You have presented some good arguments before; sometimes we agree and sometimes we don’t and when it comes to opinions, everyone has one and no one is right all the time. On the other hand (as an example) the tan^-1(1degree) statement. That wasn’t an opinion, it’s a false statement and when someone claims something to be true that isn’t, I will sometimes (depending on my mood) choose to point it out–as I did with that individual. You too have written things that were outright wrong (or nonsensical) in the fields of science, math, and computer science (while trying to present an air of expertise or authority on the subject) and I have let it slide in the spirit of harmony. However, when you do, don’t be surprised if someone calls you on it.

As to “tu quoque” (one word), you are also correct. While I don’t agree with him, I don’t see where BigAL engages in an ad hominem attack. In fact, I thought his final statement, I appreciate you taking the time to read all my responses and engage with me in discussion. It doesn’t appear we agree on much, but that’s OK, at least we’re both thinking about the future of our country. That’s more than many people can say in reality was rather classy in response to your condescension. If he’s calling you a fool and you disagree, you could reasonably claim that he was foolish for labling you as such, thus tu quoque. But more precisely, I was being sarcastic (and for that, I do apologize.) I was implying that you were using latin phrases in a vain attempt to sound intelligent. Why not just succintly say what you mean instead of going off on verbose, meandering posts or using obscure references? Ideas impress, not word count.

Tu Quo Que means “you do it too”. I didn’t think or call BigAl dumb or lacking in sense. It can’t be tu quoque when there is only one guy engaging in ad hominem. Ex post facto argumentum ad nauseam means, after the fact arguments repeated over and over. Big Al has pasted several of his arguments, more than once. And he did it after those arguments had already been read by me and not commented upon. Ex post facto argumentum ad nauseam makes a lot more sense than your thinking that tu quoque was a clever rejoinder in this situation. I hope you understand what tu quoque means, because if you don’t, that would be quite a shame.

If one is secure in their abilities, they don’t need to claim intelligence as support of their argument; if that statement upsets someone, then I would offer that as proof of their insecurity–otherwise, why get so upset? (Except possibly for the gramatical errors.) As to degree–that’s up to the individual to know in their heart.

With regards to the post, I just made an observation that time spent discussing one’s intelligence is wasted. Specifically, so what if BigAl thinks your a fool and comes across as condescending? Heck, you could have used the clever rejoinder, tu quoque! (Seriously, it would have been better than “Ex post facto argumentum ad nauseam” and frankly, would have made more sense.)

With that being said, this is neither the time nor the forum to answer your question; however, suffice to say that I’ve made some general observations and I’m quite comfortable to leave it to others to draw their own conclusions.

Read the full quote. It’s about communicating to Al that it would be to his benefit, in convincing me, to not assume I am as dumb and dense as he thinks I am. It is quite different from me boasting about how smart I am. Defending myself is not aggression, and it isn’t wrong. Not anymore than Israel when they use their technological superiority over the poor Palestinians by using too many cluster bombs, a boast of how powerful they are in reality.

Your experiences with people do not give you the right to put me into one of your slots, no matter how standardized those slots are.

If you want to be honest and if you want to tell people what you made your mind up to be, then you can do yourself and me a favor by saying to what degree you think I am unsecure in my abilities and the reasons for that belief on your part.

I didn’t claim intelligence as a support for anyone’s argument, so thanks for the kind words Kevin, but they would do more good somewhere else.

This is my last post to Al. I’m drawing the line here at clarifying what I mean. Even Neo neocon had to do it at one time or another, so I’m not special in this retard. If this disappoints, then well, you have my regrets. By the way, I tolerate O’reilly’s dishonorable conduct in saying one thing and doing another, when he talks about giving guests the last word, but that is because O’Reilly keeps his condescension towards me, the viewer, at a bare minimum. I am far less motivated to tolerate your actions, Big Al, because of your condescension towards me. Making the subject about how naive or dumb I am in not seeing what is going around me, is not discussion in my view, although it might be in others. To each their own.

Just an observation from someone who works with geniuses—spend less time expounding on how smart you are; people can make up their own minds.

I know, I know, I said I was giving you the last word but i just had to chime in one more time.

yes you said:
“The people who run the governments, have close ties to corporations you say. Which ,logically, would make government the boss of corporations. It doesn’t make corporations the boss of governments…”

In actuality I said, IF these people who run the government have close ties to corporations then they will OFTEN serve the needs of the corporations rather than the citizens they represent.

You incorrectly paraphrased saying that I said “The people who run the governments, have close ties to corporations”

There is a huge difference– your paraphrase says “THE PEOPLE WHO RUN GOVERNMENTS” and goes directly to “HAVE CLOSE TIES”

Your incorrect paraphrase implies that ALL people who run government have close ties and WILL serve the needs of the corporations rather than the citizens they represent.

My actual words say “IF THESE PEOPLE WHO RUN THE GOVERNMENT HAVE CLOSE TIES” “THEY WILL OFTEN SERVE THE NEEDS OF THE CORPORATIONS” By leaving out key words like
“IF” AND “WILL” it changes the meaning of what I actually said.
My words point out the fact that not all people who run government have close ties with corporations and even if they do, it does not necessarily mean they will exploit that relationship for profit. Some people actually have morals and the way I structured my sentence allows that fact, and your paraphrase misrepresented this by making my comment sound as if I was saying all people who run government have ties to corporations and will exploit that relationship for profit.

“If Halliburton no bid contracts were such a pain and such a problem, why aren’t the MilBlogs that I have I read, ranting about it? Why don’t Colonels talk about it during their graduation speeches at Army Infantry School graduation? Why don’t I hear people whining about it when soldiers bitch and complain about Iraqi corruption?”

Watch the documentary “Why We Fight”–it came out last year. Contributors include Fox News Correspondent Bill Kristol and Senator John McCain. It underscores the “Industrial-Military Complex”- a term which Dwight Eisenhower coined and warned Americans with in his last speech before he was finished with the presidency in 1960.
If you’re unfamiliar with the problems many many Americans have with the “No-bid” contracts awarded to Halliburton and other countries — this documentary with interviews from people all over the political spectrum does a good job of explaining it. It also goes into detail about the “Industrial Military Complex” I hope you’ll watch it.

Another good one is “Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers” which I was lucky enough to see in Denver at a special screening a few hours ago. It also goes into detail about how the government awards contracts (often no-bid) to a corporation without accounting for the actual goods and services provided (along double checking the fair market value of the work).

I also suggest books by Ayn Rand — “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Virtue of Selfishness”, among others. She is great, her books really help explain the dangers of big government and the welfare state which she escaped in the old USSR. She also specifically warns of the dangers “corporate welfare” which bring about the same basic negative consequences as any other form of welfare.

Which brings me to where I ended on my first blog of the day:

“I beg you to vote for people who push for accountability AND the reduction of government!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

I appreciate you taking the time to read all my responses and engage with me in discussion. It doesn’t appear we agree on much, but that’s OK, at least we’re both thinking about the future of our country. That’s more than many people can say in reality.