Experts are the ones that write textbooks and teach college and publicly (and credibly) question current assumptions.
That is why Rich is an expert. He is an intellectual questioning knowledge based on observable evidence. He would probably hate that designation but he is one. Thats why he is one of the most widely read real estate journalists in Southern California. Thats why debating him is fun and interesting.
You have not displayed those abilities. You have not approached a given assumption (eg: Obama is intelligent and informed) and credibly questioned it. Instead you post links and sound bytes.
If you had articles say from Bush 41 and maybe Henry Kissinger, making this argument, it would be stronger. However, you have pinned your rhetorical hopes to one of the only Bush 43 appointees to be denied by a conservative republican congress. If a random pundit (Bolton0 says a scholar (Obama) is dumb, he needs to have a compelling case to make that claim. My point is that it is not just that I discount him because he is academically weak but because he is a weakling arguing without evidence against a giant of given knowledge. But if you want to just repeat yourself feel free. It is a free country. I would prefer actual evidence that he is uninformed. Without links.
Intellectual slavery implies that I just let others think for me. I do not think that I show evidence of that. I just require competence in argument and legitimate back up for claims.
This country was built on making good judgments and questioning authority. But it wasn’t like the founders just grabbed every blog-happy nut and used him to build a country. That’s closer to how Cuba got built. In our country, we left it to thinkers and businessmen. Again, they were authorities and yes there was a threshold of competence. Have you ever read a description of the debates surrounding the constitution? They did a damn good job.
Also, “well read” to “lack of intellectual prowess” in only 6 posts? Very good if I do say so myself.
In your next one can you assert that I am an “elitist” intellectual slave and simple minded with a lack of intellectual prowess in a single paragraph? It would make it so much more concise. Also, tell me how I am calling you names in the closing sentence. Really very entertaining.
Again waiting for an O’Reilly link.
[quote=surveyor]who watches?
The problem dan is that who decides that the content is weak? Who decides the minimum threshold? Your so-called experts? Because they’re experts they can’t be challenged unless by other so-called experts? You keep going down that slope and it results in ideology and not debate. When you put the credentials above the data, you’re engaging in intellectual slavery. You’re depending on other people to do your thinking for you, allowing them to block access to other data.
Look at the words at the bottom: “In God We Trust.” It doesn’t add “And the experts too”.
I suppose that kind of elitism is more than enough for you, but it isn’t for me. America was built because of us challenging the “authorities” and there was no minimum threshold then.
As for the links I’ve posted, they are the evidence. You can call it whatever you wish, but they are the evidence that refutes your historians and your points. Calling the authors non-respected, weak, fringe is the definition of an ad hominem attack.
Regarding the bigotry charge, if one can’t stand the attacks, one shouldn’t be here. It doesn’t strengthen your position or weaken my position intellectually, but it is effective for those who are simple-minded. Certainly your use of it shows your lack of intellectual prowess since that is all you have to offer.
Like I said, credentials and name-calling are the weakest arguments you can make. And unfortunately that’s all you have. Now that’s weak.
