AG Eric Holder rebuilt DOJ from the ground up

[AD2100]

"Aspersions on my asparagus"



Rachel Maddow discusses Eric Holder’s long legacy as Attorney General of the United States, and takes a look at how Holder was perceived by both the left and the right during his consequential tenure now that he is set to retire.

[Soul Crusher]

Fast n Furious.

Spying on people.

Racial arsonist

[Archer77]

Maddow has lost all objectivity.   Holder was corrupt to the core.  The man wouldn't know justice if it pulled him over for being black.

[AD2100]

Fast n Furious.

Spying on people.

Racial arsonist

FAIL

Black man make the insecure suspected white supremacist mad on sight.


Greatest Attorney General of All Time

[Archer77]

FAIL

Black man make the insecure suspected white supremacist mad on sight.


Greatest Attorney General of All Time

He makes people who value justice mad. 

[Soul Crusher]

FAIL

Black man make the insecure suspected white supremacist mad on sight.


Greatest Attorney General of All Time

He is a ghetto slimebag

[Archer77]

He is a ghetto slimebag

AD is a troll.  He reminds me of Andre.  It might even be Andre.   Here are the actual racial supremacists on getbig, Wiggs, 24IQ and Andre.  These individuals have referenced and posted material from black supremacists sites.  Hope this helps.

[Straw Man]

He is a ghetto slimebag

why don't you just say the word that you really want to say instead of all this coded bullshit

[Soul Crusher]

why don't you just say the word that you really want to say instead of all this coded bullshit

95er?

[Archer77]

why don't you just say the word that you really want to say instead of all this coded bullshit

Don't change the subject.  Strawman just committed a logical fallacy with an ad hominem attack.  Funny.

[Straw Man]

Don't change the subject.  Strawman just committed a logical fallacy with an ad hominem attack.  Funny.

I didn't attack him

I asked him to stop using coded words and just use the word that he really wants to say

That is not an attack on him

For example, If I had said he was the ghetto slime or pointed out that until recently he lived in a ghetto that would have been an example of an ad hominem attack

[Archer77]

I didn't attack him

I asked him to stop using coded words and just use the word that he really wants to say

That is not an attack on him

For example, If I had said he was the ghetto slime or pointed out that until recently he lived in a ghetto that would have been an example of an ad hominem attack

Oh please, don't be a bitch about this. Yes you did attack him.  Instead of addressing his points you attacked his character by accusing him of wanting to use a racial slur.  Own that shit, bitch.   Don't back peddle.

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a form of criticism directed at something about the person one is criticizing, rather than something (potentially, at least) independent of that person. When used inappropriately, it is a fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized.[2] Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning.[3]

[Straw Man]

Oh please, don't be a bitch about this. Yes you did attack him.  Instead of addressing his points you attacked his character by accusing him of wanting to use a racial slur.  Own that shit, bitch.   Don't back peddle.

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a form of criticism directed at something about the person one is criticizing, rather than something (potentially, at least) independent of that person. When used inappropriately, it is a fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized.[2] Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning.[3]

you're the one bitching

I gave you a clear example of what an obvious ad hominem attack

the fact that he called the Attorney General a ghetto slime would be another example of an ad hominem attack

All I did was ask 333 to stop using coded words for what he really wants to say

btw - are you not aware of where you are posting

This so called political discussion board is mostly ad hominem attacks and 333 is the worst offender.

He starts threads based on that premise

[Soul Crusher]

Fast n furious

Irs scandals

Spying on the press.  

Drug money  laundeting

Flan terrorists

[Archer77]

you're the one bitching

I gave you a clear example of what an obvious ad hominem attack

the fact that he called the Attorney General a ghetto slime would be another example of an ad hominem attack

All I did was ask 333 to stop using coded words for what he really wants to say

btw - are you not aware of where you are posting

This so called political discussion board is mostly ad hominem attacks and 333 is the worst offender.

He starts threads based on that premise

So if the political board is all about ad hominem and 333 does it that gives you license to do the same.  So your admitting you're no better than 333?.  You're committing another logical fallacy, appeal to common practice.   I've got a fun game.  Lets see how many logical fallacies Strawman can commit in one thread.  

[Soul Crusher]

Geeez.   Change your tampon


quote author=Straw Man link=topic=551366.msg7736312#msg7736312 date=1411760485]


you're the one bitching

I gave you a clear example of what an obvious ad hominem attack

the fact that he called the Attorney General a ghetto slime would be another example of an ad hominem attack

All I did was ask 333 to stop using coded words for what he really wants to say

btw - are you not aware of where you are posting

This so called political discussion board is mostly ad hominem attacks and 333 is the worst offender.

He starts threads based on that premise
[/quote]

[Archer77]

Geeez.   Change your tampon


quote author=Straw Man link=topic=551366.msg7736312#msg7736312 date=1411760485]

 

And change his name.  He's abusing logical fallacies.

[Straw Man]

So if the political board is all about ad hominem and 333 does it that gives you license to do the same.  So your admitting you're no better than 333?.  You're committing another logical fallacy, appeal to common practice.   I've got a fun game.  Lets see how many logical fallacies Strawman can commit in one thread.  

did I directly address the content or subject of his post?

btw you claim I used an ad hominem attack and you said I committed a logical fallacy yet the definition you posted says "ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning"

so when 333 calls the Attorney General of the United States a "ghetto slime" is it not fair to question the credibility of that statement or to question it moral and practical reasoning ?

   

[Soul Crusher]

did I directly address the content or subject of his post?

btw you claim I used an ad hominem attack and you said I committed a logical fallacy yet the definition you posted says "ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning"

so when 333 calls the Attorney General of the United States a "ghetto slime" is it not fair to question the credibility of that statement or to question it moral and practical reasoning ?

   

Inner city sludge sound better ?

[Archer77]

did I directly address the content or subject of his post?

btw you claim I used an ad hominem attack and you said I committed a logical fallacy yet the definition you posted says "ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning"

so when 333 calls the Attorney General of the United States a "ghetto slime" is it not fair to question the credibility of that statement or to question it moral and practical reasoning ?

   

You haven't addressed the issue of this thread at all.  Your only purpose in commenting was to insult 333. No, you committed the fallacy.  You didn't question 333 on the use of the term by suggesting that Holders background is far from ghetto. That being a legitimate criticism of 333 claim.  You made an assumption of character by suggesting he wanted to call Holder a racial slur.   You weren't questioning any of the examples of Holders corruption he gave.   Whether he wanted to call Holder a racial slur is irrelevant to the topic of whether Holder is/was a bad AG nor does it mean that any of the his criticisms were invalid.

[Straw Man]

You haven't addressed the issue of this thread at all.  Your only purpose in commenting was to insult 333. No, you committed the fallacy.  You didn't question 333 on the use of the term by suggesting that Holders background is far from ghetto. That being a legitimate criticism of 333 claim.  You made an assumption of character by suggesting he wanted to call Holder a racial slur.   You weren't questioning any of the examples of Holders corruption he gave.   Whether he wanted to call Holder a racial slur is irrelevant to the topic of whether Holder is/was a bad AG nor does it mean that any of the his criticisms were invalid.

the issue of this thread would be the commentary about Holder rebuilding the DOJ

was 333's statement that Holder is a ghetto slimebag a valid (by your standard, since you seem to have appointed yourself the sheriff of this thread) comment on the topic.

I didn't see you objecting to that and since we know that 333 used to live in the ghetto I assume it's a totally fair thing to call him a ghetto slime.  I assume you would have no objection if I called him that

I'm having a problem taking your objections seriously

[Soul Crusher]

Stop whining

the issue of this thread would be the commentary about Holder rebuilding the DOJ

was 333's statement that Holder is a ghetto slimebag a valid (by your standard, since you seem to have appointed yourself the sheriff of this thread) comment on the topic.

I didn't see you objecting to that and since we know that 333 used to live in the ghetto I assume it's a totally fair thing to call him a ghetto slime.  I assume you would have no objection if I called him that

I'm having a problem taking your objections seriously

[2Thick]

He can have a job on my plantation picking cotton. I'll even pay him a few bucks.

Of course I'll introduce him to my bull whip right away.

[Straw Man]

Stop whining

Shut Up Ghetto Slime