Indexes
February 8th, 2010
February 6th, 2010
February 5th, 2010
February 4th, 2010
February 3rd, 2010
February 2nd, 2010
February 1st, 2010
The following stories have received the most reader comments during the last 7 days.
- President Obama's first year (67)
- Lodi Unified School District president issues warning to speakers over cuts (64)
- Will terrorists be given Miranda warnings? (60)
- Local business leaders say tourism, Costco, Home Depot may play roles in city's future (58)
- Islamic symbol in mosaic — what is all the fuss? (49)
- Writer comments on Neely column (42)
- The Home Depot hopes to join Costco at Reynolds Ranch (39)
- Police: Train victim was a Lodi teen (32)
- We need to conduct respectful conversations (30)
- Tasered suspect claims he is Yosemite Sam (25)
ADVERTISEMENT
Some things shouldn't change
Saturday, August 22, 2009 6:49 AM PDT
Why are we as Americans having to go through this silly banter every few years about religion?
This country was founded and based on Christian ethics. We still have in "God We Trust" on our money! We go to court and we still put our hand on the Bible and swear to the Almighty — and, yes, I mean all of us; even atheists must.
When soldiers are dying in foreign wars, they all call out, "God please help me!" This thing in Lodi and elsewhere should be a mute subject.
Yes, some things should and will never be changed for the good of mankind alike.
Robbie Roberts
Lodi
Search for Ads 
Today’s Print Ads 
RSS Feeds
Reader Feedback
Lodian wrote on Aug 30, 2009 9:42 PM:
Lodian wrote on Aug 30, 2009 9:40 PM:
" Plagiarizing is not allowed. You need to cite your source to quote someone. "
It's interesting that Aimee is plagiarizing because Brian often does the same thing. Hmmm, two peas in a pod? "
Robb wrote on Aug 29, 2009 5:57 PM:
stantaves wrote on Aug 29, 2009 4:28 PM:
Robb wrote on Aug 29, 2009 1:40 PM:
Bob Hussein Loblaw wrote on Aug 28, 2009 6:28 PM:
My assertion that you are stupid is fully supported by all your posts here and on other strands.
Go back to your Fruit Loops Bryanee. "
Aimee wrote on Aug 28, 2009 6:15 PM:
Ta. "
Aimee wrote on Aug 28, 2009 6:11 PM:
Aimee wrote on Aug 28, 2009 6:04 PM:
What...you say you can't contribute because you are only here to say "Yeah, voter, that's tellin' her!"
Okay, whatever you say Bob. "
Aimee wrote on Aug 28, 2009 6:01 PM:
Aimee wrote on Aug 28, 2009 6:01 PM:
I-didn't-make-the-assertion-hence-the-burden-of-proof-lies-with-Bob-not-with-me.
Clear now? "
Aimee wrote on Aug 28, 2009 5:59 PM:
Aimee wrote on Aug 28, 2009 5:58 PM:
http://www.cod.edu/Course/eng101/logic.htm
Scroll to the bottom of the page for the burden of proof...good discussion of "Argumentum ad ignorantiam" further on up. "
Robb wrote on Aug 28, 2009 5:55 PM:
voter wrote on Aug 28, 2009 5:48 PM:
Aimee wrote on Aug 28, 2009 5:48 PM:
Asking for support and clarification is different than making an assertion or proposition. Note the difference between the two. "
Bob Hussein Loblaw wrote on Aug 28, 2009 5:46 PM:
This has been noted a few times today. Bryanee's beyond confused. "
voter wrote on Aug 28, 2009 5:43 PM:
Aimee wrote on Aug 28, 2009 5:43 PM:
"The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition."
This would be Bob. He made the statements. I asked him to support them.
"Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad ignorantium, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made."
That would be me. I questioned his assertions - numerous times.
"The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise."
That would, again, be Bob. He claims that because he says something, he assumes it must be true because I have not proved otherwise.
I never said that the Bible was not a "farce". I never said that the flood, as depicted in the Bible, occurred. The burden lies solely on Bob here, as the individual making the assertions. I merely asked for support. "
Aimee wrote on Aug 28, 2009 5:36 PM:
Is that not allowed, Voter? "
Aimee wrote on Aug 28, 2009 5:34 PM:
voter wrote on Aug 28, 2009 5:32 PM:
"The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad ignorantium, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise."
You plagiarized that from the net, but I don't think you understand what it means. It supports my statement that you can't prove something doesn't exist. It refutes your claim completely. "
Aimee wrote on Aug 28, 2009 5:29 PM:
You'd rather engage in complex discussion of metaphysical principals and philosophy that really has no bearing on the main issue. The ISSUE is that people like to make statements in order to agitate, yet find it impossible or distasteful to follow-up on those statements because the statements were never really meant to be followed-up on but only to be used as a tool to make fun of other people's belief systems. That's the heart of this issue. You know it. Bob knows it, I know it. "
Aimee wrote on Aug 28, 2009 5:19 PM:
"The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad ignorantium, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise."
It's sad that you feel you have to take up the gauntlet for Bob. "
voter wrote on Aug 28, 2009 4:57 PM:
voter wrote on Aug 28, 2009 4:57 PM:
voter wrote on Aug 28, 2009 4:53 PM:
Aimee wrote on Aug 28, 2009 4:52 PM:
When you ask me to prove that little green elves DID NOT do a thing, don't you mean I should prove that they DID?
Voter, you are contradicting yourself. "
Aimee wrote on Aug 28, 2009 4:47 PM:
What is your postion on my observation that your statement is in direct opposition to the known scientific method? (See my post to you below for clarification) "
voter wrote on Aug 28, 2009 3:59 PM:
Aimee wrote on Aug 28, 2009 3:57 PM:
Please stop trying to deflect and just answer the questions. "
Aimee wrote on Aug 28, 2009 3:55 PM:
Voter: Your line of reasoning and logic would result in a situation where only statements meant to prove that things "are" are allowed in discourse, and only by people asserting that it exists. The scientific method seeks the alterate path to the one you suggest - the role of the scientist is to remove those variables which can be falsified in order to come to a conclusion about a particular hypothesis - to either prove or disprove the hypothesis.
Here, Bob's hypothesis is that the flood did not occur and that the Bible is akin to fairy tales (in what way he did not specify). He must support hypothesis with verifiable data, to wit, he has refused to provide. "
voter wrote on Aug 28, 2009 3:24 PM:
Bob Hussein Loblaw wrote on Aug 28, 2009 3:07 PM:
Back to preschool with you.... "
Bob Hussein Loblaw wrote on Aug 28, 2009 3:06 PM:
Aimee wrote on Aug 28, 2009 2:57 PM:
Aimee wrote on Aug 28, 2009 2:52 PM:
If you and Lodian are conjoined twins, allegedly the source of your "brilliance", I'd hate to see what you'd be capable of if you were separated. Together, you can't answer a simple question and you both have the habit of contradicting yourselves:
Bob: The flood "may" have occurred
Lodian: No, it didn't!! It's just a fairy tale!
Bob: (mutters under breath - whispers confidentially) you're making me look bad Lodian...stop it! Now I've got to throw some insults her way to take the discussion off track!
Hmmm..maybe you would be better off as two separate people, eh? "
Robb wrote on Aug 28, 2009 12:31 PM:
Bob Hussein Loblaw wrote on Aug 28, 2009 11:53 AM:
Since I invented the "Bryan" moniker, I felt impelled to answer.
Yes, Lodian and I are in fact conjoined twins. We are attached at the brain, making me/us twice as smart as any of you, so bow to my/our brilliance!!! "
Rhodie wrote on Aug 28, 2009 11:44 AM:
Aimee wrote on Aug 28, 2009 10:18 AM:
And it was also Bob that came to Lodian's rescue on a previous blog where I invited others to assert their opinion on Lodian's competentcy to make written observations of LNS articles. He eagerly related that he felt that Lodian is a "witty" blogger, when not one other person on this site cared to opine or to stand up for Lodian's honor.
Since some of the bloggers on here seem to be very interested whether Brian and Dyan are the same person, I thought I'd give you more food for thought. "
Lodian wrote on Aug 27, 2009 12:44 PM:
Rhodie wrote on Aug 27, 2009 9:24 AM:
I see it now. "
stantaves wrote on Aug 27, 2009 9:00 AM:
Bob Hussein Loblaw wrote on Aug 27, 2009 8:30 AM:
Lodian wrote on Aug 27, 2009 8:27 AM:
bernardcraig20 wrote on Aug 27, 2009 1:04 AM:
[url="http://www.goldcoinsgain.com/gold-ira-and-gold-401k-accounts.html"] Gold [/url] "
bernardcraig20 wrote on Aug 27, 2009 1:03 AM:
--------------------
Gold "
stantaves wrote on Aug 26, 2009 8:47 PM:
Bob Hussein Loblaw wrote on Aug 26, 2009 8:38 PM:
stantaves wrote on Aug 26, 2009 6:29 PM:
voter wrote on Aug 26, 2009 5:25 PM:
stantaves wrote on Aug 26, 2009 4:43 PM:
Lodian wrote on Aug 26, 2009 4:27 PM:
Rhodie wrote on Aug 26, 2009 3:25 PM:
stantaves wrote on Aug 26, 2009 2:52 PM:
stantaves wrote on Aug 26, 2009 1:22 PM:
Lodian wrote on Aug 26, 2009 12:52 PM:
Lodian wrote on Aug 26, 2009 9:25 AM:
Lodian wrote on Aug 26, 2009 9:17 AM:
Geez, again? You never answer a question without asking a question. "
Lodian wrote on Aug 26, 2009 9:15 AM:
Brian wrote on Aug 26, 2009 7:47 AM:
" Bryan: You assume a lot. "
Coming from a person who doesn't have the courage to call Obama on his mistakes, who's the one eating crow? "
Brian wrote on Aug 26, 2009 7:44 AM:
The same people that loyally stood by Obama to get elected are now running away from he and his policies at breakneck speed. "
Brian wrote on Aug 26, 2009 7:33 AM:
If you all know these talking points are lies, why do you keep listening to commentators who repeat them?
-That's a good question. And I will ask you this. Is there a commentator who doesn't repeat lies? As far as Palin?
There is no guarantee we won't have some type of health care rationing if Obamacare passes. There aren't enough doctors for the amount of people Obama proposes to cover with his plan. So, it is disingenuous to say people won't get thrown under the bus under his plan. "
Lodian wrote on Aug 26, 2009 12:04 AM:
voter wrote on Aug 25, 2009 9:42 PM:
Brian wrote on Aug 25, 2009 8:03 PM:
" Brian is saying that Sarah Palin draws conclusions to cater to her base. "
-and I am also saying that most politicans do this at various times in their career. Nothings changed in politics, except so many of those who are loyal to Obama still won't come to grips that the man is the biggest liar
yet to occupy the White House. And to accomplish what he has accomplished all based on lies is quite a feat. "
Brian wrote on Aug 25, 2009 7:57 PM:
" I guess Brian thinks Sarah Palin is under more pressure than the president of the United States.
-Not at all. And if she were, she wouldn't make the excuse that she has to lie more because of the pressure
as you are excusing Obama for his lies.
You may not have come right out and said it, but the fact that you have yet to acknowledge or hold Obama accountable
for any of his lies, that's enough for me. "
4AStrongLodi wrote on Aug 25, 2009 11:19 AM:
Leonard wrote on Aug 25, 2009 5:21 AM:
Yes, I contend that most would rather be deemed ignorant than dishonest.
Sometimes, the choice is unnecessary.
:) "
Lodian wrote on Aug 25, 2009 12:15 AM:
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/sarahpalin/a/quotes-on-palin.htm
. "
Rhodie wrote on Aug 24, 2009 10:50 PM:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/50lies.asp
Not saying Palin didn't/doesn't lie. Just that Snopes keeps track of them for presidents. "
Lodian wrote on Aug 24, 2009 4:44 PM:
Lodian wrote on Aug 24, 2009 1:06 PM:
Brian wrote on Aug 24, 2009 8:04 AM:
And you're going to stand on your podium and tell us Lord Obama hasn't used the same type of tactics 1000 fold
to cater to his base? He made it to the Presidency with an arsenal of lies even Satan would be jealous of. Can you honestly say you like Obama without clinching your fists in disgust? "
Lodian wrote on Aug 23, 2009 3:29 PM:
voter wrote on Aug 23, 2009 2:28 PM:
Lodian wrote on Aug 23, 2009 2:19 PM:
Lodian wrote on Aug 23, 2009 2:18 PM:
Lodian wrote on Aug 23, 2009 2:06 PM:
" Interesting how conservatives who were willing to label the writer of this letter "ignorant" remain silent on the question of Sarah Palin. "
Indeed. "
Brian wrote on Aug 23, 2009 1:25 PM:
Sarah Palin is like any politician. They are under extreme pressure to draw conclusions to cater to their base. Find me a liberal or a conservative politician who hasn't done this and I'll eat my words.
Last I heard is Obama shattered all the records for being the biggest caterer of them all. "
voter wrote on Aug 23, 2009 1:06 PM:
danielh wrote on Aug 23, 2009 9:07 AM:
How convenient! "
voter wrote on Aug 23, 2009 8:33 AM:
voter wrote on Aug 23, 2009 7:51 AM:
Lee wrote on Aug 22, 2009 10:53 PM:
Lee wrote on Aug 22, 2009 10:52 PM:
Brian wrote on Aug 22, 2009 9:59 PM:
Brian wrote on Aug 22, 2009 9:58 PM:
I find this letter full of generalizations. One could draw many conclusions from this letter. I don't see amywhere in this letter where the author is attempting to cast in stone
what he says. Are we so critical that we can't read between the lines and conclude that the author's assessment of things are not the least bit intended to offend or condescend. "
Jerome R. Kinderman wrote on Aug 22, 2009 6:03 PM:
Yet how typical is this of those who simply cannot accept defeat in an argument. This is also known as "intellectual dishonesty," another trait that I find distasteful. Oh well, back to reality on the LNS forum. "
voter wrote on Aug 22, 2009 3:21 PM:
" Where we disagree Voter is that you appear to place a higher degree of value upon intellect than integrity. I do not. "
Then where's your outrage over the conservatives who are lying to you day after day? You seem willing to accept an awful lot of bald face lying. Let's take Sarah Palin and her comment that seniors and the disabled "will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care." Every fact checking organization has said this is patently false. I'll bet you still think she's wonderful in spite of the lie. And I fully expect you to make excuses for her. I don't think integrity is tops on your value list, Jerome. "
dogs4you wrote on Aug 22, 2009 3:12 PM:
God was never ment to get man out of the problems and troubles that man got himself into. Anyone care to debait that. God has nothing to do with picking winning numbers, though you could never get anyone that won millions to believe that. "
dogs4you wrote on Aug 22, 2009 3:04 PM:
Jerome R. Kinderman wrote on Aug 22, 2009 12:22 PM:
Jerome R. Kinderman wrote on Aug 22, 2009 12:20 PM:
As an example, I believe God exists. There are those who believe that He does not. Does that make me (or them) a liar? The author simply set forth his opinion without obviously checking the facts. Yet, how many times has that happened on this very forum? Many shoot from the hip with no intention of lying, but had they checked with other independent sources first, they might be saved from the embarrassment that surely follows the publishing of such a letter (if he/she even reads the online version of the LNS). Still, this person may actually "believe" each and every thing that was written.
Ignorant? Almost certainly. But to call this person a liar based upon what we do and do not know is incomprehensible to me. "
voter wrote on Aug 22, 2009 12:13 PM:
Jerome R. Kinderman wrote on Aug 22, 2009 12:08 PM:
voter wrote on Aug 22, 2009 12:07 PM:
Jerome R. Kinderman wrote on Aug 22, 2009 12:00 PM:
I have much more respect for any person who admits they might be ignorant or even lacking in intellect than anyone who would find satisfaction in being labeled a liar. That simply doesn't make sense to me. But hey, if it works for you Voter, then so be it. "
Billy Rubin wrote on Aug 22, 2009 11:45 AM:
1)"This country was founded and based on Christian ethics."
Lie.
2)"We go to court and we still put our hand on the Bible and swear to the Almighty — and, yes, I mean all of us; even atheists must."
Lie.
3)"When soldiers are dying in foreign wars, they all call out, 'God please help me!'"
Lie.
4)"Yes, some things should and will never be changed for the good of mankind alike."
Nonsense freebie.
The letter writer is presenting his false case and he, therefore, gets the "credit" as being the liar. "
voter wrote on Aug 22, 2009 11:30 AM:
Jerome R. Kinderman wrote on Aug 22, 2009 11:18 AM:
Perhaps this is just one more bit of evidence of the innate ignorance on display on this forum. It appears to be easily transmitted over cyberspace, eh? Rhetorically speaking, of course. "
voter wrote on Aug 22, 2009 11:10 AM:
Jerome R. Kinderman wrote on Aug 22, 2009 10:55 AM:
Or could your angst be that you simply have no answer to the question, rhetorical or otherwise? "
Jerome R. Kinderman wrote on Aug 22, 2009 10:52 AM:
Yes, I contend that most would rather be deemed ignorant than dishonest. "
jeff wrote on Aug 22, 2009 10:50 AM:
Jerome R. Kinderman wrote on Aug 22, 2009 10:48 AM:
Still, in spite of your amended post, you fail to offer any proof as to what you believe is a lie in the letter. Care to share? "
Jerome R. Kinderman wrote on Aug 22, 2009 10:43 AM:
jeff wrote on Aug 22, 2009 10:42 AM:
for a letter so short, there is an abundance of misconceptions, errors, and, yes, ignorance. "
jeff wrote on Aug 22, 2009 10:40 AM:
Is repeating a lie, a lie? "
voter wrote on Aug 22, 2009 10:39 AM:
Jerome R. Kinderman wrote on Aug 22, 2009 10:32 AM:
To support the contention, proof must be offered. "
jeff wrote on Aug 22, 2009 10:23 AM:
ignorant = 1 a : destitute of knowledge or education ; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified b : resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence
yep, ignorance. "
jeff wrote on Aug 22, 2009 10:20 AM:
for a letter so short, there is an abumdance of lies, misconceptions, errors, and, yes, ignorance. "
brian wrote on Aug 22, 2009 8:49 AM:
There is ignorance in this letter. Unlike the wisdom of this letter that is more obvious.
But then how can we expect to think that Jeff, being the liberal he is, would be tolerant of anything less than perfection given liberals think they never make a mistake. "
brian wrote on Aug 22, 2009 8:38 AM:
" I think the last couple of posts only serve to confirm Leonard's point. "
-and voter goes on to remind us that
liberals rarely get it wrong is an oxymoron. "
jeff wrote on Aug 22, 2009 8:38 AM:
voter wrote on Aug 22, 2009 8:19 AM:
danielh wrote on Aug 22, 2009 8:15 AM:
who is ignorant? the US dollar is about to crash and america is going into martial law*, any second now, and you take the time to criticize someone that wants to keep god in government.
* and a North America defense air force General granted permission for an attack against us, during the Bush administration.
** and i sometimes like to reserve capitals for fictions of law. god is not a fiction of law. "
brian wrote on Aug 22, 2009 8:14 AM:
Its funny how ignorance and conservative views so often walk hand in hand.
-Oh Leonard,
You liberals have this notion that the tide is rising from the glaciers melting
that at any time we could be inundated with water. Liberals rarely get it wrong is an oxymoron. "
yeah you wrote on Aug 22, 2009 8:12 AM:
brian wrote on Aug 22, 2009 8:08 AM:
difference between "freedom of religon" and "freedom from religon".
Most of the time,
sctually, he thinks they are the same. "
Jerome R. Kinderman wrote on Aug 22, 2009 7:53 AM:
I believe the discourse regarding this issue is a good thing; although I doubt the matter will ever be settled. In fact, Biblically it is foretold that there will never be a joining of minds as it pertains to faith-based issues.
I am more concerned here about the decline in our educational system that would have anyone use the word "mute" when they actually mean "moot." Or perhaps Robbie Roberts (it's "Robbie," not "Bobby" by the way (ignorance or just a mistake?)) actually intended to mean "silent." I don't think so. "
Leonard wrote on Aug 22, 2009 5:51 AM:
We go to court and we still put our hand on the Bible and swear to the Almighty — and, yes, I mean all of us; even atheists must.
Actually they don't and they never have. In fact, from the earliest day's of our Republic, individuals that object to the oath (Quakers for example) have been exempt from even reciting it.
Its funny how ignorance and conservative views so often walk hand in hand. "
Comments on this story are now closed.