Well, enough is enough! I'm not voting for George Bush again.
While I won't disagree with the bulk of your article, that Obama's choice of spiritual adviser is shady at best, I would point out that it is probably a 4th grade tactic to make fun of someone's name. It was his choice to associate with Wright- I doubt he chose the name Hussein. It's like saying that anyone named Adolf must be evil because they have something in common with Hitler.
In my opinion, all it does is detract from your credibility.
Was I making fun of anyone's name?
The name Hussein has serious Muslim implications, as you probably know. There is a shrine in Kerbela where Hussein fell in battle (680 A.D.). Etc. Etc. This name reflects the faith of Obama's father's family in Kenya. And I am not going to let the Obama people tell me I can't use his middle name.
If a skinhead named his son Adolf, the son would rightly have a hard time running for President. There should be no double standard just because the candidate in this case has a name that evokes the "Religion of Peace."
And, btw, what does my "credibility" have to do with anything? The facts in my post stand on their own. People who invoke the "credibility" meme do so as a way of avoiding facts.
The more you tell someone not to say "Hussein," the more they are going to want to do it.
You are clearly using it as an ad hominem attack, and as such it undermines the logic of your statement. But as you said, your facts stand for themselves, so who cares about being responsible?
Obama's own name is an "ad hominem" attack?
I don't think you understand "logic." Something is illogical only if it disproves itself. Hussein Obama's middle name does not disprove anything else in my post. It DOES open the door to a larger discussion of the Islamic implications of the name. That is what the Obama people hope to avoid.
Rather than avoid the issue, he is going to have to address it head on because people are not going to stop saying it.
Perhaps- What about the name Barack? It has Jewish implications! It means, in Hebrew, anyway, Blessed of God! So he's a Jewish Muslim Christian! (Based on the order of his names and that whole pesky life choice thing...)
And don't even get me started on Obama! I believe it might have some Zoroastrian connotation!
Seriously, who cares? His parents chose his name. I've seen a similar argument for Clinton- She was supposedly named Hillary after Sir Edmund Hillary, the man who scaled Mt. Everest. Of course, he did this a few years after she was born, but that's the story she gave.
But who cares? I don't care what the story is behind their names- he could be named Adolf Stalin Jello O'Malley for all I care- I want to know if they can do the job. That his name has Muslim, or Jewish, or Zoroastrian, or Buddhist implications is a total non-issue.
This just in! John Sidney McCain needs to address the clearly Australian implications behind his name before we take him seriously. Set everything else aside- I have to know: is he Irish or Australian? Don't forget- Rufus McCain was a prisoner in Alcatraz. Do we want someone who might possibly have something to do with the prison system in office? Not like he's already a senator or anything...
So I'm not saying, "Don't say his name." I don't care. Using his name as a rhetorical tool to emotionally sway the reader against the man is just plain underhanded. And, as I said before, a 4th grade tactic. That's my contention.
Finally, things can be illogical without disproving themselves.
I think, therefore potato.
Potato does not disprove that I think. But it's not a logical statement, either.
It wasn't the Jews, the Irish, the Australians, Alcatraz inmates, Sir Edmund Hilary or the Zoroastrians that attacked America on 9-11 and that have waged a global jihad against the West since the days of the original "Hussein" (7th Century A.D.) (Although Reverend Jeremiah and an unknown number of his congregation might blame the Jews.)
Only one group is responsible for all of these things and has put the west in grave danger that we have only recently come to recognize. And that group is the same group that celebrates the life of Hussein Obama's namesake. It takes a little more than self-serving after-the-fact professions of Christianity to address concerns raised by Hussein Obama's policy pronouncements, family connections, educational background, church affiliations and, yes, his middle name.
You say that all you want to know is if a candidate can "do the job." By doing the job, Hussein Obama means, among other things, giving away the store to the Iranians ala Jimmy Carter.
We conservatives want to call attention to Obama's middle name for the the same reason that liberals want to conceal it -- because of what it says about his background.
We know that Obama's parents gave him a Moslem middle name, that one of his parents was a Moslem, and that he attended a school that some portray as a madrassa. A voter who is made aware of these facts might fairly wonder what other Moslem ideas were part of his upbringing. I do not profess to know the answer, but liberals do not want voters even to ask the question.
Raligan's "potato" example is incorrect. In that case, his conclusion does not follow from his premise. But in Salt's case, "Hussein" is neither a conclusion nor a premise. Therefore, use of the name "Hussein" is not illogical.
I knew it wasn't true but had to see where you were going with it, and no, I didn't guess.
Good one! Turnabout is fair play.
Why are you referring someone by a name that they never call themselves? This is clearly a tactic.
I haven't decided who I'm voting for yet. I like McCain and Obama. Sites like these though make me appreciate Obama even more.
Pastor John Hagee made equally inflammatory statements. He supports John McCain. Granted, Pastor Hagee is not Senator McCain's personal pastor.
But if the "liberal" media that conservatives get so upset about actually were out to make a fuss about this stuff, you would have heard no end of Pastor Hagee. Who are you hearing more about today, Pastor Wright or Pastor Hagee? That's your "liberal" media at work.
The potato example was in response to a patently incorrect remark made by salt1907- to quote: "I don't think you understand "logic." Something is illogical only if it disproves itself. "
Hence, the potato statement (a non sequitur). The statement doesn't disprove itself, nor does it smack of sound, logical thinking. It is illogical- thus, his understanding of logic is conveniently flawed. To address JZ101 more directly, you are correct. Hessein is neither a conclusion, nor a premise. It is clearly a rhetorical tactic: in the context of the original post, an appeal to emotion.
"Hussein" is an appeal to research and investigation, not emotion. So little is known about Islam, yet so much knowledge is readily available.
Commenting by HaloScan
