This blog,originally founded by Blogger, who is listed in Marquis Who's Who and is a recipient of the Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award. He holds a theological degree and a doctorate in Counseling Psychology. Taught Psychology for 32 years and is now Professor Emeritus. Is a board-certified psychologist and was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in his profession. Ministered as a chaplain, and pastored Baptist and Episcopal churches. Publications cover the integration of psychology and theology. Served in the Army, the Merchant Marines and the Peace Corps.

Monday, December 7, 2009

Harry Reid Is a Small Dispicable Man



Sadly, liberals who decry ad hominem attacks and the nasty politics Obama said he would change will defend this.

22 comments:

Anonymous said...

I was under the impression that an attack could not be rightly considered ad hominem unless it focused on an irrelevant aspect of a person or group whose opinion or argument opposed that of the "attacker."

Is that wrong?

guy faulkes said...

Reid is certainly indicating that the desire to start over with the health care bill in order to make it effective and viable is irrelevant. This is not true except in the warped mind of the left. So from the perspective of the left the attack is ad hominem, even though it is not. The civil rights statements are lies, so they may not be ad hominem. They do not reach that level of competency, unless there are those on the left so foolish to believe these lies. As they are lies, the statements have to be irrelevant.

Honest Debate said...

Dang Nonny you sound like a lawyer. I'm not sure I followed, but I'm a little dense.

Here's the definition from dictionary.com:

adjective
1.appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2.attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

Honest Debate said...

You know what? I'm not necessarily criticizing the insult itself. My point is that it's the Democrats that are mean spirited and gratuitously rude. It plays on emotions and is not honest debate. We should demand more from our leaders. I really couldn't care less what Harry Reid thinks.

guy faulkes said...

I care what Reid thinks. Whatever he says, believe the opposite. He is an excellent barometer, if one takes into account he is always wrong.

Anonymous said...

HD says: "My point is that it's the Democrats that are mean spirited and gratuitously rude. It plays on emotions and is not honest debate. We should demand more from our leaders."

I agree that some Democrats can be, at times, mean spirited and gratuitiously rude.

I also agree that many politicians' rhetoric is intended to play on the emotions, as opposed to the intellect, of a far-too-unsophisticated and under-educated voting public, and that we should indeed demand more from our leaders.

The problem is, if we demand that our leaders speak only to our intellect.....if we insist that they use "honest debate," filled with nothing but accurate facts and figures presented in a sincere and contextually appropriate fashion void of puffy pontification, hardly a soul will pay attention.

And that is EXACTLY why the supposedly more honest, less mean-spirited and less rude of our two major parties opted to use a recovering cancer victim to deliver their response to this week's Obama healthcare bill speech.

In her video response, Carly Fiorino admits that a mammogram completely failed to detect the breast cancer that she herself discovered during a self-examination just TWO WEEKS later. Yet she slyly incorporates rhetorical misdirection and a stirring story of survival in an attempt to convince less sophisticated viewers to simply forget about the dangers so frequently presented (AS PROVEN IN HER OWN CASE) by the false negative readings of mammograms.

This particular example of a reliance on emotion and insinuated expertise is certainly not new to the more "honest" of our two major parties. To the contrary, it appears to be a frequently-used, major weapon in the modern day rhetorical arsenal of conservatives.

If you need to add credence to a particularly volatile premise, i.e. the need to perhaps raise arms (and "bayonets") against a dark and dangerous government, make sure you widely broadcast a stirring email video of an African-American vet who's running for Congress. If you need to create a sense of a non-racist core to your group's beliefs, appoint and parade a minority party chair. And if you need to convince folks that you really care about their health, emotionally march out a cancer victim, regardless of whether or not the facts she presents actually run counter to the position she defends.

I'm certainly not suggesting that Democrats are innocent when it comes to a reliance on emotion over intellect. I'm just saying it's more than a bit disingenuous to suggest that one party holds either the moral or the intellectual highground over the other when it comes to presenting truly honest debate.

Honest Debate said...

Did Ms. Fiorina abandon intellect? Is her experience completely irrelevant?

"The problem is, if we demand that our leaders speak only to our intellect.....if we insist that they use "honest debate," filled with nothing but accurate facts and figures presented in a sincere and contextually appropriate fashion void of puffy pontification, hardly a soul will pay attention."

I am certainly demanding nothing of the sort, so your premise is flawed. I just want the debate to be honest. One can appeal to emotions honestly as Ms. Fiorina does. One can be compelling and interesting and still be honest. I don't think it's honest to trick voters as you said Democrats did to elect Obama.

Yes, I do claim that Republicans are more honest with the facts than Democrats...by far. That doesn't mean they're perfect they're not. I believe for Obama to pass his agenda he needs to be dishonest with claims like no coverage for illegals, no increase to the deficit and no rationing of life. The facts disagree.

Tuesday is poop shoveling day so I'm pressed for time right now but I want to get back to this later.

Johnny Rico said...

Nonymous (Shylock) said:

"convince less sophisticated viewers to simply forget about"

Does this mean you are "sophisticated"? And what position or place in the natural order of things gives you the authority to indicate who is and who is not "sophisticated"? Can someone say the word "elitest" here? If in fact a person did not meet your "sophistication test", then what? They shouldn't vote maybe? They shouldn't be allowed civil rights maybe? They shouldn't be allowed to have a voice? Oh wait, you sound like one of those literacy test/poll tax proponets who absolutly loves to deny rights to common, everyday (this must mean unsophisticated) citizens. You really say some over-the-top, racist, discriminatory, and overall stupid things, you know that? LOL!!

Your ole pal

Johnny Rico

PS You make it so easy to bulldoze you into the liberal pile of trash that you are. LOL!!!!!

PSS Please reply so I can have some more ammo, please.

PSS How is you fellow musician and mentor, Catman, doing these days? LOL!!!!

Martin

Sarkazein said...

Anonymous-

I've read stretches before, but your comment trying to compare as similar a woman's opinion of her medical experience to the leader of the Democrats in the Senate's relating opposition to Obama's socialism as pro-slavery, than you win the prize for being the liberal sheep spokesman/spinner/mouthpiece of the year.
Anonystretch, that kind of "reasoning" got us into our current problems with becoming a litigious society, hence running up the costs of everything and the dwindling of self-responsibility.

Sarkazein said...

Anonymous wrote-"If you need to add credence to a particularly volatile premise, i.e. the need to perhaps raise arms (and "bayonets") against a dark and dangerous government, make sure you widely broadcast a stirring email video of an African-American vet who's running for Congress. If you need to create a sense of a non-racist core to your group's beliefs, appoint and parade a minority party chair. And if you need to convince folks that you really care about their health, emotionally march out a cancer victim, regardless of whether or not the facts she presents actually run counter to the position she defends."

You are truly a racist. Not that it matters, but ,to me, the one that posted the video, race had absolutely nothing to do with my admiration and appreciation of the speech. You people are obsessed with race. You must feel as though you have property rights there. As in votes bought and paid for. Your reasoning is poisoned with YOUR racism.

guy faulkes said...

The following indicates Reid needs a history lesson and reinforces what I posted about the history of the political parties in the South on the Carly Fiorina thread.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703558004574583980985617954.htmlg

Honest Debate said...

Well then Nonny, after shoveling poop all day I see that Guy, Sark and Rico shoveled some too. That's good 'cause it was getting deep.

Harry Reid lies right off the bat by claiming Republicans want to do "nothing". He's not just wrong, he knows it's not true. That makes it a lie. That's before he even gets to the insane moral equivalence thing.

When I chose "Honest Debate" I knew full well I was putting a bulls eye on my back. That's cool. I want to clarify for you a few things relating to honest debate. As I said you can be interesting or play to emotions and still engage in honest debate. That's not all. One can be mean, nasty and condescending but still honest in your debate. One can be partisan and debate honestly. You can even be a dishonest person but debate honestly. To me, a debate can be all of those things but if it's not honest debate then meaningful progress cannot be made.

Back to Harry Reid. I'm surprised you haven't pointed out that Reid told the truth when he said some Senators said slow down in regards to civil rights. He's right but he's not being honest. It reminds me of when he and others had a press conference to disparage Bush's first tax cuts. He said the rich could buy a new car with the tax cut but the poor could only afford a muffler. He had a muffler to wave around. In terms of real dollars he was telling the truth but it was not honest.

I don't really care about ad hominem attacks. What I try and do is point out the hypocrisy but it's more than that. The right's biggest sin is that they have let the left define them. If you asked ten average Joes which party engages is mean-spirited ad hominem attacks eight or nine would say Republicans. I reject the premise and will point out who the actual affenders are every time I see it.

Sarkazein said...

Reid and anonymous go hand in hand. Small minded race baiters reaching the end of their intelligence in lightning speed. race baiters

Honest Debate said...

Sark,

The leader of the Democrat Senate is a jerk. It's just an extension of "if you don't support Obama you're a racist".

guy faulkes said...

As 90% of his own race supported him, it seems to me that it would be fair to speculate that if you did support him and belonged to that category, you might be a racist. This could be said for any others that supported him because of his race. Racism, as with anything else, works both ways.

Honest Debate said...

True Guy, if someone (Colin Powell for instance) voted for Obama because he is black then that can only mean that they voted against McCain because he is white.

guy faulkes said...

This link was posted on Watauga Watch as to the Democrat strategy for the 2010 election.

http://www.bluenc.com/grassroots-farm-team-endorsement-us-senate-race

The way I interpret this article is that our Democratic friends mean to go out, community organize, try to distance themselves from the recent scandals of the Democrat party in state government,try to distance themselves from Obama and his policies, and to once again fool the people as they did when Obama was elected. If we do not work very hard, they may succeed. They have certainly outworked both the Republicans and the conservatives in the last few elections.

If the Republicans want to win, they are going to have to return to their conservative base, not let the Democrats hide the issues, and get out the vote. The conservatives may work hard to do this, but I do not know abut the liberal Republicans that want to be Democrat lite.

Sorry if this is to far off topic, but Reid is one of the national politicians from which Democrats in the state races will try to distance themselves.

Anonymous said...

True. In those terms, he's our new Ted Kennedy.

Anonymous said...

BTW....I appreciated guy's last post and HD's from 9:29 last night.

On the fair and balanced side....I personally cringe when I see things like presidential healthcare speeches being given in front of doctors in lab jackets and military surge addresses being delivered to West Point cadets.

Awkward and obvious, heavy-handed symbolism used purely to try to create a particular "feel" makes me shake my head, regardless of which party does it.

Both those examples were as subtle and acceptable, in my opinion, as W's "Mission Accomplished" speech.

Sarkazein said...

A'mous wrote- "Both those examples were as subtle and acceptable, in my opinion, as W's "Mission Accomplished" speech."

It wasn't suppose to be subtle. It was congratulating the men and women on the carrier for a job well done (mission accomplished) (be proud). They obviously liked it, what do you have to do with it? It also showed the enemy that morale was high and the US was ready, willing, and able to bomb them back into the stone age if required.

guy faulkes said...

It appears the public option is being smoke screened, if not dropped.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9l_VTxhyKQ&videos=0H2VRlDFBFI&playnext_from=TL&playnext=1

Blogger said...

Not only is Harry Reid a Small Despicable Man, but his elevator does not go all the way to the top. See You Tube: Reid "Taxation Is Voluntary"