No. He used the south as an example citing the fact that the hate might be coming from anti-semetic West Virginians. Which doesn't hold up.

Since if this was the case we would see similar numbers from other anti-Semitic people... which are normally republicans.

This is logically sound.

If group A.  Antisemtic people are the cause for position A (Seeing israel as an enemy)

Then a group with much more of group A is going to have a much higher portion of people who beleive group A.

Example.  Conservative democrats are anti-abortion.  This can be show by a correlation that conservative  republicans are anti-abortion.

If you were to claim that instead it were liberal democrats who were anti abortion... out of chicago.  Then that is stupid arguement.  Conservative people are like other conservative people be it republican or democrat.  Therefore their views are mostly going to be consistant.

So we are looking for a group whose views aren't consistant with either conservatives or moderates... see liberals.  Also note those who have claimed on these very boards that Israel is an enemy have been... liberal.

Due to a near complete lack of belief in population B of this.  Antisemetic people being the main source of the 7% can be ruled out.

This is basic logic and social science procedure... and it is logical.

I don't argue logic as there is only one logic.  Manus never stated anything about the south, anti-semitism, or what party anti-semites side with.  Actually his post never even includes those words in general.  His entire argument was that not all democrats are liberals and not all republicans are conservatives.  Party distinction does not conclude ideology basically.  He simply used a state in particular as example.  How sound his argument is not necessarily great as he did make an assumption about your argument. 

But your response has absolutely nothing to do with anything he said as you go on about the south, anti-semtism, and party affiliation thereof along with region.  That is why it is a straw man argument and eventual logical contradiction. 

So no your argument is not logically sound as it did not represent the argument Manus presented.  I'm not saying Manus's argument was good either (hasty generalization thrown in with his) but we all abide by the same logic. 

If I am not mistaken, earlier in this thread Kasz made the connection that Liberals were opposed to Israel and used the Democrat and Republican percentages as proof.

Thanks for clearing my point up, I didnt do it that well myself.  Not all Democrats are liberal and not all Republicans are Consrvative.  If you want to draw such a pointed conclusion about the two ideologies, using party lines wont get you there.

No, the fact that not all democrats are liberal infact REINFORCES my point.

The fact that they share populations actually is what makes the logic sound.

If all democrats were liberals only 7% of liberals thinking Israel is the enemy wouldn't be much.

There are Liberals, Conservatives and Moderates are in both parties.  Therefore demographic modeling can be done by comparing the two groups.

Well if your rebuttal had been something like this or close to this, then yes you would have had the potential to be logically sound.  But remember, it is because you didn't say this that your argument was not logically sound.  Don't forget that part that I just bolded in my statement before this.  Why you didn't state this instead of what you did is beyond me.  Of course if you did say this, it sounds like you would have been predominantly in agreement to Manus. 

He did say such things, but he never made a blatant distinction that ideology is tied to party affiliation.  Although, I will say it was strongly hinted at, but never directly stated in this argument.  Thus assuming it would be a fallacy of course.

But I'm just simply making sure that everyone has a fair chance.  Can't stand arguments that consist of things that become more personal rather than about the issues.  I was quite surprised to see such a response to your statement as it clearly had nothing to do with anything that had been stated and one of the most blatant straw mans I've seen in awhile.  Oh well I suppose.  It seems, though, both of you have common ground on this issue though so I'm curious why neither has decided to embrace it. 

No.  That is what i stated.  Just in a different way.  Because these conservatives in West Virgina are similar to republican conservatives in the rest of the south, the fact that these republicans DON'T feel the same way about it means that these West Virgina conservatives aren't the group.

The same can be said about moderates.  Therefore it leaves liberals who there are very few of in the republican party.

This has been my reasoning all along and has been stated as such, and it's sound.

Kasz- you can't be logically sound if you didn't argue what the other person stated. Stating otherwise is denying logic. That is what you did in that rebuttal to Manus's quote that I pointed out. I don't need to state it further.

Try not to take it harshly. WE ALL DO IT. No one is above or below it. It just happens. All we should do is recognize it and try next time to not commit it.

Well this has certainly gotten interesting. As an update to this conv, I found that Iran has welcomed the missile shield move (gosh what a surprise that is...) http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1253198167698&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

They also have 10 new centrifuges spinning up now: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1253198173755

Also, Israel's UN ambassador Shalev is having closed door talks concerning Iran. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1253198168905&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Things are heating up, folks.

So ... by considering the government of the previous administration in my own country as undermining peace in various parts of the world ... I really was hating America?!
Fox News was right!