Fun Observations for August

That's one of the funniest things I have ever read. It puts it all in perspective. I wonder though, how many will click that link, read that article and nod their head in approval at everything said ... especially the CIA operative part.

Thanks Molly I needed that laugh. You have a breath of fresh air to this blog. Keep up the good work.

Mike,

I agree the President needs to stop saying "Let me be clear", see we can agree. I don't agree with your reason, I think he needs to stop saying it because inherent in that statenment is the fact that he wasn't clear previously. But I have that problem here frequently, maybe if I started with that line you would understand me better.

Let me be clear, asking for proof is not attacking, but calling people ignorant and stupid can be taken as such.

Since school has started I hope you have a good year, or are you not teaching this year? If not I still hope you have a good year.

Well I guess we can agree not to agree. I have watched every Obama press conference (just as I did with Bush) and everytime he says "Let me be clear" it is really as simple as Obama is about to give a short summary of what he has been talking about. In some circles it's called "wrapping it up". But the phrase is, obviously, lost on the specific audience that he is addressing. It shouldn't be that surprising since they will make up what he said in their mind anyways.

If a person asks another person for proof on something they just said and they can not that person is either ignorant or stupid. In my example with Obama, no one (anywhere) can prove any of what I stated, yet it doesn't stop them from re-stating all the garbage as if it is fact. My favorite, straight from the comments section "It doesn't surprise me that Obama was Muslim". The user was making the statement that Obama WAS Muslim even though that user had no proof. That makes that person ignorant of the facts and anyone who reads his statement and agrees with it is (to use the harsh word) stupid. You may not agree and that's your prerogative.

I am starting my second year of Graduate school this month. I am taking time away from the classroom to become a better learner and teacher.

Mike:

"If a person asks another person for proof on something they just said and they can not that person is either ignorant or stupid."

I'm not trying to question your intelligence here, but I think you are missing some modifiers in this sentence, I'm not sure what you mean. Why would the first person ask a second person to prove what the first person said? Isn't it the first person's job to prove the point, unless they are stating it as an opinion? Or did you mean the first person asked the second person to prove what the second person said? Honestly, some modifiers would help.

If the President uses that phrase at a press conference but it is lost on the target audience, does that mean you think America in general doesn't understand his points? I thought the intended target of a press conference was everyone.

I have no control over what other people say, I can only control what I say and you took me to task for questioning whether the interfaith chapel could rightly be called a mosque. I said nothing of the President's religion yet that is the response you seem to be giving me. I have noticed you have an upsetting tendency to lump anyone who ever disagrees with you into the lowest grouping possible. You also equate disagreement with dishonesty.

Have fun in grad school and don't let them evil conservative professors keep you down.

I don't believe I have ever equated disagreement with dishonesty and I don't lump those that disagree with me into the lowest grouping possible. You are taking quite a few licenses with what I have said in that past and I hate to inform you that you are way off the mark.

Let me clarify a couple of things that confused you and yes I understand why they did. When Obama says "Let me be clear" he is in fact directing at everyone but he is also focusing on those people that do not like or trust his policies. My point is that the phrase is mostly lost on these people because they are going to take whatever he said out of context. Most Americans when they hear that phrase tune in so that the can catch anything they may have missed.

If Person A makes a claim and Person B asks Person A to prove their claim but Person A is unable to prove their claim, Person A is ignorant of that particular subject.

I really don't know where you are coming up with that I am turning the question of the room in the Pentagon into the President's religion. The two subjects, believe it or not, are totally unrelated.

I am not and have not taken you to task for questioning what the room in the Pentagon is. What I am taking you to task is that you asked me to prove why I believed it to be a Mosque and when I used a definition that had been given in the comments section you refused to accept that I had even answered your question.

Mike:

"And yes SW we are all familiar with every single conservative poster on this site that doesn't or has never watched Fox News or listened to Rush Limbaugh, or go to conservative web sites yet you all almost always post a talking point that is almost directly taken from one of those sources. We get it, you don't want to admit to watching Fox News, or listening to Rush, or reading the conservative websites. We get it."

Well let's see, I disagreed and your response is to call me a liar, I don't think it can be much more clear than that right there, and this is by far the worst case of you taking this tact.

Your so called proof of the Pentagon interfaith chapel being a mosque is based on a discussion you had with another poster. You have failed to prove your point that is all I said. When you then go on to speak of Obama's religion, I thought you were still addressing me, if I misunderstood, I apologize. (interestingly enough why does it seem to me that I am the only who apologizes around here?)

Thanks for clearing up with the person A bit that helps a lot, do you have another argument that the chapel is a mosque not based on McCook1's discussion because I do not accept that as an answer to my question or do you want to just let it drop?

Apologies, the line should read: "and this is by far NOT the worst case of you taking this tact."

One of the definitions that McCook used is an accepted definition that a Mosque is defined as place where only Muslims are praying. At the time that a Muslim is in that interfaith room (I assume that they are the only ones at that time, as are Christians and Jews when they go in) then yes that room can be considered a mosque.

I have googled "Mosque in the Pentagon" and looked through a healthy amount of websites and articles and about the only thing anyone could agree on was disagreeing on the subject.

If you can't accept this then in your eyes I am clearly ignorant. I can't change that.

On the subject of apologizing you very well know that I have full apologized in the past for comments I have made or errors that I have made. To suggest that you are the only one that apologizes is both misleading and wrong.

I never called you a liar. No where in that post did I call you a liar. What I was talking about was the convenience (and yes I am referring to you) that you can come up with talking points from time to time that are very close if not exactly what is already out there in places you claim not to watch, listen, or read. Can I prove that you do any of that? Nope, not even close, that's why I didn't call you a liar. But good attempt at pigeonholing me on it.

Mike,

There is nothing wrong with being ignorant.

Seriously you are going to sit there and say you did not call me a liar, you should at least have the testiclar fortitude to man up to what you said. If you want to call me a liar and not believe me that is one thing but to dance around like this, it's like Obama and the whole mosque thing. Do I really have to go back and search for the other times you've called me a liar to prove it to you, I really don't want to and to be honest I'm not sure I have the time to do so. Disappointing....

Are you sure you've apologized? From where I sit, it seems you can never admit to being wrong.

As I said about the Pentagon, if you search for a mosque by address it doesn't show up so I'm going with it isn't a mosque until someone with more authority than I have says it's one. If you googled Park51 you would clearly see that there is plans for a mosque there, not just a prayer room.

Oh SW here you go again. I didn't say anything about calling you a liar in the past. I was referring to that one post where you make the claim that I said you were lying. It's called being skeptical my friend.

"Are you sure you've apologized? From where I sit, it seems you can never admit to being wrong."

Okay now here, in this example, you either being completely ignorant on this or just outright lying. It's one of the two because if you are seriously going to sit there and suggest that I have never admitted (sorry gotta get that word seem in there so you can cover your butt and backtrack later) to being wrong then you clearly only read what you want to believe is in front of you on the screen and not what is actually there.

I wonder SW did you happen to check out any of the rest of the site, particularly about the Cordoba House?

http://www.park51.org/cordoba.htm

Seems as if the main mission of this "victory mosque" is actually going to be about interfaith relations.

"As I said about the Pentagon, if you search for a mosque by address it doesn't show up so I'm going with it isn't a mosque until someone with more authority than I have says it's one."

That certainly is an interesting statement. You claim that there is not a mosque at the Pentagon and you won't change that chance until someone with more authority than you say there is one (which to any sane thinking person would lead them to believe you are saying that at least on this site you have the highest authority). Putting yourself on quite the pedestal aren't you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLYCxeM78Ao

Unsurprisingly I think Dr. Paul hits the nail on the head.

You know your argument is no longer holding water when not only Ron Paul but Joe Scarborough call you out on your transparent reasons for protesting Park51.

I just have another though. If people are so opposed to having anything built or opened near this hollowed ground as they claim, then why are they not protesting the strip clubs, bars, and other nefarious businesses that are just as close if not closer than Park51? This part of the argument has never had any value for that reason.

Yes I understand the counterargument that these places are already there. So is the original place that Park51 is replacing. The other site just was too small so they found another site. If you truly want nothing around Ground Zero then why not protest it all?

No wonder John Stewart was the most trusted man in News.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/23/stewart-fox-prince-alwaleed_n_692234.ht...

Amazing what happens when you actually dissect their arguments isn't it Damu?

I wonder if they will be forthcoming in correcting all that. Especially using a picture of the "supporter of terrorism" shaking hands with his co-owner of Fox News, Rupert Murdoch.

I wonder what will happen if he ever tries to buy a majority stock in Fox News. That would be absolutely delightful.