Are you an absolute fucking idiot, or do you just play one on TV?! My posts in this thread have nothing at all to do with "libruls," Obama, or the media.
Are you an absolute fucking idiot, or do you just play one on TV?! My posts in this thread have nothing at all to do with "libruls," Obama, or the media.
jonks
Lifer
- Feb 7, 2005
- 13,918
- 20
- 81
You'd have to be one disinenguous person to argue that criticizing academics as elitists isn't the rallying cry of fake populism propagated almost entirely by the right. I don't care whether you consider yourself right or left or middle; anti-academic fervor is almost purely a conservative based sentiment. You can deny that if you like, doesn't make it any less true.
And no, I'm not a lifelong academic, nor an academic at all as far as employment goes, though I did go through grad school. What you interpret as "defensiveness" is me calling bullshit on your bald assertion which people on the right repeat ad nauseum. The reason the elistist/bubble claims gets repeated so often isn't because it has any basis in reality, but because of the fact that most professors are liberal leaning.
I did notice you merely reassert your position that academics are elitists and don't address anything I said.
If I removed the words "right" and "conservative" from your inflamatory posts, there would be nothing left. You're a blind partisan douchebag.
Consider yourself addressed.
I've spent quite a bit of time in the 'real world', and quite a bit of time in academia. Jonks is 100% right. (since when is working at a university not 'the real world'? What the hell would qualify as 'the real world' to you?) Your post just displays to me a deep dislike of academics and one that doesn't seem very grounded in reality. Maybe you had a bad professor once and haven't gotten over it.
Regardless of what your personal reasons are, American conservatism has been associated with an assault on academia for longer than any of us has been alive. Whether or not you are anti-academic because you are conservative or not, as jonks said your post does nothing other than perpetuate a ridiculously inaccurate stereotype that is the bread and butter of the extreme right.
I would say the explanation for the attacks on academics is simple to understand. One of the most common put downs people experience is being called stupid. You and I have been called stupid from a very early age and we have been made to feel it's true. This hate of our mental capacity makes us envy smart people and we hate people we envy. In a country full of people who feel unconsciously stupid, being smart makes you a target. Nobody is smarter looking in our society than those very folk who have mentally achieved, our academicians.
The rest of us flatter ourselves that we are smart in experience or practical matters while these academic types are egg heads who can't tie their shoes. It's all about staying unconscious of our self hate and the self flattery and egotism we put up as a front.
One need only extrapolate from the visible fact that people with obvious self-esteem problems visibly manifest these symptoms to the more subtle fact that we all hate ourselves.
- Feb 8, 2001
- 4,822
- 0
- 0
My, my, my, I did not think an opinion piece like this would raise ALL of the defenders of Obama from their crypts.
We had exactly ONE person, eskimospy, address the tenets of this article by listing some of the accomplishments he believes Obama was responsible for. Though he, of course, follows this with a personal attack, at least he makes the intellectual effort to challenge the presumptions of the author.
Where is everyone else?
The piece is too long to read. (No one said adult life would be easy, no one said that life will offer you unlimited Cliff Notes.)
The same sampling that loves to bash Bush are bored with defending Obama (why DON'T we all love Him like they do?)
The source is of the right, published by the right and advocates something from the right (that's right, when you cannot address the meat of the argument spend your time first grouping the author in the "enemy" camp, though he may not be; attack the institutions he is affiliated with by invitation, discount the publisher and offer a knee jerk ad hominem attack - but never, never address the validity of the argument being made - THAT would require reflection and the structuring and presentation of a logical counter argument.)
The argument is repetitive or old (well, fancy that, this is actually the first time an analytical commentary has taken this tack. It could not be taken before simply because the Big O had not held the job before and the commentary addresses approaches to governance and the effectiveness of the approaches which are seemingly being employed right now.)
The argument is a carryover from the election (well, the election is long over except in the minds and hearts of the liberal responders on this forum. This has nothing to do with the election, it has everything to do with governance and how governance is being approached, maybe effectively, maybe ineffectively.)
The author is deemed inexpert because he writes great books on history (those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it, it rings as true here as it did when George Santayana wrote it in 1905, before anyone on this forum was born.)
And, of course, the obligatory gratuitous attack on the poster (as the messenger, there is no easier target to attack, for the attack can be personal and supported by one's motley group of peers like toy monkey's jumping on a rubber band.
)
Ladies and aspiring gentlemen, whether you choose to read any post here or to take the additional step to respond is your prerogative, no one forces you to take any action.
You actually believe this little online world is more than an amusement, your personal playground and that determined bullying determines who gets to express opinion, only opinion in line with the group think.
Laughably, it may be for such a lack of honest and cogent debate, boring those able to contribute an element of substance, that most do not bother to engage at all. Perhaps choosing a much harsher place where the battle over ideas is fought much more rigorously than you seem capable of.
If you cannot embrace your opponents as tightly as you embrace your compatriots, you have already lost in the battle over ideas and ideals.
We had exactly ONE person, eskimospy, address the tenets of this article by listing some of the accomplishments he believes Obama was responsible for. Though he, of course, follows this with a personal attack, at least he makes the intellectual effort to challenge the presumptions of the author.
Where is everyone else?
The piece is too long to read. (No one said adult life would be easy, no one said that life will offer you unlimited Cliff Notes.)
The same sampling that loves to bash Bush are bored with defending Obama (why DON'T we all love Him like they do?)
The source is of the right, published by the right and advocates something from the right (that's right, when you cannot address the meat of the argument spend your time first grouping the author in the "enemy" camp, though he may not be; attack the institutions he is affiliated with by invitation, discount the publisher and offer a knee jerk ad hominem attack - but never, never address the validity of the argument being made - THAT would require reflection and the structuring and presentation of a logical counter argument.)
The argument is repetitive or old (well, fancy that, this is actually the first time an analytical commentary has taken this tack. It could not be taken before simply because the Big O had not held the job before and the commentary addresses approaches to governance and the effectiveness of the approaches which are seemingly being employed right now.)
The argument is a carryover from the election (well, the election is long over except in the minds and hearts of the liberal responders on this forum. This has nothing to do with the election, it has everything to do with governance and how governance is being approached, maybe effectively, maybe ineffectively.)
The author is deemed inexpert because he writes great books on history (those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it, it rings as true here as it did when George Santayana wrote it in 1905, before anyone on this forum was born.)
And, of course, the obligatory gratuitous attack on the poster (as the messenger, there is no easier target to attack, for the attack can be personal and supported by one's motley group of peers like toy monkey's jumping on a rubber band.
) Ladies and aspiring gentlemen, whether you choose to read any post here or to take the additional step to respond is your prerogative, no one forces you to take any action.
You actually believe this little online world is more than an amusement, your personal playground and that determined bullying determines who gets to express opinion, only opinion in line with the group think.
Laughably, it may be for such a lack of honest and cogent debate, boring those able to contribute an element of substance, that most do not bother to engage at all. Perhaps choosing a much harsher place where the battle over ideas is fought much more rigorously than you seem capable of.
If you cannot embrace your opponents as tightly as you embrace your compatriots, you have already lost in the battle over ideas and ideals.
jonks
Lifer
- Feb 7, 2005
- 13,918
- 20
- 81
Ok, let's try what people in academia call an "experiment." I'll repost with all references to politics removed and then we can compare and see if there's "nothing left".
Well, I had to remove about 4 words. I dunno, it's a close call but compared to the control group of the original post, I'd say my point was pretty clearly made even absent the completely factual assertions of right wing animosity towards academics. So when you feel like actually addressing the above instead of shrieking about partisanship, feel free.
- Feb 8, 2001
- 4,822
- 0
- 0
BTW, as this thread is evolving into a discussion of university level academia, Hanson, while currently a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution and Fellow in California Studies at the Claremont Institute, was, until recently, a professor at California State University, Fresno, where he began teaching in 1984, having created the classics program at that institution.
In 1991 Hanson was awarded an American Philological Association's Excellence in Teaching Award, which is awarded to undergraduate teachers of Greek and Latin. He has been a visiting professor of classics at Stanford University (1991?92), National Endowment for the Humanities fellow at the Center for Advanced Studies in the Behavioral Sciences, Stanford, California (1992?93), as well as holding the visiting Shifrin Chair of Military History at the U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland (2002?03). He was a visiting professor at Hillsdale College in 2004, 2006, and 2007.
Hanson is from and of academia and well placed to make the comparison of Obama's style of governance to that of academia.
How many of those posting have actually taught or held senior administration roles at any university and can use that experience and insight to rebut Hanson's assertions?
Being a student doesn't provide any insight into these roles, does it? The politics involved, the massaging of massive egos, the balancing of myriad interests - Hanson is not saying it is easy to be a university president - he is saying that the stylistic approach, eerily suggestive of that of a university administrator, is affecting performance and effectiveness.
In 1991 Hanson was awarded an American Philological Association's Excellence in Teaching Award, which is awarded to undergraduate teachers of Greek and Latin. He has been a visiting professor of classics at Stanford University (1991?92), National Endowment for the Humanities fellow at the Center for Advanced Studies in the Behavioral Sciences, Stanford, California (1992?93), as well as holding the visiting Shifrin Chair of Military History at the U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland (2002?03). He was a visiting professor at Hillsdale College in 2004, 2006, and 2007.
Hanson is from and of academia and well placed to make the comparison of Obama's style of governance to that of academia.
How many of those posting have actually taught or held senior administration roles at any university and can use that experience and insight to rebut Hanson's assertions?
Being a student doesn't provide any insight into these roles, does it? The politics involved, the massaging of massive egos, the balancing of myriad interests - Hanson is not saying it is easy to be a university president - he is saying that the stylistic approach, eerily suggestive of that of a university administrator, is affecting performance and effectiveness.
- Feb 8, 2001
- 4,822
- 0
- 0
Are you actually ascribing ALL of these to President Obama?
Because his campaign literature says so?
Point by point I am going to take some time to show you how to properly address nonsense such as you post, and obviously, blissfully, ignorantly believe.
I am really starting to think that I should do this more often with shoddy opinions and garbage research, so don't take this too personally. Oh well, maybe you should take it personally because then you might raise the level of the research you do before you make blatantly false statements.
(BTW, I am just going to take my rebuttal info mostly from Wikipedia because it is getting late here on the East Coast and I have build up some energy to watch the festivities at the G20 tomorrow. Feel free to TRY a rebuttal using alternate data, I don't mind.)
<<<<<<First increase in CAFE standards in god knows how long.
The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) regulations in the United States, first enacted by Congress in 1975. Congress specifies that CAFE standards must be set at the "maximum feasible level..."
On December 19, 2007, President George W. Bush signed the Energy Independence and Security Act. CAFE standards received their first overhaul in more than 30 years. This Act aims at improving vehicle fuel economy. The Act set a goal for the national fuel economy standard of 35 miles per gallon (mpg) by 2020. This would increase the fuel economy standards by 40 percent and save the United States billions of gallons of fuel. This standard is the first standard that has been set above the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards (CAFE) since it was created in 1975.
CAFÉ changes enacted by the 110th Congress (between January 3, 2007, and January 3, 2009 - Democrat Party controlled) (The Energy Independence and Security Act P.L. 110-140, H.R. 6) granted $4.1 billion in benefits to Toyota, Honda and Nissan in the form of partial exemptions from the new CAFÉ laws.
On May 19, 2009 President Barack Obama proposed a new national fuel economy program which adopts uniform federal standards to regulate both fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions while preserving the legal authorities of DOT, EPA and California. The program covers model year 2012 to model year 2016...
PJABBER - So, President Bush in 2007 pushes through the first new CAFE standard in 30 years, Congress gets taken over by the Democrats in 2008 and they promptly offer $4.1 BILLION in exemptions, and President Obama proposes to do something. BTW, nothing has passed Congress on this, so his achievement is another good speech.
<<<<<<Lilly Ledbetter Act, fair pay reform
The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 is an Act of Congress enacted by the 111th United States Congress and signed into law by President-elect Barack Obama on January 29, 2009.
The bill amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 stating that the 180-day statute of limitations for filing an equal-pay lawsuit regarding pay discrimination resets with each new discriminatory paycheck. The law was a direct answer to the Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007), a U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that the statute of limitations for presenting an equal-pay lawsuit begins at the date the pay was agreed upon, not at the date of the most recent paycheck, as a lower court had ruled.
The case had never received much attention before going to the Supreme Court, but the Court's ruling ignited legal groups on the left and Democrats that took action to transfom the Ledbetter case into a rallying issue for the left, having activists seen in the figure of the pliant an ideal standard-bearer in their attempt to bring the public opinion in the persuasion that the Supreme Court was moving to far to the right.
The bill (H.R. 2831 and S. 1843) was defeated in April 2008 by Republicans in the Senate who cited the possibility of frivolous lawsuits in their opposition of the bill and criticized Democrats for refusing to allow compromises.
The bill was re-introduced in the 111th Congress (as H.R. 11 and S. 181) in January 2009. It passed in the House of Representatives with 247 votes in support and 171 against. The vote was nearly perfectly split along party lines, with only three Republicans voting in favor.
The official White House blog said... As president, Obama actively supported the bill.
On January 29, Obama signed the bill into law. It was the first act he signed as president, and it fulfilled his campaign pledge to nullify Ledbetter v. Goodyear. However, the fact that he signed it only two days after it was passed by the House brought him under criticism from papers such as the St. Petersburg Times which mentioned his campaign promise to give the public five days of notice to comment on legislation before he signed it.
PJABBER - Since Obama did not argue the merits in any forum that I am aware of and certainly not in any session of Congress, did not author the bill, did not sponsor the bill, and signed the politically divided legislation into law it without the five days review he promised.
OK, Obama says he supported it and he signed it. I don't know that I would give him any credit on this one at all, though. But I am not a partisan supporter, either.
<<<<<<Credit card reform
The Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 or Credit CARD Act of 2009 is a federal law passed by the United States Congress and signed by President Barack Obama on May 22, 2009. It is comprehensive credit card reform legislation that aims "...to establish fair and transparent practices relating to the extension of credit under an open end consumer credit plan, and for other purposes." The bill was passed with extremely high, bipartisan support by both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
House Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee Chairwoman Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY)Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY) today introduced the ?Credit Cardholders? Bill of Rights Act of 2008? (H.R. 5244)
House Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee Chairwoman Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY) today introduced the ?Credit Cardholders? Bill of Rights Act of 2008? (H.R. 5244), comprehensive credit card reform legislation aimed at leveling the playing field between credit card companies and consumers. The balanced bill abolishes major industry abuses that unfairly hurt consumers while fostering fair competition and free market values.
Background:
Congresswoman Maloney held a number of congressional hearings and meetings last year to determine how Congress, federal regulators, and credit card companies could work together to help improve services and protections for card holders. In August, she released a set of common sense principles, or ?Gold Standard Principles,? aimed at guiding the shape and scope of ?The Credit Cardholders? Bill of Rights? as well as industry self-regulation. Her final bill is the careful, deliberative product of more than a year?s worth of study and analysis.
PJABBER - Hey, one of those rare BI-PARTISAN legislative efforts of the Congress this term! House Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee Chairwoman Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY), however, get the props. Since Obama did not argue the merits in any session of Congress, did not author the bill, did not sponsor the bill, I will pass on giving him credit for this one as well.
<<<<<<Economic stimulus package
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, abbreviated ARRA (Pub.L. 111-5), is an economic stimulus package enacted by the 111th United States Congress in February 2009. The Act of Congress was based largely on proposals made by President Barack Obama and was intended to provide a stimulus to the U.S. economy in the wake of the economic downturn. The measures are nominally worth $787 billion. The Act includes federal tax cuts, expansion of unemployment benefits and other social welfare provisions, and domestic spending in education, health care, and infrastructure, including the energy sector. The Act also includes numerous non-economic recovery related items that were either part of longer-term plans (e.g. a study of the effectiveness of medical treatments) or desired by Congress (e.g. a limitation on executive compensation in federally aided banks added by Senator Dodd and Rep. Frank). The government action is much larger than the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, which consisted primarily of tax rebate checks.
No Republicans in the House and only three Republican Senators voted for the bill. The bill was signed into law on February 17 by President Obama.
Congressional Budget Office report
A February 4, 2009, report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said that while the stimulus would increase economic output and employment in the short run, the GDP would, by 2019, have an estimated net decrease between 0.1% and 0.3% (as compared to the CBO estimated baseline).
The CBO estimated that enacting the bill would increase federal budget deficits by $185 billion over the remaining months of fiscal year 2009, by $399 billion in 2010, by $134 billion in 2011, and by $787 billion over the 2009-2019 period.
PJABBER - OK, you get a point for this one, and Obama get the credit and the blame for what this "stimulus" does to the country's financial health.
<<<<<<Funding of stem cell research
Federal funding for medical research involving the creation or destruction of human embryos through the Department of Health and Human Services and the National Institutes of Health has been forbidden by law since the passage in 1995 of the Dickey Amendment by Congress and the signature of President Bill Clinton. Bush has said that he supports adult stem cell research and has supported federal legislation that finances adult stem cell research. However, Bush did not support embryonic stem cell research. On August 9, 2001, Bush signed an executive order lifting the ban on federal funding for the 71 existing "lines" of stem cells, but the ability of these existing lines to provide an adequate medium for testing has been questioned. Testing can only be done on twelve of the original lines, and all of the approved lines have been cultured in contact with mouse cells, which creates safety issues that complicate development and approval of therapies from these lines. On July 19, 2006, Bush used his veto power for the first time in his presidency to veto the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. The bill would have repealed the Dickey Amendment, thereby permitting federal money to be used for research where stem cells are derived from the destruction of an embryo.
NPR - Obama Lifts Restrictions On Stem Cell Research
President Barack Obama removed restrictions on the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research put in place by the Bush administration, fulfilling a controversial campaign promise....
... And while the new order will allow researchers to use federal funds to work with new cell lines, a legislative ban on the use of federal dollars to create new stem cell lines remains in place.
The legislation?
H.R. 873: Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2009 - This bill is in the first step in the legislative process. Introduced bills and resolutions first go to committees that deliberate, investigate, and revise them before they go to general debate. The majority of bills and resolutions never make it out of committee. [Last Updated: Sep 18, 2009 5:05PM]
S. 487: Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2009 - This bill is in the first step in the legislative process. Introduced bills and resolutions first go to committees that deliberate, investigate, and revise them before they go to general debate. The majority of bills and resolutions never make it out of committee. [Last Updated: Sep 19, 2009 2:11AM]
PJABBER - Lifting a ban does not mean funding is going to be made available, but with this Congress who knows? No points for no results.
FOUR points against, ONE for.
Like I said, nothing personal. I am just tired of OPINION that is not backed by FACT. Way too common in this forum, isn't it?
:laugh:
:moon: :moon: :moon:
you don't need to be a university professor to realize that this guy is a moron. Its not like you have any experience to back up his moronic assertion.
Only in PJABBER's world do bills signed into law by the president not count as accomplishments by the president.
- Feb 8, 2001
- 4,822
- 0
- 0
Actually, the President signs hundreds of bills into law and may actually be involved in driving only a few. After all, he is the Chief Executive (Chief Organizer?) and not the Chief Legislator.
I am happy for you that you like to credit the President with so much for doing so little, but you could be more accurate in your statements if you understood how the federal government works and who is responsible for what.
I am sure that Consumer Credit Subcommittee Chairwoman Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY) would like her due credit as would all of the others that actually work to research, draft, argue and shepherd legislation through.
I would be glad to give President Obama credit for giving good speech, but I am finding it increasingly difficult to find anything of substance in his comments. And the platitudes have little commonality with actual legislation under consideration. I am coming to the point of considering that something is precluding direct communication with the Democrat majority leadership of the Congress, in addition to completely rejecting input of any kind from the minority Republicans.
The OP article identifies and argues that the stylistic approach which served extraordinarily well in campaign mode is much less effective in governance mode. I find little to disagree with. And I have yet to see a cogent counter here.
umbrella39
Lifer
- Jun 11, 2004
- 13,816
- 1,126
- 126
LOL a cogent counter? You and the tripe are irrelevant which makes you moot. Since "showing up" here you have been nothing short of a joke whose sole purpose is to be pointed and laughed at. Here's your social pariah
Pjabber, I'm a political science grad student with a concentration in public policy. I probably know more about our government than you do. Do YOU know where congress gets its research for bills? You gave credit to Bush for CAFE standards, when I guarantee you he had far less input into that bill than Obama had into these. This doesn't shock me though, because if reality and your ideology conflict, you trust your ideology. This is why you invent magical conditions for Obama's accomplishments. If all these things were so easy to do, why didn't bush do them?
- Feb 8, 2001
- 4,822
- 0
- 0
Hey, I used to study poli sci, too! A looong time ago. Based on your posts, maybe you should check into getting a refund for that tuition money you or your parents are spending. Heheheh.
I am finding it fun to post here, but it is really just a way for me to avoid writer's block as I am spending half my time writing a book and half the time providing advisory services in international economic development and what a can of worms that is. I now have close to 30 years in the trenches of senior management and I figure 20 more to go. Military, domestic and international business, domestic (state and federal levels) and international government affairs experience. You know, the kind of work that requires 12 hours a day, six days a week, 50 weeks a year?
It really is no wonder that my classical liberalism, "opinions" and tacks in conversation are going to be different, but what really amuses me is the unbearable lightness of the discussions here. Want to make a case, back it up. Can't make a case, yell louder. You know you will have to justify and back up your opinions/actions in the real world. Why not start here?
rudder
Lifer
- Nov 9, 2000
- 19,441
- 86
- 91
Hello, Mr. President we honor you today!
For all your great accomplishments, we all doth say "hooray!"
Hooray, Mr. President! You're number one!
The first black American to lead this great nation!
Hooray, Mr. President we honor your great plans
To make this country's economy number one again!
Hooray Mr. President, we're really proud of you!
And we stand for all Americans under the great Red, White, and Blue!
So continue ---- Mr. President we know you'll do the trick
So here's a hearty hip-hooray ----
Hip, hip hooray!
Hip, hip hooray!
Hip, hip hooray!
For all your great accomplishments, we all doth say "hooray!"
Hooray, Mr. President! You're number one!
The first black American to lead this great nation!
Hooray, Mr. President we honor your great plans
To make this country's economy number one again!
Hooray Mr. President, we're really proud of you!
And we stand for all Americans under the great Red, White, and Blue!
So continue ---- Mr. President we know you'll do the trick
So here's a hearty hip-hooray ----
Hip, hip hooray!
Hip, hip hooray!
Hip, hip hooray!
Originally posted by: PJABBER
Hey, I used to study poli sci, too! A looong time ago. Based on your posts, maybe you should check into getting a refund for that tuition money you or your parents are spending. Heheheh.
I am finding it fun to post here, but it is really just a way for me to avoid writer's block as I am spending half my time writing a book and half the time providing advisory services in international economic development and what a can of worms that is. I now have close to 30 years in the trenches of senior management and I figure 20 more to go. Military, domestic and international business, domestic (state and federal levels) and international government affairs experience. You know, the kind of work that requires 12 hours a day, six days a week, 50 weeks a year?
It really is no wonder that my ideology, "opinions" and tacks in conversation are going to be different, but what really amuses me is the unbearable lightness of the discussions here. Want to make a case, back it up. Can't make a case, yell louder. You know you will have to justify and back up your opinions/actions in the real world. Why not start here?
I really wish you would back up what you say. This is your problem, you don't understand what evidence is. Linking ultra-right editorials does not back up what you say, all it does is show us what publications are feeding you your opinions. You are also exceptionally poor at formulating an argument, mostly I think because you are unable to tell good information from bad and you fill in the gaps with your extreme partisanship. Hell, you're the guy who thought that Glenn Beck playing the 'six steps to Kevin Bacon' constituted some argument that needed to be refuted. You link 'reports' that are actually just partisan press releases and then try to pass them off as work of a congressional committee. When you think that sort of thing is 'evidence', what it actually is evidence of is your poor ability to evaluate the strength of an argument.
When you work on that and start putting together posts that are backed up by actual evidence, I would happily engage you. You have a long way to go before you meet that standard though.
For example, you said Bush 'sheparded' the improved CAFE standards through Congress when he did little more than mention his desire for improved standards in a SOTU address, but but then say in other sections that Obama doesn't get credit for bills being passed because you (incorrectly) think that he didn't do much more than a speech. If you look into these bills, a major reason why they weren't passed was a hostile executive. Now that Obama is supportive, they pass easily. Yet since it wasn't a contentious vote in Congress, he doesn't get credit. Why on earth difficult to pass legislation would be deserving of more credit than easily passed legislation is beyond me. If you support legislation that is well written enough to pass easily, that's even more of a plus. In PJABBER world though, that inexplicably means it doesn't count as an accomplishment.
Oh, I also don't care about your resume.
So PJABBER, I will challenge you to live up to your own posts and grow up a little. Right now your posts are long, rambling embarrassments. Please check into what sort of sources and citations are acceptable in rational discourse, and try to use those instead. Furthermore please evaluate your sources not based on whether or not they agree with you, but on the strength of their argument. This will eliminate a lot of the basic problems your posts have, and it will lead to far fewer contemptuous and insulting posts from me.
It should also keep you from having to run crying to the mods on PFI when I call you a moron.
hah, makes as much sense I spose as anything else.
Anyhow, BHO is not far away from being a lameduck pesident anyway.
>From his failed healthcare (which the senate as of today still refuses to show the public the actual proposed bill and cost)
>To his must win war in Afghanistan that he is now waffling on to appease the far left.
Even msm media is begining to tout this as a clueless whitehouse.
Anyhow, BHO is not far away from being a lameduck pesident anyway.
>From his failed healthcare (which the senate as of today still refuses to show the public the actual proposed bill and cost)
>To his must win war in Afghanistan that he is now waffling on to appease the far left.
Even msm media is begining to tout this as a clueless whitehouse.
What you call eerie I call horse shit.
I am not a university administrator. I am not an academician. I am a nobody, a complete and total nobody at all, a tiny bird in a small cage. But, ignorant though I am, and as uneducated as I am, this nobody has noticed this fact:
To a hammer everything looks like a nail. A thief fears being robbed, a liar that he's told lies, that every somebody in this world projects onto everybody else, the particular suspicion that they are just that same somebody that they themselves are, and that this eerie ability to identify in others via this astounding capacity call projection always exists where the somebody one is or feels oneself to be is exactly what one despises and has been trained to despise about oneself.
So when I see a baker attack Obama because he is a bread oven that somebody forgot to fire, or a plumber, a toilet with a broken chain, I get an eerie feeling I know what I'm looking at.
So please excuse this worthless nobody from jumping into the fray and defending Obama's pilot light. I see nothing but a half baked loaf kneaded by clowns manufacturing circuses out of thin air.
Now at the count of three I want you to wake up. One, two................
CrackRabbit
Lifer
- Mar 30, 2001
- 16,642
- 62
- 91
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: PJABBER
Hey, I used to study poli sci, too! A looong time ago. Based on your posts, maybe you should check into getting a refund for that tuition money you or your parents are spending. Heheheh.
I am finding it fun to post here, but it is really just a way for me to avoid writer's block as I am spending half my time writing a book and half the time providing advisory services in international economic development and what a can of worms that is. I now have close to 30 years in the trenches of senior management and I figure 20 more to go. Military, domestic and international business, domestic (state and federal levels) and international government affairs experience. You know, the kind of work that requires 12 hours a day, six days a week, 50 weeks a year?
It really is no wonder that my ideology, "opinions" and tacks in conversation are going to be different, but what really amuses me is the unbearable lightness of the discussions here. Want to make a case, back it up. Can't make a case, yell louder. You know you will have to justify and back up your opinions/actions in the real world. Why not start here?
I really wish you would back up what you say. This is your problem, you don't understand what evidence is. Linking ultra-right editorials does not back up what you say, all it does is show us what publications are feeding you your opinions. You are also exceptionally poor at formulating an argument, mostly I think because you are unable to tell good information from bad and you fill in the gaps with your extreme partisanship. Hell, you're the guy who thought that Glenn Beck playing the 'six steps to Kevin Bacon' constituted some argument that needed to be refuted. You link 'reports' that are actually just partisan press releases and then try to pass them off as work of a congressional committee. When you think that sort of thing is 'evidence', what it actually is evidence of is your poor ability to evaluate the strength of an argument.
When you work on that and start putting together posts that are backed up by actual evidence, I would happily engage you. You have a long way to go before you meet that standard though.
For example, you said Bush 'sheparded' the improved CAFE standards through Congress when he did little more than mention his desire for improved standards in a SOTU address, but but then say in other sections that Obama doesn't get credit for bills being passed because you (incorrectly) think that he didn't do much more than a speech. If you look into these bills, a major reason why they weren't passed was a hostile executive. Now that Obama is supportive, they pass easily. Yet since it wasn't a contentious vote in Congress, he doesn't get credit. Why on earth difficult to pass legislation would be deserving of more credit than easily passed legislation is beyond me. If you support legislation that is well written enough to pass easily, that's even more of a plus. In PJABBER world though, that inexplicably means it doesn't count as an accomplishment.
Oh, I also don't care about your resume.
So PJABBER, I will challenge you to live up to your own posts and grow up a little. Right now your posts are long, rambling embarrassments. Please check into what sort of sources and citations are acceptable in rational discourse, and try to use those instead. Furthermore please evaluate your sources not based on whether or not they agree with you, but on the strength of their argument. This will eliminate a lot of the basic problems your posts have, and it will lead to far fewer contemptuous and insulting posts from me.
It should also keep you from having to run crying to the mods on PFI when I call you a moron.
Just accept the fact that he is a troll, albeit a long winded one.
Deep down he is really no different from FNE, Patranus, BarrySotero, or the many may other extreme right wing trolls.
Don't feed them and move on.
- Feb 8, 2001
- 4,822
- 0
- 0
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter