Comments Posted By busboy33
Displaying 81 To 90 Of 657 Comments
'IQ OF A CELERY STALK?' WHY DIDN'T I THINK OF THAT ONE?
@Insight:
"There’s a HUGE difference between the left and right. The right, although many of them can be appealed to on populist terms, is generally about individual rights, individual responsibilities, and individual opportunity. The left is about collectivism, and appeals to envy and/or elitism, but in both cases the message is “we must control other people.” "
I understand that this is the official meme of the Right . . . but the facts simply don't bear it out, any more than the meme of "fiscal responsibility and limited government" is belied by every Republican Government.
Simply look at the current HealthCare debate in Washington, or the Gingrich-inspired talking-point faxes. Republicans are a drill team of unitary groupthink. I don't say that insultingly. It is immensely effective for what they are trying to do. But "individual freedom and thought" it sure as hell isn't.
Contrast this with the Blues. They have, on paper, a Super-Majority, filibuster-proof caucus. Unfortunately, they have the discipline of a heroin addict. Hell, Liberman has announced that he effectively has decided to caucus with the Republicans . . . and the Dems STILL let him retain chairmanships. Talk about individuality!
I know the emotionally resonant talking point is "individual liberty and freedom", but the extreme right embody the exact opposite. Look at the comments in most of Rick's Palin posts. Individual freedom and liberty . . . but if you disrespect our Chosen One you must be Nazi Agent. The supporters of Obama are all hypnotically brainwashed and can't think for themselves . . . but the Palinistas with the "WeLuvUSarah" googly-antennas breathlessly and tearfully comparing her to Joan of Arc are obviously carefully thinking for themselves.
Hell, The Vanguard Of Individual Liberty And Personal Freedom supports profiling and targeting Muslims. Whether that's a good plan or not isn't the issue . . . can you honestly say that doing this represents respect for the individual? No. It respects and protects YOU (assuming you're not a Muslim), but clearly doesn't respect individuals and their personal rights. Again, I'm not saying that Muslims shouldn't be profiled. I don't think so, but it's irrevelant to the point. The point is, actions speak louder than words, and saying someone (or some group) supports Truth Justice And The American Way doesn't necessarily make it so, no matter how tingly it feels to repeat it.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 22.11.2009 @ 19:47
PALIN AND HER SUPPORTERS IN A TIME WARP
@manning:
Dammit, now you're just messing with my head (and quite sucsessfully too).
Now I can't tell if you were being sarcastic, or you're being sarcastic about having been sarcastic. The more I try to figure it out, the more confused I'm getting.
So . . . I'm going to concede this one with a heartfelt Bronx cheer and slink away, consoling myself that this is some sort of dastardly plot. Trickery, I say!. . . dammit . . .
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 19.11.2009 @ 17:48
@Dragon:
Oddly I agree with you completely and disagree with you completely.
I think we're talking about two different definitions of "do". Some things (like changing a tire) make experience more valuable than education. No matter how much you study in a book how to change a tire, somebody who has done it before will do it better and faster. Agreed.
But we're talking about macro-ecconomics on the National and inter-National level. That involves a different sort of "do"ing. Nobody "does" National tax development. Somebody can write a specific tax code, somebody can collect or pay taxes, somebody can calculate funds accrued . . . but macro-ecconomics is a theoretical discipline. "Doing" is in the thinking, not the manual activity.
Let me give a (sloppy) analogy: nuclear fission. In the nuclear power plant, there is the person that runs the board. They montior the core temperature, activate the fuel rod motors to raise/lower them, controls the coolant vale pressure, etc. They are a "doer". Then there is the nuclear physicist. They don't "do". If the control person dropped dead, the physicist probably doesn't have the manual skills and experience to operate the equipment.
Now let's question the operation of the plant itself. The core temp is drifting toward a dangerous spike, but the emergency shutoff system is crippled. Should the operator (the "doer") simply pull the rods out of the generator completely (still facing the potential of a meltdown but if a meltdown is avoided the plant is still viable), or should they crash the whole system (avoiding a meltdown but effectively making the entire plant useless)?
Odds are, the "doer" doesn't have a clue. They're going to go to their S.O.P manual and do whatever it tells them, because they don't have the theoretical knowledge to make that call. The physicist does. They wrote the manual. They have the theoretical knowledge to make an informed call. Even though the operator is the one actually pushing buttons and pulling levers, the "thinker" in this case is the actual "doer", because this is a situation that requires theory, not physical skill. For a question about theory, the "doer" is not nearly as important as the "thinker".
If the question is "how do we implement this idea?", you go to the doer. If the question is "what idea should we implement?", you go to the thinker."What I reject is the idea that a diploma for one school(group of schools) makes you 'God', and a diploma from any other school, or no diploma at all (Bill Gates for example…didn’t he drop out?) makes one ignorant."
I agree 100 percent. Some of the most dumb-as-rocks idiotic people I have ever met had advanced degrees from big-name schools. On the other side, I know some brilliant people whose degrees from "minor" schools (or lack of degrees entirely) make you say " . . . and you went to community college?!? Damn! I've got to enroll there!". A degree from a good school doesn't necessarily "prove" any ability . . . but to hear someone went to Harvard and MIT and say "can't you tell he's an idiot" . . . that's not very realistic.
Another example: you're the President. War breaks out. You need to appoint a general. You have two people standing in front of you. One studied military strategy at West Point and did their doctoral disertation in battlefield tactics. The other played alot of Risk.
Now, the West Point grad may well be an idiot. The Risk-player might actually be an natural tactical genius. Stranger things have happened.
Who are you going to turn to first?But as you also noted, Krugman won the Nobel prize for ecconomics. That does tend to imply that he MIGHT have some actual skill and ability in the field (unless you think they just randomly draw names out of a hat). The textbook he authored is one of, if not the most, commonly used textbooks to teach other people macro-ecconomic theory. Again, that tends to bolster his resume a little bit.
Let me be clear -- I'm not saying that whatever Krugman says is correct. As I noted above in comment #26, the subject is so theoretical and complex that experts don't agree on a single answer. But to scoff at his resume and imply he doesn't have the chops to have his ideas about macro-ecconomics considered seriously . . . well, that's silly.
You may believe that his liberal philosophy discredits his opinion on tax cuts, but that doesn't mean he isn't an internationally recognized and respected expert in the discipline. His education doesn't mean you should consider him learned, but his career certainly does.In comment #39 you quote Palin's opinion on ecconomic solutions. She isn't either a "doer" or a "thinker" in this area. At the absolute best (and I'm being generous IMO), she's what you classified as a "leader". She can give orders to make the thinkers think and the doers do. Great. So why should I care what her theories are on ecconomic recovery? Being a leader doesn't mean you are magically knowledgeable about subjects . . . it means you can get people to do what you tell them to do, whether that idea is bright or not.
She's got an opinion. Everybody does. It might even be right -- hell, I'm not an ecconomist. But what in her resume or her work history makes you think she has the slightest idea what she's talking about? Do her comments imply she knows her stuff because the sheer brilliance of her words are clear for all to see . . . or is it because you agreed with what she said even before she said it? Do you disagree with Krugman because his decades of study, Nobel Prize, professorships here and in England, 25 books either authored or edited, 40 scholarly articles aren't the least bit impressive . . . or do you disagree with him because he's a liberal who doesn't support tax cuts which you believe in?It seems like we're talking about an article of faith. You appear to believe tax cuts are the solution, as many Republicans/Conservatives do (and again, that may well be right). If you believe it, then it sounds correct when you hear it. If I believe that the Heavenly Spirit manifests itself in earthly visitations, then the pancake in front of me is obviously emblazoned with the visage of the Virgin Mary via divine power. If I didn't believe that before I made breakfast . . . well, it just looks like a burnt pancake.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 19.11.2009 @ 17:36
If that is the case (its an article of faith), then the acceptance of support and the rejection of critiques isn't based on the facts but on reinforcement of belief. The critic is going to be rejected regardless of who they are. But that doesn't invalidate the critic or their ability -- it just means you disagree with them.
@theDragon:
"the great intellectual Paul Krugman Yale and MIT PhD with Nobel Economics Prize."
He went to Yale and MIT and got a PhD? How could anybody possibly trust him?
If you had cancer and were going to have surgery, would you rather go to the surgeon who is Dean of the John Hopkins surgical department . . . or the one that graduated from Aruba Community College?
If you're hiring an executive for your business, would you rather hire the person got a doctorate from the Wharton Business School at U. Penn, or the one that got a Masters from the University of Phoenix online?
Why does an education make you sneer at Krugman? What about decades of study and research makes someone less qualified in your eyes than someone who hasn't done that? You seem to believe in the whole "educated people are dumb" ideology . . . as someone that doesn't understand the thinking, can you explain what is so untrustworthy about studying something?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 19.11.2009 @ 07:42
Taxes are lower now than under the Clinton Administration . . . but we as a country were "more prosperous" then. W cut taxes, and America suffered the greatest loss of national income in its history. Have I "proven" that lower taxes hurt the economy? Of course not.
The issue of national-level macro ecconomic theory is unbelievably complex. It is a field with so many variables that the recognized experts in the field rarely agree on what is happening and how to fix it. "Cut taxes and everything will get better" is, respectfully, childishly simplistic.@manning:
What are you talking about? By 2012 we may face a Universal world Constitution? Is that based on any kind of fact, or just because you know the Libruls are run by the Bilderbergs?
Red flacks are complaining that the NYC terror trials are giving the suspects too many rights (rights that derive from the Constitution). The last Red Administration had a Vice-President claiming he was exempt from the Constitutional rules governing both the Executive and Legislative branches. They debated secretly using troops for police actions in the States (a clear Constitutional violation) just to see if they could get away with it. They attacked the warrant requirements of the Constitution. All of these are facts, not opinions.
But the Dems are the ones that want to do away with the pesky Constitution?
Universal Political Correctness, Universal retirement funds, Universal Open Boarders (what does that even mean?) . . . where are you getting this stuff?@Dave Rickey:
"I really am a centrist independant, leaning left on social issues (gay marriage, if they’re crazy enough to *want* it, why not?) and right on fiscal issues (the Clinton balanced budgets were nice), and having to think long and hard about some where those values come into conflict (socialized medicine seems to work pretty well in Europe, but the sticker shock and civil liberties questions are not trivial)."
So you assess each question on its own merits, weigh pros and cons? Heretic!
You're not going to do too well here, unfortunately. That kind of thinking poses a danger of ending up with "bad" answers . . . and then CommieSocialistTotalitaranismDevilWorship.
Being practical is sooooo Hitler."If they can’t understand why [Obama] does what he does, it can’t be because he’s smarter than they are, it has to be because he’s hiding something."
But its not hidden anymore -- the One World Order plan has been leaked (see comment #12).
@Richard Bottoms:
Really, is there anything more Christian than not only praying for the death of someone, but their divine retribution be visited on their innocent children as well? It's what Jesus would do (if the role of Jesus were being played tonight by Charles Bronson after a steroid-and-meth binge).
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 18.11.2009 @ 17:59
I guess that whole "support your country in a time of war" jingo had an expiration date. Disgusting.
@foobarista:
I can't say that I disagree with your assessment of the government, but I don't think your solution is practical.
Let's assume that there IS a "fix" for the government (which, as you say, you and I don't know). To refuse to move forward on more pressing matters until that is implemented doesn't make sense. If there is such a fix, it's not an overnight, flip-a-switch type of fix. Do we stop funding the wars until we know the government won't foolishly waste money or lose pallets of cash? That's a bad idea, even given the proven assumption that funding the war WILL result in the government wasting some money.
The only middle ground is something like "well, we will keep funding the important stuff, but we will stop funding the not-important stuff", but that gets us back to the same problem . . . what the word "important" applies to. That's not a failure of the government structure, but a natural disagreement in a democratic society. I don't think everything the government does is important or necessary, but if the people elect representatives that vote for it, then my opinion was considered and rejected, and I'm stuck with that.
Getting more "meta" with the problem, making a lean, mean efficient government machine raises a host of problems. The founding fathers designed the government to be in some manner self-defeating, specifically to limit its damage-causing potential. Between inefficient and dangerous, they chose inefficient as the lesser of two evile . . . amd I can't say I disagree with that. Just read the comments here and elsewhere. Both liberals (last administration) and conservatives (this administration) worry that the government is barreling down the path of societial destruction . . . and that's WITH it's basic inability to accomplish much of anything. Imagine what would happen if things ran smoother and faster.
Compare the issue to automobiles. They are actually stunningly inificient contraptions. For example, it decelerates by wasting all of its kenetic energy (converting it to heat via the brake pad). It would certainly be more practical to do it by some other method, such as using the kenetic energy to power a storage cell, slowing the vehicle and then re-using all that energy. Perhaps re-designing the thing from the ground up would be a good idea . . . but deciding not to take any steps toward managing automobiles until a "perfect" redesign is completed would be foolish and dangerous. No need to worry about fuel economy standards or safety standards . . . why bother until we have all new designs?
Certainly "fixing" the government is an admirable long-term goal. But there are short-term things that need addressing at the same time, and ignoring them just doesn't strike me as wise.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 18.11.2009 @ 20:07
@sota:
"Many people are scared to have their belief system questioned and take it very personally."
That I've never understood (although I agree it is certainly true). If your belief system can't stand up to questioning . . . why do you believe it in the first place? And just because I believe "x" doesn't prohibit me from understanding why some people believe "y" (even if I don't).
I have religious faith, but I certainly understand why athiests believe the way that they do. I don't agree, but they aren't crazy . . . and my daddy raised me tough enough that someone telling me "you're wrong" doesn't reduce me to crying in the corner.
@FT:
"I believe the New Left, the spawns of neo-Marxist Critical Theory are *NOT* children of the Enlightenment as were say the New Deal Liberals but a different species of political animal."Of course you do. Life is so much easier when everything is pure black and white, isn't it? The soldiers for Truth and the drooling, gibbering demonic legions that want to drink human blood as they rub their hand maniacally in smoky rooms plotting how they can be more evil today than the last.
Ah . . . to be 12 years old again.
Remember FT -- all liberals believe exactly the same thing, behave in exactly the same way. They all march in lockstep, one monolithic entity deviod of individual thought. They pass their secret manifesto to each other carefully, so as not to arouse suspicion, its hypnotic words draining all who read it of identity.
And then the C.H.U.D.s came . . .
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 18.11.2009 @ 00:47
"I am not sure what kind of bridges can be built with most of today’s liberals."
In some cases, there may well be no bridge that can be built. but then both sides agree to disagree and move the hell on to things that CAN be bridged.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 17.11.2009 @ 14:10
Absolutely nothing wrong with different ideas. Either you get exposed to something you hadn't considered, something that might help expand and develop your own ideas . . . or you decide that the new ideas don't hold water, and your own ideas become stronger and more tempered for the failed challenge. It's a no-lose scenario.
I've never understood the "echo chamber" mentality of so many on both sides. Why on earth would somebody want to hear what they already believe? I already believe 2+2 equals 4 -- I don't need to hear somebody else try to convince me of that.
For all the ideas I've encountered that I reject or disagree with, I've never come away from them without learning something new, without getting some additional insight into my own beliefs and understanding of the world.
IS THERE ANY WAY SARAH PALIN CAN RECOVER?
@Gayle:
Your cat is a student of history? Color me impressed. Does it focus its studies on the recent past, or is it more of a student of the Middle Ages?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 17.11.2009 @ 10:06
Forgot to ad . . .
Don't know how long you've been herre at RWNH, but Rick Moran went to extreme lengths to insult and denigrate anybody that raised the "trig birth" issue. He mocked it repeatedly, soundly, and completely.
"ain’t the Daily Dish last time I checked although there are apparently some here who agree with the trig birther and anti-Semite conspiracy theorist who writes it."
Are you basing such unbelievably obnoxious comments on anything except the fact that you disagree with Rick? If the way you say "I disagree with you" is to wildly and inaccurately insult the person . . . well, if you're wondering why your clique isn't getting more mainstream support, I'd suggest you think reeeeeeal hard about this comment. I know this might seem odd to you, but this kind of lying went out of style for most people about the 2nd grade.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 17.11.2009 @ 00:46
