolabear May 2015 OP

Aw Geez,you think. Wellstone ruled May 2015 #1

Just supporting what's long been understood. nolabear May 2015 #11

But, Wellstone ruled May 2015 #49

Strawman fallacy AgingAmerican May 2015 #2

It's not a strawman. You can disagree that this explains what you and other DUers have been doing stevenleser May 2015 #5

It's a strawman AgingAmerican May 2015 #6

Let's count the problems with your contention, because there are many stevenleser May 2015 #7

Another fallacy AgingAmerican May 2015 #50

Not ad hominem at all. It's all directed at your statements stevenleser May 2015 #56

You! You! AgingAmerican May 2015 #60

Yep, because I am talking about statements made by you. I get that you don't understand the stevenleser May 2015 #62

Now you are petty bickering AgingAmerican May 2015 #63

If it makes you feel better to think that, by all means. Folks can read this thread and stevenleser May 2015 #65

The article is nonsense AgingAmerican May 2015 #66

The article has links to things that actually occurred. It's firmly grounded in fact. stevenleser May 2015 #68

The premise of the article is nonsense AgingAmerican May 2015 #70

That is automatically proved wrong by links to the actual tweets and other things that occurred. stevenleser May 2015 #76

'Links' and 'Tweets' AgingAmerican May 2015 #79

The article is partially about Tweets, so yes, a link to the Tweets in question is pretty important. stevenleser May 2015 #80

More ad hominem AgingAmerican May 2015 #82

More suggestions of logical fallacies when you don't understand what those fallacies mean. nt stevenleser May 2015 #86

Someone is protesting w-a-y too much, using playground rules and name calling Sheepshank May 2015 #71

Why don't you take a stab at it AgingAmerican May 2015 #73

Yep, I have no idea. It's silly. The article is exquisitely sourced. Claiming it is nonsense is just stevenleser May 2015 #75

This is the sort of thing AgingAmerican May 2015 #77

First, I Am not "you guys" and we've never met. But it's no Straw Man. nolabear May 2015 #13

Who are "you guys"? hrmjustin May 2015 #32

A small cadre of Hillary supporters AgingAmerican May 2015 #67

Don't worry about his response to you. He refuses to acknowledge the sourced facts in the article. stevenleser May 2015 #69

The article is nonsense AgingAmerican May 2015 #72

Sorry but the article is not junk. hrmjustin May 2015 #74

OMG, look at posts 79 and 80 above. He never read it. stevenleser May 2015 #81

More ad hominem AgingAmerican May 2015 #85

Again, you don't understand what the ad-hominem fallacy means. nt stevenleser May 2015 #87

Have you ever served on mirt or as a moderator here? hrmjustin May 2015 #88

I could care less what RW trolls do AgingAmerican May 2015 #90

Ok but some of us do care and we are making that known. hrmjustin May 2015 #91

Using them to attack Sanders supporters is fallacious AgingAmerican May 2015 #92

I am not using it to attack Sanders supporters. hrmjustin May 2015 #93

The person you jumped in to defend is AgingAmerican May 2015 #94

This is about wRning social media thatvthere sre trolls about. hrmjustin May 2015 #95

No, I'm not, and neither is the OP. nt stevenleser May 2015 #98

It means responding to someone by going after them personally AgingAmerican May 2015 #89

It means attacking the person instead of that person's statements. I attacked your statements. nt stevenleser May 2015 #99

I think the total they are spending is over Two Billion between all RW candidates randys1 May 2015 #83

It is just a story from the times. hrmjustin May 2015 #31

Uhm... kenfrequed May 2015 #3

It's not supporting other candidates that is the problem.... MaggieD May 2015 #9

OK. kenfrequed May 2015 #12

Never claimed. nolabear May 2015 #15

Nor were these "right wing talking points" clarified kenfrequed May 2015 #21

If they are planted by the right.... MaggieD May 2015 #22

so... kenfrequed May 2015 #24

The article in the OP details them MaggieD May 2015 #25

Yes, some of those articles were problematic kenfrequed May 2015 #28

So you didn't read it MaggieD May 2015 #29

Right... a few things. kenfrequed May 2015 #35

You should have read it.... MaggieD May 2015 #36

Really? kenfrequed May 2015 #38

No they aren't MaggieD May 2015 #42

And... kenfrequed May 2015 #44

you won't get anywhere with that one. Phlem May 2015 #51

I've noticed that. 840high May 2015 #58

The irony of that thread is amusing. Capt. Obvious May 2015 #37

In what way? kenfrequed May 2015 #39

The OP using a Gish Gallop Capt. Obvious May 2015 #40

True. kenfrequed May 2015 #41

Actually I'm RESPONDING MaggieD May 2015 #43

So... kenfrequed May 2015 #45

No, I am talking about the link in my previous post MaggieD May 2015 #47

That makes sense Capt. Obvious May 2015 #46

Actually, it doesn't kenfrequed May 2015 #48

The kneejerk responses to this are bizarre. It shows the futility of attempting to have stevenleser May 2015 #14

Thanks. The defensiveness and extrapolation are disheartening. nolabear May 2015 #18

No, the intention is to advocate being careful whose stuff we follow and repost. nolabear May 2015 #10

Establishment, overpaid media outlets complaining that liberals closeupready May 2015 #4

Like I've been saying MaggieD May 2015 #8

+1 Historic NY May 2015 #30

The bait lands all over DU. eom MohRokTah May 2015 #16

It's nice the NYT finally decides to write about r/w astroturfing. Cerridwen May 2015 #17

I know. Inch by inch, I suppose. nolabear May 2015 #19

The Right hates Hillary. The fringe left hates Hillary... SidDithers May 2015 #20

Exactly (nt) MaggieD May 2015 #23

+1 uponit7771 May 2015 #27

I am fringe left? Trajan May 2015 #55

Supporting a candidate is very different from denigrating their rival, in my area negative attacks Bluenorthwest May 2015 #97

Most the anti Hillary on left base forums are FUD, winger-ish memes with winger-ish retorts uponit7771 May 2015 #26

with McConnell praising Obama as the lone crusader on the TPP and Dem Senators working MisterP May 2015 #33

lol the responses are predictable but if you said that there were hrmjustin May 2015 #34

Isn't this thread also a response to those efforts? Trajan May 2015 #52

+10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 Phlem May 2015 #54

What the hell are you talking about? nolabear May 2015 #59

I'll cut and paste my response LWolf May 2015 #53

Great. Not you then. Thanks. nolabear May 2015 #57

It's fascinating how many DUers thought this NY Times article was about them. stevenleser May 2015 #61

And it creates a kind of blindness and vulnerability. nolabear May 2015 #96

Hillary does a fine job on her own creating disenfranchisement. n/t Exilednight May 2015 #64

So if someone on the right points out a hughee99 May 2015 #78

The GOP is really worried about Hillary Clinton Gothmog May 2015 #84

totally lol'ing at the numerous arguments on this thread against the op article Sheepshank May 2015 #100

Meanwhile, President Obama has two years left. tridim May 2015 #101