18 Aug 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraAn argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people"😉, in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges, "If many believe so, it is so."
Actually it does. More than 90% of Americans is a christian, does that mean christianity is true, or that it's a reasonable position? Of course not.
this has nothing to do w/the op. which is the fact that conservatives out number liberals in the states 2-1,according to a recent poll.
18 Aug 09
1 edit
Originally posted by utherpendragonFrom which you conclude that "liberals" are "looneys", which is your argumentum ad populum.
[b]An argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people"😉, in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges, "If many believe so, it is so."
this has nothing to do w/the op. which is the fact that conservatives out number liberals in the states 2-1,according to a recent poll.[/b]
Of course that mere fact is not an argumentum ad populum. I'm not surprised more Americans see themselves as conservatives - it's the only thing you can vote for.
18 Aug 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorrano again. I conclude that the liberal loonies here at RHP are not represenative of main stream america.
From which you conclude that "liberals" are "looneys", which is your argumentum ad populum.
Of course that mere fact is not an argumentum ad populum. I'm not surprised more Americans see themselves as conservatives - it's the only thing you can vote for.
I concluded liberals were loonies long ago by their rhetoric and actions.
18 Aug 09
Originally posted by utherpendragonOk, then I misunderstood your OP, you can now go on an Easter hunt for the other argumentum ad populums in the thread.
no again. I conclude that the liberal loonies here at RHP are not represenative of main stream america.
I concluded liberals were loonies long ago by their rhetoric and actions.
18 Aug 09
Originally posted by utherpendragonMaybe, in belated vindication of GWB's educational policies, US citizens are finally beginning to understand what 'liberal' means and that since most of them espouse Republican or Democrat views, the term does indeed have a fairly restricted application.
[b]Proof that the RHP liberal looney bin is not main stream american thought
Any comments ? 🙂[/b]
18 Aug 09
3 edits
the problem with these sorts of polls is that the respondents never say what they mean when they call themselves "conservative, moderate, or liberal".
I'm sure many people think of "conservatism" as meaning that they're more or less happy with the way things are and don't want to see any major changes -- that is, they want to "conserve" the way things are.
Others think of "conservatism" as meaning a "radical destruction of government" and may avoid the term even though they generally favor less govt and vote for Republicans.
Then there are people who think of "liberalism" as meaning that they're in favor of freedom -- that is, being "liberal" is the opposite of being "strict". While other people may think of "liberalism" as meaning a "radical government takeover" and might avoid using the term, even though they favor most government programs and initiatives and generally vote for Democrats.
18 Aug 09
Originally posted by utherpendragonLiberals are diminishing??? Oh, I see! That's why the G O P has done so well in the elections of 2006 and 2008! Now I get it.🙄
Americans who consider themselves conservatives now outnumber Americans who consider themselves liberal by almost two to one, according to a new poll by the Washington Post and ABC News.
In the poll of 1,001 adults conducted between July 15-18, respondents were asked: "Would you say your views on most political matters are liberal, moderate, or con ...[text shortened]... oof that the RHP liberal looney bin is not main stream american thought
Any comments ? 🙂[/b]
18 Aug 09
Originally posted by utherpendragonthe best hope for reducing the deficit would be for Obama to remain as president, with the GOP controlling Congress. Obama could lay out a general plan for reducing the deficit - but the GOP would have to initiate the actual legislation. And the GOP would have to come up with something that Obama would be willing to sign.
start a stock pile of kleenex because your gonna need it in the next elections.
Obama's natural instinct seems to be to make compromises in order to reach broad bipartisan agreements. But with the Dems controlling all three branches, Obama is under intense pressure from the liberals to deliver an ambitious agenda - and the GOP is under intense pressure from their base to "hope Obama fails".
So Obama has a major dilemma right now -- either give in to the liberals on almost everything (since they have the power within the party), or end up being a president who couldn't get anything done.
Bush faced a similar dilemma when the GOP controlled all three branches.