Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by ironweed

WTF are you talking about? Everyone who collects SS is caught in a "web"?

One thing you're right about -- this isn't an "argument."

well okay, and electricity is good too, but you threw in a couple other things, and the stuff you left out counts too.

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Interesting way to frame the debate. "The dummies on one side are just as stupid as the morons on the other." Yeah, sure. Can't argue with that.

What I can argue with is the fact that the other side formed a sub-party which, from almost all accounts is made up of morons who want to elect people who don't read papers, act like constitutional scholars and can't tell you what the 14th Amendment is about, can't articulate a simple thought, wear the fact that they are uneducated as a badge of honor and refuse to answer questions because their positions and ideas are so ridiculous that they cannot withstand any type of scrutiny.

But stop insulting my fucking intelligence by saying that the fact that I disagree with their message means that I think they're stupider. I base my opinions on their stupidity on the evidence they give me. From Bush, who is and was a moron who didn't understand what the fuck was going on while in office and handed power over to his asshole advisors because he didn't, to Palin who objectively doesn't know a fucking thing to O'Donnell who is even worse, they're all idiots. I disagree with everything Rove or Cheney or you say, but I don't think any of you or them are stupid.

TM

I'm okay with most of that, although, as we have engaged in the past, I think on an IQ type of basis you overestimate how stupid each of W, Palin or O'Donnell are. I remain of the opinion that each of their respective IQs probably falls in the slightly above average category. My limited professional experience in this realm is having had experience in the HC sector with facilities for developmentally delayed/impaired adults and having some practical insight into how a below average IQ person comports themselves in the real world.

OTOH, Bush was an awful manager of the office of President, i.e. CEO of the US, and didn't have the background experience (either practical or from study) to successfully carry out his duties.

On a practical level my understanding is that, based on her relatively short stint, Palin was not a disaster as governor, although being the governor a backwardsarsed third world hick state is probably not that hard to screw up. OTOH, based on her resume, I wouldn't hire to be in charge of anything.

I am not sure what job O'Donnell is qualified for, other than poltical talking head, for which she has positioned herself for quite a lucrative career. Honestly, I'm jealous. I'd like to get paid 7 or 8 figures to travel around the country, speak off the cuff on politics, go on Maher or Fox or CNN or whatever and do the same, write a nonsensical book on constitutional thought. All of that would be a much easier gig than I have going on.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

If someone wants to read some good history books by people without training, I can recommend a few.

Tuchman, for example.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

well okay, and electricity is good too, but you threw in a couple other things, and the stuff you left out counts too.

Only Ty has the patience to walk your shit back and explain how dumb it is, and I've seen him do it many times to no avail. So yes, no and whatever. Glad you liked the High Line.

Celtic v. Rangers Sunday morning 7:45 AM. You in?

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

she found a cite on the internet so it's not a lie. and if you claim it's a lie I'll punch you (assuming the hypo "ever in punching distance of you") because then you're saying Ty has posted about 8000 lies here.

Would you be mounting this same defense if the bs "history" at issue were whether or not the Holocaust occurred? Because it's bs "history" cut from the same cloth and perpetuated by the some sorts of folks.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

Would you be mounting this same defense if the bs "history" at issue were whether or not the Holocaust occurred? Because it's bs "history" cut from the same cloth and perpetuated by the some sorts of folks.

ummm, i was making a joke about support for "factual points". to be clear, i believe it is wrong that textbook made it's way into student's hands. it is quite unbelievable and i would hope the people that approved it get fired, except I think they are usually political appointments, so they won't get fired. thank you for taking the time to read my very important thoughts.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

ummm, i was making a joke about support for "factual points". to be clear, i believe it is wrong that textbook made it's way into student's hands. it is quite unbelievable and i would hope the people that approved it get fired, except I think they are usually political appointments, so they won't get fired. thank you for taking the time to read my very important thoughts.

Fine.

But just as anyone who "jokes" about nazis/jews/holocaust (rightly) draws your ire, joking about ty citing blogs in any sort of equivalence to implied defense of "the civil war wasn't about slavery" just isn't okay.

Originally Posted by ironweed

Only Ty has the patience to walk your shit back and explain how dumb it is, and I've seen him do it many times to no avail. So yes, no and whatever. Glad you liked the High Line.

Celtic v. Rangers Sunday morning 7:45 AM. You in?

I don't usually reply to myself, but Hank should know that, given the fact that Thatcher might kick this weekend he could be in a position to witness a once-in-a-lifetime celebration. A Celtic win over Rangers and Thatcher dying would be like the harmonic convergance for most of the people who will be present.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

the really strange thing is that on Facebook people that i know, or knew in say HS, are posting shit that smacks of TPing, and they aren't (or weren't) flat out morons.

Yes, that is really, really strange.

Is your post purposefully full of nothing?

TM

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

Was Juan Williams Fired Unfairly?

This is a good example of why the doctrinaire left is as bad as the doctrinaire right. NPR should lose federal funding. and so should FoxNews!

You want the government sorting out whether NPR acted fairly?

I wouldn't have fired him for this, since he was a commentator, not a journalist. He hasn't done real journalism for a while. And we accept tasteless commentators, and probably have to if we're going to get both sides of some of these questions.

Now, if they wanted to fire him for being generally useless and second rate, well, that's a different story. He wasn't, and isn't, top of the heap at NPR.

If he were a journalist doing reporting, yes, I'd fire him. Wholly inappropriate.

In each case, though, it's a judgment call. While I wouldn't have fired him for this if I ran NPR, I probably wouldn't have hired him either. But I'm not running NPR, and don't want to. Directly, or through the government.

Is this really something you want to get all exercised over?

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by ironweed

I don't usually reply to myself, but Hank should know that, given the fact that Thatcher might kick this weekend

I don't envy her being subject to socialised medicine.....I'm not expecting a positive outcome here.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Where does he work? If California, NPR likely violated California statute - http://volokh.com/posts/1189794796.shtml

I'm going to go way out on a limb here and say that California lets an employer consider someone's political views and public statements when deciding whether to employ them as a political commentator.

Odd to see Penske lecturing me about how to run a business and then turn around and say that NPR shouldn't have fired Juan Williams, a man who to the best of my knowledge hasn't uttered an original or interesting thought on the radio in several years, because firing him wasn't fair.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Where does he work? If California, NPR likely violated California statute - http://volokh.com/posts/1189794796.shtml

I'm going to go way out on a limb here and say that California lets an employer consider someone's political views and public statements when deciding whether to employ them as a political commentator.

Odd to see Penske lecturing me about how to run a business and then turn around and say that NPR shouldn't have fired Juan Williams, a man who to the best of my knowledge hasn't uttered an original or interesting thought on the radio in several years, because firing him wasn't fair. Does Penske counsel clients to apply that standard?

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

I don't envy her being subject to socialised medicine.....I'm not expecting a positive outcome here.

Oh never fear, she's in a private hospital. Politicians who make a career gutting public institutions like hospitals and schools couldn't possibly be expected to use them themselves, could they? The public stuff is for those other people, who can't afford private because, well, because - oh who cares! I'm all right and that's all that matters.

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

You want the government sorting out whether NPR acted fairly?


Is this really something you want to get all exercised over?

No and not really. As a consumer of information and radio entertainment, I don't listen to NPR nor would I donate to them. I find their obvious agenda, tone and delivery too biased (and I say this as a regular reader of the NYTimes, including the editorial page, but excepting Frank Rich). Its all good or moot. [/End of rant]

As a side note, tying this in to the FB discussion, the CEO of NPR is named Vivian.