I just didnt bother registering as I am not going to be here much.
I argue with leftwingers all I care to elsewhere and since you wear your colors on your sleeve (which I thank you for) there wll be little point in me hanging around here as a lone whipping post.
If knowing something about me is important to your senses of "credibility", fine.
My name is Tony.
I am a Sicilian 42yr old college educated military vet from Louisiana that's raised 3 kids to and has 3 small businesses (from poor parents - all on my own steam).
Uh, what I was talking about was the fact that you said he was basically dishonest without giving any supporting info. Perhaps you could actually quote something he wrote and disproved it. I don't care if you log in as guest or "tony" or whatever.
An "ad hominem" just means that you are attacking him as a person and sticking labels on him, without refuting his argument. Here's words you use that are attacks, but don't really convey anything: fraud, fake, insult, noisy, moonbats, marxist, sad joke, neo feudalist, racist, garbage, "education" (scare quotes), leftwingers, plagiarism, lying, deluded sack of shit, insulated, pseudo-intellectual, leftwing..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
I stand by what I said.
Watch the news on that fella that says what you like to hear.
The news? I don't think they are the best crowd to do any analysis here. They aren't exactly known for their depth in covering issues. Reading the book and saying "page 27 he says X, but the truth is Y, as you can see by checking Z" or something is much more of a refutation than "I saw it on the news"...
He is being brought up on charges of plagiarism and fraud by a few different universities and actual professors right now.
Being brought up on "charges" makes him guilty? Of course he's going to be targetted for what he wrote--it doesn't mean he's guilty just because he's charged.
I was "educated" by his ilk and I know from study and personal exposure that he is a lying, deluded sack of shit.
Man, your writing is like a case study of "Informal Fallacies".http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy
In this case, your informal fallacy is "guilt by association" along the lines of "I had bad professors, he's a professor, he's bad".http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt_by_association
I have studied history for 20+yrs, but unlike most insulated, tenured, pseudo-intellectuals, I have traveled the globe and done most of it in the 3rd world.
Ah, the "appeal to authority" fallacy--in this case calling yourself the authority.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
I have also travelled to ~30 countries (about half "3rd world") and have studied history for years. But it doesn't matter...as you can read above.
As for media, well I cant speak for europe beyond what I see from the BBC, but in the US the media and congress had 50yrs of leftwing monopoly (and they still have academia in a headlock via unions and tenure).
Wow. If you think the US media is left wing... Holy smokes. Anyway, it's simply just your favorite ad hominem argument...
This media lock was broken in the last 10yrs by the emergence of the hated Fox network, talkradio, and the internet.
Fox stands alone among all the other networks as having any conservative commentary (yea I know about the rare token conservatives on the others - same as always).
The internet reflects this ratio as well - among large news sources anyway.
Blogs and such tend to be a more even split - just like society I suppose.
Talkradio hasnt been sucessful for the left for one reason: they already have most of tv and newspapers. Their listeners dont need talkradio (which got popular with conservatives before Fox was around and they had only leftwing mouthpieces like CNN/NBC/ABC/CBS on tv).
Uh, OK. Yes, the Internet is changing the media landscape.
Anyhow, take the time to learn both sides of things guys.
Rhetoric is nothing in the face of honesty - no matter how unpleasant.
You are being honest? You are relying on rhetoric only and not supplying any substantive arguments to this thread.
You have clearly committed a number of logical fallacies--I pointed out a few above. Those interested can learn more about these types of arguments by reading the links here:
Oh, and yes, I've studied symbolic & informal logic. But that doesn't matter of course. Merely saying it is irrelevant--you have to /show/ it.