OT: Obama stops oil leak in Gulf. BP staff grateful.

Page 7 of 14  

Jack Stein wrote:

In President Obama's defense, there WERE fifty-seven venues in which the Democrats held presidental-preference primaries.
They were:
* The fifty states, * The District of Columbia, * Guam, * The U.S. Virgin Islands, * Patagonia, * Shangri-La, * Rhodesia, and, er, * Atlantis
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
HeyBub wrote:

Equally in his defense is Heinz, which boasts 57 varieties. Problem is he didn't say that, in fact said 57, plus one left to go to, plus Alaska and Hawaii which he was not allowed to visit. That would be 60 states, not even closely related to Heinz 57 or 57 venues or the price of rice in China...
See for yourself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws

--
Jack
Fight Socialism.... Buy a Ford!
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 14:27:51 -0700, Neil Brooks wrote:

"The best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter." That may not be an exact quote, but it's close :-).
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Churchill, IIRC.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Neil Brooks wrote:
... snip

... and your evidence that BHO has an extremely high IQ, is, what exactly? He has sealed all of his academic records by executive order, there is no existing evidence of any of his test scores, he wrote no papers while editor at Harvard Law Review. His speeches? Take away the teleprompter and the induced reverb for "godlike quality" and you get a bunch of "ahhhs", "Uhhhs", and "ummms". Hardly genius quality off-teleprompter. This is a guy with a paper-thin resume who voted "present" in his stint in the Illinois legislature in order to avoid having a record, who won most of his elections not through electoral victory but by clearing the playing field before the election. There seems to be no recollection of anyone he knew while he was at Occidental college, no former classmates, professors, or anyone else who has provided any information whatever regarding his academic capabilities or lack thereof.
You, the consummate logician, should be a bit more demanding of hard evidence than the fact "he attended Harvard" as evidence that he "has an extremely high IQ". After all, so did GW. Argument by vigorous assertion is not a generally accepted approach to logical argumentation.
As far as the "ahhs, umms, and uhhs", that is not necessarily evidence of someone not very bright, it can also be evidence of someone heavily self- censoring what they are saying so as not to betray their core beliefs by saying something completely antithetical to the American way of life. Thus he uses those verbal crutches while he desperately struggles for words to not sound quite as statist and totalitarian as he really is. If he said what he was really thinking, it might come out as, "It's not that I want to punish success, I just think that when you spread the wealth around, everybody benefits". [Oh, wait, he did say that].
BTW, the 57 states wasn't the only gaffe, just one of the more memorable ones. Look up "Obama and Breathalyzer" for another example. As far as Bushisms go, "inhalator" comes pretty close.
... snip
--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ahhhhhh. You DO make this easy ;-)
RE: Obama.

Having come from a family FULL of people with genius IQs, and ... having spent my entire life in the company of people with genius IQs, I -- in much the way I'm well equipped to judge a woodworker as "very talented --" can figure out who does and who doesn't have a high IQ.


I didn't assert that he got good grades.

I didn't say that he did well on standardized tests.

I didn't say he was a perfect public speaker. Verbal place-holders, by the way, have NO bearing on the IQ of the speaker.

I've read a lot of your posts, Mark. I put NO weight on YOUR proof by assertion.
Surprised ?
I doubt it.
You're also a rabid right-winger. You reason backward, FROM THAT position. I've seen you do it ... time and again.

I didn't comment on any "resume."

I didn't make any statements about his voting record.

I don't recall making ANY statements about his past elections.

I didn't say anything about his long history with friends, or lack thereof.
Wow. You're AWFUL at this, Mark !

I don't recall using his alma mater as evidence ... of ... anything.

But you use it, blithely. Hmmm.

You sound ridiculously vapid, making comments like that.
In my decades of experience with highly intelligent people, I've learned one thing about them: they choose their words; they're thoughtful.
I can readily see how this would be confusing (and foreign) for you.

How is that:
a) relevant (hint: it isn't), or
b) different from the notion of supply side economics, or the "rising tide lifts all boats" idea ?
But let's focus on (a).
You're reasoning backward, again, from a starting position of hatred for Obama.
Sense ... has gone RIGHT out the window.
Shame.

The POTUS ... has made (at least) TWO verbal gaffes ??
WHERE ARE THE PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIANS ???
GET MICHAEL BESCHLOSS ON THE TELEPHONE ... PRONTO !!
Awww, Mark. Sad commentary on you.
Guaranteed George Washington, and all who came after him, made numerous verbal gaffes.
But you don't care, because ... you're a thoughtless knee-jerk blindly partisan right-winger.
One of the handful that gives THIS newsgroup its foul stench :-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:
RE: Obama.

Having come from a family FULL of people with genius IQs, and ... having spent my entire life in the company of people with genius IQs, I -- in much the way I'm well equipped to judge a woodworker as "very talented --" can figure out who does and who doesn't have a high IQ. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Could you give a heads up next time we'll need hip waders?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Certainly.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Neil Brooks wrote:

Oh gads! You are a riot! He's smart, because doggoneit! I know smart when I see it! ... and he's smart! Because I say so!

i.e., that doesn't provide any evidence to support you conclusion

i.e., that doesn't provide any evidence to support your conclusion

i.e., that doesn't provide any evidence to support your conclusion

This is where your statements fall into rolling in the aisle absolutely hilarious. You have zero proof or evidence of the "genius IQ" of The One other than by saying, "I've been exposed to people with genius IQ's and by golly, I know one when I see one!" thus arguing by vigorous assertion that this guy is one. Then, you turn around and accuse ME of proof by assertion!

Uh, yeah, you start with the conclusion that this guy is a genius and then can't even reason backwards to a position -- your reasoning is "I know it when I see it" Somehow, your approbations just don't seem to be something with which I should concern myself.

You know, somehow having you say that doesn't really bother me. Given your ability to only defend your positions by vigorous assertion and by pulling phrases from your freshman logic textbook, can you see why that might be?
Didn't think so.

That's true, as you've stated above, you aren't using any evidence at all to demonstrate your assertion. But you're funny while you are doing it.

Really? Please shown in the above where I have done so. I have merely stated clearly demonstrable evidence of the clear lack of evidence for YOUR assertion. An assertion which you have just admitted is based solely upon your own internal "feeling" about the genius of the POTUS. In this, you demonstrate the typical liberal (progressive, leftist, statist, radica, whatever ya'll are calling yourselves these days) approach to logic, you don't think, you feel.

... and you sound ridiculous period.

Dang! Another one of those arguments by vigorous assertion things again! But then, I guess that's only wrong if I do it, not if you do it.
It's a shame leftists don't get irony because your arguments are one of the most hilarious examples of irony one could ever hope to find. You just can't make stuff like what you are writing up!

The above is an example of someone making an assertion and then demonstrating that assertion with what is called evidence or backup data to bolster that assertion. I realize this is a little different than your method of argumentation by vigorous assertion, but this is what most people attempting to demonstrate a position do to show others the reasoning or path to achieve a certain conclusion. That's probably a few chapters into that freshman logic text you have on your bookshelf. Take a look when you have some time. I will leave as an exercise how one goes from what happens when a statist like Obama self-censors (his "ahhhs and ummms" while he finds politically palatable words to hide his strong statist positions that would cost him support because most Americans don't share those beliefs) to an example of what happened when he failed to self-censor. That should be a fairly simple exercise, I'm sure even you can follow that line.

Well, you b) is completely irrelevant to this discussion. For the sake of an aside, let's just say that most Americans support the idea that being able to keep the fruits of one's labors is a reasonable position and that it makes sense that when someone is able to do that, the wealth gets spread around without funneling it through a government middleman who uses other peoples' money to enrich himself either monetarily or by buying votes to gain more power.

Umm, no, not at all. YOU are reasoning backwards from the viewpoint that all people who disagree with you or Obama start from hatred and reason backward to a position. In this case, the flaw in your logic is that I START from the position that it is good and right that people who work hard should be able to benefit from the fruits of that labor. Thus, when a politician expresses a position that taking those fruits to spread to others is a good thing, that politician is demonstrating via *his* conclusion that his positions are antithetical to my position. The thing is that my position has been historically demonstrated to provide the greatest benefit to people while his position has been demonstrated to provide the greatest damage to nations and people.


Like I said, it's too bad leftists don't get irony. You are one funny dude.
--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
[snip]
Since I haven't seen the results of his IQ test, Mark, I'll freely admit that ... my characterization of Obama as having a high IQ IS a statement of opinion.
But ... that should have been obvious. That's a quantifiable number, that, AFAIK, has NOT been released.
You just wasted a ton of typing ... making yourself look like an idiot ... in the process of trying to discredit me.
NONE of the things YOU invoked, under the auspices of "defining" a high IQ ... really ARE relevant.
He either has a high IQ, or ... he doesn't.
I think he does.
But ... keep typing yourself into a frenzy, over the subject. It's amusing.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Neil Brooks wrote:

I mentioned standardized test scores and YOU indicated that you didn't say he did well on standardized tests and then assert that you know he has a high IQ. Know how IQ is measured? That's right, via a standardized test. To use a method that seems to be all the rage: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iq_test>

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark & Juanita wrote:

Thats about as perfectly said as I've seen....

That too! Thanks for the great read.
--
Jack
Got Change: Democratic Republic ======> Banana Republic!
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Neil Brooks wrote:

Alright, that's it, he's either a flippin' troll or extreme leftwinger. i.e., he is someone with the "do as I say, not as I do" mindset. This very subthread is brought about by Neil's anecdotal evidence: "I've got lots of high-IQ people in my family, therefore, I know what it looks like" , thus using this anecdotal "evidence" (quotes on evidence, since WE haven't seen those members of Neil's family and we certainly can tell from his postings that this observation does not apply to himself) he asserts that Obama looks like those members of his family (not sure who that insults more, Obama, or Neil's family, but we'll let that one lie).
Good heavens, you really don't get irony, do you?
Alright, I'm done getting muddy.
--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Or ... neither.
Pretty centrist, actually.

I'll say it again: it's my opinion, based on lots of factors.

YOU can't. I have no doubt about that :-)

Balls-out lie, on your part, but ... not surprising.
Go on....

"Lie" IS the right word, though -- YOUR lie.

I can't imagine.
rec.woodworking: where OT (Off-Topic) is okay, but OO (Off (prevailing collective) Opinion) is not ;-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Neil Brooks wrote:

Surveys show that most left-wingers consider themselves to be "centrists." For example, virtually all liberals consider the NY Times to be a middle-of-the-road newspaper.

Which is it? An "opinion" is a firmly held belief NOT based on facts.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yabbut none wear their passion on their sleeves like a totally committed close-minded right winger. I like to poke a stick at them and watch them go off and laugh as they start chanting the party line. Truth is, many a right-winger will deliberately antagonize a lefti- winger as well. My personal political leanings are a mixed bag. I understand, actually understand, the plight of the less fortunate, the need for a minimal protection for those who get sick, etc. Yet I have always run my own businesses under very conservative helmsmanship and I vote against bigger government and more taxes. I vote conservative (republican without the fringe lunatic hypocrisy of those who scream 'right-to- life' but send other people's kids to die in a war based on lies.) I am more like the people I poke at in here than not and that is why I know their soft spots on their underbellies. In fact I'm to the right of centrist. But in here? As soon as you say anything in support of a national health care system, you're hit with labels of socialist, communist and that rot. That, to me, gives me the oxygen to poke at them. I have no problem with 'the right', I have a problem with blind fanaticism. That crew that puts a gun in your face because you disagree with them.
Your brand of conservatism is a pleasure to read and the fact that there is always a thread of humour woven into it augments the intelligent presentation. (You don't wanna see the shit I can write when I kiss ass.)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

Don't concern yourself about sending other people's kids to die in a foreign war. Those "kids" want to be there, they need to be there. These "kids" are not cannon-fodder; they are our volunteer warrior class.
A recent survey found that 85% of those who've served in Afghanistan or Iraq reenlisted at the first opportunity. The remaining 15%, I suppose, retired, were invalided out, or married harridans.
And, of course, a national health system is communism (with a small "c").
If it were up to me, I'd close the VA hospitals by tomorrow.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Still their civilian overlords use them as a tool to protect and advance their interests in oil, poppy fields etc. I'm not sure the military are supposed to work for Big Oil. (Then again, I am aware that Hannibal rounded the Alps to steal the Italians' pesto, so nothing new here..)

Many soldiers become fighters for what's right, to stomp out bad, or just to play with fun equipment. The direction they're pointed at isn't really up to them. They don't ask questions. I do.

Unfortunately, free enterprise doesn't know how to control itself when presented with an opportunity to plunder a sick person's coffers. Our daughter had a concussion she incurred during a rugby match in Columbus Ohio. Fortunately, we had insurance coverage to the max (now THERE's another trustworthy bunch) so we didn't get screwed over too badly. BUT, we did see all the bills come across our desk and I tell you, somebody is screwing somebody in a huge way. $ 834.60 for a 15 minute ride from the field to the emerg, 6 miles? $ 600 to take an x- ray and $ 400 for somebody to look at it? Could the real culprit be the rates to support the litigious/insurance complex? Anyway, I see healthcare like air and water, we should be allowed to live.

How so?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Nice way to support those who have served.
Mark
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Markem wrote:

I didn't say those who served shouldn't be supported, I said the VA hospitals should be closed.
Under my plan, Veterans could still get treatment at any competent medical facility and the VA picks up the tab. This has a couple of advantages over the current system.
1. For many, even most, veterans, there is a perfectly capable medical facility closer than their assigned VA hospital. By having treatment locally, the veteran stands a better chance of complying with the treatment regimen and cuts down on the expense and time of travel.
2. Local hospitals could use the business, thereby being better able to serve their local community.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.