Comments Posted By busboy33
Displaying 61 To 70 Of 657 Comments
PALIN MAINSTREAMS THE BIRTHERS
@Dragon:
"A better question from your perspective might be questions regarding her judgement. Depending on how you posit the question, the answer(s) are far more varied."
Fair enough. You are right that it is the correct question.
I don't think most people that call her "an idiot" are intending to state that on a standardized IQ test she would score within a specified sub-average range. Rather, I think the label is used casually to denote some combination of perceived (a) bad judgment, (b) obliviousness, (c)denial, (d)offensiveness, etc.Like when people call Obama "naive". I'm willing to bet he has more experience in politics than everybody on this site, so the label isn't literally accurate. Rather, it's a coloquial short-hand to say his experience is not as substantial as they may like, and to do so in a derogatory manner.
I call Palin an idiot but I do think she is intelligent in at least one sense -- I think she is very, very cunning. Unfortunately, that may be a useful skill for a political leader, but alone it simply leads to self-absorbed Macheavellian machinations. I think her answer to the "what do you read" question displays that intelligence, and that is the problem with her (non-)answer. She didn't want to say what she actually reads, because she new it would be mocked ("well Katie, I like Us Weekly, the crosswords in the TV Guide, and occasionally I'll check out the latest issue of Glamour"), but she didn't believe that she could get away with a convincing lie, so she fubbed it.*
Unfortunately, the intelligence she displayed concealing her reading material was (IMO) right -- it does subject her to ridicule if she wants to be Vice Prez and she doesn't read anything aside from fluff. There are alot on inferences that people will take from that . . . reasonable inferences, that are not flattering to her as a national leader. Perhaps those inferences are wrong, but they are reasonable and realistic. People wondering how she can be trusted for the highest office after quitting the Govenorship may be wrong, but that worry (based on the clear evidence) is reasonable. Now, whenever she walks out of something (like the recent footrace she quit to avoid photographers, the silliest excuse I've ever heard), its going to feed the fire. Bias? A Plot? The MSM out to destroy her? No -- that's how people think.* Her "I was so offended that I intentionally choose not to answer it because everybody was trying to get me" answer that she recently came up with is uncredible. To be charitable.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 7.12.2009 @ 03:48
@Dragon:
"have stated categorically that Couric did not pick and choose from from 9 hours to get 13 minutes"
I have absolutely not said any such thing . . . ever. Lets assume that Couric (and Gibson) went throught footage with a specific eye to only air the most damning material they could find. Does that make the material not damning? Of Course not.
"IF all that was shown was the 2nd question which was horrible, does that mean he is stupid? OR did he just give a bad answer to a question?"
Does it categorically prove that he is stupid? No. But if its an easy question (say, "what do you read") and he botches it, then it tends to hint that he might be a bit mentally deficient. If he does it again, and again . . . and again . . . it tends to suggest it a bit more strongly. Hell, look at the commenters on this and other political sites. Obama bowed too low in Japan. He's a fool! Ignorant! Naive! Unfit to lead!!
Let me turn the implicit question (you can't prove she's stupid) around -- what does she say that implies she's intelligent?
I respectfully disagree with your assessment of the Gibson "Bush Doctrine" questions. I don't think she came out looking good at all.
I do agree that 2012 is irrevelant at the moment. But as influential as Palin is in the Red sphere at the moment, she certainly isn't irrevelent even though she's not running for anything in 2010.
"Fourth, as to 'Leader of the Free World', one thing you can be sure, Sarah Palin WILL NOT be apologizing for the US to every tinpot dictator in the world."
As long as she does the really important stuff . . .
btw -- "every tinpot dictator" is a might exagerated.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 5.12.2009 @ 15:57
@ Dragon:
Thanks for your reply.
So she's "like us" because she (a) didn't go to harvard and (b) worked thru college? But Joe Biden, fameous for riding trains rather than driving even as a senator, is an "elite"?
I know you like her, so I'll just agree to disagree with you on this one. But let me say this: "Vote for Sarah" hasn't got crap to do with her in college. It has to do with her right now. Today, is she "just like you and me"?
Also, in regards to the "Couric interview was cut and edited" meme: I've said this before, so I'll try to be brief (not my strong suit). There's two types of "cut up". One involves leaving parts of the interview out. The other involves splicing parts together that didn't go together. Your tone implies the Couric interview was the later, but it wasn't.
If you think you could interview Stephen Hawking and get him to say ignorant sh!t about math . . . good luck to you. If you think you can interview him and re-edit the interview to make his answer to question #45 appear to go with question #13, then yes, he'll look foolish. But that's not what happened with Palin.
If you ask Obama 2 questions, and the first he answers brilliantly and the second he says something ignorant, when you show his answer to the second question does your "cutting" of the interview mean his answer wasn't ignorant? It was all in the editing? No. Palin's answers wern't spliced together. Her interview with Gibson was just as bad. As was her resignation speech. As have pretty much all of her speeches been when she wasn't reading prepared comments. That's not editing, or cutting, or media bias, or anything. That's just her looking pretty damn bad.
She seems like a nice lady. Hell, W seemed (and still seems) like a nice guy. But "lets hang out and get a beer" and "leader of the free world" are two different jobs, and qualifying for one doesn't carry over into the other.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 5.12.2009 @ 13:58
@Ben B:
Maybe you (or somebody else) can clarify this for me . . .
"Sarah Palin is a regular person, just like you and me" -- what does that mean?
I see that phrase, or some variant, in almost every "pro"-Palin message, comment, blog, opinion, and I still don't know what that means. How is she different than other Vice-Presidential candidates or State Govenors? What about her is "like me" or "like us" that other politicians don't have?
Legitimate question here -- not trying to attack Palin or her supporters (although in full disclosure I do despise the woman).
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 4.12.2009 @ 16:07
THE GRAHAM-DeMINT AXIS OF THE GOP
What casts suspicion on Graham in regards to Sotomayor? I'm not sure how saying a nominee is qualified constitutes "reaching across the aisle".
The other position would be to reject her solely because it was a Blue admin that nominated her . . . and that's just shameful. It might not technically qualify as treason, but to me its damn close. Their job up there is to govern, and they all swore an oath to do just that.
There is a difference between "reaching across the aisle" and doing what I pay them for. To me, "reaching across the aisle" means voting for policies I disagree with. Someone may not like Sotomayor, but she WAS a qualified candidate.I now the article is decrying that exact mindset, but it also seems like a bit of the mentality is flavoring the critique.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 29.11.2009 @ 18:00
IT'S STILL A GOOD IDEA TO REDUCE CO2 EMISSIONS
Mike, everybody knows Mr. SP is controlled by the corporate establishment and the costal elites. They may as well just call him SpongeBob BilderBerg. He won't help Plankton . . . he's part of it.
OPEN YOUR EYES MAN!!
(thanks for your post -- I needed a laugh, and it was perfect)
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 28.11.2009 @ 15:21
WARMING ADVOCATES: 'REMAIN CALM! ALL IS WELL!
@Dragon:
"When will we see this in the US Press? NEVER, or later?"
Are you kidding? Tiger Woods smashed his car! We're talking celebrities, injury, and probable domestic violence and/or intoxication of someone fameous and rich. That should carry the MSM thru until Kim Kardashian gets a divorce.
You've got to have priorities, after all.
Another good link . . . but I have to temper the points made in it with the reality that its an opinion piece. It doesn't discredit anything the author said, but at the same time by definition the writer is expressing his (legitimate) personal impression on the issue, rather than reporting on just facts. Again, nothing factual he said is wrong that I know of, and his conclusions may well be entirely justified, but his opinion doesn't make it so.
This situation IS indisputably devistating for the "warmers", but until I can see more data (hopefully forthcoming) I'm not putting my chips on either side of this one yet.The data may have been "fudged" (some or all of it), but the underlying principle seems to me to be still intrinsically sound. The greenhouse effect is, as far as I know, an accepted fact. Its how the globe retains heat, which is a darn good thing (I like having food). The chemicals under discussion (CO2 et. al.) do chemically make up part of that effect. Increasing the quantity of greenhouse gasses should increase the ammount of heat retention occuring via the greenhouse effect. Now, the increase of heat retention may be infintessimal . . . but the underlying physics of the effect still appear valid, at least from my perspective.
Are the additional chemicals added to the environment by humans negligible or destructive? That seems to be the crux of the current issue. But the underlying theory still (as far as I can tell) holds water. If our atmosphere were 100% greenhouse gases, the planet should be hotter than it is now. We'd be dead so it wouldn't matter, but the effect isn't being disputed, is it? If we lost the ozone layer, we'd be pretty screwed. Now, maybe the CFCs from a hair spray can aren't going to do squat to damage the layer . . . but on the other side it absolutely isn't going to help either.If the data is going to be released (and no doubt violently sifted by players on both sides), then how compelling the issue is has to remain undetermined at the moment. I certainly agree that the effort to conceal and distort heavily implies the data indicates the issue is negligible, but we just don't know yet.
p.s.: Who the fu@k is Kim Kardashian, and why am I supposed to care? Apparently she's Bruce Jenner's daughter, which is dandy and all, but why do I see her name everywhere I go?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 1.12.2009 @ 05:09
Good catch Dragon.
I'm hopeful this will illuminate the debate one way or another, but I'm pesimistic. The faithful on both sides will find the confirmation that they are looking for regardless of what the data is.
Anyways, should be interesting either way.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 28.11.2009 @ 18:48
@dragon:
I agree absolutely if the research on warming were encompassed by somebody saying "trust me -- I totally verified it, but I won't tell you how or show any data" then there isn't much to consider.
Are you saying that of the hundreds of papers published in peer-reviewed journals, NONE of them have ever shown their data? That's news to me if true, but I learn new things every day so if there is no report providing data please open my eyes.
If some have provided data (legitimate without validating their conclusions) and some haven't (illegitimate) . . .then again, throw out the "mysterious" reports and just go with the "data provided" studies. Still seems like a credible body of evidence to at least consider the possibility, unless a bad report means ALL reports are inherently tainted, and that's going too far IMO.
I get the impression that we are using two different defintions of "provided the data". I find it highly questionable that report after report said "I measured the temperatures here for a dedcade, and after doing some nifty math the answer is 3 degrees of temperature increase! No charts, no tables, not even naming the algorythmic formula used to get the result . . . its MAGIC, I tell you!"
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 28.11.2009 @ 05:47
That is what I think of when I see the phrase "does not allow anyone to see the calculations or tests". I get the impression that is NOT what you mean, so I'm a little confused about what discredits the entirety of research into the topic rather than individual reports or scientists, but I also get the impression the failure is on my end.
@ Obamathered:
The science will never be "proven", on either side. Things aren't proven via the scientific method. Theories can always be challenged via new evidence. So if we are waiting for certainty on the issue, that's never going to happen but not thru a fault of the arguments.
How "proved" do you want it to be? How "proved" would be acceptable to you?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090119210532.htmThat's quite a bit of concensus among people who study in this field of science. Does it "prove" anything? No. Are over 2,500 professionals involved in a global-spanning mass-conspiracy bereft of any factual support? Probably not. Are they all idiots that review blatantly unsupported report after blatantly unsupported report and just can't tell that there is no justification for such a crazy hypothesis? Probably not.
Is there some level of fraud and falsehood in the debate? I'm certain there is just based on human nature. But does fraud in study X disprove study Y? No.
"The emails certainly don’t 'disprove' AGW, but they demonstrate it hasn’t been 'proved' even though policy decisions have been made as if that were the case."
I disagree with your second point -- unless you are saying that policy decisions are based SOLELY on the research the hacked e-mails reference.
You are dealing with a self-defeating situation with the position that no policy should address the issue until it's "proven". Let's assume that there is some verifiable level of "proof" that could be reached (keeping in mind that there are still people that don't believe the moon landing has been "proven"). The hypothesis of AGW is a catastrophic/inertal concept, by which I mean that if it IS real, it has as a likely consequence true genocide, and it would be a phenomenon that can't be rapidly altered (push a button and everything is better).
The theory goes that once we have indisputable "proof" (ocean levels rising and wiping out costal centers, mean temperatures rising to crop-affecting levels for decades, etc.), its too late. We're screwed.Credible evidence doesn't "prove" anything . . . but it does support an argument. If there IS credible evidence (and among the thousands of professionals who accept this hypothesis it seems reasonable to posit they are basing their belief on some quantity of credible evidence) then wouldn't it be prudent to consider that in policy?
I'm not sure how much "policy" has been affected by this. Did we ratify Kyoto? Sure, we talk alot about caring . . . but we don't come through with the legislation so what we "say" is pretty worthless for better or worse.
Cap-and-Trade? I suppose it might go through, but I'm personally skeptical it will pass in anything resembling its current form. But lets assume it does get passed. Forget the AGW aspect of it. Consider the issue in terms of not polluting so much, which has verified consequences (negatively impacting people's health). Is it a worthwile objective on that front alone?
If Cap-and-Trade doesn't make it to the President's desk, how much has policy been affected?"It isn’t illogical–quite the contrary–to assume public policy preferences drove the science rather than the reverse."
Would it also be logical then to assume that the political motivations of the naysayers drove their science? If the public policy drove the science, where did the initial science come from that drove the public policy? The givernment and society didn't wake up one day and say "man, I'll bet pollution will cause the globe to overheat -- better go find some scientists to back that up". That idea came from the initial scientific reports, so they couldn't have been driven by pressure.
You could say that those scientists had personal motivations that colored their research, but again the point is the answer seems to be "AGW is a fraud" regardless of the fact pattern. Latter scientists? Motivated by public pressure. Initial scientists? Motivated by personal prejudices. They must all be influenced by something, because AGW is a fraud so it couldn't have simply developed from data.Having said all this, I'm no global warming fanatic. Frankly, I don't particularly care or worry about it. I'm not saying that's the "right" attitude, but it's mine. I do think being less of a trash-dumping slob is a good goal for us as a country, so I'm not opposed to trying to curb filth production, especially if the only "pro-filth" argument is "my company will make less money if I can't shit on my neighbors". Having lived downwind of a factory, my "poor you" reserves are on empty.
Is AGW "proven"? I'm not sure what that means, but no. As you said though, it isn't "disproven" either. So we have some quantity of evidence that suggests a massive, potentially ruinous occurance might be imminent. What is the logical response to such a situation? Why can't we continue to investigate the science while at the same time taking steps that (if its true) might avert the disaster? That seems the most prudent and logical path, unless you posit that there is NO evidence supporting the global warming concept, which seems as nonsensical as saying the science is irrefutably settled.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 27.11.2009 @ 17:07
