Posts by Rich Lock
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
[sigh] OK Sage, for some reason I feel like banging my head against a brick wall (maybe because it's Friday), so I'll engage with your 'argument'.
You say address 'the point' and not 'the man'. So I read the post you quoted.
Like Giovanni, I thoight the first couple of paragraphs were fairly sound. And then the straw men started flying so thick and fast I thought I was being asked to stuff a mattress.
Here's just one:
Those seem to be the only weapons in the liberal armory. If a liberal female columnist is snarky, that shows she’s clever and merits a Pulitzer. If a female Republican conservative is sarcastic, that’s being mean spirited. And so forth
Which 'liberal female columnist', exactly? Did she win a pulitzer? Was it for being snarky?
Which female republican conservative, exactly? Where's her sarcasm? Where's the 'mean-spirited' criticism?
The poster may actually have a point. Or on the other hand, he may just be coming up with the usual dogwhistle bullshit which pushes the relevant buttons of the audience - 'They' are liberal and elitist with their pulitzer prizes. 'They' have double standards. 'They' don't understand our heartland values. 'They' sneer at us. 'We' don't like them.
Until I have name and references to articles, I call bullshit. I can run my own critical analysis and decide if stuff passes the sarcasm threshold, thanks very much.
And for what it's worth, I actually agree with you. To horribly paramangle PT Barnum, a sucker registers to vote every minute. I don't think a politician ever lost an election by underestimating the intelligence of the electorate.
As interesting as all the small things like 'facts' and 'logical argument' are in relation to McCain and Palin, it looks like the republicans worked out a long time ago that tweaking the buttons of voters is far, far more effective. and if that doesn't work, shouting really, really loudly is also good.
-
Well, all the disgusting filth you've been posting on this thread caused my work firewall to throw a fit and block me out, so I've only just managed to catch up with this thread. I hope you're all happy with yourselves, you dirty perverts.
Steven, what are these 'Darlics' of which you speak? :)
-
Craig, I get that you were asking a serious question - 'how do you define "offensive content"?'
My point, albeit somewhat clumsily made, is that the Potter Stewart test appears to be the best we can come up with - there is no convenient empirical definition of what is 'offensive' or 'pornographic'.
-
And how do you define "offensive content" -- seriously, the ten minutes of High School Musical I forced myself to watch would have been seriously offensive in its social and gender stereotypes if it wasn't also so crushingly banal. Not something I'd want my child exposed to without a loaded gun held to my head.
-
Slightly off topic, but there was a timely article in the weekend Herald relating to medicinal use of cannabis in California:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10530801
Wiki has the answers wrt to the legal status in Canada here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_legalization_in_Canada
And one of Canada's biggest exports to the US is now BC Bud:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,682290-2,00.html
I read somewhere recently (but can't find the source - think it might have been McMafia) that NAFTA basically put a lot of Canadian loggers out of work, and they now mainly make a living cultivating cannabis and exporting it to the US.
-
While I am usually so out of step with the wishes/desires/feelings of my fellow citizens that I have often thought about changing my name to 'mr square peg', it seems blindingly obvious to me that people really hate breaking their journey.
Add in the additional step of a van, ferry or whatever, and people will find another, easier, option.
-
PS - not intending to get involved myself, but would hate to see any discusion degenerate into a bunch of people shouting past each other because they've assumed the other side has the same starting assumptions that they do.
-
Well, for one thing, they're about to hold a democratic election.
If we're going to debate FTA's and so forth, possibly all participants should explicitly annuciate the assumptions that underpin their starting positions before doing so.
-
Caught the last few minutes of Hilary on BBC - looked wild eyed and p-fueled to me.
Really? She looked quite measured and in control to me.
If anyone is P-fuelled around here, it's the Harold's headline writers. According to them, Hilary http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10529292 screamed
screamed. I'm really not seeing it. -
Silver for you, Mark. See two posts above.