Then I got to the Googler, and dug a few of my own links up...
That tactic is off-topic, and therefore a fallacy of the Red Herring class, specially, a
Straw Man. It's like my saying "2+2=4" and you respond with, "yeah, but they're clubbing baby seals!" Your argument isn't an argument at all. It's a deceptive attempt to divert attention away from the point I made.
Which, by the way, stands without any logical rebuttal (yet) from you.
Another Googler find--apparently W. Bush...
Straw man...
Basically, your Topic you Sourced me too...
No.
...which was one you started, and the crap links...
Please explain how my links to the U.S. National Archives are "crap?"
...and what you had stated in it is complete BS.
Your assertion is 100% unqualified and therefore completely without merit.
Moreover, it is apparent that you are engaging in direct misleading, and out-right fear-mongering...
Again, your assertion is unqualified, and therefore completely without merit. Furthermore, it's a personal attack, known as an
Ad Hominem, another red herring and deceptive logical fallacy designed to misdirect and misguide.
You missed that initially, some time ago, there were a larger group of Senators who made the same statement, this current batch was smaller.
More Dems = smaller bunch willing to protect and defend the Constitution. We're working to correct that by 2013.
...you have offered claims of 900 EO's, and there have been a much smaller number than that.
Actually,
this article made the claim of 900 E.O.s, specificically, "President Barack Hussein "kill list" Obama has offered over 900 Executive Orders (EO)." I agree that link is crap, as he cites "EO 10990" and some others as belonging to Obama, but they go all the way back to J.F.K.
This link is not crap, and the first paragraph reiterates what I just said: "(Editor’s correction: This is a list of executive orders in force that outline Emergency Powers. Some of these were signed by prior US Presidents going back all the way to JFK. Obama specifically has signed executive orders starting with the number EO-13489 and forward. But these all reference powers Obama could use to limit your freedoms."
You would know that had you actually read the link. Your comments clearly indicate you either didn't read it while saying you did (deceptive), or that you posted as if you'd read the links without actually having read them (deceptive).
Either way: Deceptive.
Meanwhile, you pointed out an error. I admitted it, and have modified
my post. Instead of ignoring it or trying to draw attention away from it, I admitted the error and made the correct. That's honesty, not deception.
Strawman logical fallacy...
...put forth nearly 3X the number of EO's during his first stint in office.
Strawman - quantity has no bearing on quality. That's also a formal fallacy known as a
Probabalistic Fallacy.
*Correction* Bush signed nearly 300 during his entire stint in office, sorry for the misread on my part.
No worries - there's hope for you yet!
BTW, I almost forgot. That americanthinker... link you offered is scary. I hope that individuals don't actually believe the heaps of sh*t that are offered there.
Really? It's almost identical to the Western Center for Journalism article:
"Founded in 1991 by Joseph Farah (the brains behind WND.com news website) and James H. Smith (former publisher of the Sacramento Union), the Western Center for Journalism has been sponsoring and training investigative journalists for over two decades." -
Source
I mean, obviously you believe it...and that is worrisome. Please, keep a level head, stay away from reading too much fringe right-wing media...every person ought to have a little variety in their diet, both physical, and knowledge diet.
When you bake chocolate chip cookies, do you put a little sewage in there to provide "a little variety?" Either something's correct or it's false. If it's false, then it's false, and I don't have to swallow it "just for variety."
There remain many healthy "correct" foods from which I can feed to provide variety, and both CWJ and WND are accurate sources of information. Calling them "crap links" simply because the information they provide counters your personal opinion of Obama is itself a highly illogical, and therefore fallacious, approach. By the way, that would be an
Appeal to Nature, a logical fallacy falling under both the Vagueness and Begging the Question categories of informal fallacy.
Fallacies don't win arguments, Beretta92FSLady. All they do is highlight the logically fallacious nature of your arguments -- no sense, rhyme, or reason -- as well as your conclusions deriving therefrom.