Two Perspectives

Your comments are right on. What you are describing is constantly engaged in by the left and the MSM. It is one of the 52 logical fallacies constantly used, illogically so, by the left. This fallacy is called "BIASED SELECTION".

This is the over generalization fallacy, except it is to over-generalize when : (1) evidence has already been gathered, and (2) most of the evidence refutes one’s truth assertion; but one argues for that position anyway, using only that evidence that supports the assertion.

This would be like arguing, “Most men are jerks,” after meeting thousands of men, but using evidence only from the half-dozen men that one has dated who were in fact certifiably “jerks.”

The problem with this is that as cultures world-wide become less agrarian, the earth’s cities are rapidly growing. And large cities result in 50% of their surface areas being covered with concrete or asphalt, both of which retain heat from the sun. So, temperatures within growing cities naturally rise over time. It has been well documented that this urban warming from concrete and asphalt has been exaccerbated in the data by the placing of many measuring devices used in obtaining global temp maps have in fact been placed next to heat sources such as heaters, jet exhaust at airports, etc.

Other evidence gathered from satellites that scan the temperatures for the entire earth, from tree rings, from ice cores in Antarctica and Greenland, from sediment on deep ocean beds, and from many other sources all indicate that the earth over-all is in a cooling rather than a heating period.

One can argue that either position, in light of available evidence is tenable. But like your examples, this is to selectively bias the evidence presented--either ignorantly or dishonestly--in favor ones position.

There are thousands of examples that could be listed of basing arguments on only one side of the argument. In fact, after I wrote this I realized how similar it was to Bastiat's seen and unseen argument, the idea that a broken window is good for the economy, but only appears so because the people saying that cannot see what the money would have been spent on otherwise. (The same argument is used to argue wars "help" the economy. Though, in that case, the destruction is so obvious you wonder how anyone could seriously argue that point.)

Thank you for your comment and please come back and read more.

I just noticed I misspelled your name. Sorry about that. I normally catch myself. Though not always.

Thank you for writing and for reading my blog.

I have said nothing about what Obama did during his time in the senate, either state or federal. In fact, if you read my posts I say that he has a very liberal record, which your list seems to show.

What I have said is that Obama will NOT take a stand now. He is running on being "for hope" and "for change" and THAT'S IT.

If you disagree, prove me wrong. Tell me something Obama has states since running for president that represents a concrete position.

Oh, and two you cannot mention:

1) Invading Pakistan, as that little gaffe seems to have been swept under the rug since he made it and vanished into, as Orwell called it, unhistory. To Obamaniacs, it no longer exisits.

2) Gun rights, as Obama took both sides, so that doesn't really count as a position.

So, please, tell me the time and date when Obama made a clear, concrete stand on what he would do as president. Though please pick some position for which he did not also embrace the opposite.

Having said all that, I do appreciate your comment. I may disagree, but I do enjoy hearing from the other end of the political spectrum. Though your vehemence against Hillary does support my thesis that Obamaniacs will never get behind her.

Native Eyes-

1. Did you post this same item on every blog or just mine? It appears to be the same content as the one post on your blog.

2. Why this article? It really has absolutely nothing to do with this topic. Is it because I was on the featured blog page?

Not that I am unhappy with the visit, but I am just puzzled why this comment was attached tot his particular article, when I have ten times as many recent posts where this comment would make sense.