This is a common misunderstanding (one which you shared), so I challenged him as to exactly which principles have failed. I asked for specifics; a reasonable request.

As for the Republican platform, just go to the RNC website. That is what it’s supposed to be, last I looked. It was written by the base (Conservatives). Just because some people are all over the place, doesn’t mean that it isn’t defined specifically. And yes, you fell into a Strawman argument misrepresenting what exactly are Conservative principles.

The last was not a Strawman argument. It was a pointless Ad Hominem.

For example, Marc claims that this is Strawman:

“the problem for the republicans is that their ideology and practices have failed” – Strawman argument.

That’s not strawman at all. That’s an accusation, which the poster must now back up, but its not on the face of it an accusation without merit.

Again, another “characterization”, not Strawman:

“and are the polar opposite of what reality dictates at the moment.”

Not strawman at all.

This is the definition of Strawman:

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person’s actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of “reasoning” has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

Now, the problem that arises is that the Republican party has such a broad, asinine and crazed platform that it would actually be difficult to fall into a strawman argument describing it, even if you were trying. For example, I could say that the Republican party’s main positions are based on the birth of the President, misinterpretation of the word “socialist” and a need to vilify in Democrats exactly what they support in Republicans. And for each of these accusations, I could fill the comment slots with so many examples, that it would make you cry. Because most of your opinions sprout from a profound insecurity about your masculinity and a frustration at your own talents or lack thereof. That last one is in fact a strawman argument, arguably. Emphasis on arguably.

So what are people entitled to then?

I have many rights.

I have the same right to go into bankruptcy because of medical bills as Rupert Murdoch and I have the same right to starve to death on a park bench as Rush Limbaugh.

Those aren’t rights that I really think are worth anything, though.

“the problem for the republicans is that their ideology and practices have failed” – Strawman argument. Exactly which part of the ideology has failed when actually implemented?

- “and are the polar opposite of what reality dictates at the moment.” – Strawman. Again, which Republican policies are opposite of realities? Reducing taxes to encourage small business to create jobs, since they’re the ones which do so? Opposing raising taxes in a recession? Proposing buying insurance across State lines as opposed to the State diktats we now have? Demanding tort reform?

- “the only thing the republicans offer is complete opposition to all democrat and obama policies, which is a tragic position, that has no resonance with a public calling for results more liberal than the president has undertaken.” – Strawman. The public is not calling for more. All polls say exactly otherwise; about 57-43 against ObamaCare. Concern about jobs and deficits are at the top of people’s lists right now.

- “If the GOP “cares” then they should do things to help people instead of trying to obstruct the peoples right to health care!” – Strawman. The People’s right to healthcare? Sez who? There exists no such “right”. Entitlement thinking. The world does not owe you something just because you’re here.

Everything you stated was a series of Strawmen. Perhaps you should look up the term in a dictionary. One paragraph from you absolutely proved the author’s point. Nice work.

David K. and The Trolls. The gift that keeps on giving. Are they really too stupid to know they’re proving the writer’s position with every word?

Yes.

And the troll-fu is strong tonight at this thread. Just goes to prove that Bernard may have hit a nerve.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_of_sovereignty_of_Hong_Kong#Before_and_after_reunification

See point 6 under “unchanged”, specifically.”

Well, that settles it!

When I think of an entity I can trust to uphold and maintain a legal agreement, the first one, after the former Soviet Union, is the People’s Republic of China.

After all, if one cannot trust a single-party, communist, power-hungry, brutal, amoral, murderous, and despicable dictatorship, then what can one trust?

In fact, just the other day, I left my wallet at a gas station and the Communist Party of China found it and returned it to me the next day and didn’t even want a reward for the effort!

That’s how honest and trustworthy the Communist Party of China is!

Venividivici:
shine on, you crazy diamond!

Hong Kong and mainland China are two different entities:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_of_sovereignty_of_Hong_Kong#Before_and_after_reunification

See point 6 under “unchanged”, specifically.

But don’t worry, you still make me laugh.

I wasn’t, nor will I, worry about anything related to you, your laughter, your tears or your continued existence.

The fact that you are defending the People’s Republic of China, the world’s worst and largest COMMUNIST dictatorship with a 3 million man army and nuclear missiles aimed at the United States as well as elevating this nightmarish slave labor camp of a country to a paragon of virtue means that you’re truly a traitor as well as an idiot and there’s really no hope for you.

But don’t worry, you still make me laugh.