Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I repeat, 'the Obama administration is the most evil administration in US history'If this is a strawman, how so?
That isn't, but me not voting means I'm condoning the evil part is.
Romney is a lock to win Kentucky. My not voting will not change this. I am not condoning any evil by not voting. That is a straw man argument that makes no sense. You are just trying to guilt trip me and it won't work. 🙂
Since there is no thumbs up I will just repeat Ski's post word for word. He is hitting that nail square on the head. By refusing to oppose Obama, you are condoning him or at least guaranteeing 4 more years of his garbage. 4 years the country may not survive.
False again.
So are those same religious reasons OK with keeping Valerie Jarrett, Sebelius, Holder, Amb Rice, and all those other satanists on Obama's team in power?Sad and scary. The Obama administration is the most evil in the history of our country and you know it. By not voting to get rid of him or wasting your vote on someone you know FULL WELL doesn't stand a chance, you are approving of Obama's evil.
False
Well I was in the middle of a post when Phid locked this and I lost my post. Anyway Scout vote your conscience and all will be well. I won't be voting for Romney because of religious reasons. Gary Johnson would be a safe vote if you value the constitution and the second amendment. There really is no great choice this year. We've had mediocre candidates foisted on us and that is our lot.
“Queer theory as applied to Middle Colonial life, 1730-1760”. Would you want to include that as an example of scholarship? It may have been a “serious effort”. I think the bottom line is that not all scholarly approaches are equal.
Believe it or not, I could see citing that just for a spectrum analysis showing how divergent views can be. Obviously a title like that would raise an eyebrow and that probably wouldn't help the credibility of any paper that seriously cited that…it is a polemic just by the title alone.
What determines if a work is “bad” or not? If someone did a serious effort at scholarship (even with their biases) there has to be some value as a citable work. If it is citable, it should be included. Only if it is an outright polemic should it be shunned.
Well then, if Obama does win what does your crystal ball say he will do in the next four year other than capitulate to every two-bit dictatorship on the planet plus the Islamists? If Obama is elected I am afraid the end of our Republic is near as he destroys the very things that made America great in the first place.
That very likely will be the case. I don't think Romney would be able to do much more to stop the decline of America….maybe delay it for a little longer, but he can't stop it from happening. Our currency is on the brink and our debt has reached a level of no return. We are going to default as a nation at some point. Obama will hasten it for sure, but it is still going to happen regardless.
I don't think you heard. I was limited in the number of entries I could include per section. Therefore I eliminated what i considered the worst, I still had some post-modernist type works in there.But you do have a point. I had not considered it from that angle before.
Still you have to include a cross section of all scholarship views. You needed to eliminate some redundant ones in favor of the liberal ones just to show you are accounting for all views. Especially in a bibliography piece you should do this every time.
Romney isn't going to win the blue collar voters in Ohio. He is rich and a Mormon. What does he have in common with them? Like it or not, Romney is just as weak a candidate as McCain was. The only reason he even has a chance is because this time around Obama has a record he must defend and there is no longer a buzz to elect the first black president. Still Obama is the incumbent and has money to spend and the media will do all in its power to help him. He is going to win California, New York, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and most of New England by default. All he has to do is win Ohio, Florida, Virginia and a collection of any other smaller states and he is in. Romney's margin for error is much smaller.
I did include recent scholarship in my original submission, I just eliminated what i considered to be the most biased publications regardless of their bias. I have railed about bias here often enough that I don't feel the need to repeat that here.I think I still would have said something because idiocy like that deserves to be put on the spot. If you cannot defend your position on anything but biased grounds then dont make the point in the first place is my position.
The thing is you are showing your bias by excluding works that do not agree with your world view. You cannot do that if you want to be regarded as unbiased yourself.
You misunderstand me. I'm talking about making a scene in a public gathering. I've done it on numerous occasions and it did no good but get my blood pressure up and give more attention to the person's agenda than it deserved. In a paper though, you have to make your case and not give one inch. I think you should have included all scholarship especially most recent works because that is objective scholarship. The AD or CE thing is your call and both are acceptable. If it is that important to publications who might consider publishing your works, then do whatever they want because the goal is getting published. Everything else you and I agree on.
When I was younger I would have made a scene and showed myself listening to that garbage. I did so quite often whenever my professor/instructor tried to pull such a stunt. Now that I'm older, I can let it roll off my back. I understand that people have their petty agendas and they aren't fooling anyone. Just grin and move on because what they say and believe is inconsequential.
