[zk]

EconProf, good point about the fortitude necessary to by when the gloom dominates. Hopefully I’ll have the same fortitude then that it took to sell in 2005. Of course shelling out money amid negative hysteria will probably turn out to be harder than collecting a bunch of money was, even if it did go against the prevailing wisdom.

[zk]

EconProf, good point about the fortitude necessary to by when the gloom dominates. Hopefully I’ll have the same fortitude then that it took to sell in 2005. Of course shelling out money amid negative hysteria will probably turn out to be harder than collecting a bunch of money was, even if it did go against the prevailing wisdom.

[zk]

[quote=jficquette]ZK,

Ok, thank you. You are simplying telling me that you believe he is eligible because he is running for President. Great.

Why the attacks and name calling on Texasdarlin? That really gets me about liberals. Not saying you are one. I am just saying that if liberals can’t present something concrete they resort to name calling.

Thanks,

John[/quote]

John, did you even read my post? Where do you see name calling or attacks? Where do you see me saying I believe he’s eligible just because he’s running? And, seriously, you think liberals are more guilty of name calling than conservatives?!?!

I must admit I don’t understand where you’re coming from.

[zk]

[quote=jficquette]ZK,

Ok, thank you. You are simplying telling me that you believe he is eligible because he is running for President. Great.

Why the attacks and name calling on Texasdarlin? That really gets me about liberals. Not saying you are one. I am just saying that if liberals can’t present something concrete they resort to name calling.

Thanks,

John[/quote]

John, did you even read my post? Where do you see name calling or attacks? Where do you see me saying I believe he’s eligible just because he’s running? And, seriously, you think liberals are more guilty of name calling than conservatives?!?!

I must admit I don’t understand where you’re coming from.

[zk]

[quote=jficquette]ZK,

Ok, thank you. You are simplying telling me that you believe he is eligible because he is running for President. Great.

Why the attacks and name calling on Texasdarlin? That really gets me about liberals. Not saying you are one. I am just saying that if liberals can’t present something concrete they resort to name calling.

Thanks,

John[/quote]

John, did you even read my post? Where do you see name calling or attacks? Where do you see me saying I believe he’s eligible just because he’s running? And, seriously, you think liberals are more guilty of name calling than conservatives?!?!

I must admit I don’t understand where you’re coming from.

[zk]

[quote=jficquette]ZK,

Ok, thank you. You are simplying telling me that you believe he is eligible because he is running for President. Great.

Why the attacks and name calling on Texasdarlin? That really gets me about liberals. Not saying you are one. I am just saying that if liberals can’t present something concrete they resort to name calling.

Thanks,

John[/quote]

John, did you even read my post? Where do you see name calling or attacks? Where do you see me saying I believe he’s eligible just because he’s running? And, seriously, you think liberals are more guilty of name calling than conservatives?!?!

I must admit I don’t understand where you’re coming from.

[zk]

[quote=jficquette]ZK,

Ok, thank you. You are simplying telling me that you believe he is eligible because he is running for President. Great.

Why the attacks and name calling on Texasdarlin? That really gets me about liberals. Not saying you are one. I am just saying that if liberals can’t present something concrete they resort to name calling.

Thanks,

John[/quote]

John, did you even read my post? Where do you see name calling or attacks? Where do you see me saying I believe he’s eligible just because he’s running? And, seriously, you think liberals are more guilty of name calling than conservatives?!?!

I must admit I don’t understand where you’re coming from.

[zk]

[quote=jficquette]ZK,

If we are speaking of the subject I keep bringing up, Obama and his eligiblilty for the White House then the proof is not some esoteric concept. Its a simple birth certificate for God’s sake. Let’s not make this issue more complicated then it is. He either has one or he doesn’t.

Do you believe that Obama is a natural born citizen and thus eligible for the White House? If so do you base it on a birth certificate or do you base it on the fact that he is the presumed democratic nominee?

John[/quote]

Well, given that I have no reason to doubt that he’s a natural born citizen except the uncorroborated word of a partisan blogger, I believe he’s a natural born citizen.

I’d go to the trouble to try to show you that the evidence indicates quite strongly that the birth certificate issue is simply made up. That one blogger at texasdarlin started a whole cottage industry of innuendo, half-truths, disinformation and outright lies regarding Obama’s birth certificate. But what would be the point? The fact is that, if you decide things based on how you want to feel rather than what the evidence shows, you’re not going to see it any way other than the way you see it right now. If I show you that only partisan bloggers (and those who follow partisan bloggers) are agreeing that his birth certificate was forged, and that virtually everybody else sees the issue as made up, that won’t change your mind. Will it?

[zk]

[quote=jficquette]ZK,

If we are speaking of the subject I keep bringing up, Obama and his eligiblilty for the White House then the proof is not some esoteric concept. Its a simple birth certificate for God’s sake. Let’s not make this issue more complicated then it is. He either has one or he doesn’t.

Do you believe that Obama is a natural born citizen and thus eligible for the White House? If so do you base it on a birth certificate or do you base it on the fact that he is the presumed democratic nominee?

John[/quote]

Well, given that I have no reason to doubt that he’s a natural born citizen except the uncorroborated word of a partisan blogger, I believe he’s a natural born citizen.

I’d go to the trouble to try to show you that the evidence indicates quite strongly that the birth certificate issue is simply made up. That one blogger at texasdarlin started a whole cottage industry of innuendo, half-truths, disinformation and outright lies regarding Obama’s birth certificate. But what would be the point? The fact is that, if you decide things based on how you want to feel rather than what the evidence shows, you’re not going to see it any way other than the way you see it right now. If I show you that only partisan bloggers (and those who follow partisan bloggers) are agreeing that his birth certificate was forged, and that virtually everybody else sees the issue as made up, that won’t change your mind. Will it?

[zk]

[quote=jficquette]ZK,

If we are speaking of the subject I keep bringing up, Obama and his eligiblilty for the White House then the proof is not some esoteric concept. Its a simple birth certificate for God’s sake. Let’s not make this issue more complicated then it is. He either has one or he doesn’t.

Do you believe that Obama is a natural born citizen and thus eligible for the White House? If so do you base it on a birth certificate or do you base it on the fact that he is the presumed democratic nominee?

John[/quote]

Well, given that I have no reason to doubt that he’s a natural born citizen except the uncorroborated word of a partisan blogger, I believe he’s a natural born citizen.

I’d go to the trouble to try to show you that the evidence indicates quite strongly that the birth certificate issue is simply made up. That one blogger at texasdarlin started a whole cottage industry of innuendo, half-truths, disinformation and outright lies regarding Obama’s birth certificate. But what would be the point? The fact is that, if you decide things based on how you want to feel rather than what the evidence shows, you’re not going to see it any way other than the way you see it right now. If I show you that only partisan bloggers (and those who follow partisan bloggers) are agreeing that his birth certificate was forged, and that virtually everybody else sees the issue as made up, that won’t change your mind. Will it?

[zk]

[quote=jficquette]ZK,

If we are speaking of the subject I keep bringing up, Obama and his eligiblilty for the White House then the proof is not some esoteric concept. Its a simple birth certificate for God’s sake. Let’s not make this issue more complicated then it is. He either has one or he doesn’t.

Do you believe that Obama is a natural born citizen and thus eligible for the White House? If so do you base it on a birth certificate or do you base it on the fact that he is the presumed democratic nominee?

John[/quote]

Well, given that I have no reason to doubt that he’s a natural born citizen except the uncorroborated word of a partisan blogger, I believe he’s a natural born citizen.

I’d go to the trouble to try to show you that the evidence indicates quite strongly that the birth certificate issue is simply made up. That one blogger at texasdarlin started a whole cottage industry of innuendo, half-truths, disinformation and outright lies regarding Obama’s birth certificate. But what would be the point? The fact is that, if you decide things based on how you want to feel rather than what the evidence shows, you’re not going to see it any way other than the way you see it right now. If I show you that only partisan bloggers (and those who follow partisan bloggers) are agreeing that his birth certificate was forged, and that virtually everybody else sees the issue as made up, that won’t change your mind. Will it?

[zk]

[quote=jficquette]ZK,

If we are speaking of the subject I keep bringing up, Obama and his eligiblilty for the White House then the proof is not some esoteric concept. Its a simple birth certificate for God’s sake. Let’s not make this issue more complicated then it is. He either has one or he doesn’t.

Do you believe that Obama is a natural born citizen and thus eligible for the White House? If so do you base it on a birth certificate or do you base it on the fact that he is the presumed democratic nominee?

John[/quote]

Well, given that I have no reason to doubt that he’s a natural born citizen except the uncorroborated word of a partisan blogger, I believe he’s a natural born citizen.

I’d go to the trouble to try to show you that the evidence indicates quite strongly that the birth certificate issue is simply made up. That one blogger at texasdarlin started a whole cottage industry of innuendo, half-truths, disinformation and outright lies regarding Obama’s birth certificate. But what would be the point? The fact is that, if you decide things based on how you want to feel rather than what the evidence shows, you’re not going to see it any way other than the way you see it right now. If I show you that only partisan bloggers (and those who follow partisan bloggers) are agreeing that his birth certificate was forged, and that virtually everybody else sees the issue as made up, that won’t change your mind. Will it?

[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.

[Author]

Posts