OT: Obama is Conservative

[surveyor]

Sorry, Dan, you can’t claim the intellectual high ground when you are calling people names and portraying close-mindedness.

Certainly you are well read but when you just start re-hashing old ad hominem attacks, it shows how feeble your debating position.

Intellectual slavery is when you cannot challenge a theory because of its “righteousness.” That is exactly what you advocate. You claim that your historians are right because they are “the” experts. You claim that only an “expert” is allowed to challenge them. You claim that only “experts” can judge whether Obama knows history. That is weak thinking. It produces weak arguments.

Sorry, emperor dan, you got no clothes and everyone can see it.

“In God We Trust!”

[urbanrealtor]

Wow. Intellectual high ground, professing faith, and now I am an emperor (a naked one). Truly you have proven your better skills of rhetoric.

I don’t believe I called you any names. I did describe some remarks as bigoted. I stand by that assessment. Look up the definition if you like.

I am not sure how not being interested in the relative revelatory value of punditry (say that five times fast) makes me close minded.

As far as ad-hominem, well I think that questioning experts (or those who claim to be) is important. You taught me that. Not really. You did restate it several times. I questioned the reputations of Bolton and Spencer.

What you have not acknowledged (and maybe you did not read it)is that I did address their assertions as well. Which you claimed were your assertions. Weird. Basically, I do not find validity in Bolton’s unverified (though not unverifiable) assertions that Obama does not understand basic IR. Yes I am swayed by the fact that he said (as an IR expert) that the UN was irrelevant. I expect him to say things that qualify as unverified outlandish claims. Taking his reputation into account is not the same as an ad-hominem attack. However, I did engage on his actual words. Do you really want me to talk about Kennedy again?

I do not follow theories because they are righteous. I follow them because they have been proven and re-proven repeatedly. They can be unproven but they are not unproven (or is that disproven) just by one counter assertion. They have the benefit of starting from a point of acceptance.

The sad part is that all the assertions you made are provable. Totally provable. You just are not inclined or maybe not capable of proving them.

Here is a fun game. Could we switch positions?
I think I could do a better job at your position than you do. Also, you would have the advantage of starting on the side with more obvious evidence.

Also you included a motto (in god we trust) adopted by the US in 1956. Why? Were you born in that year? How does it relate?

[quote=surveyor]Sorry, Dan, you can’t claim the intellectual high ground when you are calling people names and portraying close-mindedness.

Certainly you are well read but when you just start re-hashing old ad hominem attacks, it shows how feeble your debating position.

Intellectual slavery is when you cannot challenge a theory because of its “righteousness.” That is exactly what you advocate. You claim that your historians are right because they are “the” experts. You claim that only an “expert” is allowed to challenge them. You claim that only “experts” can judge whether Obama knows history. That is weak thinking. It produces weak arguments.

Sorry, emperor dan, you got no clothes and everyone can see it.

“In God We Trust!” [/quote]

[urbanrealtor]

Wow. Intellectual high ground, professing faith, and now I am an emperor (a naked one). Truly you have proven your better skills of rhetoric.

I don’t believe I called you any names. I did describe some remarks as bigoted. I stand by that assessment. Look up the definition if you like.

I am not sure how not being interested in the relative revelatory value of punditry (say that five times fast) makes me close minded.

As far as ad-hominem, well I think that questioning experts (or those who claim to be) is important. You taught me that. Not really. You did restate it several times. I questioned the reputations of Bolton and Spencer.

What you have not acknowledged (and maybe you did not read it)is that I did address their assertions as well. Which you claimed were your assertions. Weird. Basically, I do not find validity in Bolton’s unverified (though not unverifiable) assertions that Obama does not understand basic IR. Yes I am swayed by the fact that he said (as an IR expert) that the UN was irrelevant. I expect him to say things that qualify as unverified outlandish claims. Taking his reputation into account is not the same as an ad-hominem attack. However, I did engage on his actual words. Do you really want me to talk about Kennedy again?

I do not follow theories because they are righteous. I follow them because they have been proven and re-proven repeatedly. They can be unproven but they are not unproven (or is that disproven) just by one counter assertion. They have the benefit of starting from a point of acceptance.

The sad part is that all the assertions you made are provable. Totally provable. You just are not inclined or maybe not capable of proving them.

Here is a fun game. Could we switch positions?
I think I could do a better job at your position than you do. Also, you would have the advantage of starting on the side with more obvious evidence.

Also you included a motto (in god we trust) adopted by the US in 1956. Why? Were you born in that year? How does it relate?

[quote=surveyor]Sorry, Dan, you can’t claim the intellectual high ground when you are calling people names and portraying close-mindedness.

Certainly you are well read but when you just start re-hashing old ad hominem attacks, it shows how feeble your debating position.

Intellectual slavery is when you cannot challenge a theory because of its “righteousness.” That is exactly what you advocate. You claim that your historians are right because they are “the” experts. You claim that only an “expert” is allowed to challenge them. You claim that only “experts” can judge whether Obama knows history. That is weak thinking. It produces weak arguments.

Sorry, emperor dan, you got no clothes and everyone can see it.

“In God We Trust!” [/quote]

[urbanrealtor]

Wow. Intellectual high ground, professing faith, and now I am an emperor (a naked one). Truly you have proven your better skills of rhetoric.

I don’t believe I called you any names. I did describe some remarks as bigoted. I stand by that assessment. Look up the definition if you like.

I am not sure how not being interested in the relative revelatory value of punditry (say that five times fast) makes me close minded.

As far as ad-hominem, well I think that questioning experts (or those who claim to be) is important. You taught me that. Not really. You did restate it several times. I questioned the reputations of Bolton and Spencer.

What you have not acknowledged (and maybe you did not read it)is that I did address their assertions as well. Which you claimed were your assertions. Weird. Basically, I do not find validity in Bolton’s unverified (though not unverifiable) assertions that Obama does not understand basic IR. Yes I am swayed by the fact that he said (as an IR expert) that the UN was irrelevant. I expect him to say things that qualify as unverified outlandish claims. Taking his reputation into account is not the same as an ad-hominem attack. However, I did engage on his actual words. Do you really want me to talk about Kennedy again?

I do not follow theories because they are righteous. I follow them because they have been proven and re-proven repeatedly. They can be unproven but they are not unproven (or is that disproven) just by one counter assertion. They have the benefit of starting from a point of acceptance.

The sad part is that all the assertions you made are provable. Totally provable. You just are not inclined or maybe not capable of proving them.

Here is a fun game. Could we switch positions?
I think I could do a better job at your position than you do. Also, you would have the advantage of starting on the side with more obvious evidence.

Also you included a motto (in god we trust) adopted by the US in 1956. Why? Were you born in that year? How does it relate?

[quote=surveyor]Sorry, Dan, you can’t claim the intellectual high ground when you are calling people names and portraying close-mindedness.

Certainly you are well read but when you just start re-hashing old ad hominem attacks, it shows how feeble your debating position.

Intellectual slavery is when you cannot challenge a theory because of its “righteousness.” That is exactly what you advocate. You claim that your historians are right because they are “the” experts. You claim that only an “expert” is allowed to challenge them. You claim that only “experts” can judge whether Obama knows history. That is weak thinking. It produces weak arguments.

Sorry, emperor dan, you got no clothes and everyone can see it.

“In God We Trust!” [/quote]

[urbanrealtor]

Wow. Intellectual high ground, professing faith, and now I am an emperor (a naked one). Truly you have proven your better skills of rhetoric.

I don’t believe I called you any names. I did describe some remarks as bigoted. I stand by that assessment. Look up the definition if you like.

I am not sure how not being interested in the relative revelatory value of punditry (say that five times fast) makes me close minded.

As far as ad-hominem, well I think that questioning experts (or those who claim to be) is important. You taught me that. Not really. You did restate it several times. I questioned the reputations of Bolton and Spencer.

What you have not acknowledged (and maybe you did not read it)is that I did address their assertions as well. Which you claimed were your assertions. Weird. Basically, I do not find validity in Bolton’s unverified (though not unverifiable) assertions that Obama does not understand basic IR. Yes I am swayed by the fact that he said (as an IR expert) that the UN was irrelevant. I expect him to say things that qualify as unverified outlandish claims. Taking his reputation into account is not the same as an ad-hominem attack. However, I did engage on his actual words. Do you really want me to talk about Kennedy again?

I do not follow theories because they are righteous. I follow them because they have been proven and re-proven repeatedly. They can be unproven but they are not unproven (or is that disproven) just by one counter assertion. They have the benefit of starting from a point of acceptance.

The sad part is that all the assertions you made are provable. Totally provable. You just are not inclined or maybe not capable of proving them.

Here is a fun game. Could we switch positions?
I think I could do a better job at your position than you do. Also, you would have the advantage of starting on the side with more obvious evidence.

Also you included a motto (in god we trust) adopted by the US in 1956. Why? Were you born in that year? How does it relate?

[quote=surveyor]Sorry, Dan, you can’t claim the intellectual high ground when you are calling people names and portraying close-mindedness.

Certainly you are well read but when you just start re-hashing old ad hominem attacks, it shows how feeble your debating position.

Intellectual slavery is when you cannot challenge a theory because of its “righteousness.” That is exactly what you advocate. You claim that your historians are right because they are “the” experts. You claim that only an “expert” is allowed to challenge them. You claim that only “experts” can judge whether Obama knows history. That is weak thinking. It produces weak arguments.

Sorry, emperor dan, you got no clothes and everyone can see it.

“In God We Trust!” [/quote]

[urbanrealtor]

Wow. Intellectual high ground, professing faith, and now I am an emperor (a naked one). Truly you have proven your better skills of rhetoric.

I don’t believe I called you any names. I did describe some remarks as bigoted. I stand by that assessment. Look up the definition if you like.

I am not sure how not being interested in the relative revelatory value of punditry (say that five times fast) makes me close minded.

As far as ad-hominem, well I think that questioning experts (or those who claim to be) is important. You taught me that. Not really. You did restate it several times. I questioned the reputations of Bolton and Spencer.

What you have not acknowledged (and maybe you did not read it)is that I did address their assertions as well. Which you claimed were your assertions. Weird. Basically, I do not find validity in Bolton’s unverified (though not unverifiable) assertions that Obama does not understand basic IR. Yes I am swayed by the fact that he said (as an IR expert) that the UN was irrelevant. I expect him to say things that qualify as unverified outlandish claims. Taking his reputation into account is not the same as an ad-hominem attack. However, I did engage on his actual words. Do you really want me to talk about Kennedy again?

I do not follow theories because they are righteous. I follow them because they have been proven and re-proven repeatedly. They can be unproven but they are not unproven (or is that disproven) just by one counter assertion. They have the benefit of starting from a point of acceptance.

The sad part is that all the assertions you made are provable. Totally provable. You just are not inclined or maybe not capable of proving them.

Here is a fun game. Could we switch positions?
I think I could do a better job at your position than you do. Also, you would have the advantage of starting on the side with more obvious evidence.

Also you included a motto (in god we trust) adopted by the US in 1956. Why? Were you born in that year? How does it relate?

[quote=surveyor]Sorry, Dan, you can’t claim the intellectual high ground when you are calling people names and portraying close-mindedness.

Certainly you are well read but when you just start re-hashing old ad hominem attacks, it shows how feeble your debating position.

Intellectual slavery is when you cannot challenge a theory because of its “righteousness.” That is exactly what you advocate. You claim that your historians are right because they are “the” experts. You claim that only an “expert” is allowed to challenge them. You claim that only “experts” can judge whether Obama knows history. That is weak thinking. It produces weak arguments.

Sorry, emperor dan, you got no clothes and everyone can see it.

“In God We Trust!” [/quote]

[urbanrealtor]

Even more off topic.
Surveyor check your private messages.

[urbanrealtor]

Even more off topic.
Surveyor check your private messages.

[urbanrealtor]

Even more off topic.
Surveyor check your private messages.

[urbanrealtor]

Even more off topic.
Surveyor check your private messages.

[urbanrealtor]

Even more off topic.
Surveyor check your private messages.

[Shadowfax]

ROFLMAO!! Don’t take this debate offline! It’s been funny as hell!

Surveyor, he’s got you. You are doing exactly what you are arguing against. Using an “expert” to prove your position. You are just using a lesser-accepted, nut-job expert. In legal negligence cases, you frequently have a “battle of the experts” to prove one’s case. Frequently, the expert with the better credentials and more convincing demeanor is the most persuasive. Bolton and Spencer against the rest of the foreign policy “elite” is a poor showing. Good luck.

Another comment, but a fine point, to say that Obama has “no knowledge of history” is to assume that you could determine his knowledge base. I think you could more successfully argue that his past discussions have caused you to believe that his appreciation of certain historical events is uninformed or naive. But that one event (Obama’s interpretation of Kennedy’s actions) is a poor statistical sample of the sum of a person’s knowledge of foreign affairs. (Even two such examples is still a small sample. If I spent a few minutes researching, I am sure I could find some homeruns in his arsenal. At least 2.) And to parrot someone else’s earlier comment–you’d be hard pressed to find a presidential candidate who is an expert at everything. That’s what their cabinet is for. What you really want is a good leader–someone who makes good decisions, is thoughtful and careful, and can inspire their people in a time of great challenge. We are heading into, IMHO, one of the hardest periods in our nation’s history. We don’t want a Carter (as much as I think his heart was in the right place), we need a leader who can inspire. (Kennedy and, gulp, Reagan comes to mind–those who know me know how hard it is for me to admit this.)

[Shadowfax]

ROFLMAO!! Don’t take this debate offline! It’s been funny as hell!

Surveyor, he’s got you. You are doing exactly what you are arguing against. Using an “expert” to prove your position. You are just using a lesser-accepted, nut-job expert. In legal negligence cases, you frequently have a “battle of the experts” to prove one’s case. Frequently, the expert with the better credentials and more convincing demeanor is the most persuasive. Bolton and Spencer against the rest of the foreign policy “elite” is a poor showing. Good luck.

Another comment, but a fine point, to say that Obama has “no knowledge of history” is to assume that you could determine his knowledge base. I think you could more successfully argue that his past discussions have caused you to believe that his appreciation of certain historical events is uninformed or naive. But that one event (Obama’s interpretation of Kennedy’s actions) is a poor statistical sample of the sum of a person’s knowledge of foreign affairs. (Even two such examples is still a small sample. If I spent a few minutes researching, I am sure I could find some homeruns in his arsenal. At least 2.) And to parrot someone else’s earlier comment–you’d be hard pressed to find a presidential candidate who is an expert at everything. That’s what their cabinet is for. What you really want is a good leader–someone who makes good decisions, is thoughtful and careful, and can inspire their people in a time of great challenge. We are heading into, IMHO, one of the hardest periods in our nation’s history. We don’t want a Carter (as much as I think his heart was in the right place), we need a leader who can inspire. (Kennedy and, gulp, Reagan comes to mind–those who know me know how hard it is for me to admit this.)

[Shadowfax]

ROFLMAO!! Don’t take this debate offline! It’s been funny as hell!

Surveyor, he’s got you. You are doing exactly what you are arguing against. Using an “expert” to prove your position. You are just using a lesser-accepted, nut-job expert. In legal negligence cases, you frequently have a “battle of the experts” to prove one’s case. Frequently, the expert with the better credentials and more convincing demeanor is the most persuasive. Bolton and Spencer against the rest of the foreign policy “elite” is a poor showing. Good luck.

Another comment, but a fine point, to say that Obama has “no knowledge of history” is to assume that you could determine his knowledge base. I think you could more successfully argue that his past discussions have caused you to believe that his appreciation of certain historical events is uninformed or naive. But that one event (Obama’s interpretation of Kennedy’s actions) is a poor statistical sample of the sum of a person’s knowledge of foreign affairs. (Even two such examples is still a small sample. If I spent a few minutes researching, I am sure I could find some homeruns in his arsenal. At least 2.) And to parrot someone else’s earlier comment–you’d be hard pressed to find a presidential candidate who is an expert at everything. That’s what their cabinet is for. What you really want is a good leader–someone who makes good decisions, is thoughtful and careful, and can inspire their people in a time of great challenge. We are heading into, IMHO, one of the hardest periods in our nation’s history. We don’t want a Carter (as much as I think his heart was in the right place), we need a leader who can inspire. (Kennedy and, gulp, Reagan comes to mind–those who know me know how hard it is for me to admit this.)

[Shadowfax]

ROFLMAO!! Don’t take this debate offline! It’s been funny as hell!

Surveyor, he’s got you. You are doing exactly what you are arguing against. Using an “expert” to prove your position. You are just using a lesser-accepted, nut-job expert. In legal negligence cases, you frequently have a “battle of the experts” to prove one’s case. Frequently, the expert with the better credentials and more convincing demeanor is the most persuasive. Bolton and Spencer against the rest of the foreign policy “elite” is a poor showing. Good luck.

Another comment, but a fine point, to say that Obama has “no knowledge of history” is to assume that you could determine his knowledge base. I think you could more successfully argue that his past discussions have caused you to believe that his appreciation of certain historical events is uninformed or naive. But that one event (Obama’s interpretation of Kennedy’s actions) is a poor statistical sample of the sum of a person’s knowledge of foreign affairs. (Even two such examples is still a small sample. If I spent a few minutes researching, I am sure I could find some homeruns in his arsenal. At least 2.) And to parrot someone else’s earlier comment–you’d be hard pressed to find a presidential candidate who is an expert at everything. That’s what their cabinet is for. What you really want is a good leader–someone who makes good decisions, is thoughtful and careful, and can inspire their people in a time of great challenge. We are heading into, IMHO, one of the hardest periods in our nation’s history. We don’t want a Carter (as much as I think his heart was in the right place), we need a leader who can inspire. (Kennedy and, gulp, Reagan comes to mind–those who know me know how hard it is for me to admit this.)

[Author]

Posts