Limbaugh spent a good six minutes on this smear that Obama read the wrong speech from a teleprompter and thanked himself because he was too stupid (or drunk! as Rush insinuated) that he couldn't figure out that he was not reading his own speech.
You are the one lying. Why should we believe the left wing nutcase version of events found at MediaMattersFabrications? "Who says these things are idiot proof?" No one ... as Obama continues to prove.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
I didn't say he didn't thank himself, and I'm not going to get into the semantics of whether thanking yourself as a joke is actually thanking yourself. The lie is that Obama thanked himself because he was reading the other guy's speech off the teleprompter. That part is a lie.
Why should we believe the left wing nutcase version of events found at MediaMattersFabrications?
Because they've got the video of Limbaugh there for all to see.
You're calling the U.S. editor of The Telegraph (the most conservative of the major British newspapers, I believe) a liar too :
That was pretty clear: there was a teleprompter mix up and the fall guy was Cowen. Obama stepped in after Cowen's five-minute speech to make a good-natured and well-received joke at the Irish premier's expense.
Ironically, therefore, Obama was ad-libbing rather than mindlessly reading the wrong speech from a teleprompter.
I've exchanged emails with Englund and he confirmed this was the case and kindly supplied me with an audio file of the event that removes all doubt.
This "gaffe" has been thoroughly debunked. Any attempt on your part to revive it is merely more lying on you part.
BTW, has Rush issued a retraction and an apology yet?
And as for this being a conservative source, even the most conservative source in the UK is mainstream leftist here in the US. Take, for example this little gem from the same article:
It's rubbish, of course, to argue that Obama cannot speak without a teleprompter.
That's clearly Obama apologist material, not conservative material. As we all know Obama is lost without the teleprompter. Just look what happened on Leno.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
CNN's Ed Henry calls on Obama to use TelePrompter more
CNN's Ed Henry, who was thoroughly owned by the President during Tuesday night's debate, today called on White House staffers to keep President Obama out of unscripted situations that might once again result in the CNN reporter's utter humiliation.
"Certainly, the TelePrompter is a crutch," Henry said, "but until Tuesday night, I didn't know how much I liked crutches."
"I don't ever want to see that man go off script again," the visibly shaken Henry added.
You may continue now with your serious and very important war on teleprompters.
It is the burning issue of the day.
Also
Sarah Palin uses 'the teleprompter'. I believe she was even praised for her skills at teleprompter reading. If so will you adopt the ever so popular GOP double standard. It's Always Okay If You Are a Republican?
Only source that says Obama messed up is Sky News who according to every other source, Sky News is wrong.
Sky News gets story one way.
Other outlets report the story that way, citing Sky News.
GR takes that to mean multiple sources independently reported the same event?
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Obama is becoming known as the ''teleprompter president'' for his excessive use of the prompting screens, which retract when speeches are finished.
Although used for more than half a century, the device was previously employed mainly for set-piece speeches. The current President, however, often uses them for making small introductory statements at the beginning of press conferences.
On this occasion, as a laughing Obama returned to the podium, the script was belatedly switched over to the Taoiseach's text – leaving Obama inadvertently thanking himself for inviting everyone, to further laughter.
Doesn't this say exactly what we have been saying? That the teleprompter was switched to something other than Obama's text and as a result he ended up reading the text and thanking himself as a result? How is this refuting anything? It actually supports the Skynews account.
Here's a link to the Skynews article . It is not the same as above nor does this one claim to rely on the Skynews article as a source. Am I missing something here?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
Mr Obama is becoming known as the 'teleprompter president' for his excessive use of the prompting screens, which retract when speeches are finished.
Although used for more than half a century, the device was previously employed mainly for set-piece speeches. The current President, however, often uses them for making small introductory statements at the beginning of press conferences.
On this occasion, as a laughing Mr Obama returned to the podium, the script was belatedly switched over to the Taoiseach's text – leaving Mr Obama inadvertently thanking himself for inviting everyone, to further laughter. "First, I'd like to say thank you to President Obama!" the President said.
So where's this supposed Skynews link?
As for the piece you are relying on as "proof" that the Skynews account is inaccurate, it simply makes a bald assertion that:
The most authoritative account I can find was from pool reporter William Englund of National Journal. His pool report stated:
"Then it was Cowen's turn, and he was in for a surprise. 'We begin by welcoming today a strong friend of the United States,' he said--then stopped in surprise as he realized he was reading President Obama's speech off the teleprompter. 'Why don't these things work for me?' he asked, as the crowd roared. 'Thank you for having us. Who said these things were idiot-proof?' Then he got his bearings and gave the same talk that he delivered in the East Room. When he ended, at 8:12, Obama stepped to the microphone and said, 'First, I'd like to say thank you to President Obama...(much laughter). Happy Saint Patrick's Day, everybody.' Then we were escorted out."
That was pretty clear: there was a teleprompter mix up and the fall guy was Cowen. Obama stepped in after Cowen's five-minute speech to make a good-natured and well-received joke at the Irish premier's expense.
Ironically, therefore, Obama was ad-libbing rather than mindlessly reading the wrong speech from a teleprompter.
What, exactly, makes William Englund's account any more authoritative than the accounts of anyone else that was there? Nothing as far as I can tell. Does Englund's account even contradict the events as laid out by Skynews and TimesOnline? Not as far as I can see.
The author of the Telegraph piece has no way to know whether Obama was reading from the teleprompter or not based on Englund's account. The President clearly thanked himself which is completely consistent with the account from Skynews.
You make it out that every other source on the planet undeniably contradicts Skynews and that anyone else who claims Obama was reading from the teleprompter is relying on the Skynews reports, when as we see above this is false including one of your own sources.
So we seem to be left in a position where I have two independent accounts that claim Obama was reading from the teleprompter when he thanked himself, and you have one account that claims he was ad-libbing a joke but provides no evidence to substantiate its conclusion.
Again, am I missing something here?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
At worst for Obama, he made far less of a mistake than the Cowen.
Or he made a good natured rib at Cowen.
If it was a gaffe, only a few dozen more and Obama could get started his very own version of Bushism posters.
You and Skip Bayless are starting to get more and more in common. Taking petty criticism, and trying to parlay that into seeming like a non-hyper-partisan critique.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Certainly not I, nor Rush, nor Hannity. The point isn't whether Obama was more or less of a mindless buffoon than Cowen, the point is merely that Obama is a mindless buffoon. And he continues to illustrate the point on a daily basis.
And they think dittoheads are mind-numbed robots? Obama takes the cake in mind-numbedness here.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
I didn't assume Hannity and Rush would be so petty, as to try and belittle someone for making less of a mistake than the Irish PM.
I assumed Hannity and Rush would be above such action.
I apologize for assuming Hannity and Rush weren't pompous jackasses, so I only read the 1st part of the Indian article and assumed that fell in line with the articles from the UK.
I won't just flat out assume that Hannity and Rush aren't being pompous jackasses in the future.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
This video, and the sober economic assessment British politician Daniel Hananon offers while eviscerating his Prime Minister, and by extension all world leaders who have advocated for salvation via a menagerie of giant economy killing spending packages has become a favorite on you tube, and could just be the modern day equivalent to Concord.
Lets hope so!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
I do find Brits in general are better public speakers than Americans.
Thing is, inasmuch as the economy is "dead", it was Bush's spending and not Obama's that killed it. Do you accept the notion that GDP will be 2.6$ trillion below what it could be in the next few years if nothing is done? Right, I'm guessing you'd want more tax cuts. Nevermind that tax cuts contribute to the deficit just as much as stimulus spending, how do tax cuts (other than consumption taxes) help people who have just lost their job?
The current death spiral of thrift, layoffs and loss of confidence cannot be broken by market forces, at least not in the short term. Waiting for bank failurs, forclosures and unemployment to go through the roof (even more than they already have) will cause a giant amount of unnecessary pain and a probable permanent decline in our standard of living.
Obama says he has to spend $800B? Thank Bush for that. I can guarantee that would not have been his first initiative had he been inaugurated in 2001 or even 2005.
Thing is, inasmuch as the economy is "dead", it was Bush's spending and not Obama's that killed it.
As much as I abhor all the expansive, ill-advised and and often wasteful spending undertaken by Bush (and his abetting Congress), "his spending" didn't kill the economy. The bursting of the unsustainable bubble and all that it exposed killed the economy (insofar as "killed" is an accurate word in first place).
Of course, some would say that the fate was sealed when the bubble started inflating and that we should look to those factors (like monetary policy) but the end result for the purpose of this point is the same.
IOW, for all of Bush's spending, if monetary policy had been better and had not started a chain of events that culmintated in a bursted bubble and banks in crisis, we wouldn't be in a recession.
Excessive spending has its own harmful concequences...but where we are now isn't one of them.
I was more interested in pointing out hypocrisy than getting to the bottom of what sank the economy. I'm sure you can understand my irritation with Republicans claiming Obama's "big spending" ways are killing us. And gaah, Obama doesn't want to spend all this stimulus money. The best economic minds are convinced he has to.
In some areas, Bush only made things a little worse (NCLB, signing every Republican porkfest from 2001 to 2006). In others, he did massive fiscal damage (tax cuts and endless war). The only way Bush could squeeze out any growth at all from the US economy was by speculative bubble. So his sociopathic fiscal policies may have still indirectly been the main cause of our current bust.
I'd like to have his list of what to cut to get the British fiscal situation in line though. A good speech is one thing; having an alternative course of action that leads to a better outcome is quite another. Without the latter, stuff like this is merely political theater.
Ya' know what I find most remarkable about the video? That it begins and ends with just Hannan's statement. I'm guessing that Brown spoke before and after Hannan, perhaps even immediately before and immediately after. I spent a couple of minutes on YouTube trying to find out and to view Brown's comments before and after -- ya' know, his perspective, what Brown said that Hannan was ridiculing, and what Brown's response was to Hannan's statement -- but it seems that all the YouTube videos also started and ended with just the one perspective -- Hannan's statement.
And that is what is most remarkable to me. That people would just slice out just one side of a debate, presumably to applaud it, and edit out the other side. That editing decision (and apparently the receptive audience for a purely one-sided video), is emblematic of the downward trend in political discourse in America, the hyperpartisan mindset in which people just want to cheerlead and parrot the talking points they are fed by one side rather than make a good-faith effort to really understand issues, determine "truth" and optimal policies, etc.
I'm guessing (1) someone has posted this video on RedState and other conservative echo chambers (generally a safe guess as the sources for RedWing's comments -- sorry, RW, but that's the sense I get), (2) that the video is a real there, with the ideologues/hyperpartisans drooling with excitement at such a brilliant and passionate statement, and (3) that a grand total of zero commenters making the observation that I have made above.
If that's true, I stand corrected on the editing. On what basis do you say that Hannan was the source of the video? Did he send it around or post it on some blog originally?
In any case, the remainder of my point still holds -- my sense is that the statement is celebrated by some without much interest or concern about the other side: what Brown said before or in response to Hannan's statement.
Indeed, apparently he did upload it to YouTube himself. Yeesh, kind of embarrassingly obvious self-promotion! I guess it's part of a political campaign, but still it looks goofy. From just that standpoint, would have been wiser to get someone else -- anyone -- to upload it to YouTube, but I guess he wants people to click to view his other videos (of himself!). I guess the ideal would have been to get someone else to upload the video, but include a URL for his campaign web page where he could provide the other videos.
After make his thoughtlessly insensitive remark regarding the Special Olympics, Obama rendered a meager apology behind the scenes to try and make this all go away. Unfortunately, his apology doesn't seem to have satisified those who were harmed.
I'm a 32-year-old man with an intellectual disability. I have been a Special Olympics athlete for about 20 years and an advocate for people with disabilities. I also campaigned and voted for Barack Obama. I was deeply offended by his comment about the Special Olympics on "The Tonight Show" [news story, March 21, "Heat On Obama After Slip"]. There was already a negative stigma attached to people with an intellectual or developmental disability before President Obama brought it to the nation's attention.
Still, [Shriver] said, "I think it's important to see that words hurt and words do matter. And these words that in some respect can be seen as humiliating or a put-down to people with special needs do cause pain and they do result in stereotypes."
Tim Shriver from the Special Olympics acknowledged Obama’s harmless intent but stressed that “words hurt and words do matter.”
[...]
Given the immense stature and clout that Obama acquired both nationally and globally the nanosecond he was elected, the president undeniably became more than just your average human being — and with his new post came monstrous responsibility. What’s more, reinforcing a stereotype that is already commonly used against people with disabilities, accidentally or not, resonates a lot more loudly when the comments are coming from, as Palin stated, the most powerful position in the world.
I have a cousin with Down syndrome and she has a heart of gold. I would take her as president over Obama any day of the week. She is not arrogant enough to think she has a grand vision for America that is vastly superior to what our founders had envisioned.
Obama imagines himself to be the Lincoln of our era, but Lincoln understood the struggles of the common man and defended the defenseless instead of using them as a punch line. Also, Lincoln would not have approved of regularly using the Constitution for sanitary purposes.
I know their good hearts are likely to forgive an unfortunate remark, but many of them are nonetheless upset. We would all do well to adopt the Special Olympics motto: "Let me win. But if I cannot win, let me be brave in the attempt."
He equated the Special Olympics with a lack of ability. That could not be farther from the truth. Special Olympians are dedicated to their skills and perform with the highest-possible goals.
[...]
It is disheartening to hear the most powerful man in the world use such hurtful stereotypes.
It is even more disappointing to think that the Special Olympics is the first thing he thinks of when trying to describe inability.
[...]
But the leader of the free world has to know that words have power, particularly words that can threaten a change in attitude that has taken decades to accomplish.
Special Olympians deserve respect and admiration for the hard work they put forth and for the sportsmanship they display.
They are not symbols of failure, but of success and accomplishment.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
I tried providing a Google search that should go directly to the proper link and that fails too. They REALLY don't want me to provide a link to that article for some reason.
Go to Google and search on:
"US Jobless Rolls Increase to Record 5.56 Million" site:bloomberg.com
U.S. Jobless Rolls Increase to Record 5.56 Million
March 26
The number of people collecting U.S. jobless benefits rose to a record 5.56 million, indicating more Americans are spending longer periods out of work. Initial claims topped 600,000 for an eighth straight time.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
The heretofore-unpublished SC Redbar Credibility Rankings charting the relative credibility of the active red-bar participants on the site, are being made public for the first time. Scoring is based on factors such as truth and relevance. Truthful, relevant posts tend to contribute positively to a participant's credibility ranking, while telling lies and perpetuating smears and irrelevancies tends to detract from a participant's score.
Note that there has been a change.
The previous rankings were as follows:
1. GoRight
2. Red_Wing
But now, due to recent events there has been a change at the top. The new ranking is as follows:
1. Red_Wing
2. GoRight
I will attempt to keep the site apprised of any future changes in the rankings :-)
I must say that for the most part, I sense a good bit deliberate, mischievious obtuseness in what GR has been saying on this thread. He seems to caricaturing what he had seen as the analytical behavior of many on the Left during the Bush years and he seems to be doing it simply to get a rise out of you guys.
I sense a good bit deliberate, mischievious obtuseness in what GR has been saying
Oh, yeah, we're sensing a lot of deliberate obtuseness. You do realize, BTW, that calling someone 'deliberately obtuse' has a rather long history on SC, and is arguably a more damning rebuke here than calling someone a liar? Hard to believe, but true, probably because GR watered down the meaning of the word "lie" here in response to the "Bush lied, people died" slogan ;-)
Thanks for bringing up GR's deliberate obtuseness... I mean, it's not that big a deal to me, but he's dropping like a stone in the credibility rankings, and it's kind of sad to see! I'm sure that he'll be glad that you brought it to his attention ;-)
Oh, yeah, we're sensing a lot of deliberate obtuseness. You do realize, BTW, that calling someone 'deliberately obtuse' has a rather long history on SC, and is arguably a more damning rebuke here than calling someone a liar?
I certainly don't agree with the assessment of the historical claims being made about the significance of being deliberately obtuse, whatever that means.
Hard to believe, but true, probably because GR watered down the meaning of the word "lie" here in response to the "Bush lied, people died" slogan ;-)
I didn't water anything down. Those who (falsely and repeatedly) called Bush a liar are the ones that watered it down. It was sort of the Crying Wolf Effect as applied to political commentary Let's keep the record straight on that point.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
Never the less, the comment that you have brought forth appears to have been a tad shy of genuinely truthful and I hereby acknowledge that I can honestly see how a reasonable person might come to the conclusion that "Bush Lied" (in THIS very specific instance).
I only admitted that I can accept that a reasonable person could legitimately come to the conclusion that "Bush Lied" in that specific instance. In other words, I won't accuse someone who came to that conclusion (in that specific instance) of just being a partisan hack and of lying themselves about Bush. That's not the same as agreeing that Bush actually lied.
I then followed up with:
And with that I am done with this "Bush Lied" meme other than to point out transgressions from the left with a simple "Bush did not lie" posting (on a case by case basis).
Which is basically what I have done above.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
The long awaited follow-up to the red bar rankings has finally come in. This preliminary report is incomplete but it does address some of the most sought after rankings in their current form. We note that there have (apparently) been some changes at the top of the rankings recently, but the inter-bar rankings appear to have been unaffected.
As usual we will keep you informed of any changes. As you can see the Red Bars continue to maintain their lock on the top seats of the credibility rankings with respect to those currently included in the ratings.
---------------------------------------
* Pronounced Sky-Moot. This is for historical (hysterical?) reasons.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
...isn't going to win you any points in the REAL redbar rankings. Oh well, good for Red_Wing I guess, looks like he's in for a real long run at the top ;-)
You know a political stunt has flopped when the various backers are pushing blame on each other within hours.
The GOP rolled out it's trumpeted alternate budget propsal today, only it turned out to be not so much a budget as a vague collection of general policies. For instance it has no deficit or revenue projections, things that any sane person might consider de rigeur for something that is supposed to be a budget.
Turns out the press wasn't exactly in awe of the 19 page handout (for comparison the Whitehouse budget this is supposed to be in answer to runs almost 150 pages). Which leads us to this kind of thing:
House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) raised objections to an abbreviated alternative budget "blueprint" released today -- but were told by House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) they needed to back the plan, according to several Republican sources.
...
“In his egocentric rush to get on camera, Mike Pence threw the rest of the Conference under the bus, specifically Paul Ryan, whose staff has been working night and day for weeks to develop a substantive budget plan," said a GOP aide heavily involved in budget strategy.
"I hope his camera time was gratifying enough to justify erasing the weeks of hard work by dozens of Republicans to put forth serious ideas," the person added.
"It's categorically untrue," said Pence spokesman Matt Lloyd. "Cantor as well as Ryan and the rest of the leadership have been part of this process for weeks. They not only signed off on it, but their staffs helped edit it."
Ryan told POLITICO that he didn't feel thrown under any buses and downplayed the disagreement.
"The problem is that somewhere along the line, someone got the mistaken impression that we were going to roll out a budget alternative today," he said. "What we all signed off on was a preview—the real [alternative] is coming next week."
Still, when he was asked what purpose today's preview served, Ryan directed me to Pence's office: "You've got to ask the conference this question, I can't answer that question."
that Jeff Emanuel (of RS) might have any political instincts at all can be safely put to rest. He wrote a cheerleading post about the GOP "budget" here:
Just hours after the House Democratic leadership forced President Obama’s $3,600,000,000,000.00 budget for fiscal year 2010 through the House Budget Committee, the House GOP unveiled their alternative to the president’s astronomical spending bill (the GOP document can be seen here , courtesy of good friend and RS contributor Dan Spencer).
...
However, should President Obama decide to actually live up to his own words and engage on the topic of his budget and sensible alternatives, the House GOP is waiting in the wings to “have that debate” the chief executive claims to be “ready” for. As Rep. John Boehner said in a press conference this morning:
Two nights ago, the president said, “We haven’t seen a budget yet out of the Republicans.”
Well, that’s not true, because here it is, Mr. President
The GOP has proposed their alternative to President Obama’s multi-trillion-dollar spending plan. The question that must now be answered is this: Will the president live up to his challenge and promise to debate those with alternative budgetary proposals? Or will he remain in smug “I won” mode as he flees the field to escape the challenge put forward by those who won’t take his tough but empty talk lying down?
I’m pretty sure what the answer is, though I’d like to hope that I’m wrong.
The question now is whether,
A) Jeff posted this macho tirade without having read the GOP "budget" and is now praying for the issue to quietly go away before anyone notices, or
B) He actually did read the "budget" and was just too doped up on the koolaide to notice it was something you'd expect from freshman college student desperately trying to BS their way through an assignment.
You know I don't really like single party rule, and I'd very much like there to be a healthy, competent, and respectable alternative to the dems...
that creates the most sustainable jobs here in the US. The writhing masses will be soothed.
Whoever does job creation best wins.
The dirty little secret is that there is no practical budget that will create jobs that does not have a very large deficit. In essence this helps make the case that we have no choice right now but to have deficits.
Better to have debt that goes to investment here, than debt that goes to offshore bank accounts in the Caman Islands.
The only caveat is that you and I (and when extrapolated, the rest of Americans) will never agree on it. The government is not the best job creator. Democrats and Republicans alike love to spout on an on about how they are helping create jobs or some are even bold enough to say they are creating jobs directly. There are, in fact, ways to create jobs without going further into debt. But modern Democrats and Republicans will simply never give up their strangle hold enough to do it.
But this kind of discussion requires that points and counter-points be addressed. And Tlaloc and yourself never seem to do that...
I was going to respond to this but the last statement was just too hilarious to bother with the rest.
If you want to stimulate the economy, let the airwaves offer a half an hour of free advertising to small local businesses every day.
Yes. We should "let" them broadcast advertisements. Because heaven help us if we somehow lost control of the airwaves and people could start using physics freely again. Too funny!
I listen to Ed Schulz, who often on Friday's, opens up his phone to Recession Busting. Small business folks call in and advertise their wares, describe what they sell, and give their name and phone number.
An window installer from Colorado was down to a thousand dollars in his business account and had no new contracts. He called the Ed Schultz show and within an hour had eight contracts. It saved his business and his employees from losing their jobs. Fantastic story with a happy ending. It's a simple thing to do and it works.
Take your cynicism and shove it where the sun don't shine. =)
It was obvious to me some time ago that "moderating" at SC was a bit of a joke... If it really bothered me I'd just stop coming here. As it is there are barely any real discussions anymore as some members simply refuse to actively and productively respond. Ah well.
It's not your mouse. Consider your browser... I took care of my problem rather quickly. But I don't give out tech advice to socialists without direct exchange for a good or service of equal value. Gotta stick to the to each, for each thing. ;)
But this kind of discussion requires that points and counter-points be addressed. And Tlaloc and yourself never seem to do that...
Seems to me that in our last discussion you asked me several questions which I answered to which you said "thanks for the laugh." Forgive me if I don't feel like I'm the one incapable of addressing points/counter-points, magilson.
You basically told me it's (the answers to my questions) obvious to anyone who isn't an idiot. If that's what constitutes an answer around here I am in the wrong place.
But I'm sure it felt good for you to click "save" on that one. No doubt.
The sky is blue. Not it isn't. The sky is black. Blue. No Black.
Point counter point from Tlaloc complete scientific data on how Iris and retina process color, and why the refracted light from the atmosphere is perceived as blue.
There's 14 pages of actual content... and more than half of that is merely getting in digs at the Democrat's budget. Realistically, you could distill the "Republican Solution" parts down to 3-4 pages. And that 3-4 pages is just fluff.
Don't burn yourselves out working too hard, fellas!
English-speakers are keen to say please politely in other languages, even if those languages do not express politeness by constantly saying please. So English tourists say ‘por favor’ to waiters and barmen in a way that sounds too insistent to a Spaniard. It is as if someone were to say: ‘A glass of wine, if you please, my good man.’ If you want the butter passed in Spanish, you say, ‘Pass the butter.’ To add por favor can smack of impatience.
Food for thought on your next trip abroad...or your next visit to an ethnic restaurant where you wish to use your multilingual prowess. ;)
Both are worth a listen. Enjoy. Within Temptation was recommended by a Russian friend; I'd never heard of them. A bonus for the guys----the singer is beautiful.
Pol's style is unique. He "hits" the guitar, producing an amazing depth of sound.
A lot of hard-rock European bands seem to have the exact same keyboard that they leave in a communal recording studio [the same Goth keyboard everywhere]. The same male guttural vocals [or as some call it "Cookie Monster Vocals]. Then a lot of bands try to juxtapose that with clean ethereal vocals.
Kind of like a lot of emo-core/screamo bands, with one guy screaming, and another singing.
Recently, President Barack Obama made a joke on TV about his bowling and the Special Olympics.
As a person with a disability, I thought his joke was very arrogant and hurtful. His comments were an insult not only to the Special Olympics, but to all people with disabilities.
I understand the president was only joking, but having a disability is no joke. It's no joke when you are judged by other people because you are different and you have to overcome things most other people do not. Perhaps the president can use this opportunity to reach out to the disability community.
He clearly has a lot to learn about people who are different.
I think he also has a lot to learn about what it really means to be an American.
"Being in Special Olympics gives her confidence. There isn't a sport that she hasn't tried," Dee said. "She has met so many people."
Dee recently heard the derogatory remark that President Obama made about Special Olympics while he was a guest on "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno," and she was not happy about it.
"I know that he was probably just trying to make a joke," Dee said, "but people need to be aware of what they say and avoid making comments that hurt other people or groups of people. The kids in Special Olympics are very proud of what they do."
This week's news conference wasn't exactly Obama's finest hour. Still, it wasn't as bad as making a mocking reference to the Special Olympics on "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno" or joking about the recession on CBS' "60 Minutes."
How is it possible that someone who was so likeable and so inspiring while running for president could, day by day, be so unlikable and so uninspiring as president?
It's become more common for people to say that they want President Obama to fail. I don't want him to fail. I want him to succeed. I just don't see how we get there from here.
I know that the president apologized to America, but that doesn’t make it OK with me. I have worked with special-needs kids and adults, who try so hard to be better at what they do. If former President Bush had said this, the outcry of America would have been for his trial and impeachment.
I’m getting lots of email from family caregivers who are angry with President Obama over his Special Olympics comment on Leno. The Arc, (yes that) Susan Axelrod, and countless others noted the unfortunate nature of the President’s careless remark. He rightly apologized before the show even aired, and the media spotlight will move on. Yet the disability community is a nontrivial constituency that takes this seriously and includes millions of poltiically-moderate, on-the-fence voters. Some ritual self-abasement seems in order....
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
After embarrassingly pimping the GOP sorta-budget, Redstate is obviously eager to regain some much needed credibility. To this end Erick hs wisely issued the following call to arms:
I do solemnly swear that I will honor Earth Hour by turning on every light in my residence at 8:30 p.m. on March 28, 2009, for one hour. God said, “Let there be light” and I will comply.
Yeah, they want you to turn your lights off, but everybody knows darkness leads to crime.
I was obviously mistaken when I thought they disliked having become, what one might only call, "clown shoes." Obviously the way to show you have principle and ideas, rather than being merely nay sayers, is to intentionally waste electricity because... well because your political opponents choose otherwise.
At this point I can't help but think they may as well take this unassailable syllogistic fortress to its natural conclusion by refusing to eat or breath so long as liberals do.
for the creepy theological elment and the last sentence which inadvertantly mocks their own position on gun control (afterall when lights are illegal only criminals will have light... or something).
If one is judged by the quality of their enemies then I'm really feeling pretty insulted these days.
as sad as it is there really aren't many other right of center blogs that have wide participation. The only two I can think of are townhall and LGF both of which are, amazingly, far more ridiculous than RS. The other big righty blogs are written by single personalities (Malkin, Hannity, etc) and so you don't get to see a swath of perspectives.
I do read some more limited but fortunately rational righties like Outside the Beltway and Eunomia (both of whom, perhaps not coincidentally lean libertarian). And while those blogs are nice in being more cerebral they really don't seem to represent where the mainstream GOP is. RS I'm afraid does. Or at least it represents what mainstream conservativism has degeneated into.
There are a few good posters still there, and I hope we'll see some tipping point come where they'll choose to get less callow.
is more of a caricature of the caricature of the inner core of the base.
Most people registered to the parties....thank goodness...are not as overflowing with and swimming in the same ol' predictable kool-aid induced mantras of monolithic Republican (or Dem) virtue.
Over 120 million people vote in presidential elections. The impression one gets at RS (or DK) reflects but a small portion of those people.
Personally, going to those two hyper partisan sites always make me think of this:
"I understand that Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) is one of the biggest lunatics ever to serve in the United States Congress in this generation and it is very hard to take anything she says with any degree of seriousness. But given the number of lunatics in our society that easily get fired-up to dangerous levels (remember the crazy shouts at McCain and Palin rallies after they began their ridiculous "terrorist" meme about Obama?), I think Bachmann's frightening rants about it being time for "revolution" is getting uncomfortably close to the "T" word: treason."
She is a hoot. It would be fun if she wasn't actually elected. What is up with the people in MN anyhow? I don't care if you're conservative, a John Bircher or what....how do you support that fruitcake? She is doing everything she can to forment an armed insurrection. AND SHE'S A MEMBER OF CONGRESS!!!!!!
"[What you cannot buy your only suit for a job interview, go there with the rags on your back and try and get that office job, you cannot spend money to make money! That theory is dumb.]"
Good thing she doesn't have an uncle that also is in Congress, she'd be beating the living hell out of some (D), with a cane before long.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
that Bachmann and her followers, move to Alaska or Texas, arm themselves, build big walls, disband the police force, close the public schools, and stop taking government money, so they can be 'free'.
'Patriot Movement' that fostered positive discussions of armed revolt & succession. Conservatives & Republican party leaders by and large didn't critisize their more hard core bretheren. During the bush43 years & especially after 9/11, many of those same folk openly attacked their political opponents as treasonous and suggested their incarceration, exhile & death. Republican party leaders were again quiet or even agreed. Now, 2 months into the Obama Administration, we have elected Republican party officials & their minions in the media & inter-tubes forcefully suggesting Democrats are traitors & should be overthrown by use of armed revolt. Yet the Party fathers again remain silent &/or worshipful as in the case for Rush.
What are we to learn from the actions over the last two decades? I'd say that it shows that many in the conservative movement are really bad when they lose & become whiney children. The same group aren't much better when they win as they immediatly talk of rounding up & silencing the opposition.
With that in mind...one has to ask themselves...who is it that really is emulating the call of our Founding Fathers some 200 plus years ago & who is it that more closely resembles the Tories & King Charles that brought on the American Revolution?
With that in mind...one has to ask themselves...who is it that really is emulating the call of our Founding Fathers some 200 plus years ago & who is it that more closely resembles the Tories & King Charles that brought on the American Revolution?
When the Democrats are in power there is talk of revolution. When the Republicans are in power there is none. So obviously the Republicans are playing the part of the Founding Fathers and the Democrats are playing the part of King George (not King Charles if I have my American History right).
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
This piece by Nickolas is just retarded.* Bachmann is not calling for an armed revolt in the literal sense. "Armed and dangerous" in this context is merely a metaphor for "being prepared with facts and figures for the coming debate." It is clearly not a call to arms as Nickolas obviously believes.
Here is how she describes the "revolution":
And by that, what I mean, an orderly revolution -- where the people of this country wake up get up and make a decision that this is not going to happen on their watch.
In other words, people wake up and get involved in the political process. I would suggest that Nickolas was being intentionally obtuse here, but he sounds more paranoid than anything else to me.
Poor Sarah Palin. Undermined by her own legislature..... ;-)
"JUNEAU, Alaska - Legislation is moving through the Alaska House and Senate that would take advantage of federal stimulus money directed at the state.
By a vote of 32-3, the House approved a resolution Friday accepting any money that Gov. Sarah Palin does not request from the state's estimated $930 million share.
Meanwhile the House Finance Committee began debate on a spending bill directing portions of the stimulus money to various agencies."
But I believe wholly incomplete. And how many non-liberals could really refute that line of thinking without exposing themselves to criticism as bigots?
There was also nothing about faith in public institutions and emphasis on the preservation of civil liberties vs. public safety, those tricky foggy areas. By Mr. Bourdeaux's definition nearly everyone would clame to be a liberal.
One of the great tenets of liberalism -- the true sort of liberalism, not the dirigiste ignorance that today, in English-speaking countries, flatters itself unjustifiably with that term -- is that no human being is less worthy just because he or she is outside of a particular group.
Unless of course, that human being is a Republican.
Markets continue to drop amid his administration's careless talk. This is just another example of liberals advocating for defaulting on their loans and stiffing the shareholders. It is truly sad to see.
U.S. stocks declined on Monday after the Obama administration said that the best chance for success for General Motors and rival Chrysler may be bankruptcy.
Osama is probably smiling today from inside his cave.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
How come the stock market becomes a surrogate measure of "the economy" on days when it goes down, but not on days when it goes up?
But OK, accepting your silly premise for the sake of argument, the DJIA is currently at about 7500. On March 7, it was about 6500. I guess Obama's policies have been a tremendous boost to the economy in the past few weeks!
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
How come the stock market becomes a surrogate measure of "the economy" on days when it goes down, but not on days when it goes up?
that is the template that was applied to Bush by the Democrats. I claim to be exactly as honest and truthful as the Democrats were then. Remember the golden rule. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
Can you point me to any examples of Democrats blaming Bush for a one-day down-turn during an approximately three-week upturn? Or in fact any one-day down-turn other than perhaps the particularly precipitous ones last October?
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
GR, although I usually just ignore you, I just want to point out how lame and unfortunate conduct like yours is. You spew bullsh*t for partisan purposes, and when called on it, when even you don't bother trying to argue that it isn't bullsh*t, you instead reply that your bullsh*t is justified because the "other side" engaged/engages in the same type of bullsh*t. Even though, as a general rule, both sides of hyperpartisans are correct when they accuse the other side of partisan bullsh*t, all you do by spewing bullsh*t yourself is to pollute SwordsCrossed (and every other place to which you bring your bullsh*t) and get in the way of more intelligent, interesting, informative and sincere political discourse.
Not that it matters much, but my sense is that you often throw out your bullsh*t hoping it is not seen by all for what it is, and only go with the reciprocity (or illustration) argument as your Plan B when you get called on your bullsh*t and can't offer any defense that would pass anyone's laugh test.
No matter how you slice it, it's really lame. How 'bout growing up a bit or taking your bullsh*t elsewhere, maybe to RedState or some other echo chamber where all that matters is whose side your on, not the merits of your arguments or whether or not you offer them in good faith.
someone tries to get a real left-right war of words going on a site. We on the left end up sparring with the libertarians while the few Republicans spew childishly refutable talking points.
Who knows, maybe I'm in a bubble. Maybe my perception of the Republican party as insanely sociopathic and impervious to reason translates to my inability to see anything of value in the redbar posts here (or almost anywhere, it's gotten worse since the election). Or maybe they just suck.
Believe me, I see plenty of the same crap from both left and right. As for your second paragraph, sounds like you are indeed strongly (and to some extent unfairly) biased, but at least you're not oblivious to that possibility, which is more than I can say for a lot of people. I suggest (1) trying to resist the urge to reflexively reject positions and arguments from the right and prematurely assuming that they must be loco and/or evil, and instead consider the premises and logic of their arguments and try to evaluate them (assess their validity) as objectively as possible, and (2) making sure you get a diverse diet of news and opinion (and applying #1 to it).
reject positions and arguments reflexively. I can't find them, and trust me, I look. Can you find a coherent Republican plan for digging us out of this Republican-created mess? All I've heard is more tax-cut pandering with no support analysis. It's pathetic.
When I said "impervious to reason" it doesn't mean that I find any right-leaning argument absurd. It means that I've found any defense of, say, extending the Bush tax cuts extremely sloppy and dishonest; the numbers and historical data simply do not work for them. They have no answer for the huge overhead costs of private healthcare, they'd rather yelp about "socialized medicine". And not in campaign ads; on discussion blogs. Who or what am am I arguing with anyway?
I do not accept a designation as "biased". Constantly trying to equivocate between extremes can be just as biased as always taking one side.
Maybe my perception of the Republican party as insanely sociopathic and impervious to reason translates to my inability to see anything of value in the redbar posts here (or almost anywhere, it's gotten worse since the election).
No, now why would that frame of mind have any affect how you perceive them?
/end snark
It helps when you quit thinking of "them" as a monolithic group and start to see them as people.
I laughed when I read BRs post. He obviously missed Ender in his heyday.
all written, then my browser crashed. Suffice it to say you're confusing respecting the people on the other side with respecting nonsensical nasty arguments ridden with fallacies.
But your descriptors were of people, not of ideas.
Insanely sociopathic
Impervious to reason
That describes people, not arguments. "Look, that argument is sociopathic; let's imprison it" No, that word just doesn't work as a descriptor of arguments. Arguments are not impervious to anything; people are.
I'm really just pulling your leg a little. It's so easy to say "hey, I'm an open-minded humanity-loving democracy-supporting liberal...but damn, aren't those Republicans insane idiots with stupid irrational ideas who don't deserve to be anywhere near political power."
heh, I liked the quote in your last paragraph. Pretty much sums up the attitude of some people. And of course, the same regarding some on the "other side" if you just switch the nouns around.
You two must be right, because you're tut-tuting the "attitude" of people on both sides. You're not David Brodeur sockpuppets by chance? Consider argument 1:
L: Global warming exists and is a threat to our society. We must make massive green investments to head it off.
R: Global warming doesn't exist. The ice caps are getting bigger and some dudes in the 70s were worried about global cooling.
and argument 2:
L: Global warming exists and is a threat to our society. We must make massive green investments to head it off.
R: There is high uncertainty about the temperature projections, and even in the worse case these massive investments aren't worth it. We can adapt to climate change and I was thinking of selling my condo in Florida anyway.
I'm looking for someone to substantiate argument 2, but the redbars and far to many Republican congresspeople keep trying to make 1. Giving each equal levels of respect is not productive and all you purple people calling us nasty or partisan are obfuscating the issues.
So, do you consider the "L" argument above to be comparable to the "R" version in argument 1 or argument 2? Do you consider the "L" version automatically substantiated on its face? Do you believe that anyone who does not automatically accept the "L" version as undeniable fact to be a simpleton?
I am pretty sure I know the answers to these questions, but I'll give you a chance to prove me wrong. What say you?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
but it would be pretty easy to substantiate. Quoting peer-reviewed studies, and all that. Would you like me to dig up earth surface temperature graphs, with sourcing and all? I can find the % of GHGs that are man-made and draw reasonable causality too.
I find the L argument slightly better than R2, but I'm still skeptical about whether any corrective action now will help substantially because of postive feedback cycles (such as dissolved C02 evaporation and icecap melting).
R1 is getting really annoying to have to keep addressing. It's not much removed from 9/11 conspiracy theories. And yet I've read it here (not sure if it was you or another redbar), on redstate, freerepublic and the Washington Times. You guys really believe the disingenouous factoids and misleading half-truths.
Have you ever followed the whole AGW angle on Wikipedia? If you haven't you should. Read some of the talk pages. You sound like you would fit right in with the main crowd over there. I contribute there from time to time to try and keep the pro-AGW perspective from getting too overboard, but obviously I am in the minority so there is only so much you can do.
Believe me, you're not gonna throw anything at me that I haven't already seen there, but it might be nice to have a debate here with some new voices.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
Pick a topic and we'll have a serious debate. Just because I have been taking childish pot shots at Obama lately doesn't mean I can't hold up my end of a debate. Choose your topic.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
ok, I rescind the credit I gave you for some degree of self-awareness. You are indeed at least mostly oblivious to your bias, and you apparently have no clue what you're talking about regarding the perspective of those of us who are able to approach matters with a greater degree of objectivity.
Your examples are silly, by the way. I don't feel like taking the time to explain.
Maybe you should join GR and ML on that reality show I proposed a while back. It could be called "The Hyperpartisans!" In each episode you guys can talk past each other and think you're debating some issue when you're really just mindlessly hurling talking points and party lines over each other's heads, and then you can come together lovingly when you find a common enemy: someone who calls you both on your bullsh*t and urges you to try to adopt greater objectivity and engage in thoughtful, logical, good-faith discussion/debate. Each episode can end with a group hug and the three of you smilingly saying in unison about that other person "Boy, what a jerk!"
ok, I rescind the credit I gave you for some degree of self-awareness. You are indeed at least mostly oblivious to your bias, and you apparently have no clue what you're talking about regarding the perspective of those of us who are able to approach matters with a greater degree of objectivity.
Your examples are silly, by the way. I don't feel like taking the time to explain.
And here we have another fine example of the great BR. Thinker of great thoughts. See-er of great insights. Able to think thoughts that no other mind is capable of. He thinks it is because he is intelligent. I think it's because he's delusional. :)
Maybe you should join GR and ML on that reality show I proposed a while back. It could be called "The Hyperpartisans!" In each episode you guys can talk past each other and think you're debating some issue when you're really just mindlessly hurling talking points and party lines over each other's heads, and then you can come together lovingly when you find a common enemy: someone who calls you both on your bullsh*t and urges you to try to adopt greater objectivity and engage in thoughtful, logical, good-faith discussion/debate. Each episode can end with a group hug and the three of you smilingly saying in unison about that other person "Boy, what a jerk!"
Note how he fancies himself above the mundane name calling of the ordinary folk. His total disdain for all things mundane and how he restricts himself to only factual, rational fare. Yea, right.
BR is clearly a legend ... so great in fact that only he can see it. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
Note how he fancies himself . His total disdain for all things mundane and how he restricts himself to only factual, rational fare. Yea, right.
Um (lol), note how GR fabricates and erects a straw man so he can knock it down. Do I claim to be above name-calling? Heck, didn't I just use, in my initial comment on this thread, the word "bullsh*t" a gazillion times to refer to at least a substantial portion of GR's comments? Does that sound like someone who is trying to pass himself off as above name-calling?
More generally, see how GR is just a big waste of time? See how he can't help demonstrating that he is a waste of time even when responding to someone who is accusing him of being a waste of time (LOL)?
Now that you got the "you don't know what you're talking about" toss-off out of the way and invalidated your own claim to good faith and thoughtfulness, let me mock you for imagining yourself as the next Crossfire Killer. Just remember:
This is a blog. Detrimental effects of shouting over one another don't apply.
Neither I nor ML argues like Begala or Carville. I don't do "they just want women to go back to the kitchen!" toss-offs.
You're no Jon Stewart. Did you notice he's a liberal, by the way?
What is it, exactly, that makes YOU rational and objective, other than that you deplore "talking points"? What exactly makes ME biased, other than a preference scientific approach to determine the reality and consequences of something like Global Warming? Do you not think it's possible to rationally conclude that one side is just plain wrong?
You've stated at multiple points in the thread that you are too busy or disinterested or exasperated to explain why other people are silly or wrong. Great. Kindly get out of the way then, this blog is called Swords Crossed.
My declining to devote much time to trying to have a dialogue with particular commenters on SC -- as a matter of general practice in the case of two particular individuals on SC and occasionally on a case-specific basis with some other commenter -- who have demonstrated either a tedious inability or a lame unwillingness to engage in discussion/debate that is thoughtful, responsive, logical, sincere, etc., hardly makes it not worth my participating at SC (although I do wish those two -- perhaps soon to be three -- did not take up so much space [giving newcomers who are seeking quality discussion/debate a bad impression of SC] and distract other so much from worthwhile discussions/debates that are or could be taking place), nor does it significantly lessen whatever value my participation on SC may have for others in the SC community.
Not only did you start out (openly, to your credit, for whatever that's worth) demonstrating an absurd, extreme bias that leads you to reflexively or at least very prematurely (whether you realize it or not, and which isn't clear) reject positions and arguments that you associate with a particular, broad ideology or party, thus indicating a lower probability, ceteris paribus, that a quality discussion/debate with you will be possible, but you also show sloppy thinking in your argumentation. In the brief encounter I've had with you, you've already repeatedly, grossly misunderstood my comments/arguments, presumptuously and erroneously substituted straw men, and then responded accordingly, leaving me the apparent choice of having to deconstruct just about everything you say, explain your errors, and try (most likely in vain) to get to some relevant, mutually-responsive, logical discussion, or just to decline to continue the discussion of that topic with you (at least until and unless I have some reason to think a reasonably sensible discussion/debate is more likely).
Hint: Contrary to your apparent belief (one of those apparent silly presumptions on your part that makes me disinclined to engage in discussion with you), someone who indicates that he, in comparison with the typical hyperpartisan or ideologue, has a much stronger commitment to trying to maintain objectivity and to making a reasonable effort in searching for "truth" as best he can determine it is NOT implying that positions and all (or even some) arguments on "both sides" are equally valid. He is NOT saying that concluding that one position or argument is stupid, ignorant, lame, etc. is necessarily wrong or inferior to concluding that some middle ground position is best or that both sides have good arguments. By kidding yourself or others and characterizing a non-hyperpartisan like me as such you merely set up a silly straw man that you can then knock down. It's just silly, stupid, juvenile.
And you point out to me that Jon Stewart, the "Crossfire Killer", is a liberal. I'm left to guess what your point is, but I'd guess it's either (1) that a liberal can dislike dumbed-down, talking-point, hyperpartisan pseudo-debate like that of Crossfire (um, well, duh -- as if I've said anything to indicate that I would reject that premise), or (2) that Stewart's view constitutes strong evidence that liberals as a whole are much more likely to have view #1 than are conservatives (and perhaps you are saying they are also more likely to have that view than are centrists, moderates, libertarians, "other", and folks like me who to whom no cookie-cutter label applies), which is, needless to say, an obviously dubious argument.
To sum it up, your line...
What exactly makes ME biased, other than a preference scientific approach to determine the reality and consequences of something like Global Warming?
...pretty much represents your silliness and oblivious confusion, and makes me shake my head and ask myself rhetorically "Why would I want to even bother trying to have a worthwhile conversation (at least on this topic) with someone who could think and write something that clueless?"
Edit: Oh, last thought: I think reasonable people can disagree on whether or not, as a matter of blog etiquette, I should give (or should have given) you more of a chance before concluding that continuing with you on this topic would probably not be worthwhile. So if someone has that view, he/she might be right.
My declining to devote much time to trying to have a dialogue with particular commenters on SC -- as a matter of general practice in the case of two particular individuals on SC and occasionally on a case-specific basis with some other commenter -- who have demonstrated either a tedious inability or a lame unwillingness to engage in discussion/debate that is thoughtful, responsive, logical, sincere, etc., hardly makes it not worth my participating at SC (although I do wish those two -- perhaps soon to be three -- did not take up so much space [giving newcomers who are seeking quality discussion/debate a bad impression of SC] and distract other so much from worthwhile discussions/debates that are or could be taking place), nor does it significantly lessen whatever value my participation on SC may have for others in the SC community.
Long tedious ad hominem attack, a logical fallacy.
Not only did you start out (openly, to your credit, for whatever that's worth) demonstrating an absurd, extreme bias that leads you to reflexively or at least very prematurely (whether you realize it or not, and which isn't clear) reject positions and arguments that you associate with a particular, broad ideology or party, thus indicating a lower probability, ceteris paribus, that a quality discussion/debate with you will be possible, but you also show sloppy thinking in your argumentation*. In the brief encounter I've had with you, you've already repeatedly, grossly misunderstood my comments/arguments, presumptuously and erroneously substituted straw men, and then responded accordingly, leaving me the apparent choice of having to deconstruct just about everything you say, explain your errors, and try (most likely in vain) to get to some relevant, mutually-responsive, logical discussion, or just to decline to continue the discussion of that topic with you (at least until and unless I have some reason to think a reasonably sensible discussion/debate is more likely).
Long, tedious, and increasingly boring ad hominem attack, a logical fallacy.
Hint: Contrary to your apparent belief (one of those apparent silly presumptions on your part that makes me disinclined to engage in discussion with you), someone who indicates that he, in comparison with the typical hyperpartisan or ideologue, has a much stronger commitment to trying to maintain objectivity and to making a reasonable effort in searching for "truth" as best he can determine it is NOT implying that positions and all (or even some) arguments on "both sides" are equally valid. He is NOT saying that concluding that one position or argument is stupid, ignorant, lame, etc. is necessarily wrong or inferior to concluding that some middle ground position is best or that both sides have good arguments. By kidding yourself or others and characterizing a non-hyperpartisan like me as such you merely set up a silly straw man that you can then knock down. It's just silly, stupid, juvenile.
Long tedious, boring, and only modestly coherent ad hominem attack, a logical fallacy.
And you point out to me that Jon Stewart, the "Crossfire Killer", is a liberal. I'm left to guess what your point is, but I'd guess it's either (1) that a liberal can dislike dumbed-down, talking-point, hyperpartisan pseudo-debate like that of Crossfire (um, well, duh -- as if I've said anything to indicate that I would reject that premise), or (2) that Stewart's view constitutes strong evidence that liberals as a whole are much more likely to have view #1 than are conservatives (and perhaps you are saying they are also more likely to have that view than are centrists, moderates, libertarians, "other", and folks like me who to whom no cookie-cutter label applies), which is, needless to say, an obviously dubious argument.
Ah, an attempt at some substance. Points for at least trying, but demerits for being incoherent.
pretty much represents your silliness and oblivious confusion, and makes me shake my head and ask myself rhetorically "Why would I want to even bother trying to have a worthwhile conversation (at least on this topic) with someone who could think and write something that clueless?"
Well, back to the ad hominem attack, a logical fallacy.
Edit: Oh, last thought: I think reasonable people can disagree on whether or not, as a matter of blog etiquette, I should give (or should have given) you more of a chance before concluding that continuing with you on this topic would probably not be worthwhile. So if someone has that view, he/she might be right.
Please let it be so. Please?
So, the final tally is: 4 ad hominem attacks, 1 meager attempt at substance, and 1irrelevent "last thought".
That, in a nutshell, sums up The Great BR. Thinker of great thoughts. See-er of great insights. Eschew-er of all things hyperpartisan in his eyes. Maker of logical fallacies. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
GR's tally: 5 assertions of logical fallacies, 0 arguments to support those assertions, and (ironically and hypocritically, given that he is ridiculing supposed logical fallacies with no supporting argument at all, along with throwing out personal attacks, 9 (or so) ad homs!
LOL -- Thank you for the laugh, GR. Question: Could you make sense if I literally paid you? I doubt it.
Edit: GR, I suppose some here at SC may not agree with me that your (abundance of) comments here detract from the quality of SC (make it less intellectually interesting, less of an opportunity to learn, less of a positive contribution to society [even on a small scale], more annoying, more likely to waste one's time, less likely to attract intelligent, thoughtful people, etc.), because some may like a hyperpartisan food fight at least sometimes (or may be a fellow hyperpartisan on your "side"), and because some may consider comment volume of any kind to be a good thing for the site. But I think your comments pollute this site and impede/obstruct it from reaching its potential.
I supported all of my claims when I pointed to the wikipedia page on ad hominem attacks. I don't need to repeat all of that material here. As for personal attacks, pointing out your logical fallacies is not a personal attack. My poignant and witty editorial commentary, well perhaps that could be viewed as a personal attack. But hypocritical? Not at all. As we have been discussing I intentionally use the tactics of my oponents against them. Yours seems to be predominently ad hominem attacks so that is what I use against you. I am completely consistent in that respect. No hypocrisy here, oh great one.
LOL -- Thank you for the laugh, GR. Question: Could you make sense if I literally paidyou? I doubt it.
Keep your cash, based on your commentary I have a feeling you're gonna need it.
But I think your comments pollute this site and impede/obstruct it from reaching its potential.
Ditto for your self-promoting, self-centered, self-unaware, hypocritical puffery. For all your faux claims of providing intellectual value, as we see above you are providing very little beyond ad hominem logical fallacies.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
GR once again, apparently unable to do otherwise even when doing so proves the very charges he is denying, exhibits stupidity, obliviousness, and/or disingenuousness.
I make a point centered on the fact that GR repeatedly asserted logical fallacies on my part without offering any supporting argument whatsoever for those assertions, saying about GR's comment (with emphasis added, since GR apparently -- ahem -- missed it):
GR's tally: 5 assertions of logical fallacies, 0 arguments to support those assertions, and (ironically and hypocritically, given that he is ridiculing supposed logical fallacies with no supporting argument at all, along with throwing out personal attacks, 9 (or so) ad homs!
GR then replies:
I supported all of my claims when I pointed to the wikipedia page on ad hominem attacks.
Apparently, working through his (probably deliberately) vague argument, what GR is saying is that I committed a logical fallacy by asserting that corph's arguments/implications were invalid because of some traits I associate with him (as opposed to my contending that those arguments/implications are invalid, and perhaps suggesting that corph doesn't see them as such because of those traits). Obviously, this argument from GR (and thus his labeling of my comments as "logical fallacies") is invalid and stupid, which is why GR probably through it out there in deliberately vague (and inconvenient) form when he could have stated it, at least once, as quickly and easily as I just did.
Thanks, GR. Keep it up. You make my point about you more convincingly than I can.
Edit: Oh and as for your typical defense of "Oh that wasn't really me; I was just mimicking you [or others]", as I've said, that (along with the "Oh, I wasn't really trying to pass that off as a valid argument, just mocking the invalid arguments of others") is just your bullsh*t modus operandi, your "out" whenever you get called on your bullsh*t. I would guess that you are not fooling anyone who isn't either an idiot or a fellow hyperpartisan on your "side".
I called the Republican party sociopathic and impervious to reason, not an argument and not a person. I know you're trying to make me look silly and partisan, but you can't do it without twisting my words. Organizations can behave sociopathically and irrationally, just like people.
"hey, I'm an open-minded humanity-loving democracy-supporting liberal...but damn, aren't those Republicans insane idiots with stupid irrational ideas who don't deserve to be anywhere near political power."
Not funny, and a distortion of what I wrote. I don't know your political leanings or how you judge the actions of each party. I've been upfront about mine, and tried briefly to explain why. Thing is, even if I were a conservative, I would probably end up like John Dean: disgusted with the party that purports to share my philosophy. Feel free to dispute my findings, but don't mock me for concluding that there is something seriously wrong with the Republican party.
I would have no compunction will calling all or most Republicans insane or idiotic if I thought they were. Thing is, I don't. Other than the fact you can't really know someone over a blog, there is a huge difference between who someone is, how they argue, and what party they belong to.
Has any of this exchange encouraged you to change your bar to blue? You don't have to think of it as being a Democrat, it's more like being the opposite of a Republican.
I find your arguments dishonest and irrational (I don't recall using the word "revolting")
Possible causees of statement A
I'm crazy;
I don't understand or I'm misinterpreting your arguments;
I'm blatently biased. I'm deluded into thinking mindlessly refuting redbars on a low-volume blog will help Democrats get elected;
Your arguments ARE dishonest and irrational, and I'm making an accurate assesment.
I have plenty of documentary support for option 4. If you want to claim 3, feel free to search all my posts for misrepresentation of facts and double standards.
I find your arguments dishonest and irrational (I don't recall using the word "revolting")
that I am doing so intentionally, right? Do the words sarcasm and satire exist in your vocabulary? And you do understand that by doing so openly and expressly for the purpose of mimicking those on the left that make these same kinds of outlandish statements about Republicans that I am actually making a statement about them, right?
In other words, I am illustrating how dishonest and irrational I think they are being by acting just like them. I mean I pick the most outlandish positions to take and blow them completely out of all proportion and you think I am being serious?*
Why do I do this? For what purpose?
Because it offers teaching moments just like this one when we actually talk about why I say the things I do.
Where does that fit in your list? I think you must be missing at least one option there.
My honest opinion is that nobody could be so stupid as to believe any of these things, yet throughout the Bush years we had a steady onslaught of such things. So if I don't believe that anyone could truly believe these types of things, what does that mean that I am saying about those who were making them about Bush?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
corph, I don't know if you've been on the site long enough to know GR's modus operandi. He throws out hyperpartisan bullsh*t talking point arguments, then when called on it via a challenge or outright refutation, he either struggles lamely to defend it, or he claims he didn't mean it as a serious argument to begin with, or he starts with the former and ends with the latter. And yes, he throws out a few parody-like diaries/comments here and there to provide cover for this m.o.
The quote was my own creation, not something intended to parody what you wrote. It was simply a shorthand way of encapsulating something I find oddly humorous about the stereotypical liberal. How much you yourself identify with that stereotype, I cannot and do not presume to say. And it certainly could work the other way with a clever change of words, as BR pointed out.
But stating that you meant the Republican Party was sociopathic makes no different to my point; organizations are simply conglomerations of people -- you are still saying the people are sociopathic, not the ideas, contrary to your claim in your followup post:
Suffice it to say you're confusing respecting the people on the other side with respecting nonsensical nasty arguments ridden with fallacies.
None of this is meant to imply there is anything wrong with being partisan. Most people are. But having an awareness of the degree of one's personal partisanship is helpful when evaluating information. Or at least I think so.
I don't know your political leanings or how you judge the actions of each party.
It is hard to evaluate my posts without the convenient labels of blue, red, or yellow, isn't it? I guess you're left with only my (admittedly not always very illuminating) words ;-)
Just to add my two cents, I, too, think that there is nothing wrong with being partisan. I distinguish between being partisan (favoring and promoting an issue position, candidate, party, etc.) and being hyperpartisan, and I define the latter as being (1) so blinded by bias that one is unable to think straight and make a reasonable effort at searching for "truth" to the extent possible (trying to fit one's views to the "facts" rather than just searching for "facts" to reinforce one's views), and/or (2) unwilling or emotionally unable to engage in good faith discussion/debate, instead maintaining and pursuing the sole objective of shilling for one's "side".
The hyperpartisan isn't really interested in learning for the purpose of arriving at the best issue position, candidate, party, etc., but rather is only interested in finding support for the conclusion he pretty much started with based on broad ideology or his party's (or Limbaugh's, Olbermann's, etc.) talking points, all of which provide a sense of identity, intellectual superiority and (self-)righteousness -- i.e., the conclusion that feels best to him emotionally and which he lacks the maturity and sense of civic duty and basic decency to challenge intellectually via critical thinking. Kind of reminds me of what the joke about why managers hire management consultants or conduct marketing research. They use consultants (or marketing research) the way a drunk uses a lamppost: more for support than illumination.
You try to pretend that you are all thinking and rational, but as I have adequeately demonstrated on multiple occasions you enter these things with preconceived notions and when you fail to convince someone to see things your way, well you get all whiny and start calling people names and pout like a little kid.
I don't engage you in anything serious because it simply isn't worth the time because you are closed minded enough that even when you are bested in the debate you fail to recognize as much. And yea, yea, I know, you think that this is exactly who I am as well.
This is why we are reduced to basically calling each other names.
That having been said, pick a topic. Any topic. And I'll give you a thoughtful and serious debate on the point.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
as I have adequeately demonstrated on multiple occasions
heh, I guess that's the well-worn rhetorical tactic of making an utterly false claim that at least some folks may give some credibility (even if just some benefit of the doubt) if they are unfamiliar with (and, understandably, won't take the time to research) the actual history (or if they are just plain dumb).
pick a topic. Any topic. And I'll give you a thoughtful and serious debate on the point.
Someone once said that the definition of insanity is doing something repeatedly, getting the same result every time, and expecting a different result the next time. (I know Bill Clinton used that line rhetorically a lot in 1992, but I assume he didn't originate it). No, I'm not going to introduce some topic for the purpose of engaging you, expecting "thoughtful and serious debate on the point". I'm not insane. But by all means, the next time I submit a diary or comment on some issue, go ahead and comment if you wish, and if your comment gives me some indication that you may be, at least on that occasion, both willing and able to (1) engage in good faith, and (2) make sense, I'll probably reply and continue to do so unless and until you revert to form (if you ever actually deviated from it, that is).
heh, I guess that's the well-worn rhetorical tactic of making an utterly false claim that at least some folks may give some credibility (even if just some benefit of the doubt) if they are unfamiliar with (and, understandably, won't take the time to research) the actual history (or if they are just plain dumb).
Empty words, nothing more. Puffery consistent with being a blowhard.
Someone once said that the definition of insanity is doing something repeatedly, getting the same result every time, and expecting a different result the next time. (I know Bill Clinton used that line rhetorically a lot in 1992, but I assume he didn't originate it). No, I'm not going to introduce some topic for the purpose of engaging you, expecting "thoughtful and serious debate on the point". I'm not insane. But by all means, the next time I submit a diary or comment on some issue, go ahead and comment if you wish, and if your comment gives me some indication that you may be, at least on that occasion, both willing and able to (1) engage in good faith, and (2) make sense, I'll probably reply and continue to do so unless and until you revert to form (if you ever actually deviated from it, that is).
And there, my good corph, you see him running with his tail between his legs. I tried.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
I told you a while back, ML, you and GR should become a couple and star in a reality show. See my comment of a couple of minutes ago (reply to corph) re: this reality show.
lol. You crazy cats crack me up (when I can get past annoyance and just find you amusing).
It's not uncommon on the NYC subways to encounter a batsh*t insane person (apparently homeless) incessantly talking loudly in some nonsensical way, but once there were two of them in the same subway car, less than ten feet apart. The question occurred to me (not seriously, but as a goofy thought): If they are both crazy, can they understand each other?
What I'm trying to say is, get a room, you two, and get started on that reality show, "The Hyperpartisans!" featuring you two as the star couple. Come on -- it will be hilarious!
that this realization should be any more fortunate for yourself than for me, unless of course you now agree that the likelyhood that you are delusional is actually greater than 50%. Your observation has "reset" that to 50% which is what would make it fortunate for you in the eyes of others.
I mean if the actual probability of your being delusional was less that 50% then "resetting" that to 50% in the minds of others as you have done is actually unfurtunate for you, is it not? :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
then Bush would be the most popular President in history because the stock market was 1400 on his watch. Since we know that Bush is one of the least popular Presidents ever your assumption can not be true.
1: Do you honestly think that?
2: Are you trying to get back at the people that blindly hated Bush?
3: Do you own a tiger repellent rock like Lisa Simpson?
4: In this case, Bob Barr and Ron Paul would be saying the same thing, albeit earlier.
5: Is staying the course always the best action to recoup sunk cost ?
Osama is probably painfully receiving kidney treatment smiling in his cave thanking Allah for Michele Bachmann, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck...juxtaposed with a (D) as POTUS.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Take off your catharsis hat for a moment. For my sanity check, I'm curious: Has Obama done anything at all economic wise that you think is helpful? I mean, clearly there are some things he's put forward that I don't like, but I think there are some things I think were necessary because we haven't been such a situation in out life times when stocks, homes, and the economy as a whole are all plumetting. I want to see if you think it there is anything he's doing right, or has everything he's proposed/implemented economically will lead to our economic destruction.
That's hard to say. Out of control spending and running up the debt even faster that Bush (who was already too willing to spend in areas where I don't agree)? No. Don't agree. Pork spending for all his liberal buddies in Congress? No. Don't agree.
Defering any talk of tax increases? Sure, I'm always for that, but he is just waiting for a better time to let the shoe drop so it will be a short honeymoon.
New deal style make work spending? Don't believe in it. I think it will delay any true recovery and drive up inflation.
The only thing that comes to mind that he has said he wants to do that I agree with is education. He wants to cut out the dead wood from the teachers. I agree with that. He is for efficacy testing. I agree with that. From a long-term perspective I can see this as being a good economic move for the country, so I guess at least tangentially this would fit the bill.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
While it may not be working out as well as hoped, I would think that a reasonable position would be that, if international finance is severely compromised, a prudent government would take whatever action is deemed necessary and proper.
I think we can all quibble about the details of exactly what has been done in that regard, but I don't see a lot of disagreement that the US had to act.
about the specific actions you think he took to stabilize the financial system and I'll give you my take on those. Stabilizing the financial system is a bit too broad for my taste. I would argue that it still isn't stable, per say, so we need to be more specific.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
I make no claim to knowing enough to even know that I don't know enough about global financial transactions and what specific actions should/should not be taken with regards to what I am loosely labeling "stabilizing the financial system." For purposes of this discussion, I would include essentially everything Congress attempted to address under TARP and any subsequent actions in the banking sector or in the reinsurance market with regards to AIG and those infamous CDSs.
I'm not asking you to be an expert either, and I won't later come back and say "but you said!" My question is broader and more simplistic, and assumes that whatever path was chosen (US government action versus no action) it would have been undertaken with deliberation.
It's really more of a "prudent man" question, to couch it in legal terms. If you're still not comfortable addressing it in this broad a sense, that's fine.
In a very general sense all I can say is I am a big believer in the free market approach to addressing big problems. I don't think that government bureaucrats will ever be as good at finding the optimal solutions to something as complex as resource allocations on a national scale as are free markets. So in a general sense I would have to say that having the government try to intervene and "fix" the problem pro-actively is going to be a bad thing and should be avoided. So from that perspective I would have to say that I disagree with Obama's taking action of any sort.
On the other hand, I also believe that it is in everyone's interest to have a stable financial system to keep things like interest rates and inflation at reasonable and manageable levels. This is sort of fundamental to the operation of the free makets with the exception of the financial system itself. So from that perspective I would have no problem with the government excersizing whatever controls they legitimately have to try and keep the value of the dollar stable and inflation as flat as possible.
As for Obama's specific actions? I do believe that running up the debt even faster than Bush did AND just after Bush did is going to be counter to those goals. The government will be forced to crank up the printing presses and pay off at least some of that debt using the subsequently deflated dollars. Intentionally causing the value of the US greeback to decline will hurt everyone in real terms, so again I guess I would have to disagree with how Obama has handled this.
I don't claim to be an expert in these areas, nor am I even pretending to be one here. I applaud his intentions, but I fear his methods will have unintended results in the end.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
..vs. many world currencies, showing remarkable strength considering the circumstances. There's certainly been no dollar collapse, even though it is clear that we are going to have to issue an enormous amount of debt in order to follow the stimulus and budget plan that has been laid out. So the markets aren't interpreting the Obama administration's actions so far the same way that you are. Perhaps the markets recognize that the best possible policy path is for the United States to get its economy back on its feet, rather than follow a plan of fiscal austerity at this point in time.
In fact, the dollary may well have been worse off at this point if the plans had called for spending less, if the markets concluded that the policy path undermined the prospects of the dollar as a store of value. The amount of debt the US issues and plans to issue plays into the strength of the dollar but it is not the only factor by a long stretch.
It's my perception that the rise in the relative value of the dollar is not so much due to the plans that have been undertaken and proposed, but more due to the more-rapid decline of other currencies as each country's exposure to this economic situation is being more fully realized. In other words, even if one accepts the world is going to hell in a handbasket at the moment, the US is not leading the way down.
Which is rather odd, when you think about it. If the US is the big bad capitalist wolf here, we should be tanking the fastest versus the Europeans, shouldn't we? ;-)
And I doubt there is much disagreement that the best possible policy path is to get the US economy back on its feet; the disagreement is whether or not the enormous stimulus package and budget are actually going to do these things, or are merely pork in disguise.
Wouldn't a country's expected "exposure" to the current economic situation as viewed by the markets be affected by the expected effectiveness of the remedies?
And I doubt there is much disagreement that the best possible policy path is to get the US economy back on its feet; the disagreement is whether or not the enormous stimulus package and budget are actually going to do these things, or are merely pork in disguise.
Well we can quibble as far as this item or that in the stimulus; I'm sure there is plenty of pork we can find, there always is. All I'm saying is that we're not seeing the currency markets react to Obama's overall spending policy as if it was the disaster to the dollar that GR claims it to be.
Wouldn't a country's expected "exposure" to the current economic situation as viewed by the markets be affected by the expected effectiveness of the remedies?
For the stock/bond/financial instruments market, I'd give a qualified yes. That's assuming that the seemingly oldfashioned notion of buying and holding still actually affects some purchase decisions.
But for currency markets, I'm not so sure. Currency exchanges are "today" kind of things; I really don't know how much they really worry about "tomorrow" in determining today's exchange rates. Wiki says it's a simple supply/demand equation, which might include some speculative aspects but I would assume the bulk of it is the more prosaic and routine cash transfer functions of international banks.
If a currency is free-floating, its exchange rate is allowed to vary against that of other currencies and is determined by the market forces of supply and demand.
I don't think I'd look to either market to be a decent indicator of how much inflation investors are anticipating, really.
Inflation is a reasonable concern, IMHO. It was under the Bush regime as well. Faced with huge debt and crippling interest payments, other countries have buckled under inflationary pressures.
For the stock/bond/financial instruments market, I'd give a qualified yes. That's assuming that the seemingly oldfashioned notion of buying and holding still actually affects some purchase decisions.
But for currency markets, I'm not so sure. Currency exchanges are "today" kind of things; I really don't know how much they really worry about "tomorrow" in determining today's exchange rates. Wiki says it's a simple supply/demand equation, which might include some speculative aspects but I would assume the bulk of it is the more prosaic and routine cash transfer functions of international banks.
Where's the distinction between currency markets and other markets? Stock prices are determined by supply and demand just the same as currency values. Bond prices, same thing. Any market is supply and demand, and both supply and demand can be affected by market participants' beliefs about the future.
There's a huge speculative aspect to currency trading:
About 70% to 90% of the foreign exchange transactions are speculative. In other words, the person or institution that bought or sold the currency has no plan to actually take delivery of the currency in the end; rather, they were solely speculating on the movement of that particular currency. Hedge funds have gained a reputation for aggressive currency speculation since 1996. They control billions of dollars of equity and may borrow billions more, and thus may overwhelm intervention by central banks to support almost any currency, if the economic fundamentals are in the hedge funds' favor.
In other words, 70%-90% of forex transactions are made solely to gain benefit from some future move in the value of the currency.
Inflation is a reasonable concern, IMHO. It was under the Bush regime as well. Faced with huge debt and crippling interest payments, other countries have buckled under inflationary pressures.
Sure it was a concern under Bush, and sure it's a concern now. So where I ask was GoRight and his concern for the dollar as it was taking a cliff-dive for all of 2006, all of 2007, and halfway into 2008 ? In fact it looks like it sharply rebounded around the time that Obama got the nomination ;-)
OK, point ceded, thanks for the education, I feel much smarter now :-)
When I watch you and GR go at it, I see you as Inigo Montoya. Y'all should really stop having so much fun. Tis detrimental to the serious nature of this blog ;-)
I am interested to know. Am I playing the role of some villain in your assessment? I know you were just trying to give Skymutt a warm fuzzy comment, but it tweaked my interest. If you had to liken me to a character, it doesn't even have to be from the Princess Bride, who would it be?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
Bugs Bunny is an excellent choice. I'll take Bugs over Montoya any day of the week. Think about it. Bugs always wins. He's always smarter than his oponents. Things invariably end up going his way. He's funny and people have loved him for years.
You thought you were being funny, but I'll take you at your word! :)
Oh, and Bugs is WAY better looking than Montoya. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
I don't claim to be an expert in these areas, nor am I even pretending to be one here.
that is confusing you? I was answering a query on a topic that I was obviously reluctant to do in the first place, and now suddenly you're acting like I was pro-actively pushing this meme?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
...on which you are "reluctant" to offer an opinion, your knee jerk reaction is to offer predictions of doom'n'gloom, all Obama's fault of course. In this case, it seems as though you didn't even check to see if the markets were confirming or contradicting your theories, yet in another case you explicitly used the stock market as evidence that Obama's policies were failing.
I'd like to give you a pass here, but the fact is that you've been caught issuing just so much hot air here, and the fact that you couched your ill-informed opinions as those of a non-expert is really not a good excuse. It's a similar situation to your illogical "speculation" in the recent thread where you tried to paint liberals as deadbeats, which I had to roundly bat down . The qualifiers "I'm not an expert, but...", or "I suspect that..." provide bare mitigation at best if used to present illogical or ill-informed opinions. Consider if Al Campanis had gone on Nightline and told Ted Koppel:
"I'm not an expert but blacks may not have some of the necessities to be, let's say, a field manager, or, perhaps, a general manager"
"I suspect that blacks may not have some of the necessities to be, let's say, a field manager, or, perhaps, a general manager"
Do you really think either qualifier would have innoculated him from criticism for his statement?
So, my self-acknowledged up front non-expert opinion on whether printing money will devalue the dollar is equivalent to making blatantly racist remarks? Dude, this isn't a topic that I was making a big deal about. I was asked for my opinion and I gave it. Simple as that. You don't like my opinion, fine, but don't act all huffy like I was claiming my opinion was fact. Why are you making such a big deal about this?
What's this really about? Are you being all pissy because I gave Obama a taste of what Bush's opponents gave to him? Don't be a baby.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
No, your statements are not "equivalent" in terms of impact, offensiveness, etc. to Campanis'. Nowhere did I say or imply that they were. I'm merely using Campanis' infamous statement-- a statement that we are probably all familiar with, making it useful for instructional purposes-- to make the point that your use of qualifiers such as "I suspect that" or "I'm not an expert, but" should not mean that I shouldn't be able to roundly bat down whatever follows in nearly the same way I would have if you had omitted such a qualifier.
And your insensitive comments toward learning disabled people still don't make you "equivalent" to Obama either, just in case you were wondering. Haven't we already had this conversation? ;-)
No, your statements are not "equivalent" in terms of impact, offensiveness, etc. to Campanis'. Nowhere did I say or imply that they were.
Actually, you were or your point becomes moot. If there is a clear disparity between his comments and mine then your point is just so much hot air. You know its true, you are just too embarrassed to admit it.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
And the point is straighforward... couching opinions as not those of an expert or as speculation should not mean that those opinions are closed to criticism.
You seem to be somehow not satisfied that I am only accusing you of the usual lies, distortions, and general wrongness. Nice martyr complex there BR... er, I mean GR ;-)
The government will be forced to crank up the printing presses and pay off at least some of that debt using the subsequently deflated dollars. Intentionally causing the value of the US greeback to decline will hurt everyone in real terms, so again I guess I would have to disagree with how Obama has handled this.
Note my use of future tense.
There's certainly been no dollar collapse, even though it is clear that we are going to have to issue an enormous amount of debt in order to follow the stimulus and budget plan that has been laid out.
Now note your use of the past tense. You are comparing past Apples to future oranges.
Besides, my point was based purely on the assumption that the government would crank up the printing presses to pay off some of that debt. It is the increase in the money supply, and the consequent devaluing of the dollar, that makes this bad for everyone. Unless and until that has occurred we won't see any change (from that cause, at least).
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
There's not any confusion of the tenses at all. I merely pointed out that the markets-- in which present prices are largely based on market participants' views regarding future events and the impacts thereof-- are not confirming your assertion that the government "will be forced to crank up the printing presses and pay off at least some of that debt using the subsequently deflated dollars."
It is the increase in the money supply, and the consequent devaluing of the dollar, that makes this bad for everyone. Unless and until that has occurred we won't see any change (from that cause, at least).
Nonsense. The market doesn't have to wait for the printing presses to start running if it believes Obama is going to intentionally devalue the dollar. The markets can already see that Obama's stimulus, which has already been signed into law, and his budget, which is nearly certain to pass in something close to its current form, involve huge amounts of debt. But the dollar has held up relatively well, despite all of this, despite the fact that the markets have had ample time to ponder the implications of all this debt. I think it's fair to say that the market has concluded that at this point that the probability of dollar-strengthening positive economic effects of the stimulus and the budget balance out the dollar-weakening effects of the added debt.
I think it's fair to say that the market has concluded that at this point that the probability of dollar-strengthening positive economic effects of the stimulus and the budget balance out the dollar-weakening effects of the added debt.
Perhaps. But I don't trust your crystal ball any more than I trust the market's. It's not like I was claiming to be some expert know-it-all. I'm entitled to make my own predictions, am I not?
Are you asserting that if the market says today that it doesn't believe that the dollar will take a hit that means there is no way that the dollar will take a hit? Are you asserting that the market is omniscient on these matters and that you have that much faith in its predictive abilities?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
I'm entitled to make my own predictions, am I not?
Yes but they will be roundly batted down if you persist on making them based on your biases rather than solid information, and use them to perpetuate your doom n gloom agenda.
Are you asserting that if the market says today that it doesn't believe that the dollar will take a hit that means there is no way that the dollar will take a hit? Are you asserting that the market is omniscient on these matters and that you have that much faith in its predictive abilities?
No I am not saying that at all. Where did I say anything remotely similar to this?
No I am not saying that at all. Where did I say anything remotely similar to this?
If you are not saying that then once again we have you spouting just so much hot air in support of your own partisan agenda.
You're starting to sound like BR, and I had more respect for you than that. Here we have you puffing up your chest and acting like "the market has spoken" and because of that you have "roundly batted down" my point, but then when called on the fundamental premise of your point you completely buckle and admit that it means practically nothing in terms of actual facts? That even the market has no more claim to legitimacy in terms of predictive value than my own off-hand remarks?
Which is it, Skymutt, does the foundation of your point carry any weight or not? Because at first you were acting like it did and now you claiming it doesn't.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
You can't cite a place where I said anything remotely similar to what your loaded questions were suggesting that I was saying. But even though you fail in that, you proceed to puff out your chest and act like I've somehow "buckled" under the weight of your pinpoint interrogation.
You're starting to sound like BR, and I had more respect for you than that.
Nice, an arrogant display of faux concern and disappointment. If that's not a classic BR tactic I don't know what is!* But it's me that's sounding like BR? Give me a break! ;-)
Which is it, Skymutt, does the foundation of your point carry any weight or not?
Another loaded question. I will answer it in the spirit it was made: The foundation of the point you are falsely claiming I made does not carry much weight.
You can't cite a place where I said anything remotely similar to what your loaded questions were suggesting that I was saying.
No? How about here:
There's certainly been no dollar collapse, even though it is clear that we are going to have to issue an enormous amount of debt in order to follow the stimulus and budget plan that has been laid out. So the markets aren't interpreting the Obama administration's actions so far the same way that you are.
Your clear intent here is to somehow discredit my position by appealing to the authority of the markets. I am merely pointing out that for your attempt to discredit my position to carry any weight, that you are inherently relying on the Markets as being some kind of infallable, or close to it, authority in this case.
Now that you have admitted that they are no such thing, we can recognize the above statement as only being worth the hot air that it is made of, if that. Now THAT'S roundly batting down an argument! * :)
-----------------------------------------
* And just for good measure I'll add that your appeal to authority is a logical fallacy to boot.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
Are you asserting that if the market says today that it doesn't believe that the dollar will take a hit that means there is no way that the dollar will take a hit? Are you asserting that the market is omniscient on these matters and that you have that much faith in its predictive abilities?
So what you were looking for was a statement of mine where I had claimed that the markets were a perfect predictor of future events.
Apparently due to your need to come up with something to save face, you come up with this statement of mine:
There's certainly been no dollar collapse, even though it is clear that we are going to have to issue an enormous amount of debt in order to follow the stimulus and budget plan that has been laid out. So the markets aren't interpreting the Obama administration's actions so far the same way that you are.
Bzzzzzzt! That's not even close to a statement that markets are perfect predictors of future events! All I'm saying is that markets are a measure of current sentiment about the future. Nowhere did I even claim them to be "perfect" or "infallible" at reflecting current sentiment (but it is probably the best measure of sentiment that's available).
I am merely pointing out that for your attempt to discredit my position to carry any weight, that you are inherently relying on the Markets as being some kind of infallable, or close to it, authority in this case.
Now that you have admitted that they are no such thing, we can recognize the above statement as only being worth the hot air that it is made of, if that. Now THAT'S roundly batting down an argument! * :)
But I never said that the markets were perfect or nearly perfect or infallible in any respect, much less as a predictor!
You have roundly batted down your own blatanty false and distorted version of my point. Congratulations! Perhaps with practice, you will actulally be able to bat down one of my arguments someday :-)
(but it is probably the best measure of sentiment that's available)
your apeal to an authority that you admit isn't actually an authority on future events which is what my comment fundamentally was. So your attempt to discredit my position has fallen short of its goal, pure and simple. Face it Skymutt, you have lost this particular point. Consider yourself roundly batted down, again. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
Not surprising to see that GR is big on this rhetorical line that "You're appealing to authority" as a stupid argument that someone's claim is invalid. I saw a lot of that when I was on RedState from the regulars there (the typical, hyperpartisan, ignorant, analytically and conceptually-challenged folks who erroneously and ironically think they are very rational, informed, intelligent, wise, etc.).
If I recall correctly, I heard it most with regard to two issues: (1) the relationship between tax cuts and revenues, and (2) Climate change / global warming. In the former case, these dumb-dumbs would insist that tax cuts generally, and the Bush tax cuts in particular, caused revenues to be higher than they would have been otherwise, based on the simple observation that revenues rose in the years following the Kennedy, Reagan and Bush tax cuts. I tried explaining to them that this observation fell far short of legimitate analysis (that not only does correlation not necessarily imply causation, but that their observation didn't even constitute proper correlation analysis for obvious reasons -- well, obvious to anyone with any sense of correlation analsysis), that determining the direction (positive or negative) and degree of the relationship between tax cuts and revenues required more sophisticated analysis (and theory), and that there is a strong consensus among even conservative economists that the Bush tax cuts (and individual labor income tax cuts generally, from rates anywhere near current rates) have a net negative impact on revenues, providing numerous quotes such as these http://swordscrossed.org/diary/20081017/no-bush-tax-cuts-have-not-genera... . Their response: "That's an appeal to authority! I don't need to know what economists and other experts are saying, because I can see for myself very clearly that revenues have gone up since the Bush tax cuts. Stop appealing to authority and just look at that fact! End of story!" Some even said they wouldn't bother reading any of the quotes I provided because, per the preceding argument, doing so was totally unnecessary. No expertise or training in the appropriate theory and analytical methodology was needed or even useful, since the answer was, in their mind, obvious to any layperson based on that simple observation.
Similarly in the case of climate change / global warming, although with the twist of more complex (albeit probably invalid) analysis, there were one or two guys on RedState, apparently with no real expertise or training that would make them likely to conduct valid analysis (choose the right sets of data, apply appropriate analytical methodology, etc.) who submitted charts (etc.) that they had created based on their "analysis", which they contended refuted even the consensus views among the relevant experts (in particular, scientists focused on the issue), apparently with no sense that, just maybe, much of the analysis in this area is above their pay grade (and their pay is $0). Kind of reminds me of the episode of The Simpsons in which a robot's insides are exposed and Marge says "See all those wires inside Homer? That's why your robot didn't work." There were also the idiots who made simple observations (e.g., "It's not nearly as hot in the U.S. this summer as it was last summer") and contended that that observation somehow refuted or seriously challenged the consensus scientific view. For whatever it's worth, unlike with the case of conservative economists saying that individual income tax cuts generally cause lower revenue (ceteris paribus), with the climate change issue these folks added the "liberal conspiracy" theory as an explanation for why the vast majority of scientists would say X when X was clearly untrue or at least very far from empirically supported, so (convenient partisan) paranoia was a factor.
As a side note, I wondered (and still do) if the genesis (heh) of this objection "That's an appeal to authority" coming so often from those folks was in the desire of religious fundamentalists to reject scientific claims that conflict with their religious beliefs -- e.g., believing that the universe is less than 10,000 years old. Funny thing, of course, is that, generally, the same folks to trot out that objection with regard to some issues or some claims, "appeal to authority" themselves when some expert consensus supports their position (e.g., pointing out that economists generally agree that a high degree of protectionism would be bad for most Americans, rather than accepting some layperson's erroneous, but perhaps intuitive sense that such protectionism would "keep jobs in America, yadda, yadda").
Anyway, I offer the above as background to perhaps reduce the sense of puzzlement one has when being met with the objection "That's an appeal to authority!" in situations in which it seems like a strange objection.
I'm not going to try to wade through this screed because the majority of it has nothing to do with me.
I see that you fail to grasp the concept of a logical fallacy and its implications for the validity of a logical argument . This is why I mock you so much given that you claim to be so rational and all. These seem to be fundamental concepts for one to make a sound argument .
Given your propensity to rely upon ad hominem attacks rather than substantive arguments I can only assume that you either don't care about making a sound argument or you are totally unaware of the implications using logical fallacies have on the validity of your statements.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
...is that an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy only in the arcane and impractical world of pure logic. In the real world, of which politics is a part, an appeal to authority is a perfectly reasonable argumentative technique.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Sensible people acknowledge that, with regard to some questions, the consensus answers from those with relevant expertise, information, resources, skills, etc. should be weighted more heavily than answers from laypeople including ourselves if we are laypeople with regard to that issue/field/etc. (assuming there is no reason to suspect a significant likelihood of insincerity on the part of these experts).
Idiots of the sort I described in my prior comment fail to appreciate the above, partly because they are too stupid to appreciate complexity and related analytical concepts, methods, etc. Unfortunately, many of these idiots think they are geniuses and are vocal, like those folks who had no interest in what the consensus of conservative economists was on the degree of revenue feedback from tax cuts because they could see an anecdotal coincidence (revenues going up after the Bush tax cuts -- or after the Bush, Reagan and Kennedy tax cuts for the slightly less clueless idiots) that settled the matter on its own. The same kind of folks who would, in another era, insist that the sun revolves around the earth because it was "obvious", and who would have no interest in (or would reflexively reject) what those pointy-headed scientists had to say on the matter.
That's all I'm saying about the frequent use of the rhetorical line "That's an appeal to authority!" as an objection to some claim that is based on the consensus view of experts. Usually that line comes from someone who is too stupid to appreciate the fact that sometimes the answer that is probably valid is the one coming from experts who have the knowledge, insights, information, skills, etc. to deal adequately with the complexity of the matter, not the one coming from some layperson based on his relatively simple observations and/or relatively crude thinking on the matter.
That's some real critical thinking you are advocating there, BR. Don't think for yourself, just believe the word of my cherry picked experts. This goes back to my original point in your Bush Tax Cuts diary. You don't think for yourself, you have to let other people do it for you. You rely on so called experts because you lack the capacity to form our own arguments. You rely on the so called experts because there is no way for your opponents to argue with them on the validity of their points and this allows you to hide behind their skirts by saying "well they are the experts, not you." It is a form of intellectual laziness and disingenuous argumentation (because you are trying to make a point in such a way that your opponents, at least in your mind, cannot refute them - which is incorrect).
Sorry, but I don't accept the word of self proclaimed or even widely ackowledged experts on anything, global warming or economics. Just because people call themselve experts doesn't make them right. I base my beliefs on the analysis of the facts and the data, not who happens to be writing about them. And if I think the person writing about those fact and data are full of crap or making invalid conclusions well I'm not going to believe their conclusions no matter who they are.
You can feel free to follow the your high priests if you want, but I'll continue rely on the actual facts, data, and logically sound arguments thank you very much.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
YET AGAIN , GR obliviously shows his ignorance and idiocy (and/or utter disingenuousness, although I think the former are more likely), and supports my point that anyone trying to engage him in a logical, sensible discussion/debate is most likely wasting his/her time.
GR writes:
That's some real critical thinking you are advocating there, BR. Don't think for yourself, just believe the word of my cherry picked experts.
Even leaving aside the fact that he has apparently completely missed my point, he substitutes the straw man of "cherry picked experts" for my what I was referring to -- a strong consensus among experts (assuming no cause for significant suspicion of insincerity of that expert community) with no apparent. Surely, one can challenge one's assertion that there is a strong expert consensus of X (including the assertion that a set of quotes from various experts proves that assertion), but that is obviously different from an argument that a strong consensus among experts in a particular case should not be given much consideration or at least not a lot of weight vis a vis the views of laypeople. GR probably doesn't understand what I've just said, and if he does he probably won't admit it, but I offer it for the amusement of the more intelligent among my fellow SCers, which is most of the folks here.
Further, as obviously shown by my comments on the very thread that he directed people to (thinking it supported his claim(s), oblivious to the fact that it does the opposite, and on more than one level), I was indeed "thinking for myself" and applying "critical thinking", as evidenced, for example, in my explanations to GR of his stupid conceptual/analytical errors in my first reply to him. GR apparently sees some false dichotomy: He believes that giving great weight to consensus answers from the experts on a particular question, and even deferring to them, in cases where the complexity of the matter makes such weighting sensible necessarily means a complete abandonment of one's own critical thinking on the matter.
Not that most folks need any explanation on this stuff (most people have enough common sense to see that what I'm saying makes sense and GR is just an idiot), to illustrate:
I'm not a meteorologist, nor do I even have much knowledge as a layperson about weather prediction. Sure, if I see a cloudless sky I can pretty reliably predict that it's not going to rain within the next minute, but as far as predicting whether or not it's going to rain, say, 36 hours from now, I suppose the best I, personally, could do would be to look at historical (rainfall) data for that date and check some satellite info showing cloud movement, etc. Some laypeople have more knowledge than I do and could use that info a bit better than I could, and supplement it with other information, and thus come up with a more reliable prediction than I could. But if I see that there is a consensus prediction among all the current weather forecasts of meteorologists that there is a 95% chance of rain 36 hours from now, in contrast to the conclusion I reached via my crude "analysis" that there is only a 3% chance of rain, I'm going with the prediction of the experts, unless I have some reason to suspect their sincerity. That's just common sense. Similarly, I'll go with the prediction of the experts over that of the pseudo-expert laypersons (the "armchair experts"). And that's even if my prediction and that of other laypersons is not aligned (in this case, let alone consistently) with what I would like to believe, which would introduce the possibility of bias.
Apparently GR would reject (and ridicule) this approach of giving greater weight to the prediction of the meteorologists, which is why I wouldn't let him plan an outdoor wedding.
And the above illustration doesn't even illustrate my point as much as does my thinking and comments in the debate over the net revenue impact of the Bush tax cuts, because in that case, I have enough conceptual, analytical and common sense to see -- and explain, as I did -- why the argument that is offered for the conclusion that the Bush tax cuts caused higher revenues was absurdly weak. So, in that case, it's not like I had to abandon some conclusion that made sense based on my own thinking in order to accept the conclusion of most experts. I also could see, by combining algebra with my rough sense of the magnitudes of effects of various incentives on behavior, that the expert consensus view was at least plausible. Having said that, even if I had lacked that ability, it still would have been sensible for me to defer to the expert consensus view, as illustrated in my meteorology illustration above.
I'll probably stop here or stop soon with this tedious correction of GR's consistently moronic points unless someone indicates that he/she is getting something out of it. No sense spending time on this just for the consumption of GR, who won't get it anyway.
I'll probably stop here or stop soon with this tedious correction of GR's consistently moronic points unless someone indicates that he/she is getting something out of it.
Oh, I am definitely getting something out of it: That my theory about us political bloggers being Obsessive Compulsive nutcases (no offense to those who struggle with this illness) is totally on target. Of course that makes me a bit of a nutcase for following the conversation, but than I ran out of good T.V. shows to watch on the internet. If there's another point that you wish to be making though, you'd probably be best off doing something else.
I think that your theory is valid, in general, in this case, and in my case generally! I was thinking that myself a moment ago: Why do I feel compelled to respond to someone who is such an obvious, oblivious idiot, to refute and show how stupid his comment was? "Because I can" doesn't seem like a good reason if my goal is to invest my time in worthwhile ways, unless, it would be somehow harmful enough for some folks to be misled that it justifies spending my time to reduce that possibility, or unless I get enough enjoyment, enough reduction of irritation, and/or other benefit out of it to justify spending that time, but the latter bunch just begs the question of whether or not it's ideal that I get that enjoyment and/or would be irritated otherwise, etc., and that brings us back to the significant likelihood of an obsessive-compulsive element. Stupidity, ignorance, disingenuousness, etc., even when there are no harmful consequences* tend to bother me more than perhaps I should let them. I think there's more of an argument that fighting exhibitions of such traits/behavior in the interest of improving political discourse in America, albeit via just a tiny contribution, could be a worthwhile exercise of one's civic duty. But again, I think the obsessive-compulsive factor is probably the greatest once an exchange such as the one I've been having with GR goes beyond the length that this one has.
* Just a couple of examples, for your amusement: (1) When I see some really bad advertisement and I strongly suspect, from my professional experience, that the ad agency creatives focused too much on creativity for it's own sake and not enough on the business objectives, and that the account execs and -- worst of all -- folks on the client side didn't rein them in as they should have; (2) When I was a kid I occasionally watched The Price is Right. In the opening part, three people would try to guess the price of some item and the winner would be the one who was closest without going over the actual price. And they would guess sequentially. So if the first person guessed $500 and the second $800, obviously, if the third thinks it is between $500 and $800, he should guess $501, yet most of the time people would guess prices like $600 or $700. That alone would irritate me, but when such idiots actually won despite their stupidity, that was downright grating!
Back to my prior comment, it's too late for me to edit it to add something I wanted to add, so here it is:
If I saw, right now, a cloudless sky above me for as far as the eye could see, and at the same time the meteorologists were consistently saying that it is raining right now where I am standing, I would assume that they are probably wrong (that apparently their information isn't as current as is mine). The alternative is that it is indeed raining that that I'm hallucinating that it is not, which I consider less likely.
Nope. Although your misperception of my coherent explanations and arguments as incoherent may by a symptom of ADD on your part (although it is much more likely due to the fact that you just lack the intellect to follow and understand -- so I won't suggest you wast anyone's time and money seeing a professional).
And I think John Mark was referring to you as well. The difference between you and me (not the only one, thank Dog!) is that I am more self-aware, secure (emotionally), mature, objective, honest and open, and thus was able to see at least a strong possibility that John was largely right.
Keep up the good work, GR. Again, go with my reality show concept. If yer gonna be an oblivious jackass, ya' may as well make some money off it !
I am more self-aware, secure (emotionally), mature, objective, honest and open, and thus was able to see at least a strong possibility that John was largely right.
Like I have been saying, you're delusional. Good luck with that. On the self-aware, secure, and mature front my immunity to your puerile taunts is evidence enough of my own mental health. On the obsessive compulsive front you have already admitted it is applicable to yourself. I suppose I could be viewed as such as well, but my motivation in continuing this tit for tat is merely to see how long I can exploit your compulsion for my own amusement. Thus far you are by far the winner of the how long can GR string 'em along contest.
<cue the next obsessive compulsive reply>
And you say I can't help myself? :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
I suppose I could be viewed as such as well, but my motivation in continuing this tit for tat is merely to see how long I can exploit your compulsion for my own amusement. Thus far you are by far the winner of the how long can GR string 'em along contest.
Of course, the above is just more exhibition of GR's general modus operandi when he can't defend some bullsh*t he has spewed or other stupid error of his that has been pointed out: "Oh, well, um, no, um, ya' see, I didn't really mean all that stuff I've been saying [or "the way I've been behaving wasn't really me, ya' see"]. I wasn't serious. I was just, um, doing it to prove some other point."
I assume most SCers are smart enough to see the habitual pattern -- GR's modus operandi -- for what it is, and see GR (correctly) as just a silly, immature, insecure, disingenuous, oblivious, stupid blowhard (quite a combination!)
[Cue GR to claim some pathetic victory and some invalid validation of his point that his behavior hasn't really been -- and still isn't -- the real him; that he's been acting contrary to his nature just to play a game and prove a point about someone else's nature (i.e., that the compulsiveness applies to me but not him, at least not in anything like the same sense). And this is a guy who claims that someone else is delusional and engaged in denial!]
In a way, GR, it's probably a good thing that you are so stupid and oblivious, because if you weren't, you'd feel an enormous sense of embarrassment from the exchange you and I have had on this thread -- the combination of the abundance of logical errors you've made and other extremely poor argumentation you've presented, as well as the quite transparent (to anyone with at least half a brain), pathetic disingenousness you try to get away with via your typical fall-back tactic of saying essentially "I didn't really mean it"/"that wasn't really me" bullsh*t as you always do.
But your comments really do pollute this site and hold SC back from moving closer to it's potential (degree to which SC could be interesting , enjoyable, informative, thought-provoking, etc., which are goals in their own right, but also, in turn, affect the degree to which SC contributes to society), so on balance, if it were somehow possible, I wish you could change all those habits, become more intelligent, etc.
I assume most SCers are smart enough to see the habitual pattern -- GR's modus operandi-- for what it is, and see GR (correctly) as just a silly, immature, insecure, disingenuous, oblivious, stupid blowhard (quite a combination!)
I trust that the evidence is against you and thinking individuals will see that.
In a way, GR, it's probably a good thing that you are so stupid and oblivious, because if you weren't, you'd feel an enormous sense of embarrassment from the exchange you and I have had on this thread ...
Not at all. I feel a great sense of amusment at continuing to string you along with simple one liners. And all of your standard ad hominem's are acknowledged, again please try to come up with some new material.
Will he be able to resist that irresistable compulsion he has to have the last word? Any bets? Let's see. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
Actually, I've been stringing you along. Hah! Yeah, that's it! I'm not really compulsive at all, but YOU are! I've just been playing a very amusing game with you (or conducting a psychological experiment, or whatever), seeing how long I could string you along and showing how pathetically long you'll persist in your effort to get in the last word. Um yeah, er, yeah, that's it. Not me compulsive, but you yes. And you're delusional, but not me. Um, er, yeah. Oh, and if you reply you will prove my point even more!
John Mark, if you're still following this (and I pray you have had better things to do), since you're thinking about the psychological aspect of exchanges such as this, do you think that GR is actually unaware of the bullsh*t pattern that is his modus operandi*, or do you think he knows he's full of it and is just being disingenuous, or somewhere in between? (And please, I assume I irritated you in our last exchange re: your argument against same-sex marriage, but try to be objective on this question and opine accordingly) I think it's mostly the latter (disingenuousness), but with some lack of self-awareness as well.
* (1) making bullsh*t arguments, then, when getting called on them and finding himself unable to defend them, falling back on the claim that he wasn't really trying to pass them off as valid arguments, just mimicking the rhetorical tactics of the other "side" (e.g., swordscrossed.org/diary/20090325/thursday-friday-open-thread#comment-107703 ); (2) frequently engaging in ad hominem attacks and then claiming that he was just mimicking such attacks from others to make the point that such attacks are inappropriate (and also denying hypocrisy on that basis -- e.g., swordscrossed.org/diary/20090325/thursday-friday-open-thread#comment-107896 ), (3) going on and on and on in an exchange such as this, yet claiming not to be driven by compulsiveness (at least not of any sort at all similar to what drives others -- me in this case), but rather just by amusement at "stringing along" someone who supposedly actually is acting compulsively swordscrossed.org/diary/20090325/thursday-friday-open-thread#comment-108017 ? , (4) etc. (I've pointed out many other cases on this thread and others)
do you think that GR is actually unaware of the bullsh*t pattern that is his modus operandi*, or do you think he knows he's full of it and is just being disingenuous, or somewhere in between?
You left out the possibility that I am actually telling the truth when I say I am just stringing you along. Yet another example of how you don't seem to grasp the concept of logical fallacies. Please read up on the False Dillema logical fallacy . For someone who claims to be a rational thinker you sure do seem to make a lot of these. :)
Can he resist his urge to reply? Let's see.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
Yet again (!) GR, even as he struggles to demonstrate that he is capable of sensible, logical, vaild argumentation, shows just the opposite. Hey GR, I'll spell out for you what those with common sense would already understand immediately upon reading the question I asked John Mark. OBVIOUSLY my implication was that the probability that you are "actually telling the truth" when you say you are "just stringing [me] along" is extremely low, and OBVIOUSLY my question presumed that John Mark either agrees or, if not, is smart enough to think of that possibility. Oh, wait, I see why you said something so stupid, so devoid of common sense that explaining why it was stupid would require stating the obvious -- because ... drumroll please (get ready for the GR modus operandi in action yet again) ... you knew it was a stupid thing to say, but you said it anyway "just to string me along"!! Wow, I guess that's one hell of a security blank you wrap yourself it: every time your arguments are proven to be fallacious, irrelevent, lacking common sense, etc. and you find yourself unable to defend them, you just fall back on "Um, oh, heh, actually I wasn't really presenting that as a serious argument, just mimicking what others do. heh. Yeah, that's, um, that's it".
Your turn at demonstrating compulsive behavior (yours, that is). Go ahead. But be sure to deny it as you demonstrate it. I guess "denial" ain't just a river in Egypt; it's also where you live. (of course that quasi-pun works better spoke than written).
This argument has not advanced in at least 10 posts, and is well into the blue. A good flame war should at least involve the introduction of fresh material occasionally.
I suggest that the following line mark the end of the thread:
-----------------------------end of thread line------------------------------
OBVIOUSLY my implication was that the probability that you are "actually telling the truth" when you say you are "just stringing [me] along" is extremely low, and OBVIOUSLY my question presumed that John Mark either agrees or, if not, is smart enough to think of that possibility.
Translation: Oh, um, well, ..., uh I didn't really mean what I said ... it should have been obvious what I meant. Seems you've been projecting your own modus operandi onto me all along.
Your turn at demonstrating compulsive behavior (yours, that is). Go ahead. But be sure to deny it as you demonstrate it.
My behavior prior to this post is certainly open to argument as to my motivation, however my subsequent behavior clearly is not. Nice try at co-opting my platform though. :)
Think of this are tough love therapy, BR, I'm trying to break your compulsive behavior here. It's not just about my amusement, you have a real problem letting things go. Let's see if you can resist THIS time! :)
-----------------------------------------------
* Sorry to disappoint you, skymutt, but this is just too amusing to stop. If you think we're out in the blue already, just look at how far out in the blue BR already is ... or at least has been. Note any common obsessive compulsive participants in these two threads?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
My God, you are an oblivious idiot. You fail to recognize an implicit premise that would be obvious to all with any common sense, and then when I point it out to you, you equate it with a claim that I meant something different from what I said, and you equate it with your modus operandi of completely disowning your arguments and tactics (upon being called on them and being unable to defend them) and claiming that you were never serious to begin with. Hoo boy. Idiot City.
You then, notwithstanding skymutt's request, proceed with your compulsion-driven comment and add an absurd argument that just because you claimed at one point that you were not continuing out of compulsiveness (at least not the same sort that applied to me) but rather out of "amusement" at toying with someone else's compulsiveness, that means that all your comments since that point must not be due to your compulsiveness. Hoo boy again.
One thing is very clear. There is no volume of back-and-forth in which you consistently make illogical or otherwise absurd arguments and I explain your errors that could be high enough for you to get a clue that you are really out to lunch and that you are dealing with someone who can manage to see fundamental flaws in arguments and explain them.
ok, I'm done with this exchange. Anyone with even half a brain can see by now what an absolute idiot you are, your complete obliviousness to that fact, and your utter emotional insecurity and related disingenuousness (like the kid who claims he wasn't trying every time he loses -- in your case a grown baby who claims he never really meant to represent his arguments as valid or his tactics as legitimate), and it's getting boring and worthless as intellectual batting practice for me (the pitches are just too weak and too easy for me to hit out of the park). Bye bye, dumb-dumb.
You fail to recognize an implicit premise that would be obvious to all with any common sense, and then when I point it out to you, you equate it with a claim that I meant something different from what I said, and you equate it with yourmodus operandi of completely disowning your arguments and tactics (upon being called on them and being unable to defend them) and claiming that you were never serious to begin with.
Gee, you're projecting again. "Implicit premise" sounds a lot like "sarcasm and satire":, no? OMG, you're doing exactly what you have been accusing me of! And when I called you on your logical fallacy then you were, like, "um, oh, uh, ..., well, um, I didn't really mean what I said, I really meant this."
I see what you mean now about how this makes me look, BR. I must look like a total buffoon. A simple minded simpleton. A boob. A rube. Your example here has made it all clear to me now. If I look anything like you do here why I should seriously consider digging a hole, jumping in, and pulling the dirt in after myself. Wouldn't you agree?
Gosh, I am sooo sorry, BR. I never should have doubted your sincerity.
But don't worry, I'm here to help you with the OCD thing. I won't give up on you. Please try to resist the urge to reply here. Don't do it for me, do it for yourself.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
GR obliviously shows his ignorance and idiocy (and/or utter disingenuousness, although I think the former are more likely), and supports my point that anyone trying to engage him in a logical, sensible discussion/debate is most likely wasting his/her time.
the evidence is against you.
"cherry picked experts"
Your "experts" were cherry picked. You found people who said what you wanted to hear and you then parroted their talking points. The fact that they may be conservative doesn't alter this fact in the slightest.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
Hoo boy, GR just can't help himself. Again, with every single comment he proves my point that he is a complete idiot.
Your "experts" were cherry picked. You found people who said what you wanted to hear...
And your evidence of this "fact" is what? Did you even see and do you even recognize those experts? Is there a significant number of others with equivalent credentials as economists who have a different view on this question? If so, links please. If not, on what basis do you state as fact that the expert views I posted are not representative of a strong consensus among experts (let alone the basis for your assertion as fact that I skewed it deliberately)?
and you then parroted their talking points.
Nope. I quoted them. And my comments included both references to their statements and arguments of my own.
The fact that they may be conservative doesn't alter this fact in the slightest.
Um, dumb-dumb, although it is correct to say that the fact that a set of views of conservative economists is not necessarily representative of a strong consensus among conservatives, I wasn't making that assertion, and you are just setting up a straw man (either deliberately or just as involuntary output of your confused mind). I offered the views of mostly conservative economists (and a couple of others who may not be conservative, but are not on the left) because, if you haven't grasped this concept yet (and apparently you haven't), the credibility of an expert is a function of both expertise and sincerity, and presumably it is less likely that conservative economists (as opposed to "progressive" economists), including Bush's own top economists, would be insincere in stating that the Bush tax cuts had had (and were likely to have overall over time) a net negative impact on revenues. Get it? As usual, probably not.
This taunt may work with your girly friends, but I am surprised (well maybe not) that you haven't yet realized that I am immune to it. Try something new, or are you a one trick pony? Show some imagination for god's sake.
If not, on what basis do you state as fact that the expert views I posted are not representative of a strong consensus among experts ...
Actually, I didn't take a position one way or the other on whether your "experts" were part of a strong consensus or not. Nor do I care to as it is irrelevent. What I did say was:
Your "experts" were cherry picked. You found people who said what you wanted to hear and you then parroted their talking points.
And I stand by that statement.
Nope. I quoted them. And my comments included both references to their statements and arguments of my own.
You say po-tay-to, I say po-tah-to. A rose by any other name ...
I offered the views of mostly conservative economists [...] because, if you haven't grasped this concept yet [...], the credibility of an expert is a function of both expertise and sincerity ...
Yea, I know why parroted them. But this doesn't alter the fact that:
Your "experts" were cherry picked. You found people who said what you wanted to hear and you then parroted their talking points.
in the slightest either.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
hoo boy. What are we to make of a guy who, as hard as he tries to refute the notion that he is an idiot incapable of logical argumentation, consistently, persistently only provides furhter proof of it. (Of course, as John Mark noted and I agreed, one can also wonder what to make of someone else who bothers to repeatedly point out, explain and correct the logical errors of that person )
In short, I provided a set of quotes that I contended represented (and to a large extent demonstrated) a strong consensus view on a particular matter. GR responds that it is a "fact" that I "cherry-picked" my set of quotes to represent only one side on the matter. This sure seems to imply (1) that he does not accept my characterization of it as representing a strong consensus view, and (2) that I constructed and presented this supposedly skewed set of quotes deliberately. I challenge GR on Premise #1. He responds by saying that he was making no such assumption, writing:
I didn't take a position one way or the other on whether your "experts" were part of a strong consensus or not. Nor do I care to as it is irrelevent.
Poor guy doesn't even understand what he is saying/implying. Yeesh.
I think my works is (long past) done with this. And for whatever it's worth, GR sort of got what he wanted: although I didn't start out intending to get into a long exchange with him on this topic or any other, we ended up debating a topic (albeit one of meta discussion rather than some policy issue or other external matter), and he proved my point. The guy is utterly incapable of making any sense, utterly incapable of realizing that he is not making any sense, and extremely capable of persisting with one nonsense-filled comment after another and wasting someone else's time.
The guy is utterly incapable of making any sense, utterly incapable of realizing that he is not making any sense, and extremely capable of persisting with one nonsense-filled comment after another and wasting someone else's time.
the situation remains unchanged in that the evidence is against you.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
I suppose the best I, personally, could do would be to look at historical (rainfall) data for that date and check some satellite info showing cloud movement, etc. Some laypeople have more knowledge than I do and could use that info a bit better than I could, and supplement it with other information, and thus come up with a more reliable prediction than I could. But if I see that there is a consensus prediction among all the current weather forecasts of meteorologists that there is a 95% chance of rain 36 hours from now, in contrast to the conclusion I reached via my crude "analysis" that there is only a 3% chance of rain, I'm going with the prediction of the experts, unless I have some reason to suspect their sincerity.
but only if the authority being appealed to is actually an authority on the topic at hand. In this case skymutt has already admitted that his authority (the market) is not an authority on what I was commenting on (future events).
But even though an appeal to authority can be a persuasive form of argumentation, it is none the less insufficient in terms of being a definitive proof of anything. The argument is only as strong as the credibility of the authority being appealed to in the context of the topic being discussed. Any such authority can be wrong, after all, correct?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
but only if the authority being appealed to is actually an authority on the topic at hand. In this case skymutt has already admitted that his authority (the market) is not an authority on what I was commenting on (future events).
I never claimed the market was an "authority" on future events, although it's fair to say that the market represents the current collective sentiment of authorities (market participants with skin in the game) regarding future events.
The government will be forced to crank up the printing presses and pay off at least some of that debt using the subsequently deflated dollars. Intentionally causing the value of the US greeback to decline will hurt everyone in real terms, so again I guess I would have to disagree with how Obama has handled this.
This was clearly expressed as opinion, not fact. That in and of itself makes the statement not definitive in the sense that you mean it. I believe what I believe.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
Most knowldege that we have, comes back to taking the word of other people. Even the facts that those arguing against apealing to authorities want to be used, were ultimately collected by authorities of some kind. Its not like these people counted all the money coming in and out of the government or anything, we take somebody's word for what the figures are. Its the same thing for pretty every field of knowldedge - a person can know very little that's 100% their own original research.
Of course GR is right that an appeal to an expert isn't definitive proof, but that only goes to show that nothing is really proven. I agree with GR, that what the experts say isn't the end of the arguement, and I disagree with experts on a thing or two myself. That said, an appeal to experts does have validity, and if it didn't each of us would have acess to virtually no knowledge.
That said, an appeal to experts does have validity ...
And I acknowledged as much above in my comment to SL. But the level of validity, which is obviously never absolute, is as I said dependent upon the credibility of the expert with respect to the topic at hand. And if you appeal to an "authority" that isn't even actually an "authority" at all then your argument becomes moot. Do you not agree?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
Wrong. I grasp the concept of a logical fallacy. You apparently don't, but are sure you do. I explained your error to you very clearly and concisely, but you still don't get it (which is comically ironic, considering that you are repeatedly making a logical error as you argue that you have a correct/better understanding of logical errors!).
As for my supposed "propensity to rely upon ad hominem attacks rather than substantive arguments", I guess you have amnesia (coupled with laziness, since even one with amnesia could just check my diaries and related threads, as well as all my comments on other threads, and quickly see an abundance of substantive arguments), a complete lack of perspective, or are just throwing out more disingenuous bullsh*t. Just because I, at this point, tend to be disinclined to spend time trying (most likely in vain) to have a substantive discussion with you (or one or two other individuals) doesn't indicate a general propensity, particularly when an abundance of easily obtained evidence obviously indicates otherwise.
Keep goin', man! Keep proving my point, dumb-dumb!
I direct everyone to this thread . From the very start BR was almost nothing but ad hominem attacks. As we all know logical fallacies are inconsistent with sound arguments.
I grasp the concept of a logical fallacy.
I respectfully suggest that the evidence is against you on this point.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
Yes, folks, please do read my comments in that thread (and the diary) -- heck, in my first reply to GR I provide substantive arguments, correcting and explaining his moronic errors, which was quite generous of me given that he had already proven that he was an idiot unlikely to get it no matter how clearly I explained the errors he was making. So once again, GR inadvertently, obliviously proves my point. Of course, even if I hadn't been so generous with my time that I was willing to waste it on someone whose skull is utterly impenetrable to logic, it would not indicate a geneal propensity on my part in my interactions with others, as I clearly explained in a prior comment.
So even the thread cherry-picked by GR as supposedly strong support for his contention of a general propensity, which would represent flawed argumentation even if that one data point did fit his point, you can see that his point is invalid.
Moreoever, if anyone wants to determine whether or not someone has a general propensity, he would base that determination on a more thorough review. As I said, anyone interested (perhaps some new folks who aren't already familiar enough with my past comments to know that GR's claim is obviously invalid) can just check a whole bunch of my diaries http://swordscrossed.org/blogs/b-rational (obviously worthwhile in their own right! ) and comments on those threads and on others. But I don't presume anyone has that much interest.
Bottom line: once again, GR inadvertently, obliviously proves my point while struggling to do the opposite.
I provide substantive arguments, correcting and explaining his moronic errors, which was quite generous of me given that he had already proven that he was an idiot unlikely to get it no matter how clearly I explained the errors he was making.
I believe that the evidence is against you.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed! -4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4
The market is acting like an irrational two year old child (as opposed to the rational ones I guess). "Talking" about bankruptcy sends the market falling. Bailing them out sends the market falling. I guess we can act as if GM doesn't exist except in those nice Saturn commericals and the market will be happy. As an investor, I say ignore the short term trends and focus on long term investing, as we've always done. The market will get over this decision just like they did when AIG and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac CEOs stepped down after they were (de facto) nationalized as well. In a few weeks (days?) this will be a blip on the radar as the market reacts irrationally to the next news piece.
Or maybe the market doesn't really care and consolidating on some of the most recent gains, I don't know. But I bet the news reporters don't know much more either.
Comments :
Not surprising, but kinda funny
Limbaugh spent a good six minutes on this smear that Obama read the wrong speech from a teleprompter and thanked himself
because he was too stupid (or drunk! as Rush insinuated) that he couldn't figure out that he was not reading his own speech.
A lie, of course. But Hannity went with it too.
Check the video
of the right wing buffoons here.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
"I'm not suggesting anything here"
Rush. What a buffoon!
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
No lie, he actually did thank himself.
You are the one lying. Why should we believe the left wing nutcase version of events found at Media
No one ... as Obama continues to prove.
MattersFabrications? "Who says these things are idiot proof?"I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Yes, he did.
It was a joke. Apparently too subtle for the likes of you. Or maybe you're so used to Bushspeak that you think it's the norm.
It wasn't a joke.
It was an attempt to cover up what happened.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Now you're the one lying
I didn't say he didn't thank himself, and I'm not going to get into the semantics of whether thanking yourself as a joke is actually thanking yourself. The lie is that Obama thanked himself because he was reading the other guy's speech off the teleprompter. That part is a lie.
Because they've got the video of Limbaugh there for all to see.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
No, that he was making a joke is the lie.
Which proves what exactly?
Rush claims he was reading from the teleprompter. You call that a lie.
MediaMatters claims he was making a joke. I call that a lie.
Anything else?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4More lies.
You're calling the U.S. editor of The Telegraph (the most conservative of the major British newspapers, I believe) a liar too
:
This "gaffe" has been thoroughly debunked. Any attempt on your part to revive it is merely more lying on you part.
BTW, has Rush issued a retraction and an apology yet?
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Fine.
They're lying too. They (the media) do it for the Democrats all the time. No surprise there.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4The media _in Great Britain_ lies for American Democrats?
The conservate part of the British Media no less?
The last strand tethering you to reality has apparently broken. Sad to see Rush exert such complete mind control over you :-(
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Apparently so.
And as for this being a conservative source, even the most conservative source in the UK is mainstream leftist here in the US. Take, for example this little gem from the same article:
That's clearly Obama apologist material, not conservative material. As we all know Obama is lost without the teleprompter. Just look what happened on Leno.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Poppycock.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
I have sources. Where are yours?
I have provided two media sources
that are reporting that, "Mr Obama is becoming known as the 'teleprompter president'".
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Ed Henry of CNN wants Obama
to use the teleprompter more.
I'm only half stupid
What's your point?
I don't understand what this has to do with anything? Can you please elaborate on why you posted this?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I don't have one
other than your castle is built of straw.
You may continue now with your serious and very important war on teleprompters.
It is the burning issue of the day.
Also
Sarah Palin uses 'the teleprompter'. I believe she was even praised for her skills at teleprompter reading. If so will you adopt the ever so popular GOP double standard. It's Always Okay If You Are a Republican?
I'm only half stupid
They all USE a teleprompter ...
the difference is that Obama RELIES on it.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Headline of the Day
Has that been on Drudge, yet so the rest of the echo chamber go spew out the talking points.
Extra, extra. Read all about it. The world is coming to an end. Obama relies on the teleprompter.
Next up space aleins invade Glenn Beck's studio, but he is 'surrounding' them, they are not surrounding him.
I'm only half stupid
Wrong doesn't equal lie
Someone thinking there is a NHL team called the Columbus Yellow Jackets might just be wrong and not lying.
Some NHL fan continuing to claim there is a NHL team called the Columbus Yellow Jackets is lying.
Rush very easily could have done the former.
And Media Matters could have easily claimed there is an NHL team called the Columbus Blue Jackets.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Nah. Media coverup in progress.
.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Horsefeathers.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Ya, it reached India
You're feigned ignorance or brush fire dry humor is getting old real fast.
The conspiracy reached India!
Conspiracy reached the UK too.
Only source that says Obama messed up is Sky News who according to every other source, Sky News is wrong.
Sky News gets story one way.
Other outlets report the story that way, citing Sky News.
GR takes that to mean multiple sources independently reported the same event?
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Now you're confusing me too ...
Your first source above says:
Doesn't this say exactly what we have been saying? That the teleprompter was switched to something other than Obama's text and as a result he ended up reading the text and thanking himself as a result? How is this refuting anything? It actually supports the Skynews account.
Here's a link to the Skynews article
. It is not the same as above nor does this one claim to rely on the Skynews article as a source. Am I missing something here?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4The Sify version seems to have been lifted from TimesOnline.
The version you pointed to seems to be using TimesOnline as a source:
So where's this supposed Skynews link?
As for the piece you are relying on as "proof" that the Skynews account is inaccurate, it simply makes a bald assertion that:
What, exactly, makes William Englund's account any more authoritative than the accounts of anyone else that was there? Nothing as far as I can tell. Does Englund's account even contradict the events as laid out by Skynews and TimesOnline? Not as far as I can see.
The author of the Telegraph piece has no way to know whether Obama was reading from the teleprompter or not based on Englund's account. The President clearly thanked himself which is completely consistent with the account from Skynews.
You make it out that every other source on the planet undeniably contradicts Skynews and that anyone else who claims Obama was reading from the teleprompter is relying on the Skynews reports, when as we see above this is false including one of your own sources.
So we seem to be left in a position where I have two independent accounts that claim Obama was reading from the teleprompter when he thanked himself, and you have one account that claims he was ad-libbing a joke but provides no evidence to substantiate its conclusion.
Again, am I missing something here?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Eye Witness testimony tampered by confirmation bias?
At worst for Obama, he made far less of a mistake than the Cowen.
Or he made a good natured rib at Cowen.
If it was a gaffe, only a few dozen more and Obama could get started his very own version of Bushism posters.
You and Skip Bayless
are starting to get more and more in common. Taking petty criticism, and trying to parlay that into seeming like a non-hyper-partisan critique.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Who cares about Cowen?
Certainly not I, nor Rush, nor Hannity. The point isn't whether Obama was more or less of a mindless buffoon than Cowen, the point is merely that Obama is a mindless buffoon. And he continues to illustrate the point on a daily basis.
And they think dittoheads are mind-numbed robots? Obama takes the cake in mind-numbedness here.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I didn't assume Hannity and Rush would be so petty
I didn't assume Hannity and Rush would be so petty, as to try and belittle someone for making less of a mistake than the Irish PM.
I assumed Hannity and Rush would be above such action.
I apologize for assuming Hannity and Rush weren't pompous jackasses, so I only read the 1st part of the Indian article and assumed that fell in line with the articles from the UK.
I won't just flat out assume that Hannity and Rush aren't being pompous jackasses in the future.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
The Shot Heard Round The World!
This video, and the sober economic assessment British politician Daniel Hananon offers while eviscerating his Prime Minister, and by extension all world leaders who have advocated for salvation via a menagerie of giant economy killing spending packages has become a favorite on you tube, and could just be the modern day equivalent to Concord.
Lets hope so!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Wow.
A Brit on a clear and crisp verbal rampage is beautiful thing to watch.
Ouch!
I wonder what he really thinks?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Darn, can't see the vid.
I do find Brits in general are better public speakers than Americans.
Thing is, inasmuch as the economy is "dead", it was Bush's spending and not Obama's that killed it. Do you accept the notion that GDP will be 2.6$ trillion below what it could be in the next few years if nothing is done? Right, I'm guessing you'd want more tax cuts. Nevermind that tax cuts contribute to the deficit just as much as stimulus spending, how do tax cuts (other than consumption taxes) help people who have just lost their job?
The current death spiral of thrift, layoffs and loss of confidence cannot be broken by market forces, at least not in the short term. Waiting for bank failurs, forclosures and unemployment to go through the roof (even more than they already have) will cause a giant amount of unnecessary pain and a probable permanent decline in our standard of living.
Obama says he has to spend $800B? Thank Bush for that. I can guarantee that would not have been his first initiative had he been inaugurated in 2001 or even 2005.
Point of clarification, corph
As much as I abhor all the expansive, ill-advised and and often wasteful spending undertaken by Bush (and his abetting Congress), "his spending" didn't kill the economy. The bursting of the unsustainable bubble and all that it exposed killed the economy (insofar as "killed" is an accurate word in first place).
Of course, some would say that the fate was sealed when the bubble started inflating and that we should look to those factors (like monetary policy) but the end result for the purpose of this point is the same.
IOW, for all of Bush's spending, if monetary policy had been better and had not started a chain of events that culmintated in a bursted bubble and banks in crisis, we wouldn't be in a recession.
Excessive spending has its own harmful concequences...but where we are now isn't one of them.
You're right.
I was more interested in pointing out hypocrisy than getting to the bottom of what sank the economy. I'm sure you can understand my irritation with Republicans claiming Obama's "big spending" ways are killing us. And gaah, Obama doesn't want to spend all this stimulus money. The best economic minds are convinced he has to.
In some areas, Bush only made things a little worse (NCLB, signing every Republican porkfest from 2001 to 2006). In others, he did massive fiscal damage (tax cuts and endless war). The only way Bush could squeeze out any growth at all from the US economy was by speculative bubble. So his sociopathic fiscal policies may have still indirectly been the main cause of our current bust.
Guy didn't mess around...
I'd like to have his list of what to cut to get the British fiscal situation in line though. A good speech is one thing; having an alternative course of action that leads to a better outcome is quite another. Without the latter, stuff like this is merely political theater.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Cathartic words
I feel like we are in the Five Stages of Grief. This guy is a perfect expression of Stage 2.
I'm only half stupid
Ya' know what I find most
Ya' know what I find most remarkable about the video? That it begins and ends with just Hannan's statement. I'm guessing that Brown spoke before and after Hannan, perhaps even immediately before and immediately after. I spent a couple of minutes on YouTube trying to find out and to view Brown's comments before and after -- ya' know, his perspective, what Brown said that Hannan was ridiculing, and what Brown's response was to Hannan's statement -- but it seems that all the YouTube videos also started and ended with just the one perspective -- Hannan's statement.
And that is what is most remarkable to me. That people would just slice out just one side of a debate, presumably to applaud it, and edit out the other side. That editing decision (and apparently the receptive audience for a purely one-sided video), is emblematic of the downward trend in political discourse in America, the hyperpartisan mindset in which people just want to cheerlead and parrot the talking points they are fed by one side rather than make a good-faith effort to really understand issues, determine "truth" and optimal policies, etc.
I'm guessing (1) someone has posted this video on RedState and other conservative echo chambers (generally a safe guess as the sources for RedWing's comments -- sorry, RW, but that's the sense I get), (2) that the video is a real there, with the ideologues/hyperpartisans drooling with excitement at such a brilliant and passionate statement, and (3) that a grand total of zero commenters making the observation that I have made above.
Hannan himself
seems to be the source of the video. From there, it was simply passed around.
I don't think it has anything to do with anyone but him.
If that's true, I stand
If that's true, I stand corrected on the editing. On what basis do you say that Hannan was the source of the video? Did he send it around or post it on some blog originally?
In any case, the remainder of my point still holds -- my sense is that the statement is celebrated by some without much interest or concern about the other side: what Brown said before or in response to Hannan's statement.
The video in the you tube link
seems to be from his personal page.
I'm simply assuming he put it up for others to see and that it has since been passed around.
Just an educated guess.
Indeed, apparently he did
Indeed, apparently he did upload it to YouTube himself. Yeesh, kind of embarrassingly obvious self-promotion! I guess it's part of a political campaign, but still it looks goofy. From just that standpoint, would have been wiser to get someone else -- anyone -- to upload it to YouTube, but I guess he wants people to click to view his other videos (of himself!). I guess the ideal would have been to get someone else to upload the video, but include a URL for his campaign web page where he could provide the other videos.
Obama's apology just not enough.
After make his thoughtlessly insensitive remark regarding the Special Olympics, Obama rendered a meager apology behind the scenes to try and make this all go away. Unfortunately, his apology doesn't seem to have satisified those who were harmed.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Obama's rein wreak's havoc in under 100 days.
With less than 100 days in office, Obama has managed to drive so many jobs from the economy that he is now presiding over record levels of people on the jobless rolls
.
Hey, you voted for change, right? He just never said what the change was going to be. Welcome to the change.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Link is dead
Link is dead
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Stupid Bloomberg links won't work ...
I tried providing a Google search that should go directly to the proper link and that fails too. They REALLY don't want me to provide a link to that article for some reason.
Go to Google and search on:
"US Jobless Rolls Increase to Record 5.56 Million" site:bloomberg.com
Here's the interesting bit:
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4New SC redbar credibility rankings are in...
The heretofore-unpublished SC Redbar Credibility Rankings charting the relative credibility of the active red-bar participants on the site, are being made public for the first time. Scoring is based on factors such as truth and relevance. Truthful, relevant posts tend to contribute positively to a participant's credibility ranking, while telling lies and perpetuating smears and irrelevancies tends to detract from a participant's score.
Note that there has been a change.
The previous rankings were as follows:
1. GoRight
2. Red_Wing
But now, due to recent events there has been a change at the top. The new ranking is as follows:
1. Red_Wing
2. GoRight
I will attempt to keep the site apprised of any future changes in the rankings :-)
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
hehehe. Dude...
that's pretty mean. tsk.
I must say that for the most part, I sense a good bit deliberate, mischievious obtuseness in what GR has been saying on this thread. He seems to caricaturing what he had seen as the analytical behavior of many on the Left during the Bush years and he seems to be doing it simply to get a rise out of you guys.
Don't you see it?
I dunno.........
Uh oh
Oh, yeah, we're sensing a lot of deliberate obtuseness. You do realize, BTW, that calling someone 'deliberately obtuse' has a rather long history on SC, and is arguably a more damning rebuke here than calling someone a liar? Hard to believe, but true, probably because GR watered down the meaning of the word "lie" here in response to the "Bush lied, people died" slogan ;-)
Thanks for bringing up GR's deliberate obtuseness... I mean, it's not that big a deal to me, but he's dropping like a stone in the credibility rankings, and it's kind of sad to see! I'm sure that he'll be glad that you brought it to his attention ;-)
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Pfft.
I certainly don't agree with the assessment of the historical claims being made about the significance of being deliberately obtuse, whatever that means.
I didn't water anything down. Those who (falsely and repeatedly) called Bush a liar are the ones that watered it down. It was sort of the Crying Wolf Effect as applied to political commentary Let's keep the record straight on that point.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4But you finally admitted
he lied. Don't you remember
?
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
Not exactly ...
I only admitted that I can accept that a reasonable person could legitimately come to the conclusion that "Bush Lied" in that specific instance. In other words, I won't accuse someone who came to that conclusion (in that specific instance) of just being a partisan hack and of lying themselves about Bush. That's not the same as agreeing that Bush actually lied.
I then followed up with:
Which is basically what I have done above.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4The new SC inter-bar credibility rankings just in.
The long awaited follow-up to the red bar rankings has finally come in. This preliminary report is incomplete but it does address some of the most sought after rankings in their current form. We note that there have (apparently) been some changes at the top of the rankings recently, but the inter-bar rankings appear to have been unaffected.
Previous Rankings:
1. GoRight (Patriot Red)
2. Red_Wing (Patriot Red)
3. Skymutt (Dog Crap Brown) *
Updated Rankings:
1. Red_Wing (Patriot Red)
2. GoRight (Patriot Red)
3. Skymutt (Dog Crap Brown)
As usual we will keep you informed of any changes. As you can see the Red Bars continue to maintain their lock on the top seats of the credibility rankings with respect to those currently included in the ratings.
---------------------------------------
* Pronounced Sky-Moot. This is for historical (hysterical?) reasons.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Dog Crap Brown?
LOL.
Oh brother...(sigh)....you guys.
:) All in good fun.
.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Making up counterfeit ranking systems...
...isn't going to win you any points in the REAL redbar rankings. Oh well, good for Red_Wing I guess, looks like he's in for a real long run at the top ;-)
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Worst. Rollout. Ever.
You know a political stunt has flopped when the various backers are pushing blame on each other within hours.
The GOP rolled out it's trumpeted alternate budget propsal today, only it turned out to be not so much a budget as a vague collection of general policies. For instance it has no deficit or revenue projections, things that any sane person might consider de rigeur for something that is supposed to be a budget.
Turns out the press wasn't exactly in awe of the 19 page handout (for comparison the Whitehouse budget this is supposed to be in answer to runs almost 150 pages). Which leads us to this kind of thing:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0309/Aides_Cantor_Ryan_objecte...
Best thing is they actually titled it "the Republican Road to Recovery." If you;d like to read this masterpiece of understatement you can here:
http://www.gop.gov/solutions/budget/road-to-recovery-final
Don't worry, it won't take long.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Oh and rumors
that Jeff Emanuel (of RS) might have any political instincts at all can be safely put to rest. He wrote a cheerleading post about the GOP "budget" here:
http://www.redstate.com/jeff_emanuel/2009/03/26/throwing-down-the-gauntl...
excerpts preserved for
hilarityposterity:The question now is whether,
A) Jeff posted this macho tirade without having read the GOP "budget" and is now praying for the issue to quietly go away before anyone notices, or
B) He actually did read the "budget" and was just too doped up on the koolaide to notice it was something you'd expect from freshman college student desperately trying to BS their way through an assignment.
You know I don't really like single party rule, and I'd very much like there to be a healthy, competent, and respectable alternative to the dems...
...apparently we're a long ways from that point.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Let me guess
their solution is tax cuts, preferrably for those with enough sophistication and money to know how to spend it.
Although the infighting could actually be a sign of progress for the Republicans. They need to clean house.
I'm only half stupid
Good guess
one of the few details they give is that they want a horribly regressive tax scheme (10% for everyone up to $100,000).
I don't think this kind of infighting will lead to the kind of reform they need.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Offer a plan
that creates the most sustainable jobs here in the US. The writhing masses will be soothed.
Whoever does job creation best wins.
The dirty little secret is that there is no practical budget that will create jobs that does not have a very large deficit. In essence this helps make the case that we have no choice right now but to have deficits.
Better to have debt that goes to investment here, than debt that goes to offshore bank accounts in the Caman Islands.
I'm only half stupid
that's not as complicated as it may seem.
The only caveat is that you and I (and when extrapolated, the rest of Americans) will never agree on it. The government is not the best job creator. Democrats and Republicans alike love to spout on an on about how they are helping create jobs or some are even bold enough to say they are creating jobs directly. There are, in fact, ways to create jobs without going further into debt. But modern Democrats and Republicans will simply never give up their strangle hold enough to do it.
But this kind of discussion requires that points and counter-points be addressed. And Tlaloc and yourself never seem to do that...
At this time
who is capable of creating the most jobs the fastest.
The gummint may not be the best job creator, it seems like the ONLY job creator.
Businesses are not getting financing to operate, demand is down, and they are laying people off.
Tax cuts for a business will not create a demand for their products.
The best medicine for the economy is job security and jobs.
We can use AlasKa as a model. How are you going to create more jobs in AlasKa, by laying off teachers are not extending unemployment?
If you want to stimulate the economy, let the airwaves offer a half an hour of free advertising to small local businesses every day.
I'm only half stupid
lol.
I was going to respond to this but the last statement was just too hilarious to bother with the rest.
Yes. We should "let" them broadcast advertisements. Because heaven help us if we somehow lost control of the airwaves and people could start using physics freely again. Too funny!
Alright Mr. Cynical Guy
I listen to Ed Schulz, who often on Friday's, opens up his phone to Recession Busting. Small business folks call in and advertise their wares, describe what they sell, and give their name and phone number.
An window installer from Colorado was down to a thousand dollars in his business account and had no new contracts. He called the Ed Schultz show and within an hour had eight contracts. It saved his business and his employees from losing their jobs. Fantastic story with a happy ending. It's a simple thing to do and it works.
Take your cynicism and shove it where the sun don't shine. =)
I'm only half stupid
It sounds risky.
Without some kind of regulation that kind of free advertising could run wildly out of control.
Can you be any nastier?
If Red_Wing had said that, the admins would have been all over him. But no, you get a pass.
water on a duck's back
It was obvious to me some time ago that "moderating" at SC was a bit of a joke... If it really bothered me I'd just stop coming here. As it is there are barely any real discussions anymore as some members simply refuse to actively and productively respond. Ah well.
Jebus......
I take full responsibility for my comments.
I was poking a joke. (like GR's dog turd brown)
No one in the administration is giving me a pass.
I was actually joking. You are the one that took it the wrong way as near as I can tell.
And yes I could be nastier.
What is this junior high? He said that you were nastier than me and I am gonna go tell the teacher?
If you think my comment is horribly offensive, then ask the administrators to delete it.
You can even ask them to ban my account if you like.
I don't think mentioning that unshining sun is that particularly aggregious myself. Besides mags is a big boy, and I think he speak for himself.
I thought Texas folks liked the colloquial expressions...! Don't piss on my boots and tell me it's raining.
I am so sorry that my comment to mags offended you.
I'm only half stupid
At this time
I am going to shoot my mouse.
I'm only half stupid
hint:
It's not your mouse. Consider your browser... I took care of my problem rather quickly. But I don't give out tech advice to socialists without direct exchange for a good or service of equal value. Gotta stick to the to each, for each thing. ;)
Have mercy
and share!
I'm only half stupid
::rolls eyes::
Seems to me that in our last discussion you asked me several questions which I answered to which you said "thanks for the laugh." Forgive me if I don't feel like I'm the one incapable of addressing points/counter-points, magilson.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Not even close.
You basically told me it's (the answers to my questions) obvious to anyone who isn't an idiot. If that's what constitutes an answer around here I am in the wrong place.
But I'm sure it felt good for you to click "save" on that one. No doubt.
I did say I thought it was obvious
and then I went on to answer your questions anyway. Apparently you didn't read past my first sentence. Again- that's not my fault.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
not even close.
If that's what constitutes an answer I'm in the wrong place.
Eggsactly
The sky is blue. Not it isn't. The sky is black. Blue. No Black.
Point counter point from Tlaloc complete scientific data on how Iris and retina process color, and why the refracted light from the atmosphere is perceived as blue.
Response. Thanks for the laugh. Do some reading.
I'm only half stupid
I
think this buggy blog site is making my mouse sick.
I'm only half stupid
Really, less than 19 pages...
There's 14 pages of actual content... and more than half of that is merely getting in digs at the Democrat's budget. Realistically, you could distill the "Republican Solution" parts down to 3-4 pages. And that 3-4 pages is just fluff.
Don't burn yourselves out working too hard, fellas!
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
The Fed
Good article
Perhaps saying "please" is not always polite.
Via Tyler Cowen
:
(see link for original article)
Food for thought on your next trip abroad...or your next visit to an ethnic restaurant where you wish to use your multilingual prowess. ;)
South Park Humor on the crisis
New music for a Friday
Both are worth a listen. Enjoy. Within Temptation was recommended by a Russian friend; I'd never heard of them. A bonus for the guys----the singer is beautiful.
Pol's style is unique. He "hits" the guitar, producing an amazing depth of sound.
Music, eh, by and by the pretentiousness comes through
A lot of hard-rock European bands seem to have the exact same keyboard that they leave in a communal recording studio [the same Goth keyboard everywhere]. The same male guttural vocals [or as some call it "Cookie Monster Vocals]. Then a lot of bands try to juxtapose that with clean ethereal vocals.
Kind of like a lot of emo-core/screamo bands, with one guy screaming, and another singing.
Almost getting into hair metal aura of conformity for those sub-genres with their own version of ballads.
case in point:
From Autumn to Ashes - The After Dinner Payback
From Autumn To Ashes - Autumn's Monologue [here with no male vocals, for some reason]
Lacuna Coil has some decent songs
kind of similar to Within Temptation
Within Temptation seems like Sarah Brightman with more keyboards and heavier guitars
The best Canadian band since Barenaked Ladies [Nelly Furtado is not a band]
:) Around 3:19 in the second video, they look like the Christian album cover in South Park.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
The genre names are fun though
I mean, what's not to like about "Symphonic Femme Metal" ;-)
Some people drew a parallel to Evanescence, as well.
Weird and wordy sub-genre name.
Next thing you know, they'll be a sub-genre called All female group formed my music label pop
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
$230.52
$230.52
Does that sound a bit high for a oil and filter change and a new battery?
I'll buy and install my own thank you very much.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
What the heck are you driving? A big rig?
That's ridiculous man.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
A freind of mine used to drive an XKE Jag. 12 cylinder.
That car took twelve quarts of oil when you went to change it. Still, that wouldn't be $300.
It was sweet going around country roads. I wouldn't own an old Jag though. Too much maintanence.
Synthetic?
Full synthetic with an internal filter and a dealership battery.... gah.... maybe. Sounds like the Audi dealership.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
Some food for thought as the housing market ebbs and flows
in the wake of the bubble bursting from Mario Rizzo:
thinkmarkets.wordpress.com/2009/03/26/the-fed-against-equilbration/
Special Olympics News Roundup for Today.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4That'll show the naysayers...
After embarrassingly pimping the GOP sorta-budget, Redstate is obviously eager to regain some much needed credibility. To this end Erick hs wisely issued the following call to arms:
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2009/03/27/earth-hour-take-the-redstate-pl...
I see.
I was obviously mistaken when I thought they disliked having become, what one might only call, "clown shoes." Obviously the way to show you have principle and ideas, rather than being merely nay sayers, is to intentionally waste electricity because... well because your political opponents choose otherwise.
At this point I can't help but think they may as well take this unassailable syllogistic fortress to its natural conclusion by refusing to eat or breath so long as liberals do.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
bonus points
for the creepy theological elment and the last sentence which inadvertantly mocks their own position on gun control (afterall when lights are illegal only criminals will have light... or something).
If one is judged by the quality of their enemies then I'm really feeling pretty insulted these days.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
If you don't mind my asking....
why do you keep going to RedState?
-for kicks?
-because you take them seriously?
I'm just curious. I find RS (and DK) so ridiculously out there that I can't motivate myself to even type in their web addresses.
Because
as sad as it is there really aren't many other right of center blogs that have wide participation. The only two I can think of are townhall and LGF both of which are, amazingly, far more ridiculous than RS. The other big righty blogs are written by single personalities (Malkin, Hannity, etc) and so you don't get to see a swath of perspectives.
I do read some more limited but fortunately rational righties like Outside the Beltway and Eunomia (both of whom, perhaps not coincidentally lean libertarian). And while those blogs are nice in being more cerebral they really don't seem to represent where the mainstream GOP is. RS I'm afraid does. Or at least it represents what mainstream conservativism has degeneated into.
There are a few good posters still there, and I hope we'll see some tipping point come where they'll choose to get less callow.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
in the short list
of thoughtful right wing bloggers-
I really should read more Volokh (http://volokh.com/
)
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Volokh C is a good site
Very, very informed and professional (relative to most blogs)
It's more law oriented and tends to be a bit heavy...I should read it more myself.
However, Volokh is also more of a libertarian site than conservative.
That being said, the site has many writers and the opinions are not uniform.
Well, I would say that RS (like DK)
is more of a caricature of the caricature of the inner core of the base.
Most people registered to the parties....thank goodness...are not as overflowing with and swimming in the same ol' predictable kool-aid induced mantras of monolithic Republican (or Dem) virtue.
Over 120 million people vote in presidential elections. The impression one gets at RS (or DK) reflects but a small portion of those people.
Personally, going to those two hyper partisan sites always make me think of this:
hehehehe
Bachmann Getting Close To Treason
www.politicalbase.com/profile/Mark%20Nickolas/blog/&blogId=6731
That's what Mark Nicolas says:
"I understand that Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) is one of the biggest lunatics ever to serve in the United States Congress in this generation and it is very hard to take anything she says with any degree of seriousness. But given the number of lunatics in our society that easily get fired-up to dangerous levels (remember the crazy shouts at McCain and Palin rallies after they began their ridiculous "terrorist" meme about Obama?), I think Bachmann's frightening rants about it being time for "revolution" is getting uncomfortably close to the "T" word: treason."
She is a hoot. It would be fun if she wasn't actually elected. What is up with the people in MN anyhow? I don't care if you're conservative, a John Bircher or what....how do you support that fruitcake? She is doing everything she can to forment an armed insurrection. AND SHE'S A MEMBER OF CONGRESS!!!!!!
Priming the pump is EVIL
To paraphrase.
"[What you cannot buy your only suit for a job interview, go there with the rags on your back and try and get that office job, you cannot spend money to make money! That theory is dumb.]"
Good thing she doesn't have an uncle that also is in Congress, she'd be beating the living hell out of some (D), with a cane before long.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
I suggest
that Bachmann and her followers, move to Alaska or Texas, arm themselves, build big walls, disband the police force, close the public schools, and stop taking government money, so they can be 'free'.
I'm only half stupid
It's so paradoxical. During the Clinton years, it was the
'Patriot Movement' that fostered positive discussions of armed revolt & succession. Conservatives & Republican party leaders by and large didn't critisize their more hard core bretheren. During the bush43 years & especially after 9/11, many of those same folk openly attacked their political opponents as treasonous and suggested their incarceration, exhile & death. Republican party leaders were again quiet or even agreed. Now, 2 months into the Obama Administration, we have elected Republican party officials & their minions in the media & inter-tubes forcefully suggesting Democrats are traitors & should be overthrown by use of armed revolt. Yet the Party fathers again remain silent &/or worshipful as in the case for Rush.
What are we to learn from the actions over the last two decades? I'd say that it shows that many in the conservative movement are really bad when they lose & become whiney children. The same group aren't much better when they win as they immediatly talk of rounding up & silencing the opposition.
With that in mind...one has to ask themselves...who is it that really is emulating the call of our Founding Fathers some 200 plus years ago & who is it that more closely resembles the Tories & King Charles that brought on the American Revolution?
I'd say that
It points to the fact that generally the John Birch Society has a lot of influence over the GOP.
I'm only half stupid
But the answer is obvious given your own observations.
When the Democrats are in power there is talk of revolution. When the Republicans are in power there is none. So obviously the Republicans are playing the part of the Founding Fathers and the Democrats are playing the part of King George (not King Charles if I have my American History right).
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Oh geeze.
This piece by Nickolas is just retarded.* Bachmann is not calling for an armed revolt in the literal sense. "Armed and dangerous" in this context is merely a metaphor for "being prepared with facts and figures for the coming debate." It is clearly not a call to arms as Nickolas obviously believes.
Here is how she describes the "revolution":
In other words, people wake up and get involved in the political process. I would suggest that Nickolas was being intentionally obtuse here, but he sounds more paranoid than anything else to me.
------------------------------------------------------------
* I am using the dictionary definition of the word here, not American slang.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4They did wake up
She almost lost her 08 election after folks heard some of her kooky comments.
Hopefully she will lose the next one.
I'm only half stupid
The truth is revealed!
Obama is Indonesian! Meet his younger brother Ilham.
See story here 
. (In Spanish with more photos) hehehehe
More pics:
Uncanny Pic
Uncanny. :)
Aren't there a lot of Muslims in Indonesia?
.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4now, now
let's not start that.
:)
.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4meaning.....
??
I'm only half stupid
3-for Sarah 32-against
Poor Sarah Palin. Undermined by her own legislature..... ;-)
"JUNEAU, Alaska - Legislation is moving through the Alaska House and Senate that would take advantage of federal stimulus money directed at the state.
By a vote of 32-3, the House approved a resolution Friday accepting any money that Gov. Sarah Palin does not request from the state's estimated $930 million share.
Meanwhile the House Finance Committee began debate on a spending bill directing portions of the stimulus money to various agencies."
http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/ap_alaska/story/738729.html
I'm only half stupid
Meaning ...
???
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4"I am a liberal"
Excellent article by Don Bourdeaux
.
Well-phrased
But I believe wholly incomplete. And how many non-liberals could really refute that line of thinking without exposing themselves to criticism as bigots?
There was also nothing about faith in public institutions and emphasis on the preservation of civil liberties vs. public safety, those tricky foggy areas. By Mr. Bourdeaux's definition nearly everyone would clame to be a liberal.
Just a mirror
Unless of course, that human being is a Republican.
Holy bat crap!
ML has over taken Ender in the All Time Commentor stats in the Hall of Fame
.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4That's sad.
Ender where are you?
It's because my mouse was on steroids and kept double and triple posting everything.
Too bad I can't ever think of anything to say. ;0
I'm only half stupid
Obama's incompetence continues to deflate the economy.
Markets continue to drop amid his administration's careless talk. This is just another example of liberals advocating for defaulting on their loans and stiffing the shareholders. It is truly sad to see.
Osama is probably smiling today from inside his cave.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Meh
How come the stock market becomes a surrogate measure of "the economy" on days when it goes down, but not on days when it goes up?
But OK, accepting your silly premise for the sake of argument, the DJIA is currently at about 7500. On March 7, it was about 6500. I guess Obama's policies have been a tremendous boost to the economy in the past few weeks!
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Because ...
that is the template that was applied to Bush by the Democrats. I claim to be exactly as honest and truthful as the Democrats were then. Remember the golden rule. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Really?
Can you point me to any examples of Democrats blaming Bush for a one-day down-turn during an approximately three-week upturn? Or in fact any one-day down-turn other than perhaps the particularly precipitous ones last October?
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Timeframes are not relevant.
I was refering to the general principle.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4GR, although I usually just
GR, although I usually just ignore you, I just want to point out how lame and unfortunate conduct like yours is. You spew bullsh*t for partisan purposes, and when called on it, when even you don't bother trying to argue that it isn't bullsh*t, you instead reply that your bullsh*t is justified because the "other side" engaged/engages in the same type of bullsh*t. Even though, as a general rule, both sides of hyperpartisans are correct when they accuse the other side of partisan bullsh*t, all you do by spewing bullsh*t yourself is to pollute SwordsCrossed (and every other place to which you bring your bullsh*t) and get in the way of more intelligent, interesting, informative and sincere political discourse.
Not that it matters much, but my sense is that you often throw out your bullsh*t hoping it is not seen by all for what it is, and only go with the reciprocity (or illustration) argument as your Plan B when you get called on your bullsh*t and can't offer any defense that would pass anyone's laugh test.
No matter how you slice it, it's really lame. How 'bout growing up a bit or taking your bullsh*t elsewhere, maybe to RedState or some other echo chamber where all that matters is whose side your on, not the merits of your arguments or whether or not you offer them in good faith.
This seems to happen everywhere
someone tries to get a real left-right war of words going on a site. We on the left end up sparring with the libertarians while the few Republicans spew childishly refutable talking points.
Who knows, maybe I'm in a bubble. Maybe my perception of the Republican party as insanely sociopathic and impervious to reason translates to my inability to see anything of value in the redbar posts here (or almost anywhere, it's gotten worse since the election). Or maybe they just suck.
Believe me, I see plenty of
Believe me, I see plenty of the same crap from both left and right. As for your second paragraph, sounds like you are indeed strongly (and to some extent unfairly) biased, but at least you're not oblivious to that possibility, which is more than I can say for a lot of people. I suggest (1) trying to resist the urge to reflexively reject positions and arguments from the right and prematurely assuming that they must be loco and/or evil, and instead consider the premises and logic of their arguments and try to evaluate them (assess their validity) as objectively as possible, and (2) making sure you get a diverse diet of news and opinion (and applying #1 to it).
But I don't
reject positions and arguments reflexively. I can't find them, and trust me, I look. Can you find a coherent Republican plan for digging us out of this Republican-created mess? All I've heard is more tax-cut pandering with no support analysis. It's pathetic.
When I said "impervious to reason" it doesn't mean that I find any right-leaning argument absurd. It means that I've found any defense of, say, extending the Bush tax cuts extremely sloppy and dishonest; the numbers and historical data simply do not work for them. They have no answer for the huge overhead costs of private healthcare, they'd rather yelp about "socialized medicine". And not in campaign ads; on discussion blogs. Who or what am am I arguing with anyway?
I do not accept a designation as "biased". Constantly trying to equivocate between extremes can be just as biased as always taking one side.
Chuckling
No, now why would that frame of mind have any affect how you perceive them?
/end snark
It helps when you quit thinking of "them" as a monolithic group and start to see them as people.
I laughed when I read BRs post. He obviously missed Ender in his heyday.
Crap I had a long reply
all written, then my browser crashed. Suffice it to say you're confusing respecting the people on the other side with respecting nonsensical nasty arguments ridden with fallacies.
But your description
But your descriptors were of people, not of ideas.
That describes people, not arguments. "Look, that argument is sociopathic; let's imprison it" No, that word just doesn't work as a descriptor of arguments. Arguments are not impervious to anything; people are.
I'm really just pulling your leg a little. It's so easy to say "hey, I'm an open-minded humanity-loving democracy-supporting liberal...but damn, aren't those Republicans insane idiots with stupid irrational ideas who don't deserve to be anywhere near political power."
heh, I liked the quote in
heh, I liked the quote in your last paragraph. Pretty much sums up the attitude of some people. And of course, the same regarding some on the "other side" if you just switch the nouns around.
Purplebar orgy of false equivalencies.
You two must be right, because you're tut-tuting the "attitude" of people on both sides. You're not David Brodeur sockpuppets by chance? Consider argument 1:
and argument 2:
I'm looking for someone to substantiate argument 2, but the redbars and far to many Republican congresspeople keep trying to make 1. Giving each equal levels of respect is not productive and all you purple people calling us nasty or partisan are obfuscating the issues.
Pfft.
So, do you consider the "L" argument above to be comparable to the "R" version in argument 1 or argument 2? Do you consider the "L" version automatically substantiated on its face? Do you believe that anyone who does not automatically accept the "L" version as undeniable fact to be a simpleton?
I am pretty sure I know the answers to these questions, but I'll give you a chance to prove me wrong. What say you?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Not automatically
but it would be pretty easy to substantiate. Quoting peer-reviewed studies, and all that. Would you like me to dig up earth surface temperature graphs, with sourcing and all? I can find the % of GHGs that are man-made and draw reasonable causality too.
I find the L argument slightly better than R2, but I'm still skeptical about whether any corrective action now will help substantially because of postive feedback cycles (such as dissolved C02 evaporation and icecap melting).
R1 is getting really annoying to have to keep addressing. It's not much removed from 9/11 conspiracy theories. And yet I've read it here (not sure if it was you or another redbar), on redstate, freerepublic and the Washington Times. You guys really believe the disingenouous factoids and misleading half-truths.
Yea, yea. Peer-reviewed blah blah. :)
Have you ever followed the whole AGW angle on Wikipedia? If you haven't you should. Read some of the talk pages. You sound like you would fit right in with the main crowd over there. I contribute there from time to time to try and keep the pro-AGW perspective from getting too overboard, but obviously I am in the minority so there is only so much you can do.
Believe me, you're not gonna throw anything at me that I haven't already seen there, but it might be nice to have a debate here with some new voices.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4P.S. You too.
Pick a topic and we'll have a serious debate. Just because I have been taking childish pot shots at Obama lately doesn't mean I can't hold up my end of a debate. Choose your topic.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I will.
Give me a day or two and I'll post it as a separate diary. I'm willing to back up my admitedly harsh criticism with action.
ok, I rescind the credit I
ok, I rescind the credit I gave you for some degree of self-awareness. You are indeed at least mostly oblivious to your bias, and you apparently have no clue what you're talking about regarding the perspective of those of us who are able to approach matters with a greater degree of objectivity.
Your examples are silly, by the way. I don't feel like taking the time to explain.
Maybe you should join GR and ML on that reality show I proposed a while back. It could be called "The Hyperpartisans!" In each episode you guys can talk past each other and think you're debating some issue when you're really just mindlessly hurling talking points and party lines over each other's heads, and then you can come together lovingly when you find a common enemy: someone who calls you both on your bullsh*t and urges you to try to adopt greater objectivity and engage in thoughtful, logical, good-faith discussion/debate. Each episode can end with a group hug and the three of you smilingly saying in unison about that other person "Boy, what a jerk!"
The Great BR!
And here we have another fine example of the great BR. Thinker of great thoughts. See-er of great insights. Able to think thoughts that no other mind is capable of. He thinks it is because he is intelligent. I think it's because he's delusional. :)
Note how he fancies himself above the mundane name calling of the ordinary folk. His total disdain for all things mundane and how he restricts himself to only factual, rational fare. Yea, right.
BR is clearly a legend ... so great in fact that only he can see it. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Note how he fancies himself .
Um (lol), note how GR fabricates and erects a straw man so he can knock it down. Do I claim to be above name-calling? Heck, didn't I just use, in my initial comment on this thread, the word "bullsh*t" a gazillion times to refer to at least a substantial portion of GR's comments? Does that sound like someone who is trying to pass himself off as above name-calling?
More generally, see how GR is just a big waste of time? See how he can't help demonstrating that he is a waste of time even when responding to someone who is accusing him of being a waste of time (LOL)?
Actually, I believe that the waste of time ...
began about here
.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Seems I hit a nerve.
Now that you got the "you don't know what you're talking about" toss-off out of the way and invalidated your own claim to good faith and thoughtfulness, let me mock you for imagining yourself as the next Crossfire Killer. Just remember:
What is it, exactly, that makes YOU rational and objective, other than that you deplore "talking points"? What exactly makes ME biased, other than a preference scientific approach to determine the reality and consequences of something like Global Warming? Do you not think it's possible to rationally conclude that one side is just plain wrong?
You've stated at multiple points in the thread that you are too busy or disinterested or exasperated to explain why other people are silly or wrong. Great. Kindly get out of the way then, this blog is called Swords Crossed.
My declining to devote much
My declining to devote much time to trying to have a dialogue with particular commenters on SC -- as a matter of general practice in the case of two particular individuals on SC and occasionally on a case-specific basis with some other commenter -- who have demonstrated either a tedious inability or a lame unwillingness to engage in discussion/debate that is thoughtful, responsive, logical, sincere, etc., hardly makes it not worth my participating at SC (although I do wish those two -- perhaps soon to be three -- did not take up so much space [giving newcomers who are seeking quality discussion/debate a bad impression of SC] and distract other so much from worthwhile discussions/debates that are or could be taking place), nor does it significantly lessen whatever value my participation on SC may have for others in the SC community.
Not only did you start out (openly, to your credit, for whatever that's worth) demonstrating an absurd, extreme bias that leads you to reflexively or at least very prematurely (whether you realize it or not, and which isn't clear) reject positions and arguments that you associate with a particular, broad ideology or party, thus indicating a lower probability, ceteris paribus, that a quality discussion/debate with you will be possible, but you also show sloppy thinking in your argumentation. In the brief encounter I've had with you, you've already repeatedly, grossly misunderstood my comments/arguments, presumptuously and erroneously substituted straw men, and then responded accordingly, leaving me the apparent choice of having to deconstruct just about everything you say, explain your errors, and try (most likely in vain) to get to some relevant, mutually-responsive, logical discussion, or just to decline to continue the discussion of that topic with you (at least until and unless I have some reason to think a reasonably sensible discussion/debate is more likely).
Hint: Contrary to your apparent belief (one of those apparent silly presumptions on your part that makes me disinclined to engage in discussion with you), someone who indicates that he, in comparison with the typical hyperpartisan or ideologue, has a much stronger commitment to trying to maintain objectivity and to making a reasonable effort in searching for "truth" as best he can determine it is NOT implying that positions and all (or even some) arguments on "both sides" are equally valid. He is NOT saying that concluding that one position or argument is stupid, ignorant, lame, etc. is necessarily wrong or inferior to concluding that some middle ground position is best or that both sides have good arguments. By kidding yourself or others and characterizing a non-hyperpartisan like me as such you merely set up a silly straw man that you can then knock down. It's just silly, stupid, juvenile.
And you point out to me that Jon Stewart, the "Crossfire Killer", is a liberal. I'm left to guess what your point is, but I'd guess it's either (1) that a liberal can dislike dumbed-down, talking-point, hyperpartisan pseudo-debate like that of Crossfire (um, well, duh -- as if I've said anything to indicate that I would reject that premise), or (2) that Stewart's view constitutes strong evidence that liberals as a whole are much more likely to have view #1 than are conservatives (and perhaps you are saying they are also more likely to have that view than are centrists, moderates, libertarians, "other", and folks like me who to whom no cookie-cutter label applies), which is, needless to say, an obviously dubious argument.
To sum it up, your line...
...pretty much represents your silliness and oblivious confusion, and makes me shake my head and ask myself rhetorically "Why would I want to even bother trying to have a worthwhile conversation (at least on this topic) with someone who could think and write something that clueless?"
Edit: Oh, last thought: I think reasonable people can disagree on whether or not, as a matter of blog etiquette, I should give (or should have given) you more of a chance before concluding that continuing with you on this topic would probably not be worthwhile. So if someone has that view, he/she might be right.
Let's analyze this, shall we?
Long tedious ad hominem
attack, a logical fallacy.
Long, tedious, and increasingly boring ad hominem attack, a logical fallacy.
Long tedious, boring, and only modestly coherent ad hominem attack, a logical fallacy.
Ah, an attempt at some substance. Points for at least trying, but demerits for being incoherent.
Well, back to the ad hominem attack, a logical fallacy.
Please let it be so. Please?
So, the final tally is: 4 ad hominem attacks, 1 meager attempt at substance, and 1irrelevent "last thought".
That, in a nutshell, sums up The Great BR. Thinker of great thoughts. See-er of great insights. Eschew-er of all things hyperpartisan in his eyes. Maker of logical fallacies. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4GR's tally: 5 assertions of
GR's tally: 5 assertions of logical fallacies, 0 arguments to support those assertions, and (ironically and hypocritically, given that he is ridiculing supposed logical fallacies with no supporting argument at all, along with throwing out personal attacks, 9 (or so) ad homs!
LOL -- Thank you for the laugh, GR. Question: Could you make sense if I literally paid you? I doubt it.
Edit: GR, I suppose some here at SC may not agree with me that your (abundance of) comments here detract from the quality of SC (make it less intellectually interesting, less of an opportunity to learn, less of a positive contribution to society [even on a small scale], more annoying, more likely to waste one's time, less likely to attract intelligent, thoughtful people, etc.), because some may like a hyperpartisan food fight at least sometimes (or may be a fellow hyperpartisan on your "side"), and because some may consider comment volume of any kind to be a good thing for the site. But I think your comments pollute this site and impede/obstruct it from reaching its potential.
Ha.
I supported all of my claims when I pointed to the wikipedia page on ad hominem attacks. I don't need to repeat all of that material here. As for personal attacks, pointing out your logical fallacies is not a personal attack. My poignant and witty editorial commentary, well perhaps that could be viewed as a personal attack. But hypocritical? Not at all. As we have been discussing I intentionally use the tactics of my oponents against them. Yours seems to be predominently ad hominem attacks so that is what I use against you. I am completely consistent in that respect. No hypocrisy here, oh great one.
Keep your cash, based on your commentary I have a feeling you're gonna need it.
Ditto for your self-promoting, self-centered, self-unaware, hypocritical puffery. For all your faux claims of providing intellectual value, as we see above you are providing very little beyond ad hominem logical fallacies.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4GR once again, apparently
GR once again, apparently unable to do otherwise even when doing so proves the very charges he is denying, exhibits stupidity, obliviousness, and/or disingenuousness.
I make a point centered on the fact that GR repeatedly asserted logical fallacies on my part without offering any supporting argument whatsoever for those assertions, saying about GR's comment (with emphasis added, since GR apparently -- ahem -- missed it):
GR then replies:
Apparently, working through his (probably deliberately) vague argument, what GR is saying is that I committed a logical fallacy by asserting that corph's arguments/implications were invalid because of some traits I associate with him (as opposed to my contending that those arguments/implications are invalid, and perhaps suggesting that corph doesn't see them as such because of those traits). Obviously, this argument from GR (and thus his labeling of my comments as "logical fallacies") is invalid and stupid, which is why GR probably through it out there in deliberately vague (and inconvenient) form when he could have stated it, at least once, as quickly and easily as I just did.
Thanks, GR. Keep it up. You make my point about you more convincingly than I can.
Edit: Oh and as for your typical defense of "Oh that wasn't really me; I was just mimicking you [or others]", as I've said, that (along with the "Oh, I wasn't really trying to pass that off as a valid argument, just mocking the invalid arguments of others") is just your bullsh*t modus operandi, your "out" whenever you get called on your bullsh*t. I would guess that you are not fooling anyone who isn't either an idiot or a fellow hyperpartisan on your "side".
Please read more carefully.
I called the Republican party sociopathic and impervious to reason, not an argument and not a person. I know you're trying to make me look silly and partisan, but you can't do it without twisting my words. Organizations can behave sociopathically and irrationally, just like people.
Not funny, and a distortion of what I wrote. I don't know your political leanings or how you judge the actions of each party. I've been upfront about mine, and tried briefly to explain why. Thing is, even if I were a conservative, I would probably end up like John Dean: disgusted with the party that purports to share my philosophy. Feel free to dispute my findings, but don't mock me for concluding that there is something seriously wrong with the Republican party.
I would have no compunction will calling all or most Republicans insane or idiotic if I thought they were. Thing is, I don't. Other than the fact you can't really know someone over a blog, there is a huge difference between who someone is, how they argue, and what party they belong to.
Agree......
and well said.
I'm only half stupid
Thanks.
Has any of this exchange encouraged you to change your bar to blue? You don't have to think of it as being a Democrat, it's more like being the opposite of a Republican.
I am
a democrat, or 'progressive'.
I was just peeved at my party for a while, so I changed to black in protest and haven't changed back.
I like yourself find Republican talking points to be utterly revolting.
I'm only half stupid
LOL
Thus proving PF's point. :)
You both sit here making blatantly biased comments about how biased Republicans are and you fail to see the irony.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4did you skip over
the words....... talking points...... ?
Republican talking points make me want to puke.
One on one as regular people, well they are just regular people, who have been misguided by decades of talking points.
I'm only half stupid
Look at it this way.
Statement A
I find your arguments dishonest and irrational (I don't recall using the word "revolting")
Possible causees of statement A
I have plenty of documentary support for option 4. If you want to claim 3, feel free to search all my posts for misrepresentation of facts and double standards.
You do understand ...
that I am doing so intentionally, right? Do the words sarcasm and satire exist in your vocabulary? And you do understand that by doing so openly and expressly for the purpose of mimicking those on the left that make these same kinds of outlandish statements about Republicans that I am actually making a statement about them, right?
In other words, I am illustrating how dishonest and irrational I think they are being by acting just like them. I mean I pick the most outlandish positions to take and blow them completely out of all proportion and you think I am being serious?*
Why do I do this? For what purpose?
Because it offers teaching moments just like this one when we actually talk about why I say the things I do.
Where does that fit in your list? I think you must be missing at least one option there.
---------------------------------------------------------
* Do you honestly believe that anyone could truly believe any of the following?
Obama's incompetence continues to deflate the economy.
Obama's rein wreak's havoc in under 100 days.
Obama's conduct even WORSE than Bush's in domestic spy case.
Obama = Pedophile - It's a fact!
This is absolutely priceless.
He's murdering innocent women and children ...
Bush may have been Hitler, but Obama is clearly a Pedophile!
The Obama effect.
And I could go on.
My honest opinion is that nobody could be so stupid as to believe any of these things, yet throughout the Bush years we had a steady onslaught of such things. So if I don't believe that anyone could truly believe these types of things, what does that mean that I am saying about those who were making them about Bush?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4corph, I don't know if you've
corph, I don't know if you've been on the site long enough to know GR's modus operandi. He throws out hyperpartisan bullsh*t talking point arguments, then when called on it via a challenge or outright refutation, he either struggles lamely to defend it, or he claims he didn't mean it as a serious argument to begin with, or he starts with the former and ends with the latter. And yes, he throws out a few parody-like diaries/comments here and there to provide cover for this m.o.
Yawn.
.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Regarding the quote
The quote was my own creation, not something intended to parody what you wrote. It was simply a shorthand way of encapsulating something I find oddly humorous about the stereotypical liberal. How much you yourself identify with that stereotype, I cannot and do not presume to say. And it certainly could work the other way with a clever change of words, as BR pointed out.
But stating that you meant the Republican Party was sociopathic makes no different to my point; organizations are simply conglomerations of people -- you are still saying the people are sociopathic, not the ideas, contrary to your claim in your followup post:
None of this is meant to imply there is anything wrong with being partisan. Most people are. But having an awareness of the degree of one's personal partisanship is helpful when evaluating information. Or at least I think so.
It is hard to evaluate my posts without the convenient labels of blue, red, or yellow, isn't it? I guess you're left with only my (admittedly not always very illuminating) words ;-)
Just to add my two cents, I,
Just to add my two cents, I, too, think that there is nothing wrong with being partisan. I distinguish between being partisan (favoring and promoting an issue position, candidate, party, etc.) and being hyperpartisan, and I define the latter as being (1) so blinded by bias that one is unable to think straight and make a reasonable effort at searching for "truth" to the extent possible (trying to fit one's views to the "facts" rather than just searching for "facts" to reinforce one's views), and/or (2) unwilling or emotionally unable to engage in good faith discussion/debate, instead maintaining and pursuing the sole objective of shilling for one's "side".
The hyperpartisan isn't really interested in learning for the purpose of arriving at the best issue position, candidate, party, etc., but rather is only interested in finding support for the conclusion he pretty much started with based on broad ideology or his party's (or Limbaugh's, Olbermann's, etc.) talking points, all of which provide a sense of identity, intellectual superiority and (self-)righteousness -- i.e., the conclusion that feels best to him emotionally and which he lacks the maturity and sense of civic duty and basic decency to challenge intellectually via critical thinking. Kind of reminds me of what the joke about why managers hire management consultants or conduct marketing research. They use consultants (or marketing research) the way a drunk uses a lamppost: more for support than illumination.
BR, you're such a blowhard.
You try to pretend that you are all thinking and rational, but as I have adequeately demonstrated on multiple occasions you enter these things with preconceived notions and when you fail to convince someone to see things your way, well you get all whiny and start calling people names and pout like a little kid.
I don't engage you in anything serious because it simply isn't worth the time because you are closed minded enough that even when you are bested in the debate you fail to recognize as much. And yea, yea, I know, you think that this is exactly who I am as well.
This is why we are reduced to basically calling each other names.
That having been said, pick a topic. Any topic. And I'll give you a thoughtful and serious debate on the point.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4as I have adequeately
heh, I guess that's the well-worn rhetorical tactic of making an utterly false claim that at least some folks may give some credibility (even if just some benefit of the doubt) if they are unfamiliar with (and, understandably, won't take the time to research) the actual history (or if they are just plain dumb).
Someone once said that the definition of insanity is doing something repeatedly, getting the same result every time, and expecting a different result the next time. (I know Bill Clinton used that line rhetorically a lot in 1992, but I assume he didn't originate it). No, I'm not going to introduce some topic for the purpose of engaging you, expecting "thoughtful and serious debate on the point". I'm not insane. But by all means, the next time I submit a diary or comment on some issue, go ahead and comment if you wish, and if your comment gives me some indication that you may be, at least on that occasion, both willing and able to (1) engage in good faith, and (2) make sense, I'll probably reply and continue to do so unless and until you revert to form (if you ever actually deviated from it, that is).
Empty words.
Empty words, nothing more. Puffery consistent with being a blowhard.
And there, my good corph, you see him running with his tail between his legs. I tried.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Take the GoRight Challenge BR
Pick a topic, any topic. It will be the great battle of the minds! :=3
If you want suggestions for topics let us know.
I'm only half stupid
I told you a while back, ML,
I told you a while back, ML, you and GR should become a couple and star in a reality show. See my comment of a couple of minutes ago (reply to corph) re: this reality show.
Irrelevant
You are too cowardly to step up to the great battle at Swords Crossed. Pity.
I guess you knew ahead of time that you would lose, if GR ever decided to be serious.
Underneath all that partisanship GR puts on is a great mind. !
I'm only half stupid
Aw, isn't that sweet. Let's
Aw, isn't that sweet. Let's keep that one in mind for the reality show quasi-"script". You two were made for each other!
whatever
Comment deleted.
I'm only half stupid
Yep, he's all hot air.
All talk. No substance.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4lol. You crazy cats crack me
lol. You crazy cats crack me up (when I can get past annoyance and just find you amusing).
It's not uncommon on the NYC subways to encounter a batsh*t insane person (apparently homeless) incessantly talking loudly in some nonsensical way, but once there were two of them in the same subway car, less than ten feet apart. The question occurred to me (not seriously, but as a goofy thought): If they are both crazy, can they understand each other?
What I'm trying to say is, get a room, you two, and get started on that reality show, "The Hyperpartisans!" featuring you two as the star couple. Come on -- it will be hilarious!
Like I said earlier, I think you're delusional.
And just like the crazy dude on the subway, you don't realize it. You think you're the sane one.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Well, fortunately for me, if
Well, fortunately for me, if two guys call each other delusional, it doesn't mean both claims are valid, nor that they are equally likely to be valid.
I'm not quite sure why you think ...
that this realization should be any more fortunate for yourself than for me, unless of course you now agree that the likelyhood that you are delusional is actually greater than 50%. Your observation has "reset" that to 50% which is what would make it fortunate for you in the eyes of others.
I mean if the actual probability of your being delusional was less that 50% then "resetting" that to 50% in the minds of others as you have done is actually unfurtunate for you, is it not? :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4If that were true
then Bush would be the most popular President in history because the stock market was 1400 on his watch. Since we know that Bush is one of the least popular Presidents ever your assumption can not be true.
I'm only half stupid
Check all that apply
1: Do you honestly think that?
?
2: Are you trying to get back at the people that blindly hated Bush?
3: Do you own a tiger repellent rock like Lisa Simpson?
4: In this case, Bob Barr and Ron Paul would be saying the same thing, albeit earlier.
5: Is staying the course always the best action to recoup sunk cost
Osama is probably painfully receiving kidney treatment smiling in his cave thanking Allah for Michele Bachmann, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck...juxtaposed with a (D) as POTUS.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Sure, no problem.
1. I believe this to the exact same degree as those that wrote similar things about Bush.
2. Absolutely.*
3. I fail to see how this applies to the current post.
4. I don't know, perhaps the libertarians can enlighten us. Doesn't alter the points made, though.
5. I'm not suggesting that we stay the course.**
--------------------------------------
* Small correction, those who blindly claimed to hate Bush. We have no way to know if they were being truthful or merely partisan.
** I am merely assessing the efficacy of Obama's course "corrections."
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Honest Question for GR
Take off your catharsis hat for a moment. For my sanity check, I'm curious: Has Obama done anything at all economic wise that you think is helpful? I mean, clearly there are some things he's put forward that I don't like, but I think there are some things I think were necessary because we haven't been such a situation in out life times when stocks, homes, and the economy as a whole are all plumetting. I want to see if you think it there is anything he's doing right, or has everything he's proposed/implemented economically will lead to our economic destruction.
http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com
Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678 Brawl: 2277-7051-2186
Economically speaking?
That's hard to say. Out of control spending and running up the debt even faster that Bush (who was already too willing to spend in areas where I don't agree)? No. Don't agree. Pork spending for all his liberal buddies in Congress? No. Don't agree.
Defering any talk of tax increases? Sure, I'm always for that, but he is just waiting for a better time to let the shoe drop so it will be a short honeymoon.
New deal style make work spending? Don't believe in it. I think it will delay any true recovery and drive up inflation.
The only thing that comes to mind that he has said he wants to do that I agree with is education. He wants to cut out the dead wood from the teachers. I agree with that. He is for efficacy testing. I agree with that. From a long-term perspective I can see this as being a good economic move for the country, so I guess at least tangentially this would fit the bill.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Would you add stabilizing the financial system?
While it may not be working out as well as hoped, I would think that a reasonable position would be that, if international finance is severely compromised, a prudent government would take whatever action is deemed necessary and proper.
I think we can all quibble about the details of exactly what has been done in that regard, but I don't see a lot of disagreement that the US had to act.
Please say more ...
about the specific actions you think he took to stabilize the financial system and I'll give you my take on those. Stabilizing the financial system is a bit too broad for my taste. I would argue that it still isn't stable, per say, so we need to be more specific.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Geez, get me out of my depth, would ya?
I make no claim to knowing enough to even know that I don't know enough about global financial transactions and what specific actions should/should not be taken with regards to what I am loosely labeling "stabilizing the financial system." For purposes of this discussion, I would include essentially everything Congress attempted to address under TARP and any subsequent actions in the banking sector or in the reinsurance market with regards to AIG and those infamous CDSs.
I'm not asking you to be an expert either, and I won't later come back and say "but you said!" My question is broader and more simplistic, and assumes that whatever path was chosen (US government action versus no action) it would have been undertaken with deliberation.
It's really more of a "prudent man" question, to couch it in legal terms. If you're still not comfortable addressing it in this broad a sense, that's fine.
Well, OK.
In a very general sense all I can say is I am a big believer in the free market approach to addressing big problems. I don't think that government bureaucrats will ever be as good at finding the optimal solutions to something as complex as resource allocations on a national scale as are free markets. So in a general sense I would have to say that having the government try to intervene and "fix" the problem pro-actively is going to be a bad thing and should be avoided. So from that perspective I would have to say that I disagree with Obama's taking action of any sort.
On the other hand, I also believe that it is in everyone's interest to have a stable financial system to keep things like interest rates and inflation at reasonable and manageable levels. This is sort of fundamental to the operation of the free makets with the exception of the financial system itself. So from that perspective I would have no problem with the government excersizing whatever controls they legitimately have to try and keep the value of the dollar stable and inflation as flat as possible.
As for Obama's specific actions? I do believe that running up the debt even faster than Bush did AND just after Bush did is going to be counter to those goals. The government will be forced to crank up the printing presses and pay off at least some of that debt using the subsequently deflated dollars. Intentionally causing the value of the US greeback to decline will hurt everyone in real terms, so again I guess I would have to disagree with how Obama has handled this.
I don't claim to be an expert in these areas, nor am I even pretending to be one here. I applaud his intentions, but I fear his methods will have unintended results in the end.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Since Obama took office, the dollar is up
..vs. many world currencies, showing remarkable strength considering the circumstances. There's certainly been no dollar collapse, even though it is clear that we are going to have to issue an enormous amount of debt in order to follow the stimulus and budget plan that has been laid out. So the markets aren't interpreting the Obama administration's actions so far the same way that you are. Perhaps the markets recognize that the best possible policy path is for the United States to get its economy back on its feet, rather than follow a plan of fiscal austerity at this point in time.
In fact, the dollary may well have been worse off at this point if the plans had called for spending less, if the markets concluded that the policy path undermined the prospects of the dollar as a store of value. The amount of debt the US issues and plans to issue plays into the strength of the dollar but it is not the only factor by a long stretch.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
RE the Dollar
It's my perception that the rise in the relative value of the dollar is not so much due to the plans that have been undertaken and proposed, but more due to the more-rapid decline of other currencies as each country's exposure to this economic situation is being more fully realized. In other words, even if one accepts the world is going to hell in a handbasket at the moment, the US is not leading the way down.
Which is rather odd, when you think about it. If the US is the big bad capitalist wolf here, we should be tanking the fastest versus the Europeans, shouldn't we? ;-)
And I doubt there is much disagreement that the best possible policy path is to get the US economy back on its feet; the disagreement is whether or not the enormous stimulus package and budget are actually going to do these things, or are merely pork in disguise.
He he, very well said.
.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Re: Re: Dollar
Wouldn't a country's expected "exposure" to the current economic situation as viewed by the markets be affected by the expected effectiveness of the remedies?
Well we can quibble as far as this item or that in the stimulus; I'm sure there is plenty of pork we can find, there always is. All I'm saying is that we're not seeing the currency markets react to Obama's overall spending policy as if it was the disaster to the dollar that GR claims it to be.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Maybe
For the stock/bond/financial instruments market, I'd give a qualified yes. That's assuming that the seemingly oldfashioned notion of buying and holding still actually affects some purchase decisions.
But for currency markets, I'm not so sure. Currency exchanges are "today" kind of things; I really don't know how much they really worry about "tomorrow" in determining today's exchange rates. Wiki says
it's a simple supply/demand equation, which might include some speculative aspects but I would assume the bulk of it is the more prosaic and routine cash transfer functions of international banks.
I don't think I'd look to either market to be a decent indicator of how much inflation investors are anticipating, really.
Inflation is a reasonable concern, IMHO. It was under the Bush regime as well. Faced with huge debt and crippling interest payments, other countries have buckled under inflationary pressures.
Of course I'm ignoring the GRPS* aspects ;-)
(*GoRight Pointy Stick)
A market is a market; future expectations matter
Where's the distinction between currency markets and other markets? Stock prices are determined by supply and demand just the same as currency values. Bond prices, same thing. Any market is supply and demand, and both supply and demand can be affected by market participants' beliefs about the future.
There's a huge speculative aspect to currency trading:
In other words, 70%-90% of forex transactions are made solely to gain benefit from some future move in the value of the currency.
Sure it was a concern under Bush, and sure it's a concern now. So where I ask was GoRight and his concern for the dollar as it was taking a cliff-dive for all of 2006, all of 2007, and halfway into 2008
? In fact it looks like it sharply rebounded around the time that Obama got the nomination ;-)
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Laughing
OK, point ceded, thanks for the education, I feel much smarter now :-)
When I watch you and GR go at it, I see you as Inigo Montoya. Y'all should really stop having so much fun. Tis detrimental to the serious nature of this blog ;-)
Hmm.
So who does that make me?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Heh
I do not mean to pry, but you don't by any chance happen to have six fingers on your right hand?
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Pleads the fifth?
:-D
No, seriously.
I am interested to know. Am I playing the role of some villain in your assessment? I know you were just trying to give Skymutt a warm fuzzy comment, but it tweaked my interest. If you had to liken me to a character, it doesn't even have to be from the Princess Bride, who would it be?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Um
Bugs Bunny?
<ducks>
Ha.
Bugs Bunny is an excellent choice. I'll take Bugs over Montoya any day of the week. Think about it. Bugs always wins. He's always smarter than his oponents. Things invariably end up going his way. He's funny and people have loved him for years.
You thought you were being funny, but I'll take you at your word! :)
Oh, and Bugs is WAY better looking than Montoya. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I say Elmer Fudd is a more apt comparison for you :-)
Think about it... Fudd's win rate is much more similar to yours, plus Fudd is obviously a gun aficioanado, you never see him without one :-)
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
I care not for your partisan tainted view ...
it is the pure and untainted sweetness of Purpleface that I trust, Montoya. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Where was I asked my opinion on it back then?
Is there some part of this:
that is confusing you? I was answering a query on a topic that I was obviously reluctant to do in the first place, and now suddenly you're acting like I was pro-actively pushing this meme?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4So, when confronted with a topic...
...on which you are "reluctant" to offer an opinion, your knee jerk reaction is to offer predictions of doom'n'gloom, all Obama's fault of course. In this case, it seems as though you didn't even check to see if the markets were confirming or contradicting your theories, yet in another case you explicitly used the stock market as evidence that Obama's policies were failing.
I'd like to give you a pass here, but the fact is that you've been caught issuing just so much hot air here, and the fact that you couched your ill-informed opinions as those of a non-expert is really not a good excuse. It's a similar situation to your illogical "speculation" in the recent thread where you tried to paint liberals as deadbeats, which I had to roundly bat down
. The qualifiers "I'm not an expert, but...", or "I suspect that..." provide bare mitigation at best if used to present illogical or ill-informed opinions. Consider if Al Campanis had gone on Nightline and told Ted Koppel:
"I'm not an expert but blacks may not have some of the necessities to be, let's say, a field manager, or, perhaps, a general manager"
"I suspect that blacks may not have some of the necessities to be, let's say, a field manager, or, perhaps, a general manager"
Do you really think either qualifier would have innoculated him from criticism for his statement?
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Geeze, skymutt.
So, my self-acknowledged up front non-expert opinion on whether printing money will devalue the dollar is equivalent to making blatantly racist remarks? Dude, this isn't a topic that I was making a big deal about. I was asked for my opinion and I gave it. Simple as that. You don't like my opinion, fine, but don't act all huffy like I was claiming my opinion was fact. Why are you making such a big deal about this?
What's this really about? Are you being all pissy because I gave Obama a taste of what Bush's opponents gave to him? Don't be a baby.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4LOL back to "equivalent" again?
No, your statements are not "equivalent" in terms of impact, offensiveness, etc. to Campanis'. Nowhere did I say or imply that they were. I'm merely using Campanis' infamous statement-- a statement that we are probably all familiar with, making it useful for instructional purposes-- to make the point that your use of qualifiers such as "I suspect that" or "I'm not an expert, but" should not mean that I shouldn't be able to roundly bat down whatever follows in nearly the same way I would have if you had omitted such a qualifier.
And your insensitive comments toward learning disabled people still don't make you "equivalent" to Obama either, just in case you were wondering. Haven't we already had this conversation? ;-)
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Wrong.
Actually, you were or your point becomes moot. If there is a clear disparity between his comments and mine then your point is just so much hot air. You know its true, you are just too embarrassed to admit it.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Nope there's no implication there, seriously
And the point is straighforward... couching opinions as not those of an expert or as speculation should not mean that those opinions are closed to criticism.
You seem to be somehow not satisfied that I am only accusing you of the usual lies, distortions, and general wrongness. Nice martyr complex there BR... er, I mean GR ;-)
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Well then ...
As I have already pointed out if there is no such implication then your point becomes moot. So, I guess you agree that your point has become moot.
Wow, and now you're openly throwing BR under the bus with me. Nice. Is this a Freudian view into how you truly see BR? :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4LOL
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I think you must be confusing your tenses.
Note my use of future tense.
Now note your use of the past tense. You are comparing past Apples to future oranges.
Besides, my point was based purely on the assumption that the government would crank up the printing presses to pay off some of that debt. It is the increase in the money supply, and the consequent devaluing of the dollar, that makes this bad for everyone. Unless and until that has occurred we won't see any change (from that cause, at least).
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Not at all; there's no apples and oranges.
There's not any confusion of the tenses at all. I merely pointed out that the markets-- in which present prices are largely based on market participants' views regarding future events and the impacts thereof-- are not confirming your assertion that the government "will be forced to crank up the printing presses and pay off at least some of that debt using the subsequently deflated dollars."
Nonsense. The market doesn't have to wait for the printing presses to start running if it believes Obama is going to intentionally devalue the dollar. The markets can already see that Obama's stimulus, which has already been signed into law, and his budget, which is nearly certain to pass in something close to its current form, involve huge amounts of debt. But the dollar has held up relatively well, despite all of this, despite the fact that the markets have had ample time to ponder the implications of all this debt. I think it's fair to say that the market has concluded that at this point that the probability of dollar-strengthening positive economic effects of the stimulus and the budget balance out the dollar-weakening effects of the added debt.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Well I guess we must agree to disagree then.
Perhaps. But I don't trust your crystal ball any more than I trust the market's. It's not like I was claiming to be some expert know-it-all. I'm entitled to make my own predictions, am I not?
Are you asserting that if the market says today that it doesn't believe that the dollar will take a hit that means there is no way that the dollar will take a hit? Are you asserting that the market is omniscient on these matters and that you have that much faith in its predictive abilities?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Predictions
Yes but they will be roundly batted down if you persist on making them based on your biases rather than solid information, and use them to perpetuate your doom n gloom agenda.
No I am not saying that at all. Where did I say anything remotely similar to this?
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Well then.
If you are not saying that then once again we have you spouting just so much hot air in support of your own partisan agenda.
You're starting to sound like BR, and I had more respect for you than that. Here we have you puffing up your chest and acting like "the market has spoken" and because of that you have "roundly batted down" my point, but then when called on the fundamental premise of your point you completely buckle and admit that it means practically nothing in terms of actual facts? That even the market has no more claim to legitimacy in terms of predictive value than my own off-hand remarks?
Which is it, Skymutt, does the foundation of your point carry any weight or not? Because at first you were acting like it did and now you claiming it doesn't.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Misdirection on your part.
You can't cite a place where I said anything remotely similar to what your loaded questions were suggesting that I was saying. But even though you fail in that, you proceed to puff out your chest and act like I've somehow "buckled" under the weight of your pinpoint interrogation.
Nice, an arrogant display of faux concern and disappointment. If that's not a classic BR tactic I don't know what is!* But it's me that's sounding like BR? Give me a break! ;-)
Another loaded question. I will answer it in the spirit it was made: The foundation of the point you are falsely claiming I made does not carry much weight.
*no offense meant, BR ;-)
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
You ask. I answer.
No? How about here:
Your clear intent here is to somehow discredit my position by appealing to the authority of the markets. I am merely pointing out that for your attempt to discredit my position to carry any weight, that you are inherently relying on the Markets as being some kind of infallable, or close to it, authority in this case.
Now that you have admitted that they are no such thing, we can recognize the above statement as only being worth the hot air that it is made of, if that. Now THAT'S roundly batting down an argument! * :)
-----------------------------------------
* And just for good measure I'll add that your appeal to authority
is a logical fallacy to boot.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Not remotely similar
This is what you were trying to imply that I said
So what you were looking for was a statement of mine where I had claimed that the markets were a perfect predictor of future events.
Apparently due to your need to come up with something to save face, you come up with this statement of mine:
Bzzzzzzt! That's not even close to a statement that markets are perfect predictors of future events! All I'm saying is that markets are a measure of current sentiment about the future. Nowhere did I even claim them to be "perfect" or "infallible" at reflecting current sentiment (but it is probably the best measure of sentiment that's available).
But I never said that the markets were perfect or nearly perfect or infallible in any respect, much less as a predictor!
You have roundly batted down your own blatanty false and distorted version of my point. Congratulations! Perhaps with practice, you will actulally be able to bat down one of my arguments someday :-)
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
And there it is again ...
your apeal to an authority that you admit isn't actually an authority on future events which is what my comment fundamentally was. So your attempt to discredit my position has fallen short of its goal, pure and simple. Face it Skymutt, you have lost this particular point. Consider yourself roundly batted down, again. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Not surprising to see that GR
Not surprising to see that GR is big on this rhetorical line that "You're appealing to authority" as a stupid argument that someone's claim is invalid. I saw a lot of that when I was on RedState from the regulars there (the typical, hyperpartisan, ignorant, analytically and conceptually-challenged folks who erroneously and ironically think they are very rational, informed, intelligent, wise, etc.).
If I recall correctly, I heard it most with regard to two issues: (1) the relationship between tax cuts and revenues, and (2) Climate change / global warming. In the former case, these dumb-dumbs would insist that tax cuts generally, and the Bush tax cuts in particular, caused revenues to be higher than they would have been otherwise, based on the simple observation that revenues rose in the years following the Kennedy, Reagan and Bush tax cuts. I tried explaining to them that this observation fell far short of legimitate analysis (that not only does correlation not necessarily imply causation, but that their observation didn't even constitute proper correlation analysis for obvious reasons -- well, obvious to anyone with any sense of correlation analsysis), that determining the direction (positive or negative) and degree of the relationship between tax cuts and revenues required more sophisticated analysis (and theory), and that there is a strong consensus among even conservative economists that the Bush tax cuts (and individual labor income tax cuts generally, from rates anywhere near current rates) have a net negative impact on revenues, providing numerous quotes such as these http://swordscrossed.org/diary/20081017/no-bush-tax-cuts-have-not-genera...
. Their response: "That's an appeal to authority! I don't need to know what economists and other experts are saying, because I can see for myself very clearly that revenues have gone up since the Bush tax cuts. Stop appealing to authority and just look at that fact! End of story!" Some even said they wouldn't bother reading any of the quotes I provided because, per the preceding argument, doing so was totally unnecessary. No expertise or training in the appropriate theory and analytical methodology was needed or even useful, since the answer was, in their mind, obvious to any layperson based on that simple observation.
Similarly in the case of climate change / global warming, although with the twist of more complex (albeit probably invalid) analysis, there were one or two guys on RedState, apparently with no real expertise or training that would make them likely to conduct valid analysis (choose the right sets of data, apply appropriate analytical methodology, etc.) who submitted charts (etc.) that they had created based on their "analysis", which they contended refuted even the consensus views among the relevant experts (in particular, scientists focused on the issue), apparently with no sense that, just maybe, much of the analysis in this area is above their pay grade (and their pay is $0). Kind of reminds me of the episode of The Simpsons in which a robot's insides are exposed and Marge says "See all those wires inside Homer? That's why your robot didn't work." There were also the idiots who made simple observations (e.g., "It's not nearly as hot in the U.S. this summer as it was last summer") and contended that that observation somehow refuted or seriously challenged the consensus scientific view. For whatever it's worth, unlike with the case of conservative economists saying that individual income tax cuts generally cause lower revenue (ceteris paribus), with the climate change issue these folks added the "liberal conspiracy" theory as an explanation for why the vast majority of scientists would say X when X was clearly untrue or at least very far from empirically supported, so (convenient partisan) paranoia was a factor.
As a side note, I wondered (and still do) if the genesis (heh) of this objection "That's an appeal to authority" coming so often from those folks was in the desire of religious fundamentalists to reject scientific claims that conflict with their religious beliefs -- e.g., believing that the universe is less than 10,000 years old. Funny thing, of course, is that, generally, the same folks to trot out that objection with regard to some issues or some claims, "appeal to authority" themselves when some expert consensus supports their position (e.g., pointing out that economists generally agree that a high degree of protectionism would be bad for most Americans, rather than accepting some layperson's erroneous, but perhaps intuitive sense that such protectionism would "keep jobs in America, yadda, yadda").
Anyway, I offer the above as background to perhaps reduce the sense of puzzlement one has when being met with the objection "That's an appeal to authority!" in situations in which it seems like a strange objection.
Blah blah blah.
I'm not going to try to wade through this screed because the majority of it has nothing to do with me.
I see that you fail to grasp the concept of a logical fallacy
and its implications for the validity of a logical argument 
. This is why I mock you so much given that you claim to be so rational and all. These seem to be fundamental concepts for one to make a sound argument 
.
Given your propensity to rely upon ad hominem attacks rather than substantive arguments I can only assume that you either don't care about making a sound argument or you are totally unaware of the implications using logical fallacies have on the validity of your statements.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4The main issue, of course...
...is that an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy only in the arcane and impractical world of pure logic. In the real world, of which politics is a part, an appeal to authority is a perfectly reasonable argumentative technique.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Sensible people acknowledge
Sensible people acknowledge that, with regard to some questions, the consensus answers from those with relevant expertise, information, resources, skills, etc. should be weighted more heavily than answers from laypeople including ourselves if we are laypeople with regard to that issue/field/etc. (assuming there is no reason to suspect a significant likelihood of insincerity on the part of these experts).
Idiots of the sort I described in my prior comment fail to appreciate the above, partly because they are too stupid to appreciate complexity and related analytical concepts, methods, etc. Unfortunately, many of these idiots think they are geniuses and are vocal, like those folks who had no interest in what the consensus of conservative economists was on the degree of revenue feedback from tax cuts because they could see an anecdotal coincidence (revenues going up after the Bush tax cuts -- or after the Bush, Reagan and Kennedy tax cuts for the slightly less clueless idiots) that settled the matter on its own. The same kind of folks who would, in another era, insist that the sun revolves around the earth because it was "obvious", and who would have no interest in (or would reflexively reject) what those pointy-headed scientists had to say on the matter.
That's all I'm saying about the frequent use of the rhetorical line "That's an appeal to authority!" as an objection to some claim that is based on the consensus view of experts. Usually that line comes from someone who is too stupid to appreciate the fact that sometimes the answer that is probably valid is the one coming from experts who have the knowledge, insights, information, skills, etc. to deal adequately with the complexity of the matter, not the one coming from some layperson based on his relatively simple observations and/or relatively crude thinking on the matter.
Geeze, what a sheep.
That's some real critical thinking you are advocating there, BR. Don't think for yourself, just believe the word of my cherry picked experts. This goes back to my original point in your Bush Tax Cuts diary. You don't think for yourself, you have to let other people do it for you. You rely on so called experts because you lack the capacity to form our own arguments. You rely on the so called experts because there is no way for your opponents to argue with them on the validity of their points and this allows you to hide behind their skirts by saying "well they are the experts, not you." It is a form of intellectual laziness and disingenuous argumentation (because you are trying to make a point in such a way that your opponents, at least in your mind, cannot refute them - which is incorrect).
Sorry, but I don't accept the word of self proclaimed or even widely ackowledged experts on anything, global warming or economics. Just because people call themselve experts doesn't make them right. I base my beliefs on the analysis of the facts and the data, not who happens to be writing about them. And if I think the person writing about those fact and data are full of crap or making invalid conclusions well I'm not going to believe their conclusions no matter who they are.
You can feel free to follow the your high priests if you want, but I'll continue rely on the actual facts, data, and logically sound arguments thank you very much.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4YET AGAIN , GR obliviously
YET AGAIN
, GR obliviously shows his ignorance and idiocy (and/or utter disingenuousness, although I think the former are more likely), and supports my point that anyone trying to engage him in a logical, sensible discussion/debate is most likely wasting his/her time.
GR writes:
Even leaving aside the fact that he has apparently completely missed my point, he substitutes the straw man of "cherry picked experts" for my what I was referring to -- a strong consensus among experts (assuming no cause for significant suspicion of insincerity of that expert community) with no apparent. Surely, one can challenge one's assertion that there is a strong expert consensus of X (including the assertion that a set of quotes from various experts proves that assertion), but that is obviously different from an argument that a strong consensus among experts in a particular case should not be given much consideration or at least not a lot of weight vis a vis the views of laypeople. GR probably doesn't understand what I've just said, and if he does he probably won't admit it, but I offer it for the amusement of the more intelligent among my fellow SCers, which is most of the folks here.
Further, as obviously shown by my comments on the very thread that he directed people to (thinking it supported his claim(s), oblivious to the fact that it does the opposite, and on more than one level), I was indeed "thinking for myself" and applying "critical thinking", as evidenced, for example, in my explanations to GR of his stupid conceptual/analytical errors in my first reply to him. GR apparently sees some false dichotomy: He believes that giving great weight to consensus answers from the experts on a particular question, and even deferring to them, in cases where the complexity of the matter makes such weighting sensible necessarily means a complete abandonment of one's own critical thinking on the matter.
Not that most folks need any explanation on this stuff (most people have enough common sense to see that what I'm saying makes sense and GR is just an idiot), to illustrate:
I'm not a meteorologist, nor do I even have much knowledge as a layperson about weather prediction. Sure, if I see a cloudless sky I can pretty reliably predict that it's not going to rain within the next minute, but as far as predicting whether or not it's going to rain, say, 36 hours from now, I suppose the best I, personally, could do would be to look at historical (rainfall) data for that date and check some satellite info showing cloud movement, etc. Some laypeople have more knowledge than I do and could use that info a bit better than I could, and supplement it with other information, and thus come up with a more reliable prediction than I could. But if I see that there is a consensus prediction among all the current weather forecasts of meteorologists that there is a 95% chance of rain 36 hours from now, in contrast to the conclusion I reached via my crude "analysis" that there is only a 3% chance of rain, I'm going with the prediction of the experts, unless I have some reason to suspect their sincerity. That's just common sense. Similarly, I'll go with the prediction of the experts over that of the pseudo-expert laypersons (the "armchair experts"). And that's even if my prediction and that of other laypersons is not aligned (in this case, let alone consistently) with what I would like to believe, which would introduce the possibility of bias.
Apparently GR would reject (and ridicule) this approach of giving greater weight to the prediction of the meteorologists, which is why I wouldn't let him plan an outdoor wedding.
And the above illustration doesn't even illustrate my point as much as does my thinking and comments in the debate over the net revenue impact of the Bush tax cuts, because in that case, I have enough conceptual, analytical and common sense to see -- and explain, as I did -- why the argument that is offered for the conclusion that the Bush tax cuts caused higher revenues was absurdly weak. So, in that case, it's not like I had to abandon some conclusion that made sense based on my own thinking in order to accept the conclusion of most experts. I also could see, by combining algebra with my rough sense of the magnitudes of effects of various incentives on behavior, that the expert consensus view was at least plausible. Having said that, even if I had lacked that ability, it still would have been sensible for me to defer to the expert consensus view, as illustrated in my meteorology illustration above.
I'll probably stop here or stop soon with this tedious correction of GR's consistently moronic points unless someone indicates that he/she is getting something out of it. No sense spending time on this just for the consumption of GR, who won't get it anyway.
I'll probably stop here or
Oh, I am definitely getting something out of it: That my theory about us political bloggers being Obsessive Compulsive nutcases (no offense to those who struggle with this illness) is totally on target. Of course that makes me a bit of a nutcase for following the conversation, but than I ran out of good T.V. shows to watch on the internet. If there's another point that you wish to be making though, you'd probably be best off doing something else.
I think that your theory is
I think that your theory is valid, in general, in this case, and in my case generally!
I was thinking that myself a moment ago: Why do I feel compelled to respond to someone who is such an obvious, oblivious idiot, to refute and show how stupid his comment was? "Because I can" doesn't seem like a good reason if my goal is to invest my time in worthwhile ways, unless, it would be somehow harmful enough for some folks to be misled that it justifies spending my time to reduce that possibility, or unless I get enough enjoyment, enough reduction of irritation, and/or other benefit out of it to justify spending that time, but the latter bunch just begs the question of whether or not it's ideal that I get that enjoyment and/or would be irritated otherwise, etc., and that brings us back to the significant likelihood of an obsessive-compulsive element. Stupidity, ignorance, disingenuousness, etc., even when there are no harmful consequences* tend to bother me more than perhaps I should let them. I think there's more of an argument that fighting exhibitions of such traits/behavior in the interest of improving political discourse in America, albeit via just a tiny contribution, could be a worthwhile exercise of one's civic duty. But again, I think the obsessive-compulsive factor is probably the greatest once an exchange such as the one I've been having with GR goes beyond the length that this one has.
* Just a couple of examples, for your amusement: (1) When I see some really bad advertisement and I strongly suspect, from my professional experience, that the ad agency creatives focused too much on creativity for it's own sake and not enough on the business objectives, and that the account execs and -- worst of all -- folks on the client side didn't rein them in as they should have; (2) When I was a kid I occasionally watched The Price is Right. In the opening part, three people would try to guess the price of some item and the winner would be the one who was closest without going over the actual price. And they would guess sequentially. So if the first person guessed $500 and the second $800, obviously, if the third thinks it is between $500 and $800, he should guess $501, yet most of the time people would guess prices like $600 or $700. That alone would irritate me, but when such idiots actually won despite their stupidity, that was downright grating!
Back to my prior comment, it's too late for me to edit it to add something I wanted to add, so here it is:
If I saw, right now, a cloudless sky above me for as far as the eye could see, and at the same time the meteorologists were consistently saying that it is raining right now where I am standing, I would assume that they are probably wrong (that apparently their information isn't as current as is mine). The alternative is that it is indeed raining that that I'm hallucinating that it is not, which I consider less likely.
Judging from the incoherent ramblings here ...
you might also have a touch of ADD and some sort of impulse control impairment. But that's just a guess. You should ask a professional.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Nope. Although your
Nope. Although your misperception of my coherent explanations and arguments as incoherent may by a symptom of ADD on your part (although it is much more likely due to the fact that you just lack the intellect to follow and understand -- so I won't suggest you wast anyone's time and money seeing a professional).
And I think John Mark was referring to you as well. The difference between you and me (not the only one, thank Dog!) is that I am more self-aware, secure (emotionally), mature, objective, honest and open, and thus was able to see at least a strong possibility that John was largely right.
Keep up the good work, GR. Again, go with my reality show concept. If yer gonna be an oblivious jackass, ya' may as well make some money off it !
Pfft.
Like I have been saying, you're delusional. Good luck with that. On the self-aware, secure, and mature front my immunity to your puerile taunts is evidence enough of my own mental health. On the obsessive compulsive front you have already admitted it is applicable to yourself. I suppose I could be viewed as such as well, but my motivation in continuing this tit for tat is merely to see how long I can exploit your compulsion for my own amusement. Thus far you are by far the winner of the how long can GR string 'em along contest.
<cue the next obsessive compulsive reply>
And you say I can't help myself? :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I suppose I could be viewed
Of course, the above is just more exhibition of GR's general modus operandi when he can't defend some bullsh*t he has spewed or other stupid error of his that has been pointed out: "Oh, well, um, no, um, ya' see, I didn't really mean all that stuff I've been saying [or "the way I've been behaving wasn't really me, ya' see"]. I wasn't serious. I was just, um, doing it to prove some other point."
I assume most SCers are smart enough to see the habitual pattern -- GR's modus operandi -- for what it is, and see GR (correctly) as just a silly, immature, insecure, disingenuous, oblivious, stupid blowhard (quite a combination!)
[Cue GR to claim some pathetic victory and some invalid validation of his point that his behavior hasn't really been -- and still isn't -- the real him; that he's been acting contrary to his nature just to play a game and prove a point about someone else's nature (i.e., that the compulsiveness applies to me but not him, at least not in anything like the same sense). And this is a guy who claims that someone else is delusional and engaged in denial!]
In a way, GR, it's probably a good thing that you are so stupid and oblivious, because if you weren't, you'd feel an enormous sense of embarrassment from the exchange you and I have had on this thread -- the combination of the abundance of logical errors you've made and other extremely poor argumentation you've presented, as well as the quite transparent (to anyone with at least half a brain), pathetic disingenousness you try to get away with via your typical fall-back tactic of saying essentially "I didn't really mean it"/"that wasn't really me" bullsh*t as you always do.
But your comments really do pollute this site and hold SC back from moving closer to it's potential (degree to which SC could be interesting , enjoyable, informative, thought-provoking, etc., which are goals in their own right, but also, in turn, affect the degree to which SC contributes to society), so on balance, if it were somehow possible, I wish you could change all those habits, become more intelligent, etc.
Tag, you're it.
I trust that the evidence is against you and thinking individuals will see that.
Not at all. I feel a great sense of amusment at continuing to string you along with simple one liners. And all of your standard ad hominem's are acknowledged, again please try to come up with some new material.
Will he be able to resist that irresistable compulsion he has to have the last word? Any bets? Let's see. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4[Below is what I would say if
[Below is what I would say if I were GR]
Actually, I've been stringing you along. Hah! Yeah, that's it! I'm not really compulsive at all, but YOU are! I've just been playing a very amusing game with you (or conducting a psychological experiment, or whatever), seeing how long I could string you along and showing how pathetically long you'll persist in your effort to get in the last word. Um yeah, er, yeah, that's it. Not me compulsive, but you yes. And you're delusional, but not me. Um, er, yeah. Oh, and if you reply you will prove my point even more!
John Mark, if you're still following this (and I pray
you have had better things to do), since you're thinking about the psychological aspect of exchanges such as this, do you think that GR is actually unaware of the bullsh*t pattern that is his modus operandi*, or do you think he knows he's full of it and is just being disingenuous, or somewhere in between? (And please, I assume I irritated you in our last exchange re: your argument against same-sex marriage, but try to be objective on this question and opine accordingly) I think it's mostly the latter (disingenuousness), but with some lack of self-awareness as well.
* (1) making bullsh*t arguments, then, when getting called on them and finding himself unable to defend them, falling back on the claim that he wasn't really trying to pass them off as valid arguments, just mimicking the rhetorical tactics of the other "side" (e.g., swordscrossed.org/diary/20090325/thursday-friday-open-thread#comment-107703
); (2) frequently engaging in ad hominem attacks and then claiming that he was just mimicking such attacks from others to make the point that such attacks are inappropriate (and also denying hypocrisy on that basis -- e.g., swordscrossed.org/diary/20090325/thursday-friday-open-thread#comment-107896 
), (3) going on and on and on in an exchange such as this, yet claiming not to be driven by compulsiveness (at least not of any sort at all similar to what drives others -- me in this case), but rather just by amusement at "stringing along" someone who supposedly actually is acting compulsively swordscrossed.org/diary/20090325/thursday-friday-open-thread#comment-108017 
? , (4) etc. (I've pointed out many other cases on this thread and others)
Tag, you're it again.
You left out the possibility that I am actually telling the truth when I say I am just stringing you along. Yet another example of how you don't seem to grasp the concept of logical fallacies. Please read up on the False Dillema logical fallacy
. For someone who claims to be a rational thinker you sure do seem to make a lot of these. :)
Can he resist his urge to reply? Let's see.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Yet again (!) GR, even as he
Yet again (!) GR, even as he struggles to demonstrate that he is capable of sensible, logical, vaild argumentation, shows just the opposite. Hey GR, I'll spell out for you what those with common sense would already understand immediately upon reading the question I asked John Mark. OBVIOUSLY my implication was that the probability that you are "actually telling the truth" when you say you are "just stringing [me] along" is extremely low, and OBVIOUSLY my question presumed that John Mark either agrees or, if not, is smart enough to think of that possibility. Oh, wait, I see why you said something so stupid, so devoid of common sense that explaining why it was stupid would require stating the obvious -- because ... drumroll please (get ready for the GR modus operandi in action yet again) ... you knew it was a stupid thing to say, but you said it anyway "just to string me along"!! Wow, I guess that's one hell of a security blank you wrap yourself it: every time your arguments are proven to be fallacious, irrelevent, lacking common sense, etc. and you find yourself unable to defend them, you just fall back on "Um, oh, heh, actually I wasn't really presenting that as a serious argument, just mimicking what others do. heh. Yeah, that's, um, that's it".
Your turn at demonstrating compulsive behavior (yours, that is). Go ahead. But be sure to deny it as you demonstrate it. I guess "denial" ain't just a river in Egypt; it's also where you live. (of course that quasi-pun works better spoke than written).
What's this argument about again?
This argument has not advanced in at least 10 posts, and is well into the blue. A good flame war should at least involve the introduction of fresh material occasionally.
I suggest that the following line mark the end of the thread:
-----------------------------end of thread line------------------------------
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Tag, again. *
Translation: Oh, um, well, ..., uh I didn't really mean what I said ... it should have been obvious what I meant. Seems you've been projecting your own modus operandi onto me all along.
My behavior prior to this post
is certainly open to argument as to my motivation, however my subsequent behavior clearly is not. Nice try at co-opting my platform though. :)
Think of this are tough love therapy, BR, I'm trying to break your compulsive behavior here. It's not just about my amusement, you have a real problem letting things go. Let's see if you can resist THIS time! :)
-----------------------------------------------
* Sorry to disappoint you, skymutt, but this is just too amusing to stop. If you think we're out in the blue already, just look at how far out in the blue BR already is
... or at least has been. Note any common obsessive compulsive participants in these two threads?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4My God, you are an oblivious
My God, you are an oblivious idiot. You fail to recognize an implicit premise that would be obvious to all with any common sense, and then when I point it out to you, you equate it with a claim that I meant something different from what I said, and you equate it with your modus operandi of completely disowning your arguments and tactics (upon being called on them and being unable to defend them) and claiming that you were never serious to begin with. Hoo boy. Idiot City.
You then, notwithstanding skymutt's request, proceed with your compulsion-driven comment and add an absurd argument that just because you claimed at one point that you were not continuing out of compulsiveness (at least not the same sort that applied to me) but rather out of "amusement" at toying with someone else's compulsiveness, that means that all your comments since that point must not be due to your compulsiveness. Hoo boy again.
One thing is very clear. There is no volume of back-and-forth in which you consistently make illogical or otherwise absurd arguments and I explain your errors that could be high enough for you to get a clue that you are really out to lunch and that you are dealing with someone who can manage to see fundamental flaws in arguments and explain them.
ok, I'm done with this exchange. Anyone with even half a brain can see by now what an absolute idiot you are, your complete obliviousness to that fact, and your utter emotional insecurity and related disingenuousness (like the kid who claims he wasn't trying every time he loses -- in your case a grown baby who claims he never really meant to represent his arguments as valid or his tactics as legitimate), and it's getting boring and worthless as intellectual batting practice for me (the pitches are just too weak and too easy for me to hit out of the park). Bye bye, dumb-dumb.
Tag, how long will he go?
Gee, you're projecting again. "Implicit premise" sounds a lot like "sarcasm and satire":, no? OMG, you're doing exactly what you have been accusing me of! And when I called you on your logical fallacy then you were, like, "um, oh, uh, ..., well, um, I didn't really mean what I said, I really meant this."
I see what you mean now about how this makes me look, BR. I must look like a total buffoon. A simple minded simpleton. A boob. A rube. Your example here has made it all clear to me now. If I look anything like you do here why I should seriously consider digging a hole, jumping in, and pulling the dirt in after myself. Wouldn't you agree?
Gosh, I am sooo sorry, BR. I never should have doubted your sincerity.
But don't worry, I'm here to help you with the OCD thing. I won't give up on you. Please try to resist the urge to reply here. Don't do it for me, do it for yourself.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4And again ...
the evidence is against you.
Your "experts" were cherry picked. You found people who said what you wanted to hear and you then parroted their talking points. The fact that they may be conservative doesn't alter this fact in the slightest.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Hoo boy, GR just can't help
Hoo boy, GR just can't help himself. Again, with every single comment he proves my point that he is a complete idiot.
And your evidence of this "fact" is what? Did you even see and do you even recognize those experts? Is there a significant number of others with equivalent credentials as economists who have a different view on this question? If so, links please. If not, on what basis do you state as fact that the expert views I posted are not representative of a strong consensus among experts (let alone the basis for your assertion as fact that I skewed it deliberately)?
Nope. I quoted them. And my comments included both references to their statements and arguments of my own.
Um, dumb-dumb, although it is correct to say that the fact that a set of views of conservative economists is not necessarily representative of a strong consensus among conservatives, I wasn't making that assertion, and you are just setting up a straw man (either deliberately or just as involuntary output of your confused mind). I offered the views of mostly conservative economists (and a couple of others who may not be conservative, but are not on the left) because, if you haven't grasped this concept yet (and apparently you haven't), the credibility of an expert is a function of both expertise and sincerity, and presumably it is less likely that conservative economists (as opposed to "progressive" economists), including Bush's own top economists, would be insincere in stating that the Bush tax cuts had had (and were likely to have overall over time) a net negative impact on revenues. Get it? As usual, probably not.
Dumb City. Population: You.
Heh.
This taunt may work with your girly friends, but I am surprised (well maybe not) that you haven't yet realized that I am immune to it. Try something new, or are you a one trick pony? Show some imagination for god's sake.
Actually, I didn't take a position one way or the other on whether your "experts" were part of a strong consensus or not. Nor do I care to as it is irrelevent. What I did say was:
And I stand by that statement.
You say po-tay-to, I say po-tah-to. A rose by any other name ...
Yea, I know why parroted them. But this doesn't alter the fact that:
in the slightest either.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4hoo boy. What are we to make
hoo boy. What are we to make of a guy who, as hard as he tries to refute the notion that he is an idiot incapable of logical argumentation, consistently, persistently only provides furhter proof of it. (Of course, as John Mark noted and I agreed, one can also wonder what to make of someone else who bothers to repeatedly point out, explain and correct the logical errors of that person
)
In short, I provided a set of quotes that I contended represented (and to a large extent demonstrated) a strong consensus view on a particular matter. GR responds that it is a "fact" that I "cherry-picked" my set of quotes to represent only one side on the matter. This sure seems to imply (1) that he does not accept my characterization of it as representing a strong consensus view, and (2) that I constructed and presented this supposedly skewed set of quotes deliberately. I challenge GR on Premise #1. He responds by saying that he was making no such assumption, writing:
Poor guy doesn't even understand what he is saying/implying. Yeesh.
I think my works is (long past) done with this. And for whatever it's worth, GR sort of got what he wanted: although I didn't start out intending to get into a long exchange with him on this topic or any other, we ended up debating a topic (albeit one of meta discussion rather than some policy issue or other external matter), and he proved my point. The guy is utterly incapable of making any sense, utterly incapable of realizing that he is not making any sense, and extremely capable of persisting with one nonsense-filled comment after another and wasting someone else's time.
GR, good luck with allllllll that.
And once again ...
the situation remains unchanged in that the evidence is against you.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4All I can say is ...
Click here
. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4You are correct (somewhat) ...
but only if the authority being appealed to is actually an authority on the topic at hand. In this case skymutt has already admitted that his authority (the market) is not an authority on what I was commenting on (future events).
But even though an appeal to authority can be a persuasive form of argumentation, it is none the less insufficient in terms of being a definitive proof of anything. The argument is only as strong as the credibility of the authority being appealed to in the context of the topic being discussed. Any such authority can be wrong, after all, correct?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Well
I never claimed the market was an "authority" on future events, although it's fair to say that the market represents the current collective sentiment of authorities (market participants with skin in the game) regarding future events.
All of this is absurd anyway, since you are the only one here who seems to believe he can perdict the future definitively
:
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Meh.
This was clearly expressed as opinion, not fact. That in and of itself makes the statement not definitive in the sense that you mean it. I believe what I believe.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Most knowldege that we have,
Most knowldege that we have, comes back to taking the word of other people. Even the facts that those arguing against apealing to authorities want to be used, were ultimately collected by authorities of some kind. Its not like these people counted all the money coming in and out of the government or anything, we take somebody's word for what the figures are. Its the same thing for pretty every field of knowldedge - a person can know very little that's 100% their own original research.
Of course GR is right that an appeal to an expert isn't definitive proof, but that only goes to show that nothing is really proven. I agree with GR, that what the experts say isn't the end of the arguement, and I disagree with experts on a thing or two myself. That said, an appeal to experts does have validity, and if it didn't each of us would have acess to virtually no knowledge.
I don't really disagree.
And I acknowledged as much above in my comment to SL. But the level of validity, which is obviously never absolute, is as I said dependent upon the credibility of the expert with respect to the topic at hand. And if you appeal to an "authority" that isn't even actually an "authority" at all then your argument becomes moot. Do you not agree?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Wrong. I grasp the concept of
Wrong. I grasp the concept of a logical fallacy. You apparently don't, but are sure you do. I explained your error to you very clearly and concisely, but you still don't get it (which is comically ironic, considering that you are repeatedly making a logical error as you argue that you have a correct/better understanding of logical errors!).
As for my supposed "propensity to rely upon ad hominem attacks rather than substantive arguments", I guess you have amnesia (coupled with laziness, since even one with amnesia could just check my diaries and related threads, as well as all my comments on other threads, and quickly see an abundance of substantive arguments), a complete lack of perspective, or are just throwing out more disingenuous bullsh*t. Just because I, at this point, tend to be disinclined to spend time trying (most likely in vain) to have a substantive discussion with you (or one or two other individuals) doesn't indicate a general propensity, particularly when an abundance of easily obtained evidence obviously indicates otherwise.
Keep goin', man! Keep proving my point, dumb-dumb!
No amnesia here.
I direct everyone to this thread
. From the very start BR was almost nothing but ad hominem attacks. As we all know logical fallacies are inconsistent with sound arguments.
I respectfully suggest that the evidence is against you on this point.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Yes, folks, please do read my
Yes, folks, please do read my comments in that thread (and the diary) -- heck, in my first reply to GR I provide substantive arguments, correcting and explaining his moronic errors, which was quite generous of me given that he had already proven that he was an idiot unlikely to get it no matter how clearly I explained the errors he was making. So once again, GR inadvertently, obliviously proves my point. Of course, even if I hadn't been so generous with my time that I was willing to waste it on someone whose skull is utterly impenetrable to logic, it would not indicate a geneal propensity on my part in my interactions with others, as I clearly explained in a prior comment.
So even the thread cherry-picked by GR as supposedly strong support for his contention of a general propensity, which would represent flawed argumentation even if that one data point did fit his point, you can see that his point is invalid.
Moreoever, if anyone wants to determine whether or not someone has a general propensity, he would base that determination on a more thorough review. As I said, anyone interested (perhaps some new folks who aren't already familiar enough with my past comments to know that GR's claim is obviously invalid) can just check a whole bunch of my diaries http://swordscrossed.org/blogs/b-rational
(obviously worthwhile in their own right! 
) and comments on those threads and on others. But I don't presume anyone has that much interest.
Bottom line: once again, GR inadvertently, obliviously proves my point while struggling to do the opposite.
Once again ...
I believe that the evidence is against you.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Blah to the Markets..
The market is acting like an irrational two year old child (as opposed to the rational ones I guess). "Talking" about bankruptcy sends the market falling. Bailing them out sends the market falling. I guess we can act as if GM doesn't exist except in those nice Saturn commericals and the market will be happy. As an investor, I say ignore the short term trends and focus on long term investing, as we've always done. The market will get over this decision just like they did when AIG
and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac CEOs stepped down 
after they were (de facto) nationalized as well. In a few weeks (days?) this will be a blip on the radar as the market reacts irrationally to the next news piece.
Or maybe the market doesn't really care and consolidating on some of the most recent gains, I don't know. But I bet the news reporters don't know much more either.
http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com
Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678 Brawl: 2277-7051-2186