914Driver wrote: Nice. This reiterates why I don't usually do political threads, the hard nosed stand your ground take no prisoners attitude just isn't seen when dicussing Yugos. Dan
True enough. If Obama was spending his vacation time swapping a V8 into a Yugo there wouldn't be all this talk about "what has he done so far".
This thread has jumped the shark.
Big ego wrote:bravenrace wrote: Wow, you do have a big ego.It would b a problem if I didn't have the performance to back it up. Now as the old saying goes.. "In god we trust, all others bring data" Bring some data or take your conjecture elsewhere.
I don't think anything will satisfy your ego as long as you consider your conjecture as data and others data as conjecture.
Not only a big ego, but a douche bag to boot. Let's see...an attack on American soil, take your pick which one, a civil war, race riots, making the decision to drop an atomic bomb, the '30's depression you already mentioned combined with a global axis threat, the Cuban missile crisis...should I go on?
What the hell has Obama done besides push through health care and spend like an idiot. And yes, the country was in much worse shape in the late '70's than it is right now. Unless you lived through it you don't understand.
My company is hiring too, but only because we do most of our business with other countries.
I want to see your data where Obama is having the most difficult Presidency of any one that's ever lived? And what tough decisions has he had to face other than what to screw up next or how much of our money he's going to spend doing it?
Good points. And yes, the 70's were worse, but Obama is following in Carter's footsteps, so we "may" end up worse. And if Obama is having the most difficutly as President, it's likely because he doesn't have the experience or maturity to be President. Bush had to deal with a lot more than Obama, and like you mentioned, other Presidents had to deal with much more than that. But it's like I said, one persons data is someone elses conjecture. 
You can find a source for just about anything. I try to stay away from the chicken little sites to avoid a lot of the rhetoric. For example, there are sites that explain the science of creationism that have scientific sounding people that can refute just about any argument of mainstream science. If you go to that site wanting to hear that answer, that can be very comforting. Of course, they are completely wrong, but it sounds good.
Similarly, the websites that promote hyperinflation, buying gold, global economic meltdown, etc. are completely wrong too. They might occasionally guess right, but it is really just dumb luck. If you want informed opinions on both sides of an issue, you need to go somewhere like The Economist and research the issue for a while.
OT, who was Lloyd Christmas? Can't be a halfdork and I never heard of you.
OK, back to bashing. 
In reply to 914Driver:
If you click on my profile, you'll see in the web address my original screen name "Otto Maddox". I figured keeping the Red Dragon as my avatar would tip everyone off.
Lloyd Christmas wrote: You can find a source for just about anything. I try to stay away from the chicken little sites to avoid a lot of the rhetoric. For example, there are sites that explain the science of creationism that have scientific sounding people that can refute just about any argument of mainstream science. If you go to that site wanting to hear that answer, that can be very comforting. Of course, they are completely wrong, but it sounds good. Similarly, the websites that promote hyperinflation, buying gold, global economic meltdown, etc. are completely wrong too. They might occasionally guess right, but it is really just dumb luck. If you want informed opinions on both sides of an issue, you need to go somewhere like The Economist and research the issue for a while.
Your post is a prime example of what you are talking about. What exactly makes your sources better than someone elses? I'd say it's that they tell you what you want to hear. You don't know that creationism, hyperinflation, the wisdom of buying gold, global economic meltdown are completely wrong. You "think" they are, but you do not "know" they are. This lack of objectiveness leaves you with no credibility at all.
In reply to bravenrace:
Well, I tend to avoid the extremists on either end. Sometimes they are right, but it is unlikely. And while I can't say for sure the concepts mentioned are completely wrong, I will say the authors of opinions on said subjects often use methodology that is completely wrong.
I guess I could get a filmmaker's opinion on economics or an economist's opinion on heart surgery and maybe they'd be right. But I'll take my chances with people who have devoted their careers (and particularly their formalized education) to any given subject, particulary when they present both sides of the story.
When did ignoring the lunatic fringe become such a bizarre concept anyway?
And with that, I think I'll go back to talking about Yugos.
bravenrace wrote: You don't know that creationism, hyperinflation, the wisdom of buying gold, global economic meltdown are completely wrong. You "think" they are, but you do not "know" they are. This lack of objectiveness leaves you with no credibility at all.
The bottom line is that there are credible sources of information and there are incredible sources. It isn't always easy to distinguish when both the publisher and the reader share a bias - or the reader is not in possession of the skills necessary to decide for themselves what is and isn't credible.
JohnGalt wrote: why not get say Bush to sell the Bush tax cut?
In this case, Obama's problem isn't with Republicans, it's with Democrats. I'm not sure bringing Bush in would help him there. In fact, the issue is that many Democrats think he is already acting way too much like Bush.
Guy can't buy a break. He's either painted as a left wing radical or too much like the right wing nut job we just got rid of. I'm thinking anyone who is beat up so hard from both sides is pretty down the middle, but you won't find many who share that opinion.
Big ego wrote: I think Obama has a leadership issue. While the man has a ton on his plate, quite frankly more than any other president in recent history, He has let others define his presidency. (snip) btw.. Given the choice, I'd still vote for him.
I agree with you. And yet, when he tries to define it for himself he is criticized for being on television too much.
Big ego wrote: I've built a career around being able to work with people from all backgrounds and listening to all. She and her idiocy can shove it.
obviously not, because what you've just said would have offended a large percentage of people you might call "common folk" if we aren't allowed to call them "real americans". and also thinking you know everything about someone from what you see on some tv show or from what some sensationalist news show says is laughable.
and you're all still acting like children
In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacke
I completely agree. But what is credible and not credible is left to the descretion of the reader. I'll admit I posted a link about hyperinflation in hast, but that's because I'm at work and I do actually make that a higher priority than convincing someone of something I already know. so I picked the first article I could find. It doesn't mean I think the author is correct or not. If he wasn't qualified to write that article, well, I could talk for hours about a President that doesn't have the qualifications he should either. But here's where I have a real problem - For anyone to make the assumption that the sources I use for my information are extremists and their's are not is just plain ignorant considering I haven't revealed what my sources are.
bravenrace wrote: You don't know that creationism, hyperinflation, the wisdom of buying gold, global economic meltdown are completely wrong.
Well, hyperinflation, gold, global economic meltdown... I don't know enough to say for sure. Creationism? Yes, I know it is completely wrong. Without a doubt. I could write a book explaining it. Many already have.
racerdave600 wrote: Not only a big ego, but a douche bag to boot. Let's see...an attack on American soil, take your pick which one, a civil war, race riots, making the decision to drop an atomic bomb, the '30's depression you already mentioned combined with a global axis threat, the Cuban missile crisis...should I go on? What the hell has Obama done besides push through health care and spend like an idiot. And yes, the country was in much worse shape in the late '70's than it is right now. Unless you lived through it you don't understand. My company is hiring too, but only because we do most of our business with other countries. I want to see your data where Obama is having the most difficult Presidency of any one that's ever lived? And what tough decisions has he had to face other than what to screw up next or how much of our money he's going to spend doing it?
I said recent history about presidents.. 30's, civil war, race riots, I would not call any of those recent... But We could argue semantics about the definition of recent until you're blue in the face.
I think people have forgotten how distinctly bad the financial crisis was... Aside from the normal players that we have all heard about, there are many companies that nearly went down. This could have been another great depression and it is my belief that it was saved by this spending.
Harley Davidson
GE <--- yes.. All of GE nearly failed
Verizon
Barclays
Caterpillar
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/01/AR2010120106870.html?sid=ST2010120106876 There are plenty more citations out there for this information.
http://www.propublica.org/special/paulson-ge-timeline
In reply to fast_eddie_72:
Sorry, but no human can prove that creationism is wrong without a doubt until they die. You believe it is wrong, but you don't know. Humans were sure the earth was flat at one time also. As far as hyperinflation, here's an article in the Wall Street Journal. Or is that an extremist publication also?
How do you determine a reputable news source?
And "they agree/disagree with bias" is not an acceptable answer.
Strizzo wrote:Big ego wrote: I've built a career around being able to work with people from all backgrounds and listening to all. She and her idiocy can shove it.obviously not, because what you've just said would have offended a large percentage of people you might call "common folk" if we aren't allowed to call them "real americans". and also thinking you know everything about someone from what you see on some tv show or from what some sensationalist news show says is laughable.
que? The basis of the right wing populist agenda is that only those who live in the middle of america, believe as they do, and various other stereotypes are only "real americans".
As for my career, I stand by my words. At the age of 22, when I was leaving my job summer job as an intern engineer at a large and very crusty UAW plant, I was taken out to lunch by all of the people who worked the assmebly line in my department. All Hourly guys, not salary invited. They were so grateful that someone listened to them and fixed the issues that made their day easier. First engineer to have that treatment in 30 years.
bravenrace wrote: I Or is that an extremist publication also? Link
They have always been a conservative paper to be sure, but recently I believe they picked up Karl Rove to as a contributor.
z31maniac wrote: How do you determine a reputable news source? And "they agree/disagree with bias" is not an acceptable answer.
That's exactly my point.
z31maniac wrote: How do you determine a reputable news source? And "they agree/disagree with bias" is not an acceptable answer.
I try to be a good skeptic. I try to see where they get their information. Are they drawing conclusions based on solid facts or other conclusions? Are they open to criticism or defensive of their position? Do they approach things in a logical, scientific manner? Are there other independent sources to corroborate? etc...
The world is so full of misinformation, pseudo-science and outright propaganda that you do really need to be critical of absolutely everything.
In reply to Big ego:
i wasn't referring to anyones idea of "real american" than my own. people that work because thats their passion, what they love, and want to run their lives the way they choose, not the way some stuffed shirt a thousand miles away thinks is best for them.
great, good job there. forgive me if i don't think its that much of a stretch for a very openly liberal person like yourself to connect with assembly line workers in a union factory. sounds like you're getting credit not for what you did, but because everyone before you did so poorly. like wanting credit for paying your child support. thats what you're supposed to do, you don't get special recognition for doing your job, you get to keep getting paid.
In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker:
Then it would be wise for someone to not make judgements about someone else, when they don't really know that person or where they get their information. Some here for some reason think they're the only one that has had experiences that lead them to the correct answer. These people make an enormous assumption that the people they are debating with aren't as smart, experienced or knowledgable as they are. People like this don't learn anything because they think they already know everything and have nothing to learn from others. Eventually they look like fools because of it.
You'll need to log in to post.
