Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Meh. His statement doesn't surprise me. Nor does it particularly agitate me, and much of what he says is cautiously positive about the negotiation efforts.

When we're done with the Iran accord, I think we should integrate all the key points into the Non-Proliferation Agreement, apply them to every signatory, and impose the same sanctions being lifted from Iran on any country that refuses to sign and abide.

The idea that KSA and Turkey will have unlimited refinement potential and no inspections even as signatories ought to scare everyone. And, of course, the refusal to sign by Pakistan and Israel is incredibly destabilizing.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

My last vacation at the local hospital I was paired with an avid fan of Fox News. I spent three days telling him how everything they were reporting was either slanted or outright lies. I looked up other references. I had visitors bring in books. He left as certain that Fox News was the only "patriotic" news service as he was that a glass of prune juice in the morning would get him going in nothing flat. It's like the whole "how to be a Playa" scam or fantasy camps. Tell people what they want to hear and it goes down so much easier.

It has nothing to do with reality. Hence, O'Reilly gets a pass despite being clearly full of shit.

The most strident elements of the Right view reality through a lens approximating that famous Faulkner quote: "The best fiction is far more true than any journalism." The only difference, of course, being Faulkner intended fiction to demonstrate realities which journalism of the time failed to adequately cover. The Right of today wants to rewrite everything it sees to fit a narrative largely opposed to actual reality.

And a lot of them know they're engaging in fantasy and delusional perception. You can slam them with facts and, if cornered - if you refuse to let them go and force them to admit they are engaging in falsehoods, which I have done numerous times - they will concede. But in this concession they will include the following defense: "We need to bend the truth to protect our way of life... It's marketing. We're trying to protect what we see as the essential character of the country."

The movement is more important than the facts. Cross-examining them misses the point. The more you do it - the more you try to punch through the layers of delusion and force the logical circuits of their brains to admit facts debunking their beliefs - the more they'll react like fundamentalists. And among the smarter of them, there is a very logical justification for reveling in unreality. The more people say a thing, the more it is believed. The more it is believed, the more actual decisions in true reality will be based on assumptions informed by these delusions.

"Just think it, say it, and eventually, it will be reality..." The Right lives in a series of Goebbel's "big lies," all in service to the notion reflexivity will drag us back to the perfect '50s culture they seek.

Good luck swaying those minds.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Most people with their heads screwed on properly have known this for years. But it's nice to see it presented so lucidly, and as an economic and public policy prescription! http://static1.squarespace.com/stati...s+Advances.pdf

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

It has nothing to do with reality. Hence, O'Reilly gets a pass despite being clearly full of shit.

The most strident elements of the Right view reality through a lens approximating that famous Faulkner quote: "The best fiction is far more true than any journalism." The only difference, of course, being Faulkner intended fiction to demonstrate realities which journalism of the time failed to adequately cover. The Right of today wants to rewrite everything it sees to fit a narrative largely opposed to actual reality.

And a lot of them know they're engaging in fantasy and delusional perception. You can slam them with facts and, if cornered - if you refuse to let them go and force them to admit they are engaging in falsehoods, which I have done numerous times - they will concede. But in this concession they will include the following defense: "We need to bend the truth to protect our way of life... It's marketing. We're trying to protect what we see as the essential character of the country."

The movement is more important than the facts. Cross-examining them misses the point. The more you do it - the more you try to punch through the layers of delusion and force the logical circuits of their brains to admit facts debunking their beliefs - the more they'll react like fundamentalists. And among the smarter of them, there is a very logical justification for reveling in unreality. The more people say a thing, the more it is believed. The more it is believed, the more actual decisions in true reality will be based on assumptions informed by these delusions.

"Just think it, say it, and eventually, it will be reality..." The Right lives in a series of Goebbel's "big lies," all in service to the notion reflexivity will drag us back to the perfect '50s culture they seek.

Good luck swaying those minds.

Let's face it, the world needs more Maoist re-education camps.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Most people with their heads screwed on properly have known this for years. But it's nice to see it presented so lucidly, and as an economic and public policy prescription! http://static1.squarespace.com/stati...s+Advances.pdf

So you're saying Maoist Re-education Camps in a Tropical Location.

Hola Havana!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

John Galt wants price supports.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

John Galt wants price supports.

The whole premise bothers me. What kind of lazy-ass rentier couldn't figure out how to out how to profit from his investments during five years of bull markets in equities?

Those with money to invest and even the most basic abilities to invest it have done pretty darn well in the low interest rate environment and will do well again when rates start ticking up.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

What Due Process Clause?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

What Due Process Clause?

I wish they'd link court documents in some of those articles. It seems like a lot of journalists citing each other right now.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I wish they'd link court documents in some of those articles. It seems like a lot of journalists citing each other right now.

If you scroll to the bottom of the page I linked to, you will see the court's opinion and order in the case.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Oh dear.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Oh dear.

See this goes to my general thesis that the various types of offensive humor - ethnic, racial, gender, what have you - just aren't funny. Those are some of the stupidest, most lame, least funny things I can imagine anyone saying.

Yes, I concede that there are a few exceptions. But my god, those tweets are only funny in a world where Sebby can dance.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Oh dear.

Ehh, he'll be fine, most people are anti-semetic. Jews are the one group you can hate on and survive.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Ehh, he'll be fine, most people are anti-semetic. Jews are the one group you can hate on and survive.

Apparently you didn't read thru to the end. It continues to get worse and worse.

We can debate whether someone can get away with jokes that are bigoted, misogynist, insulting to broad swaths of people, etc. We can even debate whether someone who is being offered a stage as big as the Daily Show has become can get away with it. But here, there isn't a debate to be had, because the jokes are Just Not Funny. God, they are awful. Childish, un-funny, just goddamn bad jokes.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Oh dear.

There's a lot of breathlessness there to conclude that they should have hired.... Jessica Williams, who has publicly declined.

And for someone who is complaining (perhaps justifiably) about a lack of vetting, that author does not seem to have done much of her own.

I guess whether his three appearances on the show were "awkward" is a matter of opinion (I didn't think so), but surely there is more available about the man than a handful of terrible tweets. Like his appearances on WTF and the Champs. Or on the British TV Show QI, where he "seduced" Stephen Fry.

I've only come across him a handful of times, but I've liked him each time and thought he came across as thoughtful and funny, in particular on the Daily Show.

Obviously, those tweets paint a different picture. Can we write them off as lazy jokes from a young guy? Let's hope so.

If it was up to me, I would have picked Williams too, until she declined. Mandvi would have been good with me. They picked someone else. I'm interested to see how it goes.

Finally, that last tweet, about the middle of America? I thought it was a good joke.