On September 01 2011 02:04 xDaunt wrote: Looks like Obama wants to lay out his jobs plan at a joint session of congress during the republican debate next Wednesday. What an asshole. He could have picked any other day.
No surprise, he's a shrewd politician.
Not shrewd at all.
It made him look like an arrogant ass and now that he backed down and changed the date it makes him look like a weakling man-child.
While he is an excellent speaker he is a very poor politician.
Using media tactics is one thing but pulling stunts like this takes it to another level. Presidential debates are an important part of our political process. He should realize that more than anyone considering how his debate performances helped propel him past Hillary Clinton who early on was considered to be the automatic Democratic Party nominee. In that light his actions are just down right disrespectful to the political process, and hurtful to the voting public.
If there was truly an emergency and the President had to give a speech there would be no debate. But there is no emergency. First off a speech on jobs is simply not an emergency, he is not even going to sign a bill, there is not even a significant bill in the works. In other words he is going to give a political speech. If it was an "emergency" then the speech would be given asap, meaning it would have either been tonight or tomorrow...you don't schedule an "emergency" speech so far in advance, the whole notion of this is ludicrous.
And lets not forget the president was on vacation just last week. The White House claims this is an urgent jobs speech and so I guess we should assume Obama was sitting on this urgent speech while he was eating ice cream on the vineyard? BTW I'm not one who criticizes presidents for vacationing because they are always on the job. If there was an emergency the president will be made available and that is the point, there clearly is no urgency here.
And then you get his clown of a press secretary blatantly lying to the press that the timing had nothing to do with the Republican debate. He must have thought he was a genius in a room full of monkeys to say what he did with a straight face.
In any case this is already widely considered to be a political blunder on the president's part.
On September 01 2011 02:04 xDaunt wrote: Looks like Obama wants to lay out his jobs plan at a joint session of congress during the republican debate next Wednesday. What an asshole. He could have picked any other day.
No surprise, he's a shrewd politician.
Not shrewd at all.
It made him look like an arrogant ass and now that he backed down and changed the date it makes him look like a weakling man-child.
While he is an excellent speaker he is a very poor politician.
Using media tactics is one thing but pulling stunts like this takes it to another level. Presidential debates are an important part of our political process. He should realize that more than anyone considering how his debate performances helped propel him past Hillary Clinton who early on was considered to be the automatic Democratic Party nominee. In that light his actions are just down right disrespectful to the political process, and hurtful to the voting public.
If there was truly an emergency and the President had to give a speech there would be no debate. But there is no emergency. First off a speech on jobs is simply not an emergency, he is not even going to sign a bill, there is not even a significant bill in the works. In other words he is going to give a political speech. If it was an "emergency" then the speech would be given asap, meaning it would have either been tonight or tomorrow...you don't schedule an "emergency" speech so far in advance, the whole notion of this is ludicrous.
And lets not forget the president was on vacation just last week. The White House claims this is an urgent jobs speech and so I guess we should assume Obama was sitting on this urgent speech while he was eating ice cream on the vineyard? BTW I'm not one who criticizes presidents for vacationing because they are always on the job. If there was an emergency the president will be made available and that is the point, there clearly is no urgency here.
And then you get his clown of a press secretary blatantly lying to the press that the timing had nothing to do with the Republican debate. He must have thought he was a genius in a room full of monkeys to say what he did with a straight face.
In any case this is already widely considered to be a political blunder on the president's part.
Can you post without sounding like a raving madman? Why exactly are you so angry?
This was probably not the best decision of his political career but I would hardly call it as "down right disrespectful to the political process". Holding the nation's financial standing hostage so you can pass a budget to nowhere is far worse in my eyes.
It is politics. Sure presidents should be above this, but the house shouldn't hold the country hostage. We aren't talking shoulds here, we are talking reality. The reality being this is a minor issue.
Ps I would have thought any announcement on a jobs agenda regardless of timing would have been welcomed, alas I am wrong.
On September 01 2011 08:57 koreasilver wrote: Your understanding of "peer review" is the funniest thing I have ever seen. You might as well just pick up a kindergarten child to review astrophysics papers.
Another failure in reading comprehension. I said that what I do is a "form of peer review." I didn't say that what I do is "peer review." Moreover, I described what I do, not what academics/scientists do when conducting actual peer review. Last I checked, actual peer review isn't too different from what I described, other than the fact that peer review has more "objective" goals in mind, whereas I am generally looking to undermine the opinion. The underlying principles of each process are still the same.
EDIT: FFS, I can't believe that I have to add this to appease all the literalist trolls out there. What I do is obviously not actual peer review because as I am not a "peer" of the people whose opinions I am reviewing. HOWEVER, what I do essentially is indistinguishable in form, which is the whole point that I was trying to make -- apparently too poorly for many readers to grasp.
LOL that's because your "point" is weak and fallacious. All you have been saying is that you are smarter than 1) actual scientists and 2) the rest of the TL community. Go spout your nonsense somewhere else. You can show us your "peer review" when you've got your pHd
In response to this I am going to point to what I wrote about four posts above yours.
On September 01 2011 12:47 Probulous wrote: Secondly xdaunt is partially correct in saying that people took his single statement way too seriously. What he was trying to say was that he is not some idiot who doesn't think critically. Your points and the others raised are accurate and I have myself stated similar sentiments earlier in the thread. The thing is it actually has nothing to do with what he was saying.
He will never be convinced and hence can be accurately labelled a denialist. No point arguing further. Your point about the Discovery Institute is enlightening though
Is it really worth derailing this thread even further to make a point which has been thorughly made over and over again? Please people, just let him go.
On August 30 2011 09:53 xDaunt wrote: No one really needs any specialized training to see the gaping holes and inconsistencies that exist in what the climate scientists have told us over the years.
Please, go ahead, name some of those "gaping holes" you're referring to. Don't c/p youtube videos, bring me scientific analyses showing that the scientific community is wrong. I'm waiting.
It's seriously mind-blowing that some people are still refusing to acknowledge the reality of the contribution of humanity to global warming. The steps we should be taking now PALE in their impact on the economy in comparison to the consequences of inaction. It's really crazy how some people can turn a blind eye to the hard evidence that's right in front of them and actually jeopardize the future of mankind because they're too dumb to understand what's at stake.
I've already referenced one multiple times in this thread: global warming scientists completely failed to predict the current cooling pattern that we're in. In fact, in the Climategate emails, they admit that they have no explanation for what has happened. That's a pretty fucking big hole if you ask me, particularly when these same scientists had been predicting for 10-15 years or so beforehand that the planet would continue warming for the foreseeable future unless we took drastic action to cut emissions.
First of all, you did not cite any scientific analysis detailing your "current cooling pattern". I'm still waiting. Second, that's not a hole in the argument about global warming. Scientific analysis of global warming shows the impact of mankind's activity. If there is another force currently "balancing" the influence of mankind, it doesn't mean that the influence of mankind isn't still there. Unless you can come up with a scientific analysis demonstrating that the force responsible for the "current cooling pattern" is going to keep having an impact over the next few centuries, you have no point whatsoever. The moment that force ceases existing, you'll be feeling the full blow of mankind's contribution to global warming.
Do yourself a favor and educate yourself by googling "current global cooling trend."
Is the best our lawyer has cherry picking start dates?
I like this one better because it shows an alarmists' predictions versus what actually happened:
But that's all besides the point. I don't think anyone is arguing that we're not in either a global cooling trend, or at the very least, that global temperatures have inexplicably stabilized despite what's been predicted.
I'm actually genuinely impressed by the extent to which you are in denial - at this point you're like the _embodiment_ of cognitive dissonance. Romantic and me presented you with two graphs COMPLETELY DISPROVING the idea of a "global cooling trend". It's not a matter of opinion or of interpretation, it's the most basic empirical evidence you could possibly imagine, presented in the form of a graph. The graph shows the temperatures steadily rising - including in the last twenty years. Yet somehow you STILL come up with a statement like " I don't think anyone is arguing that we're not in either a global cooling trend". YES WE ARE, LOOK AT THE FACTUAL EVIDENCE WE JUST POSTED. Jesus Christ. I'm not too surprised you stopped replying to me, I guess it's harder to stay in denial when you have to address the contradicting evidence that someone presents you with. No wonder you can't even acknowledge than mankind has a hand in global warming if you're even in denial about global warming itself.
Another gem from xDaunt:
On August 30 2011 11:59 xDaunt wrote: What I do basically IS a form of peer review, it's not word games. Let me briefly explain how it works. In a case, an expert presents an opinion. I get to ask the expert about his opinion to make sure that I fully understand what it is and what it's based upon, including facts, methodology, axioms, theory, etc ... basically anything and everything that might be a component of the opinion. I then look at the opinion to see if there are enough holes in it such that the expert should be allowed to present his opinion in court. If there are enough holes, then the opinion is excluded from court. In fact, attorneys who do this regularly in certain fields often know nearly as much about the expert's field as the expert himself.
THAT IS NOT PEER REVIEW. "Peer review" = two words, one of those being "peer". Are you an expert in any field (other than law)? NO. You are therefore NOT a peer to the scientists whose works you are trying to form an opinion of. Get this through your head and get over yourself.
Why exactly are you dredging this up again from 2-3 days ago and why exactly are you incapable of even accurately stating what I said (the peer review thing being one obvious example)? Yet, you still expect me to reply to you? Even worse, neither you nor Romantic were even engaging me on the point that I was actually trying make: that making economic policy based upon what the global warming scientists are telling is stupid. Instead, you dragged the whole conversation into the mud. I really have better things to do, and I would rather keep this thread more on point in terms of discussing the republican candidates.
In short, I'm through with you.
I did not have the time to respond earlier so I did now, what exactly is wrong with that? I did accurately state what you said, in fact let me quote you again:
xDaunt: "global warming scientists completely failed to predict the current cooling pattern that we're in" xDaunt: "Do yourself a favor and educate yourself by googling "current global cooling trend."" * Romantic and me provide you with factual evidence showing once and for all that the there is NO global cooling trend and that temperatures are NOT stabilizing but steadily increasing * xDaunt: "I don't think anyone is arguing that we're not in either a global cooling trend, or at the very least, that global temperatures have inexplicably stabilized despite what's been predicted. "
There you go, clearly in denial. We addressed a very specific point you made (the existence of a global cooling trend) and refuted it, yet you discarded our evidence and avoided putting your beliefs into question. The reason we were addressing that point is that to convince you that mankind is contributing to global warming and that we can do something about it, it's pretty important that you acknowledge global warming is happening in the first place - a fact you have refused to acknowledge because it contradicts your personal beliefs.
On September 01 2011 08:57 koreasilver wrote: Your understanding of "peer review" is the funniest thing I have ever seen. You might as well just pick up a kindergarten child to review astrophysics papers.
Another failure in reading comprehension. I said that what I do is a "form of peer review." I didn't say that what I do is "peer review." Moreover, I described what I do, not what academics/scientists do when conducting actual peer review. Last I checked, actual peer review isn't too different from what I described, other than the fact that peer review has more "objective" goals in mind, whereas I am generally looking to undermine the opinion. The underlying principles of each process are still the same.
EDIT: FFS, I can't believe that I have to add this to appease all the literalist trolls out there. What I do is obviously not actual peer review because as I am not a "peer" of the people whose opinions I am reviewing. HOWEVER, what I do essentially is indistinguishable in form, which is the whole point that I was trying to make -- apparently too poorly for many readers to grasp.
Do you know what "a form of peer review" means? It means that there are several forms of peer review and that what you do is one of them. Again, YOU ARE WRONG. I can't believe I have to repeat myself but what makes peer review what it is is the fact that the review is done by an expert in the field - hence the word "peer". As soon as the review is NOT done by an expert in the field, it can NO LONGER be called peer review. Call it review, analysis, evaluation, critical review/analysis/evaluation or whatever you want but DON'T call it peer review. It's seriously mind-blowing that you're unable to understand this. You're trying to pass off what you do as "a form of peer review" to gain legitimacy when it lacks the one characteristic that DEFINES peer review, namely being a peer to the author/an expert in the field. It's ludicrous that you go on to declare that what you do is "indistinguishable in form" - by that logic any random 14-year-old neophyte could claim his reviews have the same merit as those of experts in the field simply because in both cases they are reviews.
Let me present you with an analogy in case you still don't understand: xDaunt: Hey, I won a professional golf competition this week! Friend: Wow, I'm impressed! Who else attended? xDaunt: It was just me and my friends playing at the golf course for fun, no money involved. Friend: So it wasn't a professional golf competition...? xDaunt: Well, it was indistinguishable in form you know, we were competing and we were playing golf.
On September 01 2011 19:09 Geo.Rion wrote: Can someone explain the polls to me? Im not so familiar with Us politics to know them, why are there 3 polls if this is about republican nominations?
Because TL only allows you to create polls with a maximum of 12 options. As there are 18 candidates it was appropriate to divide by three to get six for each poll.
My feeling right now is that Romney is a good competitor to Obama, since Romney is somewhat moderate and can probably attract the swing voters. However, he is not very likely to go through the nominations, since:
- Tea Party does not like him; - Religious conservatives do not like him; - Social conservatives do not like him;
I think he should have ran as Democrat or independent. Hahaha.
Great topic regarding populism and skewing the perspective to suit ones needs. It's not leftwing by the way, but as someone who dislike the christian right I appriciate the flaws pointed out.
On September 01 2011 19:42 Sufficiency wrote: My feeling right now is that Romney is a good competitor to Obama, since Romney is somewhat moderate and can probably attract the swing voters. However, he is not very likely to go through the nominations, since:
- Tea Party does not like him; - Religious conservatives do not like him; - Social conservatives do not like him;
I think he should have ran as Democrat or independent. Hahaha.
When the base of your own party doesn't like you and neither really does the opposing party, you're either a reasonable person or you're a very reasonable person.
"Corporations are people my friend." sealed his fate with Independents.
The Supreme Court's fate?
But yes, it was a bad answer by Romney.
He's got it in his head that he needs to "catch up" to Perry somehow in the charisma/sound byte department when what he should be doing is giving short but detailed replies to distinguish himself from the negative narrative he is trying to build about the Texas governor.
On September 01 2011 19:42 Sufficiency wrote: My feeling right now is that Romney is a good competitor to Obama, since Romney is somewhat moderate and can probably attract the swing voters. However, he is not very likely to go through the nominations, since:
- Tea Party does not like him; - Religious conservatives do not like him; - Social conservatives do not like him;
I think he should have ran as Democrat or independent. Hahaha.
When the base of your own party doesn't like you and neither really does the opposing party, you're either a reasonable person or you're a very reasonable person.
Time to look into his views I guess,don't actually know anything about the guy
Except he isn't, you should have seen him when he was the governor of Massachusetts.
Firstly, he did an okay job with the health care system here, but after he left, he's been constantly denying that it was his system. Weird. I'll give him credit for not fouling that up though.
Secondly, and here's the major issue, every time he was asked for his opinion about something or was asked to sign something, he would bring up his religion and explain how it didn't fit with is religion and he couldn't sign it or that it did fit and he would sign it for that reason. He can't keep his religion separate.
Thirdly, he jumped to the exact opposite of his campaign promises a few times after he got elected.
On September 01 2011 19:42 Sufficiency wrote: My feeling right now is that Romney is a good competitor to Obama, since Romney is somewhat moderate and can probably attract the swing voters. However, he is not very likely to go through the nominations, since:
- Tea Party does not like him; - Religious conservatives do not like him; - Social conservatives do not like him;
I think he should have ran as Democrat or independent. Hahaha.
When the base of your own party doesn't like you and neither really does the opposing party, you're either a reasonable person or you're a very reasonable person.
Time to look into his views I guess,don't actually know anything about the guy
Except he isn't, you should have seen him when he was the governor of Massachusetts.
Firstly, he did an okay job with the health care system here, but after he left, he's been constantly denying that it was his system. Weird. I'll give him credit for not fouling that up though.
Secondly, and here's the major issue, every time he was asked for his opinion about something or was asked to sign something, he would bring up his religion and explain how it didn't fit with is religion and he couldn't sign it or that it did fit and he would sign it for that reason. He can't keep his religion separate.
Thirdly, he jumped to the exact opposite of his campaign promises a few times after he got elected.
I don't understand how people can want someone that thinks this way leading the country.
I don't care how religious you are, it's in the fucking constitution that church and state are to be kept separate.
Makes me sick seeing these people constantly using religion as a crutch/excuse to do whatever they want
On September 02 2011 06:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Amazing that the GOP field is getting more extreme by the day and actually works in garnering support. Also here is Santorum. + Show Spoiler +
Hopefully that is a wake up call to the democrats base. With a system of volunteer voting, apathy becomes a real problem. The only reason the reps are swaying so far right is because that is where the energy is coming from. Complacency is going to be the biggest issue for Obama. If the independents aren't scared enough of the GOP or excited enough by Obama (good luck with that) he runs the risk of being out-enthused.
Should be an interesting couple of years, particularly if the GOP goes with a crazy and gets soundly beaten. What is the approach for 2016?
On September 02 2011 09:22 Probulous wrote: Should be an interesting couple of years, particularly if the GOP goes with a crazy and gets soundly beaten. What is the approach for 2016?
Obama is looking right now like the weakest incumbent since Carter and it's early enough in the primaries to see someone come out Clinton-style to take the nomination. Most of the crazies are running for TV and radio shows, invites to Fox, etc.
If Obama pulls a miracle to get the public back on his side, he will probably win. (Looking less obvious: someone oughta tell him that being meek and saintly will only further allow the GOP to trample on him.)
If a moderate gets the party nomination, they will probably win.
If a crazy runs, they might alienate most of the independents, but many independents probably don't have the patience to watch Perry sputter through a simple answer re the effectiveness of abstinence education, Romney glitch over a simple answer re a mysterious million dollar donation, etc.; the primaries are about winning the approval of the GOP base and establishment, while the federal elections will see that primary-winning rhetoric tempered to seduce moderates. Romney is still a contender for this reason.
On September 01 2011 19:42 Sufficiency wrote: My feeling right now is that Romney is a good competitor to Obama, since Romney is somewhat moderate and can probably attract the swing voters. However, he is not very likely to go through the nominations, since:
- Tea Party does not like him; - Religious conservatives do not like him; - Social conservatives do not like him;
I think he should have ran as Democrat or independent. Hahaha.
I also do not like him, so he will not win He is probably one of the more moderate candidates, but I didn't particularly like him the first time around. He has a smooth or suave? feel to him that could match Obama's charisma. But that's exactly what I don't like about him. He seems way too smooth and too ready to give the acceptable answer, but not necessarily the one he believes or will actually follow through on. I just get the feeling he's one of those, I'll convince you I'm doing one thing while I'm doing something entirely different here. And yeah I guess a lot of politicians do that, but I just get the feeling he's terribly good at it. But it's only a vibe rather than anything concrete.
I also have a weakness for politicians that won't give the acceptable answer, but the realistic one (and sometimes shoot off their mouth *cough* Biden.
On September 02 2011 06:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Amazing that the GOP field is getting more extreme by the day and actually works in garnering support. Also here is Santorum.
Oh god. If politicians are so anti-intellectual, and these said politicians have such a significant number of followers, how could a nation that harbours such leaders and followers move in any direction besides a downward spiral?
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i52.tinypic.com/2w7i8mt.gif)
He is probably one of the more moderate candidates, but I didn't particularly like him the first time around. He has a smooth or suave? feel to him that could match Obama's charisma. But that's exactly what I don't like about him. He seems way too smooth and too ready to give the acceptable answer, but not necessarily the one he believes or will actually follow through on. I just get the feeling he's one of those, I'll convince you I'm doing one thing while I'm doing something entirely different here. And yeah I guess a lot of politicians do that, but I just get the feeling he's terribly good at it. 
