Comments on: Sunday’s column: Raking it in — by fueling delusions

By: Pirengle

Pirengle — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:40:08 +0000

I can’t help but liken this guy to Matt Drudge. Perhaps Chambers will use his fifteen seconds of fame to wrangle a job at Fox News?

By: gdad

gdad — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 01:17:03 +0000

BTW, Dan, great column.

By: Sandi Saunders

Sandi Saunders — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 00:37:46 +0000

Gee, imagine Suzie being wrong? The conservatives say that they stayed home and Romney lost. So, thank you very much conservatives!

By: gdad

gdad — Sun, 11 Nov 2012 23:50:30 +0000

#9 Please provide all the proof you have of enough cheating to throw the election.

Crickets.

Now just shut up about it, liar. Your pouty whining is really obnoxious.

By: Dan Casey

Dan Casey — Sun, 11 Nov 2012 19:37:54 +0000

There was a GOP observer there, Suzie. He had the opportunity to spot and report any so-called “cheating” that was occurring. He reported none. Which means you’re just blowing smoke.

By: Dave Hicks

Dave Hicks — Sun, 11 Nov 2012 19:36:52 +0000

Re: Comment by Suzie — November 11, 2012 @ 1:02 pm

Die große Lüge [a.k.a. Rants & Raves - w /lies] is still at it.

The United States Office of Strategic Services in describing Hitler’s psychological profile as follows:

“His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it” – Hitler as His Associates Know Him (OSS report, p.51)

Sound like someone we know?

———-

BTW, before you jump in it again, Godwin’s Law of Nazi Analogies does not hold that he who evokes Hitler first loses. In fact, there are corollaries, which hold that fallaciously miscasting an opponent’s comparison is an ulterior-motive invocation of Godwin’s law; is, in and of itself, a fallacy; and will be unsuccessful in a debate. So no need to go there.

Godwin’s Law of Nazi Analogies simply states: “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1″ — i.e., it is only time until the likelihood of such a reference is fulfilled.

Godwin did not say that all such references were Reductio ad Hitlerum or argumentum ad Hitlerum fallacies, either.

In this case, I am not drawing any traditional Aristotelian syllogistic logical conclusions.

I am just pointing out a stark similarity.

By: Suzie

Suzie — Sun, 11 Nov 2012 19:30:59 +0000

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then. How else to explain the 13 Romney voters?

I think the “counters” figured 893 to 0 would draw some attention.

By: Debbie

Debbie — Sun, 11 Nov 2012 19:07:45 +0000

“880 0bama voters to 13 Romney voters in one local district is also not believable.”

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then. How else to explain the 13 Romney voters?

By: Suzie

Suzie — Sun, 11 Nov 2012 18:02:20 +0000

Chambers and a lot of other smart people underestimated the silent but vast cheating network. They were comparing things like attendance at rallies, focus groups after debates, and just the general sense that Romney pounded 0bama on every idea possible. But fraudulent and dead “voters” don’t show up to rallies or respond to pollsters. The notion 0bama voters were anything near as jazzed they were in 2008 is just not believable. 880 0bama voters to 13 Romney voters in one local district is also not believable.

By: Bill Perdue

Bill Perdue — Sun, 11 Nov 2012 17:17:50 +0000

Interesting article Dan.

Chambers typifies “stupid is as stupid does”

From several articles I’ve read, Romney had a bunch of “yes men” around him telling him how great and smart he is. Typical behavior for many failed CEOs.