John Hagee is Going to Hell

[whiny voice]Fraud.
Yawn. Well this is getting boring since you can't substantiate your accusations with any substance, so there is nothing to be gained by speaking any further with you. I suppose maybe tomorrow I'll go argue with some 12 year olds so that I can be challenged a little more.
 
Yawn. Well this is getting boring since you can't substantiate your accusations with any substance, so there is nothing to be gained by speaking any further with you. I suppose maybe tomorrow I'll go argue with some 12 year olds so that I can be challenged a little more.

Another one runs away. Neocons are like dogs, kick 'em hard and they run away with their tail between their legs.
 
Another one runs away. Neocons are like dogs, kick 'em hard and they run away with their tail between their legs.
You don't even know what a neocon is. Go look it up. If you bothered to educate yourself, you would not be able to truthfully say that I am one.
 
Let's see your degree from Buck Bible college, hatemonger. Kiss all your Catholic voting base goodbye.

And let's see your degree from the Pearl Buck School for the Mentally Retarded, Assclown.
 
We need to put this stupid thread to rest.

The difference between the Wright and Hagee stories are the equivalent of the difference between the Spitzer and Larry Craig stories.

Did Hagee baptize McCain?
Did Hagee administer the wedding vows for McCain and his trophy wife?
Does Hagee work in McCain's campaign?
Does McCain call Hagee his "spiritual mentor"?


Liberals can pound their heads against the wall all they want to try and subdue the Obama/Wright connection with the Hagee endorsement but it ain't gonna work. They're not in the same ballpark, league or sport as each other.

This is going to be just one of many reasons Barack Farrakhan is going down in flames in November. And all the Nation Of Islam's horses, and all the Nation Of Islam's men ain't gonna put Hussein back together again.

QFT from the blamebush blog.
 
Here's my clue. I am an attorney and I know the legal profession inside and out. The one you call "Mac" is a fraud, and you sir are an idiot. Goodnight.

You are an attorney, and you get worked up in a debate that quickly, over that little, and start making personal attacks, suggesting excessively emotional thinking. In addition, you make blatantly absurd leaps in logic (Mac is an attorney, when he never even implied as much), suggesting intellectual sloppiness, at best.

You'll forgive me if I don't think you'd make much of an attorney. :)
 
What's a personal attack? Because I called someone fraudulent for holding themselves out to be an attorney when they obviously are not? That's not a personal attack. A personal attack derides a person's race, disability, religion, etc.

Generally, a personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when examining another person's claims or comments. It is considered a personal attack when a person starts referencing a supposed flaw or weakness in an individual's personality, beliefs, lifestyle, convictions or principles, and use it as a debate tactic or as a means of avoiding discussion of the relevance or truthfulness the person's statement. It works on the reasoning that, by discrediting the source of a logical argument, namely the person making it, the argument itself can be weakened.

This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself. The truth value of a claim is independent of the person making the claim. No matter how morally repugnant a person might be, he or she can still make true claims. For example, a defense attorney may claim that a witness' testimony cannot be trusted because he is a convicted felon. On the other hand, illuminating real character flaws and inconsistencies in the position of an opponent are a vital part of the public political process and of the adversarial judicial process. Use of a personal attack in a logical argument constitutes a formal fallacy called ad hominem, a term that comes from a Latin phrase meaning "toward the man".

That definition is from Wikipedia.
 
Generally, a personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when examining another person's claims or comments. It is considered a personal attack when a person starts referencing a supposed flaw or weakness in an individual's personality, beliefs, lifestyle, convictions or principles, and use it as a debate tactic or as a means of avoiding discussion of the relevance or truthfulness the person's statement. It works on the reasoning that, by discrediting the source of a logical argument, namely the person making it, the argument itself can be weakened.

This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself. The truth value of a claim is independent of the person making the claim. No matter how morally repugnant a person might be, he or she can still make true claims. For example, a defense attorney may claim that a witness' testimony cannot be trusted because he is a convicted felon. On the other hand, illuminating real character flaws and inconsistencies in the position of an opponent are a vital part of the public political process and of the adversarial judicial process. Use of a personal attack in a logical argument constitutes a formal fallacy called ad hominem, a term that comes from a Latin phrase meaning "toward the man".

That definition is from Wikipedia.

Basically, a personal attack is ad hominem reasoning.
 
Ah, I remember you now, Max. Your only claim to fame in this ENTIRE forum is where you attacked everybody in sight and bashed Christians.

Haven't even posted in the vehicle forums. Once.

Maybe you can have a convo with Mick Jagger/FreddieFriday/FredFlash/Fred T. Slicer. I'm not interested, troll.
 
You are an attorney, and you get worked up in a debate that quickly, over that little, and start making personal attacks, suggesting excessively emotional thinking. In addition, you make blatantly absurd leaps in logic (Mac is an attorney, when he never even implied as much), suggesting intellectual sloppiness, at best.

You'll forgive me if I don't think you'd make much of an attorney. :)

Ah, you have to think in very specific legal terms.
He may be an attorney.... but he's not a very good attorney.

Notice the subtle distinction?
 
LOL how did I miss this thread in March. :bowrofl:
I just had a real good laugh.
Maxb49 you are a piece of work. :rolleyes:
 

Members online

Back
Top