Texas secession?

[ChenPengFi]

That's a my what?

It's an ad hominem of the Tu Quoque type:

Definition:

The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked. Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be attacked by association, or by the company he keeps.

There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:
1. ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion, the argument attacks the person who made the assertion.
2. ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an assertion the author points to the relationship between the person making the assertion and the person's circumstances.
2. ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the person notes that a person does not practise what he
preaches.

http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/attack.htm

[Devil]

Ahhh, that was a proud conservative leadership moment, wasn't it.

You mean when all those morons decided to remain in a fish bowl despite being told repeatedly to leave? That was the best entertainment I've had in the last ten years.

[Devil]

It's an ad hominem of the Tu Quoque type:


http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/attack.htm

Damn homie, I can Google. My question was a joke. Why so serious?

[ChenPengFi]

Damn homie, I can Google. My question was a joke. Why so serious?

Oh, so now you want to assassinate my character too?

[Devil]

Oh, so now you want to assassinate my character too?

lulz.

[Tom .C]

You mean when all those morons decided to remain in a fish bowl despite being told repeatedly to leave? That was the best entertainment I've had in the last ten years.

That was pretty much the same response FEMA had. Conservative leadership in action.(or inaction as it was)

[Devil]

That was pretty much the same response FEMA had. Conservative leadership in action.(or inaction as it was)

Why would you assume the action or inaction of government - regardless of political affiliation, is a valid argument for against a particular ideology?

If I think homos shouldn't get married am I wrong because George Bush didn't send enough water to the river rats?

[DCS]

Now the number of signatures needed has been reached, which is the next step form a legal perspective?

[Tom .C]

Why would you assume the action or inaction of government - regardless of political affiliation, is a valid argument for against a particular ideology?

If I think homos shouldn't get married am I wrong because George Bush didn't send enough water to the river rats?

Was this a response to the quoted post or are you using some kind of random thought generator?

[Tom .C]

Now the number of signatures needed has been reached, which is the next step form a legal perspective?

I read that the White House will need to respond. It is nowhere close to happening.