Put up a fight dammit

I get flustered and come off brash. In crude terms, I can be an asshole. But it comes from a good place, out of compassion, I believe.

I so often talk to people who have set their minds to an idea, and they spend all their energies trying to reinforce those ideas, even when logic and all sense defies it. I try, even if I fail, to present them with reasons why they may be wrong. And I eagerly await their counterpoint because I don't believe that I'm right just because I believe something. I humor myself with a paraphrase Socrates (a la Plato) that I know more than most because I know that I know nothing. That's why I spend so much of my personal time looking into facts and figures; so when I see misinformation or plain ignorance, I have the opportunity to bring these people toward their own knowledge.

And I possibly get more flustered with someone of higher intelligence and education, as I hold them to a higher standard than I do most. I know they have the ability and capability to reach their own conclusions based on logic, reasoning, research, and facts. I recognize that may be unfair, but as someone once said, it may be "unfair, but not unjust." (Sidney Morgenbesser said this about the police hitting him while protesting the Vietnam war. It was unfair that he was hit, but not unjust as they hit everyone.)

More to the point, when I see someone of their obvious ability make such statements (as "Trump is clearly racist") but this conclusion appears based on bad data (in my opinion, of course), I feel obligated to challenge that belief. And too often, the response is self-reinforcing or attempts to twist logic to reinforce the original idea. You see, if I believed they lacked the ability to provide point-counterpoint, I wouldn't confront their ideas with as much vehemence.

For instance, when I pointed out the logical fallacy of "Trump's a racist", they do not immediately provide any evidence of their own. They often attack the logical fallacy. While I give them points for style, they get no credit for addressing the issue. When they do provide evidence, they come from a place of "My assumption is Trump's a racist. From that we can prove..." That is bad form and horrible logic.

So, if they say, "supporting Trump is to support racism," they have already implied that Trump himself is racist and will promulgate racist ideology. I then am forced to go through the assumed litany of charges against Trump which I assume are their arguments (since they did not provide their own). The charge of Trump's racism often stems from his position on illegal immigration. So, I address that his position is little different than those of Bill Clinton 20 years ago. Also, Trump's position on Middle Eastern refugees is often a source of accusation; so I addressed that. And so on. If I can show that Trumps political positions are not racist nor motivated by racism, then the support of those who are racist will have no sway over his policies.

If they do not present their own argument, I have to assume their arguments for them. That's not the way I like to have discussions. But if they only argue semantics and not facts, I have little other choice.

And I will not apologize for my brash tone or my offensive manner. I want them to get upset. I want them to convince me. I want them to bring their best reason and logic. But most of all, I want facts. And if they cannot provide those, I will continue to challenge their assertions.

Obama takes on Rutherford B. Hayes

who writes this stuff for Obama?... today, Obama has repeated the equivilent of an urban legend, and he thinks it's true!... he attempts to get a cheap-shot at Republican President Hayes, but it turns out to be false... worse, his insinuation is that Hayes was backwards on issues and on progress... turns out, again, Hayes was more forward thinking than any Democrat president of the last twenty-five years!

One of my predecessors, President Rutherford B. Hayes, reportedly said about the telephone: 'It’s a great invention but who would ever want to use one?' That's why he's not on Mt. Rushmore.

He's looking backwards, he's not looking forward. He's explaining why we can't do something instead of why we can do something. The point is there will always be cynics and naysayers.
- President Obama

yeah... Hayes sure was a backwards-looking president... or was he?

let's look at some fact (for a change):

After a year of study in a Columbus law office, he entered Harvard Law School and received his degree in 1845. He began his law practice in Lower Sandusky. Not finding many opportunities there, he left in 1849 for Cincinnati, where he became a successful lawyer. His opposition to slavery drew him into the Republican Party.

In 1864, while still in the army, he was elected to Congress (despite his refusal to campaign). He was reelected in 1866. The following year Ohio voters elected him governor. After winning a third term in 1875, the Republican Party chose Hayes as its presidential candidate.

His sound money policies helped make business and industry stronger. He initiated civil service reform, aimed at ending patronage, and appointed men with sound qualifications to government positions. He also signed a bill that, for the first time, allowed women attorneys to appear before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Honoring his commitment not to accept a second term, Hayes retired.

Hayes was the first president to have a telephone in the White House.

Hayes was the first president to have a typewriter in the White House.
- The Rutherford B. Hayes Presidential Center

President Obama, you just can't help yourself, can you?... every time you open your mouth, something stupider than the last comes flowing out.

why don't you just take the higher, moral road that President Hayes took... retire after one term.

---

source:
Obama knocks Rutherford B. Hayes - POLITICO.com By BYRON TAU | 3/15/12 11:41 AM EDT

The Rutherford B. Hayes Presidential Center

Obama's Historic Firsts - UPDATE

i re-blogged some vitriolic anti-Obama name-calling, with a disclaimer that i had not researched many of the claims... fear not, gentle reader... i have done some due-diligence and looked up the validity of many of the more outrageous claims.

---

UPDATE

• President Obama was NOT the first to violate the War Powers Act... President Clinton was... 1999 in the bombing of Kosovo.
• while the "Fast and Furious" affair is simply inexcusable, let us not forget the Iran-Contra affair... what started as arms-for-hostages turned into simple gun-running and terrorist arming.
• Obama was not the first president to be held in contempt by a federal judge... Clinton is the one to hold that dubious honor... Nixon came very close, having a federal judge declare that he could be held in contempt should he not turn over the Watergate tapes.
• i don't think anyone can say there haven't been many former Presidents which have "defied a court order"... some were worse than others... but we really shouldn't encourage this behavior... then again, we can't hold one to a different standard than another.
• there's the claim of being the first President to "hold anyone suspected of being associated with terrorism indefinitely, without any form of due process"... we all do remember G.W. Bush, right?
• Obama declared DOMA to be unconstitutional... sounds like an overreach of the Constitution, right?... not so fast... seek out Myers v. US... the Supreme Court has decided that the President must use some judgement in enforcement of laws... the court is the final judge (no pun), but the President must enforce the Constitution first and laws, second.
• Obama suing a state is not a first... Irony Alert!... while Obama sued AZ, WI, OH, IN, etc. over the states enforcement of the federal immigration laws, it was G.W. Bush who first sued Illinois... get this: they were sued because they REFUSED to enforce federal immigration laws!!!... the irony is on SO many levels!

Historic Firsts

i haven't researched these, but thought i'd re-blog this, if only as food-for-thought... i'll update as i learn more.

Doug Ross provides a handy rundown of just how historic our beloved President has been...

 

A few examples:

 

• First President to Violate the War Powers Act
• First President to Orchestrate the Sale of Murder Weapons to Mexican Drug Cartels
• First President to be Held in Contempt of Court for Illegally Obstructing Oil Drilling in the Gulf of Mexico
• First President to Require All Americans to Purchase a Product From a Third Party
• First President to Golf 90 or More Times in His First Three Years in Office

Read on for nearly 30 more historic firsts...

---

source:
The Mental Recession: A Complete List of Historic Firsts For Our Preside...

---

EDIT
the original list by Doug Ross:

• First President to Preside Over a Cut to the Credit Rating of the United States Government
• First President to Violate the War Powers Act
• First President to Orchestrate the Sale of Murder Weapons to Mexican Drug Cartels
• First President to issue an unlawful "recess-appointment" while the U.S. Senate remained in session (against the advice of his own Justice Department).
• First President to be Held in Contempt of Court for Illegally Obstructing Oil Drilling in the Gulf of Mexico
• First President to Defy a Federal Judge's Court Order to Cease Implementing the 'Health Care Reform' Law
• First President to halt deportations of illegal aliens and grant them work permits, a form of stealth amnesty roughly equivalent to "The DREAM Act", which could not pass Congress
• First President to Require All Americans to Purchase a Product From a Third Party
• First President to Spend a Trillion Dollars on 'Shovel-Ready' Jobs -- and Later Admit There Was No Such Thing as Shovel-Ready Jobs
• First President to sue states for requiring valid IDs to vote, even though the same administration requires valid IDs to travel by air
• First President to Abrogate Bankruptcy Law to Turn Over Control of Companies to His Union Supporters
• First President to sign into law a bill that permits the government to "hold anyone suspected of being associated with terrorism indefinitely, without any form of due process. No indictment. No judge or jury. No evidence. No trial. Just an indefinite jail sentence."
• First President to Bypass Congress and Implement the DREAM Act Through Executive Fiat
• First President to Threaten Insurance Companies After They Publicly Spoke out on How Obamacare Helped Cause their Rate Increases
• First President to Threaten an Auto Company (Ford) After It Publicly Mocked Bailouts of GM and Chrysler
• First President to "Order a Secret Amnesty Program that Stopped the Deportations of Illegal Immigrants Across the U.S., Including Those With Criminal Convictions"
• First President to Demand a Company Hand Over $20 Billion to One of His Political Appointees
• First President to Terminate America's Ability to Put a Man into Space.
• First President to Encourage Racial Discrimination and Intimidation at Polling Places
• First President to Have a Law Signed By an 'Auto-pen' Without Being "Present"
• First President to Arbitrarily Declare an Existing Law Unconstitutional and Refuse to Enforce It
• First President to Tell a Major Manufacturing Company In Which State They Are Allowed to Locate a Factory
• First President to refuse to comply with a House Oversight Committee subpoena.
• First President to File Lawsuits Against the States He Swore an Oath to Protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN, etc.)
• First President to Withdraw an Existing Coal Permit That Had Been Properly Issued Years Ago
• First President to Fire an Inspector General of Americorps for Catching One of His Friends in a Corruption Case
• First President to Propose an Executive Order Demanding Companies Disclose Their Political Contributions to Bid on Government Contracts
• First President to allow Mexican police to conduct law enforcement activities on American soil
• First President to Golf 90 or More Times in His First Three Years in Office

capitalism is raping the earth

and Occupy Wall Street is raping everything else...

Though we do not encourage the involvement of the police in our community, the survivor has every right, and the support of Occupy Baltimore, to report the abuse to the appropriate law enforcement. - Occupy Baltimore internal memo

---

source:

• Occupy Baltimore group discourages reporting rape, health advocates say - Baltimore Sun
• "Occupy" Protester Arrested in Sexual Assault of a Child - NBC Dallas-Fort Worth
• Protester allegedly raped at 'Occupy Cleveland' - CBS News
• Occupy Glasgow protesters ordered to leave George Square after woman raped in tent

equal outrage

the Anti Defamation League (ADL) is clear that it is unacceptab­le to make comparison­s to Hitler in political statements­... therefore, Hank Williams, Jr. was wrong to do so.

but for clarity, i'd like to see some more outrage when the tables are turned... we had eight years of Bush-Hitle­r comparison­s... when radio hosts (Mike Malloy) or congressme­n (Durbin, Byrd, Ellison) make these analogies, we should be just as offended.

links for those who always need them:
Malloy
Durbin
Byrd
Ellison

---

source:
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

it's when you compare two things

Williams, perhaps best known for his "are you ready for some football?" lead-in to ESPN's Monday Night Football, Monday compared this summer's so-called golf summit between Obama and House Speaker John Boehner as "one of the biggest political mistakes ever."

As Williams put it on Fox News' Fox & Friends: "It would be like Hitler playing golf with (Israeli leader) Benjamin Netanyahu."

When asked on Fox to explain his analogy, Williams said Obama and Vice President Biden are "the enemy."

analogy (noun) - a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects

---

i think i see why the media doesn't like what Bocephus said...

1. it was a logical form of reasoning
2. it called Obama (pbuh) "the enemy"
3. it compared Obama to a fascist (one who wants a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc.)
4. it compared Boehner to a jew (a group which oppresses the Palestenian people by their mere existance)
5. the analogy was apt

---

source:
ESPN drops Hank Williams Jr. from 'Monday Night Football'

anti-bullying promotes murder

keeping it classy... Dan Savage, of the well publicised "It Gets Better" campaign, has a problem with bullying... i mean, Dan is a bully... suprised?... me too.

but apparently, this is nothing new... he has a long-standing quarrel with Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)... so great is his hatred, he has resorted to cyber-bullying the man... there is an entire website devoted to defining the Senator's last name as, well, something disgusting... skip the quote if you prefer.

Santorum: (n) The frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex

you were warned.

well, Dan Savage has decided to air some more grievances on the Bill Maher show (which is the usual repository for this kind of behavior)... but Savage took it to new lows; even for Maher... Dan Savage has decided that he wishes all Republicans were "f--kin' dead"... really?... this is the same guy who says:

Everyone deserves to be respected for who they are.

everyone, except Republicans, that is...

but, in typical Liberal fashion, Dan Savage seems to think if you apologize for something, it's okay:

It was a stupid, rude, thoughtless remark. I regret it and I retract it and I apologize to anyone watching.

well, it's not okay... that is not something which should be tolerated... and to come from someone who preaches tolerance, it is even more unacceptable... and to compound the problem, the mainstream media will give him a pass; one that they give no one else... and the apology is false, too... if he meant it, he'd take down that horrible, cyber-bullying website about Santorum... but he doesn't mean it... he is just saying it... non meus culpa... what a liar.

this jerk has started a movement to help the helpless, and for that he should be commended... but for his own hate-speech, he should be publicly condemned by those within the "It Gets Better" movement, as well as the LGBT community, as a whole.

Dan Savage wishes all Republicans were dead. - MRC

flake vs flake

a rebuttal from Mark Levin and Jeffrey Lord to George Stephanopolous's column. John Quincy Adams a Founding Father? Michele Bachmann Says Yes...

by Mark Levin on Tuesday, June 28, 2011 at 9:51am: "George Stephanopolous: Flake"

George Stephanopolous has revealed his own flakiness and ignorance in his effort to pile on Michele Bachmann.

The fact is that a number of prominent Founders did attempt to end or at least take on the issue of slavery, including Virginia's George Mason, who was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention. The inability to end slavery was among the reasons he refused to support the Constitution. While he was a slave-owner, he nonetheless opposed the institution going forward. Mason was no light-weight, either. He had authored the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which later served as the basis for James Madison's draft of the Bill of Rights.

Thomas Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration specifically condemned the treatment of blacks by the Crown as a basis for America declaring its independent from Britain.

Importantly, the final draft of the Declaration that was adopted by all the states contained the crucial recognition of God-given unalienable rights that belonged to all human beings. The phrase was borrowed by Jefferson from philosopher John Locke, who was anti-slave.

---

By Jeffrey Lord on 6.28.11 @ 1:38PM - The American Spectator: "Levin: Stephanopoulos Is Foolish in Lecturing Bachmann"

"[A] French observer wrote that [James] Madison, "a young man (who)... astonishes…by his eloquence, his wisdom, and his genius, has had the humanity and courage (for such a proposition requires no small share of courage) to propose a general emancipation of the slaves." - James Madison, by biographer, Ralph Ketcham

'Hamilton became a prime mover in the early abolitionist group. He pressured the (New York) state legislature and helped to raise money to buy and free slaves. The society's founders…elected Hamilton chairman to draw up recommendations for "a line of conduct" for any "members who still possessed slaves." He also established a registry for manumitted slaves, listing their names and ages, "to detect attempts to deprive such manumitted persons of their liberty."' - Alexander Hamilton: A Life, by biographer Willard Sterne Randall

---

personally, i think they're both (George and Michelle) a bit flaky... i want news from my journalists... and i want legislation from congressmen(women)... journalists should know how to research and interview... congressmen should know law and history... it's clear that neither of these people can do their jobs.

i don't believe in atheists, Pt 2

annoying reason #2:

"Evolution."

let us just assume that evolution occurs exactly as the Darwinians like to believe... so what?... that disproves nothing... all that shows is there are facts which were not included in the teachings of religion... that's like complaining that the Dr. Seuss books never discussed quantum mechanics... all they ever did was discuss the merits of verdant ova and fillet of sus domestica... the example i like to use is, if you have a child ask you, "Why is the sky blue?" do you tell the kid about light wavelength, Rayleigh scattering, and the relative particle size of our nitrogen atmosphere?... at the end of such a dissertation, you will have brought your child, if not to tears, to a state of confusion... so, to point at a Bible (or other religious text) and claim it is false because it does not encompass all of creation, that is an ad hominem argument and should be dismissed by any reasoning person... (not that many atheists are reasoning, but to their credit, they are often more reasoning than many theists.)

i'm not saying that ancient religious texts are equivalent to children's books... but consider the context... travel back 6,000 years and attempt to explain mitochondrial DNA... explain why some people are immune to "diseases" while others die by the thousands... find a dinosaur fossil and try to explain it to Noah... i think a lot will get lost in translation.

as for evolution, having micro and macro evolution take place does by no means negate the existence of a creator... as i see it, it actually tells how incredibly powerful God truly is... follow the "evolutionist" logic back to its origin...

men evolved from primates who evolved from mammals who evolved from reptiles who evolved from fish who evolved from vertebrates who evolved from invertebrates who evolved from algae who evolved from multi-cellular organisms who evolved from single-cell organisms who evolved from protein chains who evolved from amino sludge...

and evolutionists are okay with this... but let's look at their origins... non-living compounds gathered in such a way as to produce the effect of reproduction... reproduction is one of the fundamental qualities something has to have to represent "life"... otherwise, it falls into two categories: random happenstance or immortality... if random, when it ceases functioning (e.g. dies) only another random occurance will produce similar results... if immortal; well, the evolutionists will dismiss this immediately, as do i.

anyway, a non-living compound begins to reproduce... it "evolves" for no reason whatsoever, as it has no reason to... it is a jumble of compounds, but by evolutionists, it is life... through random selection, this super-amino produces enough other super-aminos that resources for reproduction begin to thin... randomly, better amino chains form which reproduce better and more efficiently than other amino chains... there is no reason for this, according to evolutionists... it just is... take it on faith, if you will.

eventually, these super-aminos have evolved to a point that they begin to make decisions... decisions like, where to travel, how to travel, what to "eat", and who to reproduce with... (sounds like the first single's bar)... now, evolutionist have no trouble with this, either... but some will begin to disagree on details... details like free-will... you see, either you have free will or you don't... and at some point, random amino jelly, with no free-will, magically becomes live organisms with free-will... there is no evolutionary step which grants free-will... to an evolutionist, it just happens... again; on faith.

the point is this:  evolution does not disprove anything... it only raises more questions.

i don't believe in atheists, Pt 1

atheists annoy me... not because they don't believe in a religion, but because they have such horrible reasons not to believe... and before you stop reading, know this: I WAS AN ATHEIST... and many of the reasons i hear from others are the same arguments i had; which i used to support my beliefs... (Note: atheists have beliefs... they call them facts, but they're just beliefs in the end)

annoying reason #1:

"That is stupid."

first, let's get the terms right... stupid means to lack ordinary keenness of mind... it comes from the Latin, stupere; to be numb or stunned... it is a pejorative, implying that the person lacks the capacity to reason at a level of the ordinary individual... this kind of argument is used to belittle the target, usually in an effort to raise the attacker's sense of self worth.

often, what the atheist is attempting to say is, "You are incorrect due to your ignorance of other information which contradicts your viewpoint"... but they don't say this... because it can be easily turned on the attacker in the form of, "Present this information for consideration and debate"... this often ends with showing the atheist as being ignorant of their own facts, and woefully ignorant of the defense's facts.

the ideas which the atheist defines as "stupid" are concepts which require deeper understanding than most people, atheist and religious alike, are willing to achieve... for example, people often think it is stupid to believe in something which cannot be observed... yet they readily accept much of science, even though much of it cannot be observed... we cannot see quantum particles, yet through their effects we believe they exist... by scientific method we determine that these particles have certain properties... so, using indirect evidence, we believe in electrons and leptons and quarks... we construct our beliefs around them, even though we cannot see them.

the only thing more stupid would be to dismiss something on the basis that you cannot discern it... while you'll often get the Flying Spaghetti Monster response, you should (gently) remind people that almost all of science depends on an open mind... bacteria, atomic energy, and most of modern science had to pass through respected scientists who sternly said it couldn't be seen and therefore did not exist.

dismissing other viewpoints, including the theistic, is a sure sign of stupidity.

the last refuge of a scoundrel

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2010/09/carville-slams-odonnell-this-woman-has-run-against-masturbation.html

Samuel Johnson (1709-1784) once said that "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."... i think he was close... first, try patriotism... at least attempt to gain favor by that common bond... but if that doesn't work, try vicious personal attacks.

i knew it was coming... when Christine O'Donnell won the Republican Party nomination for the Senate seat in Delaware over the Republican Party darling, Mike Castle, i knew the claws would come out... during the Republican race, it wasn't surprising to see some mud-slinging... Castle didn't want to lose, did he?... so it got a bit nasty between the two... while i didn't see the advertisements or the period leading up to the nomination, i imagine there was some nasty blows felled by both Castle and O'Donnell... she's a politician now, so it's to be expected (sad, isn't that?)... anyway, she won, and the Republican Party decided to be patriots and back her as "their" candidate... she ran on the Republican ticket, since she won, they might as well back her as best they can...

but WHOA!, when she won, the Democrats skipped right over Patriotism... they've gone straight to personal attacks on her character and ability... it's no wonder there are comparisons between O'Donnell and Sarah Palin... the Democrats hate her, too!...

i already noted (by twitter) how they had already begun attacking O'Donnell by referencing her in a 1996 video in which she references masturbation (oh, the horror)... according to the Democrats, her comments are those of an idiot who thinks masturbation is equivalent to adultery... the problem is that she was discussing the spread of AIDS, not the prevalence of adultery (or masturbation)... her commentary was about how the discussion of AIDS had been turned by liberals (read: Democrats) from the actual causes of the spread of the disease... you see, the liberals suggested that one method to prevent the spread of AIDS was to teach school children about masturbation... (i bet these same people are now required to register their domicile with the state, and can't live within 5-miles of a school, but i digress)... O'Donnell's revolutionary suggestion was this:

• have one sexual parter (it's called monogamy, for those who haven't heard of it)
• have sexual relations only once you have committed yourself in marriage (and that's until death do you part)

as for masturbation, O'Donnell dismissed that as not addressing the core issue of AIDS, which is promiscuity... and she's right... masturbation isn't abstinence... it's not even close... much of the time, it's meant to inflame the lusts which would lead to promiscuity...

but, in true scoundrel fashion, the Democrats want to turn this into "she's a crazy anti-masturbation religion-freak"... they want to turn it into personal attacks...

Part 2:
James Carville, a Democrat "strategist" (read: lead attack dog), went on to attack O'Donnell further... he called her a "fiscal conservative" (to him, that's an insult)... and to support this, he noted how she took several years to pay off her student loans! (the horror)... i ask you; just how many college age students are financially responsible?... damn few, that's how many (myself included)... for that matter, several of them will run up credit card debts which take them even longer to pay off (myself included, again)...

they've gone so far as to say that she defaulted on her home mortgage... i know that it is a shock, but maybe she defaulted because she couldn't afford it... you know; like all those sub-prime mortages that the Democrats forced Fannie-May and Freddie-Mac to subsidize... you remember; the ones that we had the bail-out for... maybe you should look up TARP, and i'm not talking canvas...

and now, they say she was $11,000 in arrears to the IRS, which she settled for an "undisclosed amount"... hmmm... who else has had IRS troubles?... Dom Daschle-$140,167... Timothy Geithner-$35,000... Kathleen Sebelius-$7,918... as a matter of fact (and of record) there is $9.3 million in overdue taxes on Capitol Hill... sounds like a case of pots and kettles, to me...

no... sounds like the last refuge of a scoundrel.