If you can't put this together, maybe some reflection on your own personal ability to reason and engage in an "adult" discussion is in hand?

The real problem here is your and Punaperson's inability to get past a reactionary, "If you don't agree with us 100%, then you are totally against us." Its impossible to have a discussion with people like that, so I guess I'm out. Peace.

Punaperson -

Your post was exactly "If you don't like this, then you must like X." There was no gray area there. Anyhow, like I said in another post, no sense in having a discussion with people who see things in absolutes, so, peace.

You're either a liar or don't understand the English language or have no capacity for reasoning and critical thinking. But that's fine, it's not a criticism, just an explanatory hypothesis as to how you can continue to make up false quotations that you ascribe to me.

"Your post was exactly "If you don't like this, then you must like X."" No it wasn't. I didn't use one single one of those words, much less those words in that order. It's exactly the opposite of "exactly". Not anything even remotely like that. But you don't seem to want to post the actual words I wrote, only your fallacious "interpretation" of them. Which you are certainly free to do. As am I free to point out your false misattribution and faulty logic.

I see you haven't responded to my request that you post your criteria for who a President ought be allowed to invite to the White House, and/or who on the list I provided you would find "acceptable". Why no response? Lemme guess: "[N]o sense in having a discussion with people who" ask simple questions? It would clarify whatever it is is the point you are trying to make. I suspect, and again, it's not an accusation or a claim of fact, but just a hypothesis, you haven't responded with your list of criteria because when you distill it down to its essence it is: "No one should be allowed in the White House who I disagree with". Prove me wrong. Let's see your list of "objective criteria" (and please don't use weasel-words like "racist", "sexist", "misogynist", "homophobe", "xenophobe", "islamophobe", "irredeemable", "deplorable", etc.).

Lol, Here is the copy/paste of what I wrote. I never said anything was "unacceptable" or they shouldn't be allowed. I said it was "sad to see him in the White House." Man, you are being really thick.

"Sorry, but the Nuge is a giant ass, regardless of his views on 2a or whatever good music he made. He's right up there in Mel Gibson idiot/crazy territory.

Sad to see him in the White House. Republicans everywhere would be good to get rid of these idiots rather than giving them a free pass just because they have some conservative viewpoints.

Come to think of it, Palin is another one that I have to wonder why the hell she is still around?"

It's a question of what beliefs and personality traits are associated with the highest office in the entire world. Like I said before, I don't think racism and anti-antisemitism should be part of what any president or leader is associated with (just like I would say about many other people, not just the Nuge). That's my belief. If you want neo-Nazis, or serial killers, or rapists (actually Nugent was with a 12 year old too, but I'm sure you have some rationale for that as well) or whoever else in the White House, fine, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it, just like my opinion is that I don't want those people there. . Not sure how else I can explain it to get through your apparent psychosis on the matter.

Also, the old, "I'm not racist, I have friends that are X," is the typical BS response of countless racists. Just because he can appreciate good music doesn't change it otherwise. You asked for quotes, etc. I gave them. You just won't accept or hear any other point of view other than your own. Fine, great, have a great day and keep on keepin' on in your own little world, just don't try and drag me into it please.

Oh brother, not worth responding to you anymore. Too bad this forum doesn't have an ignore feature.

Oh brother, not worth responding to you anymore. Too bad this forum doesn't have an ignore feature.

...Too bad this forum doesn't have an ignore feature.

This forum does have an ignore feature and I have used it. It's not great but it does work as designed. Go into your profile and click the "Buddies/Ignore List" link.

You and another newcomer liberal would be a good use for it.

This forum does have an ignore feature and I have used it. It's not great but it does work as designed. Go into your profile and click the "Buddies/Ignore List" link.

Illustrating my points regarding inability to accept any criticism to the T, thanks.

Illustrating my points regarding inability to accept any criticism to the T, thanks.

Sorry, but the Nuge is a giant ass, regardless of his views on 2a or whatever good music he made. He's right up there in Mel Gibson idiot/crazy territory.

Sad to see him in the White House. Republicans everywhere would be good to get rid of these idiots rather than giving them a free pass just because they have some conservative viewpoints.

Come to think of it, Palin is another one that I have to wonder why the hell she is still around?

SNIP

ad ho·mi·nem
/ad ˈhämənəm/
adverb & adjective
adverb: ad hominem; adjective: ad hominem

    1.  (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
    "vicious ad hominem attacks"

Constructive criticism is welcome.  Saying "You represent exactly what's wrong with the Republican party" is not even close to constructive.

The following is your first comment in this topic.  Please point out the part that's "criticism" versus an ad hominem insult?

ad ho·mi·nem
/ad ˈhämənəm/
adverb & adjective
adverb: ad hominem; adjective: ad hominem

    1.  (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
    "vicious ad hominem attacks"

Honestly, if you don't understand my criticism as outlined in my first post which you quote, and later with specific quotes and audio from Nugent in the rest of the thread, then I can't explain it anymore.

Same goes for punaperson and why I won't be reading or commenting on his posts anymore. Psychosis could certainly be an adhominem attack, but if the person refuses or is incapable of reading or understanding simple facts, logic and reason, then in my opinion its not an ad hominem, its simply an observation. I provided plenty of specific references, including audio direct from Nugent. (I'm sorry, but I don't have the time nor inclination to go find microfiche articles for the all important sir. Even then I'm sure he would just go to the next level and say he wanted actual newspaper clippings.) Frankly from what I've read from his other posts, he immediately jumps to calling people liars if they don't agree with him, so no big loss. Anyhow....

As for robtmc, he did illustrate exactly the point, by outright saying that because of my criticism of Nugent being welcomed with open arms in the White House, that I must be a liberal. Same as punaperson, that if I didn't like Nugent, then I must like Obama and a bunch of rappers. Its really, really, painfully obvious. All you have to do is have some basic reading comprehension. Again, can't explain it anymore.

Since we're going to talk logical fallacies here, that's called a false dilemma, pretty old logical fallacy here. Later my criticism is passed over through a red herring and getting into ad nasueam by calling endlessly into play for proof.

Whether or not anybody agrees or disagrees, it's a personal opinion, which I described as sad, obviously a personal opinion. I would/did/do say the same of Soros, David Duke, Al Sharpton, Black Panthers, KKK, neo-Nazis, and a host of others in the White House. Frankly I don't want to see them in the White House for any reason, even if they happen to support 2A or other conservative viewpoint. If you don't like MY opinion on that, fine great grand, but no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. My opinion is that a few good points doesn't negate many bad ones.

Apparently many feel the other way. It seems your motto is, "Like 2A? Great, do whatever the hell you want and we'll still love you unconditionally." Fine, if you want to be "100% with us or 100% against us" that's your prerogative. However, that's not my viewpoint. Sorry to cause you spasm and palpitations.

As for "reacting" to Palin, I would hardly say that I lost "my bloody mind", I just don't see what purpose she serves anymore. Politicians, like all others, need to learn when its time to call it quits.

Ok, have a great day everyone, I have some pigs that I have to go teach to sing now.

Honestly, if you don't understand my criticism as outlined in my first post which you quote, and later with specific quotes and audio from Nugent in the rest of the thread, then I can't explain it anymore.

Same goes for punaperson and why I won't be reading or commenting on his posts anymore. Psychosis could certainly be an adhominem attack, but if the person refuses or is incapable of reading or understanding simple facts, logic and reason, then in my opinion its not an ad hominem, its simply an observation. I provided plenty of specific references, including audio direct from Nugent. (I'm sorry, but I don't have the time nor inclination to go find microfiche articles for the all important sir. Even then I'm sure he would just go to the next level and say he wanted actual newspaper clippings.) Frankly from what I've read from his other posts, he immediately jumps to calling people liars if they don't agree with him, so no big loss. Anyhow....

As for robtmc, he did illustrate exactly the point, by outright saying that because of my criticism of Nugent being welcomed with open arms in the White House, that I must be a liberal. Same as punaperson, that if I didn't like Nugent, then I must like Obama and a bunch of rappers. Its really, really, painfully obvious. All you have to do is have some basic reading comprehension. Again, can't explain it anymore.

Since we're going to talk logical fallacies here, that's called a false dilemma, pretty old logical fallacy here. Later my criticism is passed over through a red herring and getting into ad nasueam by calling endlessly into play for proof.

Whether or not anybody agrees or disagrees, it's a personal opinion, which I described as sad, obviously a personal opinion. I would/did/do say the same of Soros, David Duke, Al Sharpton, Black Panthers, KKK, neo-Nazis, and a host of others in the White House. Frankly I don't want to see them in the White House for any reason, even if they happen to support 2A or other conservative viewpoint. If you don't like MY opinion on that, fine great grand, but no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. My opinion is that a few good points doesn't negate many bad ones.

Apparently many feel the other way. It seems your motto is, "Like 2A? Great, do whatever the hell you want and we'll still love you unconditionally." Fine, if you want to be "100% with us or 100% against us" that's your prerogative. However, that's not my viewpoint. Sorry to cause you spasm and palpitations.

As for "reacting" to Palin, I would hardly say that I lost "my bloody mind", I just don't see what purpose she serves anymore. Politicians, like all others, need to learn when its time to call it quits.

Ok, have a great day everyone, I have some pigs that I have to go teach to sing now.