Anyone Still Support Obama After Ndaa?

[Horndog]

Really? Hm. Interesting. I should look into that factoid.

Again, I wouldn't say Mao is my favorite political philosopher. I'm not a fan of his views. My favorite political philosophers are Confucius, Socrates, John Locke, Immanuel Kant and Isiah Berlin. Mao is not a good influence to cite. Citing Mao as a good political philosopher is ignorant; like wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt without ever knowing what he actually did.

[Diapered Jason]

I am starting to see why so many people wish to resist learning historical facts. Hitler is an example, and one of the most well known ones, that can be applied to spot those with a high chance of being like him. Another is Kim Jong Il, we can even add Sadam Hussein to that list. But most people know more about Hitler since he's part of school cirriculums. Though anyone compared to him is not guilty until they do something, we must avoid allowing that risk in our country, which we need a basis for detecting such people ... and thus must compare their actions and words to others. Have you even seen Santorum's ads? They're scary, even if someone is not gay, the hairs on the back of your neck should stand on end hearing his words. They are virtually a direct quote from one of Hitler's speaches on Jewish people.

What I believe you are doing is confusing accusation with comparison, they are two very different concepts. Comparison allows us to make predictions and analyze things, accusations are saying they did something already. We cannot compare people to just the "good" people in history, or we will miss the signs we learned about from the "bad" people.

That is exactly what I meant as it is only an accusation and never really an unerring comparison. It is bombastic and is rarely the proper language to use in any discussion. I would expect one should use more explicit explanations when talking politics. I have not seen Rick Santorum's ads other than the mud slinging add against Mitt Romney, but I am still fully aware of what he wants to do.

[Leilin]

No Zedong is wrong. It was printed that way because some pundit did not know how to spell it. It is pronounced mao sey tung. I remember it all to well from my studies in high school as well as Union Theological Seminary in Richmond Va. My mother wanted me to be a minister but it never happened I wound up at OSU but that is another story.

I just remembered another jewel about Chairman Mao. How about this philosophy?

"Politics comes out of the barrel of a gun" Chairman Mao

Is there any fact that you can't state as the opposite of what it actually is? Firstly, it is correctly spelled Mao Zedong, pronounced like this and again you prove you have no idea what you're talking about. Chinese to Roman is often not a direct phonetic translation. Secondly, Mao Tse Tung, the alternate correct spelling which you also butchered, is also acceptable, but the former is actually closer to the phonetic. The person who taught you your "history" should probably be tried for crimes against humanity at this point.

[KittenAB]

That is exactly what I meant as it is only an accusation and never really an unerring comparison. It is bombastic and is rarely the proper language to use in any discussion. I would expect one should use more explicit explanations when talking politics. I have not seen Rick Santorum's ads other than the mud slinging add against Mitt Romney, but I am still fully aware of what he wants to do.

A comparison is not an accusation, the two are completely different and no accusation or crime should be compared to another's. A comparison is only drawing attention to points that are similar between two things. You are essentially making the idea of comparison subjective, however it is not. Anything can be compared to anything, though you will find almost no similarities between a rock and an apple, you can still compare them. Just as you can compare anyone to Adolf or to Abraham, however if you find similarities of personality or behavior to Adolf or any other vile individual you should be alarmed. That's just logic.

[Diapered Jason]

A comparison is not an accusation, the two are completely different and no accusation or crime should be compared to another's. A comparison is only drawing attention to points that are similar between two things. You are essentially making the idea of comparison subjective, however it is not. Anything can be compared to anything, though you will find almost no similarities between a rock and an apple, you can still compare them. Just as you can compare anyone to Adolf or to Abraham, however if you find similarities of personality or behavior to Adolf or any other vile individual you should be alarmed. That's just logic.

You don't get what I said. Forget it, but for future reference, look up "scare tactics" and how to catch them. Then you will figure out why it is not only foolhardy to compare someone to Hitler as far as U.S. politics are concerned (Of course, I am not referring to people like Bashir al-Assad), but you will also find such venomous language is usually the sign of an uneducated person. In any case, including Assad, I do not really want to read an article that compares someone to Hitler. I prefer truths.

[redneck diaper boy]

Is there any fact that you can't state as the opposite of what it actually is? Firstly, it is correctly spelled Mao Zedong, pronounced like this and again you prove you have no idea what you're talking about. Chinese to Roman is often not a direct phonetic translation. Secondly, Mao Tse Tung, the alternate correct spelling which you also butchered, is also acceptable, but the former is actually closer to the phonetic. The person who taught you your "history" should probably be tried for crimes against humanity at this point.

First of all, some people only know what they read or what Media Matters scripts them. Mao Tse Tung was still in power when I was in High School. His name was stated in radio and TV news constantly. I use to have to report on current events for a social studies class. If I am geting it wrong, the liberl of liberals got it wrong too: Walter Cronkite

[Leilin]

First of all, some people only know what they read or what Media Matters scripts them. Mao Tse Tung was still in power when I was in High School. His name was stated in radio and TV news constantly. I use to have to report on current events for a social studies class. If I am geting it wrong, the liberl of liberals got it wrong too: Walter Cronkite

Then... he got it wrong too.

(That was easy)

It's really okay for you, or him, to get it wrong. You don't, after all, speak Mandarin or Cantonese.

What isn't okay (in my eyes) is pretending you know what you are talking about when, in fact, you haven't the foggiest idea. You, of all people, should know that the news not just sometimes but frequently mispronounces the names of other nations and people. Mao is just one example of many:

Iraq: Not pronounced like "eye rack."

Iran: Not pronounced like the Flock of Seagulls song.

Hezbollah: Does not rhyme with "Fez-bowla"

I could go on, but the moral of this story is that people who present the news in English rarely know what they are talking about in reference to other languages.

[Horndog]

I really don't get the Media Matters hate, to be honest. I've read a lot of blogs and partisan analysis sites from the left and the right. I've found MM to be rather fair.

[KittenAB]

Then... he got it wrong too.

(That was easy)

It's really okay for you, or him, to get it wrong. You don't, after all, speak Mandarin or Cantonese.

What isn't okay (in my eyes) is pretending you know what you are talking about when, in fact, you haven't the foggiest idea. You, of all people, should know that the news not just sometimes but frequently mispronounces the names of other nations and people. Mao is just one example of many:

Iraq: Not pronounced like "eye rack."

Iran: Not pronounced like the Flock of Seagulls song.

Hezbollah: Does not rhyme with "Fez-bowla"

I could go on, but the moral of this story is that people who present the news in English rarely know what they are talking about in reference to other languages.

Annubis = actually spelled more like Anpu ... pronounced more like ahn-poo ....

[sarah_ab]

HEHEHh Fez bowla... i just pictured Matt Smith's The Doctor bowling!

[Leilin]

HEHEHh Fez bowla... i just pictured Matt Smith's The Doctor bowling!

... and I will officially have AWESOME dreams tonight.

[sarah_ab]

ohhh speaking of awesome dreams...

not as good as The Doctor dreams.. but the other night i had a dream i was a super secret agent spy and had both the handsome bad guy and the handsome super super secret agent spy guy wanting me.. and i was like totally super hot in my dream.... course my alarm went off just as I was going to decide which guy got me...

then last night i had a very weird dream.. but it ended with me being in a bollywood movie.. complete with musical numbers

[Dirty Diaper/Maxipad Lover]

KittenAB, have you not heard of Godwin's law? To over simplify the way that it works, Godwin's Law

Reduction ad Hitlerum (Logical Fallacy)

Alexandra, although most of us are civil and capable of holding a reasonable debate, at least two of the people that you probably blocked seem to be blatantly ignoring anything resembling facts. Not everyone here is inside of the imperimiable fact-proof bubble though, and I'm sure you'll find that at least some of us are capable of arguing and disagreeing in a civil manner.

Edit-- Part of my post seems to have randomly gone missing after I wrote it. There was no evidence of alteration by a staff member, but an entire section of the post is gone. I basically summarized Godwin's law, but with the links in place, I'm just going to condense the summary rather then rewrite it entirely. Basically, to really oversimplify things, Godwin's law suggests that references to the Nazis should be avoided and that whoever makes the comparison loses the debate. Intentionally triggering Godwins law to end a debate will result in the debate continuing, and Godwins law does not apply when discussing regimes engaging in campaigns of genocide, eugenics, and racial superiority.

Edited February 29, 2012 by Dirty Diaper/Maxipad Lover

[KittenAB]

KittenAB, have you not heard of Godwin's law? To over simplify the way that it works, Godwin's Law

Reduction ad Hitlerum (Logical Fallacy)

Alexandra, although most of us are civil and capable of holding a reasonable debate, at least two of the people that you probably blocked seem to be blatantly ignoring anything resembling facts. Not everyone here is inside of the imperimiable fact-proof bubble though, and I'm sure you'll find that at least some of us are capable of arguing and disagreeing in a civil manner.

I have no one on ignore. I also do read them all. However, I only respond to those with something interesting to say or who actually do read other's statements as well.

[Alexandra]

Thanks I think so too and thats why the few exceptions on here that I have blocked get to me, A debate is supposed to be the sharing of opposing viewpoints and facts to find some common understanding and if possible to attepmt to sway one side to yours but for people like redneck and Botox they seem to think any opposing views are not only wrong but a personal attack on their beliefs to which they respond in accordance but thats not debate, it should never become attacks on one side or the other but instead a sharring of ideas and info which will never happen if someone starts using hateful and incorrect facts to back up they're view rather like a child being told they can't have ice cream who then proceeds to kick and screem about how they desrve the ice cream and yet never spares a thought to why they shouldn't have ice cream.

P.S. the doctor is win

[redneck diaper boy]

KittenAB, have you not heard of Godwin's law? To over simplify the way that it works, Godwin's Law

Reduction ad Hitlerum (Logical Fallacy)

Alexandra, although most of us are civil and capable of holding a reasonable debate, at least two of the people that you probably blocked seem to be blatantly ignoring anything resembling facts. Not everyone here is inside of the imperimiable fact-proof bubble though, and I'm sure you'll find that at least some of us are capable of arguing and disagreeing in a civil manner.

Pastor Manning of Harlem has Obama's number

What liberals call "civil debate" is when someone, that is conservative, gives in! I was educated in a public and private school system that existed before Jimmy Carter's Department of Education. Originally, the objective of public education was to create a source of people that could comprehend written instructions. The objective of public education now is to keep jobs for teacher union employees and to indoctrinate our children in the offical religion of "Secular Humanism"! Based on the comments I see here, the government has achieved its objective!

[sarah_ab]

Well of course schools are awful.. people want schools to care for the emotional, educational and physical well being of their child for 8-10 hours a day, but are not willing to pay for it through taxes or even other means.

Parents want schools to educate their children, and protect their children, but when a teacher attempts to discipline a child for teasing another, the parents then bitch and moan about the teacher not understanding their child.

It is not the government or the teachers or the students that are causing problems in the schools but the public who refuses to pay for improvements, but somehow expect the money to magically appear.

[Leilin]

What liberals call "civil debate" is when someone, that is conservative, gives in!

What most people call civil debate is primarily three things.

1. Facts are used. Unproven statements or statements that cannot be backed up with valid citation are not. If your statements are contested, burden of proof is respected.

2. Logical fallacies are not used.

3. Insults are not used.

You utterly failed to work within the first two realms on a consistent basis. Therefore, people responding do you assumed that you had no interest in civil debate, and responded in kind, including the third as your utter lack of respect for reality, fact, and good taste merited derision.

[Horndog]

Gosh. I love conservatives, especially ones who DO NOT give in. However, that's different than being completely closed-minded, and saying that you're unconditionally "right" about politics.

[Leilin]

I have many conservative friends. We discuss the facts and then disagree, openly, on them. Because we are working within the realm of facts, however, we disagree respectfully. Nobody ignorantly spouts the terms "Marxist" or "Hitler."

Speaking of which, you surely realize how ironic it is criticizing someone else's call for "civil debate" immediately after posting a video calling someone "Hitler Junior," right, RDB? You're quickly approaching the realm of unintentional self-parody.

I'm laughing, and it's not with you.

[curiositykilledthecat]

Ron {aul is more of a Consitutionalist which is what our government was supposed to be based on. Most of his beliefs are based on the 10th Amednment which delegated things not covered by the first nine to be dlegated to the people, state and lasty the feds.

[curiositykilledthecat]

The problem I see with the left and being open mided and I have proved this point out repeatedly is that many who claim opendmindedness are only open minded within the confines of what they agree. It's open minded to be pro gay marraige however to even attempt to understand where someone who is against it is coming from is immediately close minded ir ignorant. the progressives like to throw racist or ignorant around as buzz words to discredit opposition while the religious right wingers use hell and the overzealous secular right wingers use socialism and communism, likewise a liberal will throw marxism and facism as buzz words. I simply do not understand any government thta needs to dictate to the people and businesses under it's jurisdiction what thye can like, what they can't like and how do run their day to day lives. If you don't believe in something then don't practice it, likewise if you do believe in something then do so. the problem is when either side decides they need society's approval for whatever act they wish to partake. I had a discussion with an individual who attacked libertarianism due to open business practicies, citing the usual extremists argument of "What if a business had a no homosecuals sign?" simply put the correct answer to that question is I wouldn't shop there, nor would I a business that openly mocked my faith, eventually free market would reign in and either the business will collapse or change their mantra. Government enforcement of togetherness doesn't remove hatred or poor ethical practices, people being allowed to let the free market dictate success and failure does. There are obvious exceptions to every rule so I don't think this statement neccessarily should be allowed to apply to the public sector, however public sector is not relegated by free market anyways.(i.e. hospitals or anything federally funded or supported.)

[KittenAB]

Pastor Manning of Harlem has Obama's number

What liberals call "civil debate" is when someone, that is conservative, gives in! I was educated in a public and private school system that existed before Jimmy Carter's Department of Education. Originally, the objective of public education was to create a source of people that could comprehend written instructions. The objective of public education now is to keep jobs for teacher union employees and to indoctrinate our children in the offical religion of "Secular Humanism"! Based on the comments I see here, the government has achieved its objective!

You have only the very tiny basis of a good argument here, but most of it is just conspiracy nuttery. About the only part you even have based on fact is the "teacher's unions are holding the system back."

[KittenAB]

The problem I see with the left and being open mided and I have proved this point out repeatedly is that many who claim opendmindedness are only open minded within the confines of what they agree. It's open minded to be pro gay marraige however to even attempt to understand where someone who is against it is coming from is immediately close minded ir ignorant. the progressives like to throw racist or ignorant around as buzz words to discredit opposition while the religious right wingers use hell and the overzealous secular right wingers use socialism and communism, likewise a liberal will throw marxism and facism as buzz words. I simply do not understand any government thta needs to dictate to the people and businesses under it's jurisdiction what thye can like, what they can't like and how do run their day to day lives. If you don't believe in something then don't practice it, likewise if you do believe in something then do so. the problem is when either side decides they need society's approval for whatever act they wish to partake. I had a discussion with an individual who attacked libertarianism due to open business practicies, citing the usual extremists argument of "What if a business had a no homosecuals sign?" simply put the correct answer to that question is I wouldn't shop there, nor would I a business that openly mocked my faith, eventually free market would reign in and either the business will collapse or change their mantra. Government enforcement of togetherness doesn't remove hatred or poor ethical practices, people being allowed to let the free market dictate success and failure does. There are obvious exceptions to every rule so I don't think this statement neccessarily should be allowed to apply to the public sector, however public sector is not relegated by free market anyways.(i.e. hospitals or anything federally funded or supported.)

You are confusing open mindedness with agreeing. An open minded person will not agree with you, on the contrary, an open minded person will more likely disagree with you to help gather all the angles of a story. An open mind allows their opinions to change based on the amount of information they perceive. When proven wrong, an open minded person will change their opinion, however, it has to be something based on actual facts and not opinion. Anything based on opinion is fair game, and anything based on belief is just stupid and needs to be reconsidered. The cues to closed minds however are quite simple:

1. Making irrelevant connections (such as gay and beastiality for example).

2. Making a reference to something others do not believe in (christian bible for example).

3. Spinning a position without rellevance to the issue ("if you use drugs you support terrorism").

4. Outright lies (Obama wasn't born in the US, a perfect example).

5. The most damning of all, continuing any argument without any more information to add to the argument. Once you are out of data, you are out. An open minded person will either stop and just listen as this point, which is not a concession, or just say they have nothing more to add other than opinions on the matter. However, repeating the exact same data over and over again is a sure sign of a closed mind, especially when they make no effort to counter another person's data.

An open minded discussion should bring in new information to the table, not just blindly recite the same claims or conspiracy theories over and over again.

[Diapered Jason]

You have only the very tiny basis of a good argument here, but most of it is just conspiracy nuttery. About the only part you even have based on fact is the "teacher's unions are holding the system back."

That is not a fact, that is an opinion founded on anti-union rhetoric. The only possible thing I can say from that is we sometimes lack the ability to fire bad teachers due to tenure, but I think I am putting words in Redneck's mouth. Perhaps we should look at the fact the average teacher salary is about $45,000/year with an average starting salary of $30,000/year. Keep in mind, the school does not pay for many of the materials in the classroom and these things often comes out of the teacher's pocket. There is not much motivation for good talent to come to the field regardless. With class sizes on the rise, schools in disrepair, and state cuts to education, we should first ask what the problem is before assuming who is causing the problem.