Jccarlton wrote:TimTruett wrote:It used to be that, out of politeness, I would never argue with people about their opinions when the opinions involved strong feelings. But I have changed my mind.
I care about what is actually true.
Nice job. you seem to have hit all the talking points.
(Then the knives come out. After the bloodbath...)
If you really cared about the truth you do some reading rather than attempting to shoot the messenger just because he rattles your world view. and I am not the only one who thinks that Bernanke is an idiot:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4cbv-KQi_s
It's been my thinking that whenever someone expounds 'truth', then the following applies.
"Truth" according to whom?
Objective "Truth"? Subjective "Truth"? Verifiable "Truth"? Binary "Truth", all one or the other, or gray area "Truth", with shadings of "Truth"?
"Truth" with a limited subset of facts taken into account? Or "Truth" with everything tossed into the mix and boiled for a few days so concentrated "Truth" rises to the top while condensed "Lies" sink to the bottom?
Is it "Truth" which must be forced on unbelievers? "Truth" which must silence all other opinions and allows no dissent? "Truth" which must be presented in a 'particular' way so the reader will get the 'proper' opinion inculated into their minds?
Is it "Truth" which has to be spun, or twisted, or selectively edited? Is it "Truth" with a slant, a bias, a leaning toward a particular point of view that's inherently the only proper one for someone believing the "Truth"?
If you call it "Truth", does that mean all other viewpoints are lies? Are your "Truths" self-evident and can stand on their own, or do they need a shoring of selectively culled and out-of-context quotes and remarks? Does the "Truth" stand up to attacks on it's own? Is it internally self-consistent, and congruent with objective reality?
Does it have to be labeled as "Truth" in the first place?
If I'm looking for "Truth", I'll take what I find for "Truth" from
these guys. I KNOW what to expect from THEIR version of the "Truth". But I don't search for someone to tell me what to think - I search for information, and decide for myself what the "Truth" is. If you present 5 samples of "Truth", and I know one is immediately "False" but don't know about the others, I'm going to be suspicious about the quality of "Truth" used to craft the other four.
As Jccarlton said - I went through the '70s also. And we're shaping up to make THAT period look like the booming '90s, with Obama making ol' Jimmah look good. Obama isn't 'willfully stupid' - he's ignorant and determined to remain so. He believe that the answer to whatever question is posed is the one that'll make him look the best regardless of applicability or utility. He is, after all, the President. Details and results are for wimps.
But the folks on the left ought to be happy - they wanted this man in office. Someone who had no actual credentials, no actual success running anything complex, no actual experience in selecting competent advisors, but who they could hide criticism on by screaming 'RACISM!' at every opportunity and was photogenic as hell.
You cannot take a McDonalds line worker and make him the CEO of the company without expecting a disaster. You do not take a runway model and promote her to manage Christian Dior. We've taken someone who would have had a hard time being a good mayor of a small town and elected him to President - and now we get to deal with the aftermath.
That's the 'truth' as I see it. If it looks, honks, smells, floats, and shits like a goose, I'm going to think it's a goose, whether you insist on calling it an aardvark or a lemon.