You contradicted yourself in your own post, you have so latched on to simple irrational blabbering hatred.
Jesus freaking CHRIST.
In the SAME post where you say Obama isn't holding 'us' to the same standard as he holds Warren, you say Warren is a Hatemonger. Fine, so what if he is? Did he call us hate mongers? No! So why the fricking hell would he call Warren one?
How about this? How about that he's having people from all different perspectives and beliefs, who represent the BROAD SET OF BELEIFS in america speak at his inaugural?
In WHAT FREAKING WAY is that not inclusive? Isn't that the definition of inclusive?
have you learned NOTHING from the Bush Years?
Is that ALL you want us to be? Freaking BUSH CLONES?!
I voted for CHANGE. I voted for freaking Change, what did you vote for, a revolution? Did you vote to shut up everyone who disagrees with us? Did you vote for a liberal bush?
What the hell, dude? Jesus. ARGH!
Grow up, front-pagers. Start acting like what you claimed to be, instead of disappointing people like me, far more than Obama has ever disappointed you.
My main contention with many of your posts is your style of posting. You generally begin by disregarding anyone who'll disagree with you as stupid or an obsessive fanatic who simply cannot understand your genius..
And then proceed to make a post that uses a variety of logical fallacies to make a point. I sit back and I say to myself, self, Jerome's a smart guy.
He's either intentionally making logical fallacies, or it simply doesn't occur to him that they are. I'm hoping it's the latter, but you're smart enough that I think it's the former.
You've written a few really good posts. Some of those were even criticisms of obama (omg gasp i know, an obamabot that accepts criticisms of obama?!)...
Personally, I like discussion. I love it :D i love that you set up a blog that allows people to discuss...
"Concern Troll" is a term applied to a poster who repeatedly makes posts which lack an internally consistent logical flow (which I speak of Mathematically) in order to speak of some terrible danger that is yet to come-- while assuring the reader that they, the poster, is on the reader's side.
Pointing out that you frequently Concern Troll doesn't mean that I, or anyone else, has a low tolerance for discussion or have a 'low education.'
It's simply that we're sort of tired of hearing you.. concern troll.
I mean I could be misconstruing your Concern trolling..
An example of your logical inconsistency is when you say that Obama had trouble with Latino vote in the Primary (35 vs 63%, according to Pew, which you don't mention), THUS Obama will have a problem with the Latino vote in the General Election too.
One could also argue, with that logical construct, that because Obama had a lower share of the female vote than Clinton, then he'd also have trouble with this demographic.
One could also argue, with that logical construct, that Clinton would have a harder time than McCain in getting the Black vote if she had won the primary.
All three of these are logical non-sequitors.
When you use those as the underpinning of your being a 'devil's advocate,' it makes me question your motives. Are you trying to trick the ignorant, or are you yourself ignorant? Or maybe it's something inbetween?
The truth is that the polls show that Obama is not having trouble with the Latino or the female vote.. and Exit polls also showed that african american voters would vote for Clinton if their candidate lost.
Here's another logical Non-sequitor:
"People in NH voted McCain instead of Obama, which allowed Obama to lose the primary. THUS, those people will simply choose not to vote at all in the general election."
Well, since that population represents a tiny minority of the whole NH voting base... I'm not concerned... Even though you seem to be suggesting I should be. Oh, and by the way? Those are completely different behaviors.
"I am going to go vote. Because one election is already decided, i am going to go vote in the other."
"I was going to go vote, but because one election is wrapped up, i'm not going to."
Notice the difference? In the first, the person has made the choice to vote. In the second, they are choosing to negate the assumption-- that they're going to vote at all. In other words, Jerome.. You're changing the assumption to prove your own point.
There are more holes in your post, but I've probably annoyed you enough :p if you got this far.