# All the fuss about Obama's choice of reading



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

What's all the fuss about that I've been seeing on the internet? 









Why should anyone have anything other than mild positive or mild negative sentiment, depending on what your political views are? There are some nutty paranoid people out there who are making a stink about this, which is ridiculous. It seems to be a popular book of sorts, anyone could read it. I could get into some reasons about more specifically why I think this is stupid, but I'm sure my expressed logic would seem flawed. Nonetheless, I think its ridiculous.

I'm not a member of the political junkies group, so I posted here.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

At least he reads unlike most morons around today!


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

..................


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

Because most people believe its some Muslim book about the destruction of America or something stupid like that.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

Would Obama be even a half-decent leader if he _didn't_ do some research into how the group he leads is perceived? Some "know thy enemy" comes into play here.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Cnote11 said:


> Because most people believe its some Muslim book about the destruction of America or something stupid like that.


Maybe not 'most people'. The plutocrats' spin doctors are very good at what they do, but they seem to target the already semi-convinced.

Personally, I hope Obama has read the book, and has a plan to at least moderate the trend.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I also hope he's reading it to be pro-active. But in an election year, that's not the kind of book you would want to advertise that you're reading. It doesn't exactly inspire confidence.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

Has anybody actually read the book to know what it even really says?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Manxfeeder said:


> I also hope he's reading it to be pro-active. But in an election year, that's not the kind of book you would want to advertise that you're reading. It doesn't exactly inspire confidence.


Among the semi-literate?


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I think any negative comments about his reading habits are an unfortunate manifestation of the fact that people think we should isolate ourselves in intellectual bubbles, not exposing ourselves to contrary beliefs and opinions. This is why Churches ban films and books as though their followers can't think for themselves and must be protected. Obama may well be reading something he thoroughly disagrees with, but is intelligent and curious enough to inform himself fully about other points of view. That's something we should all try to do, instead of only amassing evidence for the one side of a story that we find most appealing.


----------



## Lenfer (Aug 15, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Maybe not 'most people'. The plutocrats' spin doctors are very good at what they do, but they seem to target the already semi-convinced.
> 
> Personally, I hope Obama has read the book, and has a plan to at least moderate the trend.


You took the words right out of my mouth. I was not aware of any fuss but I doubt this would make the news outside of *America*. It seems to me a large part of the media over there would rather the he just continued to shout "We're number one" over and over.

*America* hasn't been the most trust worthy ally. But at least their an ally I can say and it's not very PC but I don't trust non *Euro-Americans* running things.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Lenfer said:


> You took the words right out of my mouth. I was not aware of any fuss but I doubt this would make the news outside of *America*. It seems to me a large part of the media over there would rather the he just continued to shout "We're number one" over and over.
> 
> *America* hasn't been the most trust worthy ally. But at least their an ally I can say and it's not very PC but I don't trust non *Euro-Americans* running things.


What's a non Euro-American, or am I being dense?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

It's ok. Anyone upset by an African-American president with a funny name reading a book by an Indian-American journalist with a funny name was all a-rearin' to vote against that president anyway. 

Plus, we can ignore the fact that the ACLU yesterday, on the topic of US drone strikes killing who knows whom for who knows what, wrote in the NYT, "In some ways, his administration is even worse than the Bush team when it comes to abusing the privilege of secrecy." 

That way, you're either crazy xenophobic, or an Obama-Bush supporter.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

Polednice said:


> I think any negative comments about his reading habits are an unfortunate manifestation of the fact that people think we should isolate ourselves in intellectual bubbles, not exposing ourselves to contrary beliefs and opinions. This is why Churches ban films and books as though their followers can't think for themselves and must be protected. Obama may well be reading something he thoroughly disagrees with, but is intelligent and curious enough to inform himself fully about other points of view. That's something we should all try to do, instead of only amassing evidence for the one side of a story that we find most appealing.


Well said. I had just given a speech on this myself yesterday. This is one of THE MOST IMPORTANT things to get across to educators and those being educated. In a country that is supposedly for free thinking and free speech, we sure act in ways that often seem like we believe the opposite.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

science said:


> [...]
> "abusing the privilege of secrecy."


Eesh?
Since it's highly unlikely that the ACLU has a clue in the matter, they also have no ability to determine abuse.

Note: The Homeland Security folks (which includes all the alphabet soup agencies) are _legally_ allowed to fly drones over US territory now - saving black helicopter expenses? Never mind 'inviting interesting parties to an interview', just lay an egg on them. Simpler, less fuss.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Lenfer said:


> You took the words right out of my mouth. I was not aware of any fuss but I doubt this would make the news outside of *America*. It seems to me a large part of the media over there would rather the he just continued to shout "We're number one" over and over.
> 
> *America* hasn't been the most trust worthy ally. But at least their an ally I can say and it's not very PC but I don't trust non *Euro-Americans* running things.


OK I think I worked it out, you only want Europeans or Americans running things! What the French and Germans, perish the thought!


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Hah. I haven't noticed either outfit 'running things' lately. Try to pay attention.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

Poor Japanese


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

Polednice said:


> I think any negative comments about his reading habits are an unfortunate manifestation of the fact that people think we should isolate ourselves in intellectual bubbles, not exposing ourselves to contrary beliefs and opinions. This is why Churches ban films and books as though their followers can't think for themselves and must be protected. Obama may well be reading something he thoroughly disagrees with, but is intelligent and curious enough to inform himself fully about other points of view. That's something we should all try to do, instead of only amassing evidence for the one side of a story that we find most appealing.


Exactly what I was trying to say, but far more eloquent. Well-said, Polednice.


----------



## rojo (May 26, 2006)

I hadn't heard about this. Well, I guess it's good to know that he reads more than just a teleprompter?






What, Canada isn't a close ally (we're right next door, after all ) and doesn't punch above it's weight? :lol:

Harper is probably pissed about Obama nixing the Keystone pipeline deal, so maybe they haven't been speaking to each other. Who knows.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Eesh?
> Since it's highly unlikely that the ACLU has a clue in the matter, they also have no ability to determine abuse.


They certainly have tried to get a clue.


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

"Haters gonna hate"



















http://imgur.com/1UTK8


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

science said:


> They certainly have tried to get a clue.


That is not objectionable; the ACLU has enough resources to mount a useful test of the system.

The less the ACLU knows about drone operations, the less the Evil Wicked Mean Bad and Nasty people know.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Hilltroll72 said:


> That is not objectionable; the ACLU has enough resources to mount a useful test of the system.
> 
> The less the ACLU knows about drone operations, the less the Evil Wicked Mean Bad and Nasty people know.


I for one am officially eager to surrender even more of my freedom in exchange for a more powerful state that can protect me from terrorism. Imagine how many of us would be dead today if we hadn't surrendered so many of our liberties.


----------



## Guest (Apr 1, 2012)

There are those who find fault with _every single thing_ that the man does or says. (And surely his race has nothing to do with it...). One pundit said if Obama turned water into wine, then he'd be accused of being an alcoholic!


----------



## Guest (Apr 2, 2012)

Yes, the poor man. He really is the first president in our history to face any kind of criticism - it must be due to his race. After all, those white guys Reagan and Bush 43 were treated with such respect by their political opponents. It's not like anybody compared Bush 43 to, oh, I don't know . . . Hitler? Or fabricated fake National Guard documents about him prior to his re-election to try and defeat him? Or wrote plays about his assassination? Give me a break - it was open season on Bush 43 for his entire presidency - sure, liberals laid low for a short while after 9/11, because they knew they would be on the losing side there.

If Obama has it so bad, then tell me where the outcry over these actions of his administration are in the media:
He surged troops in Afghanistan after fighting Bush's surge of troops in Iraq.
He has not shut down the Guantanamo detention facility.
He has authorized more drone attacks in his 3 years in office than Bush did in 8.
He heavily criticized Bush for running up over $4 trillion in debt in 8 years, but he has run up a similar amount in only 3.
He criticized Hillary Clinton heavily during the 2008 election for advocating a healthcare plan that would include an individual mandate, then proceeded to push through a healthcare program as president with . . . an individual mandate.
After Democrats criticized the Bush administration's decision to go to war in Iraq, even with the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, they turned their heads as Obama authorized military actions in Libya without seeking any kind of Congressional authorization.
His Treasury Secretary was a tax cheat right up until he began to be scrutinized for a cabinet position, at which point he suddenly "realized" that he needed to get caught up on his tax payments.
Had a Republican nominee for president had a relationship with a fringe right-wing terrorist like Obama had with Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, there would have been no need for Democrats to hector him out of the race - Republicans would have dumped him. But they were surprisingly "see no evil, hear no evil" with regards to Obama's relationship with Ayers.

So please, tell me about how maligned this man has been. Republicans have given him credit where they felt it was due - unfortunately, there have been precious few moments like that. For instance, he received broad praise for his decision to take out bin Laden. Republicans are much more likely to support his decision to take out al-Awlaki than are Democrats.

The thing is, when the things that he does are so obviously contrary to conservative principles, why should it be so surprising that conservatives criticize those actions? What, are you going to tell me that Democrats and liberals hold their tongues when Republican presidents act in ways contrary to their principles? Are you kidding me? What, have we all turned into political juveniles, thinking it unseemly to criticize your opponents for taking actions you oppose?


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

science said:


> I for one am officially eager to surrender even more of my freedom in exchange for a more powerful state that can protect me from terrorism. Imagine how many of us would be dead today if we hadn't surrendered so many of our liberties.


is this intended to be satirical


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

regressivetransphobe said:


> is this intended to be satirical


I think you are supposed to read it both ways and make a pick. Personally, I think the statement contains a basic fallacy, but may indeed be a popular sentiment.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

DrMike said:


> Yes, the poor man. He really is the first president in our history to face any kind of criticism - it must be due to his race. After all, those white guys Reagan and Bush 43 were treated with such respect by their political opponents. It's not like anybody compared Bush 43 to, oh, I don't know . . . Hitler? Or fabricated fake National Guard documents about him prior to his re-election to try and defeat him? Or wrote plays about his assassination? Give me a break - it was open season on Bush 43 for his entire presidency - sure, liberals laid low for a short while after 9/11, because they knew they would be on the losing side there.
> 
> If Obama has it so bad, then tell me where the outcry over these actions of his administration are in the media:
> He surged troops in Afghanistan after fighting Bush's surge of troops in Iraq.
> ...


This is the most unnecessary and irrelevant thing I think you've ever contributed.


----------



## Guest (Apr 2, 2012)

My response was to Kontrapunctus' comment - I thought it was quite relevant to what he posted.

You don't. But then, this wouldn't be the first time you didn't care for something I posted. So would you care to enlighten us as to why my post was unnecessary and irrelevant? Or do you just like to throw around hyperbole?


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

DrMike said:


> My response was to Kontrapunctus' comment - I thought it was quite relevant to what he posted.
> 
> You don't. But then, this wouldn't be the first time you didn't care for something I posted. So would you care to enlighten us as to why my post was unnecessary and irrelevant? Or do you just like to throw around hyperbole?


It wasn't clear to me that it was in response to Kontrapunctus - I make the assumption that a post without a quote addresses the entire thread. Given that, yes, your tirade was relevant. It was perhaps a little longer than necessary though, seeing as no one else has made the case for Obama being a victim...


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

And calling me hyperbolic after that diatribe is a bit rich!


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

I think the point of Kontrapunctus' post was that people don't attack anything valid and give sound arguments, but instead reach out on a limb to insult whatever. You have some assumption that he thinks it was okay for them to do it to Bush. Maybe he feels the same way when they do it to any President. Maybe he values intellectual debate on the news and in government instead of mud-slinging. Perhaps, but we'd rather turn this into a "US VS THEM" thing instead, wouldn't we?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

I've noticed that _DrMike_ has a tendency to make his sentiments known by proxy. This tends to avoid the _'us vs. them'_ by converting it into _'they vs. them'_, with enough auxiliary verbiage to make his position known without 'coming right out and saying so'.

:devil:


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

I almost worded it "they vs them".  It is very noticeable I've never seen this guy around but he sure has a lot of posts. Must have stopped posting as of recently.


----------



## Guest (Apr 2, 2012)

Polednice said:


> It wasn't clear to me that it was in response to Kontrapunctus - I make the assumption that a post without a quote addresses the entire thread. Given that, yes, your tirade was relevant. It was perhaps a little longer than necessary though, seeing as no one else has made the case for Obama being a victim...


It is my convention to only quote a post I am addressing if there are subsequent posts separating my comments from those to which I am responding. I started doing this because sometimes what I was quoting was so long, that I didn't think it necessary if I was the very next poster.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

Could try writing their name.


----------



## Guest (Apr 2, 2012)

Incidentally, I fancy myself as a pretty avid political follower. I try to keep abreast of all the latest news and what not. Where exactly was this a big story? I found some comments from last year, but only in some random comments posted on other articles related to Zakaria having meetings with Obama. Could someone please point me to the horrible stories that spawned this thread and show how mean conservatives are to Obama about his reading choices?


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

There he goes again...


----------



## Guest (Apr 2, 2012)

Hilltroll72 said:


> I've noticed that _DrMike_ has a tendency to make his sentiments known by proxy. This tends to avoid the _'us vs. them'_ by converting it into _'they vs. them'_, with enough auxiliary verbiage to make his position known without 'coming right out and saying so'.
> 
> :devil:


Sorry to confuse things there, Hilltroll - I just assumed you understood that, unless I am aiming for satire, I support the positions that I post on here, unless I give some disclaimer ahead of time. Please don't think that, just because I don't directly say "this is my position" that I don't espouse it. To quote Ol' Blue Eyes - "For what is a man? What has he got? If not himself, then he has not. To say the things he truly feels . . . "


----------



## Guest (Apr 2, 2012)

Cnote11 said:


> There he goes again...


Well, Cnote11 (look, both quoting and stating your name!) - if conservatives are going to be chastised for criticizing the reading choices of Obama (which was the original topic of this thread - and Hilltroll, I am including myself among conservatives), I'd like to see where this criticism was leveled. You will forgive me, I hope, for not simply taking your word for it?

And incidentally, yes, I was here for a while, and then departed for a time, but have been back lately. I typically play the role of the religious conservative scientist who likes to challenge the typical liberal love-fest/preaching to the choir that passes for political "conversation" around here. You'll forgive me if I don't join in with the usual patting on the back and telling each other how enlightened we are for making fun of conservatives.

And I am usually quite vocal, so you will no doubt see even more of me.

Oh, and I love HIP recordings and can't really stand Wagner.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

DrMike said:


> Oh, and I love HIP recordings and can't really stand Wagner.


But why?! Wagner and conservatism go together so well.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Cnote11 said:


> I almost worded it "they vs them".  It is very noticeable I've never seen this guy around but he sure has a lot of posts. Must have stopped posting as of recently.


_DrMike_ stated an intention to quit posting when he got to 2000 posts. The abstinence lasted awhile. He is an intelligent conservative, too rare a bird to be denied us.


----------



## Guest (Apr 2, 2012)

SiegendesLicht said:


> But why?! Wagner and conservatism go together so well.


First, my interest in opera is very limited - primarily only the operas of Mozart and Beethoven. Wagner gets too long and tedious for me. I thought I would shoot myself if I had to hear one more time about how Tristan and Isolde would rather die than be apart. I am not opposed to long works (I like Mahler, and can sit through the entire St. Matthew Passion of Bach without pause), but this got to be so tedious and repetitive, that I wanted someone to just come in and kill them and get it over with. The Ring - and I have tried several times to appreciate it - just doesn't hold my attention. There are a few melodies from time to time that catch my ear, but that is it. Die Meistersinger and Tannhauser are the only ones I can somewhat tolerate.


----------



## Guest (Apr 2, 2012)

Cnote11 said:


> There he goes again...


Yep, I am quite the tenacious *******. I have to make up for the fact that it is usually one (me) against many. So while you need only respond to me here, I have to respond to you and everybody else. Compare the number of conservative posts in this thread to those non-conservative ones and you will find that I have a lot of catching up to do.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

DrMike said:


> Compare the number of conservative posts in this thread to those non-conservative ones and you will find that I have a lot of catching up to do.


I think you're prone to making TC political discussions overly simplistic liberal vs. conservative affairs, and then indulging in a mini persecution complex. I have found that while TC has a greater number of generally liberal people, our opinions are all quite nuanced - I often have run-ins with those who would stereotypically be on "my side"; there is only 1, maybe 2 members with whom I have found myself agreeing on everything; and I have never come across a liberal, self-congratulatory, back-patting gang bang. I think you're seeing only what you want to see.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

Its hard to take you serious when you polarize like that. I am a "liberal" but I don't even support Obama. I know plenty of democrats attacking Obama like some conservatives do, so the fact that you auto jump into defense mode for your conservative cause is a bit sick. I don't believe in defending somebody just because they're on "your side", whatever that means. I don't identify myself with any of this rubbish. Nobody is out to get you, and I certainly don't feel I'm "up against" you. Seriously, this idea of being part of "something" irritates me. I am not part of some collective you are going up against. I'm not allied for a cause with anybody on this message board. I don't think anybody is "chastising" conservatives either. Only an idiot would have the nerve to say that all conservatives attack Obama in an unjustified and racist way. The fact that you assume its only conservatives insulting Obama and that when people talk about people insulting Obama you automatically go "Conservative" is a real issue. You shouldn't make such wild assumptions about every poster because you think you're the sole defender of your realm or some non-sense.


----------



## Guest (Apr 2, 2012)

Polednice - I have run-ins with other conservatives. While you may not see eye-to-eye on every matter, I hardly think that is quite the chasm you seem to think. Look throughout this thread prior to my joining in, or in the sex/taboo thread, and find significant dissent to the opening opinion. I'm not talking about minor disagreements, rather significant disagreement. 

And it isn't me against them in the sense that you put it - it is me against them in that I will post something, and have multiple people question/challenge me on it, and when I don't answer them all, then they charge that I am trying to duck their questions, or that I can't respond. In contrast, they all only have to respond to me. Regarding the sex ed discussion in the other thread, there are 3-4 individuals who have commented on my posting. It piles up. If you think I am only seeing what I want to see, go look back at how many responses I get, on average, to my postings.

I'm not persecuted - on the contrary, I am quite the happy warrior. I enjoy these debates. I say bring them on.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I think anyone who spends as much time arguing online as Dr. Mike and I do has to admit that deep down, deep, deep, deep down, we basically enjoy it. 

If we actually wanted to learn something, we wouldn't waste time with each other. Like, the thing I know most about, the closest I am to an expertise in anything, is Christian theology, or perhaps "religious studies," but I can't imagine anyone with a real interest in learning anything about those subjects asking me anything when Jaroslav Pelikan's books or Scott Atran's books are available on amazon.com. 

But are we going to persuade each other of anything? At best, we might learn to argue more carefully. 

So really, it's all about the fun. 

This has been hard for me to accept, because I have been a believer in rational argument. 

The only real progress or benefit that is possible (IMO) in this kind of discussion is when we hear from someone whose intellect (intelligence + education + thoughtfulness) we respect on an issue that we haven't much about.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

I think that idea is pitiful, science. It is sad to see that condition amongst humans where they put aside rational thought for pure ideology. It doesn't surprise me, however, due to the fact that it is prevalent at every corner you turn. People can still keep their opinions and still learn even! I studied religion for years: read the bible, Qu'ran, Bhagavad Gita, Upanishads, etc, etc. I have a large collection of religious books and commentary. I'm not a religion man, or even spiritual, but I enjoyed my studies and learned a lot. I would be interested to hear from an expert on Christian theology, even though your opinions may be a complete 180 from mine. I think this ties right back into what Polednice was saying about people staying in an intellectual bubble.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

DrMike said:


> Polednice - I have run-ins with other conservatives. While you may not see eye-to-eye on every matter, I hardly think that is quite the chasm you seem to think. Look throughout this thread prior to my joining in, or in the sex/taboo thread, and find significant dissent to the opening opinion. I'm not talking about minor disagreements, rather significant disagreement.
> 
> And it isn't me against them in the sense that you put it - it is me against them in that I will post something, and have multiple people question/challenge me on it, and when I don't answer them all, then they charge that I am trying to duck their questions, or that I can't respond. In contrast, they all only have to respond to me. Regarding the sex ed discussion in the other thread, there are 3-4 individuals who have commented on my posting. It piles up. If you think I am only seeing what I want to see, go look back at how many responses I get, on average, to my postings.
> 
> I'm not persecuted - on the contrary, I am quite the happy warrior. I enjoy these debates. I say bring them on.


I'm not refuting the numbers, just your rather fanciful descriptions.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

science said:


> I think anyone who spends as much time arguing online as Dr. Mike and I do has to admit that deep down, deep, deep, deep down, we basically enjoy it.
> 
> If we actually wanted to learn something, we wouldn't waste time with each other. Like, the thing I know most about, the closest I am to an expertise in anything, is Christian theology, or perhaps "religious studies," but I can't imagine anyone with a real interest in learning anything about those subjects asking me anything when Jaroslav Pelikan's books or Scott Atran's books are available on amazon.com.
> 
> ...


I think I have to admit also that I thrive on a bit of (inoffensive) conflict, and if I have learned anything on this forum, it has been from well-educated members with a similar approach to life as me. The more I "debate" opponents, the more it is depressingly obvious that topics such as the ones we see here are complex cultural facades built on top of much more basic first principles, and our disagreements fundamentally stem from irreconcilable differences on what is important in life, what governs the universe, and the importance of different kinds of knowledge and experience. Those are really the most important topics to discuss, but they are also the most difficult, and the ones we are least likely to change our minds about.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

I think it only healthy to thrive off of debate. It is a great tool for learning, in my opinion. Too bad most people take it far too seriously and go into it with a poor mentality. Most people identify their opinions with their very being, so it becomes very personal for most people. I think this is a terrible way to look at education and identity personally, and because of this is often becomes a conflict.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Cnote11 said:


> I think that idea is pitiful, science. It is sad to see that condition amongst humans where they put aside rational thought for pure ideology. It doesn't surprise me, however, due to the fact that it is prevalent at every corner you turn. People can still keep their opinions and still learn even! I studied religion for years: read the bible, Qu'ran, Bhagavad Gita, Upanishads, etc, etc. I have a large collection of religious books and commentary. I'm not a religion man, or even spiritual, but I enjoyed my studies and learned a lot. I would be interested to hear from an expert on Christian theology, even though your opinions may be a complete 180 from mine. I think this ties right back into what Polednice was saying about people staying in an intellectual bubble.


Of course I applaud an open-minded, self-critical search for truth, as well as the goal of letting no human thing be completely alien to you.

But I think it's really, really hard - the best language available to me here is the old hardcore monastic talk about spiritual warfare, because our nature is not predisposed to objectivity. We want, by nature, to find out that we're right. We have to work hard to become the kind of people who want to find out that we're wrong.

Also, really, if you want to learn about Christian theology that's a wonderful idea, but I'm really only useful for chatting casually. I haven't read much Barth, Tillich, Rahner, Bérulle, Simeon the New Theologian, Cardinal Newman, Bonaventure - etc! It's great if you want to explore that stuff, but if so, don't waste any time talking to me - run out and get Pelikan's books!


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

Cnote11 said:


> I almost worded it "they vs them".  It is very noticeable I've never seen this guy around but he sure has a lot of posts. Must have stopped posting as of recently.


DrMike has been around for quite a while, but he takes an occasional sabbatical when he gets thoroughly fed up with us. I think our other very argumentative member on the subject of politics, one "science," may be his alter ego, in the style of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. The two of them have never actually been seen in the same place together.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Polednice said:


> I think I have to admit also that I thrive on a bit of (inoffensive) conflict, and if I have learned anything on this forum, it has been from well-educated members with a similar approach to life as me. The more I "debate" opponents, the more it is depressingly obvious that topics such as the ones we see here are complex cultural facades built on top of much more basic first principles, and our disagreements fundamentally stem from irreconcilable differences on what is important in life, what governs the universe, and the importance of different kinds of knowledge and experience. Those are really the most important topics to discuss, but they are also the most difficult, and the ones we are least likely to change our minds about.


Absolutely.

I've often mentioned that I was raised a conservative fundamentalist Christian. Though the particular experiences and influences that led me away from that tradition were arbitrary, I think it was essentially destiny for me to leave that tradition, because of the kind of personality I have, the style of thought I have.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Fsharpmajor said:


> DrMike has been around for quite a while, but he takes an occasional sabbatical when he gets thoroughly fed up with us. I think our other very argumentative member on the subject of politics, one "science," may be his alter ego, in the style of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. The two of them have never actually been seen in the same place together.


Dr. Mike is my father.

Also, he is Wagner and I am Brahms.

Little known facts, outside of TalkClassical.com, but you can ask Polednice, as he has seen proof of it all.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

science said:


> Dr. Mike is my father.
> 
> Also, he is Wagner and I am Brahms.
> 
> Little known facts, outside of TalkClassical.com, but you can ask Polednice, as he has seen proof of it all.


Absolutely true. I even went on an Indiana Jones style expedition to discover it all.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

science said:


> Dr. Mike is my father.
> 
> Also, he is Wagner and I am Brahms.
> 
> Little known facts, outside of TalkClassical.com, but you can ask Polednice, as he has seen proof of it all.


I thought Couchie was Wagner?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I thought Couchie was Wagner?


Conclusively debunked.

Couchie is Nietzsche 1871.


----------



## Guest (Apr 2, 2012)

No, I an Bach and Beethoven rolled into one, and you all are the atonalists of three20th century.


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I thought Couchie was Wagner?


Unlike the coelocanth, no living example of the fossil species known as the "couchie" (Wagnericus apologeticus), has ever been found, so we must presume that they are instinct. They are thought to have had a vivid green skin.


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

DrMike said:


> No, I an Bach and Beethoven rolled into one, and you all are the atonalists of three20th century.


Oh, I think you guys will get your comeuppance when the neo-atonalist movement finally arrives, sometime around the middle of the 25th Century.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Fsharpmajor said:


> Unlike the coelocanth, no living example of the fossil species known as the "couchie" (Wagnericus apologeticus), has ever been found, so we must presume that they are instinct. They are thought to have had a vivid green skin.


Found one:


----------



## Guest (Apr 3, 2012)

Fsharpmajor said:


> Oh, I think you guys will get your comeuppance when the neo-atonalist movement finally arrives, sometime around the middle of the 25th Century.


Beethoven's 5th and 9th symphonies will STILL be more popular.


----------



## Guest (Apr 3, 2012)

science said:


> I think anyone who spends as much time arguing online as Dr. Mike and I do has to admit that deep down, deep, deep, deep down, we basically enjoy it.
> 
> If we actually wanted to learn something, we wouldn't waste time with each other. Like, the thing I know most about, the closest I am to an expertise in anything, is Christian theology, or perhaps "religious studies," but I can't imagine anyone with a real interest in learning anything about those subjects asking me anything when Jaroslav Pelikan's books or Scott Atran's books are available on amazon.com.
> 
> ...


I disagree only in that my enjoyment is not deep, deep down. It is right up here at the surface. I throughly enjoy challenging people who espouse concepts and ideologies that I disagree with - and this whole thread refelects this. If Obama faces greater levels of criticism than other presidents, even over their reading selections (and I challenge that assertion), then a lot of that is due to his not being thoroughly vetted prior to his election, and so many uncomfortable facts about him only now being realized.

And I am still waiting to hear what it was that spawned this discussion - where was the criticism of Obama reading Zakaria's book?



Cnote11 said:


> I think that idea is pitiful, science. It is sad to see that condition amongst humans where they put aside rational thought for pure ideology. It doesn't surprise me, however, due to the fact that it is prevalent at every corner you turn. People can still keep their opinions and still learn even! I studied religion for years: read the bible, Qu'ran, Bhagavad Gita, Upanishads, etc, etc. I have a large collection of religious books and commentary. I'm not a religion man, or even spiritual, but I enjoyed my studies and learned a lot. I would be interested to hear from an expert on Christian theology, even though your opinions may be a complete 180 from mine. I think this ties right back into what Polednice was saying about people staying in an intellectual bubble.


Who says that people who engage in these ideological debates don't also inform themselves of the ideology of the other side? On the contrary, I regularly study the opposing ideology, and not just as conservatives see it. I think people who engage in these political debates, even though they may be firmly set in their own ideologies, are more informed of the opposing ideology than often are many people of that ideology who don't like to debate. They don't like to see anybody question their political ideology, so they oppose debate.


----------



## Guest (Apr 3, 2012)

science said:


> I think anyone who spends as much time arguing online as Dr. Mike and I do has to admit that deep down, deep, deep, deep down, we basically enjoy it.
> 
> If we actually wanted to learn something, we wouldn't waste time with each other. Like, the thing I know most about, the closest I am to an expertise in anything, is Christian theology, or perhaps "religious studies," but I can't imagine anyone with a real interest in learning anything about those subjects asking me anything when Jaroslav Pelikan's books or Scott Atran's books are available on amazon.com.
> 
> ...





science said:


> *Dr. Mike is my father. *
> 
> Also, he is Wagner and I am Brahms.
> 
> Little known facts, outside of TalkClassical.com, but you can ask Polednice, as he has seen proof of it all.


I just vomited a little in my mouth.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

DrMike said:


> I just vomited a little in my mouth.


The twist, señor, is that Mr. Obama is in turn _your_ father.


----------



## Guest (Apr 3, 2012)

science said:


> The twist, señor, is that Mr. Obama is in turn _your_ father.


Would that make me a white African-American? You realize that you can, henceforth, never accuse me of racism. But clearly we know that I am not Mr. Obama's son, because I look nothing like Trayvon Martin - and he said that if he had a son, he would look like Trayvon Martin.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

DrMike said:


> Would that make me a white African-American? You realize that you can, henceforth, never accuse me of racism. But clearly we know that I am not Mr. Obama's son, because I look nothing like Trayvon Martin - and he said that if he had a son, he would look like Trayvon Martin.


I don't think you want to get into his reasons for not claiming you, or what he thinks of your appearance.


----------



## Guest (Apr 3, 2012)

You mean how he'd have to explain to Michelle why it is he has a white son?


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

A member of the same race can be racist still.


----------



## Guest (Apr 3, 2012)

Tell that to Eric Holder.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

DrMike said:


> Tell that to Eric Holder.


Get him on the line.


----------



## Guest (Apr 3, 2012)

He might be busy for a while, coming up with the latest stonewall or excuse as to how more than 2000 guns made it into the hands of Mexican drug cartels under his watch. Aside from that, he is also quite busy ignoring voting rights abuses by the New Black Panther party.


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

Fsharpmajor said:


> Unlike the coelocanth, no living example of the fossil species known as the "couchie" (Wagnericus apologeticus), has ever been found, so we must presume that they are instinct. They are thought to have had a vivid green skin.


"Extinct," I meant to say, not "instinct."


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Fsharpmajor said:


> "Extinct," I meant to say, not "instinct."


Your belief that the couchie is extinct is probably instinctive. A previous poster offered a link to a representation of _Couchie robusticus_. That species is extinct.


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Your belief that the couchie is extinct is probably instinctive. A previous poster offered a link to a representation of _Couchie robusticus_. That species is extinct.


I think that species is a mythical chimera which never actually existed in the first place.


----------

