1. The incredibly over the top racist, anti-white, – in phony ebonics even, posts which I have long suspected are white Republicans. I confronted one of these guys online and got this in reply:

“When You Tube refuses to allow us to post any Obama concerns that don`t paint him as the second coming, then we are forced to use alternatives like pretending to be Obama supporters. Improvise! Just as I`m sure John McCain had to do to survive while being tied up and tortured for you, when all the while I was in my mom`s basement, and you “most likely” out getting high at Woodstock.

Personally, we`re screwed! I only hope that you (and others like you) do learn this time!
Ahhh?

Braineater611 ”

To be clear – there are a cubic f*ton of anti Obama comments (by spammers I suspect in many many cases) – So the first point is bullshit. But the most interesting point is that he admits to wearing black face online and writing really sick anti-white comments…of course in order to divide and concur.

This happens in a lot of cases…pretending to be pissed off Hillary supporters flocking to McCain while leaving a trail of vile racial epithets in their wake. Making sock puppets with phony ‘Obama supporters” making really sick sexist comments. This is not to say that either camp has none of these wackloons, but the shere volume has gone WAY WAY WAY up, and I’ve been online talking politics since 1990. It is off the charts!

I am very concerned as there a LOT of people who don’t even know what a sock puppet or troll is, or they don’t associate them with defined political actors and a central marching order…And in that sense they are rapaciously distructive to discourse and organizing. No longer does the agent provacatuer need to travel to a meeting, they just lob the bomb online and watch the fur fly.

2. The kind we see above where some freepers pet talking point seeps out past all the GO GIRL pro Hilary stuff..a la the Soros talking point as mentioned.(I do nod to the Hilary supporters out there trying to make their statement without making overtly racist comments, Geraldine Ferraro aside, and that Harriet Christian as well, that they are disappointed with their candidates endorsement of Obama)

Anyway…I hope more obvious examples can be made public.

For those who haven’t had the chance, check out the next article on some of the people behind the “Trojan” movement.

To backers of Hillary Clinton, I have said before that her name should be allowed to be placed in nomination and she should be allowed to speak.

Definition:
The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the person’s character, nationality or religion may be attacked. Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be attacked by association, or by the company he keeps.

There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:
Ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion, the argument attacks the person who made the assertion.
Ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an assertion the author points to the relationship between the person making the assertion and the person’s circumstances.
Ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the person notes that a person does not practise what he preaches.

Examples:
(i) You may argue that God doesn’t exist, but you are just a fat idiot. (ad hominem abusive)
(ii) We should discount what Steve Forbes says about cutting taxes because he stands to benefit from a lower tax rate. (ad hominem circumstantial)
(iii) We should disregard Fred’s argument because he is just angry about the fact that defendant once cheated him out of $100. (ad hominem circumstantial)
(iv) You say I should give up alcohol, but you haven’t been sober for more than a year yourself. (ad hominem tu quoque)
(v) You claim that Mr. Jones is innocent, but why should anyone listen to you? You are a Mormon after all. (ad hominem circumstantial)

Proof:
Identify the attack and show that the character or circumstances of the person has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the proposition being defende