Concerning your criticism of Joe Lieberman
From: Bill G.
Sent: Sat 6/21/08 8:14 PM
To: alancolmesradio@foxnews.com
Does your view of Lieberman as a "DINO" extend even back to before he decided to support McCain and run as an independent Democrat, or was it those two choices that brought you to your opinion of him? I ask because I am not sure, though we both disagree with him on this matter, his support for the war makes him anti Democratic, after all, he was in the majority of Senate Democrats (29-21) who voted on H.J.Res. 114, though it can be said that the Democrats are trying to correct that mistake, so he would arguably be against the party platform as things now are. Also, I am unclear on how liberal his record is, or is not, for that matter. I believe that calling him a "DINO" is warranted by his support for McCain, if for no other reason, but I am not sure it is fair to call him one based on his record before that and his choice to run against Lamont and Schlesinger, etc. Does his record support the assertion?
Well, thanks for your time.
W F G
6/21/08
6/18/08
Old screen name search and my mangled comment.
Technically, I still use that screen name in at least one place.
http://litochoro.blogspot.com/2006/03/im-sorry-i-thought-this-was-america.html
My comment is the last one.
http://litochoro.blogspot.com/2006/03/im-sorry-i-thought-this-was-america.html
My comment is the last one.
6/5/08
What concerns me about the McLellan, and any such, book
The first and most reasonable expectation of me is to read the book, but I’ll tell you right off that I have no intention of doing so. That said, I’ll now begin.
Sources can either be appealed to or attacked. In the first case, a source is assumed as being mostly, or fully, factual; in the second, a source is assumed as being the opposite; and to question a source is to not make an assumption as to its accuracy.
When a source is assumed as factual, it becomes the predicate from which a premise and subsequent conclusion follows.
A source can be used as part of preponderate evidence, but, then, concern over the use of individually false evidence potentially arises: “is my argument supported by falsehoods”? “Is my opponent’s lesser evidence [if such is the case] superior to mine because his evidence is of infallible quality [again, if that happens to be the case], or because I am unable to refute it”?
Why does any of that matter? It goes to ethics, which asks us to ask ourselves what the fairness of our evidence is, and how should we use it?
This isn’t about McLellan, or even Bush, it’s a personal lament I have over how we, in our debates, can favor so readily the ideas we like, and dismissive of the ones we don’t, and how we in turn act as if we are not hypocritical when we tell others to not do the same.
Sources can either be appealed to or attacked. In the first case, a source is assumed as being mostly, or fully, factual; in the second, a source is assumed as being the opposite; and to question a source is to not make an assumption as to its accuracy.
When a source is assumed as factual, it becomes the predicate from which a premise and subsequent conclusion follows.
A source can be used as part of preponderate evidence, but, then, concern over the use of individually false evidence potentially arises: “is my argument supported by falsehoods”? “Is my opponent’s lesser evidence [if such is the case] superior to mine because his evidence is of infallible quality [again, if that happens to be the case], or because I am unable to refute it”?
Why does any of that matter? It goes to ethics, which asks us to ask ourselves what the fairness of our evidence is, and how should we use it?
This isn’t about McLellan, or even Bush, it’s a personal lament I have over how we, in our debates, can favor so readily the ideas we like, and dismissive of the ones we don’t, and how we in turn act as if we are not hypocritical when we tell others to not do the same.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)