Ben
Great Program, I love this SDR program of all the programs available for the Funcube Dongle, it’s a great little radio.
I found it fascinating that such an organized mind as yours seems to be, accepts at face value, for example, the following:
“Then there are those horrifying clips from his dinner in Boca Raton where he clearly says that 47% of the country are of no concern to him, and worse.”
This past political cycle was chock full of folks that parrot what they are “fed” by the news organizations, who also cherry pick context words to fit what they already believe.
You might consider listening to the “before and after” to find out exactly what the context was in the above quote you put into your editorial. Mind you, I only picked one of the many you had.
I am getting very good at guessing whether folks listen to Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, PBS, or the “The Big Three”. The problem is they do not question what they hear, they just say it or type it…
I really enjoy it when folks provide a reasoned argument that they have researched about what it is that makes them think “This or that party is nuts”, instead of just saying “What the news presenter said”, which is what started me to read your editorial, “I wouldn’t cross the street to piss on him if he was on fire.” seemed a little out of context as I was reading along..
Again thanks for the SDR program
Regards
Dick
wb7ond
P.S. I will read your response up to the point that you attack me personally, then I will stop and delete the rest.
Hi Dick, thanks for responding, and for the SdrDx input.
To your other remarks:
You might consider listening to the “before and after” to find out exactly what the context was in the above quote you put into your editorial. Mind you, I only picked one of the many you had.
I did, Dick. It’s right here, and I encourage everyone to listen.
Having listened to that entire recording, as well as just about everything else Romney said, I remain convinced that he ultimately lacks general compassion, radically misunderstands low income life, has no idea what a decent foreign policy would be, doesn’t understand the realities of trying to deal with a stubborn, unethical congress, has no idea what the military should be properly used for or what the configuration of the armed forces should be. I consider him someone who mistreats animals, someone whose business acumen, such as it is, is rooted in destruction rather than production; and his constant flip-flopping left me ultimately uninformed as to what his plans were in almost every area I was concerned about. The republican party, however, has established many planks that, in the vacuum left by Romney’s failure to be specific, left me quite concerned that things would go from bad to worse should he be elected.
Now, if you’d like to address a particular issue, one I brought up or something else, I certainly welcome your participation, and will do my best to respond. I’m neither right nor left nor libertarian; my concerns cover all these areas, my understanding of governmental correctness is firstly informed by the US constitution, but I am very confident that the strength of any country is rooted in the health, education and equality of opportunity of its populace.
Consequently, there are many times when what I feel is right is forbidden constitutionally; many times when what is constitutionally mandated disturbs me; many times when the “wisdom of the crowd” strikes me as anything but. I am strongly pro-science and just as strongly anti-superstition.
I am getting very good at guessing whether folks listen to Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, PBS, or the “The Big Three”. The problem is they do not question what they hear, they just say it or type it…
I hope that wasn’t directed at me. You didn’t list anything I listen to or watch. Nor is any implication that I don’t question what I hear valid.
“I wouldn’t cross the street to piss on him if he was on fire.” seemed a little out of context as I was reading along..
Some people are actually very bad. Some of those manage to make it into politics. Dennis Rehberg is one of those people.
Reasoned argument can resolve to personal opinion and profound distaste; it’s a natural consequence of assembling facts, and it is entirely disjoint from simple argumentum ad hominem.
I will read your response up to the point that you attack me personally, then I will stop and delete the rest.
Where, pray tell, have you found any evidence of me attacking you personally? How would you respond if I said “I will read your response until you call my lady names”? I would gently suggest that in the pursuit of reasonable discourse, you avoid attributing things to, or publicly anticipating responses from, your respondent(s) that they have not, in fact, been guilty of.
Loading ...
#1 by Richard Linder on November 8, 2012 - 3:29 pm
Quote
Ben
Great Program, I love this SDR program of all the programs available for the Funcube Dongle, it’s a great little radio.
I found it fascinating that such an organized mind as yours seems to be, accepts at face value, for example, the following:
“Then there are those horrifying clips from his dinner in Boca Raton where he clearly says that 47% of the country are of no concern to him, and worse.”
This past political cycle was chock full of folks that parrot what they are “fed” by the news organizations, who also cherry pick context words to fit what they already believe.
You might consider listening to the “before and after” to find out exactly what the context was in the above quote you put into your editorial. Mind you, I only picked one of the many you had.
I am getting very good at guessing whether folks listen to Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, PBS, or the “The Big Three”. The problem is they do not question what they hear, they just say it or type it…
I really enjoy it when folks provide a reasoned argument that they have researched about what it is that makes them think “This or that party is nuts”, instead of just saying “What the news presenter said”, which is what started me to read your editorial, “I wouldn’t cross the street to piss on him if he was on fire.” seemed a little out of context as I was reading along..
Again thanks for the SDR program
Regards
Dick
wb7ond
P.S. I will read your response up to the point that you attack me personally, then I will stop and delete the rest.
#2 by admin on November 8, 2012 - 4:16 pm
Quote
Hi Dick, thanks for responding, and for the SdrDx input.
To your other remarks:
I did, Dick. It’s right here, and I encourage everyone to listen.
Having listened to that entire recording, as well as just about everything else Romney said, I remain convinced that he ultimately lacks general compassion, radically misunderstands low income life, has no idea what a decent foreign policy would be, doesn’t understand the realities of trying to deal with a stubborn, unethical congress, has no idea what the military should be properly used for or what the configuration of the armed forces should be. I consider him someone who mistreats animals, someone whose business acumen, such as it is, is rooted in destruction rather than production; and his constant flip-flopping left me ultimately uninformed as to what his plans were in almost every area I was concerned about. The republican party, however, has established many planks that, in the vacuum left by Romney’s failure to be specific, left me quite concerned that things would go from bad to worse should he be elected.
Now, if you’d like to address a particular issue, one I brought up or something else, I certainly welcome your participation, and will do my best to respond. I’m neither right nor left nor libertarian; my concerns cover all these areas, my understanding of governmental correctness is firstly informed by the US constitution, but I am very confident that the strength of any country is rooted in the health, education and equality of opportunity of its populace.
Consequently, there are many times when what I feel is right is forbidden constitutionally; many times when what is constitutionally mandated disturbs me; many times when the “wisdom of the crowd” strikes me as anything but. I am strongly pro-science and just as strongly anti-superstition.
I hope that wasn’t directed at me. You didn’t list anything I listen to or watch. Nor is any implication that I don’t question what I hear valid.
Some people are actually very bad. Some of those manage to make it into politics. Dennis Rehberg is one of those people.
Reasoned argument can resolve to personal opinion and profound distaste; it’s a natural consequence of assembling facts, and it is entirely disjoint from simple argumentum ad hominem.
Where, pray tell, have you found any evidence of me attacking you personally? How would you respond if I said “I will read your response until you call my lady names”? I would gently suggest that in the pursuit of reasonable discourse, you avoid attributing things to, or publicly anticipating responses from, your respondent(s) that they have not, in fact, been guilty of.
–Ben