Yes, that's why I'm here is to change the way others think about things important to me.
17% (4 votes)
No, but it's interesting to see people try anyway.
48% (11 votes)
I'm just here because Facebook isn't a large enough waste of time for me.
22% (5 votes)
I've got them all on the verge of reason... I Will Never Give Up... Can't...stop...now!
13% (3 votes)
Total votes: 23
So, here is what I'm wondering about...
I've often seen people on both sides of an issue argue until myself or another member of the faculty steps in and puts a forcible stop to it. Neither side listens, personal attacks come about - it's a big, ugly mess. But why do we do it?
Do we really think we can change someone's mind in one of these arguments? More specifically, do you think you can change another Progressive U member's mind through these arguments?
I like to think that the students here at Progressive U are better, more informed than students that participate in other debate forums or social sites. We encourage informed debates, and boy do you come through for us everytime. I've often seen people from either side of an issue mellow out on their absolutisms regarding various topics - but I've never seen a person change his or her mind altogether about a particular issue. Why do you think that is?
And quite often, despite our encouragement to discuss and share knowledge - it often seems as though the more a topic is discussed and facts are brought to life, the closer people hold to their convictions and opinions. Should we be trying to debate at all?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"when you have nothing else to say, "Fwonk" is always the perfect thing."
"yeah well, fwonk"
--Devon
Fanaile Essence
As debates rage arguments are refined. The topics with the least flexibility are the ones with the most complex positions on either side. Simple questions of fact can be resolved easily, while the more involved questions surrounding religion, and politics appear to yield little if at all. It is these complex positions which actually change in less obvious ways. Ego often prevents surrender, but if you are interested enough to carry on, or read (unless that reading is merely a quest for TOS violations) these debates there are plenty of subtle variety involved in what appear to be polar opposites clashing.
Hopefully there is also a broadening of awareness of what those that hold opposing positions ACTUALLY believe and why. Even if the opposing position just pisses you off there is tremendous potential for insight into why you let it.
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends upon the unreasonable man."
- George Bernard Shaw
I didn't vote on this poll because none of those are mai stance. Maybe if you added:
No, I want to see what other's think of my ideas.
Then I would click that one.
Generally, you cant change any one's mind or idea, esp not on here or via the net. You may be able to incite them to amend their argument, so that they address issues they didnt think of, etc...
Nothing is impossible, but if someone does change their position on something, they've come to that idea on their own, they will have to convince themselves of the new 'right'.
About the blarguing and personal attacks etc... Mai position is nearly always mai right to exist. Infringement on others is so 1860's. Why does so much upset occur at someone's position on something? It's peachy if you dont agree with me, but why be nasty cuz you dont agree with me? That's weird. Honestly, often it seems like users LOOK for opportunities to conflict. Is that what ProgressiveU is all about? I dont want to change people, I want them to accept me, and therefore be more willing to accept things not themselves. I think that's cool, but have seen it met with opposition too many times to care about opposition anymore.
Beaten into Perseverance... sounds like the title of a play
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/mai
Peace & Blessings
Why does so much upset occur at someone's position on something? It's peachy if you dont agree with me, but why be nasty cuz you dont agree with me?
Usually, these "blarguments" as you call them occur because someone has either A) made a false or deceptive statement and been called out on it, of B) made some outlandish assertion that they could not support with evidence when asked to do so.
Personally, I find the distribution of false, fabricated and fraudulent information to be potentially damaging to society as well as to individuals. Its all well and good if someone wants to believe that magical pink unicorns bring them their mail every morning, but I think that it is irresponsible to let claims of that sort go unchallenged.
There is a popular adage that says, "A lie repeated enough times becomes truth." Some of us simply cannot tolerate the idea that if we do not speak out, some of our readers might in fact begin to believe those lies.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
That explains why you (general you) should be nasty, patronizing, and as abrasive as Rush Limbaugh? NO!! No, no, no, no, NO, NO, NOOOO!!!!! That is a lie, don't repeat it, or it may become truth to someone!!! To late? Never to late!!!
Here's one position no one on here is going to get me to change (though I'm sure that wont stop interested ones in trying): It is never progressive to be (respond in a way that is) nasty, rude, or patronizing to an idea. (If anything it serves the antithesis to change) AND a '2 wrongs make a right' mentality is reprehensible as well.
Challenge away, that is a part of seeing what others think of your ideas and helps to amend and further develop your convictions. I LOVE IT.
But petty nasities are pathetic, because they try to be witty but end up being trite. Not to mention blur the truth.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/mai
Peace & Blessings
I'm sorry (not really), but hucksters, frauds and liars bring out the "worst" in me. I usually give people the benefit of the doubt at first, but then my tone becomes increasingly less forgiving the more they insist on repeating a lie. I also don't think there is anything of value to be gaining in putting on a false face of gentility for someone who has been caught red-handed in the perpetration of a fraud. Nor do I think that we encourage progressive thinking by affording poor reasoning and dishonest chicanery the same respect as we would to someone who actually thinks and speaks honestly about thier issues.
Ultimately, whether you like it or not, there's nothing in the ToS that requires anyone to be "nice" to you. Discussions at ProU can get hot without actually bursting into flames. If you can't take the heat, maybe you should stay out of the kitchen.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
...whether you like it or not, there's nothing in the ToS that requires anyone to be "nice" to you...If you can't take the heat, maybe you should stay out of the kitchen.
Those who want me to disappear have motives that are 'un-nice' and therefore backfire :) I get so much attention how could I leave!! :) smiling ;) laughing :) whinkin' ;) jolly
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/mai
Peace & Blessings
...but really, YOU'RE not really the subject of the discussion at hand (regardless of how applicable my general repudiations of dishonest bloggers may or may not be towards you).
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I'm just happy to see the words 'glad' and 'sorry' in your responses, even if they are quarter-hearted. We're glad all around! I see progress! I see forward movement!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/mai
Peace & Blessings
Mai, I can not take the abuse, it's actually unhealthy for me and I mean abuse as in psychological abuse and sometimes it might be affecting the physical
“You cannot wean away an addict from the drug. It is not possible for me to walk away from Ranjha. If it is our destiny to be together then who, other than God, can change it?”
she's a spaceman, no walker, dreamer...maybe
My mother-in-law was sharing a teaching she remembered as a Krishna devotee. One of her teachers told her in response to her questioning how a loving God could allow for the suffering of children, he answered her that in reality where we see horrible suffering, God has spared the child, by numbing their spirit at the time of the terrible abuse, so that they don't have to experience it to the degree that we assume they do.
At first I thought this was totally absurd, but then I thought more introspectively. To be honest, it makes a certain kind of sense. Human defenses are amazing. In my own life, the acute suffering came after the abuses I experienced. At the time, I was sleep walking, not processing, busying my mind with making up all kinds of rules and stories.
The problem is that the abuse leaves its mark, and is irreversible. What is truly tragic is that for most, the abuses become embedded in their story of reality. The abuse is absorbed and normalized. That is why children can torture and kill animals. That is why people grow up to be monstrous specimens of our human race. That is what I think our systems really fail to see.
yes, we acknowledge that most abusers and horrible criminals were abused at some point, but what about the ones that don't become such monstrous people? The ones that simply turn inward, and abuse themselves for the rest of their lives, with drugs, sex or eating disorder behavior? The silent ones are the ones that often carry the most pain.
If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!
Blackout, I agree with you on your take on how frauds and liars and other evil people should be dealt with, but the problem is that you are not always making the best argument about certain issues yourself. I was looking over some of our discussions and I've noticed that you have not always been completely honest. In the global warming debates you did present a (very) limited case for your point of view that humans are causing global warming but spent most of your time and effort constantly harassing me to provide strong scientific evidence of my point of view, which is not an unreasonable demand. The unreasonable demand is the criteria for where such information could com e from that was unreasonable. You looked good because you got the upper hand due to the way you approached the issue and I did not catch what you were doing.I have quality requirements for presenting such information and I felt I simply shouldn't take the time to do it now because I'd like to devote my free time to homework and other blogs here. When I do a project or writing for a college class I do an A project and that's all there is too it. That's who I am. The simple truth is that the requirements for information and opinions you were willing to accept was much too narrow to get a balanced perspective. I am willing to look at the global warming blogs as a botched debate that either of us was really on the right track.
it is your other comments that I take issue with more. You say that it is factually incorrect that the American people can't vote federal judges out of office even though you know better. There are other examples as well. With all due respect, you may want to consider whether you fit your own criteria. I like you and I think you are an awesome and dedicated blogger but you need to realize that your opinion of good reasoning may differ from others. And I can tell you right now that you're idea of progressive thinking is not entirely the same as mine. Just something to think about.
..then you should make that case in the discussion beneath those blogs. As for what constitutes a "reasonable criteria" for evidence within a discussion, that's something that is in general defined by the context of the discussion. If you're talking about science, for example, then the "reasonable criteria" would seem to appropriately set by the standards which scientists themselves use to determine the validity and credibility of scientific claims. If you're talking about logic, then likewise those standards are set by the disciplines in which formal and informal logic are studied and their aspects codified.
But on a practical level, the only "criteria" that you have to meet in a discussion here at ProU is the respect of the membership. THEY are the ones who level-set what makes or what does not make a "good" argument. If you rise to that level, then you get respect, here. If you fall below it, you are likely to be ridiculed accordingly. There's no teacher here grading your papers, my friend. You can hang your arguments on whatever flimsy threads of reasoning and evidence you wish. You should not feign surprise, however, when that thread snaps beneath the weight when someone tests it with a substantial counter-argument.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Okay you missed the point but what's new? Since you are willing to say that it is "Factually incorrect" that American people don't have any power to remove bad federal judges and very limited power, in most states, to remove state judges then you obviously don't see lying and unsubstantiated put-downs as a big issue. Do you do the whole double standards thing Blackout? Too many people have double standards so you certainly don't need to have them. I mentioned my "A" papers as an example that its quite unlikely that all of my professors are wrong about me and you are right. Let the appropriate people make academic evaluations of me because you're doing so equals nothing more than slander. I would hope the folks here at Progressive U would see your academic evaluations of me as arrogant and slanderous, because that is what they are. I'm smart, I write well, and I'm well informed and your comments don't change that. Were you an "A" student in college? Maybe you were and maybe you weren't but you should know that one who fits your demeaning descriptions of me is far from an "A" student. You can try to bring me down, but I know what the truth is. You said you feel bad for my future students as well. I'm sure they appreciate that unfounded sympathy but I will make an awesome teacher. Don't say things about me that are slanderous and false. That is all I'm asking.
Okay you missed the point but what's new?
Certianly not your petulant attitude and denials.
Since you are willing to say that it is "Factually incorrect" that American people don't have any power to remove bad federal judges and very limited power, in most states, to remove state judges then you obviously don't see lying and unsubstantiated put-downs as a big issue.
It is factually incorrect. All federal judges are subject to the process of impeachment. You lack of familiarity with that process doesn't make it any less true.
Do you do the whole double standards thing Blackout?
No, I do not. If I say something that is incorrect, I expect other members of this site to correct me. I do expect them to be able to back it up when they do so, however. Denials without evidence do not constitute a valid correction.
Too many people have double standards so you certainly don't need to have them.
Where is this double-standard you keep talking about? You made false statements, and I corrected you. There's no double-standard, there.
I mentioned my "A" papers as an example that its quite unlikely that all of my professors are wrong about me and you are right.
The grades you may or may not have received in a high school classroom do not make your assertions regarding global warming or constitutional law any more correct. I don't know your teachers, and so I can't say why they would give you a passing grade if your papers contained the gross inaccuracies which have been included in your comments, here.
Let the appropriate people make academic evaluations of me because you're doing so equals nothing more than slander.
That would be libel, actually (since blogs are a written medium). But your appeal to such a criminal enterprise is incorrect in any case. Libel only occurs when the statement A) damages the reputation of the victim in a material way and B) is false. Everything have said to you and about you is factually defensible insofar as I have claimed it to be.
I would hope the folks here at Progressive U would see your academic evaluations of me as arrogant and slanderous, because that is what they are.
You say, "arrogant and slanderous," but I say, "insightful and dead-on-accurate." Tomato, tomahto.
I'm smart,
I can't say...
I write well,
Yes, you do.
[qutoe]and I'm well informed[/quote]
I'm sorry, but no...you are not.
and your comments don't change that.
Your comments speak for themselves, my friend. You have been given repeated opportunities to support your scientific opinions with evidence, and in every case you have refused and instead fallen back into ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments. You have also said a great many things about the Law and the Constitution which are clearly inaccurate based issued opinions issued the relevant authorities.
I would hope the folks here at Progressive U would see your academic evaluations of me as arrogant and slanderous, because that is what they are.
I'll leave it to "the folks" to decide that, if they wish.
I'm smart, I write well, and I'm well informed and your comments don't change that. Were you an "A" student in college?
You do in fact turn a phrase rather nicely, I admit. I have never criticized your ability to compose. Your comments receive an 'A' for composition, but an 'F' for content. I was an 'A' student, btw. I graduated high school with honors (I was third honor student in high school and the state star student on my SAT's). In college I graduated with fewer honors (thanks to my discovery of beer), but was still an 'A' student. My degree is in English Literature with minors in Political and Computer Science.
Maybe you were and maybe you weren't but you should know that one who fits your demeaning descriptions of me is far from an "A" student.
I would suggest that the mollycoddling that you appear to have received in high school will not serve you well as you reach towards a higher degree of education. Students in most universities are expected to perform for their grades, and they aren't given pats on the head and told, "nice try" when they attempt to b.s. themselves through a paper or test by replacing content with style.
You can try to bring me down, but I know what the truth is.
There's no need for me to do anything of the sort. YOU set the level of respect that you will receive, both here and elsewhere in your life. You do this through you own attitude and actions.
You said you feel bad for my future students as well.
If you try to teach your students the grossly inaccurate concepts which you have presented here, and attempt to abuse them in the manner which you attempted (unsuccessfully) with me when I challenged the accuracy of your opinions, then yes, I do in fact fell bad for them.
I'm sure they appreciate that unfounded sympathy but I will make an awesome teacher. Don't say things about me that are slanderous and false. That is all I'm asking.
I have not an I will not. I will however point out the hypocrisy of your saying this. You have repeatedly resorted to name calling in your comments, for example...
Are you stupid?...Are you stupid or just not very bright?
People who live in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
You clearly don't understand how federal judges can be removed from office. The voters at large have no way of removing federal judges, only a two thirds vote in each House of Congress (which is only 535 people). If you continue to deny this fact and refuse to admit you were wrong than is it really worth continuing this discussion. It's a clear cut fact Blackout so what's the problem? You can rant and rave about me and make slanderous and false remarks about how I am ignorant of the constitution and Supreme Court decisions regarding said document, but you are wrong here. An by the way, I don't think there is even a court opinion that says the constitution permits common American voters to kick bad federal judges out of office and off the taxpayer-funded payroll. You must not have grasped (as I suspected) much of anything I have said if you can't even realize that I was correct on this clear cut fact. It's simple Blackout. Admit you were wrong or continue to lie and say blatantly false things. If you do the latter then I have no reason to continue this particular discussion. You are the fraud.
...it must first be true that I am in fact, "wrong." In this case, I am not. A basic principle of representative government is that voters elect representatives who act in thier name. Its really a very simply idea.
I don't think there is even a court opinion that says the constitution permits common American voters to kick bad federal judges out of office and off the taxpayer-funded payroll.
United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974)
You must not have grasped (as I suspected) much of anything I have said if you can't even realize that I was correct on this clear cut fact. It's simple Blackout. Admit you were wrong or continue to lie and say blatantly false things. If you do the latter then I have no reason to continue this particular discussion. You are the fraud.
Unfortunately (for you) the only way that you could be considered "correct" here would be if we completly disregarded the fundamental structure of our Republic, and tossed out the basic principle that the common voter acts most directly through the acts of his elected representatives. I am sorry if the basis structure of a Constitutional Republic is too arcane for you, but that is in fact how things really work.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Let me put it to you this way, where and when do I go to the polls and cast a vote that makes any kind of determination on a federal judge's privilege office? It seems like you should be able to answer that question with ease since it is "factually incorrect" that American people do not elect or remove Federal judges. When's the last time you voted in an election where the ballot said or implied anything whatsoever about a federal judge? The answer is, of course, never, because we, as voters, don't elect or dismiss federal judges. Dammit Blackout this is so simple and clear cut that I will now say what I say in chess when I defeat my opponent, checkmate!
Let me put it to you this way, where and when do I go to the polls and cast a vote that makes any kind of determination on a federal judge's privilege office? It seems like you should be able to answer that question with ease since it is "factually incorrect" that American people do not elect or remove Federal judges.
You do it when you go to the polls to elect a President (who has the power to appoint judges) or your Congressmen (who have the power to impeach). Honestly, do you REALLY not understand the way that representative government works?
When's the last time you voted in an election where the ballot said or implied anything whatsoever about a federal judge? The answer is, of course, never, because we, as voters, don't elect or dismiss federal judges. Dammit Blackout this is so simple and clear cut that I will now say what I say in chess when I defeat my opponent, checkmate!
Ah, but NOW you are moving the goalpost. Your original assertion was this...
American people don't have any power to remove bad federal judges and very limited power, in most states, to remove state judges
Now that your assertion proved itself to be false, you are trying to retroactively change what it was that you said. Tsk, tsk. You are correct that you are not likely to see a federal judges removal per se on a ballot, but you DO have the power to remove a judge. It is the same power that voters have in ALL matters at the federal level, which is to act through their representatives.
I would also suggest that before you declare checkmate, you should review the board to make sure that your opponent doesn't have a move to make that you may have missed. You seem to enjoy arbitrarily declaring yourself the victor in these exchanges, but once again your crow has come before the dawn. As for me, I will let our readers make that determination.
TTFN,
Blackout
P.S. On a side note, your arguments here are completely off topic. If you wish to continue a debate about federal judgeships, I would suggest starting a blog on that topic.
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Electing a president who, when the time come, will nominate federal judges, later to be confirmed by Congress, is not giving the voters any kind of reasonable say into who becomes a federal judge. Likewise, the voter have no reasonable say into what judges are removed from the bench. You have misunderstood so many thing I've said and are being so stubborn on this issue its quite bizarre. Behavior I may except from a ten year but not a forty-somethings man. I have no freaking clue why I continue down this dead end with you.
...and for someone who is as "pro-constitution" as you claim to be, I find it...interesting...that you think the Constitutional provisions that specifically define the process by which federal office holders can be removed is "unreasonable." Perhaps if you were better infomed regarding the way that a republican form of government actually works, you would not have so much difficulty with these concepts. As for "misunderstanding" you, I admit that it is difficult to harvest any meaningful understanding from your mecurial, disjointed and often contradictory positions. I would also suggest that I am not the one behaving like a ten-year-old, but like so many things in the world of internet discussions, I will leave that as well to the judgment of our readers.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
...and for someone who is as "pro-constitution" as you claim to be, I find it...interesting...that you think the Constitutional provisions that specifically define the process by which federal office holders can be removed is "unreasonable."
You are being absurd now. You are crazy or something. I never said that the process by which office holders can be removed is unreasonable in the context that you are claiming. If that's what you got from my comments than that is more evidence of either your failure to comprehend simple concepts or your desire to play mind games or something. Here is what I said word for word.
Electing a president who, when the time comes, will nominate federal judges, later to be confirmed by Congress, is not giving the voters any kind of reasonable say into who becomes a federal judge. Likewise, the voter have no reasonable say into what judges are removed from the bench.
I never said the constitutional process is unreasonable, I just said that it provides no reasonable power to the voters at large to remove or appoint federal judges. That doesn't mean that I feel the process is bad. In fact, I find nothing wrong with it and think it provides a good and stable method of appointing, confirming, or removing any federal judge for bad behavior. It is an unacceptable, flat out lie, that you would claim I said I (me) think that "Constitutional provisions that specifically define the process by which federal office holders can be removed is "unreasonable." I said nothing of the sort and it is wrong to claim I did.
Perhaps if you were better infomed regarding the way that a republican form of government actually works, you would not have so much difficulty with these concepts. As for "misunderstanding" you, I admit that it is difficult to harvest any meaningful understanding from your mecurial, disjointed and often contradictory positions. I would also suggest that I am not the one behaving like a ten-year-old, but like so many things in the world of internet discussions, I will leave that as well to the judgment of our readers.
Perhaps if you actually discussed and addressed what I said rather than claim I said things I never did, then you would not have so much difficulty seeing that your recent slander is unethical and amounts to nothing more than lying. My positions contradictory? Yes my real opinions contradict what you say my opinion is in your slanderous remarks. That is precisely the problem, that what you say I said contradicts what I really did.
I was, despite our disagreements, starting to like you. But seriously, I think you need to realize the many problems with this latest discussion that you are causing by spouting blatantly falsely accusations and lying. I seriously take issue with you misrepresenting what I say and trying to make me defend opinions that aren't my own. I've spent most of my time on this thread trying to make you realize that you are misrepresenting my point of view rather than engaging in discussion about the issue at hand. I determine my opinions not you. Get a grip on it. I think there is seriously something wrong with you and I refuse to allow your deceptions, slander, manipulations, and lies to drive a conversation forward. I'm done here if you cannot respond to this appropriately. I have better things to do and better people in my life to have discussions with.
...and so I will reply to you, below.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
For what its worth, I thought I'd insert my two cents. I must admit I am growing weary of reading your comments. I won't even go back to blackout's blog on Vermont because the banter became so clouded with hurt personal feelings, the issue got completely pushed aside.
Blackout can be harsh, and he doesn't mince words. I myself have been under his fire before, and I understand that it is uncomfortable. However, if you spend more time on the site you will see that he is very consistent, and right. I have only learned from him, and am personally glad that we have him here. He brings a voice of clarity and reason to arguments across the board.
If you feel personally attacked by him, I can say you are not alone, others feel that way too, but the truth is, his attacks are not personal. He is very "vocal" about calling out falsehoods, and very knowledgeable. When he doesn't know something off the top of his head, he searches amazing sources and shares them. He is honestly the most honest blogger on this site. I have often quoted him or his sources in my own school work. That is another gift he gives.
You would do well to consider his feedback, because while it may make you uncomfortable, if you absorb the truth in it, you will find that you will learn and grow. I think of blackout as a coach of sorts. He doesn't let anything go unnoticed, and he will call you out if you slip up. Honestly, he is one of the reasons I love this site so much, and one of the reasons I have stayed on. I know one thing, if I want the validity of anything I argue to be examined, I can trust blackout.
BTW, I don't know how far you got in the global warming argument, but if you haven't already, I strongly suggest you check out Darwin's Beagle's blog. If you have counter evidence of that quality, I am sure you would have a lot of us interested.
If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!
Blackout has not demonstrated that he has superior political knowledge than me. All he has been doing is making absurd claims and asking condescending questions like "Do you honestly not know how representative governemnt works?" and tweaking what I say so he is able to mock me. He basically asserts that I am a complete political idiot and that is called slander and is completely unacceptable. How do you suppose I learn anything when I am constantly rebuffing the personal (and false) insults that he throws at me. The only thing I've learned from him is that you can undermine somebody's political knowledge by twisting their words and telling calculated lies thus resulting in a decline of their overall reputation, Perhaps I am too ethical to win when I'm up against this insulting nonsense. I know so much about the federal judiciary that I could teach an hour long lesson on how it works without doing prior research. However Blackout insists that, among other things, I don't know anything about the federal courts. These false assertions are very inappropriate, insulting, and unethical. Blackout misinterprets things I say (possibly on purpose) and then when I clarify my statement continues to insist that he knows what I meant more than him. He uses unethical tactics to make an argument. By the way, I don't believe he did this in our global warming discussion so it kind of surprised me to discover his unfair portrayal of my character and highly uncivilized manner of debate. No insult to mentally disabled intended, I would have to moderately retarded to fit Blackout's overall portrayal of me.
I'm not wasting anymore time explaining what is happening here to those who have a respect for Blackout, like I used to. Maybe he never used these highly unethical character attacks on other threads. Perhaps my unique, fair, informed, intelligent, and complex viewpoints on political issues are too much for him to handle? It really does take a smart person to understand my opinions and I strongly believe that Blackout posses this intelligence, however there is an ethical aspect to it and maybe he just doesn't realize what he's doing. I cannot take anymore of the concealed, sneaky, well-calculated, and most importantly false, attacks that are being made against my character.
If the site administrators have a problem with me pointing this stuff out then delete my posts and ban me forever. You'd be doing me a favor. I don't have anything against them personally but if they are going to tolerate Blackout's defamation but nail me to the cross for pointing out how unethical the slanderous comments being made are then this is the wrong place for me.
Turtlesuds, If you don't understand what's going on here and are unwilling to take an open minded look at what really occurred in our exchanges than please understand when I don't reply anymore to anything on this thread because I have said everything in every possible way and there is no more I can do.
He basically asserts that I am a complete political idiot
Untrue. I have asserted that your positions are poorly informed and that many of the statements you have made are factually incorrect. Besides, if I were going to call you a name, it would not be "idiot." An "idiot" is "a person affected with extreme mental retardation." Ignorance (bet it willful or accidental) is not the same thing as idiocy.
and that is called slander and is completely unacceptable.
And once again, it if happens in an internet forum or blog, its called libel, not slander. As for its acceptability, I am careful to stay within ProU's terms of service which are far more restrictive than what the legal limitations of libel would allow. If you're sure, however, you can always try to sue me. Here's a website that tells you how.
How to Sue Someone for Internet Libel
However Blackout insists that, among other things, I don't know anything about the federal courts. These false assertions are very inappropriate, insulting, and unethical.
I never said that you "don't know ANYTHING about the federal courts," but the facts are that several of the things that you said are demonstrably incorrect, and I provided citations linked to credible sources which supported my corrections of your inaccurate statements.
By the way, I don't believe he did this in our global warming discussion so it kind of surprised me to discover his unfair portrayal of my character and highly uncivilized manner of debate.
People who live in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones. Its hard to play the "poor me" card when you keep saying things like this in your comments...
Are you stupid?...Are you stupid or just not very bright?
Perhaps my unique, fair, informed, intelligent, and complex viewpoints on political issues are too much for him to handle?
As I have said before, I will leave it to our readers to decide which of us has the more "unique, fair, informed, intelligent, and complex viewpoints." You can crow your superiority to the other lost boys all day long, but in the end the true measure of the effectiveness of your arguments will be found in the number and kinds of people that they convince.
If the site administrators have a problem with me pointing this stuff out then delete my posts and ban me forever.
LOL...unless you violate the ToS, we're not going to make it that easy for you. What we will do is continue to challege you to actually support the assertions you make through rational argument and based on actual, objective evidence.
I don't have anything against them personally but if they are going to tolerate Blackout's defamation but nail me to the cross for pointing out how unethical the slanderous comments being made are then this is the wrong place for me.
As with many things, the facts of the situation are somewhat at odds with your conclusions and subsequent accusations. You can whine and cry all you like, but the limits of the ToS are very clear, and just because you don't like being called out when you screw up doesn't make it a violation of the ToS.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Liberals don't like Rush Limbaugh because he tells the truth and uses statistics. Yes, he is abrasive, however that is the only way of getting anywhere inside the thick, ignorant skull of the uninformed American liberal.
Government has no other end, but the preservation of property. - John Locke
Um ....what do you mean " if someone wants to believe that magical pink unicorns bring them their mail every morning, but I think that it is irresponsible to let claims of that sort go unchallenged." Are you saying that they don't? They do and they have flashlight butterfly helpers that sprinkle dust to open the boxes... This is where the fairy fable comes from, just look it up on Wikipedia.
There are very few human beings who receive the truth, complete and staggering, by instant illumination. Most of them acquire it fragment by fragment, on a small scale, by successive developments, cellularly, like a laborious mosaic.~- Anais Nin
That is true Blackout. The more we misrepresent facts or blatantly lie to convince others, we ultimately end up convincing ourselves that there is truth to the lie. Alcoholics in denial probably genuinely believe that they don't have a problem or that they got it under control when they clearly don't. It is a fascinating phenomena that can also be used for political gain. Obama, while officially campaigning (he still is now), said little more than catch phrases like "eight years of failure" or "eight years of failed Bush policy" and "Change we can believe in" and there were a few more. So many people believed that bullshit and were not bothered by his failure to be held accountable for his recent history political history and extreme leftists opinions. He won the election because he hypnotized people with the word change. The good little socialist robots that voted for him often fail miserably at coming up with any other reason for doing so other than a repletion of Obama's catch phrases. One girl I asked could say nothing more than "uhh I like change." I told her its a shame she didn't live in Nazi Germany in the 1930s, because she could have voted for Htiler. Hitler was charismatic, and became president in bad economic times (like 50% unemployment) and tremendous inflation. He promised change. Mysteriously, Obama voters overwhelmingly say they don't support Hitler's policies. Which is weird because Hitler promised and delivered change to an easily manipulated population. The point is that there half brains only allowed them to realize half of the applications of change, therefore unable to see how change can be awful and evil only how it could be good. I think it is immoral to use this type of manipulation, but maybe when Obama stops financing baby brain skull bashers around the whole freaking world he will see the immorality.
I'm sorry, but that little rant doesn't really make ANY sense at all.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
That is exactly what it was - A rant. A pretty damn good one at that. I'm the master at ranting but saying some of the most insightful and clever things when I do. I know you're jealous! No I did not just go crazy, I've been that way for quite a while. It was a good rant and I'm very proud of it.
I will leave it to our readers to decide if that opinion is warranted. Oh, and I think you have confused the phrase "pretty damn good" with "hysterical and unintelligible."
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Maybe if you didn't constantly lie then it would be fair to allow our readers to make judgments. But unless people read our whole very very long discussion (which they won't) they will not know the extent of your misrepresentation of fact, inability to comprehend simple points of view, and slanderous, unproductive responses.
...I trust to our readers to discern for themselves which of us has behaved with more integrity in our respective presentations.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Do people really think comparing Obama to Hitler is clever? They must, because it keeps popping up. All it takes to be compared to Hitler these days, I guess, is to give good speeches and promote change.
I am now seeing a striking similarity between Hitler and Jesus!
A+ at tossing around random invectives to promote a baseless hatred.
"What a crazy random happenstance!"
Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog
Read my Blog!
You know, I just read a story where a Jew was remembering a time when he went with his friends as a member of the Nazi Youth, and Hitler himself said this young man was the perfect example of the Aryan race....
That has very little to do with what you said, but it's been on my mind since I read the story.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
because I was inclined to laugh at your comment, but then realized that this is really happening. I swear, sometimes I am ashamed to claim my species.
If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!
Well, I would not venture to say that Obama has killed more people than Hitler, however Obama has showed strong support for abortion, which has killed a far greater number of innocent human beings than Hitler was ever able to do.
Government has no other end, but the preservation of property. - John Locke
I was using Hitler as an example of how change in politics is not always good. Do we need change? Yes we certainly do and Obama robot voters needed no other reason to vote for him other than the ambigous "change" he was going to bring. The masses in 1930s Germany fell prey to a very similiar scenario. Bad economy, candidate chanting that he was going to change things, and a bunch of stupid people are good ingredients for manipulation. Both Hitler and Obama used people's pathetic stupidity to their advantage in order to rise to power. Fortunately, Obama is not anything like Hitler, but he still would have been elected if he was. I personally think it is immoral to take advantage of idiot voters who barely have the neural capacity to breathe and walk, in order to rise to power. But then again I think it is also immoral to kill babies by bashing their skulls open and sucking their brains out and Obama seems to also disagree with me there as well.
That's exactly how I felt about Sarah Palin. "Heil, Big Sister!"
If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!
I don't get how the anti-Obama camp can keep calling his policies ambiguous. He was very clear throughout the campaign about his policies. Stump speeches are never a point by point delineation of policies, no matter who the candidate, because they are given at rallies. But in the debates, in interviews, in media reports, and on his website, there were very clear plans laid out. I knew exactly what I was voting for, as did all of the people I know. We discussed it at length well before he ever received the nomination. I don't know how so many people missed it, unless it was through willful ignorance. I suspect this is (still) the case.
"Never go with a hippy to a second location."
~Jack Donaghy
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
I am not going to speak for the anti-Obama camp, but you claim to know where he stands on the issues. Then it did not surprise you that he choice not to make any laws to allow same sex marriage. You are not shocked that he would spend more money then the government is receive. You are not caught off guard that after he said that he was going to go though the budget and line out every wasteful spending out of it he somehow got a much bigger budget. How about "I plan to make it easier for families to put food" on the table and how he is going to try to put in cap and trade. Which will make the cost of energy go up.
I have never claimed that I did not know the main points of Obama. I just do not like them. His tax plan is a nightmare. If you increase taxes on business that tax is passed on to the consumer. His vast spending (which I did not know was going to reach this high) I had an idea that he was going to do. I did not like it because one day we will have to pay it off and that means all of us not just the rich. I know that his stance on the military changed during the election I am glad that it has not reverted. I knew where he stood on abortion.
"Something given has no value"~Robert Heinlein
And if you're seeing lines in my writing that you feel you need to read between, they aren't there. ~N. Ledger
I wasn't responding to your comment.
"Never go with a hippy to a second location."
~Jack Donaghy
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
You think I was not following the flow. The previous comments where about Obama and Hitler. Since I assume this to be a BS argument and not a fair comparison, I choose to move away from it. I will disagree with him and his polices on what they are. If someone can not fight against a person without resorting to name call then they should not start the fight. The comment more localized to your post was about the great "change" motto being ambiguous. Then you said and I quote
I knew exactly what I was voting for
after you stated that I assume that you knew everything about Obama and if you did not know then you should amend your statement to I knew enough to vote for him and inform us of what you knew.
Also on a side note my comment to you was my first comment on this poll. I do tip my hat to you for avoiding the questions I have for you, you are one of the few people that I have a great amount of respect for on this site. Thank you and have a great day.
"Something given has no value"~Robert Heinlein
And if you're seeing lines in my writing that you feel you need to read between, they aren't there. ~N. Ledger
Are you and wpjh2694 (or whatever his name is) the same person? Because that's to whom I was responding. The way you addressed the issue, it seemed as if you thought I had been talking to you, and I wanted to clear that up.
And yes, I knew what I was voting for. I don't need to amend that statement.
"Never go with a hippy to a second location."
~Jack Donaghy
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
If wjph~whatever and Tolkien~whatever are the same person and you responded to Wjph then I suppose you were responding to Tolkien, right?
They are most definately not the same person though and I think Tolkien simply found what you said interesting and responded to you but I have no idea because now I am really confused.
FYI to everyone else: Having multiple accounts without prior faculty approval is a direct Terms Of Service Violation and will be punished by the penalty of law and by death...or something like that.
There are very few human beings who receive the truth, complete and staggering, by instant illumination. Most of them acquire it fragment by fragment, on a small scale, by successive developments, cellularly, like a laborious mosaic.~- Anais Nin
I think I was repeatedly misreading Tolkein's comments. I had to read each one six times to get it. Dunno if it was my scatter-brainedness (it's a word, I swear!) or her writing. But I think I finally understand what she was saying. That said, I still stand by my initial comment.
"Never go with a hippy to a second location."
~Jack Donaghy
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
Haha Don't feel bad I am pretty sure it is his writting which I am sure he is working on.
And I am pretty sure scatter brainedness is a word...at least in my book it is:-)
There are very few human beings who receive the truth, complete and staggering, by instant illumination. Most of them acquire it fragment by fragment, on a small scale, by successive developments, cellularly, like a laborious mosaic.~- Anais Nin
But is there such a thing as gender in cyberspace?
"Never go with a hippy to a second location."
~Jack Donaghy
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
Maybe I should have my wife check tonight and report back with you. J/K
That is an interesting point is there a point to acknowledge gender in the cyberspace world. That would make an interesting poll.
"Something given has no value"~Robert Heinlein
And if you're seeing lines in my writing that you feel you need to read between, they aren't there. ~N. Ledger
Actually I do not think anybody can see gender.
There are very few human beings who receive the truth, complete and staggering, by instant illumination. Most of them acquire it fragment by fragment, on a small scale, by successive developments, cellularly, like a laborious mosaic.~- Anais Nin
Is there any such thing as sex in cyberspace????
That is actually a very funny question...maybe that is why you switched the word to gender. There use to be many questions/discussions here on the diffrence between sex and gender and I don't think any of them addressed it mattering online.
Its a neat area to be explored later (the poll idea seems a little fun).
There are very few human beings who receive the truth, complete and staggering, by instant illumination. Most of them acquire it fragment by fragment, on a small scale, by successive developments, cellularly, like a laborious mosaic.~- Anais Nin
There's plenty of SEX in cyberspace! ;-)
"Never go with a hippy to a second location."
~Jack Donaghy
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
I could not stop rolling my eyes during the campaign when i would hear that particular criticism.
I read through the issues link on his campaign website with a fine tooth comb, and was about 90% on board with everything. In some places I think he was a little to harsh in foreign policy, but It was a hell of a lot better than what I have seen for the past 12 years.
And for tolkein's comment below, I will respond here secondary to the skinny boxes that follow.
I knew that he planned to invest in the economy, especially in education and green energy. He planned to do that before the big crash, and before Bush's bailout.
What he is doing is in alignment with his policies pre-dump by Wall Street. Its just that now people are doubly frustrated because this follows the bailout.
I don't know what the future will hold. To be frank, I don't care too much about the economy, because I have autonomy, and can move anywhere that will benefit me. I do care about human rights, and the future of my planet. if those things are not dealt with, my taxes are a mute subject. Would I rather have less taxes and be enslaved? Hell no. I can move to Canada, or Europe, if i like, and I just might. I think I'll stick around for the next 4 years though, because I am really curious to see what plays out.
If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!
To each is their own. I thank you for your responds. You answered my next question and that is: Are you happy with what Obama has done so far?
As for moving to Canada or Europe I find that to be an odd thought. Do you think America is past her prime and will never be as great as she once was or would you leave solo based on who is in the oval office? Then again I am not wanting not staying in this county and with any luck I will not return for about five years. Maybe longer if I can swing it right, but I will return.
"Something given has no value"~Robert Heinlein
And if you're seeing lines in my writing that you feel you need to read between, they aren't there. ~N. Ledger
based on who is president. We all know that the president has only a marginal impact on the way things are. I would leave if I couldn't afford to live here anymore.
I live in California. I had to write a $1400 check to the state last week. I didn't change anything with my W-4s and made the same money as last year. in addition I had more deductions. Last year I got back $300 from the state.
Sales tax is going up to 10%. Homes and rent are ridiculously expensive. A lot of people are leaving the state because they can't afford to live here. I wonder if this will cause an oversaturation of illegal immigrants (even though immigration in general has decreased since the economy has taken a crap).
Healthcare is sheit. I pay for my family's out of pocket since neither my husband or I are full time employees of any agency anymore. Our deductibles are very high, and our premiums increase by 30% per year. Even with insurance, we have to wait for indefinite periods of time before we see a doctor, regardless of whether we had an appointment or not.
I have recently seen 2 films, one Sicko, the other, The Motherhood Manifesto, both of which compare America to Europe and Canada in relation to healthcare, and workers' benefits and rights. In Europe most countries provide paid maternity leave, allowing new mothers to stay home with their newborn child for up to a year, without suffering a loss of income. In addition, flexible work, including working at home, and benefits for part time employees provide a better quality of life for parents, which translates to a better quality of life for children, with lower rates of disturbed and delinquent behavior.
"• Only four countries in the world—Lesotho, Swaziland, Papua New Guinea and the United States fail to provide paid maternity leave to all workers?
• Mothers in the United States are only half as likely as non-mothers to be hired for the same job and the average college graduate who becomes a mother will sacrifice a million dollars over her lifetime?"
http://www.momsrising.org/film
Out of curiosity, where are you going for five years? Military assignment? Is your family going with you?
Also, I do love my country, I just think there are some areas she is far behind in, and I hope that our current president will catch us up.
If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!
On ProgressiveU I have sometimes had endless debates where some borderline personal attacks are exchanged. I strive to be open minded but I've not yet mastered the art, although I do believe I'm more open-minded than just about every other American. I've lately made it my goal to be objective, open-minded, and willing to change a long held opinion should it be the right thing to do, I had a very closed mind and thought I was just right about everything. Within a few months of following an open mind philosophy, many of my long held beliefs, judgments, and opinions were considerably revised, if not reversed altogether. My opinions are constantly, albeit slowly, evolving and I consider this healthy. I don't strive to change my opinions, it just happens when I realize I'm wrong. The key is to allow yourself to realize when you are wrong.
It is very hard to be open-minded. It takes a lot of thinking and and Americans don't do much of that these days. You observed (and I agree) that people seem to dig their feet in the mud the more and more as a topic is debated and the facts are presented to the point were they will not budge regardless of how wrong they may be. My theory is that people feel emotional and social dissatisfaction and embarrassment if they admit that they are wrong after presenting a very passionate argument. The increasing time and effort they've spent arguing their point of view gives them a bigger stake in the issue and is an investment. If you make a bad argument (which I've done) and continue to defend the argument (which I've also done) it gets harder and harder to give up on that bad argument. Financial investors may experience parallel situations and choose to keep money in a certain stock even though it is steadily declining in the hopes that it will start increasing in value. The longer they wait, the more capital they lose and the harder it is to pull out. This is my theory as to why people (including myself) can be so stubborn. Also, we don't allow ourselves to even recognize that we are wrong sometimes in order to protect our long-held opinions and beliefs from being compromised. We all do it.
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Do we really think we can change someone's mind in one of these arguments? More specifically, do you think you can change another Progressive U member's mind through these arguments?
Sure you can. Without naming names, I can think of a few current ProU members (and I'll bet you can, too) who have had significant changes in their outlook and positions after just the sort of "arguments" to which you refer.
But, changing the mind of the obstinate jack-hole on the other side of an intense disagreement is not always the goal that some of us hope for when we engage in these debates. As I am sure you would agree, the number of people who actually participate in these kinds of "arguments" are relatively small compared to the number of people who READ those arguments. Often, it is the minds of those readers who are the real chips in the poker game.
Speaking for myself, I rarely go into a debate on religion, abortion, same-sex marriage or any other the other truly controversial topics that we see at ProU with the goal of changing the minds of my opponet(s). Its nice when it happens, but what I am actually doing is using the opposition's pundits as a platform for demonstrating that which I see as the flaws in the basic philosophies that those pundits represent.
I also think it is especially important when dealing with issues of Social Justice to NEVER BACK DOWN from those who wish to perpetuate discrimination upon their fellow citizens. It may seem pointless to plant one's feet and repeat the same repudiations again and again, but to do otherwise emboldens the oppressor, and likewise fails to empower others who suffer that oppression, but who have yet to find the strength to stand up for themselves.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
"It may seem pointless to plant one's feet and repeat the same repudiations again and again, but to do otherwise emboldens the oppressor, and likewise fails to empower others who suffer that oppression, but who have yet to find the strength to stand up for themselves."
So true, and I admire your patience and tenacity with this issue. It is so important. When good people do nothing, evil people flourish. I am glad that you choose to demand to be heard. You are right, there are many who have yet to find the strength to stand up for themselves.
If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!
It depends on the medium I'm in. If I'm in my own blog, my goal isn't necessarily to change minds, it's merely to inform, or perhaps challenge a long standing idea. But I'm not out to change people's minds entirely, just get them to look at an issue from a different view.
If I actually participate in a debate, then yeah, I'm hoping to change someone's mind. And Blackout's right... the people who read the debates are in far greater numbers than those who actually participate. All of those people have opinions too, they're just not vocal enough to voice them right away.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
I wish I had some -__-;;
actually, I am not in the converting business, I just try to share my views and hope people listen, in this case, Read my thoughts and are left wanting more of them.
“You cannot wean away an addict from the drug. It is not possible for me to walk away from Ranjha. If it is our destiny to be together then who, other than God, can change it?”
she's a spaceman, no walker, dreamer...maybe
I lLOVE watching them try even if that is not their goal. These debates/arguments have taught me a lot even though I rarely partake in them... I simply know better. The ideas and well thought out fact telling by unswayable people like DB, blackout, jack, and quite a few others have really grown this person.
Plus it helps that other places like facebook are not enough waste of time me:)
There are very few human beings who receive the truth, complete and staggering, by instant illumination. Most of them acquire it fragment by fragment, on a small scale, by successive developments, cellularly, like a laborious mosaic.~- Anais Nin
Where's the "Convert? I'm just here to sell payday loans and drug treatment centers" option?
"Never go with a hippy to a second location."
~Jack Donaghy
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
Oh snap! I punched that option in the face!
Because, you know, I'm all about censorship. ;-)
"What a crazy random happenstance!"
Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog
Read my Blog!
I picked the last option. I do think you can change someone's opinion. I've seen it happen and my opinion on matters has changed as well. And when I see people post utterly ridiculous comments/blogs I can't just let it pass.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
because honestly they are all kinda true at times. I'm just really glad Blackout is doin his thang. I agree with everything Chillbill said too (thats a first!). Persuasion isn't the only reason to make persuasive arguments, but it usually is up there alongside 'learn stuff' and 'kill time'. A well-written blog will both inform and persuade.
I'll admit, I've gotten caught up in debates that I know won't go anywhere. Sometimes I can't help myself, sometimes I find it entertaining, and sometimes I just want to get my opponent to look at the issue in a different light. Other times the debate comes up because of a disagreement on facts.
Like what you've read? Well, then here's more:
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tricia0711
I'm here to turn EVERYONE into Wilderness experiencin', badass gardening motherfukas. But I know that reading a blog isn't exactly an ecological immersion so my mission is oh so flawed.
my documentary...
"some folks say that a hippie won't steal,
but I caught three in my corn field"
--John Hartford
thanks, well you and Carrot are definitely making me see your side of light...I don't think I want to be in my current darkness.
“You cannot wean away an addict from the drug. It is not possible for me to walk away from Ranjha. If it is our destiny to be together then who, other than God, can change it?”
she's a spaceman, no walker, dreamer...maybe
How am I misreading you?
]Electing a president who, when the time comes, will nominate federal judges, later to be confirmed by Congress, is not giving the voters any kind of reasonable say into who becomes a federal judge.
This statement clearly names the constitutional provisions of checks and balances that would apply in this case, and then you say that these provisions do not offer voters a reasonable say.
Likewise, the voter have no reasonable say into what judges are removed from the bench.
Thus, you are saying that the Constitutional provisions that specifically define the process by which federal office holders can be removed are unreasonable. I don't see how a reasonably conversant English-speaking person could interpret your statements any differently.
It is an unacceptable, flat out lie, that you would claim I said I (me) think that "Constitutional provisions that specifically define the process by which federal office holders can be removed is "unreasonable." I said nothing of the sort and it is wrong to claim I did.
The record would seem to indicate otherwise.
I was, despite our disagreements, starting to like you. But seriously, I think you need to realize the many problems with this latest discussion that you are causing by spouting blatantly falsely accusations and lying.
I would suggest that everything I have said is true, and supportable either by A) evidence or B) the written record of your comments. If you expressed yourself poorly, I can't help that. And the only one having a "problem" here would seem to be you. I am quite satisfied with our discussions. You are a perfect example of the kind of blogger that I mentioned above, i.e. a useful tool to demonstrate to others what NOT to do in a debate.
I seriously take issue with you misrepresenting what I say and trying to make me defend opinions that aren't my own.
Cry me a river. I content that everything I have said is accurate in both fact and interpretation. The only jurors in this case, of course, are our readers, and I am confident that they have the ability to judge the relative credibility of our respective evaluations of the situation.
I've spent most of my time on this thread trying to make you realize that you are misrepresenting my point of view rather than engaging in discussion about the issue at hand. I determine my opinions not you. Get a grip on it. I think there is seriously something wrong with you and I refuse to allow your deceptions, slander, manipulations, and lies to drive a conversation forward. I'm done here if you cannot respond to this appropriately. I have better things to do and better people in my life to have discussions with.
Three things:
1) Its called libel, not slander.
2) Threatening people on the internet is a sad, powerless tactic.
3) You may refuse all you wish, but the facts of our exchanges remain plain upon the page.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I can't say it any clearer. The provisions are not unreasonable in my opinion but they offer no reasonable way for voters to choose or dismiss federal judges. I never said that was a bad thing but that is the way it is.There is a difference and if you can't see that then there is something wrong with you. By reasonable I mean feasible, legitimate, sound, and well-grounded. If I said that the constitution offers no reasonable way for general voters to, let's say, declare war it doesn't mean or imply that I think the constitution is unreasonable because it doesn't allow for voters to declare war. You've got to be kidding me that you don't posses the logical skills to see that. I could be explained to an average six or seven year old so you should be able to grasp it.
Also, I never threatened you so I see no need for you to imply strongly that I did. I would like some of the other people here to chime in on this one and maybe they can help you realize your serious misinterpretations that you've been defending for days now. Otherwise I see nothing more to say to you. I have tried faithfully to get you to understand that I clearly never said some of the things or promoted the ideas that you claim I did. I have made my responses as basic and simple as it gets to explain an already simple concept. Quite frankly, I don't see much hope for your ability or willingness, to understand anything even slightly more complicated. This was a big waste of my precious free time and I regret that I didn't choose to engage somebody else who would not need to be fruitlessly instructed about the meaning of simple statements. There is nothing more I can say about this. On the rare chance that you demonstrate elementary English skills and show that you realize what I really meant there is no need for me to reply as I have said everything I can possibly say. to explain simple ideas that I expressed and you misrepresented.
The provisions are not unreasonable in my opinion but they offer no reasonable way for voters to choose or dismiss federal judges.
This statement contradicts itself, and thus makes no sense.
I have tried faithfully to get you to understand that I clearly never said some of the things or promoted the ideas that you claim I did.
Your statements are clearly recorded in the comments above. Denying things that we can easily go back and read doesn't make a lot of sense.
I have made my responses as basic and simple as it gets to explain an already simple concept.
Unfortunately, Constitutional Law and how it is applied in our system of government isn't really a "simple" subject. A more in-depth and nuanced understanding is required to fully grasp how these things work. Of course, even from a "basic" point-of-view, your presentation thus far has been filled with inaccuracies, so I would suggest that your explanations, simple or otherwise, are flawed.
On the rare chance that you demonstrate elementary English skills and show that you realize what I really meant there is no need for me to reply as I have said everything I can possibly say.
Would everyone involved in this discussion with a degree in the English Language from a major university please raise your hand? *Blackout raises his hand.* Anyone else?
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
You mean
You say that it is factually incorrect that the American people can't vote federal judges out of office even though you know better.
or how about
Since you are willing to say that it is "Factually incorrect" that American people don't have any power to remove bad federal judges and very limited power, in most states, to remove state judges then you obviously don't see lying and unsubstantiated put-downs as a big issue.
or
The voters at large have no way of removing federal judges, only a two thirds vote in each House of Congress (which is only 535 people).
?
Looks to me like he correctly interpreted what you actually wrote.
The United States has a Representative Government, which means we vote those 535 people in Congress into their office to represent the people.
Oh, and for the record:
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
***HTML tags edited by Blackout on 04/15/2009.***
invite people who want or often need to be challenged. A person's choice to change their opinion on something or not is personal, and I am sure it happens. I will admit, there are many times when I wish I could change someone's mind about many things. I wish I could make my father stop being a racist, I want everyone to love gay people, and children. I want America to wake up and see that for many children we are retaining a legacy of privilege and forgetting to institute minimum standards of living, and that for most of us we enter life by the luck of the draw. Not enough people realize how fragile life is, and fewer choose to change anything about it, not the least of which is their own mind.
I enjoy "raising awareness," and enjoy it when my awareness is raised. I care far less about a person's actual position on something, such as abortion or their feelings about a particular political party. What I do care about is the thinking that is behind the opinion or position. Some people just have very skewed versions of reality and need to be shaken up a little.
Ultimately, ProgressiveU is a place where this happens, whether we asked for it or not, and whether it is what we intended. One thing is for sure, we are all here voluntarily, and as far as I know, no one is being paid to stick around. I am sure that everyone who spends a little time here, and sticks around, even with sporadic involvement, will change their mind about something at least once.
Contrary to many who tout the fixedness of their opinions, bragging that they won't change their mind, I value the mind that can open and expand with new information. New information should always translate into a changed mind. Otherwise, the world would still be flat.
If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!
Until further notice, commenting on this thread has been disabled.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"when you have nothing else to say, "Fwonk" is always the perfect thing."
"yeah well, fwonk"
--Devon
Fanaile Essence