GOP told cops to hold off on arrest until after election

[Lemon law]

No offense taken Harvey. I proudly claim to be in violations of every Lemon Law on the planet. Sadly I forgot to beam up on the last passing comet.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The key non Prof John line in the above post is, " I know that the thread title is total BS without any basis in reality as presented in the article the OP linked too. "

Just another usually defective opinion of non Prof John, in this case I happen to agree with you, but if you want to have any credibility on this forum, the onus is on you to support your conclusion with logic.

Once again, sad to say, non Prof John failed to use logic.

I would like proof you are indeed a Lemon Law - Otherwise I will refer to use as non Lemon Law from now on..

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Go right ahead, call me non lemon Law if it trips your trigger, I just point out I claim no automatic credibility by the choice of a random name like Lemon Law. After all, how much automatic credibility does a Lemon have?

But I grew up in an academic environment, when Prof John claims the moniker of a Professor, its just deeply offends me, as I say, I grew up in a university environment, and even if someone like Non Prof John argued the same opinions to collages that supported his end conclusions, he would still be ridiculed out of town without any hope of tenure for his failure to honestly argue his opinions.

Believe me, I know Professors, and non Prof John is no Professor.

And if you ask non Prof John, you will discover I am right.

Umm.. You do realize this is the internet right? You sound like a complete douchebag. I assume absolutely ZERO about a person based on their online name or avatar or whatever. The fact that most professors think they are somehow more intelligent than the rest of us when most of them probably couldn't survive outside the protection of their tenure is offensive to me. The fact that many of these morons are also paid by my tax dollars also offends me.

But again.. this is the INTERNET.. its not fair, its not honest, it requires no proof, no peer analysis, no NOTHING. If you want intelligent discussion you came to the wrong place.. And, in the hopes of offending you, going to a university for it probably would result in less of it than is on this forum.

I hereby nominate you for douchedag of the year..

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The key non Prof John line in the above post is, " I know that the thread title is total BS without any basis in reality as presented in the article the OP linked too. "

Just another usually defective opinion of non Prof John, in this case I happen to agree with you, but if you want to have any credibility on this forum, the onus is on you to support your conclusion with logic.

Once again, sad to say, non Prof John failed to use logic.

I would like proof you are indeed a Lemon Law - Otherwise I will refer to use as non Lemon Law from now on..

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Go right ahead, call me non lemon Law if it trips your trigger, I just point out I claim no automatic credibility by the choice of a random name like Lemon Law. After all, how much automatic credibility does a Lemon have?

But I grew up in an academic environment, when Prof John claims the moniker of a Professor, its just deeply offends me, as I say, I grew up in a university environment, and even if someone like Non Prof John argued the same opinions to collages that supported his end conclusions, he would still be ridiculed out of town without any hope of tenure for his failure to honestly argue his opinions.

Believe me, I know Professors, and non Prof John is no Professor.

And if you ask non Prof John, you will discover I am right.

Umm.. You do realize this is the internet right? You sound like a complete douchebag. I assume absolutely ZERO about a person based on their online name or avatar or whatever. The fact that most professors think they are somehow more intelligent than the rest of us when most of them probably couldn't survive outside the protection of their tenure is offensive to me. The fact that many of these morons are also paid by my tax dollars also offends me.

But again.. this is the INTERNET.. its not fair, its not honest, it requires no proof, no peer analysis, no NOTHING. If you want intelligent discussion you came to the wrong place.. And, in the hopes of offending you, going to a university for it probably would result in less of it than is on this forum.

I hereby nominate you for douchedag of the year..

Some one needs a definition of troll post and callout.

 

[Lemon law]

Quite the incongruousness argument Fear No Evil. When you say, " Umm.. You do realize this is the internet right? You sound like a complete douchebag. I assume absolutely ZERO about a person based on their online name or avatar or whatever. The fact that most professors think they are somehow more intelligent than the rest of us when most of them probably couldn't survive outside the protection of their tenure is offensive to me. The fact that many of these morons are also paid by my tax dollars also offends me.

But again.. this is the INTERNET.. its not fair, its not honest, it requires no proof, no peer analysis, no NOTHING. If you want intelligent discussion you came to the wrong place.. And, in the hopes of offending you, going to a university for it probably would result in less of it than is on this forum.

I hereby nominate you for douchedag of the year.."

On one hand, you argue that this is the standards missing internet where anything goes, and at the same time you demonize academics who have some standards on what constitutes a valid argument and what does not, as they gradually over time, through a peer review process, do modify what is supportable argument and what is not.

Your argument somewhat boils down to calling Sir Issac Newton an incredible dummy because Einstein later proved parts of Newton's knowledge was defective. And even if I do not when or where it will come from, man kind, I do believe various researchers will eventually prove that parts of Einstein's knowledge is also greatly defective.

Such a peer review process is far easier in the hard sciences v. the social sciences, but the same rigid academic standards of honest argument still apply.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Quite the incongruousness argument Fear No Evil. When you say, " Umm.. You do realize this is the internet right? You sound like a complete douchebag. I assume absolutely ZERO about a person based on their online name or avatar or whatever. The fact that most professors think they are somehow more intelligent than the rest of us when most of them probably couldn't survive outside the protection of their tenure is offensive to me. The fact that many of these morons are also paid by my tax dollars also offends me.

But again.. this is the INTERNET.. its not fair, its not honest, it requires no proof, no peer analysis, no NOTHING. If you want intelligent discussion you came to the wrong place.. And, in the hopes of offending you, going to a university for it probably would result in less of it than is on this forum.

I hereby nominate you for douchedag of the year.."

On one hand, you argue that this is the standards missing internet where anything goes, and at the same time you demonize academics who have some standards on what constitutes a valid argument and what does not, as they gradually over time, through a peer review process, do modify what is supportable argument and what is not.

Your argument somewhat boils down to calling Sir Issac Newton an incredible dummy because Einstein later proved parts of Newton's knowledge was defective. And even if I do not when or where it will come from, man kind, I do believe various researchers will eventually prove that parts of Einstein's knowledge is also greatly defective.

Such a peer review process is far easier in the hard sciences v. the social sciences, but the same rigid academic standards of honest argument still apply.

What standards does academia have when people like Ward Churchill and Bill Ayers are protected by it? And as you said, the social sciences are MUCH HARDER to apply standards to, because so much of it is opinion and perception. I'm not sure what your hard-on is for academics. Most teachers just have 4 year degrees, some don't even have that. Most professors also have 4 year degrees.. some have more advanced degrees. How does that make them any more qualified than anyone else with a BS, BA, MD, PHD?

I don't think politics has been about being honest in about 50,000 years. Its about getting people to vote for you or your ideas.

If you ARE seriously offended by 'Prof John' using the 'Prof' in his name, I think you should be looking at the people who actually ARE professors and speaking stuff much more dishonest than anything Prof John says here.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I know that the thread title is total BS without any basis in reality as presented in the article the OP linked too.

Funny coming from a reject who repeats said practice in each thread he starts. :laugh:

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I know that the thread title is total BS without any basis in reality as presented in the article the OP linked too.

I agree, it's almost as if you posted this thread.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

I know that the thread title is total BS without any basis in reality as presented in the article the OP linked too.

What's new? ALL of your opinions are total BS without any basis in reality. :laugh:

well thats ONE thing you two have in common

/duck

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: cyclohexane
"The trooper's affidavit indicates that Sarah Palin's candidacy factored into the investigation"
I think that is enough to link the GOP with this.

Error 404: Page not found

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Quite the incongruousness argument Fear No Evil. When you say, " Umm.. You do realize this is the internet right? You sound like a complete douchebag. I assume absolutely ZERO about a person based on their online name or avatar or whatever. The fact that most professors think they are somehow more intelligent than the rest of us when most of them probably couldn't survive outside the protection of their tenure is offensive to me. The fact that many of these morons are also paid by my tax dollars also offends me.

But again.. this is the INTERNET.. its not fair, its not honest, it requires no proof, no peer analysis, no NOTHING. If you want intelligent discussion you came to the wrong place.. And, in the hopes of offending you, going to a university for it probably would result in less of it than is on this forum.

I hereby nominate you for douchedag of the year.."

On one hand, you argue that this is the standards missing internet where anything goes, and at the same time you demonize academics who have some standards on what constitutes a valid argument and what does not, as they gradually over time, through a peer review process, do modify what is supportable argument and what is not.

Your argument somewhat boils down to calling Sir Issac Newton an incredible dummy because Einstein later proved parts of Newton's knowledge was defective. And even if I do not when or where it will come from, man kind, I do believe various researchers will eventually prove that parts of Einstein's knowledge is also greatly defective.

Such a peer review process is far easier in the hard sciences v. the social sciences, but the same rigid academic standards of honest argument still apply.

What standards does academia have when people like Ward Churchill and Bill Ayers are protected by it? And as you said, the social sciences are MUCH HARDER to apply standards to, because so much of it is opinion and perception. I'm not sure what your hard-on is for academics. Most teachers just have 4 year degrees, some don't even have that. Most professors also have 4 year degrees.. some have more advanced degrees. How does that make them any more qualified than anyone else with a BS, BA, MD, PHD?

I don't think politics has been about being honest in about 50,000 years. Its about getting people to vote for you or your ideas.

If you ARE seriously offended by 'Prof John' using the 'Prof' in his name, I think you should be looking at the people who actually ARE professors and speaking stuff much more dishonest than anything Prof John says here.

I'm not sure what college you went to, but no professor at any school that's even approaching decent has anything less than a Ph.D. I'm not sure how you didn't know this... but it doesn't speak well for your argument. As for your Ayers and Ward Churchill tangent, what the hell are you talking about? He was referring to academic standards of argument and evidence and you responded with "but but but these guys were BAD PEOPLE".

All your post basically is, is a cut and paste of the standard right wing, Rush Limbaugh rant against academia. It's no more true when you say it than when that moron does.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I'm not sure what college you went to, but no professor at any school that's even approaching decent has anything less than a Ph.D. I'm not sure how you didn't know this... but it doesn't speak well for your argument. As for your Ayers and Ward Churchill tangent, what the hell are you talking about? He was referring to academic standards of argument and evidence and you responded with "but but but these guys were BAD PEOPLE".
All your post basically is, is a cut and paste of the standard right wing, Rush Limbaugh rant against academia. It's no more true when you say it than when that moron does.

Rush Limbaugh is NOT an moron.

He just plays one on the radio.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Quite the incongruousness argument Fear No Evil. When you say, " Umm.. You do realize this is the internet right? You sound like a complete douchebag. I assume absolutely ZERO about a person based on their online name or avatar or whatever. The fact that most professors think they are somehow more intelligent than the rest of us when most of them probably couldn't survive outside the protection of their tenure is offensive to me. The fact that many of these morons are also paid by my tax dollars also offends me.

But again.. this is the INTERNET.. its not fair, its not honest, it requires no proof, no peer analysis, no NOTHING. If you want intelligent discussion you came to the wrong place.. And, in the hopes of offending you, going to a university for it probably would result in less of it than is on this forum.

I hereby nominate you for douchedag of the year.."

On one hand, you argue that this is the standards missing internet where anything goes, and at the same time you demonize academics who have some standards on what constitutes a valid argument and what does not, as they gradually over time, through a peer review process, do modify what is supportable argument and what is not.

Your argument somewhat boils down to calling Sir Issac Newton an incredible dummy because Einstein later proved parts of Newton's knowledge was defective. And even if I do not when or where it will come from, man kind, I do believe various researchers will eventually prove that parts of Einstein's knowledge is also greatly defective.

Such a peer review process is far easier in the hard sciences v. the social sciences, but the same rigid academic standards of honest argument still apply.

What standards does academia have when people like Ward Churchill and Bill Ayers are protected by it? And as you said, the social sciences are MUCH HARDER to apply standards to, because so much of it is opinion and perception. I'm not sure what your hard-on is for academics. Most teachers just have 4 year degrees, some don't even have that. Most professors also have 4 year degrees.. some have more advanced degrees. How does that make them any more qualified than anyone else with a BS, BA, MD, PHD?

I don't think politics has been about being honest in about 50,000 years. Its about getting people to vote for you or your ideas.

If you ARE seriously offended by 'Prof John' using the 'Prof' in his name, I think you should be looking at the people who actually ARE professors and speaking stuff much more dishonest than anything Prof John says here.

I'm not sure what college you went to, but no professor at any school that's even approaching decent has anything less than a Ph.D. I'm not sure how you didn't know this... but it doesn't speak well for your argument. As for your Ayers and Ward Churchill tangent, what the hell are you talking about? He was referring to academic standards of argument and evidence and you responded with "but but but these guys were BAD PEOPLE".

All your post basically is, is a cut and paste of the standard right wing, Rush Limbaugh rant against academia. It's no more true when you say it than when that moron does.

So you criticise me for bringing up Ward Churchill and Bill Ayers, but then throw out the Rush Limbaugh argument? Please. My argument is against the credibility of these 'high academic standards' if they allow people like these in and PROTECT them. If they had such high standards they wouldn't allow people to argue that the halocaust didn't happen.

This still doesn't really matter - The fact that someone like Lemon Law is insulted by someone putting Professor in their name on the internet is just absurd. As I said cops should then be offended by anyone using the police avatar, or people in the military with anyone using a soldier avatar. What makes academia so much more important than any other field of work and what makes their opinions on politics so much more important than anyone else? Hell, as far as he said he is not even a professor, only that he 'grew up' in academics.. Not sure what that even means.. perhaps his mother and father are..

MY point remains that attacking Prof John on his name just says to me that you cannot counter his arguments. Its kind of like using spelling mistakes to discredit your opponent..

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

What standards does academia have when people like Ward Churchill and Bill Ayers are protected by it? And as you said, the social sciences are MUCH HARDER to apply standards to, because so much of it is opinion and perception. I'm not sure what your hard-on is for academics. Most teachers just have 4 year degrees, some don't even have that. Most professors also have 4 year degrees.. some have more advanced degrees. How does that make them any more qualified than anyone else with a BS, BA, MD, PHD?

I don't think politics has been about being honest in about 50,000 years. Its about getting people to vote for you or your ideas.

If you ARE seriously offended by 'Prof John' using the 'Prof' in his name, I think you should be looking at the people who actually ARE professors and speaking stuff much more dishonest than anything Prof John says here.

I'm not sure what college you went to, but no professor at any school that's even approaching decent has anything less than a Ph.D. I'm not sure how you didn't know this... but it doesn't speak well for your argument. As for your Ayers and Ward Churchill tangent, what the hell are you talking about? He was referring to academic standards of argument and evidence and you responded with "but but but these guys were BAD PEOPLE".

All your post basically is, is a cut and paste of the standard right wing, Rush Limbaugh rant against academia. It's no more true when you say it than when that moron does.

So you criticise me for bringing up Ward Churchill and Bill Ayers, but then throw out the Rush Limbaugh argument? Please. My argument is against the credibility of these 'high academic standards' if they allow people like these in and PROTECT them. If they had such high standards they wouldn't allow people to argue that the halocaust didn't happen.

This still doesn't really matter - The fact that someone like Lemon Law is insulted by someone putting Professor in their name on the internet is just absurd. As I said cops should then be offended by anyone using the police avatar, or people in the military with anyone using a soldier avatar. What makes academia so much more important than any other field of work and what makes their opinions on politics so much more important than anyone else? Hell, as far as he said he is not even a professor, only that he 'grew up' in academics.. Not sure what that even means.. perhaps his mother and father are..

MY point remains that attacking Prof John on his name just says to me that you cannot counter his arguments. Its kind of like using spelling mistakes to discredit your opponent..

I guess you didn't understand my post? I am saying your argument is poor, and is one that apes the same thing that Rush Limbaugh has frequently repeated. The substance of my criticism has nothing more in common with yours other than they both use proper nouns. Your mention of Ayers and Churchill was simply nonsensical. Saying that academia doesn't have high standards of argument because 2 people who are academics have bad ideas just doesn't make any sense.

As for what you mean by 'protecting' someone... I have no idea. I also find the fact that you are arguing against the free exchange of ideas reprehensible. If someone wants to argue that the holocaust didn't happen I fully support their right to do so. They just have to support their argument, that's what's important. You do know that Ward Churchill didn't argue anything even remotely close to that though, right? In fact, his argument was almost the exact opposite.

Finally, I can't believe you just said "what makes their opinions on politics so much more important than anyone else's?" I don't know, can you possibly think of why we should pay more attention to the opinion of someone who has spent their entire life learning about a subject over some random asshole on the internet? This anti-intellectualism is another phenomenon of the modern right that I simply have no patience for. Those guys in their ivory tower with their fancy-pants degrees have them because they've spent their entire lives learning about a subject before opening their fat mouths. The biggest problem on here is that people won't even spend five minutes, but then they think their opinion is just as valid. It isn't.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Julius Shark
Listen, I enjoy a little repartee. It looks like I?m about to get plenty of it on this site!

Could somebody tell me what a ?troll? is?

Christ Corbett just take your 3 week ban like a man.

 

[Fear No Evil]

As for what you mean by 'protecting' someone... I have no idea. I also find the fact that you are arguing against the free exchange of ideas reprehensible. If someone wants to argue that the holocaust didn't happen I fully support their right to do so. They just have to support their argument, that's what's important. You do know that Ward Churchill didn't argue anything even remotely close to that though, right? In fact, his argument was almost the exact opposite.

They just have to support their argument? Thats all they have to do? What argument can be made against the holocaust occuring that can be supported, observed, and peer reviewed and still be found to be acceptable? I was actually thinking of the President of Iran giving his speech at the university and saying the holocaust didn't exist. He is just another idiot in a long line of idiots that universities seem to want to protect their free speech. But if someone wants to promote the military or christian values on a University, then suddening the free exchange of ideas you say exist goes right out the window.

Finally, I can't believe you just said "what makes their opinions on politics so much more important than anyone else's?" I don't know, can you possibly think of why we should pay more attention to the opinion of someone who has spent their entire life learning about a subject over some random asshole on the internet? This anti-intellectualism is another phenomenon of the modern right that I simply have no patience for. Those guys in their ivory tower with their fancy-pants degrees have them because they've spent their entire lives learning about a subject before opening their fat mouths. The biggest problem on here is that people won't even spend five minutes, but then they think their opinion is just as valid. It isn't.

I could argue that Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and others have spent their entire lives studying politics as well. Yet I seem to doubt you would lend their opinion more value than someone who has a PHD in Political Science? Why is that? Do you think because you are in academia you have less of an agenda that someone in a talk radio, or news, or ??? Who would you trust more to give you economic advice, a CEO that has run GE for the past 5 years or a professor that has been teaching Economics and never had a job in the real world for the past 5 years?

I have a degree in Political Science - Does that make my opinion in these forums more valid than yours? It must - Since I spent 4 years studying it. I'm not saying academics are not smart, or don't have valid ideas, I am saying that Lemon Law is being absurd that if he thinks someone using 'Prof' before his name in these forums is somehow something to be offended about. I have 10 years of IT experience with some of the largest companies in the world. Should I disregard someone's opinion in the technical forums because they have 'IT Guy' in their name? Is their opinion any less valid because of it? Should I insult their name every time their post because they don't have any experience working in the industry?

THAT is my point. The absurdity of arguing against Prof John because of his NAME in this forum. Lemon Law went into how he was offended by Prof Johns name.. I'm calling him out on how stupid of an argument that is. Besides, if Lemon Law isn't a Professor, why is he getting offended over it?

This argument is getting way off topic.. I am simply saying Lemon Law's calling out of non-Prof John in every post is childish and makes him look stupid. You can keep arguing all you want over the other parts if you want.. I was just pointing out how stupid it is for him to do so. I also seriously doubt you are truly an eskimospy.. so I am throwing out your argument based on that alone.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

As for what you mean by 'protecting' someone... I have no idea. I also find the fact that you are arguing against the free exchange of ideas reprehensible. If someone wants to argue that the holocaust didn't happen I fully support their right to do so. They just have to support their argument, that's what's important. You do know that Ward Churchill didn't argue anything even remotely close to that though, right? In fact, his argument was almost the exact opposite.

They just have to support their argument? Thats all they have to do? What argument can be made against the holocaust occuring that can be supported, observed, and peer reviewed and still be found to be acceptable? I was actually thinking of the President of Iran giving his speech at the university and saying the holocaust didn't exist. He is just another idiot in a long line of idiots that universities seem to want to protect their free speech. But if someone wants to promote the military or christian values on a University, then suddening the free exchange of ideas you say exist goes right out the window.

Finally, I can't believe you just said "what makes their opinions on politics so much more important than anyone else's?" I don't know, can you possibly think of why we should pay more attention to the opinion of someone who has spent their entire life learning about a subject over some random asshole on the internet? This anti-intellectualism is another phenomenon of the modern right that I simply have no patience for. Those guys in their ivory tower with their fancy-pants degrees have them because they've spent their entire lives learning about a subject before opening their fat mouths. The biggest problem on here is that people won't even spend five minutes, but then they think their opinion is just as valid. It isn't.

I could argue that Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and others have spent their entire lives studying politics as well. Yet I seem to doubt you would lend their opinion more value than someone who has a PHD in Political Science? Why is that? Do you think because you are in academia you have less of an agenda that someone in a talk radio, or news, or ??? Who would you trust more to give you economic advice, a CEO that has run GE for the past 5 years or a professor that has been teaching Economics and never had a job in the real world for the past 5 years?

I have a degree in Political Science - Does that make my opinion in these forums more valid than yours? It must - Since I spent 4 years studying it. I'm not saying academics are not smart, or don't have valid ideas, I am saying that Lemon Law is being absurd that if he thinks someone using 'Prof' before his name in these forums is somehow something to be offended about. I have 10 years of IT experience with some of the largest companies in the world. Should I disregard someone's opinion in the technical forums because they have 'IT Guy' in their name? Is their opinion any less valid because of it? Should I insult their name every time their post because they don't have any experience working in the industry?

THAT is my point. The absurdity of arguing against Prof John because of his NAME in this forum. Lemon Law went into how he was offended by Prof Johns name.. I'm calling him out on how stupid of an argument that is. Besides, if Lemon Law isn't a Professor, why is he getting offended over it?

This argument is getting way off topic.. I am simply saying Lemon Law's calling out of non-Prof John in every post is childish and makes him look stupid. You can keep arguing all you want over the other parts if you want.. I was just pointing out how stupid it is for him to do so. I also seriously doubt you are truly an eskimospy.. so I am throwing out your argument based on that alone.

Haha, no you opinion doesn't value more than mine as I also have a degree in political science. If you have spent four years studying a subject, then all things being equal in an argument where neither side has provided compelling evidence, I would defer to the person with greater knowledge on the subject though, to do otherwise would be silly.

Furthermore, are you attempting to say that there are not speakers at universities that promote militaristic or christian agendas? If so, I once again have to question what university you went to. For every speaker like Ahmadinejad, there are hundreds who promote the exact opposite. Hell, Ann Coulter goes and speaks at schools for the express purpose of saying insane christian-y and militaristic shit to piss people off. So, spare me the 'xtians are so picked on' crap.

Your arguments are simply baffling though. When professors write papers that are published in journals, and when people write doctoral dissertations, they are subject to unbiased external review. When Sean Hannity writes "HURR HURR LIBRULZ" #4, we're lucky if he runs it through a spell checker. Education is not the only factor into the validity of an argument, and nobody has ever tried to say that. It is however, an important factor that should always be taken into account, and that is why people rationally take the opinions of highly educated people in a subject as more valid than others. A more informed opinion is frequently a better one, and education leads you to being more informed.

It appears from your argument however, you are trying to claim that education doesn't matter. (if so, why did you bother to get your degree?) This is simply unsupportable. If you agree that it does matter, then you have your answer as to why people should be more concerned as to what a professor thinks than some asshole on the internet.

I think the attacks on ProfJohn are more a symptom of frustration, as he has a reputation for posting some really dishonest threads in the service of a far right wing agenda of some sort. Maybe it doesn't come out in the best ways, but I certainly understand it.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

So has anyone yet found the link to the GOP in all this like the OP and some others are claiming(or just blindly accepting the premise)?


Oh, and BTW - poly sci is just the other version of "business admin".... just sayin'...

 

[Lemon law]

Fear no Evil asks somewhat the fundamental question of " Who would you trust more to give you economic advice, a CEO that has run GE for the past 5 years or a professor that has been teaching Economics and never had a job in the real world for the past 5 years? "

As we can see in these times, we should be asking the academic economist because the idiots we put in charge managed to have the foresight of an amoeba. And as a result, we have the biggest financial meltdown in world history.

Maybe some what of a simplistic argument, after all economics is a social science, and it has the same weakness of most social sciences, when the human animal is the big variable. But still, with much study, experimentation, peer review, and the best available proof, its possible to construct models of usual human economic behavior much better at regulating modern economies, and worlds better than a purely
philosophic theory like Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. Things like Keynesian economic is an academic process and has proved good at regulating and moderating the so called business cycle of boom and bust. Which then makes political and taxation implications in terms of public policy. And for that matter, the so called Laffer curve, is a now largely debunked academic process.

And for the next decade or longer, many academic economists will be studying the financial meltdown of 2008 with the hope that the same mistakes can be avoided in future.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
So has anyone yet found the link to the GOP in all this like the OP and some others are claiming(or just blindly accepting the premise)?


Oh, and BTW - poly sci is just the other version of "business admin".... just sayin'...

LOL...QFT!

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Julius Shark

I believe that I may want to reread the rules of the board before challenging this character.

I believe you may want to reread the history of the last eight years of devastation your Traitor In Chief and his gang or traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals and Wall Street robber barons have foisted on our nation, and while your at it, you may want to review some past discussions on this forum.

We long ago outgrew the tired song and dance of those who try to divert attention away from specific problems within one party by pointing to petty past bullshit of those from another, regardless of party affiliation. For example, this thread is about the possibility that Sarah Palin MAY (repeat MAY) have tried to use her position to delay the investigation in to her daughter's presumed future-mother-in law, and your first reply was:

Are we going to investigate the relatives of Liberal Princess Caroline Kennedy?

Let?s start with Uncle Ted at Chappaquidick and then move to cousin William Kennedy Smith and his rape victim.

If that's the best you've got to offer, go home and practice. If you're going to express strong views, be sure you can back them up with replies that are on the subject and supported by facts and credible links. You will be called on it if you can't.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAH, BWHAHAHAHAH BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

i think your meds are wearing off. push that button next to your bedside to have the guy in the white uniform and big net to bring you more.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

So has anyone yet found the link to the GOP in all this like the OP and some others are claiming(or just blindly accepting the premise)?

What's your point? A few posts took the OP's statement at face value, but even most of the Dems and libs in this thread agree that it was over-reaching to assume it was due to Republican influence. That said, the last paragraph in the article at the OP's link says:

The trooper's affidavit indicates that Sarah Palin's candidacy factored into the investigation, with state officials delaying execution of a search warrant until this month, when Johnston was "no longer under the protection or surveillance of the Secret Service."

That still raises reasonable questions of why it was delayed and who stood to benefit? It isn't hard to surmise that it wasn't Democrats.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

So has anyone yet found the link to the GOP in all this like the OP and some others are claiming(or just blindly accepting the premise)?

What's your point? A few posts took the OP's statement at face value, but even most of the Dems and libs in this thread agree that it was over-reaching to assume it was due to Republican influence. That said, the last paragraph in the article at the OP's link says:

The trooper's affidavit indicates that Sarah Palin's candidacy factored into the investigation, with state officials delaying execution of a search warrant until this month, when Johnston was "no longer under the protection or surveillance of the Secret Service."

That still raises reasonable questions of why it was delayed and who stood to benefit? It isn't hard to surmise that it wasn't Democrats.

So where is the "GOP told cops to hold off" again?

Oh that's right, it's not there. And yes there were a few who are semi rational but others seem to buy into the BS and post the same type of crap you just did. Just because one side didn't "benefit" doesn't mean the other side did or orchestrated it. Did you ever stop and think it had nothing to do with politics? :roll:

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

So has anyone yet found the link to the GOP in all this like the OP and some others are claiming(or just blindly accepting the premise)?

What's your point? A few posts took the OP's statement at face value, but even most of the Dems and libs in this thread agree that it was over-reaching to assume it was due to Republican influence. That said, the last paragraph in the article at the OP's link says:

The trooper's affidavit indicates that Sarah Palin's candidacy factored into the investigation, with state officials delaying execution of a search warrant until this month, when Johnston was "no longer under the protection or surveillance of the Secret Service."

That still raises reasonable questions of why it was delayed and who stood to benefit? It isn't hard to surmise that it wasn't Democrats.

With the amount of criminal activity the democrats seem to be participating in lately - I wouldn't be so quick to jump to that conclusion.

 

[Lemon law]

Maybe to put this thread to bed, its time to agree that the PROOF for GOP involvement in the somewhat delayed arrest of Sherry Johnston is not yet in evidence.

On the other hand, its somewhat healthy to have the suspicion that this indeed happened and there may have been some GOP skullduggery here.

At some future date and in some future process, the GOP skullduggery question may be definitely ruled in or out, or it may forever hang as an unanswered question. If nothing else,
the presumed future prosecution of Sherry Johnston may provide a forum to ask those questions under oath. Another possible forum to ask those questions may be the various ethics charges pending against Palin that the Alaska State legislature will have to deal with when it reconvene in January. And since troopergate is not fully resolved yet, State police conduct is already on the table
and some Alaska legislators may well decide to address these questions. With possible criminal obstruction of justice charges possibly resulting.

Only time will answer those questions. Meanwhile, from the evidence thus far presented, I see nothing that is yet strong enough to act on YET. But I hope that the questions will be asked.

 

[Julius Shark]

On the other hand, its somewhat healthy to have the suspicion that this indeed happened and there was some GOP skullduggery here. - Lemon law

Very nice.

I think I?ll use that same standard when assessing accusations against Liberal Democrats.

My catalog of standards is growing by leaps and bounds.