Personal assaults on Obama

Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
1. "Just as wrong" as what? "Unfounded"? No. We attempt to explain the same set of facts (the autobiographical books, the selective schools, the supposed eloquence). Obama shills call this evidence of intellect. I say: "ghost-written", "affirmative action", and "what, uh, eloquence?"
Click to expand...

You're right, it's not "just as wrong", you're actually worse. You've arrived at a preconcieved idea that Obama is not intelligent, but you don't have any actual evidence. All you have is circular reasoning. 'I know he's not intelligent because he went to school under affirmative action; I know he went to school under affirmative action because he's not intelligent.' Do you see the problem?

Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
2. Tentatively. Show me a patent granted to Barak Obama, jr. for a faster chip or show me a chamber music composition by Barak Obama, jr. and I'll accept this as strong evidence of intellect. So far, it looks like he can't shake the indoctrination he imbibed as a youth at the feet of Frank Davis and Charles Ogletree. It at least as likely he got into Columbia and Harvard on affirmative action as on SAT scores and GPA (transcripts could prove otherwise). The eloquence is not apparent.
Click to expand...

You're just falling into the same pits. You can't prove anything so you'll go with what you believe and make up excuses for why you think he's not what some others claim him to be.

For that matter, what makes you think someone who used affirmative action can't be intelligent? You're just throwing accusations and seeing what sticks.


ETA: I honestly don't know how intelligent you are, for example, but under your method of making unfounded connections I could assume that you're inability to use the quote system properly demonstrates a lack of intelligence. But I'd like to think we're above using such silly arguments like that, right? So maybe you should try to raise yourself above them too.
 
Last edited:
elbe said:
You're right, it's not "just as wrong", you're actually worse. You've arrived at a preconcieved idea that Obama is not intelligent, but you don't have any actual evidence. All you have is circular reasoning. 'I know he's not intelligent because he went to school under affirmative action; I know he went to school under affirmative action because he's not intelligent.' Do you see the problem?
Click to expand...
I see a problem with this restatement of the argument. I'm not (mostly) arguing about Barak Obama's intellect. I'm arguing that the supposed evidence of that supposed intellect has other interpretations.

I honestly don't know how intelligent you are, for example, but under your method of making unfounded connections I could assume that you're inability to use the quote system properly demonstrates a lack of intelligence. But I'd like to think we're above using such silly arguments like that, right? So maybe you should try to raise yourself above them too.[/QUOTE]
 
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
I see a problem with this restatement of the argument. I'm not (mostly) arguing about Barak Obama's intellect. I'm arguing that the supposed evidence of that supposed intellect has other interpretations.
Click to expand...

Like I said before, I have no idea how intelligent he is. For the most part his intelligence is perceived and, I think, for a lot of Dems it's just partisan blowing over the younger Bush's perceived intelligence; Obama is a better speaker than Bush, Obama did better in school, etc. You're just coming off as overly partisan (not to mention that 'affirmative action' has been codeword by racists, so you might want to be careful of guilt by association if you don't have any actual evidence).
 
Frankly I don't care how intelligent he is. I just want him to have policy goals I agree with and to honestly pursue them. So far he has.

Thus, idiot or not, he has my vote.
 
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
1. Obama's shills offer his purported eloquence as evidence of his intellect.
Click to expand...

They're also incorrect, eloquence has nothing to do with intelligence. I suspect you're aware of this but a little thing like honesty hasn't stopped you thus far.

Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
2. Mindreading, on Fthagan's part.
Click to expand...

So you know perfectly well why I think you're being disingenuous?

Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
3. Affirmative action explains Obama's acceptance to selective schools. Like his supposed eloquence, Obama's shills offer his admission to Columbia and Harvard as evidence of his intellect. Affirmative action is an alternative explanation to intellect.
Click to expand...

1. Your explanation has no explanatory power, baseless speculation explains nothing.

2. You're likely misinterpreting their statement; what was meant is that his graduation with honors is a sign of intelligence.

3. Your continued assistance on using the term "Obama's shills" is an example of what wikipedia would call "weasel words" -- a more

Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
4. Ummm...
Let's retrace this:...
(Kthulhut Fhtagn): "5: In addition to the above, your obvious condescension towards those who have benefited from such programs is telling."
Click to expand...

Let's; honestly this time. In this post you labelled this sentence (Pointing to the specific behaviors on[sic] an individual is by definition not a generalization.) as #4 and responded with:

Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
4. "Those" is a plural.
Click to expand...

Again, explain where exactly the word "those" appears. This time do it in an intellectually honest manner; one where you don't have to drudge through half of my response to find an instance of the word having absolutely nothing to do with the statement you labelled so you can continue to ignore the argument therein.
 
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
I see a problem with this restatement of the argument. I'm not (mostly) arguing about Barak Obama's intellect. I'm arguing that the supposed evidence of that supposed intellect has other interpretations.
Click to expand...

Shifting the goalposts or simply more circular reasoning? Nothing you've said actually dispels elbe's argument that your reasoning is circular. In anycase, it's simply more baseless speculation; I could also claim that Obama's intelligence is as a result of a reptilian plot where they've used their mind-enhancer rays on him.
 
Kthulhut Fhtagn said:
...eloquence has nothing to do with intelligence.
Click to expand...
That's a bit strong. Verbal memory, assimilation of the rules of grammar, and the ability to see things from the point of view of the audience are ingredients of eloquence, seems to me. These have "nothing to do with intelligence"? Unlikely.
Kthulhut Fhtagn said:
...I suspect you're aware of this but a little thing like honesty hasn't stopped you thus far.
Click to expand...
...
...
...
Kthulhut Fhtagn said:
So you know perfectly well why I think you're being disingenuous?
Click to expand...
I have to guess. I'm not the mindreader in this discussion.
Kthulhut Fhtagn said:
Again, explain where exactly the word "those" appears. This time do it in an intellectually honest manner; one where you don't have to drudge through half of my response to find an instance of the word having absolutely nothing to do with the statement you labelled so you can continue to ignore the argument therein.
Click to expand...
(Kthulhut Fhtagn): "5: In addition to the above, your obvious condescension towards those who have benefited from such programs is telling."
"Explain"? Res ipsa loquitur.
To deduce the plural from one case is wild generalization.
 
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
That's a bit strong. Verbal memory, assimilation of the rules of grammar, and the ability to see things from the point of view of the audience are ingredients of eloquence, seems to me. These have "nothing to do with intelligence"? Unlikely
Click to expand...

Riiiiight, intelligence can be measured by public speaking. I'm sure all experts in the field will be lining up to agree with you on that. :rolleyes:

Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
(Kthulhut Fhtagn): "5: In addition to the above, your obvious condescension towards those who have benefited from such programs is telling."
"Explain"? Res ipsa loquitur.
To deduce the plural from one case is wild generalization.
Click to expand...

So which is it then? Are you only condescending towards those who benefited from affirmative action when they don't agree with you politically? Either you're playing arbitrarily with your condescension or you're condescending towards everyone who benefited from such a program.

ETA: And fyi -- referring to someone as an "affirmative action baby" and utilizing such a "fact" to attack the notion that they're intelligent is the height of condescension. Either you condescend towards everyone and I'm not making a generalization or you're arbitrarily applying it to Obama and can be dismissed as such.
 
Last edited:
Travis said:
Frankly I don't care how intelligent he is. I just want him to have policy goals I agree with and to honestly pursue them. So far he has.
Click to expand...
That's a reasonable position, except for "so far he has".

The candidate who criticized the Bush deficits, the President who ran up record deficits and said "spending is stimulus", or the President who subsequently expressed concern about deficits? The candidate who promised to close Guantanamo in the first year in office, or the President who, as Commander in Chief, continues its operation. The candidate who criticized the Bush interrogation methods or the President who has expanded drone warfare? I mean, which would you prefer: a sinus full of water or a Hellfire missile on your head? Where's Holder on this? Remember he said he'd treat terrorism as a criminal matter and not warfare? If this is "crime" and not "war" what authority does the President have to execute people without trial? The President who opposed gay marriage or the President who now supports it? The President who advocates tax increases on the top income earners or the President who subsidizes his connected friends (e.g., Solyndra) with DOE money? Corzine's MF Global stole $1 billion of client money and no one faces prosecution?
 
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
That's a reasonable position, except for "so far he has".

The candidate who criticized the Bush deficits, the President who ran up record deficits and said "spending is stimulus", or the President who subsequently expressed concern about deficits? The candidate who promised to close Guantanamo in the first year in office, or the President who, as Commander in Chief, continues its operation. The candidate who criticized the Bush interrogation methods or the President who has expanded drone warfare? I mean, which would you prefer: a sinus full of water or a Hellfire missile on your head? Where's Holder on this? Remember he said he'd treat terrorism as a criminal matter and not warfare? If this is "crime" and not "war" what authority does the President have to execute people without trial? The President who opposed gay marriage or the President who now supports it? The President who advocates tax increases on the top income earners or the President who subsidizes his connected friends (e.g., Solyndra) with DOE money? Corzine's MF Global stole $1 billion of client money and no one faces prosecution?
Click to expand...

Sorry, I can't parse who you're talking about here. You're also making a few comparisons that don't make sense (idiotic torture of prisoners and military attacks on specific targets) as well as assuming the President has ultimate power. The branches are supposed to balance power for a reason.
 
Last edited:
Kthulhut Fhtagn said:
Riiiiight, intelligence can be measured by public speaking. I'm sure all experts in the field will be lining up to agree with you on that.
Click to expand...
Verbal skill is a common element of IQ measurement. There are others. At the extreme, one can be mute and intelligent (Helen Keller). Any skill is a potential measure of IQ, since the rate at which an individual can acquire the skill can be compared to the average.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom