Obama's amazing sense of humor

Your equivocation is astounding. Mao murdering millions NOT HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS is the same as Jefferson keeping, feeding, and caring for some slaves?

:bowrofl:

Next you'll be saying that Ted Bundy was "an odd sort."

It's principle Foss...

Beck is stating that by stating that Mao was a favorite philosopher (although, remember, it was his brevity she was stating that she liked), Anita was embracing the whole of Mao, including his 'actions'.

So, to create the same scenario, Beck, by stating that Jefferson is a favorite 'philosopher' he too, must embrace all that is Jeffersonian, including approving of slave ownership, and having mistresses that are owned, and not allowed to leave.

Beck's "all or nothing" proposition is flawed.
 
It's principle Foss...

Beck is stating that by stating that Mao was a favorite philosopher (although, remember, it was his brevity she was stating that she liked), Anita was embracing the whole of Mao, including his 'actions'.

So, to create the same scenario, Beck, by stating that Jefferson is a favorite 'philosopher' he too, must embrace all that is Jeffersonian, including approving of slave ownership, and having mistresses that are owned, and not allowed to leave.

Beck's "all or nothing" proposition is flawed.
It's not a 'must' just because you say it is.

I'd sooner embrace Jefferson's slave ownership than Mao's mass murder. Pretty sure Beck would too.
 
Conservatives are easier to stereotype and make fun of.
A conservative stands for what is and a liberal for what can be.
Fox tried out a conservative comedy show and it was a flop.
Maybe they can get Huckabee to host one.
He seems to have a good sense of humor.

Dear lord...

Wrong, so very wrong..
 
Not a word?

Foss - even Brit Hume got in trouble with this...

HUME: Two nights ago on this program, we said that, in attacking President Bush on Iraq, Hurricane Katrina, and the budget, former president Clinton did something that Bush's father did not do, and that is to criticize his successor. That was incorrect. While the first President Bush did so rarely, he did criticize President Clinton and his administration several times, including on his Haiti and Somalia policies. We stand corrected and regret the error.

Bush II

Former President George W. Bush fired a salvo at President Obama on Wednesday, asserting his administration's interrogation policies were within the law, declaring the private sector -- not government -- will fix the economy and rejecting the nationalization of health care.

And even Reagan
- Although soon after this speech he was rarely allowed to speak in public because of his advancing Alzheimers, so to say he didn't criticize Clinton would be incorrect, the more truthful thing to say is that he couldn't because of his memory problems after 1993.

Warning that the nation was cutting military spending too quickly, former President Ronald Reagan attacked the Clinton Administration today for plans to kill the "Star Wars" program.


One would be wise not to take the editorial comment of a newspaper's headline as substantive commentary by the person in question.

The article does not support the headline, wrt Bush II.
 
Obama.gif
 
One would be wise not to take the editorial comment of a newspaper's headline as substantive commentary by the person in question.

The article does not support the headline, wrt Bush II.

What the article points out that even though in the Bush II speech he states that he isn't criticizing the current administration - by saying that he doesn't approve of the current administration's policies Bush II is backhanding the critique.

I personally think that forum names that start with a K are offensive, they remind me of the KKK.

However, I am not going to criticize posters before me.


Have I criticized you or not kstills?

Backhandedly I have.
 
What the article points out that even though in the Bush II speech he states that he isn't criticizing the current administration - by saying that he doesn't approve of the current administration's policies Bush II is backhanding the critique.

I personally think that forum names that start with a K are offensive, they remind me of the KKK.

However, I am not going to criticize posters before me.


Have I criticized you or not kstills?

Backhandedly I have.


Read it again.

Bush is answering questions about his record. Saying he believes that private business can do a better job of creating jobs is not a critique of Obama. The author doesn't even bother to include his critique of HC, leaving one to believe that he didn't make one.

The part about Gitmo doesn't even address Obama, or his policies.

A silly headline, and a silly interpretation.
 
Read it again.

Bush is answering questions about his record. Saying he believes that private business can do a better job of creating jobs is not a critique of Obama. The author doesn't even bother to include his critique of HC, leaving one to believe that he didn't make one.

The part about Gitmo doesn't even address Obama, or his policies.

A silly headline, and a silly interpretation.

from the article...
"I know it's going to be the private sector that leads this country out of the current economic times we're in," the former president said to applause from members of a local business group. "You can spend your money better than the government can spend your money."
and
"Government does not create wealth. The major role for the government is to create an environment where people take risks to expand the job rate in the United States," he said to huge cheers.

Once again - he is 'backhandedly' criticizing the current government policies - and who is the government at the point of this speech? Obama...

He did take aim against Obama's economic policies... Just because he didn't name Obama specifically - the intent is there.
 
Once again - he is 'CORRECTLY' criticizing the current government policies - and who is the government at the point of this speech? Obama...

He did take aim against Obama's economic policies... Just because he didn't name Obama specifically - the TRUTH is there.
Fixed that for you.

By the way - nice job of moving the goalposts. Bush makes general principle and concept statements and you somehow draw elixir from them to support your flawed position.

Flawed arguments from Mickie - same ol' same ol'.
 
It's principle Foss...

Beck is stating that by stating that Mao was a favorite philosopher (although, remember, it was his brevity she was stating that she liked), Anita was embracing the whole of Mao, including his 'actions'.

So, to create the same scenario, Beck, by stating that Jefferson is a favorite 'philosopher' he too, must embrace all that is Jeffersonian, including approving of slave ownership, and having mistresses that are owned, and not allowed to leave.

Beck's "all or nothing" proposition is flawed.
By your logic, then, do you embrace snorting cocaine, since you embrace Obama, and that is one of his methods? :rolleyes:
 
By your logic, then, do you embrace snorting cocaine, since you embrace Obama, and that is one of his methods? :rolleyes:
If I followed Beck's convoluted way of getting to a conclusion - that would be a true statement - however, thank you Foss, for showing how Beck's method is wrong.

If I state I like JFK's ideas on Medicare, it doesn't mean that I agree with his womanizing. Just as if I state that I think that as a philosopher I like Mao because he was able to state things so succinctly, it doesn't mean I agree with his killing hundreds of thousands of people.

I like this statement "Women hold up half the sky. "... however, that doesn't mean that I am a communist. That is Beck's reasoning... flawed.
 
If I followed Beck's convoluted way of getting to a conclusion - that would be a true statement - however, thank you Foss, for showing how Beck's method is wrong.

If I state I like JFK's ideas on Medicare, it doesn't mean that I agree with his womanizing. Just as if I state that I think that as a philosopher I like Mao because he was able to state things so succinctly, it doesn't mean I agree with his killing hundreds of thousands of people.

I like this statement "Women hold up half the sky. "... however, that doesn't mean that I am a communist. That is Beck's reasoning... flawed.
Actually, I don't necessarily agree with Beck's extrapolation.

However, it is fair to say that her affinity for Mao as a philosopher could be construed as approving of his Marxist/tyrannical views, which would be the same as Beck approving of Jefferson and his capitalist/liberty views.
 
Actually, I don't necessarily agree with Beck's extrapolation.

However, it is fair to say that her affinity for Mao as a philosopher could be construed as approving of his Marxist/tyrannical views, which would be the same as Beck approving of Jefferson and his capitalist/liberty views.

But, doesn't it appear that her affinity for Mao might have to do with his ability to get to the point?

Mao was great at that - no need to quote half a letter, like with Jefferson, or an entire fable, as with Plato, to really find the true meaning behind his words...

Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy.

I don't think there is much discourse on what Mao meant in that little statement. And Anita used another of Mao's 'short and sweet' statements - You fight your war and I'll fight mine. I think she was going for the succinctness of Mao...

However, like me, you appear not to agree with Beck's involution.

The world may have ended - we have 'sort of' agreed on a couple of points today Foss... hummm... how much celebrating did I do this weekend ;)
 
However whether he ‘longhanded’ or ‘shorthanded’ her quote he still misrepresents it. He acts as though by saying that he is one of her favorite philosophers because of how he can basically deliver a simple point (obviously, they don’t call it the “Little Red Book” for nothing), Anita is a communist.

"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position."

There is no other quote or evidence to back this up - nothing that states that she agrees with his methods as Beck drones on about in his broadcast, nothing that indicates she is a communist sympathizer.

"Moving the goalpost, also known as raising the bar, is an informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. In other words, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt."

Beck obviously adores Jefferson, and he appears to be one of his favorite people to quote, however he certainly doesn’t agree with Jefferson’s ‘methods’ of owning well over 100 slaves and keeping a slave as a mistress. I am sure that Anita doesn’t agree with Mao’s record on human rights or how he strong armed an entire nation, along with killing hundreds of thousands of people.

"Similar in category, but with darker implications than ignoratio elenchi, a "red herring" is an answer, given in reply to a questioner, that goes beyond an innocent logical irrelevance. A "red herring" is a deliberate attempt to divert a process of enquiry by changing the subject."

Your lies are almost formulaic. Have you ever thought of trying something new? Or can you not think outside your postmodernist box?
 
Once again - he is 'backhandedly' criticizing the current government policies - and who is the government at the point of this speech? Obama...

He did take aim against Obama's economic policies... Just because he didn't name Obama specifically - the intent is there.

None of your "analysis" is in any way logically supported by the quotes you cited. You are making embarrassingly MASSIVE logical leaps to reach your absurd conclusions...
 
"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position."

So, how did I not refute Beck's statement that Anita is a communist? His evidence is hardly 'evidence'. It is a conclusion based upon a house of cards - as I have shown.

"Moving the goalpost, also known as raising the bar, is an informal logically fallacious argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. In other words, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt."

So we should accept Beck's conclusion that Anita is a communist based on her stating that she likes Mao (for his brevity). I guess also based on the very same body of evidence, Anita is a Catholic, she quoted Mother Teresa.

It is flawed logic Shag - and your dancing about and throwing out points of debate aren't going to change that.

"Similar in category, but with darker implications than ignoratio elenchi, a "red herring" is an answer, given in reply to a questioner, that goes beyond an innocent logical irrelevance. A "red herring" is a deliberate attempt to divert a process of enquiry by changing the subject."

I am, once again using example - because obviously it is necessary here. To use examples is a very viable, and often effective form of debate. It allows both the debaters and the people 'watching' the debate to understand points of the debate on a similar, or common plane. Using Beck and his affinity for quoting Jefferson, and applying the 'Beck Conclusion' logic, shows how flawed Beck's logic is in this case. I am using examples and then applying Beck's logic to show how conclusions drawn from his logic are unsound.

Have you ever thought of trying something new? Or can you not think outside your postmodernist box?

Ah, this week I am a 'postmodernist' or will it change? No doubt the world awaits your next proclamation of my state of being.
 
But, doesn't it appear that her affinity for Mao might have to do with his ability to get to the point?

Mao was great at that - no need to quote half a letter, like with Jefferson, or an entire fable, as with Plato, to really find the true meaning behind his words...

Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy.

I don't think there is much discourse on what Mao meant in that little statement. And Anita used another of Mao's 'short and sweet' statements - You fight your war and I'll fight mine. I think she was going for the succinctness of Mao...

However, like me, you appear not to agree with Beck's involution.

The world may have ended - we have 'sort of' agreed on a couple of points today Foss... hummm... how much celebrating did I do this weekend ;)
The problem, as you may have swerved into, is what Mao MEANT by those words. Remember, Mao's definition of 'enemy' is anyone who a) disagrees with him politically or b) anyone who wants liberty.
 
Ah, this week I am a 'postmodernist' or will it change? No doubt the world awaits your next proclamation of my state of being.
It is a false choice to assume that you can hold to only one set of principles at a time. Postmodernist and marxist are not mutually exclusive, and you do know that.
 
So, how did I not refute Beck's statement that Anita is a communist?

"The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance"), or negative evidence, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true."

Is that what you were trying to set up through implication? Because it sure looks like it...

His evidence is hardly 'evidence'. It is a conclusion based upon a house of cards - as I have shown.

If you truly believe that then there is no point in conversing with you...

It is flawed logic Shag - and your dancing about and throwing out points of debate aren't going to change that.

Attacking the messenger already?!

I am simply expecting you to use a logical argument to show Beck's "flawed logic". If you have to used tortured "logic" to show someone else's "flawed" reasoning, maybe their reasoning isn't so flawed after all. Maybe you have simply lost all objectivity. It does seem to be a (rather predictable) pattern of yours...

I am, once again using example - because obviously it is necessary here.

Yes, but those examples have to LOGICALLY support your conclusion. Otherwise you are, at best, engaging in sophistry and, at worst, engaging in deception.

Using Beck and his affinity for quoting Jefferson, and applying the 'Beck Conclusion' logic, shows how flawed Beck's logic is in this case.

If you have to misrepresent someone's argument to show the flawed reasoning in it, then you are only demonstrating your dishonesty.
 
"The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance"), or negative evidence, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true."

Is that what you were trying to set up through implication? Because it sure looks like it...

If you truly believe that then there is no point in conversing with you...

So, shag - show me how Beck's conclusion is viable - how his logic is sound - that is all I ask - Can you show me that using his confabulated logic in this case, or any case, is correct.

Isn't one of the things you do is apply the logic to other scenarios? I believe it is - wow - what a concept. And do you arrive at the same conclusion when you apply the same logic - of course not, because it is flawed.

Attacking the messenger already?!

I am simply expecting you to use a logical argument to show Beck's "flawed logic". If you have to used tortured "logic" to show someone else's "flawed" reasoning, maybe their reasoning isn't so flawed after all. Maybe you have simply lost all objectivity. It does seem to be a (rather predictable) pattern of yours...

Once again shag - dispute the fact that Beck's logic is unsound - it should be easy - right? Go ahead... Show me how you can conclude from her statement that she must be a Catholic.

Yes, but those examples have to LOGICALLY support your conclusion. Otherwise you are, at best, engaging in sophistry and, at worst, engaging in deception.

If you have to misrepresent someone's argument to show the flawed reasoning in it, then you are only demonstrating your dishonesty.

How am I misrepresenting Beck's logic - he uses Anita's quote, and only her quote to conclude she is "a revolutionary that idolizes Mao."

And then I apply exactly the same logic to his liking to quote Jefferson.

You can defend him all you want shag - but it is clear, here he is allowing irrationality to rule the day, in hopes that his audience will somehow connect the dots in same strange and convoluted manner.
 
from the article...

and


Once again - he is 'backhandedly' criticizing the current government policies - and who is the government at the point of this speech? Obama...

He did take aim against Obama's economic policies... Just because he didn't name Obama specifically - the intent is there.

He stated conservative views about the private and public sector.

He did not use Obama's name, he did not mention any policy inacted by Obama's administration, and he made clear he was not offering criticism.

In order to understand the difference, refer to any comment ever made by Jimmy Carter wrt Bush 43 policy.

On anything.
 
DUNN: A lot of you have a great deal of ability. A lot of you work hard. Put them together, and that answers the "Why not?" question. There's usually not a good reason.

And then the third lesson and tip actually come from two of my favorite political philosophers, Mao Zedong and Mother Teresa -- not often coupled with each together, but the two people that I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point, which is, you're going to make choices. You're going to challenge. You're going to say, "Why not?" You're going to figure out how to do things that have never been done before. But here's the deal: These are your choices. They are no one else's.

In 1947, when Mao Zedong was being challenged within his own party on his plan to basically take China over, Chiang Kai-shek and the Nationalist Chinese held the cities, they had the army, they had the air force, they had everything on their side. And people said, "How can you win? How can you do this? How can you do this against all of the odds against you?" And Mao Zedong said, you know, "You fight your war, and I'll fight mine." And think about that for a second.

You know, you don't have to accept the definition of how to do things, and you don't have to follow other people's choices and paths, OK? It is about your choices and your path. You fight your own war. You lay out your own path. You figure out what's right for you. You don't let external definition define how good you are internally. You fight your war. You let them fight theirs. Everybody has their own path.

And then Mother Teresa, who, upon receiving a letter from a fairly affluent young person who asked her whether she could come over and help with that orphanage in Calcutta, responded very simply: "Go find your own Calcutta." OK? Go find your own Calcutta. Fight your own path. Go find the thing that is unique to you, the challenge that is actually yours, not somebody else's challenge.

The major problem for Dunn, which was easily recognized by her supporters after the fact, is that she calls Mao one of her favorite philosophers.

That's offered first, the qualification fox is adding comes after, and is irrelevent to the claim of 'favoritism'.

I got that from Media Matters, and any more quoting from that source exposes the person doing so as being intellectually bankrupt.
 
He stated conservative views about the private and public sector.

He did not use Obama's name, he did not mention any policy inacted by Obama's administration, and he made clear he was not offering criticism.

In order to understand the difference, refer to any comment ever made by Jimmy Carter wrt Bush 43 policy.

On anything.

From NYT

Mr. Clinton argued that lower-income Americans had done better under the economic policies of his administration than they are doing now, saying the storm highlighted class divisions in the country that often played out along racial lines.

"It's like when they issued the evacuation order," he said. "That affects poor people differently. A lot of them in New Orleans didn't have cars. A lot of them who had cars had kinfolk they had to take care of. They didn't have cars, so they couldn't take them out."

"This is a matter of public policy," he said. "And whether it's race-based or not, if you give your tax cuts to the rich and hope everything works out all right, and poverty goes up and it disproportionately affects black and brown people, that's a consequence of the action made. That's what they did in the 80's; that's what they've done in this decade. In the middle, we had a different policy."
So, here, in the same way Bush criticized Obama, Clinton criticized Bush. He is critical of Bush's policies, without naming names, but I wouldn't argue that it wasn't a criticism of Bush. It obviously is, just like the article I posted was Bush criticizing Obama, 'without naming names'.
 
The major problem for Dunn, which was easily recognized by her supporters after the fact, is that she calls Mao one of her favorite philosophers.

That's offered first, the qualification fox is adding comes after, and is irrelevent to the claim of 'favoritism'.

I got that from Media Matters, and any more quoting from that source exposes the person doing so as being intellectually bankrupt.

And she also states that Mother Teresa is a favorite philosopher - she is obviously going for the 'brevity' statement here, both Mao and Mother Teresa have that in common - that is why they are her 'favorites'.

So, Kstills - do you believe that Anita is a Catholic? If you believe that she is a revolutionary who hero worships Mao, then you also must believe that she is a Catholic. The same logic would work in both cases.
 
From NYT

Mr. Clinton argued that lower-income Americans had done better under the economic policies of his administration than they are doing now, saying the storm highlighted class divisions in the country that often played out along racial lines.

"It's like when they issued the evacuation order," he said. "That affects poor people differently. A lot of them in New Orleans didn't have cars. A lot of them who had cars had kinfolk they had to take care of. They didn't have cars, so they couldn't take them out."

"This is a matter of public policy," he said. "And whether it's race-based or not, if you give your tax cuts to the rich and hope everything works out all right, and poverty goes up and it disproportionately affects black and brown people, that's a consequence of the action made. That's what they did in the 80's; that's what they've done in this decade. In the middle, we had a different policy."
So, here, in the same way Bush criticized Obama, Clinton criticized Bush. He is critical of Bush's policies, without naming names, but I wouldn't argue that it wasn't a criticism of Bush. It obviously is, just like the article I posted was Bush criticizing Obama, 'without naming names'.


Not quite:

"I know it's going to be the private sector that leads this country out of the current economic times we're in," the former president said to applause from members of a local business group. "You can spend your money better than the government can spend your money."

and


"Government does not create wealth. The major role for the government is to create an environment where people take risks to expand the job rate in the United States," he said to huge cheers.

Bush is stating philosophical (ideological) beliefs.

"This is a matter of public policy," he said. "And whether it's race-based or not, if you give your tax cuts to the rich and hope everything works out all right, and poverty goes up and it disproportionately affects black and brown people, that's a consequence of the action made. That's what they did in the 80's; that's what they've done in this decade. In the middle, we had a different policy."

Clinton is directly going after what 'they' did.

Which is a big difference.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top