OT: Obama is dumber than a box of rocks

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Duke: Thanks. I think the point I always try to make is this: You can debate a point vigorously, while still remaining professional and courteous. I would rather argue with someone that holds beliefs that are the polar opposite of mine, because it forces me to marshal my resources, engage my brain and MAKE MY POINT.

Those that resort to ad hominem or simply shilling an intellectually bankrupt position (whether coming from the right or left), dumb the discourse down and turn away those that would find the discussion and debate engaging and would otherwise participate.

No one likes being told they are an idiot, especially by someone who comes across as overbearing, snide and self-righteous.

Keep it clean, keep it fair and keep it interesting.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Duke: Thanks. I think the point I always try to make is this: You can debate a point vigorously, while still remaining professional and courteous. I would rather argue with someone that holds beliefs that are the polar opposite of mine, because it forces me to marshal my resources, engage my brain and MAKE MY POINT.

Those that resort to ad hominem or simply shilling an intellectually bankrupt position (whether coming from the right or left), dumb the discourse down and turn away those that would find the discussion and debate engaging and would otherwise participate.

No one likes being told they are an idiot, especially by someone who comes across as overbearing, snide and self-righteous.

Keep it clean, keep it fair and keep it interesting.

[jficquette]

[quote=zk]Proven? John, you have a pretty low standard of proof. As in, someone said it on the internet. Which has been my point all along. [/quote]

Where did you get your proof from??

John

[jficquette]

[quote=zk]Proven? John, you have a pretty low standard of proof. As in, someone said it on the internet. Which has been my point all along. [/quote]

Where did you get your proof from??

John

[jficquette]

[quote=zk]Proven? John, you have a pretty low standard of proof. As in, someone said it on the internet. Which has been my point all along. [/quote]

Where did you get your proof from??

John

[jficquette]

[quote=zk]Proven? John, you have a pretty low standard of proof. As in, someone said it on the internet. Which has been my point all along. [/quote]

Where did you get your proof from??

John

[jficquette]

[quote=zk]Proven? John, you have a pretty low standard of proof. As in, someone said it on the internet. Which has been my point all along. [/quote]

Where did you get your proof from??

John

[zk]

[quote=jficquette]

Where did you get your proof from??

John[/quote]

Well, first of all, I’m not the one saying that anything is “proven.” That’s your word. I consider next to nothing “proven” to me by the internet. Or by the news media, for that matter.

So what do I base my decisions on? Well, it’s complicated. I use a variety of inputs and factors to get as close to the truth as I can.

First of all, I consider the source any time I read about or hear something. If the person reporting is a reporter for a major newspaper, he carries more credibility than Joe the Blogger. Sure, that’s not foolproof. But a newspaper reporter’s job involves journalistic integrity, and he may lose that job if he’s found to be reporting things that aren’t true. Also, they have a long history of accurate reporting. Not perfect, but usually fairly accurate. Joe the Blogger, on the other hand, has a history of making stuff up to further his cause. He’s usually got a pretty firm agenda. Again, sometimes bloggers may be right on the money. But, in general, they are somewhat unreliable.

Another major tool I use is corroboration. If one blogger says something, and then lots of relatively reliable media outlets pick it up, check it out, and corroborate it, that carries a lot of weight. If one blogger says something, and all the other bloggers that share his agenda pick it up and repeat it, that carries very little weight.

A third thing I try to do is to look at things from a historical perspective. Has this happened before? When, how, why? How does the previous incident relate to this one? What can I learn from what happened then? Did the previous 37 incidents like this one turn out to be something that Joe Blogger made up?

There are other tools I use, but my break is over and I have to get back to work. I think you get the picture, though. Trying to get close to the truth and knowing that, in the end, you have to make decisions based on less information than you’d like to have is less comfortable than the easy certitude that many people enjoy. But I think it’s my duty as a voter to base my decision on who to vote for on as much information as I can. I think that making decisions in life is the same way.

[zk]

[quote=jficquette]

Where did you get your proof from??

John[/quote]

Well, first of all, I’m not the one saying that anything is “proven.” That’s your word. I consider next to nothing “proven” to me by the internet. Or by the news media, for that matter.

So what do I base my decisions on? Well, it’s complicated. I use a variety of inputs and factors to get as close to the truth as I can.

First of all, I consider the source any time I read about or hear something. If the person reporting is a reporter for a major newspaper, he carries more credibility than Joe the Blogger. Sure, that’s not foolproof. But a newspaper reporter’s job involves journalistic integrity, and he may lose that job if he’s found to be reporting things that aren’t true. Also, they have a long history of accurate reporting. Not perfect, but usually fairly accurate. Joe the Blogger, on the other hand, has a history of making stuff up to further his cause. He’s usually got a pretty firm agenda. Again, sometimes bloggers may be right on the money. But, in general, they are somewhat unreliable.

Another major tool I use is corroboration. If one blogger says something, and then lots of relatively reliable media outlets pick it up, check it out, and corroborate it, that carries a lot of weight. If one blogger says something, and all the other bloggers that share his agenda pick it up and repeat it, that carries very little weight.

A third thing I try to do is to look at things from a historical perspective. Has this happened before? When, how, why? How does the previous incident relate to this one? What can I learn from what happened then? Did the previous 37 incidents like this one turn out to be something that Joe Blogger made up?

There are other tools I use, but my break is over and I have to get back to work. I think you get the picture, though. Trying to get close to the truth and knowing that, in the end, you have to make decisions based on less information than you’d like to have is less comfortable than the easy certitude that many people enjoy. But I think it’s my duty as a voter to base my decision on who to vote for on as much information as I can. I think that making decisions in life is the same way.

[zk]

[quote=jficquette]

Where did you get your proof from??

John[/quote]

Well, first of all, I’m not the one saying that anything is “proven.” That’s your word. I consider next to nothing “proven” to me by the internet. Or by the news media, for that matter.

So what do I base my decisions on? Well, it’s complicated. I use a variety of inputs and factors to get as close to the truth as I can.

First of all, I consider the source any time I read about or hear something. If the person reporting is a reporter for a major newspaper, he carries more credibility than Joe the Blogger. Sure, that’s not foolproof. But a newspaper reporter’s job involves journalistic integrity, and he may lose that job if he’s found to be reporting things that aren’t true. Also, they have a long history of accurate reporting. Not perfect, but usually fairly accurate. Joe the Blogger, on the other hand, has a history of making stuff up to further his cause. He’s usually got a pretty firm agenda. Again, sometimes bloggers may be right on the money. But, in general, they are somewhat unreliable.

Another major tool I use is corroboration. If one blogger says something, and then lots of relatively reliable media outlets pick it up, check it out, and corroborate it, that carries a lot of weight. If one blogger says something, and all the other bloggers that share his agenda pick it up and repeat it, that carries very little weight.

A third thing I try to do is to look at things from a historical perspective. Has this happened before? When, how, why? How does the previous incident relate to this one? What can I learn from what happened then? Did the previous 37 incidents like this one turn out to be something that Joe Blogger made up?

There are other tools I use, but my break is over and I have to get back to work. I think you get the picture, though. Trying to get close to the truth and knowing that, in the end, you have to make decisions based on less information than you’d like to have is less comfortable than the easy certitude that many people enjoy. But I think it’s my duty as a voter to base my decision on who to vote for on as much information as I can. I think that making decisions in life is the same way.

[zk]

[quote=jficquette]

Where did you get your proof from??

John[/quote]

Well, first of all, I’m not the one saying that anything is “proven.” That’s your word. I consider next to nothing “proven” to me by the internet. Or by the news media, for that matter.

So what do I base my decisions on? Well, it’s complicated. I use a variety of inputs and factors to get as close to the truth as I can.

First of all, I consider the source any time I read about or hear something. If the person reporting is a reporter for a major newspaper, he carries more credibility than Joe the Blogger. Sure, that’s not foolproof. But a newspaper reporter’s job involves journalistic integrity, and he may lose that job if he’s found to be reporting things that aren’t true. Also, they have a long history of accurate reporting. Not perfect, but usually fairly accurate. Joe the Blogger, on the other hand, has a history of making stuff up to further his cause. He’s usually got a pretty firm agenda. Again, sometimes bloggers may be right on the money. But, in general, they are somewhat unreliable.

Another major tool I use is corroboration. If one blogger says something, and then lots of relatively reliable media outlets pick it up, check it out, and corroborate it, that carries a lot of weight. If one blogger says something, and all the other bloggers that share his agenda pick it up and repeat it, that carries very little weight.

A third thing I try to do is to look at things from a historical perspective. Has this happened before? When, how, why? How does the previous incident relate to this one? What can I learn from what happened then? Did the previous 37 incidents like this one turn out to be something that Joe Blogger made up?

There are other tools I use, but my break is over and I have to get back to work. I think you get the picture, though. Trying to get close to the truth and knowing that, in the end, you have to make decisions based on less information than you’d like to have is less comfortable than the easy certitude that many people enjoy. But I think it’s my duty as a voter to base my decision on who to vote for on as much information as I can. I think that making decisions in life is the same way.

[zk]

[quote=jficquette]

Where did you get your proof from??

John[/quote]

Well, first of all, I’m not the one saying that anything is “proven.” That’s your word. I consider next to nothing “proven” to me by the internet. Or by the news media, for that matter.

So what do I base my decisions on? Well, it’s complicated. I use a variety of inputs and factors to get as close to the truth as I can.

First of all, I consider the source any time I read about or hear something. If the person reporting is a reporter for a major newspaper, he carries more credibility than Joe the Blogger. Sure, that’s not foolproof. But a newspaper reporter’s job involves journalistic integrity, and he may lose that job if he’s found to be reporting things that aren’t true. Also, they have a long history of accurate reporting. Not perfect, but usually fairly accurate. Joe the Blogger, on the other hand, has a history of making stuff up to further his cause. He’s usually got a pretty firm agenda. Again, sometimes bloggers may be right on the money. But, in general, they are somewhat unreliable.

Another major tool I use is corroboration. If one blogger says something, and then lots of relatively reliable media outlets pick it up, check it out, and corroborate it, that carries a lot of weight. If one blogger says something, and all the other bloggers that share his agenda pick it up and repeat it, that carries very little weight.

A third thing I try to do is to look at things from a historical perspective. Has this happened before? When, how, why? How does the previous incident relate to this one? What can I learn from what happened then? Did the previous 37 incidents like this one turn out to be something that Joe Blogger made up?

There are other tools I use, but my break is over and I have to get back to work. I think you get the picture, though. Trying to get close to the truth and knowing that, in the end, you have to make decisions based on less information than you’d like to have is less comfortable than the easy certitude that many people enjoy. But I think it’s my duty as a voter to base my decision on who to vote for on as much information as I can. I think that making decisions in life is the same way.

[jficquette]

I wouldn’t mind if we changed the title to this thread. Even though I think Obama is a joke I don’t think that he is dumber then a box of rocks. Plus I know it offends some supporters of his and I feel bad for them.

Maybe he is dumber then a bunch of Raider fans, even some Jet fans might be smarter, heck some Dallas Cowboy fans might be smarter but he is definitely smarter then a box of rocks.

I had started an “Election 2008” thread thinking we could use that to post stuff but it never got used. Its buried down there somewhere if anyone wants to use it.

John

[jficquette]

I wouldn’t mind if we changed the title to this thread. Even though I think Obama is a joke I don’t think that he is dumber then a box of rocks. Plus I know it offends some supporters of his and I feel bad for them.

Maybe he is dumber then a bunch of Raider fans, even some Jet fans might be smarter, heck some Dallas Cowboy fans might be smarter but he is definitely smarter then a box of rocks.

I had started an “Election 2008” thread thinking we could use that to post stuff but it never got used. Its buried down there somewhere if anyone wants to use it.

John

[jficquette]

I wouldn’t mind if we changed the title to this thread. Even though I think Obama is a joke I don’t think that he is dumber then a box of rocks. Plus I know it offends some supporters of his and I feel bad for them.

Maybe he is dumber then a bunch of Raider fans, even some Jet fans might be smarter, heck some Dallas Cowboy fans might be smarter but he is definitely smarter then a box of rocks.

I had started an “Election 2008” thread thinking we could use that to post stuff but it never got used. Its buried down there somewhere if anyone wants to use it.

John

[Author]

Posts