Obama is a US born citizen

[danp]

Silliness moved to the lounge where it belongs.

[ThomasJ]

Well that would include Dick Cheney and john McCain.

So we have either a president that forged a birth certificate and fooled the highest scrutiny in the land (brilliant), or a mentally ill old man in la la land, unable to discern fact from fiction.

If you recall, the first mention of factcheck was done by Cheney in the vP debates. Why would he reference a Soros site?

**He wouldn't**

Which is exactly my point.

No, your conclusion is a logical fallacy. His premise could still be valid, but your choice of either this or that is fallacious; they do not disprove it. Not just that this either/or choice is fallacious, but the components are so ridiculous.

[CarolinaGuy]

No, your conclusion is a logical fallacy. His premise could still be valid, but your choice of either this or that is fallacious; they do not disprove it. Not just that this either/or choice is fallacious, but the components are so ridiculous.

So if his premise is valid, which of the two options is incorrect?

And why would Cheney bring up a Soros site in a nationally-televised debate, given that Soros hates Cheney?

[MostlyHarmless]

I feel like a bowl of petunias.

[camper]

I should write a small book about about why Obama is the antichrist, claim that if you eat the book you'll shed 50 lbs, and retire by Christmas.

I'LL TAKE THREE!!!!

(Its got the illuminati in it, right?)

camper

[ThomasJ]

So if his premise is valid, which of the two options is incorrect?

Both of them. it's a logical fallacy. even if each of your options were valid, it ignores the fact that there are other options and explanations.

And why would Cheney bring up a Soros site in a nationally-televised debate, given that Soros hates Cheney?

There are a number of reasons, one of which is using an opponent's own words and tools against him. For example, if you think a source is the end-all, be-all, then i would use that source to refute and undermine your own argument. i don't know what the context was for cheney to mention it, but you aren't applying logic at all. your question is silly.

[camper]

Against my better judgement I want to say only one thing:

Whether he was born here or not is no longer relevant at this point. If he got there illegally, the people who helped him get there will protect him. If he's there legally, accusations are unfounded.

I want him ousted because of his POLITICS, not because of where he was born. This topic needs to die, and not just on this board. Its a destraction from things that NEED to be addressed, such as the healtcare bill and cap & trade.

camper

[CarolinaGuy]

Both of them. it's a logical fallacy. even if each of your options were valid, it ignores the fact that there are other options and explanations.

Well, since the premise was a failed one, I guess I don't have to worry about that, do I?

There are a number of reasons, one of which is using an opponent's own words and tools against him. For example, if you think a source is the end-all, be-all, then i would use that source to refute and undermine your own argument. i don't know what the context was for cheney to mention it, but you aren't applying logic at all. your question is silly.

But Cheney wasn't using an opponents words against him, you are guessing [wrongly]. At best, you should say you don't know the context and move on, since you present your own logical fallacy in your explanation of what you don't know.

Since Cheney was using factcheck as his own source, the question is neither silly nor illogical...neither of which you would be able to determine without being familiar with the example.

If King Neocon himself uses a source for reference, and that source says Obama is American, you think that is a silly, illogical argument? Why, that is most illogical.

[bogey1]

http://forum.pafoa.org/national-11/6...tml#post825697

You posted three under it. For anyone else that wants to start another thread on the topic, see link above.

since when did you become judge, jury, executioner?

[ThomasJ]

Well, since the premise was a failed one, I guess I don't have to worry about that, do I?

your premise, not his premise. it was your premise i was referring to.

But Cheney wasn't using an opponents words against him, you are guessing [wrongly]. At best, you should say you don't know the context and move on, since you present your own logical fallacy in your explanation of what you don't know.

Uh, that is exactly what I did say: "i don't know what the context was for cheney to mention it". you even quoted it.

did you not read it or did you think it meant something else? surely you aren't confusing my example in which i say "you" and "i", as one that directly applies to cheney?

oh, my.