Syllogisms and Fallacies

I'm going to start having fun. I'm going to start analyzing the "brick and morter" news agencies false claims by idenfitying their logical fallacies. This is going to be great.

While I get started, here is a (partial) list of the logical fallacies that an argument may contain.

List of fallacies:

• Ad hominem (personal attack) ("John Kerry is a liberal, you can't trust him")
  
• Appeal to (false) authority (Judith Miller knows Saddam has WMD)
  
• Appeal to emotion ("9-11!! 9-11!!")
  
• Appeal to probability (DHS probably won't tap your phone if you are innocent, so you are free from search and seizure")
  
• Appeal to tradition ("We've never let gays in the military, lets keep them out")
  
• Argument from ignorance ("I'm not an expert, but it seems to me..")
  
• Begging the question (Circular) (If Saddam has WMD he is a threat to America therefore America needs to invade Iraq to protect itself)
  
• Suppressed correlative
  
• Equivocation (Two meanings for one word) (The constitution was based on liberal philosophy, so if you are conservative you don't believe in it)
  
• False analogy (The supposed relationship between premises does not exist)
  
• False premise (One premise is incorrect)
  
• Faulty generalization (All liberals believe in raising taxes)
  
• Guilt by association (Hitler was a vegetarian, so vegetarians are anti-semitic)
  
• Incomplete comparison (The better alternative is military action)
  
• Inconsistent comparison (This liter of gas costs less than that gallon, so this one is cheaper)
  
• Invalid proof (Paradox)
  
• Judgemental language ("If you weren't an idiot, you would see that ...")
  
• Juxtaposition (Irrelevent similarties -- First Hitler took away everyone's guns, so gun control leads to genocide...)
  
• Meaningless statement (Distinction without difference i.e. pornography v. erotica)
  
• Negative proof (Saddam can't proove he destroyed WMD so he must not have destroyed them)
  
• Non sequitur (Saddam hates America, Osama hates America, therefore Saddam and Osama are friends)
  
• Poisoning the well (Ridiculing before statement. If you don't support the president, you are unamerican. Do you support the president?)
  
• Proof by assertion (In Lenin's words, "A lie told often enough becomes the truth" -- Saddam has WMD, Saddam was behind 9-11, We are winning the war on terror")
  
• Post hoc (also called post hoc ergo propter hoc) (Event A occurred before B, so A caused B. I wore my new suit, I won the lottery, my suit won me the lottery)
  
• Red herring (also called irrelevant conclusion) (Saddam killed thousands of Kurds, and wanted nukes therefore he is a threat to America)
  
• Shifting the burden of proof (See negative proof)
  
• Slippery slope ("If we let one gay couple marry, everyone will become gay and get married")
  
• Special pleading (Its ok to violate habias corpus, because its a matter of national security)
  
• Straw man (Liberals want more civil liberties. They don't care that these liberties could cause millions of americans to die from a terrorist attack)