OT: Obama is dumber than a box of rocks

[Allan from Fallbrook]

John: This is regional brinksmanship on the part of the Russians. Georgia is a US ally, and Putin can accomplish two things here: 1) Humble the US (through our inaction) in the region, and 2) Show the other countries, including new NATO members like Poland, who is holding the whip hand.

Western Europe has grown increasingly dependent on Russian controlled fuel sources. As of late, the largest security concerns that NATO has handled have been in Afghanistan, and, if that is any example of their fighting spirit, they have a serious problem.

I don’t think beyond jawing about a cease fire and trying to calm the situation, the US (or NATO) is going to do much of anything. Largely because we can’t. I think Putin has us (and Europe) by the short and curlies, and he knows it.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

John: This is regional brinksmanship on the part of the Russians. Georgia is a US ally, and Putin can accomplish two things here: 1) Humble the US (through our inaction) in the region, and 2) Show the other countries, including new NATO members like Poland, who is holding the whip hand.

Western Europe has grown increasingly dependent on Russian controlled fuel sources. As of late, the largest security concerns that NATO has handled have been in Afghanistan, and, if that is any example of their fighting spirit, they have a serious problem.

I don’t think beyond jawing about a cease fire and trying to calm the situation, the US (or NATO) is going to do much of anything. Largely because we can’t. I think Putin has us (and Europe) by the short and curlies, and he knows it.

[zk]

[quote=jficquette]
The only way to know for sure if Obama is eligable to be president would be for him to produce a real birth certificate but he refuses to do so.

If someone refuses to provide proof of birth then what choices are one left with as to what to believe? Very few. One has to consider that maybe he is not eligible or else why not provide the BC??

Here is another article on his BC. http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/

John

[/quote]

I read the article you cited, John, and you’re only bolstering my point that you and so many others will believe what they read on the internet regardless of its easy disprovability.

I was watching a documentary on the hippie movement the other day, and towards the end Steve Jobs was talking (in the ’70s) about how personal computers will take so much power out of the hands of “the man” and give it to the people. And that did, in some ways, come to pass. But along with it came a whole new era of ignorance and hysteria.

I think most of the (very large) segment of the population that eschews skepticism would, prior to their internet access, simply not get involved too much in politics. They were busy getting their palms read or looking at their horoscopes or attending seances. But political operatives have learned that they can spoon feed easy-to-access, easy-to-read, bite-sized chunks of bull slop to these people and get them to vote for (or against) the candidates they like (or don’t like).

John, I think you should stand up to these people who are pulling the wool over your eyes. Don’t let them make a fool of you.

[zk]

[quote=jficquette]
The only way to know for sure if Obama is eligable to be president would be for him to produce a real birth certificate but he refuses to do so.

If someone refuses to provide proof of birth then what choices are one left with as to what to believe? Very few. One has to consider that maybe he is not eligible or else why not provide the BC??

Here is another article on his BC. http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/

John

[/quote]

I read the article you cited, John, and you’re only bolstering my point that you and so many others will believe what they read on the internet regardless of its easy disprovability.

I was watching a documentary on the hippie movement the other day, and towards the end Steve Jobs was talking (in the ’70s) about how personal computers will take so much power out of the hands of “the man” and give it to the people. And that did, in some ways, come to pass. But along with it came a whole new era of ignorance and hysteria.

I think most of the (very large) segment of the population that eschews skepticism would, prior to their internet access, simply not get involved too much in politics. They were busy getting their palms read or looking at their horoscopes or attending seances. But political operatives have learned that they can spoon feed easy-to-access, easy-to-read, bite-sized chunks of bull slop to these people and get them to vote for (or against) the candidates they like (or don’t like).

John, I think you should stand up to these people who are pulling the wool over your eyes. Don’t let them make a fool of you.

[zk]

[quote=jficquette]
The only way to know for sure if Obama is eligable to be president would be for him to produce a real birth certificate but he refuses to do so.

If someone refuses to provide proof of birth then what choices are one left with as to what to believe? Very few. One has to consider that maybe he is not eligible or else why not provide the BC??

Here is another article on his BC. http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/

John

[/quote]

I read the article you cited, John, and you’re only bolstering my point that you and so many others will believe what they read on the internet regardless of its easy disprovability.

I was watching a documentary on the hippie movement the other day, and towards the end Steve Jobs was talking (in the ’70s) about how personal computers will take so much power out of the hands of “the man” and give it to the people. And that did, in some ways, come to pass. But along with it came a whole new era of ignorance and hysteria.

I think most of the (very large) segment of the population that eschews skepticism would, prior to their internet access, simply not get involved too much in politics. They were busy getting their palms read or looking at their horoscopes or attending seances. But political operatives have learned that they can spoon feed easy-to-access, easy-to-read, bite-sized chunks of bull slop to these people and get them to vote for (or against) the candidates they like (or don’t like).

John, I think you should stand up to these people who are pulling the wool over your eyes. Don’t let them make a fool of you.

[zk]

[quote=jficquette]
The only way to know for sure if Obama is eligable to be president would be for him to produce a real birth certificate but he refuses to do so.

If someone refuses to provide proof of birth then what choices are one left with as to what to believe? Very few. One has to consider that maybe he is not eligible or else why not provide the BC??

Here is another article on his BC. http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/

John

[/quote]

I read the article you cited, John, and you’re only bolstering my point that you and so many others will believe what they read on the internet regardless of its easy disprovability.

I was watching a documentary on the hippie movement the other day, and towards the end Steve Jobs was talking (in the ’70s) about how personal computers will take so much power out of the hands of “the man” and give it to the people. And that did, in some ways, come to pass. But along with it came a whole new era of ignorance and hysteria.

I think most of the (very large) segment of the population that eschews skepticism would, prior to their internet access, simply not get involved too much in politics. They were busy getting their palms read or looking at their horoscopes or attending seances. But political operatives have learned that they can spoon feed easy-to-access, easy-to-read, bite-sized chunks of bull slop to these people and get them to vote for (or against) the candidates they like (or don’t like).

John, I think you should stand up to these people who are pulling the wool over your eyes. Don’t let them make a fool of you.

[zk]

[quote=jficquette]
The only way to know for sure if Obama is eligable to be president would be for him to produce a real birth certificate but he refuses to do so.

If someone refuses to provide proof of birth then what choices are one left with as to what to believe? Very few. One has to consider that maybe he is not eligible or else why not provide the BC??

Here is another article on his BC. http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/

John

[/quote]

I read the article you cited, John, and you’re only bolstering my point that you and so many others will believe what they read on the internet regardless of its easy disprovability.

I was watching a documentary on the hippie movement the other day, and towards the end Steve Jobs was talking (in the ’70s) about how personal computers will take so much power out of the hands of “the man” and give it to the people. And that did, in some ways, come to pass. But along with it came a whole new era of ignorance and hysteria.

I think most of the (very large) segment of the population that eschews skepticism would, prior to their internet access, simply not get involved too much in politics. They were busy getting their palms read or looking at their horoscopes or attending seances. But political operatives have learned that they can spoon feed easy-to-access, easy-to-read, bite-sized chunks of bull slop to these people and get them to vote for (or against) the candidates they like (or don’t like).

John, I think you should stand up to these people who are pulling the wool over your eyes. Don’t let them make a fool of you.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

zk: Excellent post. One of the best I’ve read in a while, in fact. The lack of credulity in this country is amazing. What 20 years ago would have been easily dismissed as conspiracy theory, poorly researched journalism or outright lies is now accepted as gospel, and by those who, based on education and experience, should know better (and John I am not addressing this to you).

Some of the retorts and ripostes on the various Pigginton threads are great examples. Rather than respond with a well-reasoned argument, instead you get ad hominem attacks or Wikipedia links. Critical thinking and factual analysis is going the way of the dodo, thanks to the sound bite and the 24 hour news cycle.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

zk: Excellent post. One of the best I’ve read in a while, in fact. The lack of credulity in this country is amazing. What 20 years ago would have been easily dismissed as conspiracy theory, poorly researched journalism or outright lies is now accepted as gospel, and by those who, based on education and experience, should know better (and John I am not addressing this to you).

Some of the retorts and ripostes on the various Pigginton threads are great examples. Rather than respond with a well-reasoned argument, instead you get ad hominem attacks or Wikipedia links. Critical thinking and factual analysis is going the way of the dodo, thanks to the sound bite and the 24 hour news cycle.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

zk: Excellent post. One of the best I’ve read in a while, in fact. The lack of credulity in this country is amazing. What 20 years ago would have been easily dismissed as conspiracy theory, poorly researched journalism or outright lies is now accepted as gospel, and by those who, based on education and experience, should know better (and John I am not addressing this to you).

Some of the retorts and ripostes on the various Pigginton threads are great examples. Rather than respond with a well-reasoned argument, instead you get ad hominem attacks or Wikipedia links. Critical thinking and factual analysis is going the way of the dodo, thanks to the sound bite and the 24 hour news cycle.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

zk: Excellent post. One of the best I’ve read in a while, in fact. The lack of credulity in this country is amazing. What 20 years ago would have been easily dismissed as conspiracy theory, poorly researched journalism or outright lies is now accepted as gospel, and by those who, based on education and experience, should know better (and John I am not addressing this to you).

Some of the retorts and ripostes on the various Pigginton threads are great examples. Rather than respond with a well-reasoned argument, instead you get ad hominem attacks or Wikipedia links. Critical thinking and factual analysis is going the way of the dodo, thanks to the sound bite and the 24 hour news cycle.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

zk: Excellent post. One of the best I’ve read in a while, in fact. The lack of credulity in this country is amazing. What 20 years ago would have been easily dismissed as conspiracy theory, poorly researched journalism or outright lies is now accepted as gospel, and by those who, based on education and experience, should know better (and John I am not addressing this to you).

Some of the retorts and ripostes on the various Pigginton threads are great examples. Rather than respond with a well-reasoned argument, instead you get ad hominem attacks or Wikipedia links. Critical thinking and factual analysis is going the way of the dodo, thanks to the sound bite and the 24 hour news cycle.

[jficquette]

[quote=zk][quote=jficquette]
The only way to know for sure if Obama is eligable to be president would be for him to produce a real birth certificate but he refuses to do so.

If someone refuses to provide proof of birth then what choices are one left with as to what to believe? Very few. One has to consider that maybe he is not eligible or else why not provide the BC??

Here is another article on his BC. http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/

John

[/quote]

I read the article you cited, John, and you’re only bolstering my point that you and so many others will believe what they read on the internet regardless of its easy disprovability.

I was watching a documentary on the hippie movement the other day, and towards the end Steve Jobs was talking (in the ’70s) about how personal computers will take so much power out of the hands of “the man” and give it to the people. And that did, in some ways, come to pass. But along with it came a whole new era of ignorance and hysteria.

I think most of the (very large) segment of the population that eschews skepticism would, prior to their internet access, simply not get involved too much in politics. They were busy getting their palms read or looking at their horoscopes or attending seances. But political operatives have learned that they can spoon feed easy-to-access, easy-to-read, bite-sized chunks of bull slop to these people and get them to vote for (or against) the candidates they like (or don’t like).

John, I think you should stand up to these people who are pulling the wool over your eyes. Don’t let them make a fool of you. [/quote]

Who is pulling wool over whose eyes?? A guy who has painstakenly researched a matter or a guy who refuses to furnish conclusive evidence putting the matter to rest.

Obama is treating the entire matter like it doesn’t exist. He has no choice because he can’t address it without the documentation.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=zk][quote=jficquette]
The only way to know for sure if Obama is eligable to be president would be for him to produce a real birth certificate but he refuses to do so.

If someone refuses to provide proof of birth then what choices are one left with as to what to believe? Very few. One has to consider that maybe he is not eligible or else why not provide the BC??

Here is another article on his BC. http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/

John

[/quote]

I read the article you cited, John, and you’re only bolstering my point that you and so many others will believe what they read on the internet regardless of its easy disprovability.

I was watching a documentary on the hippie movement the other day, and towards the end Steve Jobs was talking (in the ’70s) about how personal computers will take so much power out of the hands of “the man” and give it to the people. And that did, in some ways, come to pass. But along with it came a whole new era of ignorance and hysteria.

I think most of the (very large) segment of the population that eschews skepticism would, prior to their internet access, simply not get involved too much in politics. They were busy getting their palms read or looking at their horoscopes or attending seances. But political operatives have learned that they can spoon feed easy-to-access, easy-to-read, bite-sized chunks of bull slop to these people and get them to vote for (or against) the candidates they like (or don’t like).

John, I think you should stand up to these people who are pulling the wool over your eyes. Don’t let them make a fool of you. [/quote]

Who is pulling wool over whose eyes?? A guy who has painstakenly researched a matter or a guy who refuses to furnish conclusive evidence putting the matter to rest.

Obama is treating the entire matter like it doesn’t exist. He has no choice because he can’t address it without the documentation.

John

[jficquette]

[quote=zk][quote=jficquette]
The only way to know for sure if Obama is eligable to be president would be for him to produce a real birth certificate but he refuses to do so.

If someone refuses to provide proof of birth then what choices are one left with as to what to believe? Very few. One has to consider that maybe he is not eligible or else why not provide the BC??

Here is another article on his BC. http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/

John

[/quote]

I read the article you cited, John, and you’re only bolstering my point that you and so many others will believe what they read on the internet regardless of its easy disprovability.

I was watching a documentary on the hippie movement the other day, and towards the end Steve Jobs was talking (in the ’70s) about how personal computers will take so much power out of the hands of “the man” and give it to the people. And that did, in some ways, come to pass. But along with it came a whole new era of ignorance and hysteria.

I think most of the (very large) segment of the population that eschews skepticism would, prior to their internet access, simply not get involved too much in politics. They were busy getting their palms read or looking at their horoscopes or attending seances. But political operatives have learned that they can spoon feed easy-to-access, easy-to-read, bite-sized chunks of bull slop to these people and get them to vote for (or against) the candidates they like (or don’t like).

John, I think you should stand up to these people who are pulling the wool over your eyes. Don’t let them make a fool of you. [/quote]

Who is pulling wool over whose eyes?? A guy who has painstakenly researched a matter or a guy who refuses to furnish conclusive evidence putting the matter to rest.

Obama is treating the entire matter like it doesn’t exist. He has no choice because he can’t address it without the documentation.

John

[Author]

Posts