Jump to content
Looks like the bloodthirsty lunatic fringe is alive and well in Moore County.
I side with American values, which include the right to confront your accuser, the right to have assistance of counsel in doing so, and the right not to have your status as a "terrorist" defined by one person, be he the president, the VP, or worse, some faceless bureaucrat who's accountable to no one.
Remember who's President. You know, the guy you hate and fear so very much. You really want to hand the power to declare you a terrorist or an enemy of the state to him with no right to counsel, no right to be heard by an impartial fact finder, and no appeal? I don't even want Barack Obama to have that power, and I voted for the guy.
Once you hand that power over, you have no assurance--none--that it won't be used against you.
"And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear."
Wonder why you don't provide the rest of the quote, Stevital:
"But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words - within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum: "Out of many, one."
Why'd you leave that out. Steve? You know, the part where Obama criticizes Muslims and defends America? How come? Hmmmmmmm? Maybe you didn't actually READ the speech in question and you're just parroting something some one e-mailed you? Could that be it?
In my interactions on this forum, I've noted recurring patterns in the so-called "debate" technique among the wingnuts. I'm collecting and numbering them here so you can recognize them. I refer to them as BSWATs (pronounced 'bee-swats.") The last three letters stand for "Wingnut 'Argument' Techiques." You can figure out what the first two stand for.
1) The simple unsupported contradiction and the repeated assertion of a demonstrably wrong premise as “Fact.” This clip from ”Family Guy” illustrates the technique:
A Mule: No sorry, Kevin Bacon wasn’t in Footloose.
Guy: What!?, of course he was.
A Mule: No he wasn’t, you lose.
Guy: Of course he was, he was the star.
A Mule: Nope, you’re wrong. Look it up.
Guy: I don’t have to look it up, it’s common knowledge…
A Mule: Nope..
Guy: he was on the cover of People Magazine
A Mule: Nope..
Guy: when the movie…
A Mule: No…
Guy: Everyone knows that….
A Mule: No!
Guy: Kevin Bacon was the star in Footloose..
A Mule: NO!
Guy: It was a huge movie,…
A Mule: NO!
Guy: he was the lead.
A Mule: NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! HeeHaw! HeeHaw! HeeHaw!
2) A similar technique: dismissing the argument out of hand, without attempt to debate:
"Kevin Bacon was the star of Footloose."
"That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard." (leaves discussion).
3) Ignoring what was said in favor of whining about the way it was said.
“Of course Kevin Bacon was in Footloose. Here’s the DVD box, you idiot. His name’s right there.”
”You called me a name! You libs don’t have any arguments. All you do is insult people.”
4) Handwaving away any information that contradicts you by dismissing the source out of hand.
“Look, Kevin Bacon starred in Footloose. It says so right here in the Internet Movie Database.”
5) Dragging some irrelevant celebrity bogeyman’s name into the conversation:
“Keith Olbermann thinks Kevin Bacon starred in Footloose, too. You sound like Keith Olbermann.” Other names used: Michael Moore, Rachel Maddow, George Soros,
6) "Yew thank yer purty smart, don't yew?" Usually expressed sarcastically: “Well, I guess not all of us have your wide expertise about movies. We’re all in awe of your knowledge.”
7) Attempts to change the subject:
“Well, Tom Cruise was in Top Gun and he’s a liberal and he’s crazy!”
8) Projection, or “I know you are, but what am I?” Example:
Arguing with a Leftist
9) “I’m not your Google monkey”: making a wild and untrue assertion and insisting its the reader's responsibility to back it up for you or to disprove it:
“I know for a fact that Anthony Michael Hall was the star of Footloose.”
“That doesn’t sound right. Can you cite some source that backs that up?”
“I don’t have to back that up. You look it up!”
10) "Help! Help! I'm bein' repressed!" Asserting that because you're "entitled to your opinion." that any disagreement is an attempt to stifle your free speech rights.
Watch for these BSWATs in this forum. See how many you can tag.
If you'd like to see this week's column, which for some reason does not appear elsewhere on the web site, you can go here:
Maybe it’s just my ineptitude at blogging but it appears that The Pilot has stopped public comment on a highly controversial subject. This is the only place I can find to make my response to Dusty. It seems appropriate given his self aggrandizing pontification on the subject of “argument techniques”. It is easy to see the wing he is nuts for. Concerning one of Dusty's posts regarding Dwight Creech's letter on political correctness:
Dusty Rhodes of the Pilot should check his facts a bit better. He is obviously against believing fables; however, the irony of using a fable that he believes in order to make his point against believing in fables is classic "The Pilot" fare. The "Letter to Dr. Woods" he “quotes” to prop up the fable that Thomas Jefferson believed Christianity to be a superstition “of no redeeming value” and “founded upon fables and mythology” can only be found “quoted” in the book “Six Historic Americans” written by John E. Remsburg in 1906. The “letter” is nowhere to be found because it is itself a myth and a fable. Dusty has done nothing but expose himself as the atheist he is. It is no wonder that he despises the simple fact that “Government always reflects the faith and beliefs of the people” which is at the core of what Dwight Creech wrote. After all, atheists have made much “progress” against Christianity and are near their goal of eradicating them from the political process. The atheists’ tool of “political correctness” has convinced many churches to make God subject to their brabbling “public opinion”. “Separation of Church and State” is just separation of Christians from the political process and Dusty knows that. He certainly thinks government should reflect his own beliefs; but, not those of people he believes are believers in myths and fables, Christians. Any effort to disenfranchise Christians from the political process because of their faith in the God of the Bible is and ought to be a crime. Violators should be prosecuted… but they are not. BTW “American Taliban”???? Are you serious? Typical atheist.
Since this dimwit apparently thinks spamming his deranged rant in multiple places gives it more truthiness, I direct you to my response at the other place he posted it:
Dusty Rhodes - myth about Thomas Jefferson
The short version: I've looked and it is correct that the researchers at Monticello regard the "fables and mythologies" quote as "spurious"; therefore, I withdraw it, with apologies. However, there are multiple other quotes from Jefferson (reported at the link) which show that "onymon" would be regarded by him as one of the "enemies" of true Christianity.
Still waiting for you to feed me that "crow" you bragged about, since that link you provided just showed you up to be a liar.
What he claimed regarding an unnamed white legislator in the NC General Assembly.
He said," let's just call a spade a spade." He was immediately attacked verbally and almost physically by black members for using the word spade. They shouted how it was demeaning to their people. TV cameras showed that they had him hemned in and would let him leave until he apologized. Where's your free speech there?
When I asked for some proof of this, wdd at first pulled the old "you look it up" dodge. Eventually, he came up with this: http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1734&dat=19940516&id=KeAhAAAAIBAJ&sjid=1VIEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2983,1394474
But here's what the article actually said, word for word:
In an appropriations subcommittee meeting last week, Michaux was grilling a state budget officer about one of Hunt's proposals. Rep Zeno Edwards, R-Beaufort, who has embarassed himself before with stupid remarks, called across the room, "is that calling a spade a spade?" Michaux responded strongly "Watch your language!" But it was unclear from the tone of his voice whether Michaux had taken offense. Questioned after the meeting, Michaiux said he had. "It was a dumb remark. I don't see much humor in it."
Heh. So no group of black members attacked anyone "almost physically," No one hemmed anyone in, no one demanded an apology. One guy answered a stupid comment in such a way that bystanders couldn't tell until they asked if he was offended. No free speech violation there.
wdd's a liar. And I posted another proof of this on his wall a few minutes ago.
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
"Now answer my question: point me to a country for whom austerity has worked to create jobs and grow the economy."
Germany: now the 4th largest economy in the world. Not bad considering you needed a wheelbarrow full of cash to get a loaf of bread less than 75 years ago.
Anniversary Announcement | Birthdays Over 80 | Birthdays Under 12 | Engagement Announcement | Site Feedback | Letter to the Editor | User Submitted Photo | Subscription Request | Vacation Start Stops | Wedding Announcement Subscribe | Advertising | Media Kit | About Us | Contact Us | Archives | Search
Physical Address: 145 W. Pennsylvania Avenue, Southern Pines, NC Mailing Address: P.O. Box 58, Southern Pines, NC 28388 910-692-7271 Fax: 910-692-9382