Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 25, 2011 at 3:10 PM in reply to: OT – Who will run for President on the Republican side? #725209August 25, 2011 at 3:10 PM in reply to: OT – Who will run for President on the Republican side? #725574
eavesdropper
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=eavesdropper] Does this sound better:
“Je vous en prie, mon énorme sac de merde parfumée!”
I would never waste a language like French on insults. Besides, I’m sure that you are confident in my abilities to accomplish that quite effectively in English.[/quote]
Eaves: Yes, being referred to as a bag of sweet smelling shit is MUCH better!
[/quote]My point exactly, Allan! At least I didn’t refer to you as “my little cabbage”, which is an error I come upon frequently in books and articles (“mon petit chou”). At least I’m assuming that it’s an error.
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] Of course, if we’re moving towards the scatological, German is so superior. Alles ist bescheissen really conveys it much more graphically (and gutturally) than French, which is a much prettier language.[/quote]
Yes, I confess. Not much that’s more satisfying than cursing in German.
At the same time, there are quite a few very lovely expressions of endearment in German. Rather contradictory language in its expressiveness.
Alas, I am illiterate in Deutsch.
August 25, 2011 at 2:55 PM in reply to: OT – Who will run for President on the Republican side? #724356Participant[quote=jpinpb][quote=eavesdropper]
I would never waste a language like French on insults. Besides, I’m sure that you are confident in my abilities to accomplish that quite effectively in English.[/quote]
You are a delight to read in any language ;)[/quote]
jp, you are a wonderful boost to my ego!
August 25, 2011 at 2:55 PM in reply to: OT – Who will run for President on the Republican side? #724446Participant[quote=jpinpb][quote=eavesdropper]
I would never waste a language like French on insults. Besides, I’m sure that you are confident in my abilities to accomplish that quite effectively in English.[/quote]
You are a delight to read in any language ;)[/quote]
jp, you are a wonderful boost to my ego!
August 25, 2011 at 2:55 PM in reply to: OT – Who will run for President on the Republican side? #725042Participant[quote=jpinpb][quote=eavesdropper]
I would never waste a language like French on insults. Besides, I’m sure that you are confident in my abilities to accomplish that quite effectively in English.[/quote]
You are a delight to read in any language ;)[/quote]
jp, you are a wonderful boost to my ego!
August 25, 2011 at 2:55 PM in reply to: OT – Who will run for President on the Republican side? #725196Participant[quote=jpinpb][quote=eavesdropper]
I would never waste a language like French on insults. Besides, I’m sure that you are confident in my abilities to accomplish that quite effectively in English.[/quote]
You are a delight to read in any language ;)[/quote]
jp, you are a wonderful boost to my ego!
August 25, 2011 at 2:55 PM in reply to: OT – Who will run for President on the Republican side? #725561Participant[quote=jpinpb][quote=eavesdropper]
I would never waste a language like French on insults. Besides, I’m sure that you are confident in my abilities to accomplish that quite effectively in English.[/quote]
You are a delight to read in any language ;)[/quote]
jp, you are a wonderful boost to my ego!
August 25, 2011 at 2:53 PM in reply to: OT – Who will run for President on the Republican side? #724351Participant[quote=pri_dk]Do you guys really think that individual voters are using the logic below?
“If unemployment is above 8% I’m going to vote for the Republican guy, even though he doesn’t have plan and he’s promised to cut my Social Security, Medicare, and my nephew’s unemployment benefits. But if unemployment is 8% or less I’ll stay with Obama.”
Seriously?
Don’t forget that 9% unemployment means 91% employment. Most people still have jobs and probably won’t see the need to take a chance on someone who’s been advocating extreme solutions.
There will be no Republican job plan of substance. They’ve painted themselves into a corner. Cutting government does not create jobs in the short term (it literally does the opposite) and no one that is hurting economically is going to want to elect a new President and wait for the long-term plan to go into effect.
It it simply impossible for the Republicans to promote any credible jobs plan without contradicting the “hyperbolic ventilating” we’ve been hearing from them since ’08.[/quote]
pri, I don’t think the vast majority of voters use any logic at all in deciding who to vote for, particularly the Tea Party contingent.
The reality of the situation doesn’t matter anymore. For several years now, Americans have been creating their own reality, choosing exactly what they want and don’t want to hear.
Difficult as it is, I make it a point to occasionally to tune in to Fox News and their pundits, and to go on some of the more popular right-wing websites/message boards. I am absolutely shocked and appalled by some of the “inaccuracies” (I’m practicing restraint here) that are being perpetrated. It is like visiting a mythical universe, an alternate “reality” for the followers. There is no concern about accuracy in reporting: the sites, even the more respectable ones that are run by people with journalistic credentials, use each other as sources for confirmation of these stories. The really sad part is that many in the Republican U.S. Congress also use these sites for their source of the accurate informations and stories they use to support their positions.
Before anyone here gets their panties in a bunch, the left is guilty of this also. But, I don’t care what anyone says, it is not nearly as prevalent as it is on the Right. That could be attributable to the fact that the Right got a much earlier start on this business, and the Left was really slow on the uptake.
Trust me, there’s a huge contingent of people out there that are fed up with the Republicans and the Tea Party, but will vote for them anyway because of blind hatred (or, at least, strong distaste) for the Dems and the Left. There are also many who will simply not believe anything negative they hear about the Right. They’ve completely bought into the Fox News/Limbaugh/ Beck/ Hannity/Coulter version of a liberal-Muslim-socialist revocation of the Constitution and takeover of America, and NOTHING is going to change their minds. Because that would mean that they would be forced to admit that they had been “taken” and “mislead”, that they had fallen for a con job. So their pride will let them blindly join in on pushing America over the edge.
Again, I have just as much a problem with those on the Left who engage in prevarication for the purpose of polarization. I don’t care what their intention is, or how nicely or intellectually they word it: if it is untrue and meant solely to inflame, and adds nothing to a reparative dialogue, it’s unAmerican as far as I’m concerned.
Don’t count the Republicans out: I hear far too many people, even nice, reasonable, rational ones, parroting their “policies” and “solutions” for America’s jobs problems. And more and more of them are unwilling to even listen to their close friends and family members who try to expose them to evidence to the contrary. They’ll get angry, or simply walk away, so that they can continue to pretend to themselves that they’re on the “right” side, and that they didn’t fall for a con job.
And the other problem is that the left is way too silent and unwilling to act on the bullshit that’s going on, and offers no candidates that truly offer an alternative to the “empty-suit” or radical Republican candidates. Just like the Republican Party is acting on the desires and politics of a relative few (i.e., the Tea Party), the left represented in both the rightwing and the mainstream press is the liberal-spending, save-social-programs-at-any-cost Democrats. And there are a helluva lot of people from both parties who are feeling completely disenfranchised, who will choose a candidate on a which-one-will-cause-the-least-harm basis.
[quote=pri_dk] And who cares about Dowd, Milbank, and Krugman? Do you think the people who read them are going to vote Republican?[/quote]
Yeah, I do. I like a lot of what I read in their columns. But there are times that I get good and pissed off at what they’re selling. But I’m one of the very few people these days that not only reads things in their entirety, but who also thinks about them carefully (incidentally, a Piggs trait, which is why I hang out here). I accept some things, and I clearly reject others. That’s always been something that I’ve valued and appreciated as an American right. And I simply don’t understand why the people who are so gung ho on maintaining personal freedom waste so much energy and emotion on efforts that will strip us of those rights. And it’s largely attributable to their refusal to exercise those rights by reading opinions from people on all sides of an issue, and critically evaluating the material, by rejecting some things and accepting others.
Why is that so difficult? Why are Americans so content to give up that basic right, and, instead, allow others to dictate to them how they should feel, and how they should vote?
Incidentally, if the presidential election was this November, I would *seriously* consider casting my vote for Gary Johnson over President Obama. But chances are strong that this rational, bright, experienced, capable-of-critical-analysis, decisive Republican will never come close to getting the nomination. Go figure.
August 25, 2011 at 2:53 PM in reply to: OT – Who will run for President on the Republican side? #724441Participant[quote=pri_dk]Do you guys really think that individual voters are using the logic below?
“If unemployment is above 8% I’m going to vote for the Republican guy, even though he doesn’t have plan and he’s promised to cut my Social Security, Medicare, and my nephew’s unemployment benefits. But if unemployment is 8% or less I’ll stay with Obama.”
Seriously?
Don’t forget that 9% unemployment means 91% employment. Most people still have jobs and probably won’t see the need to take a chance on someone who’s been advocating extreme solutions.
There will be no Republican job plan of substance. They’ve painted themselves into a corner. Cutting government does not create jobs in the short term (it literally does the opposite) and no one that is hurting economically is going to want to elect a new President and wait for the long-term plan to go into effect.
It it simply impossible for the Republicans to promote any credible jobs plan without contradicting the “hyperbolic ventilating” we’ve been hearing from them since ’08.[/quote]
pri, I don’t think the vast majority of voters use any logic at all in deciding who to vote for, particularly the Tea Party contingent.
The reality of the situation doesn’t matter anymore. For several years now, Americans have been creating their own reality, choosing exactly what they want and don’t want to hear.
Difficult as it is, I make it a point to occasionally to tune in to Fox News and their pundits, and to go on some of the more popular right-wing websites/message boards. I am absolutely shocked and appalled by some of the “inaccuracies” (I’m practicing restraint here) that are being perpetrated. It is like visiting a mythical universe, an alternate “reality” for the followers. There is no concern about accuracy in reporting: the sites, even the more respectable ones that are run by people with journalistic credentials, use each other as sources for confirmation of these stories. The really sad part is that many in the Republican U.S. Congress also use these sites for their source of the accurate informations and stories they use to support their positions.
Before anyone here gets their panties in a bunch, the left is guilty of this also. But, I don’t care what anyone says, it is not nearly as prevalent as it is on the Right. That could be attributable to the fact that the Right got a much earlier start on this business, and the Left was really slow on the uptake.
Trust me, there’s a huge contingent of people out there that are fed up with the Republicans and the Tea Party, but will vote for them anyway because of blind hatred (or, at least, strong distaste) for the Dems and the Left. There are also many who will simply not believe anything negative they hear about the Right. They’ve completely bought into the Fox News/Limbaugh/ Beck/ Hannity/Coulter version of a liberal-Muslim-socialist revocation of the Constitution and takeover of America, and NOTHING is going to change their minds. Because that would mean that they would be forced to admit that they had been “taken” and “mislead”, that they had fallen for a con job. So their pride will let them blindly join in on pushing America over the edge.
Again, I have just as much a problem with those on the Left who engage in prevarication for the purpose of polarization. I don’t care what their intention is, or how nicely or intellectually they word it: if it is untrue and meant solely to inflame, and adds nothing to a reparative dialogue, it’s unAmerican as far as I’m concerned.
Don’t count the Republicans out: I hear far too many people, even nice, reasonable, rational ones, parroting their “policies” and “solutions” for America’s jobs problems. And more and more of them are unwilling to even listen to their close friends and family members who try to expose them to evidence to the contrary. They’ll get angry, or simply walk away, so that they can continue to pretend to themselves that they’re on the “right” side, and that they didn’t fall for a con job.
And the other problem is that the left is way too silent and unwilling to act on the bullshit that’s going on, and offers no candidates that truly offer an alternative to the “empty-suit” or radical Republican candidates. Just like the Republican Party is acting on the desires and politics of a relative few (i.e., the Tea Party), the left represented in both the rightwing and the mainstream press is the liberal-spending, save-social-programs-at-any-cost Democrats. And there are a helluva lot of people from both parties who are feeling completely disenfranchised, who will choose a candidate on a which-one-will-cause-the-least-harm basis.
[quote=pri_dk] And who cares about Dowd, Milbank, and Krugman? Do you think the people who read them are going to vote Republican?[/quote]
Yeah, I do. I like a lot of what I read in their columns. But there are times that I get good and pissed off at what they’re selling. But I’m one of the very few people these days that not only reads things in their entirety, but who also thinks about them carefully (incidentally, a Piggs trait, which is why I hang out here). I accept some things, and I clearly reject others. That’s always been something that I’ve valued and appreciated as an American right. And I simply don’t understand why the people who are so gung ho on maintaining personal freedom waste so much energy and emotion on efforts that will strip us of those rights. And it’s largely attributable to their refusal to exercise those rights by reading opinions from people on all sides of an issue, and critically evaluating the material, by rejecting some things and accepting others.
Why is that so difficult? Why are Americans so content to give up that basic right, and, instead, allow others to dictate to them how they should feel, and how they should vote?
Incidentally, if the presidential election was this November, I would *seriously* consider casting my vote for Gary Johnson over President Obama. But chances are strong that this rational, bright, experienced, capable-of-critical-analysis, decisive Republican will never come close to getting the nomination. Go figure.
August 25, 2011 at 2:53 PM in reply to: OT – Who will run for President on the Republican side? #725037Participant[quote=pri_dk]Do you guys really think that individual voters are using the logic below?
“If unemployment is above 8% I’m going to vote for the Republican guy, even though he doesn’t have plan and he’s promised to cut my Social Security, Medicare, and my nephew’s unemployment benefits. But if unemployment is 8% or less I’ll stay with Obama.”
Seriously?
Don’t forget that 9% unemployment means 91% employment. Most people still have jobs and probably won’t see the need to take a chance on someone who’s been advocating extreme solutions.
There will be no Republican job plan of substance. They’ve painted themselves into a corner. Cutting government does not create jobs in the short term (it literally does the opposite) and no one that is hurting economically is going to want to elect a new President and wait for the long-term plan to go into effect.
It it simply impossible for the Republicans to promote any credible jobs plan without contradicting the “hyperbolic ventilating” we’ve been hearing from them since ’08.[/quote]
pri, I don’t think the vast majority of voters use any logic at all in deciding who to vote for, particularly the Tea Party contingent.
The reality of the situation doesn’t matter anymore. For several years now, Americans have been creating their own reality, choosing exactly what they want and don’t want to hear.
Difficult as it is, I make it a point to occasionally to tune in to Fox News and their pundits, and to go on some of the more popular right-wing websites/message boards. I am absolutely shocked and appalled by some of the “inaccuracies” (I’m practicing restraint here) that are being perpetrated. It is like visiting a mythical universe, an alternate “reality” for the followers. There is no concern about accuracy in reporting: the sites, even the more respectable ones that are run by people with journalistic credentials, use each other as sources for confirmation of these stories. The really sad part is that many in the Republican U.S. Congress also use these sites for their source of the accurate informations and stories they use to support their positions.
Before anyone here gets their panties in a bunch, the left is guilty of this also. But, I don’t care what anyone says, it is not nearly as prevalent as it is on the Right. That could be attributable to the fact that the Right got a much earlier start on this business, and the Left was really slow on the uptake.
Trust me, there’s a huge contingent of people out there that are fed up with the Republicans and the Tea Party, but will vote for them anyway because of blind hatred (or, at least, strong distaste) for the Dems and the Left. There are also many who will simply not believe anything negative they hear about the Right. They’ve completely bought into the Fox News/Limbaugh/ Beck/ Hannity/Coulter version of a liberal-Muslim-socialist revocation of the Constitution and takeover of America, and NOTHING is going to change their minds. Because that would mean that they would be forced to admit that they had been “taken” and “mislead”, that they had fallen for a con job. So their pride will let them blindly join in on pushing America over the edge.
Again, I have just as much a problem with those on the Left who engage in prevarication for the purpose of polarization. I don’t care what their intention is, or how nicely or intellectually they word it: if it is untrue and meant solely to inflame, and adds nothing to a reparative dialogue, it’s unAmerican as far as I’m concerned.
Don’t count the Republicans out: I hear far too many people, even nice, reasonable, rational ones, parroting their “policies” and “solutions” for America’s jobs problems. And more and more of them are unwilling to even listen to their close friends and family members who try to expose them to evidence to the contrary. They’ll get angry, or simply walk away, so that they can continue to pretend to themselves that they’re on the “right” side, and that they didn’t fall for a con job.
And the other problem is that the left is way too silent and unwilling to act on the bullshit that’s going on, and offers no candidates that truly offer an alternative to the “empty-suit” or radical Republican candidates. Just like the Republican Party is acting on the desires and politics of a relative few (i.e., the Tea Party), the left represented in both the rightwing and the mainstream press is the liberal-spending, save-social-programs-at-any-cost Democrats. And there are a helluva lot of people from both parties who are feeling completely disenfranchised, who will choose a candidate on a which-one-will-cause-the-least-harm basis.
[quote=pri_dk] And who cares about Dowd, Milbank, and Krugman? Do you think the people who read them are going to vote Republican?[/quote]
Yeah, I do. I like a lot of what I read in their columns. But there are times that I get good and pissed off at what they’re selling. But I’m one of the very few people these days that not only reads things in their entirety, but who also thinks about them carefully (incidentally, a Piggs trait, which is why I hang out here). I accept some things, and I clearly reject others. That’s always been something that I’ve valued and appreciated as an American right. And I simply don’t understand why the people who are so gung ho on maintaining personal freedom waste so much energy and emotion on efforts that will strip us of those rights. And it’s largely attributable to their refusal to exercise those rights by reading opinions from people on all sides of an issue, and critically evaluating the material, by rejecting some things and accepting others.
Why is that so difficult? Why are Americans so content to give up that basic right, and, instead, allow others to dictate to them how they should feel, and how they should vote?
Incidentally, if the presidential election was this November, I would *seriously* consider casting my vote for Gary Johnson over President Obama. But chances are strong that this rational, bright, experienced, capable-of-critical-analysis, decisive Republican will never come close to getting the nomination. Go figure.
August 25, 2011 at 2:53 PM in reply to: OT – Who will run for President on the Republican side? #725191Participant[quote=pri_dk]Do you guys really think that individual voters are using the logic below?
“If unemployment is above 8% I’m going to vote for the Republican guy, even though he doesn’t have plan and he’s promised to cut my Social Security, Medicare, and my nephew’s unemployment benefits. But if unemployment is 8% or less I’ll stay with Obama.”
Seriously?
Don’t forget that 9% unemployment means 91% employment. Most people still have jobs and probably won’t see the need to take a chance on someone who’s been advocating extreme solutions.
There will be no Republican job plan of substance. They’ve painted themselves into a corner. Cutting government does not create jobs in the short term (it literally does the opposite) and no one that is hurting economically is going to want to elect a new President and wait for the long-term plan to go into effect.
It it simply impossible for the Republicans to promote any credible jobs plan without contradicting the “hyperbolic ventilating” we’ve been hearing from them since ’08.[/quote]
pri, I don’t think the vast majority of voters use any logic at all in deciding who to vote for, particularly the Tea Party contingent.
The reality of the situation doesn’t matter anymore. For several years now, Americans have been creating their own reality, choosing exactly what they want and don’t want to hear.
Difficult as it is, I make it a point to occasionally to tune in to Fox News and their pundits, and to go on some of the more popular right-wing websites/message boards. I am absolutely shocked and appalled by some of the “inaccuracies” (I’m practicing restraint here) that are being perpetrated. It is like visiting a mythical universe, an alternate “reality” for the followers. There is no concern about accuracy in reporting: the sites, even the more respectable ones that are run by people with journalistic credentials, use each other as sources for confirmation of these stories. The really sad part is that many in the Republican U.S. Congress also use these sites for their source of the accurate informations and stories they use to support their positions.
Before anyone here gets their panties in a bunch, the left is guilty of this also. But, I don’t care what anyone says, it is not nearly as prevalent as it is on the Right. That could be attributable to the fact that the Right got a much earlier start on this business, and the Left was really slow on the uptake.
Trust me, there’s a huge contingent of people out there that are fed up with the Republicans and the Tea Party, but will vote for them anyway because of blind hatred (or, at least, strong distaste) for the Dems and the Left. There are also many who will simply not believe anything negative they hear about the Right. They’ve completely bought into the Fox News/Limbaugh/ Beck/ Hannity/Coulter version of a liberal-Muslim-socialist revocation of the Constitution and takeover of America, and NOTHING is going to change their minds. Because that would mean that they would be forced to admit that they had been “taken” and “mislead”, that they had fallen for a con job. So their pride will let them blindly join in on pushing America over the edge.
Again, I have just as much a problem with those on the Left who engage in prevarication for the purpose of polarization. I don’t care what their intention is, or how nicely or intellectually they word it: if it is untrue and meant solely to inflame, and adds nothing to a reparative dialogue, it’s unAmerican as far as I’m concerned.
Don’t count the Republicans out: I hear far too many people, even nice, reasonable, rational ones, parroting their “policies” and “solutions” for America’s jobs problems. And more and more of them are unwilling to even listen to their close friends and family members who try to expose them to evidence to the contrary. They’ll get angry, or simply walk away, so that they can continue to pretend to themselves that they’re on the “right” side, and that they didn’t fall for a con job.
And the other problem is that the left is way too silent and unwilling to act on the bullshit that’s going on, and offers no candidates that truly offer an alternative to the “empty-suit” or radical Republican candidates. Just like the Republican Party is acting on the desires and politics of a relative few (i.e., the Tea Party), the left represented in both the rightwing and the mainstream press is the liberal-spending, save-social-programs-at-any-cost Democrats. And there are a helluva lot of people from both parties who are feeling completely disenfranchised, who will choose a candidate on a which-one-will-cause-the-least-harm basis.
[quote=pri_dk] And who cares about Dowd, Milbank, and Krugman? Do you think the people who read them are going to vote Republican?[/quote]
Yeah, I do. I like a lot of what I read in their columns. But there are times that I get good and pissed off at what they’re selling. But I’m one of the very few people these days that not only reads things in their entirety, but who also thinks about them carefully (incidentally, a Piggs trait, which is why I hang out here). I accept some things, and I clearly reject others. That’s always been something that I’ve valued and appreciated as an American right. And I simply don’t understand why the people who are so gung ho on maintaining personal freedom waste so much energy and emotion on efforts that will strip us of those rights. And it’s largely attributable to their refusal to exercise those rights by reading opinions from people on all sides of an issue, and critically evaluating the material, by rejecting some things and accepting others.
Why is that so difficult? Why are Americans so content to give up that basic right, and, instead, allow others to dictate to them how they should feel, and how they should vote?
Incidentally, if the presidential election was this November, I would *seriously* consider casting my vote for Gary Johnson over President Obama. But chances are strong that this rational, bright, experienced, capable-of-critical-analysis, decisive Republican will never come close to getting the nomination. Go figure.
August 25, 2011 at 2:53 PM in reply to: OT – Who will run for President on the Republican side? #725556Participant[quote=pri_dk]Do you guys really think that individual voters are using the logic below?
“If unemployment is above 8% I’m going to vote for the Republican guy, even though he doesn’t have plan and he’s promised to cut my Social Security, Medicare, and my nephew’s unemployment benefits. But if unemployment is 8% or less I’ll stay with Obama.”
Seriously?
Don’t forget that 9% unemployment means 91% employment. Most people still have jobs and probably won’t see the need to take a chance on someone who’s been advocating extreme solutions.
There will be no Republican job plan of substance. They’ve painted themselves into a corner. Cutting government does not create jobs in the short term (it literally does the opposite) and no one that is hurting economically is going to want to elect a new President and wait for the long-term plan to go into effect.
It it simply impossible for the Republicans to promote any credible jobs plan without contradicting the “hyperbolic ventilating” we’ve been hearing from them since ’08.[/quote]
pri, I don’t think the vast majority of voters use any logic at all in deciding who to vote for, particularly the Tea Party contingent.
The reality of the situation doesn’t matter anymore. For several years now, Americans have been creating their own reality, choosing exactly what they want and don’t want to hear.
Difficult as it is, I make it a point to occasionally to tune in to Fox News and their pundits, and to go on some of the more popular right-wing websites/message boards. I am absolutely shocked and appalled by some of the “inaccuracies” (I’m practicing restraint here) that are being perpetrated. It is like visiting a mythical universe, an alternate “reality” for the followers. There is no concern about accuracy in reporting: the sites, even the more respectable ones that are run by people with journalistic credentials, use each other as sources for confirmation of these stories. The really sad part is that many in the Republican U.S. Congress also use these sites for their source of the accurate informations and stories they use to support their positions.
Before anyone here gets their panties in a bunch, the left is guilty of this also. But, I don’t care what anyone says, it is not nearly as prevalent as it is on the Right. That could be attributable to the fact that the Right got a much earlier start on this business, and the Left was really slow on the uptake.
Trust me, there’s a huge contingent of people out there that are fed up with the Republicans and the Tea Party, but will vote for them anyway because of blind hatred (or, at least, strong distaste) for the Dems and the Left. There are also many who will simply not believe anything negative they hear about the Right. They’ve completely bought into the Fox News/Limbaugh/ Beck/ Hannity/Coulter version of a liberal-Muslim-socialist revocation of the Constitution and takeover of America, and NOTHING is going to change their minds. Because that would mean that they would be forced to admit that they had been “taken” and “mislead”, that they had fallen for a con job. So their pride will let them blindly join in on pushing America over the edge.
Again, I have just as much a problem with those on the Left who engage in prevarication for the purpose of polarization. I don’t care what their intention is, or how nicely or intellectually they word it: if it is untrue and meant solely to inflame, and adds nothing to a reparative dialogue, it’s unAmerican as far as I’m concerned.
Don’t count the Republicans out: I hear far too many people, even nice, reasonable, rational ones, parroting their “policies” and “solutions” for America’s jobs problems. And more and more of them are unwilling to even listen to their close friends and family members who try to expose them to evidence to the contrary. They’ll get angry, or simply walk away, so that they can continue to pretend to themselves that they’re on the “right” side, and that they didn’t fall for a con job.
And the other problem is that the left is way too silent and unwilling to act on the bullshit that’s going on, and offers no candidates that truly offer an alternative to the “empty-suit” or radical Republican candidates. Just like the Republican Party is acting on the desires and politics of a relative few (i.e., the Tea Party), the left represented in both the rightwing and the mainstream press is the liberal-spending, save-social-programs-at-any-cost Democrats. And there are a helluva lot of people from both parties who are feeling completely disenfranchised, who will choose a candidate on a which-one-will-cause-the-least-harm basis.
[quote=pri_dk] And who cares about Dowd, Milbank, and Krugman? Do you think the people who read them are going to vote Republican?[/quote]
Yeah, I do. I like a lot of what I read in their columns. But there are times that I get good and pissed off at what they’re selling. But I’m one of the very few people these days that not only reads things in their entirety, but who also thinks about them carefully (incidentally, a Piggs trait, which is why I hang out here). I accept some things, and I clearly reject others. That’s always been something that I’ve valued and appreciated as an American right. And I simply don’t understand why the people who are so gung ho on maintaining personal freedom waste so much energy and emotion on efforts that will strip us of those rights. And it’s largely attributable to their refusal to exercise those rights by reading opinions from people on all sides of an issue, and critically evaluating the material, by rejecting some things and accepting others.
Why is that so difficult? Why are Americans so content to give up that basic right, and, instead, allow others to dictate to them how they should feel, and how they should vote?
Incidentally, if the presidential election was this November, I would *seriously* consider casting my vote for Gary Johnson over President Obama. But chances are strong that this rational, bright, experienced, capable-of-critical-analysis, decisive Republican will never come close to getting the nomination. Go figure.
Participant[quote=sdduuuude]I tell people that my path through college was the right one – go to a big, cheap state school with a half-decent program in your area of interest. If you go to grad school, pay the big bucks and go to a top school. This way only 1/3 of your education is expensive and you still get the big-name school on the resume, and you get the better education when you are more mature and actually interested in learning something.[/quote]
Dude, your advice is absolutely spot-on!! Parents practically bankrupt themselves to send their kids to superexpensive undergrad schools. As is often the case, kids either screw off academically, or change majors because they can’t keep up with the demands, and the end result of this huge monetary investment is a kid with a degree in 18th-Century Canadian Literature or The History of Dance, and a transcript with lots of Ws, and a mixed bag of unrelated courses, half of which carry C and D grades.
If you ask the parents why they are sending their kids to I-Got-the-Bucks University, they’ll tell you they’re trying to give their child the best competitive edge in their future careers. If you ask what it is about this particular school that guarantees them this “edge”, 95% of the time they’ll tell you that it was in the top 10 of some bogus chart published by US News and World Report. The other 5% will offer up some marketing gem straight from the pages of the college website.
As I mentioned above, if your kid is going to pursue a career in R&D in the sciences that is anything beyond lab tech level, postgraduate education is a given. And that’s what’s going to count when they get into the career field. Any good state college or university should be able to give a student the foundation they need to get into grad school and handle the extreme work load there. Not only will it be much cheaper, it will probably be a far less competitive and less pressured atmosphere for the student, giving him a better chance to earn good grades and to really think about whether their major will result in the type of lifetime career they really want.
And, as also mentioned previously, many institutions give stipends to their science grad students that completely cover their tuition (sometimes more) in return for the teaching and lab duties the students are expected to handle.
[quote=sdduuuude] Make sure they can handle at least pre-calculus in high-school. Math should be easy for them. If not, it’s off to business school.[/quote]
Will you freakin’ science and engineer types please shove your “People who excel in math become scientists and engineers; the people who can’t handle math get on the short bus to B-school” stereotypes where the sun don’t shine?! Admittedly, it’s been a very long time, but I can recall having some fairly stringent math adventures in some of my more advanced finance, econ, and statistics courses (fortunately, electroshock therapy has erased the nightmare memories of those happy times). And calculus was required.
Keep in mind that many undergrad professors at the time would not permit the use of calculators (not that we poor students could begin to afford the relatively simple models available).
I do realize that the undergrad business curriculum has expanded, and that college courses at many institutions have been “dumbed down” (which probably explains the state of today’s businesses and financial institutions). But I am still very sensitive to remarks that allude to mathematically-clueless business curriculum students. I’m married to a Ph.D.-level chemist, so that could explain a lot of my antagonism on the subject.
[quote=sdduuuude] And please, for god’s sake, make your little engineers take economics.[/quote]
You’re a god, sdduuuude!! I agree wholeheartedly! In fact, it should be a requirement of both engineering and science curricula, IMHO.
Participant[quote=sdduuuude]I tell people that my path through college was the right one – go to a big, cheap state school with a half-decent program in your area of interest. If you go to grad school, pay the big bucks and go to a top school. This way only 1/3 of your education is expensive and you still get the big-name school on the resume, and you get the better education when you are more mature and actually interested in learning something.[/quote]
Dude, your advice is absolutely spot-on!! Parents practically bankrupt themselves to send their kids to superexpensive undergrad schools. As is often the case, kids either screw off academically, or change majors because they can’t keep up with the demands, and the end result of this huge monetary investment is a kid with a degree in 18th-Century Canadian Literature or The History of Dance, and a transcript with lots of Ws, and a mixed bag of unrelated courses, half of which carry C and D grades.
If you ask the parents why they are sending their kids to I-Got-the-Bucks University, they’ll tell you they’re trying to give their child the best competitive edge in their future careers. If you ask what it is about this particular school that guarantees them this “edge”, 95% of the time they’ll tell you that it was in the top 10 of some bogus chart published by US News and World Report. The other 5% will offer up some marketing gem straight from the pages of the college website.
As I mentioned above, if your kid is going to pursue a career in R&D in the sciences that is anything beyond lab tech level, postgraduate education is a given. And that’s what’s going to count when they get into the career field. Any good state college or university should be able to give a student the foundation they need to get into grad school and handle the extreme work load there. Not only will it be much cheaper, it will probably be a far less competitive and less pressured atmosphere for the student, giving him a better chance to earn good grades and to really think about whether their major will result in the type of lifetime career they really want.
And, as also mentioned previously, many institutions give stipends to their science grad students that completely cover their tuition (sometimes more) in return for the teaching and lab duties the students are expected to handle.
[quote=sdduuuude] Make sure they can handle at least pre-calculus in high-school. Math should be easy for them. If not, it’s off to business school.[/quote]
Will you freakin’ science and engineer types please shove your “People who excel in math become scientists and engineers; the people who can’t handle math get on the short bus to B-school” stereotypes where the sun don’t shine?! Admittedly, it’s been a very long time, but I can recall having some fairly stringent math adventures in some of my more advanced finance, econ, and statistics courses (fortunately, electroshock therapy has erased the nightmare memories of those happy times). And calculus was required.
Keep in mind that many undergrad professors at the time would not permit the use of calculators (not that we poor students could begin to afford the relatively simple models available).
I do realize that the undergrad business curriculum has expanded, and that college courses at many institutions have been “dumbed down” (which probably explains the state of today’s businesses and financial institutions). But I am still very sensitive to remarks that allude to mathematically-clueless business curriculum students. I’m married to a Ph.D.-level chemist, so that could explain a lot of my antagonism on the subject.
[quote=sdduuuude] And please, for god’s sake, make your little engineers take economics.[/quote]
You’re a god, sdduuuude!! I agree wholeheartedly! In fact, it should be a requirement of both engineering and science curricula, IMHO.
Participant[quote=sdduuuude]I tell people that my path through college was the right one – go to a big, cheap state school with a half-decent program in your area of interest. If you go to grad school, pay the big bucks and go to a top school. This way only 1/3 of your education is expensive and you still get the big-name school on the resume, and you get the better education when you are more mature and actually interested in learning something.[/quote]
Dude, your advice is absolutely spot-on!! Parents practically bankrupt themselves to send their kids to superexpensive undergrad schools. As is often the case, kids either screw off academically, or change majors because they can’t keep up with the demands, and the end result of this huge monetary investment is a kid with a degree in 18th-Century Canadian Literature or The History of Dance, and a transcript with lots of Ws, and a mixed bag of unrelated courses, half of which carry C and D grades.
If you ask the parents why they are sending their kids to I-Got-the-Bucks University, they’ll tell you they’re trying to give their child the best competitive edge in their future careers. If you ask what it is about this particular school that guarantees them this “edge”, 95% of the time they’ll tell you that it was in the top 10 of some bogus chart published by US News and World Report. The other 5% will offer up some marketing gem straight from the pages of the college website.
As I mentioned above, if your kid is going to pursue a career in R&D in the sciences that is anything beyond lab tech level, postgraduate education is a given. And that’s what’s going to count when they get into the career field. Any good state college or university should be able to give a student the foundation they need to get into grad school and handle the extreme work load there. Not only will it be much cheaper, it will probably be a far less competitive and less pressured atmosphere for the student, giving him a better chance to earn good grades and to really think about whether their major will result in the type of lifetime career they really want.
And, as also mentioned previously, many institutions give stipends to their science grad students that completely cover their tuition (sometimes more) in return for the teaching and lab duties the students are expected to handle.
[quote=sdduuuude] Make sure they can handle at least pre-calculus in high-school. Math should be easy for them. If not, it’s off to business school.[/quote]
Will you freakin’ science and engineer types please shove your “People who excel in math become scientists and engineers; the people who can’t handle math get on the short bus to B-school” stereotypes where the sun don’t shine?! Admittedly, it’s been a very long time, but I can recall having some fairly stringent math adventures in some of my more advanced finance, econ, and statistics courses (fortunately, electroshock therapy has erased the nightmare memories of those happy times). And calculus was required.
Keep in mind that many undergrad professors at the time would not permit the use of calculators (not that we poor students could begin to afford the relatively simple models available).
I do realize that the undergrad business curriculum has expanded, and that college courses at many institutions have been “dumbed down” (which probably explains the state of today’s businesses and financial institutions). But I am still very sensitive to remarks that allude to mathematically-clueless business curriculum students. I’m married to a Ph.D.-level chemist, so that could explain a lot of my antagonism on the subject.
[quote=sdduuuude] And please, for god’s sake, make your little engineers take economics.[/quote]
You’re a god, sdduuuude!! I agree wholeheartedly! In fact, it should be a requirement of both engineering and science curricula, IMHO.
-
AuthorPosts