• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2013 |OT2| Worth 77% of OT1

Status
Not open for further replies.
Smart people are just better at defending positions they arrived at for non-smart reasons.

Yeah, something like this. Being smart and being wrong are not mutually exclusive.

Hell, the GOP arguments have been wrong for a long time, but they've had smarter people running their party than the Dems, that's for sure.


Anyway, according to this woman the Oklahoma jogger shooting is partially the result of Roe v. Wade.

You gotta see it to believe it.
 
"I think there’s some intended violation of the law in this administration, but I also think there’s a ton of incompetence, of people who are making decisions," Coburn said.

"Those are serious things, but we’re in a serious time," Coburn continued. "I don’t have the legal background to know if that rises to high crimes and misdemeanor, but I think they’re getting perilously close.”

Translation: I have absolutely no idea what constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors, HOWEVER, Obama's gotta be close.


lmao, these fucking clowns.
 

GhaleonEB

Member
But isn't making good assumptions part of being smart? And it isn't really about making assumptions, but having just a basic capacity for perceiving the empirical world with relative accuracy. And if you can't get that basic task right, by what right do you have to claim "smartness" or "intelligence"?

Many otherwise smart people have their own personal blinders on. I work with a lot of very sharp people; remarkable industrial engineers and finance folks doing very complex and difficult work, and doing it well. They're smart by any definition I can come up with.

A few of them are also Tea Partiers who believe every chain email that lands in their inbox and watch Fox News like it's gospel. It's a juxtaposition I've never quite figured out. We can reason through difficult accounting policy situations and cost modeling, but they're as dense as a bar of lead if politics or policy comes up. They're smart, they're just irrational and ideological.
 
You can also be intelligent and immoral, peddling problematic policy positions for personal gain.

You can also be smart in some areas and awful in others.

My cousin is an amazing specialist doctor. One of the few women in her field, in fact.

Yet somehow, she is a complete moron in almost everything she does. Drives me nuts.
 
Many otherwise smart people have their own personal blinders on. I work with a lot of very sharp people; remarkable industrial engineers and finance folks doing very complex and difficult work, and doing it well. They're smart by any definition I can come up with.

A few of them are also Tea Partiers who believe every chain email that lands in their inbox and watch Fox News like it's gospel. It's a juxtaposition I've never quite figured out. We can reason through difficult accounting policy situations and cost modeling, but they're as dense as a bar of lead if politics or policy comes up. They're smart, they're just irrational and ideological.

I get that, but what I'm suggesting is that our conception of smartness or intelligence ought to account for irrationality and delusion, i.e., that they are incompatible. What's the point of calling a person smart if they are wrong about important things? Something is misfiring in them, and although it's possible to separate pure executive functioning and "intelligence" as measured by IQ tests from psychological disorders that might induce delusional thinking, I don't know that our conception of intelligence should make that distinction, since I can't figure out what the benefit is of calling people smart who consistently draw the wrong conclusions about the world in which we live.

Obviously, nobody will always draw the correct conclusions about everything, but it seems like being in the ballpark--and being able to recognize when you're not--should be a prerequisite for intelligence.
 

GhaleonEB

Member
I get that, but what I'm suggesting is that our conception of smartness or intelligence ought to account for irrationality and delusion, i.e., that they are incompatible. What's the point of calling a person smart if they are wrong about important things? Something is misfiring in them, and although it's possible to separate pure executive functioning and "intelligence" as measured by IQ tests from psychological disorders that might induce delusional thinking, I don't know that our conception of intelligence should make that distinction, since I can't figure out what the benefit is of calling people smart who consistently draw the wrong conclusions about the world in which we live.

Obviously, nobody will always draw the correct conclusions about everything, but it seems like being in the ballpark--and being able to recognize when you're not--should be a prerequisite for intelligence.
I had a longer response drawn up, but in the end we don't disagree with each other much, so there's little point in going on at length. I simply describe this topic very differently and don't think the spectrum you and I are talking about all fits into the same definition. (Meaning, intelligence, wisdom and empathy are related but not necessarily the same things.)
 
I had a longer response drawn up, but in the end we don't disagree with each other much, so there's little point in going on at length. I simply describe this topic very differently and don't think the spectrum you and I are talking about all fits into the same definition. (Meaning, intelligence, wisdom and empathy are related but not necessarily the same things.)

Well in the end it's just a semantics discussion; because of their connotations, I just have a preference for reserving certain words from certain kinds of people.
 

Tamanon

Banned

Nothing special about it. Still seems to assume the President is able to close Guantanamo Bay when he isn't. Apparently thinks that any prosecution of Snowden or Manning is "vengeful". No biggie.

Funny that he's a Hillary supporter and a Carter hater though. Means he doesn't understand the candidates and how they might react to the NSA situation.
 
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/08/ohioans-skeptical-about-kasich-2016-and-more.html
It gets worse for Kasich when it comes to the general electorate- he trails Hillary Clinton by 18 points in a hypothetical match up, 53/35. Clinton looks very strong in Ohio- leading Chris Christie 45/36, Jeb Bush 50/36, Rand Paul 51/36, and Paul Ryan 52/36 as well- but Kasich does the weakest on the home front. One thing that is not helping his cause is the controversial abortion restrictions he signed into law this summer- only 34% of voters support them to 40% opposed.​
 
Double post, but I saw this link that highlights Greenwald as a liar.
Look, I did work with the U.S. government – for several years. This is neither hidden nor secreted away. It is openly stated on my biography page here, and on the “previous work” section of my LinkedIn profile. Not only do I not try to hide this information, I actively trade on it. The reason I am given credibility to discuss national security issues in the public sphere is because I am open about my old employment as a senior intelligence analyst for the dreaded national security state. I built my current career on that, in fact. So the nasty little slander that I somehow hide this fact from anyone is just that — a nasty little slur.

Greenwald in particular should know better. He tried this gambit once before, in 2010. Then, as the Wikileaks scandal was just cresting, he wrote a nasty little multi-thousand-word screed where he accused me of being a “royal court hanger-on” for the military, among other supposed crimes. Then, as now, it was a needless, vicious slur (I responded in full at the time).

What makes any tiff with Greenwald so exhausting is not just the needlessly personal nature of his attacks, but rather his outright lies. That’s correct: Glenn Greenwald is a serial liar. He is pathological about it. And he pretends like people are too dumb to notice. He did this in 2010. On the morning of November 30, 2010, he tweeted this about me:

Greenwald2.jpg


Notice the familiar slander, that I had undisclosed contracts? It wasn’t true at the time — I even wrote in the New York Times that I worked at a defense contractor! — he “discovered” my “undisclosed” ties by looking at… my LinkedIn profile. But, almost casually, he lied about it just a few hours later.
 

bonercop

Member
Nothing special about it. Still seems to assume the President is able to close Guantanamo Bay when he isn't. Apparently thinks that any prosecution of Snowden or Manning is "vengeful". No biggie.

Funny that he's a Hillary supporter and a Carter hater though. Means he doesn't understand the candidates and how they might react to the NSA situation.

That's not at all what he said. He described the current administration's track record toward whistle-blowers as "vengeful", and given the fact that a plane of a foreign president was forced to land on the off chance Snowden was on board and Manning was hit with a much harsher punishment than actual spies are, I'd say that's a totally fair characterization.
 

AndyD

aka andydumi
Regardless of how it's framed, the argument is the same. The government is receiving too much money at the expense of students.

But its not at the expense of students, its at the expense of hopefully employed adults who have earned their education by using the loans the government gave them. At better rates and more lenient terms than they would have gotten privately in most cases.

One could argue the government should get out of the student loan business all together, and that's a fair argument, but I think an argument for interest free loans is a losing one with the vast majority.
 

gcubed

Member
Double post, but I saw this link that highlights Greenwald as a liar.
Look, I did work with the U.S. government – for several years. This is neither hidden nor secreted away. It is openly stated on my biography page here, and on the “previous work” section of my LinkedIn profile. Not only do I not try to hide this information, I actively trade on it. The reason I am given credibility to discuss national security issues in the public sphere is because I am open about my old employment as a senior intelligence analyst for the dreaded national security state. I built my current career on that, in fact. So the nasty little slander that I somehow hide this fact from anyone is just that — a nasty little slur.

Greenwald in particular should know better. He tried this gambit once before, in 2010. Then, as the Wikileaks scandal was just cresting, he wrote a nasty little multi-thousand-word screed where he accused me of being a “royal court hanger-on” for the military, among other supposed crimes. Then, as now, it was a needless, vicious slur (I responded in full at the time).

What makes any tiff with Greenwald so exhausting is not just the needlessly personal nature of his attacks, but rather his outright lies. That’s correct: Glenn Greenwald is a serial liar. He is pathological about it. And he pretends like people are too dumb to notice. He did this in 2010. On the morning of November 30, 2010, he tweeted this about me:

[img1]http://joshuafoust.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Greenwald2.jpg[/img]

Notice the familiar slander, that I had undisclosed contracts? It wasn’t true at the time — I even wrote in the New York Times that I worked at a defense contractor! — he “discovered” my “undisclosed” ties by looking at… my LinkedIn profile. But, almost casually, he lied about it just a few hours later.

the worst part about the NSA leaks is that they go through the Greenwald filter. I wish it was through someone a bit more... journalistic and less victimized asshole, but then the hyperbole would have been eliminated and it wouldn't have gotten half the attention.
 
Double post, but I saw this link that highlights Greenwald as a liar.

I think it highlights Foust's lack of comprehension. The complaints aren't about Foust's nondisclosures in random places like page bios, but specifically failing to disclose ties in individual articles and (more specifically) failing to disclose outstanding offers of employment to the Government. Anyway, his beef is actually with Sam Knight, who made the claims, not with Greenwald.
 

FLEABttn

Banned
According to the Pew Research Center, Younger Republicans think more diverse nominees would help the GOP win.

Among Republicans and leaners under 40, 68% say nominating more racial and ethnic minorities would help and 64% say the same about more women nominees. Far fewer Republicans 40 and older view these steps as helpful: 49% say nominating more racial and ethnic minorities would help and 46% say the same of nominating more women.

More generally, younger Republicans are more likely than older Republicans to say that the GOP has not been welcoming to all groups of people. Overall, most Republicans (60%) think the party “is tolerant and open to all groups of people,” while 36% say it is not. Younger Republicans are divided – 51% say the party is tolerant and open to all, while 45% disagreed. Among older Republicans, twice as many view the party as tolerant (64%) than not (32%).

However, young republicans, too, seem to be just addressing how their policies and politicians look and not really what their policies actually are.

FT_GOP_Positions.png


50% of the under 40's still think that the party needs to move in a more conservative direction and 56% think that the congressional Republicans have compromised the right amount with congressional Democrats or too much, with only 38% thinking there should have been more compromise.
 
According to the Pew Research Center, Younger Republicans think more diverse nominees would help the GOP win.



However, young republicans, too, seem to be just addressing how their policies and politicians look and not really what their policies actually are.

FT_GOP_Positions.png


50% of the under 40's still think that the party needs to move in a more conservative direction and 56% think that the congressional Republicans have compromised the right amount with congressional Democrats or too much, with only 38% thinking there should have been more compromise.

Half of the base thinks they need to be MORE conservative?

GOP is fucked considerably. hahaha
 

Wilsongt

Member
According to the Pew Research Center, Younger Republicans think more diverse nominees would help the GOP win.



However, young republicans, too, seem to be just addressing how their policies and politicians look and not really what their policies actually are.

FT_GOP_Positions.png


50% of the under 40's still think that the party needs to move in a more conservative direction and 56% think that the congressional Republicans have compromised the right amount with congressional Democrats or too much, with only 38% thinking there should have been more compromise.

More conservative? Uh... Can you actually get -more- batshit insane? They're already giving the Onion a run for their money.
 
I think it highlights Foust's lack of comprehension. The complaints aren't about Foust's nondisclosures in random places like page bios, but specifically failing to disclose ties in individual articles and (more specifically) failing to disclose outstanding offers of employment to the Government. Anyway, his beef is actually with Sam Knight, who made the claims, not with Greenwald.
I read the article, and it's pretty clearly Greenwald, but okay.
 
Part of the issue is that some conservatives will say stuff like "gay marriage should be allowed because it is conservative".

What someone's idea of conservative is varies from person to person. They should have changed that question by asking specifically which areas they should be more conservative or liberal.
 

Tamanon

Banned
Yeah, honestly a classic conservative would've been for gay marriage, anti-interventionist, and certainly less military/surveillance state.
 

Link

The Autumn Wind
The biggest issue with the Tea Party is that many members are younger neocons. They won't be dying off anytime soon.
 
So the Righties have been jizzing over Ashton Kutcher's speech about the value of hard work at the Teen Choice awards, thus proving that there's someone that people actually LIKE in Hollywood that happens to be conservative. So I was glad to see Don Lemon ask the obvious question: Since when the hell did hard work become a conservative value?
I'm not at all surprised to hear that Ashton Kutcher is actually a Democrat. He's also very Jewish.

Have conservatives ever actually listened to anything Obama - or other Democrats - said? Or do they assume all of his speeches go something like

"My new program will make it easier for my fellow black people to sit on their asses and collect welfare checks at the expense of hard-working taxpaying individuals."
 

Link

The Autumn Wind
To be fair a lot of the younger ones are more libertarian, which I prefer to the older fundamentalist christian tea partiers.
I know Libertarians, and that's not who I'm talking about. I'm talking about the extreme social conservatives that seem to hate everyone not just like them. They think every problem out there is because of "lazy minorities."
 
I know Libertarians, and that's not who I'm talking about. I'm talking about the extreme social conservatives that seem to hate everyone not just like them. They think every problem out there is because of "lazy minorities."
The good thing is, their generation as a whole is more liberal than previous ones. They will continue to shrink as a minority of the population.
 
That is who Foust is attacking, yes. It's not who his recent dispute about his failure to disclose his government ties is with.

Did you read the article? Greenwald posted about it and has in the past. Of course you do nothing to counter the fact Greenwald is a liar.

And funny how Greenwald and his supporters hate ad hominum attacks when they're directed at them but love doing it to others. Also they hate obama-bots but will defend to the death they're favorite journalist even when he gets things wrong and willfully misleads.
 

Link

The Autumn Wind
The good thing is, their generation as a whole is more liberal than previous ones. They will continue to shrink as a minority of the population.
Oh, I know it. I'm sure there's a direct link between strength in numbers and how angry and vocal they are. They think the country is going to shit because we don't want to live like it's the 1800's.
 

delirium

Member
the worst part about the NSA leaks is that they go through the Greenwald filter. I wish it was through someone a bit more... journalistic and less victimized asshole, but then the hyperbole would have been eliminated and it wouldn't have gotten half the attention.

It would have drawn a less attention yes, but with the way is being played out currently, I feel that real meaningful dialog is going to be shut out the same way Wikileaks situation did.
 
the worst part about the NSA leaks is that they go through the Greenwald filter. I wish it was through someone a bit more... journalistic and less victimized asshole, but then the hyperbole would have been eliminated and it wouldn't have gotten half the attention.

The washington post has taken it out of that (though they have their own issues with truthfulness, though they were much more proactive in correcting it), same with the NYT and WSJ. The story originally blew up with the second story about PRSIM which I think the washington post broke a bit before the Guardian.

Even some of the guardian's other writers have been a lot better.
 

gcubed

Member
The washington post has taken it out of that (though they have their own issues with truthfulness, though they were much more proactive in correcting it), same with the NYT and WSJ. The story originally blew up with the second story about PRSIM

yes, the others have taken a much more apt approach to the reporting, and they are the ones i'm reading, but the sensationalism happened right in the beginning... I'll read everyone elses account of the information before i touch a greenwald story.
 
This story has been making the rounds today:

A middle-aged man in a red golf shirt shuffles up to a small folding table with gold trim, in a booth adorned with a flotilla of helium balloons, where government workers at the Kentucky State Fair are hawking the virtues of Kynect, the state’s health benefit exchange established by Obamacare.

The man is impressed. “This beats Obamacare I hope,” he mutters to one of the workers.

“Do I burst his bubble?” wonders Reina Diaz-Dempsey, overseeing the operation. She doesn’t. If he signs up, it’s a win-win, whether he knows he’s been ensnared by Obamacare or not.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/22/kentucky-obamacare_n_3801054.html

Or as Krugman puts it: Don't Let Government Get Its Hands On Obamacare!
 
Did you read the article? Greenwald posted about it and has in the past. Of course you do nothing to counter the fact Greenwald is a liar.

And funny how Greenwald and his supporters hate ad hominum attacks when they're directed at them but love doing it to others. Also they hate obama-bots but will defend to the death they're favorite journalist even when he gets things wrong and willfully misleads.

What is Greenwald lying about? And what ad hominems are you referring to? And who hates them? (Accusing somebody of acting unethically is not an ad hominem.) Here's a write-up of what actually went down, which didn't involve Greenwald at all except for his retweeting.

It seems to me there is a lot of irrational hatred for Greenwald.

bernanke.jpg.CROP.article568-large.jpg


Saw this on Yglesias' blog.

When even conservatives start wearing their hair long and growing facial hair, you will know we're finally back in a progressive era.
 
Oh look, more Obamacare premiums release by a state. And more good news! This time from a Red state, to boot: utah

Utahns shopping for health insurance through the online marketplace created by the Affordable Care Act will have at least 99 plan choices, the state insurance department said Thursday.

Although costs will vary statewide, a 27-year-old living in Salt Lake County could pay as little as $162 a month for an insurance plan that will cover 70 percent of his or her medical costs, according to a preliminary analysis by the department. For a family that includes a pair of 40-something parents with three or more children under age 21, monthly plan costs could range from $623 to $978.

Assistant Insurance Department Commissioner Tanji Northrup shared the data publicly for the first time Thursday during a meeting of the Legislature’s Health Care Reform Task Force at the Capitol.

Cost data for the plans — offered by six companies — were presented only as averages because some details won’t finalized until early September, Northrup said. The participating insurers are Altius Health Plans, Arches Mutual Insurance Co., BridgeSpan Health Co., Humana Medical Plan of Utah, Molina and SelectHealth.

That’s about half the companies that sell insurance in Utah’s individual market. Details about the plans will be released to the public next month, Northrup said.

"It’s an excellent amount of choice," Northrup said after the meeting. "For people to get the tax credits (provided by the law), they have to purchase on the exchange, and so [insurers] are really not sure about that clientele that’s new to the marketplace. So to have six insurers and 99 choices is fabulous."

Advocates for the poor, many of whom will work to help Utahns use the exchange, were pleased by the first look.

"That’s a robust number and compared to what other states are doing, it’s right in the ballpark," said Jason Stevenson of the Utah Health Policy Project.

Passed by Congress in 2010, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires almost all Americans to have health insurance by 2014 or pay a tax penalty. Exchanges, web-based marketplaces, will begin selling insurance Oct. 1, although coverage won’t start until January.

An estimated 270,000 of Utah’s nearly 400,000 uninsured will be eligible to buy insurance through the exchange. Federal health officials estimate 93 percent of those eligible to shop in the Utah exchange will also qualify for subsidies to help make the cost of insurance more affordable.


Utah is the only state splitting management of its exchange system. The federal Health and Human Services Department will run the marketplace for individuals and Utah will operate Avenue H, an exchange that caters to small businesses.

In each premium estimate provided by the department, the federally run exchange was cheaper.

Under the ACA’s new rules for insurance, consumers will get more for their insurance dollar because plans will be required to cover a minimum set of so-called essential health benefits, such as mental health and maternity care. Insurance companies also will no longer be able to deny coverage to individuals because of pre-existing health conditions.

That makes it difficult to compare the coming costs of insurance premiums to current costs, Northrup said, when queried by lawmakers. Consumers want to know how much the cost of their insurance might be going up and how much of that can be attributed to Obamacare, said Rep. Jim Dunnigan, R-Taylorsville.

"Some states have done it and I wonder about the accuracy," Northrup said, noting that insurance rules vary by state.

Utah has operated Avenue H since 2009. Currently, 350 businesses buy insurance through Avenue H providers, providing coverage for just over 7,800 Utahns.

Three insurance companies intend to sell 70 plans through Avenue H in 2014, although the plan choices have not yet been finalized, Northrup said. The companies are Arches Mutual Insurance Co., SelectHealth and UnitedHealthcare of Utah.

An insurance department analysis of the Avenue H-based plan offerings show the average plan cost for a Salt Lake County 27-year-old may range between $217 and $347. An employee seeking coverage for a family of five or more might expect to pay between $875 and $1,332, the data show.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56768647-78/insurance-health-plan-utah.html.csp


99 policies but a glitch ain't one

terrible, i know
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member

And there you have the true reason for the 40 votes against Obamacare that passed the house. People who follow politics casually see the headline "house passes vote to reveal Obamacare" and people assume it's dead, so now when Obamacare benefits start coming in they assume it wasn't Obamacare.

It amazes me how many smart people I talk too who have fallen for this.
 

Wilsongt

Member
Would be nummy if the reason Dems lost the House in 2010 was a contributing factor in them winning it back in 2014.

You mean they win the house back due to all of the lies told by the Tea Party the same way that telling those lies got the Republicans the house in the first place?

That would be amazingly delicious irony.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom