Page 14 of 20 FirstFirst ... 4910111213141516171819 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 280 of 385
  1. #261  
    Quote Originally Posted by electronique View Post
    first take an undocumentable statement such as:
    How does your mind work such that you conclude that it's undocumentable?? Are you assuming it's false? Do you just assume that everyone else makes baseless claims too?

    Here are a few examples. There are many, many more in the OT forum.
    • cellmatrix's most recent contributions to the global warming thread was mindless cheerleading. She repeatedly posted links to relevant papers on the subject, but demonstrated no understanding of the content and refused to engage in discussion about the validity of those studies. She dismissed arguments based not on the content of the arguments, but on the fact that they contradicted her firmly held beliefs.
    • BARYE's claim that Bush was the worst President in history is mindless cheerleading. There's no analytical thought behind it. It's not supported by a historical review of all the Presidents. And it's based on very incomplete information, specifically lacking an understanding of the long-term impact of Bush on the US and the world.
    • bling300c's posts in the other thread about Democrats is mindless cheerleading. They're exaggerations and insults, and they lack factual support.



    twist the meaning:
    "how can you say people who admit bias are often mindless?"
    You actually think twisting the meaning of someone's statement is actually a logical argument?


    then accuse and convict:
    Dont want to say? well it just shows you are dishonest."
    You made a false claim. You also disingenuously claimed that you weren't attacking anyone.


    But why do you go thru it? It makes me wonder. Even though you say its not personal, it makes me suspicious that maybe it is personal for you. If so, please accept my apologies.
    I said your attack wasn't personal. And you don't owe me an insincere apology. You owe the forum one.

    Nonetheless, I stand by what I said before, even though it is certainly not easily documented, that I suspect that when it comes to politics, an appearace of objectivity often hides an underlying bias. Those like Barye who try to transcend this are refreshing to talk to.
    That's quite different from what you claimed earlier - that many people pretend to be unbiased in order to push a political agenda.
  2. #262  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    I said your attack wasn't personal.
    I think it would be more accurate for you to say that you don't interpret it as being directed towards you. It was personal in the sense that it was directed at a person(s), even if that person(s) were not specifically named (or don't even really exist). An ad hominem attack is still at the man even when the man is made of straw.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  3. #263  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    But there wasn't much of a plan to at least eventually replace those resources, such as decommissioned ships.
    Yes there was... plenty of resources... take a look at when the new DDGs, SSNs, etc were coming online. Technology trumped numbers... I've been on a couple of the new ships, they would blow my old ship out the water.... literally.

    Different times meant different requirements... we no longer needed a 500+ ship navy... and still don't. Matter of fact, I'm sure the navy is not above 300 today. No complaints from anyone.

    Army is strained... but they are fighting two wars... lol...




    I bullet pointed my thought, so I should clarify that I my concerns is mostly when he reduced the manpower resources to each arm of the Military, the Intelligence Community, and the Pentagon, etc... And scrapped many projects that would have or may still prove useful in the time to come like the Strategic Defense Initiative.
    Military I don't agree with.... intelligence community, I've heard many different arguments... I don't know. I know a couple of people who work in jobs like that, but they never talk or even hint. And I've known some of them for over 15 years. Then again, I never ask either... none of my business.

    Pentagon? of course they were complaining... they wanted to keep their cold war budget.

    Not that there were not some legit complaints... but overall, I think the military was definitely made a better force due to the clinton years. Not a worse. Worse would have been keeping those old ships and not investing in the future... not reducing the military to pave way for technology. You can't have it all. Even Tiger Woods knew he could not keep his old swing and work on his new swing part-time. It was all or nothing....

    And when bush needed the military it was there and ready to go. I did not hear complaints until we were well into our second war.

    At the end though, everyone will look at it differently. I was there and in my eyes, what unfolded I was happy with. 100% happy? No. But I remember the moral was up and everyone was looking forward to the changes... there were some complaints and they are always loud.

    I watched Charleston SC sink after the ship yard closed... that was hard. But it had nothing to do with the military being able to fight. Now charleston is attempting to be a tourist town.... oh, and a google data center is there. lol
    Last edited by theog; 04/24/2008 at 05:07 PM.
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  4. #264  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post

    Here are a few examples. There are many, many more in the OT forum.
    • cellmatrix's most recent contributions to the global warming thread was mindless cheerleading. She repeatedly posted links to relevant papers on the subject, but demonstrated no understanding of the content and refused to engage in discussion about the validity of those studies. She dismissed arguments based not on the content of the arguments, but on the fact that they contradicted her firmly held beliefs.
    • BARYE's claim that Bush was the worst President in history is mindless cheerleading. There's no analytical thought behind it. It's not supported by a historical review of all the Presidents. And it's based on very incomplete information, specifically lacking an understanding of the long-term impact of Bush on the US and the world.
    • bling300c's posts in the other thread about Democrats is mindless cheerleading. They're exaggerations and insults, and they lack factual support.
    conclusive arguments? Or good old fashioned name calling?
  5. #265  
    Quote Originally Posted by electronique View Post
    conclusive arguments? Or good old fashioned name calling?
    At least he had the nerve to point out specific examples of the persons he was referring to. You just fling stones at straw men.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  6. #266  
    Quote Originally Posted by electronique View Post
    conclusive arguments? Or good old fashioned name calling?
    Disingenuous accusation? Or passive-aggressive trolling?
  7. #267  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Disingenuous accusation? Or passive-aggressive trolling?
    You know actually Samkim, looking back at your post, I think I need to retract the name calling bit. I realize that you are not attacking the individuals, but rather the statements. Sorry about that.
  8. #268  
    In addition, since we agree that people are by nature biased, and that we must be careful to try to remain objective, I am happy to leave things at that. I do think we need to be vigilant about people acting objective under the guise of bias, and I think it happens more frequently than we think, not just on this forum, but in political discussions in general. But its just a general statement I was making, not directed at any particular example or individual.
  9. #269  
    Quote Originally Posted by electronique View Post
    You know actually Samkim, looking back at your post, I think I need to retract the name calling bit. I realize that you are not attacking the individuals, but rather the statements. Sorry about that.
    Thanks.
  10. #270  
    Quote Originally Posted by electronique View Post
    In addition, since we agree that people are by nature biased, and that we must be careful to try to remain objective, I am happy to leave things at that. I do think we need to be vigilant about people acting objective under the guise of bias, and I think it happens more frequently than we think, not just on this forum, but in political discussions in general. But its just a general statement I was making, not directed at any particular example or individual.
    That's fine.

    I prefer that people "act objective," not in a disingenuous way, but to facilitate a more informative and meaningful dialogue. When people can only condemn one side and only praise another, the discussion becomes pointless.
  11. #271  
    I don't know how much this helps obama in Indiana, but it is another knife in the back for hillary (looking at the big picture). She can't seem to keep her superdeligates. I'm wondering if anyone has switched from obama to clinton?


    Former Democratic Chairman Andrew to Switch to Obama


    May 1 (Bloomberg) -- Joe Andrew, a superdelegate and former Democratic National Committee chairman, is switching his support to Barack Obama from Hillary Clinton, according to Obama spokesman Bill Burton.

    Andrew, who earlier served as Indiana's Democratic Party chairman, scheduled a 10 a.m. news conference in his hometown of Indianapolis to make the announcement, according to a statement from the Obama campaign. The Indiana primary will be held May 6.


    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...W1E&refer=home


    .
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  12.    #272  
    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    I don't know how much this helps obama in Indiana, but it is another knife in the back for hillary (looking at the big picture). She can't seem to keep her superdeligates. I'm wondering if anyone has switched from obama to clinton?
    (must resist urge to make "once you go Black, you don't go back" joke ...)
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  13. #273  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    (must resist urge to make "once you go Black, you don't go back" joke ...)

    Oh, goodness, I just busted a gut... rofl

    You are insane....
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  14.    #274  
    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    Oh, goodness, I just busted a gut... rofl

    You are insane....
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  15.    #275  
    I've talked about my expectation that Hillary will carry Indiana.

    Everyone (even me) has assumed though that Obama will win NC -- which votes on the same day.

    Does anyone have an opinion as to who the nominee who will be if Obama should lose both Indiana and NC ??

    I'll predicate that with the understanding that Obama would still have the most delegates (though not enough to win the nomination).
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  16. #276  
    I predict no one will have enought state delegates to claim the title. This leaves it up to the Super Delegates. Forget who has pledged to who, because as we saw this week, that can change on a dime and at the very moment they place their vote. This will be decided, not by the people, but by the those with power in the Dem party.
  17.    #277  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    I predict no one will have enought state delegates to claim the title. This leaves it up to the Super Delegates. Forget who has pledged to who, because as we saw this week, that can change on a dime and at the very moment they place their vote. This will be decided, not by the people, but by the those with power in the Dem party.
    Hobbes -- you're punting !!

    be bold -- who will be the nominee if Obama loses Indiana AND NC ???
    Last edited by BARYE; 05/02/2008 at 07:54 PM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  18. #278  
    [digress]

    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    (must resist urge to make "once you go Black, you don't go back" joke ...)



    I'll say this again, you surely have a good sense of humor and despite differences have an intriguing conversation style.

    [/digress]
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  19.    #279  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    I'll say this again, you surely have a good sense of humor and despite differences have an intriguing conversation style.

    tanks DL!! But what's the answer to BARYE's question ???!!!
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  20. #280  
    Presumably, you meant this one:

    Does anyone have an opinion as to who the nominee who will be if Obama should lose both Indiana and NC ??

    I really dont' have a clue but am guessing Obama--without any evidence to back meself up.
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM

Posting Permissions