On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 13:05:38 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 09:27:57 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote:

On Sep 21, 11:07*am, wf3h wrote:
On Sep 21, 9:49*am, Jack wrote:





On Sep 21, 7:50*am, wf3h wrote:

On Sep 20, 7:54*pm, Jack wrote:

On Sep 20, 6:05*pm, wf3h wrote:

On Sep 20, 6:00*pm, "Canuck57" wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message

.. .

http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/8827/97690686.jpg

Maybe Texas should suceed before Obama racks up too much debt. *Already a
world record for one idividual to rack up so much debt.

courtesy of the bush project to enrich the already rich by having the
middle class take it in the shorts

Maybe you should have studied and worked harder so you didn't end up
so "middle class".

as i said, the rich hates the middle class.

That's not what you said.

sure you did. i left your words intact above. what do you wish to
retract or deny?

My comment was about what *you* wrote, not what I wrote. You wrote
"as i said, the rich hates the middle class", but that was not what
you had previously written. Your previous statement was "courtesy of
the bush project to enrich the already rich by having the middle class
take it in the shorts" That says nothing about hate of anyone.


i'm proud to be middle class. you hate *us? i'm proud of that, too.

And that's not what I said, or implied. *Your attempts to spin and
create fact out of fallacy is duly noted. *It is your MO.-

again, what part of 'middle class' don't you understand?

I neither stated, or implied, that I hated anyone. What part of that
do you not understand?

At first I thought your non sequitur responses were deliberate
attempts to obfuscate the issue. I'm starting to believe that your
inability to follow a thread in a logical manner is intrinsic to your
nature.

cya

You're observation is probably correct, Jack. It's maddening how the
propagandists, mostly on the left of center, will employ logical
fallacy after logical fallacy and consider those fallacies to be
strong arguments. One can point out the ad hominem, the non sequitur,
the red herring, the strawman, the hasty generalization, et al, and
they'll resort to the very same fallacies. The reason those fallacies
work is because of the unspoken doctrine of overwhelming numbers.
Antagonists persist with these fallacies until opponents are worn out
from combating them. I haven't encountered a single logically-minded
'progressive' in this forum as of yet.

No, but you came up with a great oxymoron - logically-minded
progressive.
--

John H