In response to:

The Lies that Blind

mpaone Wrote: Oct 18, 2012 10:13 AM
Mr. Knight. Have you ever considered that you are a partisan hack or that this article is basically just a long-winded fear mongering? You mentioned Americans don't like being lied to. I would add that critical thinking Americans don't like partial and misleading truths, which are much more common than lies. Sadly, these half truths work, because they incite emotions like fear and anger, and bypass the neocortex functions. Romneys communication strategy in the first debate particularly employed this. However, with critical thinking it can be detected. Don't get me wrong both sides do this. But your enemy is not the administration, it is people that teach critical thinking. Because with it, we demand a deeper level of discourse.
NewJAl Wrote: Oct 19, 2012 12:21 AM
Sorry to jump in ahead of others but I did not want to have this missed by mpaone.
Wesleyan Media Project results
Current presidential ads appealing to fear............from Obama and his 34.9percent, from Romney 1.2
Negative in tone....................................................96 percent from Obama, 34percent from Romney.
But people tend to go for what they want to believe.
Jack42 Wrote: Oct 18, 2012 5:54 PM
Give one example of a falsehood spoken by Mr. Romney during the course of the debate.
jmg11 Wrote: Oct 18, 2012 6:41 PM
Jack 42,

I was going to answer mpaone directly, but you killed him dead. Can you imagine this wannabe philosopher trying to explain what he means by “…they incite emotions like fear and anger, and bypass the neocortex functions.”
And then he informs us that -- Never Fear! -- critical thinking will save us.

As for you, Oompah, get your grammar straight. Then we will work on logic and rhetoric. At some point down the road, you, too, can aspire to the status of “partisan hack.”
Sparty Wrote: Oct 18, 2012 10:40 AM
No one should like lies and deception. Truth to an Alinskyite such as Obama is very relative and not absolute. Obama is very proficient in the practice of Alinsky's "Rules For Radicals".
mpaone Wrote: Oct 18, 2012 2:42 PM
There are 4 main types of truth. Subjective (aesthetic - "the beautiful"), intersubjective (morals and values - "the good"), objective (empirical / science - "the true"), and interobjective (function / systems theory). Most political discourse takes place in the value realm. Here people seek to get others to agree and resonate with each others worldviews. Unfortunatley, empirical data is often thrown to the wayside in order to score emotional points with people.

I just don't think websites like TownHall hold people to high standards.
mpaone Wrote: Oct 18, 2012 2:49 PM
So I wouldn't say anything is relative really. But moral discussions tend to rely on trying to reach agreement and resonance, since they can't really be proven empirically. That's why they are beliefs. You can say someone else has a more flexible worldview if you hold a more rigid one, but that doesn't mean theirs doesn't have a different logic. Alinskys worldview for instance was based on balancing power in society--in other words social justice. He was not relative by any standard. He just had a more spacious/dynamic value system. He wrote passionatley against dogma from any side, which he called the enemy of human freedom and which darkens the light of the world.
Terminus in WA Wrote: Oct 18, 2012 3:52 PM
It is disturbing that you speak so fondly of Alinsky, but it also explains quite a bit.
jmg11 Wrote: Oct 18, 2012 5:08 PM
One hopes you see right through mpaone. He is playing philosopher/funnyman, with you cast in the role of dupe.

You don't have to fill any such role in lefty's little drama.
NewJAl Wrote: Oct 19, 2012 12:27 AM
And I say he tried to do God's work by the Devil's methods.
Like shooting yourself in the foot. Come to think of it, with us all getting poorer, faster, since Obama started his EO's, Marxist appointees and beating small businesses over the head, while saying the opposite, shooting oneself in the foot is to vote again for Obama.
Kenneth L. Wrote: Oct 18, 2012 10:38 AM
A few examples might help.
Your comment actually prompted me to go back and re-read Mr. Knight's column, and I honestly can't imagine what you're talking about.

As Tuesday's presidential debate showed, the Obama administration’s pack of lies surrounding the murderous 9/11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi is an increasingly heavy albatross. The pattern of deception is so complete, obvious and shocking that if America had a real “mainstream” media, the election would be over.

Mr. Obama used faux outrage on Tuesday to counter-punch as Mr. Romney confronted him on Benghazi. It took moderator Candy Crowley of CNN, acting as protector, to pull Mr. Obama into a corner before the inquiries turned into a knockout. She threw pixie dust into the mix by “fact-checking”...