11 of 172 people found the following review helpful
Hmm...Bad Rant, Nothing Else,
This review is from: The Rude Guide To Mitt (Kindle Edition)
Alright, this is complete garbage. Vulgarities and childish language aside, this is just hate-filled useless information. Hahaha if anybody has time, feel free to Wikipedia "argumentum ad hominem"...Obviously, Mitt Romney's policies are bad and he would fail as a president because he hunted quail once :sarcasm:
Tracked by 2 customers
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-8 of 8 posts in this discussion
Initial post: May 26, 2012 3:08:27 PM PDT
Amazon Customer says:
Would never vote for a jerk who treats his dog like that. He is living proof of having qualifications to be a bottom line business man does not make a president.
In reply to an earlier post on May 27, 2012 4:46:36 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 27, 2012 4:47:30 AM PDT
I agree. I also think that no one credulous enough to adhere to a religion founded by a con artist has any credibility as a leader. Sorry if any "Saints" take offense. To be fair, the same goes for Scientologists.
Mere christians get a free pass, because they've been around so long that the origins of their religious club are shrouded in mellowing antiquity.
Posted on Jun 15, 2012 2:27:46 PM PDT
Most intelligent, educated, and informed people know what "argumentum ad hominem" means. Unfortunately it is the ignorant crowd who will vote for Romney. They say we get the government we deserve but if Romney is elected, the punishment will be far greater than the crime.
Posted on Aug 26, 2012 7:59:33 AM PDT
Donna C. Muse says:
Wikipedia is not allowed as a resource in most public schools for research-for a very good reason-facts can be skewed by anyone at anytime.
In reply to an earlier post on Aug 26, 2012 12:27:20 PM PDT
Wikipedia is not allowed in schools for the same reason that students used to be and perhaps still are required to use a certain number of different references when writing a paper. It's all too easy to copy verbatim or to marginally paraphrase one source. When I was a grade school and high school student, the Wikipedia of that time were the various brands of encyclopedia. Trouble was, because they were printed, it was difficult to keep them current, even with yearly updates -- which no child bothered to check for updates of their subject.
In reply to an earlier post on Sep 5, 2012 4:56:39 PM PDT
Donna, while you may not use Wikipedia directly as a resource in writing papers you are encouraged to use it to help you find proper resources. The reason is two fold. First, you have the issue of people who purposely attempt (and all too often succeed) in getting facts changed to fiction, and they do it for the fun of it. Secondly you should never use a third level resource, you should uses primary and secondary at most. Wikipedia just is not good enough for a direct source. Still, the resources used are usually good ones, and ones you can check and verify.
Posted on Dec 5, 2012 10:15:59 PM PST
two in tents says:
More proof that there are no intelligent or honest Romney supporters.
In reply to an earlier post on Dec 5, 2012 10:20:42 PM PST
two in tents says:
Donna, that's even dumber than this "review", as it is in its own way an ad hominem argument. Wikipedia is a perfectly valid ... and accurate ... source of information about argumentum ad hominem. Too bad the "reviewer" hasn't actually read it.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›