Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#168879 Sep 23, 2013
Hahahahaha, I'd rather have Hitler as a hero.Bush almost messed up 1 of the greatess countries in the world....I don't understand how you get a job and almost mess up EVERYTHING...Does Bush really think you can mess around with all the brown people and go back to the States as if everything is A-OK.Wait, where is terror actually?Iraq,Libya,Afghanista n,Syria,Pakistan....WHERE?
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#168880 Sep 23, 2013
“Who will help me plant my wheat?” asked the little red hen.

“Not I,” said the cow.

“Not I,” said the duck.

“Not I,” said the pig.

“Not I,” said the goose.

“Then I will do it by myself.” She planted her crop and the wheat grew and ripened.

“Who will help me reap my wheat?” asked the little red hen.

“Not I,” said the duck.

“Out of my classification,” said the pig.

“I’d lose my seniority,” said the cow.

“I’d lose my unemployment compensation,” said the goose.

“Then I will do it by myself,” said the little red hen, and so she did.

“Who will help me bake the bread?” asked the little red hen.

“That would be overtime for me,” said the cow.

“I’d lose my welfare benefits,” said the duck.

“I’m a dropout and never learned how,” said the pig.

“If I’m to be the only helper, that’s discrimination,” said the goose.

“Then I will do it by myself,” said the little red hen.

She baked five loaves and held them up for all of her neighbors to see. They wanted some and, in fact, demanded a share but the little red hen said,“No, I shall eat all five loaves.”

“Excess profits!” cried the cow.(Nancy Pelosi)

“Capitalist leech!” screamed the duck.(Barbara Boxer)

“I demand equal rights!” yelled the goose.(Jesse Jackson)

The pig just grunted in disdain.(Harry Reid)

And they all painted ‘Unfair!’ picket signs and marched around and around the little red hen, shouting obscenities.

Then the Farmer Obama came. He said to the little red hen,“You must not be so greedy.”

“But I earned the bread,” said the little red hen.

“Exactly,” said Farmer Obama.“That is what makes our free enterprise system so wonderful. Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants. But under our modern government regulations, the productive workers must divide the fruits of their labor with those who are lazy and idle.”

And they all lived happily ever after, including the little red hen, who smiled and clucked,“I am grateful, for now I truly understand.”

But her neighbors became quite disappointed in her. She never again baked bread because she joined the ‘party’ and got her bread free. And all the Democrats smiled.‘Fairness’ had been established.

Individual initiative had died but nobody noticed; perhaps no one cared so long as there was free bread that ‘the rich’ were paying for.
====
EPILOGUE

Bill Clinton is getting $12 million for his memoirs.

Hillary got $8 million for hers.

That’s $20 million for the memories from two people, who for eight years repeatedly testified, under oath, that they couldn’t remember a thing.

IS THIS A GREAT BARNYARD OR WHAT?

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#168882 Sep 23, 2013
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
=======
1a) I didn't say you only disengage when you think you're going to lose or your side will be depicted in a bad light. I said you have a tendency to halt play and that occurs coincidentally when the debate isn't going the way you'd probably like it to. Calling someones questions "phoney" and refusing to answer has a 100% success rate of doing precisely that.
1b) You make assumptions as to how I'm talking to you. Example: Regarding the Modesto college/constitution issue, you assumed I was being "cute" as you put it when I apologzed in advance for using FOX as my source. I wasn't, so you're being "cute" in return was based on your false assumption. Furthermore, I satisfactorily defended that by explaining and posting my google search. You still choose to doubt my sincerity. I'm not stupid, Willie. Most liberals/democrats think FOX is FAUX. Why on earth would I set myself up for news source ridicule? Answer: I wouldn't.
I RARELY use FOX as a source. It's political suicide with people like you.
2) If you want to say my questions are based on a flawed premise, that's fine but the burden is then on YOU to provide an explantion which proves that. You can't just walk around, Willie like the referee telling people their questions are based on a false premise, not elaborate then walk away. When you do that, you're stopping the dialogue (or halting play) simply because you don't happen to like the route your opponent is taking you.
3) False. A question is always valid if asked with sincerity.
1. I have a tendency to halt play when I think someone is asking Socratic questions designed to elicit specific responses, or when they're posing 'when did you quit beating your wife' questions. If you're trying to take me down a route, fergitaboutit, I ain't likely to go ...

(oh, you do it too and worser's gonna have a field day with that)

2. What more elaboration on the flawed premise do you need beyond "I think that avoiding responsibility, playing the victim, and a disproportionate sense of entitlement are human failings, and human failings cannot be associated with a political ideology"?

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#168883 Sep 23, 2013
There is no way in the whole world that G W Bush can be considered a hero. The only way he could be known as a hero is if there was some serious corruption going on in our government and our media. Only a truly corrupt media would promote a liar as a hero.

He stole Florida and lied about Iraqs WMD.

Can someone explain what Im missing?
Roberta G

United States

#168884 Sep 23, 2013
Adlib wrote:
There is no way in the whole world that G W Bush can be considered a hero. The only way he could be known as a hero is if there was some serious corruption going on in our government and our media. Only a truly corrupt media would promote a liar as a hero.
He stole Florida and lied about Iraqs WMD.
Can someone explain what Im missing?
That would be the previous seven years' worth of posts. Doesn't it ever occur to any of you newbies to check whether the thread name is still relevant to what the people in the thread are talking about?

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#168885 Sep 23, 2013
“Who will help me plant my wheat?” asked the little Red Hen.
“Not I,” said the gluten intolerant.
“Not I,“ said the celiac disease patient.
“Not I,” said the folks with inflammation.
“I will,” said Monsanto.

So the little Red Hen, and the toxic-chemical-turned-bioengin eering company, planted the wheat, and it grew, and mutated, and killed many insects feeding upon it.(But not all of them. The survivors mutated in return.)

“Who will help me harvest my wheat?” asked the little Red Hen
“What do you mean, YOUR wheat?” asked Monsanto.“We have the patent on this wheat. Didn’t you read the contract?”

So the little Red Hen harvested her wheat at her own expense, and Monsanto claimed the lion’s share of it in payment of copywriting fees.
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#168887 Sep 23, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>1. I have a tendency to halt play when I think someone is asking Socratic questions designed to elicit specific responses, or when they're posing 'when did you quit beating your wife' questions. If you're trying to take me down a route, fergitaboutit, I ain't likely to go ...
(oh, you do it too and worser's gonna have a field day with that)
2. What more elaboration on the flawed premise do you need beyond "I think that avoiding responsibility, playing the victim, and a disproportionate sense of entitlement are human failings, and human failings cannot be associated with a political ideology"?
1)The Socratic technique of debate was designed to elicit critical thinking, not specific responses.

2) You don't prove your point. It isn't written in stone that "avoiding responsibility, playing the victim, and a disproportionate sense of entitlement" are human failings. When one intentionally avoids responsibilty, intentionally plays the victim or knowingly has a disproportionate sense of entitlement, it has then become a premeditated (human) CHOICE not a failing. And if that is true, then a human failing in it's purest sense is making a genuine effort but not succeeding.

3) You skipped this one. Smart fellow.

===
If got to get you a little whistle and a black and white striped shirt.
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#168888 Sep 23, 2013
Adlib wrote:
Only a truly corrupt media would promote a liar as a hero.

What would you call the media who promotes a buffoon into a genius?
Roberta G

United States

#168889 Sep 23, 2013
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
What would you call the media who promotes a buffoon into a genius?
Advertising executives?
Roberta G

United States

#168890 Sep 23, 2013
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
What would you call the media who promotes a buffoon into a genius?
My husband said "Traitors" ;)

“Unemployed Bush 5.3 obama 8.7”

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#168891 Sep 23, 2013
Adlib wrote:
There is no way in the whole world that G W Bush can be considered a hero. The only way he could be known as a hero is if there was some serious corruption going on in our government and our media. Only a truly corrupt media would promote a liar as a hero.
He stole Florida and lied about Iraqs WMD.
Can someone explain what Im missing?
A brain.

Who opened the door to the 'Kids-R-Us' forum and let all these brats in?

“Unemployed Bush 5.3 obama 8.7”

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#168892 Sep 23, 2013
Roberta G wrote:
<quoted text>That would be the previous seven years' worth of posts. Doesn't it ever occur to any of you newbies to check whether the thread name is still relevant to what the people in the thread are talking about?
They don't know facts, so why would it bother them to not be current?

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#168893 Sep 23, 2013
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
1)The Socratic technique of debate was designed to elicit critical thinking, not specific responses.
2) You don't prove your point. It isn't written in stone that "avoiding responsibility, playing the victim, and a disproportionate sense of entitlement" are human failings. When one intentionally avoids responsibilty, intentionally plays the victim or knowingly has a disproportionate sense of entitlement, it has then become a premeditated (human) CHOICE not a failing. And if that is true, then a human failing in it's purest sense is making a genuine effort but not succeeding.
3) You skipped this one. Smart fellow.
===
If got to get you a little whistle and a black and white striped shirt.
1. The definition of Socratic method at dictionary.com is as follows:

the use of questions, as employed by Socrates, to develop a latent idea, as in the mind of a pupil, or to elicit admissions, as from an opponent, tending to establish a proposition.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socrat...

In a political discussion in particular, there is a desire for specific responses from the person being questioned. It's that 'route' you referred to in your post.

2. Whether a human being by instinct or by deliberate choice "intentionally avoids responsibilty, intentionally plays the victim or knowingly has a disproportionate sense of entitlement", it's a human failing.

People fail. Liberals fail, conservatives fail, the completely apolitical fail.

Trying to seize on those failures and attempt to portray that as a characteristic of a particular political ideology is basic demagoguery 101, but it's a cheap parlor trick with no basis in fact.

3. What, exactly, was there to comment on? I've tried to explain that phony was a poor choice of words, and that I wasn't questioning the sincerity of your belief. I can't make you accept the explanation.
Roberta G

United States

#168894 Sep 23, 2013
BobinTX wrote:
<quoted text>
They don't know facts, so why would it bother them to not be current?
Good point.
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#168895 Sep 23, 2013
BobinTX wrote:
<quoted text>
They don't know facts, so why would it bother them to not be current?
Todays low information posters are tomorrows low information voters.
Lyndi

Sarasota, FL

#168896 Sep 23, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>1. The definition of Socratic method at dictionary.com is as follows:
the use of questions, as employed by Socrates, to develop a latent idea, as in the mind of a pupil, or to elicit admissions, as from an opponent, tending to establish a proposition.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socrat...
In a political discussion in particular, there is a desire for specific responses from the person being questioned. It's that 'route' you referred to in your post.
2. Whether a human being by instinct or by deliberate choice "intentionally avoids responsibilty, intentionally plays the victim or knowingly has a disproportionate sense of entitlement", it's a human failing.
People fail. Liberals fail, conservatives fail, the completely apolitical fail.
Trying to seize on those failures and attempt to portray that as a characteristic of a particular political ideology is basic demagoguery 101, but it's a cheap parlor trick with no basis in fact.
3. What, exactly, was there to comment on? I've tried to explain that phony was a poor choice of words, and that I wasn't questioning the sincerity of your belief. I can't make you accept the explanation.
"The art of Socratic questioning is important for the critical thinker because the art of questioning is important to excellence of thought. What the word ‘Socratic’ adds is “systematicity”,“depth”, and a keen interest in assessing the truth or plausibility of things.

There is a special relationship between critical thinking and Socratic Questioning because both share a common end. Critical thinking gives one a comprehensive view of how the mind functions (in its pursuit of meaning and truth), and Socratic Questioning takes advantage of that overview to frame questions essential to the quality of that pursuit.

The goal of critical thinking is to establish a disciplined “executive” level of thinking to our thinking, a powerful inner voice of reason, to monitor, assess, and re-constitute — in a more rational direction — our thinking, feeling, and action. Socratic discussion cultivates that inner voice by providing a public model for it."

http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/the-rol...
=====
You have made it clear that you're satisified with what you know and no further exploration is needed.
I hope I never get to that point.

“Unemployed Bush 5.3 obama 8.7”

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#168897 Sep 23, 2013
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
Todays low information posters are tomorrows low information voters.
It's kind of scary to see how clueless the young are... especially when you consider that they're our future.

Do you think this is what they're being taught in school, or is it what their peers are saying?

I don't know how many re-counts were done, both government and private, all proving that George W. Bush won Florida, but that fact doesn't seem to have sunk in.

President Bush took ages gathering multi-national and U.N. support for the invasion of Iraq. He also spent considerable time gaining overwhelming bi-partisan support of the Congress and the American people before taking action.

During that period, there were reports of Russian truck caravans moving materials at night into Syria. The fact that U.S. troops could not find huge stockpiles of WMD is not surprising, we only looked in Iraq. We also didn't find many of Saddam's aircraft in Iraq... we knew they were sent to Iran.

President Bush dotted all his "i's" and crossed all his "t's", but it gave Saddam the time he needed to move that which he didn't want found or destroyed.
Roberta G

United States

#168898 Sep 23, 2013
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
What would you call the media who promotes a buffoon into a genius?
I've got it!

"DISCIPLES"

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#168899 Sep 23, 2013
Lyndi wrote:
<quoted text>
"The art of Socratic questioning is important for the critical thinker because the art of questioning is important to excellence of thought. What the word ‘Socratic’ adds is “systematicity”,“depth”, and a keen interest in assessing the truth or plausibility of things.
There is a special relationship between critical thinking and Socratic Questioning because both share a common end. Critical thinking gives one a comprehensive view of how the mind functions (in its pursuit of meaning and truth), and Socratic Questioning takes advantage of that overview to frame questions essential to the quality of that pursuit.
The goal of critical thinking is to establish a disciplined “executive” level of thinking to our thinking, a powerful inner voice of reason, to monitor, assess, and re-constitute — in a more rational direction — our thinking, feeling, and action. Socratic discussion cultivates that inner voice by providing a public model for it."
http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/the-rol...
=====
You have made it clear that you're satisified with what you know and no further exploration is needed.
I hope I never get to that point.
There is a considerable difference between rejecting the Socratic method outright and rejecting your use of it, or the way it is often employed in political discussions.

The question that sparked this conversation in the first place was "...I know you don't want to say outloud which political persuasion harbor those 3 traits more than the other but I'll ask anyway. Conservatives or liberals?".

I don't think either political persuasion harbors those traits more than the other. If I don't believe that either political persuasion harbors those traits more than the other, why should I play along with you? I mean, you've already set the stage for explaining away my answer with the suggestion that I know the truth but don't want to say it aloud, so what would the point be?

I'm all for critical thinking. What I'm opposed to is the notion that agreeing with me (or anyone else) is evidence that a person uses or is capable of critical thinking.

So ... no, Lyndi, I don't think I know enough and no longer need to think.

“2016 No Clinton No Bush!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#168900 Sep 23, 2013
BobinTX wrote:
<quoted text>
President Bush dotted all his "i's" and crossed all his "t's", but it gave Saddam the time he needed to move that which he didn't want found or destroyed.
How do you explain the fact that the United States Government reached the conclusion that there was nothing to move - that he had ended all WMD programs shortly after the Gulf War?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 1 min LAWEST100 609,913
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 4 min kent 579,274
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 11 min RiccardoFire 39,983
Engg College deoghar mie Chudai 22 min asin 1
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 22 min Porkpie Hat 270,175
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 37 min pusherman_ 817,994
No one should blaspheme Prophet Mohammad, peace... 40 min LAWEST100 126
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 9 hr RiccardoFire 98,011
More from around the web