hoyaloya
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 156
|
Post by hoyaloya on May 9, 2014 14:58:29 GMT -5
Our local library leaves out stacks of bookmarks, usually of designs by elementary school children.
One day, bookmarks appeared containing “facts” on the Affordable Care Act. One statement struck me as unintentional truth-telling:
“There is more to the Affordable Care Act than health insurance.” [Emphasis added]
That is certainly true - bigger government, more bureaucratic interference with our lives and our freedom of choice, more enforced dependence on the government, and, of course, more promotion of abortion. [BTW, a bookmark “fact” is that ID is required to apply for Obamacare; remember when the Democrats claimed that to require ID to vote would be racist?]
After four years, Nancy Pelosi’s words still resonate: “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, …” If a managing officer of a corporation made such a statement about a system-changing program to the board of directors, there soon would be a new managing officer. What is depressing is that most of the electorate took no notice; as long as they received entitlements, they could not care less. The Democrats have built a successful strategy from the axiom “He who robs Peter to pay Paul, can always count on Paul’s support. “ We now have an irreducible majority of Pauls, who are not going to vote to cut off the goodies. I never imagined I would promote a video produced by Nancy Pelosi’s daughter and shown on the Bill Maher show, but this, from 2012, is a must-see classic:
Soon, the Democrats will not have to deal with the annoyance of winning votes because the Courts will enact their agenda without the messy business of convincing voters. Case in point: recently the Senate approved 51- 44 the appointment of a Georgetown Law professor, Cornelia Pillard, to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for DC, regarded by many as the most second most important Court. The HHS mandate, the Obama Administration’s unprecedented infringement of First Amendment religious liberties, is being challenged in numerous Federal Courts. Pillard has accused those opposing the mandate of being guilty of “discrimination against women as a class of presumptive breeders.” That rhetoric is par for the course with her. Here are other pronouncements.
“Anti-abortion laws and other restraints on reproductive freedom not only enforce women's incubation of unwanted pregnancies, but also prescribe a ‘vision of the woman's role’ as mother and caretaker of children in a way that is at odds with equal protection.”
Abortion on demand is necessary to help “free women from historically routine conscription into maternity.”
Abstinence sex education is unconstitutional in public schools because it is “permeated with stereotyped messages and sex-based double standards” and therefore “violates the constitutional bar against sex stereotyping and is vulnerable to equal protection challenge.”
Needless to say only Democrats [and not all Democrats] voted to confirm. Given that 80% of Americans are against abortion on demand, whatever happened to the Democrats’ “not-in-the mainstream” test?
Now the kicker: one of the challenges to the HHS mandate was heard this past week by a 3 judge panel in the DC Circuit. Guess who was selected to be one of the 3 judges? You got it – Cornelia Pillard! The other two were an Obama appointee and a Clinton appointee. When Reid and the Senate Democrats banned the filibuster procedures that for years they used to block Republican nominees, they quickly confirmed Pillard and two other Obama nominees, giving them 7 of the 11 judges on the court. Q E D!
Give the man credit. Obama told us in November, 2008: “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” He called the shot and pulled it off.
GAMEOVER
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,441
|
Post by TC on May 9, 2014 15:46:01 GMT -5
The other two were an Obama appointee and a Clinton appointee. When Reid and the Senate Democrats banned the filibuster procedures that for years they used to block Republican nominees, they quickly confirmed Pillard and two other Obama nominees, giving them 7 of the 11 judges on the court. Q E D! Right - they used it for years to block confirmations, and the Republicans howled, threatened the "nuclear option", and we had that Gang of 12 compromise that got all the Republican judges confirmed. In 2008, the Republicans go in the minority, they do the same thing - blocked confirmations for 5 years, and Reid threatens to drop the filibuster for judge appointments, makes a compromise with McConnell to get the judges confirmed. The rest of this post - bleah - who does this at 4 PM on a Friday. Not even Elvado! |
|
hoyaloya
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 156
|
Post by hoyaloya on May 24, 2014 10:23:44 GMT -5
The reply contests only one point. In fact, the "compromise” benefited the Dems and they got it only because McCain prevented use of the nuclear option. McCain maintained the filibuster procedures would work for the Republicans’ benefit when they were in the minority. Naively, he believed the Dems would reciprocate his restraint. Wrong. About Reid's move last November, McConnell stated "It only reinforces the narrative of a party willing to do or say just about anything to get its way.” thehill.com/homenews/senate/191042-dems-reid-may-go-nuclear-thursdayAs to all the rest of the post - the ACA passage [we have to pass it to find out what is in it], its overreaching provisions, the bloat of government, the purchase of the electorate through “entitlements”, the welfare cheat video, the need to prove ID for Obamacare, the refusal to require ID to vote, the false claims, the promotion of abortion, the HHS mandate violating First Amendment religious liberty rights, the stacking of the Courts, the bogus standard for appointment, the confirmation of Pillard, her failure to recuse herself on an issue she publicly has prejudged, etc., etc. , etc. – the reply was … NOTHING but "bleah." |
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,392 
Member is Online
|
Post by hoyainspirit on May 24, 2014 10:50:41 GMT -5
Our local library leaves out stacks of bookmarks, usually of designs by elementary school children. One day, bookmarks appeared containing “facts” on the Affordable Care Act. One statement struck me as unintentional truth-telling: “There is more to the Affordable Care Act than health insurance.” [Emphasis added] That is certainly true - bigger government, more bureaucratic interference with our lives and our freedom of choice, more enforced dependence on the government, and, of course, more promotion of abortion. [BTW, a bookmark “fact” is that ID is required to apply for Obamacare; remember when the Democrats claimed that to require ID to vote would be racist?] After four years, Nancy Pelosi’s words still resonate: “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, …” If a managing officer of a corporation made such a statement about a system-changing program to the board of directors, there soon would be a new managing officer. What is depressing is that most of the electorate took no notice; as long as they received entitlements, they could not care less. The Democrats have built a successful strategy from the axiom “He who robs Peter to pay Paul, can always count on Paul’s support. “ We now have an irreducible majority of Pauls, who are not going to vote to cut off the goodies. I never imagined I would promote a video produced by Nancy Pelosi’s daughter and shown on the Bill Maher show, but this, from 2012, is a must-see classic: Soon, the Democrats will not have to deal with the annoyance of winning votes because the Courts will enact their agenda without the messy business of convincing voters. Case in point: recently the Senate approved 51- 44 the appointment of a Georgetown Law professor, Cornelia Pillard, to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for DC, regarded by many as the most second most important Court. The HHS mandate, the Obama Administration’s unprecedented infringement of First Amendment religious liberties, is being challenged in numerous Federal Courts. Pillard has accused those opposing the mandate of being guilty of “discrimination against women as a class of presumptive breeders.” That rhetoric is par for the course with her. Here are other pronouncements. “Anti-abortion laws and other restraints on reproductive freedom not only enforce women's incubation of unwanted pregnancies, but also prescribe a ‘vision of the woman's role’ as mother and caretaker of children in a way that is at odds with equal protection.” Abortion on demand is necessary to help “free women from historically routine conscription into maternity.” Abstinence sex education is unconstitutional in public schools because it is “permeated with stereotyped messages and sex-based double standards” and therefore “violates the constitutional bar against sex stereotyping and is vulnerable to equal protection challenge.” Needless to say only Democrats [and not all Democrats] voted to confirm. Given that 80% of Americans are against abortion on demand, whatever happened to the Democrats’ “not-in-the mainstream” test? Now the kicker: one of the challenges to the HHS mandate was heard this past week by a 3 judge panel in the DC Circuit. Guess who was selected to be one of the 3 judges? You got it – Cornelia Pillard! The other two were an Obama appointee and a Clinton appointee. When Reid and the Senate Democrats banned the filibuster procedures that for years they used to block Republican nominees, they quickly confirmed Pillard and two other Obama nominees, giving them 7 of the 11 judges on the court. Q E D! Give the man credit. Obama told us in November, 2008: “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” He called the shot and pulled it off. GAMEOVER TLDNR. Plus, considering the source... Learned my lesson from the previous thread you started. |
|
|
|
Post by Problem of Dog on May 24, 2014 21:42:29 GMT -5
The reply contests only one point. In fact, the "compromise” benefited the Dems and they got it only because McCain prevented use of the nuclear option. McCain maintained the filibuster procedures would work for the Republicans’ benefit when they were in the minority. Naively, he believed the Dems would reciprocate his restraint. Wrong. About Reid's move last November, McConnell stated "It only reinforces the narrative of a party willing to do or say just about anything to get its way.” thehill.com/homenews/senate/191042-dems-reid-may-go-nuclear-thursdayAs to all the rest of the post - the ACA passage [we have to pass it to find out what is in it], its overreaching provisions, the bloat of government, the purchase of the electorate through “entitlements”, the welfare cheat video, the need to prove ID for Obamacare, the refusal to require ID to vote, the false claims, the promotion of abortion, the HHS mandate violating First Amendment religious liberty rights, the stacking of the Courts, the bogus standard for appointment, the confirmation of Pillard, her failure to recuse herself on an issue she publicly has prejudged, etc., etc. , etc. – the reply was … NOTHING but "bleah." I honestly thought our fanbase was smarter than this extremist lunacy. Did you really make it through Georgetown and/or Georgetown Law spouting off nonsense like this? Do you read InfoWars? |
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on May 24, 2014 23:23:07 GMT -5
The B&G Board is reaching all new heights.
|
|
hoyaloya
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 156
|
Post by hoyaloya on May 31, 2014 13:43:46 GMT -5
I checked in to see if there were replies to my last post that required response. There were no replies on the merits, only ad hominem invective. “The ad hominem argument is where you seek to discredit someone’s argument by drawing attention to …[the person’s] motive, character, authority, education, age, state of mind, etc., rather than showing what is wrong with the argument itself. It is one of the most common logical fallacies and ways to derail an argument.” abagond.wordpress.com/2010/09/24/ad-hominem-argument/ Click on the site to see the illustration entitled Logical Fallacies: A picture of two web-footed birds, the first with this caption: “We share many genetic characteristics with ducks because we have evolved from a common ancestor.” The second and larger bird, leaning into the face of the first, has its beak wide open with this caption: “You’re close-minded and stupid and you eat corn!. You don’t know anything!” At one time, to obtain a Georgetown degree, it was necessary to pass a course in Logic. Is that still a requirement for a Georgetown degree? |
|
|
|
Post by Problem of Dog on May 31, 2014 13:52:05 GMT -5
I checked in to see if there were replies to my last post that required response. There were no replies on the merits, only ad hominem invective. “The ad hominem argument is where you seek to discredit someone’s argument by drawing attention to …[the person’s] motive, character, authority, education, age, state of mind, etc., rather than showing what is wrong with the argument itself. It is one of the most common logical fallacies and ways to derail an argument.” abagond.wordpress.com/2010/09/24/ad-hominem-argument/ Click on the site to see the illustration entitled Logical Fallacies: A picture of two web-footed birds, the first with this caption: “We share many genetic characteristics with ducks because we have evolved from a common ancestor.” The second and larger bird, leaning into the face of the first, has its beak wide open with this caption: “You’re close-minded and stupid and you eat corn!. You don’t know anything!” At one time, to obtain a Georgetown degree, it was necessary to pass a course in Logic. Is that still a requirement for a Georgetown degree? When you see a homeless person ranting on the corner about aliens and the government, do you sit down with him and try and explain to him why he's wrong? Or do you just go "Man, that guy is crazy. Not worth my time," ? |
|
pertinax
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 131
|
Post by pertinax on May 31, 2014 14:15:39 GMT -5
MAJOR PREMISE: "When you see a homeless person ranting on the corner about aliens..."
MINOR PREMISE: "Do you sit down with him and try to explain why he's wrong?"
CONCLUSION: "Or do you just go, 'That man is crazy?'"
You see, Hoyaloya, they still must teach logic at Georgetown. Problem of Dog's use of it is truly crushing! Right? I mean, right? Amazing! You had just posted the definition of "ad hominem" and along he comes to illustrate it sublimely. What an embarrassment to Georgetown.
|
|
Filo
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,906
|
Post by Filo on May 31, 2014 17:18:22 GMT -5
Wayne Davis' Logic class was among my favorites classes at GU.
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator 
Posts: 30,476
|
Post by DanMcQ on May 31, 2014 18:51:21 GMT -5
What an embarrassment to Georgetown. Pot meet kettle. |
|
hoyaloya
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 156
|
Post by hoyaloya on May 31, 2014 19:09:37 GMT -5
I do not usually check these sites daily but I did just now.
Thank you, Problem and "Moderator" -
Q E D
|
|
|
|
Post by Problem of Dog on May 31, 2014 21:09:21 GMT -5
I don't think that means what you think it means.
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,476
|
Post by DanMcQ on Jun 1, 2014 8:17:26 GMT -5
|
|
hoyaloya
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 156
|
Post by hoyaloya on Jun 22, 2014 16:53:59 GMT -5
I submit that "Pot meet kettle” posted in direct response to a pertinax message is a partisan statement. Making a partisan post in a forum of which one is the moderator is a conflict of interest and a contradiction in terms It is tantamount to a referee joining one fighter in punching his opponent. I commend to everyone’s attention www.inprogressweb.com/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2012/11/10-Rules-for-Being-a-Great-Moderator.pdf Rule 1 states in pertinent part: “Be neutral and objective: as a moderator you are not supposed to participate in the discussion or share your own views, but to be an objective, impartial voice. If you have a lot of things to say, then you should be part of the panel, and not the moderator. You have every right to have an opinion. If you put it on the table, however, you would be taking sides.” Again, no refutation of the facts in the opening post, just a continuation of ad hominem invective – quod erat demonstrandum
And no response to the question: At one time, to obtain a Georgetown degree, it was necessary to pass a course in Logic. Is that still a requirement for a Georgetown degree?
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,731
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Jun 22, 2014 21:33:29 GMT -5
And no response to the question: At one time, to obtain a Georgetown degree, it was necessary to pass a course in Logic. Is that still a requirement for a Georgetown degree?
It is not a requirement in any of the four undergraduate schools, at least since the 1980's. |
|
|
|
Post by Problem of Dog on Jun 22, 2014 22:04:05 GMT -5
I submit that "Pot meet kettle” posted in direct response to a pertinax message is a partisan statement. Making a partisan post in a forum of which one is the moderator is a conflict of interest and a contradiction in terms It is tantamount to a referee joining one fighter in punching his opponent. I commend to everyone’s attention www.inprogressweb.com/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2012/11/10-Rules-for-Being-a-Great-Moderator.pdf Rule 1 states in pertinent part: “Be neutral and objective: as a moderator you are not supposed to participate in the discussion or share your own views, but to be an objective, impartial voice. If you have a lot of things to say, then you should be part of the panel, and not the moderator. You have every right to have an opinion. If you put it on the table, however, you would be taking sides.” Again, no refutation of the facts in the opening post, just a continuation of ad hominem invective – quod erat demonstrandum
And no response to the question: At one time, to obtain a Georgetown degree, it was necessary to pass a course in Logic. Is that still a requirement for a Georgetown degree?
OH NO HE BROKE THE MODERATOR RULES!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Jun 22, 2014 22:46:49 GMT -5
I submit that "Pot meet kettle” posted in direct response to a pertinax message is a partisan statement. Making a partisan post in a forum of which one is the moderator is a conflict of interest and a contradiction in terms It is tantamount to a referee joining one fighter in punching his opponent. I commend to everyone’s attention www.inprogressweb.com/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2012/11/10-Rules-for-Being-a-Great-Moderator.pdf Rule 1 states in pertinent part: “Be neutral and objective: as a moderator you are not supposed to participate in the discussion or share your own views, but to be an objective, impartial voice. If you have a lot of things to say, then you should be part of the panel, and not the moderator. You have every right to have an opinion. If you put it on the table, however, you would be taking sides.” Again, no refutation of the facts in the opening post, just a continuation of ad hominem invective – quod erat demonstrandum
And no response to the question: At one time, to obtain a Georgetown degree, it was necessary to pass a course in Logic. Is that still a requirement for a Georgetown degree?
How long did you spend looking for non-binding, totally subjective "rules" for moderating? If it was more than "no time at all," it was too much time. |
|
hoyaloya
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 156
|
Post by hoyaloya on Aug 17, 2014 0:46:04 GMT -5
I raised a question:
At one time, to obtain a Georgetown degree, it was necessary to pass a course in Logic. Is that still a requirement for a Georgetown degree?
Thanks to DFW for his response:
“It is not a requirement in any of the four undergraduate schools, at least since the 1980's.”
Can we all agree that the requirement should be reinstated?
Richard M. Coleman
Georgetown AB ’57; LL.M. ‘61
|
|
hoopsmccan
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,419
|
Post by hoopsmccan on Aug 17, 2014 6:35:38 GMT -5
I raised a question: At one time, to obtain a Georgetown degree, it was necessary to pass a course in Logic. Is that still a requirement for a Georgetown degree? Thanks to DFW for his response: “It is not a requirement in any of the four undergraduate schools, at least since the 1980's.” Can we all agree that the requirement should be reinstated? Richard M. Coleman Georgetown AB ’57; LL.M. ‘61 Yes, we all agree. Now go away. You are mucking up the last 10 posts feed. hm |
|
