News Here's a Shocker: Gates says Obama more Analytical than Bush

[LowlyPion]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_b-9Ees

I wonder could this have anything to do with Cheney doing Bush's thinking for him? Bush just forgot what being analytical was?

 

[kyleb]

It seems obvious enough to me that Cheney and carefully stacked the deck so "The Decider" was sure to pick the card they wanted him to as needed. The massive bag of hot air which was the WMDs argument being a notable example of a stacked deck the masses fell for along side Bush. Anyway, I have long held the impression Gates has as little of capability for analytical thought as Bush does, and this only goes to further support it.

 

[asdfggfdsa]

Anyway, I have long held the impression Gates has as little of capability for analytical thought as Bush does, and this only goes to further support it.

Gates being a Georgetown PhD alum suggests otherwise; further, he probably knows something about being politic.

 

[kyleb]

I know argumentum ad verecundiam and an infatuation with being politic is making a mess of this nation.

 

[Oscar Wilde]

If only all intelligence could be measured in degrees...

As kyleb mentioned Ipse Dixit is quite informal logic and generally should not accepted, in argument, especially on a subject that we could all draw conclusions on, without outside opinion.

 

[Scuzzle]

You can almost see the gears turning in his head as he tries to come up with a difference that would improve Obama's image without making Bush look any worse.

Can't be trusted.

 

[Oscar Wilde]

Yes I found it funny how he took roughly 10 seconds of umm...uhhh...well... before he could summon the most commonly referenced defect of Bush.

 

[asdfggfdsa]

As kyleb mentioned Ipse Dixit is quite informal logic and generally should not accepted, in argument, especially on a subject that we could all draw conclusions on, without outside opinion.

Note that a search of posts made by kyleb with the term 'gates' turns up two posts: the above, along with another post in which he states a preference for Cohen. In neither of these posts does he profer reasons for his statement - so are we to assume kyleb's statement on faith?

Otherwise, I agree on the 'um's.

 

[LowlyPion]

Yes I found it funny how he took roughly 10 seconds of umm...uhhh...well... before he could summon the most commonly referenced defect of Bush.

Calling the guy that appointed you a dolt on National TV would have been a bit over the top.

 

[kyleb]

Note that a search of posts made by kyleb with the term 'gates' turns up two posts: the above, along with another post in which he states a preference for Cohen. In neither of these posts does he profer reasons for his statement - so are we to assume kyleb's statement on faith?

I was only stating opinions and you shouldn't take them as anything more than that. However, if you wanted to know my reasoning you would have done well to ask, or better yet tried searching for information on Gates outside of my posts. Here is a start:

http://wap.newsweek.mlogic3g.com/detail.jsp?key=5416&rc=hose_co&p=1&pv=1

 

[mheslep]

I was only stating opinions and you shouldn't take them as anything more than that. However, if you wanted to know my reasoning you would have done well to ask, or better yet tried searching for information on Gates outside of my posts. Here is a start:

http://wap.newsweek.mlogic3g.com/detail.jsp?key=5416&rc=hose_co&p=1&pv=1

Yes please tell us how we should and should not take things, in the Latin, and when challenged post a non-sequitur.

 

[kyleb]

Asdfggfdsa asked if my comment should be taken on faith, and of course it shouldn't be taken as anything but the statement of opinion it was presented as, unless of course one insists on being obtuse.

 

[BarackZero]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_b-9Ees

I wonder could this have anything to do with Cheney doing Bush's thinking for him? Bush just forgot what being analytical was?

Don't Bush-haters ever tire of calling the man "stupid"? Ever?

Let's save a lot of time writing hate-filled posts, and reading them as well.

Let's stipulate that Democrats are supremely intelligent, evolution's eternal gift to mankind.

Let's further stipulate that Republicans are the stupidest form of life imaginable.

Finally, let us observe that the Fallacy of the Argument From Authority negates the pretense that because Democrats are so supremely intelligent, they are as infallibly right as Republicans are infallibly wrong.

After all, the Unabomber is a brilliant person. He just happened to send package bombs to individuals who disagreed with his political positions. And by the way, the Unabomber had a well-worn copy of Earth in the Balance in his filthy cabin.

"I was standing in a boat anchored fifty miles from the water." - Al Gore the brilliant

Al, boats that are sitting on soil are not "anchored." Umm, Al...

 

[LowlyPion]

... let us observe that the Fallacy of the Argument From Authority

Awfully selective in your argument fallacies aren't you?

Maybe when you stop indulging in what you decry you can get some traction? For instance there is nothing about Al Gore that mitigates Bush or Republican imprudence and analysis failures.

 

[BarackZero]

Awfully selective in your argument fallacies aren't you?

Maybe when you stop indulging in what you decry you can get some traction? For instance there is nothing about Al Gore that mitigates Bush or Republican imprudence and analysis failures.

Well, no, it is Democrats who are profoundly selective in argument fallacies.

The pretense by Democrats that intellectualism is THE arbiter of all things is the classic Fallacy of the Argument From Authority. This fallacy is almost completely ignored and overlooked by the Politically Correct set, beginning with Al Gorians.

I do not expect much traction from the left, breathtakingly dishonest as it is.

 

[LowlyPion]

Well, no, it is Democrats who are profoundly selective in argument fallacies.

Looks like you are not taking responsibility for your own behavior. Nothing others do mitigates the observation that the personal values that you would hold others to you are not observing yourself.