ParanoiA

One giant ad hom post complete with self indicted misrespresentation. Nice. So..again, why is it a problem to ad hom Krugman? Ooops, wrong post. I wonder if any of the left wing paste eaters can tell us why Barton is a pseudo-historian or if they're just repeating what some grownups said. Personally I can't wait to see how Charity 101 gets trashed. That will be a classy post, I'm sure.

So I take it you were in support of the tea partiers that were wandering about with guns and assault rifles? Just another example of people being intimidated by inferred, internal fears right? This is a voting poll, not a street corner. It doesn't become a street corner again until after the election. Then I will absolutely take up for their right to carry sticks, and even to talk smack to people. Nothing illegal about any of that, unless you're doing it at a voting poll during election operations. Are you going to be consistent with this line of reasoning and jump to the defense of a Ku Klux Klan presence, adorned in the typical bed sheet fabric? I guess you were against those laws that stopped them from merely standing there, as Pangloss mentioned earlier? That's more mild than standing there with a stick.

Oh I see, so if I brandish a gun and scare people with it, the only thing that says is that I shouldn't have guns? There's no "intimidation" present? I won't say the video tells the whole story, but like any credibility evidence it verifies enough of Mr Bull's affidavit to lend strong support for the parts that video didn't capture. In short, I believe Mr Bull. Not the dude with the stick and the white hate issues. By the way, what does their being black have to do with anything? People keep throwing that out there, obsessing over it. Can we look past their skin color please?

How do you know they're smart, in order to determine they said something stupid, presumably out of character? And how does ridicule somehow fix that? Why is ridicule your choice of tool for such a problem? Of all your years of ridicule here at SFN, it doesn't appear to have made a scratch. So how smart is it for you to keep deploying this tactic? But, if they're stupid, then isn't this to be expected? If a mentally handicapped person can't do math, yet you teach him 2 + 2 = 4 and he still doesn't get it...do we ridicule him then? "hey I already debunked your slobbery mumbo jumbo dude..." No, not at all. You haven't offended me in any way. I just enjoy poking at bullies. I think your obsession with ridicule is based on ego. It's not based on any sort of logical deduction. Further, I don't believe you have given a second thought as to why "people saying stupid things" even deserves ridicule. I think it's fairly universal for people to slam on stupid people without much consideration as to what they're really doing. To me, it's not much different than harrassing the handicapped. If someone is missing an arm, you might help them open a door. But if they're missing intelligence, then you kick them and mock them. Apparently, the fact that you were born with some quantity of intelligence, somehow you have earned it and deserve to be praised while those born with lower intelligence somehow has earned being kicked around for it. I think that's really weird. On the other hand, if you had said that you verify through previous conversations that the person is actually smart, and that their later stupid comments reflect intellectual laziness, then I could probably buy the argument that ridicule is at least an attractive tool. Otherwise, you're just tripping people born with one leg merely because you were born with two.

That's how you create subjects and masters. Read a history book to rediscover how atrocious that works out. Second, smart people can't define "good" any better than dumb people. Laws effect liberty and choices, and no one is fit to make "good" choices for me, but me. You can't. You can only make me make choices that are good to you. And that makes me suffer. And then that makes me buy a hatchet to kill you so I can have my freedom back. An experienced advisor deserves no greater voice than a drunk bum sleeping in the gutter.

Well that's a relief. I still see an inconsistency with sympathy for someone in a wheelchair and ridicule for the stupid. It's almost like you think you earned your intelligence and that every stupid person earned their stupidity. I'm interested in how you know this to be true of the stupid people you ridicule, or do you just assume? Or do you have an entirely different justification for it? Oh, and my favorite quack claim was that there were no black swans...(ok, that was stupid sorry).

Moonman - You should be ashamed of yourself for appealing to ridicule like that, thinking you're above the rules and that anyone who argues otherwise must be a moron. Where's the ridicule? This is the concession I try to make with creationists - that there's no need to be offended by any denials by science. It's simply not science, as per the method. And since they have a hostility toward science, generally anyway, then there's no reason for them to want it to be included in science. There's no ridicule here either. Just a point of observation that carries no value judgment unless one infers it on their own. Which becomes an act of cruelty when they are truly stupid. Do you also trip one legged children?

I don't think there was any vote fishing, rather vote salvaging. I'm not convinced, but I do suspect that it could have had the perception of damaging the black vote if they had followed through with sentencing and not dropped the charges. Also, there's no such thing as "reverse" racism - it's just racism. That phrase is used because white guilt requires that white folks always acknowledge and take responsibility for the actions of people they never met and never agreed with in the first place, due to the resemblence of skin color. Skin color being the same worthless metric supremacists use to elevate themselves and step on others. That's the lesson we learned from history. That's how far we've come. Aren't you proud? Nothing would have been dropped. White folks would be coming out of the woodwork, clamoring to be the first in front of a press microphone to voice their displeasure and condemnation of such behavior - even before a single fact or video was substantiated. And that's how it should be actually. Only it should be that way for all racism, no matter what racial grouping is involved. And, the Huey P. Newton foundation, which includes former members of the original Black Panther party, seems to agree: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Black_Panther_Party That's how to respond to racism. The behavior is unacceptable, no matter who you are. There are lots of ways and features to group and label humans with, and thus far race seems to be the most popular and the least interesting. Actually, that's quite a proper conviction. They thumbed their nose at the judicial branch of our government. That's the setting for resolving such disputes in our nation of laws. No one on our soil has a right to ignore them. No one is that special, I don't care how much they romanticize their victim status. If I had to guess, based on the twisted, childish logic I've witnessed by other kinds of racial supremacists, I would imagine they probably see that lawsuit as the work of the white devil, or some appeal to illegitimate government, something along those lines and so should not be given the respect of recognition. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/29/career-lawyers-overruled-on-voting-case/?page=3&feat=home_cube_position1 Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged So they had Mr. Bull, a civil rights activist in his own right, and video evidence to corroborate his affidavit. Maybe they weren't contacted by voters, although I find it hard to believe, but at the very least they were contacted by the credentialed poll watcher.

I did not know about this part: Geez, I thought the court battle hadn't begun yet. Definitely an affront to civil rights. It's sad, as it would have been a great opportunity to demonstrate balance and principle, and justice. But you know, white people have it so good and all, we just need to shut up and take it. We deserve it, after all. Rights are for minorities. Majorities are oppressive, by design, and get what's coming to them. I know I'm always kicking black people around, denying them jobs, taking their money. Unfair? Well sure, but I get away with it because I'm white - I get the ole wink and nod from "the man". We whities enjoy the good-ole-boy network. You know how many good jobs I've gotten because I'm white? Can't count them with all my fingers and toes. All employers look for is the "magic" question on the application, race. Once they see I'm white, it's done. My home loan? Same thing. In fact, the whole application process for credit is merely a ruse - if you're white, you get the loan. Otherwise, you have to prove you can pay it. Being white is so much a privilege, and so advantageous... The black panthers are just equalizing, that's all. You know...because it's about "impact" and all. Look for the "disgruntled worker" excuse to shut him down. I'd like an elaborated version of the DOJ's excuse not to allow these racist cauc-o-phobes not to get bent over in prison like they deserve.

So, is Krugman a member of SFN now or what? Just wondering why I keep seeing Krugman's posts...

Oh please, the circumstances never match. Ever. The dynamics of our economy and infrastructure constantly evolve and change and always provide opportunity for exception and resemblance. For every point one associates resemblance, I can rebut with an exception. That's economics, and that's why it's barely predictable and full of surprises. I'm tired of my money being treated as an experiment in debt juggling by bureaucrats. I don't really give a crap about their intellectualized excuses to continue spending and spending, like self-impoverished american brats that won't discipline themselves and show some responsible behavior with property that isn't their's to begin with. I have no reason to believe that somehow, in the future, suddenly we won't have any exigencies to spend money on and we can balance our budget. We're always going to see some catastrophe that needs money thrown at it; that needs to be used as an excuse to continue borrowing and spending; to be the excuse for irresponsible politicians that play with our money like it's a monopoly game. Give us back our money. We can spend it every bit as immaturely as these shiny shoed political hacks in Washington and we'll actually get a piece of happiness out of it...maybe.

Hmm, well I hate to feed the trolls but doesn't inductive reasoning suggest that we have no proof of the core? Shouldn't we instead refer to our belief in the core as strong induction, since we detect the core through instruments and not directly observed? I thought science only disproved things... Has science proven anything? I say this with admiration because Swansont went to a bit of trouble to make this point, years ago, and I forget which thread. I have since had arguments with creationists over what qualifies as science, and what science actually posits, in the context of inductive reasoning utilized in the scientific method. Hate to go back and tell them I had it all wrong now.

My wife and I paid 13 dollars for about an hour in a lane, and went through about 10 targets. If they charge much more than that, then yer gittin' ripped off there buddy.

Ooh, yes I would agree with that. In fact, that's partly why I was excited about my apparently uber-boring thread on Constitutional Interpretation. To me, that conversation/debate between Breyer and Scalia put the convervative/liberal shallow ideology to the bottom of the waste basket. These men interpret the way they do for valid philosophical reasons that have nothing to do with narrow political think tanks that group and label these men. I agree, in that it all smacks of yet more "confirmation bias" for conservatives, or retroactive intellectualism. Rush's show yesterday is a perfect example. He says, numerous times, that a right to abortion is not in the constitution. Yet, he would be the first to point out that only part of our rights are enumerated, and that those rights that are not enumerated and yet not expressly prohibited, do exist - they are left to the people, or the states. Conservatives put originalism on a pedestal when it suites them. And then think around it when it doesn't. Scalia doesn't do this. And to Breyer's credit, he is consistent in his application as well. At this point I have far more respect for justices than any politician or party.

No, it's not the same at all. Textual Originalism makes far fewer assumptions so that the interpretation is not open enough to mix and match and create convenient meanings. It's only open enough to stretch or pull meaning, through the application of the textual language, and that's it. When you invite history, and psychoanalysis - both of which are not all-verifiable, all-knowable resources AND may have squat to do with a given law in the first place - that's when you gain the ability to flex the language however you want. If all I have is a sentence, and the time it was written, then I can apply meaning to that sentence without too much assumption at all. Difficult to construct whole new principles and ignoring old ones with that kind of adherence to written word. If I take that same sentence, and the time it was written, and the debatable historical record, and written letters and publications around that time, then I can pretty much make believe whatever I want under the guise of "original intent". And I don't have to mean it maliciously either. Further, Breyer even goes so far as to say that the implications of the interpretation effect interpretation itself - I provided proof and reason behind this position of his in my SCOTUS Interpretation thread that died pretty much at birth. That's straight up legislative action. He has his reasons for this, and like you, I do find his arguments interesting. Ultimately I think he's wrong, but he's no idiot.

Well, that is if you believe in the living, dynamic-meaning-to-be-applied-flexibly document. But if you roll with the Originalists, and I don't mean Kagan's "we're all Originalists" fairytale, you stick to the text and the meaning of the words when they were written. It's not perfect either, but it's loyal to the integrity of law. Breyer and others go down the precarious path of 'original intent' and attempt to use history and writings and such to psychoanalyze legal intents. And while some measure of these things have value, even to the Originalist, details are always where the disputes are and key conclusions are made. Breyer almost stumbles on it himself: Worse yet, history that isn't disputed, yet is misunderstood. What they wrote in the law is what they damn well intended, not what they thought about or discussed before or after, but what they actually wrote down and voted on. Again, I'm proud of this decision.

I disagree that one document can't rule a people forever. The Constitution, for example, is more or less an expression of our committment to certain principles we see as timeless. And we can update these principles as time evolves, as is built into the design of the document. Like the scientific method, the constitution is not merely a piece of paper but rather a methodology of operation. The words written on that piece of paper invoke a philosophical system, a guide, to self governance. Just like the scientific method is a philosophical system to govern the fallibility of inductive reasoning. The minute detail may always evolve, but the principles that guide these methodologies are timeless. Well, as long as we are committed to them anyway...

And you know, I don't have much of a problem with that either, actually. I was listening to commentators and pundits berate Obama over this yesterday, about it being personal and how he is "decisive" to fire people for offending him, but "indecisive" about supporting the troops. Put that way, sure it sounds petty and imbalanced. But I don't think these same commentators would be saying that if this was Bush dealing with a dissenting general throwing his staff under the bus to a music magazine. They would call the general unpatriotic, borderline traitor and how this emboldens the enemy and harms the troops and blah blah blah. I don't think it's a flaw for the executive to demand loyalty. If that's what this is about, then I really can't blame folks for playing their roles faithfully. I'm still just a bit confused about McChrystal's intent. His apology seems to suggest he had no idea that his comments were controversial. I find that difficult to believe.

See, I'm kind of puzzled by this. He's maverick enough to shoot his mouth off, but then he does a 180 and apologizes and acts as if he deserves to be canned - even says he fully supports Obama's strategy. Then why in the hell did he shoot his mouth off to begin with? Each act is in conflict with the other. It feels more like a false display of respect and honor in order to save face of some kind. I'm just not buying it...something weird about all this.

You know, I really feel the same way. I didn't say it, because I'm not convinced it's sound reasoning. On the one hand, I think we should want our leadership to question bad policy and we'd certainly be grateful if it resulted in changing that bad policy, or even as dramatic as removing a sitting president. On the other hand, they can question all of this policy without going to the media about it and emboldening the enemy. It can't be wise to show the cracks in your leadership to your adversary - I would almost suggest that's the worst policy, by default. So, I don't know. I'm torn.

I don't know, I didn't read anything in that piece that I didn't expect out of a committed military man. Hello testosterone, that's the military for ya'. F*ck that person, screw that other guy and doesn't that one shiny shoe bureaucrat seem like a f*ckin snake? Where's the double shots and topless dancers? I read the whole article, and just so happen to agree with its bleak message. I didn't, however, read any direct quotes from McChrystal about Obama. Just seems like the typical tug-of-war we get with civilian presidents and military generals. Not sure what the fuss is about. If McChrystal was openly criticizing Obama's policy, I never read it. The piece is precisely about McChrystal. That's what I really took from it. All of the material about his aides, his crude remarks and simpler blue collar nature and respect painted a picture of the general for me and was entirely about him. I didn't get the sense he and Obama were adversarial or even poorly matched - I got the sense that this is what it's like when really powerful figures mingle and work together. A kind of behind the scenes reveal of such a relationship between huge positions of power. Sorry, I guess I just expect this kind of relationship with any general and president. I never thought it was any cleaner than this. That said, I hope McChrystal now gets more vocal than ever and shares the whole sorry mess with everyone. I've lost respect for Obama as a wartime president. I don't think he has what it takes. And I think it's because he just doesn't want to be there, and it morally challenges his nature and I sure don't blame him for that. Not being much a war fan myself, I understand the discomfort but I didn't run for president either.

Finding it difficult to really care about politics right now, but Prager hits on something interesting, about passing on what "American" means. I'm also disturbed by the "American Exceptionalism" appeal. Sounds like a nationalist propaganda tool more than anything else. What "being american" means would have been nice to pass down, as he says. Explaining the difference between Equal Outcome verses Equal Opportunity and that america is about the latter, not the former. And more than any of that, that america is about self determination and looking inward for innovation and growth, not looking across the proverbial pond to see how we should be evolving. That's the "exceptionalism" that I prefer. Not the kind that suggests we are better than everyone else due to some magical patriotic force, but rather the kind that suggests "we don't care how they do it, we do it like this". The kind of exceptionalism that says while many countries may look to each other for comparison, and seem to be evolving to the same core mentallity, America evolves on its own terms, its own way, and doesn't apologize to anyone for it. And has no desire to emulate anyone other than itself. That's the kind of exceptionalism I wish we could find again. It's a lost cause. The experiment with self governing in a free society is history now. We traded freedom for appearances of security, both economically and socially and we romanticize our past as if we have anything in common with it. We haven't met a principle we can't think around. We haven't made a promise we can't wiggle out of. America. Makes for an interesting book. That's about it.

Indeed. Thanks to Google news, here's that referee's updated wiki page: Nothing like a little defamation of character to set things right...