You math is so far off it might pay to go back to the 3rd grade for a refresher course.

And now for your use of “ad hominen” as an agrument:

One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is “ad hominem”. It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don’t need it when they’ve got ad hominem on their side. It’s the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed.

In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker’s argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn’t there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person’s arguments.

Therefore, if you can’t demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can’t demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem. If your opponent’s sarcasm is not an attempt to counter your argument, but merely an attempt to insult you (or amuse the bystanders), then it is not part of an ad hominem argument.

Actual instances of argumentum ad hominem are relatively rare. Ironically, the fallacy is most often committed by those who accuse their opponents of ad hominem, since they try to dismiss the opposition not by engaging with their arguments, but by claiming that they resort to personal attacks. Those who are quick to squeal “ad hominem” are often guilty of several other logical fallacies, including one of the worst of all: the fallacious belief that introducing an impressive-sounding Latin term somehow gives one the decisive edge in an argument.

Mr. Shawn has no argument because he has no facts only spin and his vague and incorrect use of “ad hominen.” Indeed!

I’ve asked you to read Classical Liberalism offered in my left sidebar but apparently it’s too literal for you to comprehend and lacks the Marxist, poor me ideology crave.

NY-23 was successful since Mr. Hoffman had no money and a 30-day campaign. Watch for my Moonbat on Saturday, it should interest you in my objectivity, something you think I lack.

BTW, you don’t mention New Jersey or Virginia. Don’t they report the news in Oregon?

Do you appreciate Rev. Wright, Mr. Kalidi, Wm. Ayres, Bernadine Dohrn, Karl Marx, et al as your Messiah Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetero does? Your mind is absolutely warped and curiously empty. Indeed!

Commander in Chief? Not mine, I would resign my commission.

Corporatist?…are you kidding me? Government takeover of private business, firing CEOs and dictating pay. I would say that falls in the parameters of Marxist/Fascist.

Hugo Chavez was elected too and he tore up the Constitution in his country. Honduras is fighting that mentality but Obama supported the Leftists.

And Conservatism is alive and well and kicking ass. Stay tuned.

Freeing Muslims living under tyranny is dumb to you but a free handout from working people is smart.

NY-23 is a start. If New Jersey goes GOP then Hussein Obama and his ilk are in big trouble. They’re handing Virgina over tommorrow. Fasten your seatbelt the ride is going to get rough.