Friday Highlights

Good morning.

  1. Epistemic insight into that road to serfdom?
  2. By your fruit (or not exactly fruit)?
  3. Is this on the up and up?
  4. Half our electricity … gone? or gone from mind of the left?
  5. Hey! I thought Mr Gowers was done with the entertainment. There’s more fun!
  6. Saint von Bingen, here and here.
  7. Of art, beauty and flaws.
  8. Why the horn?
  9. Why bother read the fine print … he isn’t an honest speaker in the first place.
  10. A language found.
  11. A grease, err, Greece fire?
  12. An economic indicator?
  13. A top ten list.
  14. You sir, might be an idiot, I however am a fool.
  15. Tombstone.
  16. Wind damage.
  17. Flexibility and pessimism (or is it realism).

17 Responses to Friday Highlights

  1. 9.Why bother read the fine print … he isn’t an honest speaker in the first place.

    In levelling a charge of dishonesty, it is usually the custom to actually present some statement that is clearly and actually untrue.

  2. 3.Is this on the up and up?

    The question would be which religoius sects view health insurance as a form of gambling that is likewise forbidden. I would say most Muslims do not as do most Christians and Jews. There are a handful of sects (i.e. the Amish) who do. I’m not sure why the author asserts ‘Christians and Jews’ do not benefit from exemption and then goes on to cite Christian Scientists and the Amish as examples. Is he implicitly asserting they are not Christians?

  3. 1.Epistemic insight into that road to serfdom?

    If I alleged that many Jews were aligned with the Democratic Party because they got a taste of the other side with the Nazis in WWII how long would it take for Mark to accuse me of bigotry?

  4. Boonton,
    #1 What rational would link the GOP with Nazis? Would it be African American antisemitism?
    #9 Heh. Let’s see, if you asked why read the fine print at Stalin’s mock trials for the gulag … this (oddly enough) would actually not be the “custom” to present authentication that these were show trials. That part was well known and well established.

  5. Re 1. What rational link is there between the Democratic Party and Stalinism? Adoption of Mitt Romney’s blueprint for health care reform?

    Re 9. Stalin’s trials are not considered mockeries of justice not simply by custom or simply because it’s assumed any trial that happened under Stalin was false, but by extensive evidence that there was little or no merit to the charges made, no respect for the rules of evidence or for standard procedures which an independent judiciary would use to conduct a trial. To the degree anyone has any doubts of this, they can easily access an extensive trove of research and documentation. I’m not sure why, though, you seem baffled by my assertion that if you call someone a liar you should be able to easily cite an example of an untruth on their part.

  6. Boonton,

    Stalin’s trials are not considered mockeries of justice not simply by custom or simply because it’s assumed any trial that happened under Stalin was false … To the degree anyone has any doubts of this, they can easily access an extensive trove of research and documentation. I’m not sure why, though, you seem baffled by my assertion that if you call someone a liar

    Ok. Prove Stalin’s trials were show trials. The point is, contrary to your assertion, statements of that sort are not usually accompanied by proof.

  7. Boonton,
    You’ll have to enlighten me on what (link?) on Stalin’s health care plans. What connection do you draw between Stalin’s plan and Mr Romney’s blueprint? I fail to see any connection.

  8. Before Stalin’s show trials were considered show trials, critics actually made the case that they were show trials. The case was made so strongly that the default position is now that the trials were show trials and the burden is on anyone who disputes that to make the case.

    Unfortunately your assertion that Obama has been exceptionally dishonest as a President or even simply more dishonest than the previous one has been remarkably less clear cut and in fact has quite often resulted in egg ending up on your face (the same goes for your assertions about Biden). Given your tarnished reputation here, you should be eager to accept the opportunity to redeem yourself rather than spinning rapidly.

  9. Boonton,
    You’re complacent ignoring when cases were quite strong and jumping tepidly on those times when I’ve made the case isn’t quite the rebuttal you pretend. Actually the case for his (Mr Obama’s) repeated lying is so prevalent and so strong that outside the liberal echo chamber it’s completely obvious. This, after all, is the guy who claimed to a union crowd that he’d repeal NAFTA .. and a day later assured a second crowed of bankers that he would not. Nope. No lying. How can you say the complete opposite on consecutive days and not lie?

  10. If the case is so strong then why are your examples so weak? I haven’t been methodically checking every case you cite, only a random one now and then like I did with your Biden claims. I’ve seen you cite, for example, differences of opinion (Obama: Al Qaeda’s on the ropes Other guy: Al Qaeda’s not on the ropes) as ‘lies’. I’ve seen you cite implausible contexts as lies (i.e. the health law doesn’t require you to change your employer provided plan to Company X changed its plan from A to B therefore the claim about the law was a lie). I suppose your NAFTA example, if true, would qualify but given your need to cite such weak examples I suspect it’s less typical and more atypical.

    Remember the rules of engagement here. Your claim is that Obama is an exceptional liar. My claim is not that Obama is ‘honest Abe’ who never once in his life uttered an untruth (actually Abe himself could be fairly said to have shaded things on more than one occassion).

  11. Boonton,
    What reasons did Mr Obama give for his sudden “change of heart” on SSM? Google a bit, list for me his stated reasons. Tell me if you think he is telling the truth or not.

    Or is it that you don’t think Mr Obama is an exceptional liar, i.e., all politicians lie all the time, and while Mr Obama lies all the time, that is unexceptional in that he is a politician. Hope. Change. Whoo hoo.

  12. Boonton,
    And btw, it was Washington who had the reputation for honest was it not?

  13. Well again your task here is not to support the assertion that Obama has never, ever lied. You’ve asserted he is an exceptional liar by your statement “he isn’t an honest speaker in the first place”….unless you mean to say that you listen to no speaker unless they are 100% honest 100% of the time….which would be interesting if that was the case.

    Regardless, I doubt you could support a case that Obama is an excpetional liar by any sensible standard that would not leave you convicted of the same fault.

  14. Boonton,
    Do you have another Obama occassion that you’d like to highlight. Every single time I hear or read of him speaking the text is packed with falsehoods, things he states which he cannot believe because he recently contradicted it.

    Can you itemize even one instance where you think I lied? Let’s see, I think Obama lies reflexively virtually every time he speaks publicly. Pick two posts of mine (or comment threads) and two Obama speeches. We’ll compare.

  15. Your efforts here continue to undermine your case

    Do you have another Obama occassion that you’d like to highlight. Every single time I hear or read of him speaking the text is packed with falsehoods,…

    Isn’t it interesting then after asserting your examples were poor you choose to cite….an example which requires me to imagine I can read someone’s mind to know if he was really speaking a falsehood…hmmmm

    Do you have another Obama occassion that you’d like to highlight. Every single time I hear or read of him speaking the text is packed with falsehoods,…

    You’re the one making the argument here, what is this? Intellectual food stamps?

  16. Boonton,

    Isn’t it interesting then after asserting your examples were poor you choose to cite….an example which requires me to imagine I can read someone’s mind to know if he was really speaking a falsehood…hmmmm

    I see. Now Mr Obama is not lying because you cannot read his mind, which is why direct contradictions on back to back speaking engagements kinda is an obvious tell.

    Pick a speech.

    You’re the one making the argument here, what is this?

    And you’re the one claiming I tell lies. Where? What?

  17. I see. Now Mr Obama is not lying because you cannot read his mind,

    No he very well might be lying….but it is kind of odd you assert someone consistently lies yet your examples are for the most part so exceptionally weak.

    And you’re the one claiming I tell lies. Where? What?

    I said you could offer no plausible standard to judge Obama an exceptiona liar that would also not leave you convicted of the same charge. Since you have yet to offer a standard and instead only spin off a few mostly weak ancedotes the world is waiting on you in this debate, not me. Well maybe not the world, maybe just the 5 people who might be reading this.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>