quote:

---

I bought a beautiful home in the woods on the water where wildlife abounds, my dream come true. I firmly belive that should one lose in one area, they should strive to be proactive and gain in another. Knowing that not everyone can be as fortunate as myself, I work to contribute and donate to causes that will help those in need whenever possible.

Michigan is still a great state and I have faith that in one form or another it will bounce back to higher standards for everyone.

---

Michigan is a wonderful state to live in due to its beauty and...um.....beauty!

Goody for you that you were able to purchase your dream home, Sentra. Just keep praying that you will always have a job in order to keep paying those house payments and taxes. You never know when your place of employment will shut its doors, pack its bags and scramble as fast as it can to a state where it can afford to pay its workers and the business taxes.

~I intend to live forever -- so far, so good.~

I'd rather learn from one bird how to sing
than to teach ten thousand stars how not to dance
- e e cummings

Conferred the Walrus Memorial Award - 6th April, 2004.

Uh, there are 57 States in the US, Pam. Didn't you hear Obama say how he'd visited 'em all?

I wouldn't normally pull someone up for making a bit of a verbal mistake - even one as big as this one - if it were not for certain members' habits of pulling up Bush for exactly the same type o' mistakes that Obama has made.
See, it is totally irrelevant, no matter who it is, that a statesman makes a bit of a balls-up when delivering a speech; so now Obama's made a few, and he isn't even the Prseident yet, can we now also drop the suggestion that Bush's clangers are an indicator of his intelligence? So easy, isn't it?
Thanks so much!

"Defending the pillars of Saddam's power until the end, embracing the evil that their hatred of America makes them love."

Yep, I heard he had been to all 57 states. What was I thinking when I said there were only 50?

Silly me.

~I intend to live forever -- so far, so good.~

I'd rather learn from one bird how to sing
than to teach ten thousand stars how not to dance
- e e cummings

Conferred the Walrus Memorial Award - 6th April, 2004.

Wot, no reply, Asa? I didn't think they were difficult questions!

"Defending the pillars of Saddam's power until the end, embracing the evil that their hatred of America makes them love."

quote:

---

Electing Obama as President of the USA springs to mind; never happened before, therefore totally original.

---

I didn't reply because you had misunderstood me (deliberately, I thought) - I started a new thread in Debate.

The fact that electing a black president was original is not an original idea. There have been other black presidents in other countries so Obama is simply a variation on a theme.

Get Curious!

"Can't help but ask - could you give me an example of an original idea that has relevance to today's society?

Firstly, one can hardly choose to misunderstand, so I could hardly have deliberately misunderstood. One would have to understand, then forget that one had understood. But that would mean one hasn't really deliberately misunderstood, just chosen to make out that one has deliberately misunderstood. Understand?
Secondly, you chose to ask a question in order to alleviate Sentra's predicament. You didn't like my correct example, so you chose to pretend that you hadn't seen my questions to you, and then suggested that you had asked for an example from the entire world, not the US, despite this being a thread concerned with the US presidential elections!
Now, I understand (intentionally, naturally!) that you'd prefer not to have a black President of the USA, even though it is such a "new idea" (millions of young Liberals, women and blacks voted to bring about just such a situation), but you'd better just get used to "the idea", new though it is!
Anyway, I see you still refuse to answer the most basic of questions:

"One owes it... to the country one lives in, surely, to at least read or watch or listen to enough to arrive at an educated 'conclusion'. Wouldn't you agree, Asa?"
If it's still too difficult to answer, just ignore it; you chose to dismiss Iraq's citizens' preferences, so why not those of the US too? I thought your dismissal then was a "Questionable Choice".

"Defending the pillars of Saddam's power until the end, embracing the evil that their hatred of America makes them love."

Get a life.

Settle down you two. No discussion can take place friendly or otherwise if you allow petty bickering and biases to lock a topic to everyone.

I will come back to reply to the myriad of other replies this has gotten since, until then everyone behave yourselves, this is a touchy subject but you can choose whether to intentionally rub someone the wrong way or not.

-Aeras

I choose rub the wrong way!
Hey, I was asked, so I answered; I asked, he failed to. Whose choices are questionable? Not mine.

"Defending the pillars of Saddam's power until the end, embracing the evil that their hatred of America makes them love."

MBB, I would like for you to move this back to the general discussion forum. This is a discussion and simply because two members have overstepped the typical rules set forth here, this is no reason to discount the rest of the conversation in which members are contributing in a relatively polite and courteous manner. I also wish you had consulted with me first and allowed greater leeway as far as the actions of a few members as opposed to the whole.

-Aeras

"two members have overstepped the typical rules "

Give over. I've overstepped nothing!
This was in gd, now it's in df; what's your problem? Now it is more constrained. So what? I can still ask the same questions and you will still see those questions ignored, despite their relevance. Nothing new, is it? We have two threads - we have your original, and Asa's "No original ideas". "Consulted you first"? "Greater Leeway as far as the actions of a few"? What are you talking about? A thread doesn't become your property because you started it!
Here's a quote from you, Grant:

"You don't seek advice from someone who has reasonably failed at what you are asking advice for."

I, very reasonably, asked Asa for his opinion; he failed to provide it, even though I'd answered his questions. Seems to me, Grant that you agree with me. Simple, huh?

"Defending the pillars of Saddam's power until the end, embracing the evil that their hatred of America makes them love."

Andrew has absolutely due cause to be aggrieved here!

Asa's reply to the charge that Sentra habitually cuts and pastes from anti Palin/Pro Obama links instead of engaging in home grown thought processes... was that there are no original ideas. Andrew, staying on topic, has addressed that post in relation Sentras tactic.

Either, Asa, you are saying that there's no point in having meaningfully analysed opinions and cut and pasting like kids lobbing stones at each from behind fences, is the best approach..... or you've gone off on a tangent that's irrelevant to the thread altogether.

You did start a new thread, which suggests the latter is true which means that although Andrews response wasn't in keeping with your agenda.... it was in keeping with the oft chanted rule... "Stay on topic"!

Honestly. Andrew deserves some apologies here.

This is Quoteland. The home of no apologies.

"To run away from danger, instead of facing it, is to deny one's faith in man and God, even one's own self. It were better for one to drown oneself than live to declare such bankruptcy of faith." - Mahatma Gandhi, 1946

My apology to Brandon, for calling him Grant. Hey, I'm bad at names, and am able to apologise!

"Defending the pillars of Saddam's power until the end, embracing the evil that their hatred of America makes them love."

Of course I went off topic. That should be obvious to anyone.
A post elicited a thought which I immediately put onto the thread. A peculiar reply from afenton made me start a new thread.

So-
When afenton says "Wot, no reply, Asa? I didn't think they were difficult questions!"
His attitude elicits a different response.

When afenton says "Firstly, one can hardly choose to misunderstand, so I could hardly have deliberately misunderstood. One would have to understand, then forget that one had understood. But that would mean one hasn't really deliberately misunderstood, just chosen to make out that one has deliberately misunderstood. Understand?"
I know he is being disingenuous.

When afenton says "Secondly, you chose to ask a question in order to alleviate Sentra's predicament."
He is making an incorrect assumption, yet again disingenuously, which makes the rest of his post hogwash.

When afenton says "You didn't like my correct example"
nothing correct about it and I have explained why.

When afenton says "Now, I understand (intentionally, naturally!) that you'd prefer not to have a black President of the USA,"
where did he get that idea from!!!!

When afenton says "enough"
what is enough?

When afenton says "you chose to dismiss Iraq's citizens' preferences,"
is it any wonder that I believe 'getting a life' is suitable advice.

Posting baseless and incorrect assumptions about my beliefs and intentions is pathetic. It would be better that afenton takes his own advice about 'educated conclusions'.

Get Curious!

Apology accepted, Asa. Oh, this is now in debate forum, so could you stick to the thread title, as I have, please? There's a good chappy.

Now then, since I suggest that taking a stance in an argument/debate, when one's position is based on nothing but ignorance and stubbornness, is a "Questionable Choice", wot about an answer to the same "Question"?
"One owes it... to the country one lives in, surely, to at least read or watch or listen to enough to arrive at an educated 'conclusion'. Wouldn't you agree, Asa?"

To ignore this question again is, I suggest, a Questionable Choice.



"Defending the pillars of Saddam's power until the end, embracing the evil that their hatred of America makes them love."

[This message was edited by afenton on 11-11-08 at 10:00 AM.]

That question was posed against a question which I have already stated was off topic.

But since you are desperate for some pearls of wisdom....
I'm assuming that your question is 'in general' and not particularly related to this topic. Either way it will depend on one's concept of 'enough'. My perception of enough will differ from your's and others' perceptions. So unless you can properly quantify it any answer would be meaningless.

And by the way, what made you think I had apologised?
Ooops, another example of 'making up' others' beliefs and intentions.

Get Curious!

That's a no, then!
I thought you'd find it hard - both to stay on topic and to answer a simple question. Your refusal to answer is, I maintain, a Questionable Choice, and we'll leave it at that, shall we?
I, on the other hand, find it a very simple question, and with no choices other than the correct one: "One owes it... to the country one lives in, to at least read or watch or listen to enough, so one can arrive at an educated 'conclusion', especially when the future of one's country and fellow citizens are concerned. Ignorance may appear, and sometimes be, blissfull, but it is lazy, selfish and must be - and will be, by me, on here - condemned at every chance.

"Defending the pillars of Saddam's power until the end, embracing the evil that their hatred of America makes them love."

"That's a no, then!"
Wrong again.

I'll answer when you quantify 'enough'. (If you can.)

"Ignorance may appear, and sometimes be, blissfull, but it is lazy, selfish and must be - and will be, by me, on here - condemned at every chance."
Rather than condemn it in your 'I'm far more intelligent than anyone else here' manner, why don't you try to enlighten the ignorant who may not know that they are so.
A little empathy, sympathy and understanding will go a long way to make the world a better place - even quoteland.
But, if I may make an observation, you'd prefer to bring the Bush Doctrine here as well.

Get Curious!

"Try to enlighten the ignorant who may not know that they are so."? I've been trying for years, but when someone needs 'enough information' quantifying, it's apparent my skills at enlightening have failed.

Not really, of course, 'cause it's the refusal to read both sides of a given topic - usually in a myriad anti-US or Conservative threads - by the same names, who believe it's enough just to shelter under their fake Liberal umbrella, who have failed: failed their countries, their and other societies, failed Quoteland's once high standards of debate; and ultimately failed themselves, by not raising their level of knowledge and understanding of world events to a point where one feels comfortable enough to make a judgement.
How does one quantify 'enough'? 1 to 10?
"I've read all about ("Enough"?) "The Jewish Question", at a site called www.ItstheJewsStupid.com and am now able to enter a debate where the future - or lack of one - of Israel is the topic"?
Oh, that's far-fetched, is it? Want me to point to the thread? I suspect you'll already recognise it. Was that a position of enlightenment from which to make a judgement about Israel's place in the world, and its right to defend itself and continue to exist? One would assume from the reactions of certain members, who failed to condemn such a sick attempt at portraying Jews, or to condemn the useage of the linked site (sites, plural, since this happened twice, with two seperate members), that it was "enough".

Is it "enough" to watch a solitary documentary on a subject before one can decide whether a war between two diverse countries is justified, by one or the other? How about two documentaries and reading a red-top newspaper? Depends, does it? No, it doesn't.

How about when a member states that it's wrong to go 'looking for ammunition', then does it him (or her) self? Isn't that lazy and pointless debate or general discussion? You think someone who looks for 'certain information' will ever be able to take a genuinely liberal or even stance?
No.

The examples of selective self-education on this site are so bloody obvious. It doesn't need quantifying, and you damn well know it. Or should, at least. No way am I going to get bogged down in a pointless discussion about how much information is "enough" information; it should be obvious. And if a member has a conscience, it will be. But I honestly believe some are so self-delusional as to not recognise their anti-liberalism; so content are they, under their umbrella, that it's easy for them to stay dry.

Wet, more like.

"Defending the pillars of Saddam's power until the end, embracing the evil that their hatred of America makes them love."