OT: Obama is Conservative

[Shadowfax]

duplicate removed

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Shadowfax: Thanks for the thoughtful answer. I was in 6th grade when Jimmy Carter took office, and both of my parents were good Midwestern Democrats (my dad was from Chicago and my mom was from Detroit) who were thrilled to have a Dem in the White House.

Reagan was elected my sophmore year of high school and, by then, even my folks (who were pretty staunch) were ready for a change.

I think most of this country is pretty much ready for a change. My concern with Obama is that he is being imbued with nearly messianic powers. People are so desperate for something new that they’ve latched on to him and his message in the fervent hope that we’ll get some sort of respite from the last eight years. His world tour shows that as well.

The problem I have is that he remains something of a mystery to me. The Zakaria article attempted to offer a view of his foreign policy, but was wholly unsupported by any sort of foreign policy experience or writings. Granted, this is not Obama’s fault, per se, in that he is too new to the scene to have either.

His speeches are tremendous and he is one of the most gifted orators I have seen (without humor or malice, he reminds me of Reagan), but what is he really saying? Peggy Noonan, one of Reagan’s speechwriters, wrote a piece in the WSJ saying essentially the same thing.

I respect McCain as a person (due to his experiences during Vietnam), but won’t vote for him, in large part due to his flip-flopping and pandering to the Far Right constituency.

Yeah, I know that a vote cast for the Independents or Libertarians is one cast for McCain, but I am too tired from these last 16 years to vote either D or R.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Shadowfax: Thanks for the thoughtful answer. I was in 6th grade when Jimmy Carter took office, and both of my parents were good Midwestern Democrats (my dad was from Chicago and my mom was from Detroit) who were thrilled to have a Dem in the White House.

Reagan was elected my sophmore year of high school and, by then, even my folks (who were pretty staunch) were ready for a change.

I think most of this country is pretty much ready for a change. My concern with Obama is that he is being imbued with nearly messianic powers. People are so desperate for something new that they’ve latched on to him and his message in the fervent hope that we’ll get some sort of respite from the last eight years. His world tour shows that as well.

The problem I have is that he remains something of a mystery to me. The Zakaria article attempted to offer a view of his foreign policy, but was wholly unsupported by any sort of foreign policy experience or writings. Granted, this is not Obama’s fault, per se, in that he is too new to the scene to have either.

His speeches are tremendous and he is one of the most gifted orators I have seen (without humor or malice, he reminds me of Reagan), but what is he really saying? Peggy Noonan, one of Reagan’s speechwriters, wrote a piece in the WSJ saying essentially the same thing.

I respect McCain as a person (due to his experiences during Vietnam), but won’t vote for him, in large part due to his flip-flopping and pandering to the Far Right constituency.

Yeah, I know that a vote cast for the Independents or Libertarians is one cast for McCain, but I am too tired from these last 16 years to vote either D or R.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Shadowfax: Thanks for the thoughtful answer. I was in 6th grade when Jimmy Carter took office, and both of my parents were good Midwestern Democrats (my dad was from Chicago and my mom was from Detroit) who were thrilled to have a Dem in the White House.

Reagan was elected my sophmore year of high school and, by then, even my folks (who were pretty staunch) were ready for a change.

I think most of this country is pretty much ready for a change. My concern with Obama is that he is being imbued with nearly messianic powers. People are so desperate for something new that they’ve latched on to him and his message in the fervent hope that we’ll get some sort of respite from the last eight years. His world tour shows that as well.

The problem I have is that he remains something of a mystery to me. The Zakaria article attempted to offer a view of his foreign policy, but was wholly unsupported by any sort of foreign policy experience or writings. Granted, this is not Obama’s fault, per se, in that he is too new to the scene to have either.

His speeches are tremendous and he is one of the most gifted orators I have seen (without humor or malice, he reminds me of Reagan), but what is he really saying? Peggy Noonan, one of Reagan’s speechwriters, wrote a piece in the WSJ saying essentially the same thing.

I respect McCain as a person (due to his experiences during Vietnam), but won’t vote for him, in large part due to his flip-flopping and pandering to the Far Right constituency.

Yeah, I know that a vote cast for the Independents or Libertarians is one cast for McCain, but I am too tired from these last 16 years to vote either D or R.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Shadowfax: Thanks for the thoughtful answer. I was in 6th grade when Jimmy Carter took office, and both of my parents were good Midwestern Democrats (my dad was from Chicago and my mom was from Detroit) who were thrilled to have a Dem in the White House.

Reagan was elected my sophmore year of high school and, by then, even my folks (who were pretty staunch) were ready for a change.

I think most of this country is pretty much ready for a change. My concern with Obama is that he is being imbued with nearly messianic powers. People are so desperate for something new that they’ve latched on to him and his message in the fervent hope that we’ll get some sort of respite from the last eight years. His world tour shows that as well.

The problem I have is that he remains something of a mystery to me. The Zakaria article attempted to offer a view of his foreign policy, but was wholly unsupported by any sort of foreign policy experience or writings. Granted, this is not Obama’s fault, per se, in that he is too new to the scene to have either.

His speeches are tremendous and he is one of the most gifted orators I have seen (without humor or malice, he reminds me of Reagan), but what is he really saying? Peggy Noonan, one of Reagan’s speechwriters, wrote a piece in the WSJ saying essentially the same thing.

I respect McCain as a person (due to his experiences during Vietnam), but won’t vote for him, in large part due to his flip-flopping and pandering to the Far Right constituency.

Yeah, I know that a vote cast for the Independents or Libertarians is one cast for McCain, but I am too tired from these last 16 years to vote either D or R.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Shadowfax: Thanks for the thoughtful answer. I was in 6th grade when Jimmy Carter took office, and both of my parents were good Midwestern Democrats (my dad was from Chicago and my mom was from Detroit) who were thrilled to have a Dem in the White House.

Reagan was elected my sophmore year of high school and, by then, even my folks (who were pretty staunch) were ready for a change.

I think most of this country is pretty much ready for a change. My concern with Obama is that he is being imbued with nearly messianic powers. People are so desperate for something new that they’ve latched on to him and his message in the fervent hope that we’ll get some sort of respite from the last eight years. His world tour shows that as well.

The problem I have is that he remains something of a mystery to me. The Zakaria article attempted to offer a view of his foreign policy, but was wholly unsupported by any sort of foreign policy experience or writings. Granted, this is not Obama’s fault, per se, in that he is too new to the scene to have either.

His speeches are tremendous and he is one of the most gifted orators I have seen (without humor or malice, he reminds me of Reagan), but what is he really saying? Peggy Noonan, one of Reagan’s speechwriters, wrote a piece in the WSJ saying essentially the same thing.

I respect McCain as a person (due to his experiences during Vietnam), but won’t vote for him, in large part due to his flip-flopping and pandering to the Far Right constituency.

Yeah, I know that a vote cast for the Independents or Libertarians is one cast for McCain, but I am too tired from these last 16 years to vote either D or R.

[surveyor]

pinhead!

Oh, Dan, don’t be a pinhead! (O’Reilly reference).

When you look up the definition of the word “bigoted” and “bigotry”, notice that the definition includes the “prejudices of a bigot”. You said yourself that my statements were “bigoted”, and by your usage of that word, you are also calling me “bigoted”. So that is name-calling. So you’ll have to pardon me if I lose respect for someone who calls me names.

As a tactic, I am deliberately choosing not to quote “more trusted experts” because that would mean I agree with your argument, that credentials matter before data. And I don’t. I gave you two authors who have written books on how muslims did not treat their minorities well. I’m sure there are more. All you have to say against the argument is that, well they’re not respected. That doesn’t mean that the muslims treated their minorities well. That is an ad hominem attack and ultimately irrelevant.

And shadowfax may agree with that notion, because many people are unable to see that just because a person has credentials, that does not invalidate the argument itself. The data itself has to be challenged. You cannot bring up the “because mommy said so” argument into a debate. Unfortunately, people do rely on their purported “experts” in order to simplify their thinking.

By the way, the definition of an ad hominem attack is when you bring up an IRRELEVANT fact and use it as a way to impeach the argument. So when you bring up the reputation of Spencer, Bolton, et. al., and use that reputation as a means to say that their argument does not matter, that is an ad hominem attack and it is highly unimportant when it comes to the argument. That is weak. It doesn’t attack the basis of the argument.

Anyways, I put the In God we Trust thing because it’s down at the bottom of this website. Extolling the credentials over the data is the direct opposite of the phrase “In God We Trust.”

(1956? Do I come off as that OLD?). Hahaha. I’m only 38.

[surveyor]

pinhead!

Oh, Dan, don’t be a pinhead! (O’Reilly reference).

When you look up the definition of the word “bigoted” and “bigotry”, notice that the definition includes the “prejudices of a bigot”. You said yourself that my statements were “bigoted”, and by your usage of that word, you are also calling me “bigoted”. So that is name-calling. So you’ll have to pardon me if I lose respect for someone who calls me names.

As a tactic, I am deliberately choosing not to quote “more trusted experts” because that would mean I agree with your argument, that credentials matter before data. And I don’t. I gave you two authors who have written books on how muslims did not treat their minorities well. I’m sure there are more. All you have to say against the argument is that, well they’re not respected. That doesn’t mean that the muslims treated their minorities well. That is an ad hominem attack and ultimately irrelevant.

And shadowfax may agree with that notion, because many people are unable to see that just because a person has credentials, that does not invalidate the argument itself. The data itself has to be challenged. You cannot bring up the “because mommy said so” argument into a debate. Unfortunately, people do rely on their purported “experts” in order to simplify their thinking.

By the way, the definition of an ad hominem attack is when you bring up an IRRELEVANT fact and use it as a way to impeach the argument. So when you bring up the reputation of Spencer, Bolton, et. al., and use that reputation as a means to say that their argument does not matter, that is an ad hominem attack and it is highly unimportant when it comes to the argument. That is weak. It doesn’t attack the basis of the argument.

Anyways, I put the In God we Trust thing because it’s down at the bottom of this website. Extolling the credentials over the data is the direct opposite of the phrase “In God We Trust.”

(1956? Do I come off as that OLD?). Hahaha. I’m only 38.

[surveyor]

pinhead!

Oh, Dan, don’t be a pinhead! (O’Reilly reference).

When you look up the definition of the word “bigoted” and “bigotry”, notice that the definition includes the “prejudices of a bigot”. You said yourself that my statements were “bigoted”, and by your usage of that word, you are also calling me “bigoted”. So that is name-calling. So you’ll have to pardon me if I lose respect for someone who calls me names.

As a tactic, I am deliberately choosing not to quote “more trusted experts” because that would mean I agree with your argument, that credentials matter before data. And I don’t. I gave you two authors who have written books on how muslims did not treat their minorities well. I’m sure there are more. All you have to say against the argument is that, well they’re not respected. That doesn’t mean that the muslims treated their minorities well. That is an ad hominem attack and ultimately irrelevant.

And shadowfax may agree with that notion, because many people are unable to see that just because a person has credentials, that does not invalidate the argument itself. The data itself has to be challenged. You cannot bring up the “because mommy said so” argument into a debate. Unfortunately, people do rely on their purported “experts” in order to simplify their thinking.

By the way, the definition of an ad hominem attack is when you bring up an IRRELEVANT fact and use it as a way to impeach the argument. So when you bring up the reputation of Spencer, Bolton, et. al., and use that reputation as a means to say that their argument does not matter, that is an ad hominem attack and it is highly unimportant when it comes to the argument. That is weak. It doesn’t attack the basis of the argument.

Anyways, I put the In God we Trust thing because it’s down at the bottom of this website. Extolling the credentials over the data is the direct opposite of the phrase “In God We Trust.”

(1956? Do I come off as that OLD?). Hahaha. I’m only 38.

[surveyor]

pinhead!

Oh, Dan, don’t be a pinhead! (O’Reilly reference).

When you look up the definition of the word “bigoted” and “bigotry”, notice that the definition includes the “prejudices of a bigot”. You said yourself that my statements were “bigoted”, and by your usage of that word, you are also calling me “bigoted”. So that is name-calling. So you’ll have to pardon me if I lose respect for someone who calls me names.

As a tactic, I am deliberately choosing not to quote “more trusted experts” because that would mean I agree with your argument, that credentials matter before data. And I don’t. I gave you two authors who have written books on how muslims did not treat their minorities well. I’m sure there are more. All you have to say against the argument is that, well they’re not respected. That doesn’t mean that the muslims treated their minorities well. That is an ad hominem attack and ultimately irrelevant.

And shadowfax may agree with that notion, because many people are unable to see that just because a person has credentials, that does not invalidate the argument itself. The data itself has to be challenged. You cannot bring up the “because mommy said so” argument into a debate. Unfortunately, people do rely on their purported “experts” in order to simplify their thinking.

By the way, the definition of an ad hominem attack is when you bring up an IRRELEVANT fact and use it as a way to impeach the argument. So when you bring up the reputation of Spencer, Bolton, et. al., and use that reputation as a means to say that their argument does not matter, that is an ad hominem attack and it is highly unimportant when it comes to the argument. That is weak. It doesn’t attack the basis of the argument.

Anyways, I put the In God we Trust thing because it’s down at the bottom of this website. Extolling the credentials over the data is the direct opposite of the phrase “In God We Trust.”

(1956? Do I come off as that OLD?). Hahaha. I’m only 38.

[surveyor]

pinhead!

Oh, Dan, don’t be a pinhead! (O’Reilly reference).

When you look up the definition of the word “bigoted” and “bigotry”, notice that the definition includes the “prejudices of a bigot”. You said yourself that my statements were “bigoted”, and by your usage of that word, you are also calling me “bigoted”. So that is name-calling. So you’ll have to pardon me if I lose respect for someone who calls me names.

As a tactic, I am deliberately choosing not to quote “more trusted experts” because that would mean I agree with your argument, that credentials matter before data. And I don’t. I gave you two authors who have written books on how muslims did not treat their minorities well. I’m sure there are more. All you have to say against the argument is that, well they’re not respected. That doesn’t mean that the muslims treated their minorities well. That is an ad hominem attack and ultimately irrelevant.

And shadowfax may agree with that notion, because many people are unable to see that just because a person has credentials, that does not invalidate the argument itself. The data itself has to be challenged. You cannot bring up the “because mommy said so” argument into a debate. Unfortunately, people do rely on their purported “experts” in order to simplify their thinking.

By the way, the definition of an ad hominem attack is when you bring up an IRRELEVANT fact and use it as a way to impeach the argument. So when you bring up the reputation of Spencer, Bolton, et. al., and use that reputation as a means to say that their argument does not matter, that is an ad hominem attack and it is highly unimportant when it comes to the argument. That is weak. It doesn’t attack the basis of the argument.

Anyways, I put the In God we Trust thing because it’s down at the bottom of this website. Extolling the credentials over the data is the direct opposite of the phrase “In God We Trust.”

(1956? Do I come off as that OLD?). Hahaha. I’m only 38.

[urbanrealtor]

Surveyor, thanks for the Oreilly quote.
I do not assert that credentials matter before data.

I simply assert that if you have are trying to overturn existing given knowledge, you need to have good support. You haven’t given good data other than quotes from weak experts. Go see Aff’s remarks on Obama’s weakness. Those are good arguments closer to what you are going for. Arguments starting from outside the canon of belief are starting at a disadvantage. If I made the case that CO2 is good for the keeping the climate stable I would have to back that up somehow to be taken seriously. Just a quote from Jerry Falwell would not do it. That is because experts have made their case in a way that is convincing to most viewers. Similarly, you made statements that are outside the canon. However, unlike Galileo, unlike Einstein, unlike Saint Rich Toscano, you do not cite observable and credible evidence (remember: all others bring data). I do not need to prove much because my assertions square with generally accepted truth. Specifically, it is not particularly revolutionary to suggest that scholars are informed and that history suggests that larger caliphates were tolerant. Its not likely that most people believe a lone blogger over generally accepted history (eg: why nobody really takes “faking” the moon landing seriously).

Also, I really don’t believe that you picked the fringe authors you did just because that “proved your point better”. I think you did it because they were easily at hand. I think that because any amount of googling will turn up other, more credible authors with more substantial arguments that would be closer to yours.

As far as bigotry, I think putting conversations in their defined categories is appropriate. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bigotry

Finally, as you stated, ad hominem attacks have, as a necessary component, irrelevant issues. I think that questioning the expertise of an expert when they are spouting kernels of expertise is highly relevant. I am glad you have come around to my way of thinking. To quote Stephen Colbert, I accept your apology.

[urbanrealtor]

Surveyor, thanks for the Oreilly quote.
I do not assert that credentials matter before data.

I simply assert that if you have are trying to overturn existing given knowledge, you need to have good support. You haven’t given good data other than quotes from weak experts. Go see Aff’s remarks on Obama’s weakness. Those are good arguments closer to what you are going for. Arguments starting from outside the canon of belief are starting at a disadvantage. If I made the case that CO2 is good for the keeping the climate stable I would have to back that up somehow to be taken seriously. Just a quote from Jerry Falwell would not do it. That is because experts have made their case in a way that is convincing to most viewers. Similarly, you made statements that are outside the canon. However, unlike Galileo, unlike Einstein, unlike Saint Rich Toscano, you do not cite observable and credible evidence (remember: all others bring data). I do not need to prove much because my assertions square with generally accepted truth. Specifically, it is not particularly revolutionary to suggest that scholars are informed and that history suggests that larger caliphates were tolerant. Its not likely that most people believe a lone blogger over generally accepted history (eg: why nobody really takes “faking” the moon landing seriously).

Also, I really don’t believe that you picked the fringe authors you did just because that “proved your point better”. I think you did it because they were easily at hand. I think that because any amount of googling will turn up other, more credible authors with more substantial arguments that would be closer to yours.

As far as bigotry, I think putting conversations in their defined categories is appropriate. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bigotry

Finally, as you stated, ad hominem attacks have, as a necessary component, irrelevant issues. I think that questioning the expertise of an expert when they are spouting kernels of expertise is highly relevant. I am glad you have come around to my way of thinking. To quote Stephen Colbert, I accept your apology.

[urbanrealtor]

Surveyor, thanks for the Oreilly quote.
I do not assert that credentials matter before data.

I simply assert that if you have are trying to overturn existing given knowledge, you need to have good support. You haven’t given good data other than quotes from weak experts. Go see Aff’s remarks on Obama’s weakness. Those are good arguments closer to what you are going for. Arguments starting from outside the canon of belief are starting at a disadvantage. If I made the case that CO2 is good for the keeping the climate stable I would have to back that up somehow to be taken seriously. Just a quote from Jerry Falwell would not do it. That is because experts have made their case in a way that is convincing to most viewers. Similarly, you made statements that are outside the canon. However, unlike Galileo, unlike Einstein, unlike Saint Rich Toscano, you do not cite observable and credible evidence (remember: all others bring data). I do not need to prove much because my assertions square with generally accepted truth. Specifically, it is not particularly revolutionary to suggest that scholars are informed and that history suggests that larger caliphates were tolerant. Its not likely that most people believe a lone blogger over generally accepted history (eg: why nobody really takes “faking” the moon landing seriously).

Also, I really don’t believe that you picked the fringe authors you did just because that “proved your point better”. I think you did it because they were easily at hand. I think that because any amount of googling will turn up other, more credible authors with more substantial arguments that would be closer to yours.

As far as bigotry, I think putting conversations in their defined categories is appropriate. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bigotry

Finally, as you stated, ad hominem attacks have, as a necessary component, irrelevant issues. I think that questioning the expertise of an expert when they are spouting kernels of expertise is highly relevant. I am glad you have come around to my way of thinking. To quote Stephen Colbert, I accept your apology.

[urbanrealtor]

Surveyor, thanks for the Oreilly quote.
I do not assert that credentials matter before data.

I simply assert that if you have are trying to overturn existing given knowledge, you need to have good support. You haven’t given good data other than quotes from weak experts. Go see Aff’s remarks on Obama’s weakness. Those are good arguments closer to what you are going for. Arguments starting from outside the canon of belief are starting at a disadvantage. If I made the case that CO2 is good for the keeping the climate stable I would have to back that up somehow to be taken seriously. Just a quote from Jerry Falwell would not do it. That is because experts have made their case in a way that is convincing to most viewers. Similarly, you made statements that are outside the canon. However, unlike Galileo, unlike Einstein, unlike Saint Rich Toscano, you do not cite observable and credible evidence (remember: all others bring data). I do not need to prove much because my assertions square with generally accepted truth. Specifically, it is not particularly revolutionary to suggest that scholars are informed and that history suggests that larger caliphates were tolerant. Its not likely that most people believe a lone blogger over generally accepted history (eg: why nobody really takes “faking” the moon landing seriously).

Also, I really don’t believe that you picked the fringe authors you did just because that “proved your point better”. I think you did it because they were easily at hand. I think that because any amount of googling will turn up other, more credible authors with more substantial arguments that would be closer to yours.

As far as bigotry, I think putting conversations in their defined categories is appropriate. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bigotry

Finally, as you stated, ad hominem attacks have, as a necessary component, irrelevant issues. I think that questioning the expertise of an expert when they are spouting kernels of expertise is highly relevant. I am glad you have come around to my way of thinking. To quote Stephen Colbert, I accept your apology.

[Author]

Posts