AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

It appears that we disagree how our government should be spending money derived from taxation. Isn't it great that we can go to the voting booth and cast our votes to elect representatives who we believe will best effectuate our interests. Right now, there is very little public support for spending tax dollars to torture, kill, and spy. On the other hand, there is tremendous public support for spending tax dollars to provide for the general health of our nation's citizens. Therefore, I win -- you lose.

The subject of torture, kill, and spy, those are all nonsensical and baseless accusations.

What liberals or Democrats are calling torture were enhanced interrogation techniques that did work, that did save lives, that has been verified.

So by being against those methods, you can be accused of killing people, how does it feel to be accused of that?

What we are talking about are techniques, intelligence, and national defense. Are you in favor of eliminating the military, after all it does kill people? Are you in favor of eliminating all intelligence work? Are you in favor of eliminating interrogation techniques that work?

My point is we can have mature discussion about what really constitutes torture, and there is obvious disagreement about this. I think if everyone agreed that something was truly torture in the strictest sense, we did not do that. We are talking about methods that are not necessarily judged as torture in the strictest sense by everyone.

Also, the same applies to whether wiretapping was within bounds or not, and conservatives can make the case that the methods were no more intrusive than other methods to find out things.

Criminy, what about the search and seizure of our persons at airports, that seems more invasive than somebody randomly checking foreign phone calls to suspective locations and people.

I certainly have no objection to that, a lot less than having to be abused at airports. And remember, wiretapping is nothing new at all.

Bush did what he honestly thought necessary and proper to protect the country, which is not only his right but his duty, and I support and thank him for it, I do not feel one bit violated at all.

I think the accusations are frankly silly.

The same applies to war, remember the Congress approved of the action, Bush did not act alone, it was totally constitutional and went through all the proper steps of a representative government. The Republicans lost the last election, which is probably due to loss of popular support for the wars, so you got your wish, it all worked out the way it is supposed to. Next election, we go through the same process.

My point is we can have mature discussion about what really constitutes torture, and there is obvious disagreement about this. I think if everyone agreed that something was truly torture in the strictest sense, we did not do that. We are talking about methods that are not necessarily judged as torture in the strictest sense by everyone.

Also, the same applies to whether wiretapping was within bounds or not, and conservatives can make the case that the methods were no more intrusive than other methods to find out things. Criminy, what about the search and seizure of our persons at airports, that seems more invasive than somebody randomly checking foreign phone calls to suspective locations and people. I certainly have no objection to that, alot less than having to be abused at airports. And remember, wiretapping is nothing new at all. Bush did what he honestly thought necessary and proper to protect the country, which is not only his right but his duty, and I support and thank him for it, I do not feel one bit violated at all. I think the accusations are frankly silly.

The same applies to war, remember the Congress approved of the action, Bush did not act alone, it was totally constitutional and went through all the proper steps of a representative government. The Republicans lost the last election, which is probably due to loss of popular support for the wars, so you got your wish, it all worked out the way it is supposed to. Next election, we go through the same process.

Until there is acknowledgment that there are such degrees of treatment instead of heaping equal condemnation on everything, there can be no meeting of the minds on the issue of torture or what is or is not acceptable in interrogating people intent on committing mayhem.

undocumented source

Obama's health care plan will be written by a committee whose head says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, and whose members will be exempt from it, signed by a president who smokes and says he doesn't want to participate in it, funded by a treasury chief who did not pay his taxes, overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that is broke.

What could possibly go wrong?

Up to now, the Census Bureau had defended ACORN's involvement, explaining it was one of 80,000 unpaid volunteer groups that the bureau hoped would be able to raise local awareness.

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now does not apply for nor does it receive any federal grants.

ACORN has had contracts with other nonprofit organizations to perform work on projects which received federal grant support.

None of ACORN's contracts to perform work on projects receiving federal grant money has provided funding for voter registration.

Faulty Logic

Boehner and Vitter commit two logical fallacies. Their argument has the form:

1. The stimulus bill provides funding for redeveloping neighborhoods.
2. ACORN does work in redeveloping neighborhoods.
3. Therefore the stimulus bill provides funding for ACORN.

That’s an example of what philosophers call the undistributed middle fallacy.

It’s a common mistake; in May 2008, we caught Sen. John McCain making a similar logical blunder.

But Boehner and Vitter compound their error by treating different terms as if they had the same meaning.

ACORN does indeed work in redeveloping neighborhoods, but the work that it does is not the same sort of work for which NSP provides funding.

By pretending as if the two are the same, Boehner and Vitter commit the fallacy of equivocation.

We’re accustomed to seeing logical fallacies in political arguments. But working two of them into a single argument is unusually bad logic.

I'm having difficulty finding out what ACORN's sources of income/funding are.

Is the information available?

How is ACORN funded?

Good plan. Their data, if they can provide it, will probably be as good as anybody else's. But I would like to know not only what source of funding they receive--that information is sort of available on their website--but how much funding they receive from each source.

I wish you would have also asked "what crimes have they been charged with?"

Here is a gleaning from today's e-mail: