Salty, wow. You are incredibly dumb.

This is fallacious reasoning: Post hoc ergo propter hoc... this means "After this therefore because of this."

Let me bring it down to your level (while trying not to drag my knuckles on the floor)...

yes, the RNC did a great job. But your claim that the protestors hurt the Dems cause can't be validated. And your, ahem, "logical" reasoning that because the RNC is on solid footing after the convention means that the protestors indeed hurt the Dems is fallacious.

Pretty simple.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. I know those stupid Italians have nothing to offer aside from dirty cities that dont cater to American nationalists, but that language that they came up with some 3000 years ago is pretty bad ****

 

That is a good article. It makes no claim that the protestors hurt the Dems in any way. Again, post hoc ergo propter hoc. Say it to yourself before you go to bed

 

I made the claim that the protests could possibly backfire (which cannot be proven) -and/or- have zero negative effects on the Bush administration (which is undoubtedly true thus far).

 

Claim #1 (of many): Because of the protestors, undecided voters will vote for the Bush ticket (here it comes... ready? Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc)

Claim #2: ... AND it will have negative repurcussions on the Democrats' (sic) cause


I was addressing these two claims which, to beat this issue dead, are fallacious forms of reasoning.

 

die

 

hehe... as I said before, I applaud the Bush ticket for kicking some serious booty at the RNC. In contrast to the fumbling Kerry campaign, it looks like Bush is well poised for a solid victory