Posted on 01/02/2007 1:38:13 PM PST by Kimberly GG
"Film critic and talk show host Michael Medved has decided to put in print on Townhall.com the attack he has frequently broadcast on radio against those of us who are opposing the North American integration being pursued by the Bush Administration activity under the auspices of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America."....
....."Serious readers for centuries are alert to recognize that ad hominem attacks generally mask an inability to counter an argument on logical or evidentiary grounds. In the days of Lenin, communist agitators took the ad hominem attack to a new level, perfecting techniques to discredit their opponents with the intent to discourage the public from listening to arguments that were serious and potentially fatal criticisms of communism. Medved appears to be taking the advice of the radical socialist activist Saul D. Alinsky, who articulated on page 128 of his 1971 book “Rules for Radicals” his rule No. 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”"....
...."Studying the tone of Medved’s recent piece in Townhall.com, I was reminded of the abuse my co-author John O’Neill suffered on Oct. 22, 2004, when MSNBC senior political analyst Lawrence O’Donnell began screaming “Liar! Liar!” at O’Neill during an appearance on “Scarborough Country.” Reading the transcript of that show, O’Donnell appeared to have lost his composure when he was unable to refute O’Neill’s defense of what we wrote in “Unfit for Command.” Similarly, Medved has reduced himself to spewing forth various strings of derogatory language boldly proclaiming, for instance, that “there’s no reason at all to believe in the ludicrous, childish, ill-informed, manipulative, brain dead fantasies about a North American Union.”
Who then, besides myself, are those who Medved calls on his readers to treat “with the derision and contempt they so richly deserve” for propounding “this paranoid and groundless frenzy” over the North American Union?"....
Sorry ma'am.
It wasn't my fault, honest! It was an accidental brush and I was getting bumped in a crowd.
DO NOT TURN ME IN.
LOL
"You consider criticism of a thread that is posted "perfectly timed attacks"?
Have their been any "perfectly timed attacks" not on a thread espousing your conspiracy theory?"
My point exactly. Answered your own question.
I'm glad I did, because it demonstrates that you are insane.
Here's a clue. Every time you post an insane thread, you'll get a perfectly timed attack on it.
The rest of us think that is normal. You think it's proof of a conspiracy.
IMO Medved is a good guy. He allows others, with opposing views, to state their case and then begins to graciously and logically tear them a new 5th point of contact. He is, as far as I've listened to him, a calm and polite person who is interesting to listen to. Conservative with libertarian leanings who is not afraid to have "the enemy" on his show to debate an issue. In this he is cordial and not combative; which is unique on this age of "combat talk" radio.
Having said this, I have no idea what his views are on the NAU.
Here are previous examples of this phenomenom:
http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/005656.html
"Here's a clue. Every time you post an insane thread, you'll get a perfectly timed attack on it."
Thanks ;) That's exactly what I've been saying all along!
Get a clue yourself Dog...it's just as Corsi described, and your 'code red' moment came with the admission I expected ;) Could have saved me the trouble and just admitted it to begin with.
It is, indeed. Thanks for posting this.
My guess is that your addition of "(Corsi's Response)" might have disqualified you from the News section. Did you ever get a reply from a responsible party?
Funny to see Corsi use the word evidentiary. I thought he was allergic to evidence?
Toddsterpatriot just provided an example to support Corsi's observation from history.
"Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon."...which is exactly why Corsi is engaging in it here -- equating Medved with leftists pretty much defines an ad hominem attack.
The few times I get to catch him on the radio, I've always appreciated how he deals with the liberals -- not like Sean,who cuts them off suggesting (probably correctly) that he can't answer their points so he has to stop them from talking).
Medved will let the liberals fully explain themselves, and then demolish their arguments, leaving them with nothing to say. It's how debate should really take place.
I didn't see Medved's piece as being particularly histrionic, unlike Corsi here.
John O'Neill was a good spokesperson for the Vets for Truth, although one of the less politically known guys should have been used -- they had some really good apolitical guys who I heard speak who spoke very well and would have forced the media to look into "who they were", rather than being able to dismiss them like they did O'Neill.
The biggest liability to the Vets for Truth group was Jerome Corsi, who was easily linked to hateful and crazy ideas and speech, and through that the opponents were able to smear the Vets book by association. It left the supporters of the Vets for Truth having to explain that Corsi simply edited the book, and wasn't involved in actually writing what was in it. Not very helpful at all.
And I seriously doubt there is a group of Freepers here who would SUPPORT the NAU, which is the real reason nobody is answering your claim. You are waiting for one of the supporters, and there are none.
Most of us don't denounce Corsi because he is attacking something we believe in, but because he is like The Boy who Cried Wolf, only there's never actually a Wolf.
You are missing the point. When you post the thread, and ask that it be put on the sidebar, that alerts every freeper to the existance of your thread.
Then, as we do with EVERY thread of interest, freepers who have an opinion show up, usually immediately, and start commenting.
The only person who is "coordinating" the response is YOU, the person who posted the thread. Posting a thread is basically asking all of us to immediately come and comment.
Oddly, supporters of Corsi also "immediately" show up every time you post a thread about him. That also isn't a conspiracy, although it's surprising you didn't notice it.
No, that's not an "ad hominen attack", that's a sarcastic comment.
An "ad hominen" attack is one where you make true statements about your opposition which cast them in a bad light.
It's misuse is based on an assumption of an argument about facts. When arguing over one's interpretations and opinions, commenting on the person's qualifications to make those interpretations and their ability to form correct opinions is actually a rational strategy.
It's why in a court case, the opposing counsel will seek to discredit the witnesses.
A Sarcastic Comment, on the other hand, is one that may or may not have a basis in fact, but is offered to make people laugh by way of ridicule.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.