http://www.westernjournalism.com/hillary-clinton-fired-for-lies-unethical-behavior/

Member when Hillary lawyered up over the Benghazi and email thing?
Oh wait....that's right. She didn't.
She just handled it all by her lonesome.

Now.....How many of Trumps people have lawyered up?

Yeah.

Riiiight .... she had FIVE lawyers WITH her

http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/06/meet-the-lawyers-who-repped-hillary-clinton-in-the-email-investigation/

David Kendall

Cheryl Mills

Katherine Turner

Heather Samuelson

Amy Saharia

well! If he can't remember that he invited Russians to his beer party, do you REALLY want him in charge of anything?

What exactly was my "argument"?

The entire opening post is a statement of facts. All of the quotes were taken verbatim from the FBI notes of their interview of Hillary Clinton.

I did not add any opinion of my own.

Then you showed up and attempted to invalidate my post by suggesting that I am a member of "the self-righteous anti crowd" with "a mental age of three", thereby attacking my character, motive and competence with your thinly veiled and cowardly ad hominem using the third person instead of attacking me directly.

The ad hominem abusive is the fallacy that an agent's belief has not been proved (or is mistaken) because that person is somehow deficient as evidenced by some undesirable aspects of that person's characteristics, personality, motives, morality, or competence.

In summary - I post a statement of facts and you attack my character. Reread the definition above. Be man enough to admit your error. I hope you don't choose to humiliate yourself further.

It's clear you've never been to a real party. I'm not talking about some snoody Jersey Shore party. I mean a real party where you put the word out and say "stop in, have a beer."

It's entirely possible that he invited a Democrat fron Congress who smuggled in a Russian lobbyist and passed him off as his 3rd nephew twice removed.

AH! So now you're using deflection to avoid answering my question. You must have thought yourself so clever to accuse me of having two profiles. Sorry to disappoint you - one profile is enough for me.

Because you never addressed my post from 6/14/2017 at 9:43:08 PM, I responded to your last post on 6/15/2017 at 5:29:24. I don't care who you were talking to.

You have been on this site since 2009 and you've never seen anyone respond in this way. Uh huh, there must be millions of fake profiles here. How many are yours?

Either realize and admit that the fact you chose not to respond to my post noted above speaks volumes about your paucity of valid arguments or admit that you are one of the various people here who are unable to rein in their egos regardless of the fact that they make fools of themselves still desperately trying to prove they are "right".

Not surprisingly, you've avoided answering my questions yet again.

I was in debating clubs all through secondary school and university and won a number of competitive tournaments throughout those years. Our debating teams had to memorize all of the logical fallacies and by university, everyone was well familiar with them. Accordingly, I have no reason to look up the meaning of ad hominem in a dictionary.

For future reference I would recommend that if you want to learn about this and other logical fallacies, you should spend some time looking through some philosophy forums. You would learn a lot more through that venue rather than having to rely on a dictionary.

You haven't asked a valid question yet. And, you keep doing exactly what you accuse others of doing: you refuse to respond to questions asked, you refuse to support your own arguments when challenged, and all of your reactions are Ad Hominem attacks that ignore the subject of the thread AND the content of the post whose author you are attacking.

You haven't asked a valid question yet. And, you keep doing exactly what you accuse others of doing: you refuse to respond to questions asked, you refuse to support your own arguments when challenged, and all of your reactions are Ad Hominem attacks that ignore the subject of the thread AND the content of the post whose author you are attacking.