Democrats go Home with Note from Mommy

[Timminz]

(Had a Republican said that he would no longer be in office.)

Of course. That's the law!

[ViperOverLord]

COMPREHENSION - REMEMBER? I said I'd note that you won't answer the question and not that I would make it a matter of condemnation. There is nothing hypocritical about it. BTW - I have stated at various times how you've subscribed to Marxist philosophies. Just because you obnoxiously snap your fingers and expect me to make a case about your Marxism in at any point in any debate and I don't do it, doesn't mean that I think it's a productive thing to open up that inevitable rancor from you.

Yes, you have at various times stated that I am a Marxist. You have NOT ONCE supported that accusation with any sort of evidence, however. Not once.

Actually I believe that I stated you were being part of the Marxist left, meaning that you were explicitly lending support to their causes/policies. You might be what Lenin called one of the 'useful idiots.' Do I believe you otherwise consider yourself a Marxist. I'll take your word for it, if you don't subscribe to every nuance of Marxism or if you are otherwise not a dyed in the wool Marxist.

Now it is you that that brought up how terrible Palin would be IN THIS THREAD and yet you don't want to explain it. So I'll just chalk it up to propaganda.

I'll not allow your cowardice to get you off the hook. You first...why am I a Marxist AND in what manner am I supporting Obama's policies? Once you have answered those two questions, then I will bother to point you to the post in this thread where I already answered your question. I suspect you'll either let it drop at this point or you will continue with your hypocritical expectation that others do as you say, but not as you do.

That's weak. You'll notice that I just answered you on the Marxist thing for the umpteenth time. But I'm sure you'll keep playing your 'Explain why you called me a Marxist card' every time you want to dodge an issue. You've been doing it for weeks now. Stop perpetually making issues about yourself. That spilled milk (Marxist junk) is expired dude. I'll consider doing you the favor pointing out how your future statements are rooted in Marxist principles, but I've already declined writing you an essay on how you're a Marxist. Deal with it. I'm tired of your narcissistic demand for me appease you on this issue.

[Woodruff]

Yes, you have at various times stated that I am a Marxist. You have NOT ONCE supported that accusation with any sort of evidence, however. Not once.

Actually I believe that I stated you were being part of the Marxist left, meaning that you were explicitly lending support to their causes/policies.

Is there a significant difference in that term? You're still making statements with no support. What Marxist causes/policies am I "explicitly lending support to"?

You might be what Lenin called one of the 'useful idiots.'

You might be called a lot of things, but at least they'd generally be supportable.

Do I believe you otherwise consider yourself a Marxist. I'll take your word for it, if you don't subscribe to every nuance of Marxism or if you are otherwise not a dyed in the wool Marxist.

Every nuance of Marxism? You haven't even given A SINGLE INSTANCE of a Marxist policy that I support. Could you? Were you EVER going to support these idiotic statements?

Now it is you that that brought up how terrible Palin would be IN THIS THREAD and yet you don't want to explain it. So I'll just chalk it up to propaganda.

I'll not allow your cowardice to get you off the hook. You first...why am I a Marxist AND in what manner am I supporting Obama's policies? Once you have answered those two questions, then I will bother to point you to the post in this thread where I already answered your question. I suspect you'll either let it drop at this point or you will continue with your hypocritical expectation that others do as you say, but not as you do.

That's weak. You'll notice that I just answered you on the Marxist thing for the umpteenth time.

No, you didn't. You have STILL NOT ANSWERED THE QUESTION AT ALL. I'm requesting support, and you've provided ZERO evidence. Were you ever going to...or did you just want to continue tap-dancing around your bullshit some more? Just a hint...you're getting it all over yourself by doing that.

But I'm sure you'll keep playing your 'Explain why you called me a Marxist card' every time you want to dodge an issue. You've been doing it for weeks now.

So rather than call you on it, I should just let you make shit up and not ask for evidence? Yeah, I'll bet you'd like that, being as full of shit as you are.

Stop perpetually making issues about yourself. That spilled milk (Marxist junk) is expired dude.

You WANT it to go away, because you're beginning to realize what an astronomically idiotic thing to say that it was.

I'll consider doing you the favor pointing out how your future statements are rooted in Marxist principles

How about point out how my PAST statements are rooted in Marxist principles...that'd be a nice start in supporting your bullshit claims.

but I've already declined writing you an essay on how you're a Marxist. Deal with it. I'm tired of your narcissistic demand for me appease you on this issue.

And I'm tired of you being a cowardly and unskilled bullshit artist. We all have our crosses to bear.

[tzor]

What Marxist causes/policies am I "explicitly lending support to"?

It's really hard for me to figure out. I'm leaning to "Duck Soup" and your Freedonia friendly policies.

[ViperOverLord]

^^^
Wood: I've given this some thought. Again I've mainly eluded to the fact that you've lent great support to the Marxist left. Again I never was accusing you of being a dyed in the Wool Marxist that was looking forward to 'The Revolution.' And if I did say directly say you were a Marxist, I'm sure I was using hyperbole. I've simply noted how you've tended to lend more support to the socialistic causes (often founded on Marxist principles) or attack posts that criticize socialistic causes (that would likely be more accurate).

I know you claim to not be partisan and that you claim to have some conservative principles even. But claims and reality are two different things to me. Here are just a few examples that make me believe that you tend to support the Marxist left over capitalism:

- Obama, who has initiated more socialistic programs than any other president (with the possible exception of FDR). You have generally came to his defense with regularity and generally denigrated free market capitalists like Palin, Rush, etc with regularity.

And just like Obama hates people like Fox News and Rush Limbaugh that call him out on his anti-free market / socialistic regime so have you made it your crusade:

I don't have the exact quote (should have copied), but I did find something in which you said that you trust nothing from Fox (News). The conversation also regarded CNN and you did not make the same claim about CNN. So before you come back and say oh well you don't trust CNN (or any news outlet) either, the point is you are much more inclined to attack the same proponents of free market capitalism that Obama attacks IMO.

Your take on Rush Limbaugh: "Rush is smart, yes. Sadly, he seems to have given up on using his intelligence and instead panders to making as much money personally as possible with no interest at all in integrity nor the truth. Rush is not funny at all, though he does appear to try real hard."

This just shows how you are willing to dismiss free market capitalist ideas based on entity and not on their actual ideas. That is what people who support the Marxist left tend to do.

----

Now again I have said that you support the Marxist left and not that you are a hardcore Marxist. Perhaps at one point I spoke about it in a hyperbole context or with regard to a specific issue. But I have clarified my position for the umpteenth time plus one now.

LAST: AND THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT. - Look I'm sure you're going to have a defense against my points and as well you should. People have their respective perspectives. And I fully expect you to cut this post up and regard what you want to regard, disregard whatever you're going to disregard. But I'm not going to continue to talk about how you are a Marxist or not in this thread. And you can call me your names. Say I'm a coward, or running or a b.s. artist or whatever else. But I won't be baited any further in this thread.If you want to have this conversation (about whether you're a Marxist) then go back and find the forum in which I am alleged to have called you a Marxist. Then create a thread, post the statement in a new thread and then perhaps we'll discuss it. But that is not what this thread is about and you need to respect that fact.

[beezer]

Woodruff, who did you vote for in the 2008 presidential election?

[Woodruff]

Wood: I've given this some thought. Again I've mainly eluded to the fact that you've lent great support to the Marxist left. Again I never was accusing you of being a dyed in the Wool Marxist that was looking forward to 'The Revolution.' I've merely noted how you've tended to lend more support to the socialistic causes (often founded on Marxist principles) or attack posts that criticize socialistic causes (that would likely be more accurate).
I know you claim to not be partisan and that you claim to have some conservative principles even. But claims and reality are two different things to me. Here are just a few examples that make me believe that you tend to support the Marxist left over capitalism:

I had such high hopes at this point...you were going to point out some actual evidence...you know, the "just a few examples" that you mentioned...to show me how I lend great support to the Marxist left. I was happy at this point...finally, we were getting somewhere.

- Obama, who has initiated more socialistic programs than any other president (with the possible exception of FDR). You have came to his defense with regularity and attacked free market capitalists like Palin, Rush, etc with regularity.

But no quotes here. No evidence. Just more assertion without evidence, which seems to be your standard fare and all you're willing to provide. Allow me to juxtapose your complete lack of evidence with some actual evidence...you know, quotes of things that I have actually said in these fora. I'll let you tell me which of these shows the best example of how I have "come to Obama's defense with regularity":

1. I initiated the thread titled "Speaking of Obama" and my only statement in that opening post was "Why HASN'T The Patriot Act been repealed? Why hasn't there even been an attempt to do so?"

2. In that "Speaking of Obama" thread, GabonX responded to my questions with "Because Obama would rather have the powers it gives him than not have those powers." to which I responded with "Unfortunately, that's how it appears to me, as well."

3. Regarding stahrgazer's statement that Obama is a critical thinker and then goes on to claim that Bush should be tried for treason: "Obama is furthering Bush's policies as written, not doing anything to reverse them. Thus, he deserves just as much blame as Bush does for those policies."

4. Regarding jefjef's quote of Obama that was ""We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." - Obama. This joker scare anyone else?", my response was "I must admit that not only do I not like that idea, I find it wholly unnecessary.".

5. Regarding rockfist's discussion of The Patriot Act: "Agreed. This has been my biggest disappointment with President Obama...that he hasn't done anything to get rid of this abomination."

6. Regarding PLAYER's undying support of Obama: "What was that? Was it The Patriot Act you said there?"

7. Regarding Obama's support of a law that piggybacks The Patriot Act in allowing even more warrantless wiretapping capabilities: "Yeah, those damn warrants are pretty difficult to get when you need them."

8. Regarding thegreekdog's misunderstanding that I thought it was acceptable that Obama has continued with Bush's policies (that I was complaining about): "I presume this was a reference to my statement above...PLEASE don't misinterpret my statement as meaning that I think it's ok that Obama has continued Bush's policies...nothing could be further from the truth."

9. Regarding Obama's justice department supporting DOMA: "I didn't go and read the actual facts (as opposed to the piece you linked to). I'm not saying that article wasn't accurate...it may well be (as I said, I didn't go look). But if it IS accurate...that's more than disappointing to me. It is stunning, if true. Particularly egregious is the idea that it should be done TO SAVE THE GOVERNMENT MONEY. Oh, come ON!"

10. Regarding Obama's lack of transparency in his administration: "This is definitely one of my biggest disappointments in Obama. It was my biggest heartburn with Bush, and I had really hoped that aspect was done."

11. Regarding thegreekdog's statement that he felt both Bush and Obama were committed to rebuilding in Iraq and Afghanistan: "It's easy to SAY you're committed to doing something. Actually BEING committed to doing something is a far different thing. Talk is cheap."

12. Regarding Obama's sending of National Reserve troops to Arizona's border: "I don't really see how it's a "slap in the face". Based ONLY on your description here, it seems like a waste of money and time...but a slap in the face?"

13. Regarding Obama's inaction and lack of holding anyone accountable in dealing with the three alleged suicides at Guantanamo prison, I initiated the discussion myself with: "I must admit that based on my admittedly limited experience in witnessing military prisons, it's pretty unlikely that these three all had the opportunity to hang themselves in their cells:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/ar ... 55cda1.d61"

14. Regarding PLAYER's assertion that "The Republicans track record is currently much worse", I responded with "No, it really isn't."

15. Regarding stiffmittens response to captain.crazy's vast conspiracy theories about Obama, he stated (among many other things): "For instance, it is clear that Obama is not currently living up to his campaign promises, and there is the very real possibility that he may never live up to those promises and that his presidency will make matters worse for this country." to which I responded with "Prezactly! Well stated!".

16. Regarding thegreekdog's statements that Obama has simply continued with Bush's Presidency: "I definitely agree with this. I have been a bit disenchanted with President Obama so far"

17. Regarding spurgistan's statement that Obama's lack of success in implementing his campaign promises was Congress' fault, I responded with "I disagree. An informed candidate makes their promises based on what they can get done, not on what they support."

18. Regarding rockfist asking me how I felt the Constitution could be improved: "I'm actually pretty happy with how the Constitution is written currently. What I'm NOT happy with is how it has frankly been abused by the President over the last three administrations (including the current one). I was seriously hopeful that Obama would take action to repair some of the destruction that Bush did to our Constitution, and that was the primary reason I voted for him (McCain would not have, I knew that)...unfortunately, I have so far been quite disappointed on that front."

19. Regarding a statement by someone I don't even recognize that Obama has taken steps to re-introduce some human rights: "I have two questions for you, because your post has confused me some:
1) What human rights has Obama taken steps to re-introduce?
2) What amendment goes against the rights he is attempting to re-introduce?"

20. Regarding DangerBoy's assertion that I was trying to support Obama by stating that the previous Administration didn't do our national debt any good: "I'm actually disappointed with Obama to this point, so my statements are certainly not meant to be in support of the man as our President."

At this point, I'm sick of looking...there's still 22 more pages of statements I've made regarding Obama, but I think this does justice to my lack of support for the man as our President.

Oh...I found one here. Regarding Ray Rider's statement that Obama's most ardent supporters seem to be from overseas, I responded with "I'm in a holding pattern on Obama. I think he deserves more time.". There you go folks...my unadulterated support for Obama and his Marxist policies.

And just like Obama hates people like Fox News and Rush Limbaugh that call him out on his anti-free market / socialistic regime so have you made it your crusade:
I don't have the exact quote (should have copied), but I did find something in which you said that you trust nothing from Fox (News). The conversation also regarded CNN and you did not make the same claim about CNN before you come back and say oh well you don't trust CNN either. The point is you are inclined to attack the same proponents of free market capitalism that Obama attacks.

Of course I don't trust Fox News. I don't trust ANY news media and have said so on many occasions. Are you gonna make me go get those quotes for you, too? Surely, you can manage that one on your own, can't you?

Your take on Rush Limbaugh: "Rush is smart, yes. Sadly, he seems to have given up on using his intelligence and instead panders to making as much money personally as possible with no interest at all in integrity nor the truth. Rush is not funny at all, though he does appear to try real hard."

I stand by this. What problem do you have with this statement. Do you consider him unintelligent? Do you believe he's concerned about integrity? Or is it my statement that he's just not very funny that you have issue with?

This just shows how you are willing to dismiss free market capitalist ideas based on entity and not on their actual ideas. That is what people who support the Marxist left tend to do.

Where did I dismiss free market capitalists? Oh...by saying that Rush panders to making as much money personally as possible? Is that it? What about the place where I stated that limiting the amount of money that CEOs make based on their lowest employee was not only stupid but illogical? How does that fit in with your theory that I'm against free market capitalism, Viper?

Now again I have said that you support the Marxist left and not that you are a hardcore Marxist. Perhaps at one point I spoke about it in a hyperbole context or whatever. But I have clarified my position for the umpteenth time plus one now.

And yet still not supported that assertion with any actual quotes.

LAST: AND THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT. - Look I'm sure you're going to have a defense against my points and as well you should. People have their respective perspectives. And I fully expect you to cut this post up and regard what you want to regard, disregard whatever you're going to disregard. But I'm not going to continue in this post to talk about how you are a Marxist or not in this thread. And you can call me your names. Say I'm a coward, or running or a b.s. artist or whatever else. But I won't be baited any further in this thread.If you want to have this conversation (about whether you're a Marxit) with me any further then go back and find the forum in which I am alleged to have called you a Marxist. Then create a thread, post the statement in a new thread and then we can discuss it. But that is not what this thread is about and you need to respect that fact.

How about you just do what you claim you can?

[Woodruff]

Woodruff, who did you vote for in the 2008 presidential election?

I voted for Obama (as I've said many times in these fora). I also voted for W.Bush twice. I voted for Clinton over Dole. I voted for H.W.Bush over Clinton. I voted for H.W.Bush over Dukakis. I voted for Reagan over Carter. How is any of that relevant?

[spurgistan]

I give you the real reason why everyone thinks Palin is a moron ...

Does anyone remember "57 States?"

This is the extent to which the liberal media will filter the news. You can bet your ass that if had been Palin who had said "57 States" everyone remember it now because it would have been on the news 24/7 for three whole weeks! As it was it only got coverage on Fox News.

As the Vice President said "This is fucking big." (Had a Republican said that he would no longer be in office.)

How many sitting Republican senators have been caught in affairs? I count two confirmed (David Vitter and John Ensign), plus SC Governor Mark Sanford, plus his prospective replacement (Nikki Haley) At least Democrats have the decency to shunt our scumbags to the sidelines (Spitzer, Edwards, not really Bill Clinton, but partially). Everybody else, feel free to kick in any assholes I mighta missed.

Also, remember how Dick Cheney cursed at an actual person (Senator Pat Leahy)? On the floor of the Senate? And he stayed in office for quite a few years.

Weird how elephants have this odd inability to remember things.

[beezer]

Woodruff, who did you vote for in the 2008 presidential election?

I voted for Obama (as I've said many times in these fora). I also voted for W.Bush twice. I voted for Clinton over Dole. I voted for H.W.Bush over Clinton. I voted for H.W.Bush over Dukakis. I voted for Reagan over Carter. How is any of that relevant?

It's sort of hard for people to take your assertion seriously that you're somewhat conservative when you voted for a person who raised the debt to astronomical levels before his first 2 years were up, decided which businesses were too valuable to fail through bailouts, forced a health care reform through despite clear indications by the public that it wasn't wanted, and refuses to prosecute Black Panthers who clearly violated voting rights law. Now if you're telling the truth about voting for candidates from both parties, that has to be taken into consideration. But more often than not in the times that I come back to read these threads, you take the liberal position. You are also more than willing to go personal against other people who take the conservative position.

That's one of the reason I wouldn't want you to have the opportunity to educate my children. It's not that you're stupid or an idiot, but what I've observed is you taking a small portion of what conservatives write here and nitpick it. I just have a feeling that you would do the same thing in a classroom.........using your position to undermine anyone with a dissenting opinion through subversive ridicule.

[Woodruff]

Woodruff, who did you vote for in the 2008 presidential election?

I voted for Obama (as I've said many times in these fora). I also voted for W.Bush twice. I voted for Clinton over Dole. I voted for H.W.Bush over Clinton. I voted for H.W.Bush over Dukakis. I voted for Reagan over Carter. How is any of that relevant?

It's sort of hard for people to take your assertion seriously that you're somewhat conservative when you voted for a person who raised the debt to astronomical levels before his first 2 years were up, decided which businesses were too valuable to fail through bailouts, forced a health care reform through despite clear indications by the public that it wasn't wanted, and refuses to prosecute Black Panthers who clearly violated voting rights law.

I don't remember in his campaign speeches his stating that he was going to raise the debt to astronomical levels before his first 2 years were up, nor do I remember him stating that he was going to decide which businesses were too valuable to fail through bailouts. I don't even remember him stating that he would refuse to prosecute Black Panthers who clearly violated voting rights laws.

I also don't remember you commenting on my positions regarding WHAT OBAMA HAS DONE SINCE THE ELECTION TOOK PLACE...how have you possibly overlooked that? How is it that who I voted for carries more weight than the stated positions I have taken in regards to how that individual has acted in the Presidency? Doesn't that seem a bit odd to you? How have you possibly missed those statements of mine? Perhaps you're too busy reading what you expect to see rather than what is actually there?

Now if you're telling the truth about voting for candidates from both parties

What possible reason could I have for lying about it?

But more often than not in the times that I come back to read these threads, you take the liberal position.

Possibly, I take what a conservative may consider "the liberal position" "more often than not"...but not what a moderate would consider the liberal position to be though, no.

You are also more than willing to go personal against other people who take the conservative position.

Rather than looking at the political stance of the individuals I "go personal against", I would suggest that you should look at other characteristics of those individuals. For instance, I don't believe I have ever "gone personal against" thegreekdog...that's certainly not because he's a member of TeamCC, because he was NOT a member for quite a long time. In fact, there are a good number of conservative individuals in these fora (who post consistently often) that I have not "gone personal against".

You see, the problem here is that you are seeing what you expect to see. Despite my stated voting record (and no reason to lie), you suggest that I might not even be telling the truth about it.

That's one of the reason I wouldn't want you to have the opportunity to educate my children. It's not that you're stupid or an idiot, but what I've observed is you taking a small portion of what conservatives write here and nitpick it. I just have a feeling that you would do the same thing in a classroom.........using your position to undermine anyone with a dissenting opinion through subversive ridicule.

Before I get into the "classroom" aspect of what you're saying here, let me ask you this...how is it that you find it necessary to question me for "my undermining anyone with a dissenting opinion through subversive ridicule", when there are so many others here in the fora that you do not? In fact, I would go so far as to say that there are some here who absolutely will not even consider an opposing viewpoint, yet they don't get this lecture, but I do. Why is that...is it perhaps because those individuals just happen to tend to agree with your positions?

As to the "classroom" aspect of your statement, that simply shows once again that you really don't understand the classroom environment I teach in. A majority effort of Air Force Junior ROTC is, in fact, to promote the cadets not only forming their own opinions but also getting them to seriously consider the opinions and positions of others through critical thinking skills. I would point out that critical thinking skills seem to be particularly "wanting" here in these fora. Perhaps that is what is causing the problem with your perspective.

[beezer]

how have you possibly overlooked that? How is it that who I voted for carries more weight than the stated positions I have taken in regards to how that individual has acted in the Presidency? Doesn't that seem a bit odd to you? How have you possibly missed those statements of mine? Perhaps you're too busy reading what you expect to see rather than what is actually there?

The reason I believe that you are liberal is because of the times I have come back to read the discussions and you, almost without hesitation, go personal against those on the conservative side. That's a trait that I find most common in liberals, whether it be here on the internet or in face to face discussions with co-workers who are either airline support or other flight crew members. Someone who is truly moderate and wanting an honest discussion would not resort to that tactic at the beginning of a thread. So I guess in honestly, it's a combination of your voting for Obama and your attitude that I've observed.

What possible reason could I have for lying about it?

The possible reason that you could have for lying about it would be an attempt to make yourself look moderate or centrist, when you are actually liberal. But look, I don't know that you're lying so I would have to give you the benefit of the doubt. If you have voted for both Democrats & Republicans that would need to be considered.

Rather than looking at the political stance of the individuals I "go personal against", I would suggest that you should look at other characteristics of those individuals.

You know, I actually have done this. Since I don't comment or even play games on here as much as I used to, I do like to go through old threads and read discussions without taking part. The usuals line up either right or left wing like always, but I've noticed that you like to characterize and dehumanize people. Sometimes you even type in all caps and start swearing at the person, acting as if they are the one that has the problem. But at the very least, you attempt to marginalize. Personally, I think Nobunaga has been the smartest to not respond to you when you demand answers. "Show me where I......"

All you do when the person shows you where, is argue that you didn't do it, and that they have a reading comprehension problem. The problem is never with you, but with someone else.

Before I get into the "classroom" aspect of what you're saying here, let me ask you this...how is it that you find it necessary to question me for "my undermining anyone with a dissenting opinion through subversive ridicule", when there are so many others here in the fora that you do not?

OK, I'll call it marginalizing or dehumanizing other people then. I would base it on sarcastic cracks on other people you've done in here, with a little condescension thrown in for good measure. Basically, anything to make someone is conservative look like a crazy person before the issue is fully argued out. You usually justify this with a statement about how the other person deserved it because they wouldn't respond to you in the proper way. That's what I base it on.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that there are some here who absolutely will not even consider an opposing viewpoint, yet they don't get this lecture, but I do. Why is that...is it perhaps because those individuals just happen to tend to agree with your positions?

No, and if you had been back here in the days when Napoleon Ier (sp?) or Black Elk Speaks were posting, you'd see that people I agree with are sometimes rude unnecessarily. You can choose to call this a lecture, and maybe it is. But haven't you done far worse against others here? I would answer yes.

As to the "classroom" aspect of your statement, that simply shows once again that you really don't understand the classroom environment I teach in. A majority effort of Air Force Junior ROTC is, in fact, to promote the cadets not only forming their own opinions but also getting them to seriously consider the opinions and positions of others through critical thinking skills. I would point out that critical thinking skills seem to be particularly "wanting" here in these fora. Perhaps that is what is causing the problem with your perspective.

OK, well this is the problem as I see it: you probably are knowledgeable enough to be a teacher. If you would just stop when you talk about your ROTC classes that would be fine, but you don't. You talk about critical thinking skills, but then in the next breath, berate people here for not having them or they seem to be particularly wanting. Then, you end the statement with pointing the blame at someone else, in this case me. That's fine, as I've seen you do it to other posters as well. Until you can take responsibility for the way you judge other people for not having critical thinking skills or proper reading comprehension, you're not going to be getting anywhere with anyone, and probably build up a lot of resentment towards yourself.

The cadets or students that you instruct are probably not going to confront you about this because you're the authority figure, and they're not going to risk either your negative reaction or disapproval of their dissent. In these fora, people are more free to just tell you like it is. I can sense that you don't like being confronted or being made aware of it, as you throw it back at the person trying to tell you what you're doing. Perhaps that's why you've been so unaware of it, and having to face it here is bugging you.

[ViperOverLord]

Woodruff, who did you vote for in the 2008 presidential election?

I voted for Obama (as I've said many times in these fora). I also voted for W.Bush twice. I voted for Clinton over Dole. I voted for H.W.Bush over Clinton. I voted for H.W.Bush over Dukakis. I voted for Reagan over Carter. How is any of that relevant?

It's sort of hard for people to take your assertion seriously that you're somewhat conservative when you voted for a person who raised the debt to astronomical levels before his first 2 years were up, decided which businesses were too valuable to fail through bailouts, forced a health care reform through despite clear indications by the public that it wasn't wanted, and refuses to prosecute Black Panthers who clearly violated voting rights law. Now if you're telling the truth about voting for candidates from both parties, that has to be taken into consideration. But more often than not in the times that I come back to read these threads, you take the liberal position. You are also more than willing to go personal against other people who take the conservative position.

That's one of the reason I wouldn't want you to have the opportunity to educate my children. It's not that you're stupid or an idiot, but what I've observed is you taking a small portion of what conservatives write here and nitpick it. I just have a feeling that you would do the same thing in a classroom.........using your position to undermine anyone with a dissenting opinion through subversive ridicule.

Before I get into the "classroom" aspect of what you're saying here, let me ask you this...how is it that you find it necessary to question me for "my undermining anyone with a dissenting opinion through subversive ridicule", when there are so many others here in the fora that you do not?

OK, I'll call it marginalizing or dehumanizing other people then. I would base it on sarcastic cracks on other people you've done in here, with a little condescension thrown in for good measure. Basically, anything to make someone is conservative look like a crazy person before the issue is fully argued out. You usually justify this with a statement about how the other person deserved it because they wouldn't respond to you in the proper way. That's what I base it on.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that there are some here who absolutely will not even consider an opposing viewpoint, yet they don't get this lecture, but I do. Why is that...is it perhaps because those individuals just happen to tend to agree with your positions? ((VOL outlook: Justifying your bad behavior on allegedly worse behavior of others is a fallacy of logic.)

No, and if you had been back here in the days when Napoleon Ier (sp?) or Black Elk Speaks were posting, you'd see that people I agree with are sometimes rude unnecessarily. You can choose to call this a lecture, and maybe it is. But haven't you done far worse against others here? I would answer yes.

As to the "classroom" aspect of your statement, that simply shows once again that you really don't understand the classroom environment I teach in. A majority effort of Air Force Junior ROTC is, in fact, to promote the cadets not only forming their own opinions but also getting them to seriously consider the opinions and positions of others through critical thinking skills. I would point out that critical thinking skills seem to be particularly "wanting" here in these fora. Perhaps that is what is causing the problem with your perspective. (VOL Outlook: Woodruff is quite fond of telling other people that 'they don't understand' as a false means of taking an intellectual high ground. And in this case, I have no doubt that Beezer is well suited to understand the classroom environment and yet Woody scurrilously throws this assertion out there. Also, the alleged lack of critical thinking here compared to his class of high schoolers is a complete rouse and Woody knows it. Although there are some political lightweights in this forum, he knows there are plenty of people here that know a lot and can think for themselves; especially compared to 14-18 year-olds.)

OK, well this is the problem as I see it: you probably are knowledgeable enough to be a teacher. If you would just stop when you talk about your ROTC classes that would be fine, but you don't. You talk about critical thinking skills, but then in the next breath, berate people here for not having them or they seem to be particularly wanting. Then, you end the statement with pointing the blame at someone else, in this case me. That's fine, as I've seen you do it to other posters as well. Until you can take responsibility for the way you judge other people for not having critical thinking skills or proper reading comprehension, you're not going to be getting anywhere with anyone, and probably build up a lot of resentment towards yourself. (VOL outlook: Yup, he's fond of insulting people's intelligence and he is often intellectually dishonest when he does this.)

The cadets or students that you instruct are probably not going to confront you about this because you're the authority figure, and they're not going to risk either your negative reaction or disapproval of their dissent. In these fora, people are more free to just tell you like it is. I can sense that you don't like being confronted or being made aware of it, as you throw it back at the person trying to tell you what you're doing. Perhaps that's why you've been so unaware of it, and having to face it here is bugging you.

X2 & X 2 plus

[Woodruff]

how have you possibly overlooked that? How is it that who I voted for carries more weight than the stated positions I have taken in regards to how that individual has acted in the Presidency? Doesn't that seem a bit odd to you? How have you possibly missed those statements of mine? Perhaps you're too busy reading what you expect to see rather than what is actually there?

The reason I believe that you are liberal is because of the times I have come back to read the discussions and you, almost without hesitation, go personal against those on the conservative side.

That is quite simply a lie. Is this an attempt to bait me? If I'm such a liberal, why have I been so outspoken against President Obama since the election regarding issues such as transparency in his administration and citizen privacy? In fact, I'm having trouble coming up with any issues in which I HAVEN'T been critical of President Obama since the election. How do you rationalize that toward my being so liberal?

In fact, even in the situation where I most egregiously "went off" on someone in these fora (ViperOverLord), I was actually in AGREEMENT with the individual about the general subject being discussed. However, that individual made statements that were easily shown to be inaaccurate, yet he refused to acknowledge that...which then led to my frustration and eventually, my decision to "go off" on him. How do you rationalize my being in agreement with someone and yet still being willing to tell them that they're being a dumbass, if I am so quick to go against those on the conservative side?

Someone who is truly moderate and wanting an honest discussion would not resort to that tactic at the beginning of a thread.

I agree, and it's not something that I typically do at all at the beginning of a thread. Again, this is a lie.

So I guess in honestly, it's a combination of your voting for Obama and your attitude that I've observed.

Your willingness to take a very small data sample combined with your willingness to have that data sample be contaminated by your own prejudice leads me to believe that you're not interested in an honest observation at all.

What possible reason could I have for lying about it?

The possible reason that you could have for lying about it would be an attempt to make yourself look moderate or centrist, when you are actually liberal.

See, that's just it...I don't NEED to lie to make myself look moderate or centrist. That's what I am, and that's largely what the positions I've espoused in these fora are (there are exceptions, of course, in both directions).

Rather than looking at the political stance of the individuals I "go personal against", I would suggest that you should look at other characteristics of those individuals.

You know, I actually have done this. Since I don't comment or even play games on here as much as I used to, I do like to go through old threads and read discussions without taking part. The usuals line up either right or left wing like always, but I've noticed that you like to characterize and dehumanize people. Sometimes you even type in all caps and start swearing at the person, acting as if they are the one that has the problem. But at the very least, you attempt to marginalize.

You must read a VERY limited number of the threads, then.

Personally, I think Nobunaga has been the smartest to not respond to you when you demand answers. "Show me where I......"

Yes, it's always smart to make statements and refuse to back them up. That's an excellent way to pretend that you're right. Unfortunately, a couple of individuals in these fora have turned that into an art form.

All you do when the person shows you where, is argue that you didn't do it, and that they have a reading comprehension problem. The problem is never with you, but with someone else.

Not true. I have admitted when I've been wrong or mis-stated things. It hasn't even been particularly unusual. But I'm sure you managed to read right over those instances in your seeing only what you expect to see.

Before I get into the "classroom" aspect of what you're saying here, let me ask you this...how is it that you find it necessary to question me for "my undermining anyone with a dissenting opinion through subversive ridicule", when there are so many others here in the fora that you do not?

OK, I'll call it marginalizing or dehumanizing other people then. I would base it on sarcastic cracks on other people you've done in here, with a little condescension thrown in for good measure.

Oh, there's no question I'm sarcastic and condescending in these fora. Hell, I've admitted that in here many times. I even joke about myself in that regard here. That you believe my attitude in that regard on an online forum would be the same as in a classroom where I am taking care of my professional job is an attitude that I would find seriously lacking in logic.

Basically, anything to make someone is conservative look like a crazy person before the issue is fully argued out.

So THAT'S why I've arguing so vehemently with PLAYER...because she's such a conservative. I had wondered why that happens. (There...there's your sarcasm and condescention...and it was well-earned on your part.)

You usually justify this with a statement about how the other person deserved it because they wouldn't respond to you in the proper way. That's what I base it on.

No, typically I justify it based on the fact that the other person will make statements that simply aren't true.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that there are some here who absolutely will not even consider an opposing viewpoint, yet they don't get this lecture, but I do. Why is that...is it perhaps because those individuals just happen to tend to agree with your positions?

No, and if you had been back here in the days when Napoleon Ier (sp?) or Black Elk Speaks were posting, you'd see that people I agree with are sometimes rude unnecessarily. You can choose to call this a lecture, and maybe it is. But haven't you done far worse against others here? I would answer yes.

I'm not familiar with Napoleon ler or Black Elk Speaks (though I've heard rumors about BES), so can't say. But you'll never hear me say I haven't been outright RUDE to certain individuals in these fora. Of course I have. And intentionally so. And when I have gone over the line, I have been rightly punished for it via banning/vacation. If I did it as frequently as you want to claim, I'd have been perma-banned from here a long, long time ago. The sheer volume of my postings would have made certain of that.

But it's not based on a matter of disagreeing with them at all. Hell, I disagree with pretty much everyone in these fora on a fair number of issues, and I've certainly not been shy ever about giving my opinions (to say the least). For instance, thegreekdog and I hold fairly divergent stances on certain issues and I've been in disagreements with him...yet I've never found it appropriate to castigate him. He's certainly not the only one. The difference is that when I "go off" on someone, it is most often because those individuals make statements that simply are not true and then when called on the statement, refuse to recant or support their statement (in many cases, it's plainly obvious to everyone, probably including that person).

In fact, the only time I can personally recall when this wasn't the case (being plainly obvious to pretty much everyone involved in the thread) was the situation with the two boys in Arizona (I believe) regarding wearing flag t-shirts to school and being asked to leave school for it. That one situation was a case where I (and one other person - who I can't recall) took a position that everyone else disagreed with. I don't remember specifically getting heated there, but it was a provocative enough issue that I wouldn't be surprised if it happened. Other than that specific issue however, my statement holds quite true.

As to the "classroom" aspect of your statement, that simply shows once again that you really don't understand the classroom environment I teach in. A majority effort of Air Force Junior ROTC is, in fact, to promote the cadets not only forming their own opinions but also getting them to seriously consider the opinions and positions of others through critical thinking skills. I would point out that critical thinking skills seem to be particularly "wanting" here in these fora. Perhaps that is what is causing the problem with your perspective.

OK, well this is the problem as I see it: you probably are knowledgeable enough to be a teacher. If you would just stop when you talk about your ROTC classes that would be fine, but you don't. You talk about critical thinking skills, but then in the next breath, berate people here for not having them or they seem to be particularly wanting.

Absolutely, I do. Sadly, a large number of individuals in these fora (both on the left and the right) seem all to willing to reduce their thinking levels to the realm of whim and preference, rather than looking at issues from more than one perspective. Too many individuals want to look at issues from only their perspective, and to hell with any other possibilities. I have no problem at all "berating" someone for that, because it's pathetic. If someone doesn't want to use critical thinking skills, why do they bother with trying to enter a discussion? The obvious answer is because they simply want to spout their ideology, rather than actually thinking about the situation as a whole.

Then, you end the statement with pointing the blame at someone else, in this case me. That's fine, as I've seen you do it to other posters as well. Until you can take responsibility for the way you judge other people for not having critical thinking skills or proper reading comprehension, you're not going to be getting anywhere with anyone, and probably build up a lot of resentment towards yourself.

I do take responsibility for it. I have no problem at all taking responsibility for judging others for not using critical thinking skills or proper reading comprehension.

The cadets or students that you instruct are probably not going to confront you about this because you're the authority figure, and they're not going to risk either your negative reaction or disapproval of their dissent.

There's not a lot to confront, frankly. There isn't a lot given to them that's a matter of opinion. We teach leadership skills, and that's a fairly cut-and-dry set of subjects. However, I certainly have been corrected when I've gotten parts of the information wrong (for instance, if I have used a command wrong during drill or if I've mis-stated something during a class discussion). We expect them to correct us, because part of being a leader is the willingness to speak up in the face of an uncomfortable situation.

In these fora, people are more free to just tell you like it is. I can sense that you don't like being confronted or being made aware of it, as you throw it back at the person trying to tell you what you're doing. Perhaps that's why you've been so unaware of it, and having to face it here is bugging you.

Actually, I LOVE being confronted. Honestly, I don't mind it at all. I am a firm believer that only by being subjected to different ideas can someone learn, and I love knowledge. By the same token, I DO absolutely expect that if someone is going to confront me, that they be able to read what I (or someone else) has typed accurately...I don't believe that's too much to ask. Sadly, most of the problems I've encountered with individuals in these fora come down exactly to reading comprehension. And it's not just a case of MY saying so, but almost always a case of a majority of the thread saying so. And I DO absolutely expect that if someone is going to confront me, that they be willing to look at the issue constructively and with an eye to thinking about it critically. Honestly, I don't think that's too much to ask. If someone isn't willing to read what is typed accurately nor think about that information critically, then they are wasting my time. THAT is what frustrates me and almost always leads to my condescention and insults...it's certainly not at all a matter of being confronted.

[ViperOverLord]

Wood: "I do take responsibility for it. I have no problem at all taking responsibility for judging others for not using critical thinking skills or proper reading comprehension."

I think people would give you a pass as being merely anal except for the fact that when you've made reading and comprehension mistakes (to say nothing of your gaffes in critical thinking) you've not been willing to own up to them. But its just an inept attempt by yourself to establish intellectual superiority and the prevailing (or at least common) opinion is that it is arrogance on your part. This prevalent arrogance matches an earlier quote from you, in which you actually admitted to partaking in condescension and enjoying it. I give you props though for at least having some level of self realization and in that sense I can even chop what you do as to more of a character role and be a bit more forgiving of any perceived trespasses.

I do agree with Beezer's analysis though that you would be better off to avoid snipes and insults and stop engaging yourself in issues that are meant to deviate from the original discussion. You do these things with regularity and perhaps it suits your need for confrontation but it is hardly productive in the final analysis. In that vain, I recommend that you stop chopping up quotes and cherry picking items as that is clearly designed to take away from the context of conversations and suit your need to control conversations on your terms.

[Woodruff]

I do take responsibility for it. I have no problem at all taking responsibility for judging others for not using critical thinking skills or proper reading comprehension.

I think people would give you a pass as being merely anal except for the fact that when you've made reading and comprehension mistakes (to say nothing of your gaffes in critical thinking) you've not been willing to own up to them.

And yet again...please give some examples to support this statement of yours. In fact, I can provide examples of the opposite...but why should I do all the work again, right? So...will you find those statements, will you repeat your claim without providing any examples, or will you just ignore this as never having happened?

I recommend that you stop chopping up quotes and cherry picking items as that is clearly designed to take away from the context of conversations and suit your need to control conversations on your terms.

And I recommend that you stop making things up out of whole cloth, and instead start supporting the statements you make about individuals with actual fact rather than innuendo, poor reading skills and a poor memory.

Hey, I'll give you this...you have successfully averted attention from my request that you provide examples of how I have defended Obama so much. You even got beezer to unwittingly aid you in that. Well done!

[ViperOverLord]

^^
No there will be no flailing here for your amusement. I was going to say that was maybe the one thing I forgot to put is that you love to dangle that carrot and antagonize people rather than say whatever you need to say. ALSO I'M NOT LYING ABOUT ANYTHING. You want an example? Go back and look at the Gitmo. prison thread in which the poster compared post 9/11 treatment of prisoners to the treatment of prisoners by the Nazis. You claimed that he wasn't saying that at all and then I showed you point blank where he said it straight up. (source: http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=127886&p=2805264&hilit=prisoners#p2805068) OH YOU JUST THINK THAT WENT AWAY? NO HYPOCRITE. NO IT DID NOT. YOU'RE THE ONE THAT IS LYING.

Good Day

[Woodruff]

^^
No there will be no flailing here for your amusement. I was going to say that was maybe the one thing I forgot to put is that you love to dangle that carrot and antagonize people rather than say whatever you need to say. ALSO I'M NOT LYING ABOUT ANYTHING. You want an example? Go back and look at the Gitmo. prison thread in which the poster compared post 9/11 treatment of prisoners to the treatment of prisoners by the Nazis. You claimed that he wasn't saying that at all and then I showed you point blank where he said it straight up. OH YOU JUST THINK THAT WENT AWAY? NO HYPOCRITE. NO IT DID NOT. YOU'RE THE ONE THAT IS LYING.
Good Day

I guess it was option #2 then...repeat the accusation and pretend that's proof.

I notice you haven't provided any quotes here. You want me to do all the work for you. You made the statement - now back it up or admit that you are lying. Be sure to include the statements that you and I may be referring to, so that the context is clear. Thanks.

EDIT: Ah, I see you've added a "source". I would like everyone who is interested (beezer, I'm looking at you) to follow ViperOverLord's link please. If you follow through the thread and read closely, you will see that, in fact, it was NOT I that was having difficulty with the reading comprehension in this thread. And I wasn't the only one to point it out.

[ViperOverLord]

^^
No there will be no flailing here for your amusement. I was going to say that was maybe the one thing I forgot to put is that you love to dangle that carrot and antagonize people rather than say whatever you need to say. ALSO I'M NOT LYING ABOUT ANYTHING. You want an example? Go back and look at the Gitmo. prison thread in which the poster compared post 9/11 treatment of prisoners to the treatment of prisoners by the Nazis. You claimed that he wasn't saying that at all and then I showed you point blank where he said it straight up. (Source: http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=127886&p=2805264&hilit=prisoners#p2805068) OH YOU JUST THINK THAT WENT AWAY? NO HYPOCRITE. NO IT DID NOT. YOU'RE THE ONE THAT IS LYING.
Good Day

I guess it was option #2 then...repeat the accusation and pretend that's proof.

I notice you haven't provided any quotes here. You want me to do all the work for you. You made the statement - now back it up or admit that you are lying. Be sure to include the statements that you and I may be referring to, so that the context is clear. Thanks.

I just added the link (edit) in as you posted; but its here too. I backed that up and it was plenty fresh that backing shouldn't be an issue in any event.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=127886&p=2805264&hilit=prisoners#p2805068

EDIT: Yes you were having the difficulty reading and comprehending. DUDE MADE A COMPARISON POINT BLANK AND YOU SAID HE DIDN'T. IT'S AS SIMPLE AS THAT DUDE. IT'S NOT DIFFICULT TO ANALYZE. YOU FLAT OUT LIED DUDE.

[Woodruff]

^^
No there will be no flailing here for your amusement. I was going to say that was maybe the one thing I forgot to put is that you love to dangle that carrot and antagonize people rather than say whatever you need to say. ALSO I'M NOT LYING ABOUT ANYTHING. You want an example? Go back and look at the Gitmo. prison thread in which the poster compared post 9/11 treatment of prisoners to the treatment of prisoners by the Nazis. You claimed that he wasn't saying that at all and then I showed you point blank where he said it straight up. (Source: http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=127886&p=2805264&hilit=prisoners#p2805068) OH YOU JUST THINK THAT WENT AWAY? NO HYPOCRITE. NO IT DID NOT. YOU'RE THE ONE THAT IS LYING.
Good Day

I guess it was option #2 then...repeat the accusation and pretend that's proof.

I notice you haven't provided any quotes here. You want me to do all the work for you. You made the statement - now back it up or admit that you are lying. Be sure to include the statements that you and I may be referring to, so that the context is clear. Thanks.

I just added the link (edit) in as you posted; but its here too. I backed that up and it was plenty fresh that backing shouldn't be an issue in any event.
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=127886&p=2805264&hilit=prisoners#p2805068

So, do you have an actual instance of my having difficulty with reading comprehension, or was this all you had?

[ViperOverLord]

^^
Dude that's enough by itself. If you're willing to blatantly lie and say someone didn't say something they did say then you think I'm going to waste my time chronicling all your lies and misgivings? Get over yourself dude. I made my original point that you're willing to berate people and not own up to your own mistakes. I know you want me to give you something else to nitpick so you can take the attention away from your lie, but I'm not playing your game. But hey, there's always Plan B for you. You can cut up and paste quotes and try to confuse the issue that way. You're getting called out as a liar because if aren't willing to own up to your lie then you deserve the label without further prosecution. You earned it big guy.

OH AND I SAID GOOD DAY.

[BigBallinStalin]

...

[Woodruff]

^^
Dude that's enough by itself. If you're willing to blatantly lie and say someone didn't say something they did say then you think I'm going to waste my time chronicling all your lies and misgivings?

ViperOverLord, even the original poster who made the statement you were talking about said you misinterpreted it. It wasn't just me. How is it that when even the original poster states that you didn't read their statement correctly, you continue to say that it was someone else (me, in this case...others, in other cases) who had the reading problem? There seems to always be a common factor, and that factor is you. You, sir, are a real piece of work.

[beezer]

Woodruff, I did expect you to respond in the manner that you did. I was also thinking today about the curriculum that might be used in your ROTC program, if there is one at all. I'm not familiar with how freelance that program might be or if it adheres to a rigid, outlined curriculum. However, I was thinking that part of your problem might be that you're constantly engaged in this program and have incorporated what you would call critical thinking skills from your class in the way that you interact with other people. Indeed, there is a time and place to use something like that.....analyzing opposing viewpoints and looking at the basis for them. I know some guys in the ATC division that use this, and have to because of how intricate the job details are. They come across as jerks sometime when they're off the clock because they don't transition to treating people like they do data. But if you're not willing to take the concepts, ideas, and principles of someone else as a whole, it comes across as being overly critical to the point of being annoying. Maybe you don't mean to do that because in your mind you're just using methods that you use in your profession.

Where I think you're probably deviating though is that you continue to parcel a small portion of what someone else is saying, and project your own definitions onto the other person as if they believe it themselves. Wouldn't it be better to just flat out argue against what the other person is actually saying instead of projecting a predetermined judgment on them? I would say that's the better way to go. I'm a flawed individual as well and sometimes I forget that talking to other people and acting respectful is way better than nitpicking.

[ViperOverLord]

^^^
Once again, you nailed it on the head Beezer. I think it goes beyond being in a mode though. Woodruff has developed a false sense of moral and intellectual superiority and that is why he feels comfortable talking down to people (as he has admitted).

Addressing your point Woody. I said that the poster equated the treatment of prisoners by Nazis to the treatment of prisoners by the post 9/11 Govt. And here is the preceding statement statement to that point; "Here we have another judge citing Bush-era imperial presidency as the basis for her unwillingness to challenge the status quo, and do what's right." Clearly there is an implication that Bush era imperialism as it relates to prisoner treatment (IE 'The War On Terror') is being equated to the Nazi treatment of their prisoners. And in fact his very next statement was, "I see a direct comparison between Germany '38 - '45 and the USA since 9/11." THERE IS NO GRAY THERE!

Now the OP backed off his assertion saying that it was not his intent to compare the War On Terror to that genocide and good for him. Naturally you tried to use this as some sort of evidence that I was wrong, but what had already been written was already written. I made the accurate case that it was bogus to equate our treatment of prisoners to the Nazi treatment of prisoners.

And what was your response to my accurate case? -- "No...he isn't, at all. Your reading comprehension skills do not seem to have improved in your absence."

1. As I have shown, he did directly compare the two. He even used the term 'direct comparison' which did equate the two historical instances.

2. You lecture people on reading and comprehension, but you completely ignore his statements and say he was not making a direct comparison or equating the two instances. You need to stop lecturing people on reading and comprehension if you are going to exhibit such terrible reading and comprehension.

3. You have since went forth claiming that people here have terrible critical thinking skills. Well I have news for you Mr. Ruff. Your statement, "No...he isn't, at all. Your reading comprehension skills do not seem to have improved in your absence," was not only counter-productive and not constructive analysis, but it is completely lacking in critical thought. When one engages in critical thinking, they use proper rigor of thinking and state logical conclusions that supply proper reasoning for the analysis. You absolutely did none of that and you routinely do not engage in critical thinking. Have you even had a class in logic or do you just like to lecture people on critical thinking as though you are some sort of authority? I think if you had a class in logic/critical thinking, you would not have tried to fully justify your position on subsequent post that had no technical bearing on your or my original assertions. Also if you had taken a critical thinking class, you would know that the condescension that you so freely admit to engaging in, makes proper critical thought impossible.