Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

    Originally posted by unofan View Post
    You're citing Infowars and some random website no one has ever heard of before, and you expect people to take you seriously.

    This is the exact type of shiat I was talking about before. Posts like your last two do not deserve to be taken seriously.
    Very interesting to see that KABC pulled their own story of the interview...although the youtube is still up...

    http://www.kabc.com/2016/08/16/dr-dr...llarys-health/
    Michigan Tech Legend, Founder of Mitch's Misfits, Co-Founder of Tech Hockey Guide, and Creator/Host of the Chasing MacNaughton Podcast covering MTU Hockey and the WCHA.

    Sports Allegiance: NFL: GB MLB: MIL NHL: MIN CB: UW CF: UW CH: MTU FIFA: USA MLS: MIN EPL: Everton

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Shirtless Guy View Post
      Very interesting to see that KABC pulled their own story of the interview...although the youtube is still up...

      http://www.kabc.com/2016/08/16/dr-dr...llarys-health/
      Probably because he was potentially acting in an unethical manner by violating the Goldwater Rule.

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

        Originally posted by unofan View Post
        Probably because he was potentially acting in an unethical manner by violating the Goldwater Rule.
        well to be fair he's now broken that rule with both major candidates
        Michigan Tech Legend, Founder of Mitch's Misfits, Co-Founder of Tech Hockey Guide, and Creator/Host of the Chasing MacNaughton Podcast covering MTU Hockey and the WCHA.

        Sports Allegiance: NFL: GB MLB: MIL NHL: MIN CB: UW CF: UW CH: MTU FIFA: USA MLS: MIN EPL: Everton

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

          Originally posted by FreshFish View Post
          Did Hillary Clinton suffer a brain injury which is being hidden from the public?

          This blog post actually claims to have video evidence from television interviews...which you can watch for yourself from that site.

          http://www.dangerandplay.com/2016/08...coughing-fits/
          Mark this down as the point this thread goes off the rails...
          In the immortal words of Jean Paul Sartre, 'Au revoir, gopher'.

          Originally posted by burd
          I look at some people and I just know they do it doggy style. No way they're getting close to my kids.

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

            Originally posted by FreshFish View Post
            So Dr. Drew is a member of the conspiracy, eh?




            I thought that the request for this thread was to have evidence-based information, not just opinions without adequate foundation.....
            Scary when Newt Gingrich is a voice of reason...

            "Well, first of all, just to get down to a human level for a second, all of us ought to include Hillary Clinton in our prayers. You can be opposed to somebody without hoping that they have bad health, and I hope that she's all right. Second, I'm always dubious, with all due respect to television doctors, when you have a doctor who has never seen the patient, begin to give you a complicated, fancy sounding analysis based on what? I mean, I would be very cautious and I would recommend to doctors for professional reasons to be very cautious deciding you're gonna start analyzing people."

            http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...-junk-medicine
            In the immortal words of Jean Paul Sartre, 'Au revoir, gopher'.

            Originally posted by burd
            I look at some people and I just know they do it doggy style. No way they're getting close to my kids.

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

              Originally posted by WisconsinWildcard View Post
              Mark this down as the point this thread goes off the rails...
              Nope. Watch.

              Originally posted by FreshFish View Post
              Did Hillary Clinton suffer a brain injury which is being hidden from the public?
              No.

              Hillary is 68. Trump is 70. I suspect neither is entirely healthy because I am 53 and I gotta tell you youngsters -- things hurt all the time, so if you want to do parkour get off your as-s and do it today.

              It's the price we pay for continually failing to make the Dead Thread.

              But the thing is, Hillary is rich and Trump is somewhere between a billionaire and broke, and both have the kind of doctors who when things go wrong a 16-year old in Tallahassee goes missing and suddenly there's a couple kidneys available. So they are probably* in rich 70-year old health, which is pretty darn good.

              * Trump definitely is, since he has been rich for every second of his life, and especially since he's managed to actually lead a pretty healthy lifestyle. (You know who else had a healthy lifestyle?)

              Hillary wasn't rich all her life but she hasn't been going to the Medicaid free clinic, either, and she's been rich for the right tail when it counts.
              Last edited by Kepler; 08-20-2016, 10:22 PM.
              Cornell University
              National Champion 1967, 1970
              ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
              Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

                Kudos to Associated Press for doing some actual investigative journalism, the kind where you piece together a story using bits found here and there to compile a picture.

                The story is by AP no matter what newspaper happens to pick it up from the wire service and publish it:

                WASHINGTON — More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money — either personally or through companies or groups — to the Clinton Foundation. It’s an extraordinary proportion indicating her possible ethics challenges if elected president.

                At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to the Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million.
                ....
                The meetings between the Democratic presidential nominee and foundation donors do not appear to violate legal agreements that Clinton and former President Bill Clinton signed before she joined the State Department in 2009. But the frequency of the overlaps shows the intermingling of access and donations, and fuels perceptions that giving the foundation money was a price of admission for face time with Clinton. Her calendars and emails released as recently as this week describe scores of contacts she and her top aides had with foundation donors.

                The AP’s findings represent the first systematic effort to calculate the scope of the intersecting interests of Clinton Foundation donors and people who met personally with Clinton or spoke to her by phone about their needs.

                The 154 did not include US federal employees or foreign government representatives. Clinton met with representatives of at least 16 foreign governments that donated as much as $170 million to the Clinton charity, but they were not included in AP’s calculations because such meetings would presumably have been part of her diplomatic duties.
                The story is quite long and detailed and gives plenty of names and correlates the dollar amounts of donations to visits to Secretary Clinton to actions then taken by the State Department. This article seems directly aligned with the request at the outset of this thread: the authors are cautious not to draw many conclusions, and instead focus on providing lots of well-sourced information and then showing the connections among various data elements.
                "Hope is a good thing; maybe the best of things."

                "Beer is a sign that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- Benjamin Franklin

                "Being Irish, he had an abiding sense of tragedy, which sustained him through temporary periods of joy." -- W. B. Yeats

                "People generally are most impatient with those flaws in others about which they are most ashamed of in themselves." - folk wisdom

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

                  Originally posted by unofan View Post
                  You're citing Infowars and some random website no one has ever heard of before, and you expect people to take you seriously.

                  This is the exact type of shiat I was talking about before. Posts like your last two do not deserve to be taken seriously.
                  I knew your partisan bile would blind you to the obvious: I laid a trap and you walked right into it!

                  If you weren't so eager to put your unpleasantness on display for all to see (again) you might have had more sense.




                  Are you seriously trying to say that WABC did not do the interview with Dr. Drew? and that Dr. Drew did not say the things he was quoted as saying?


                  I assume the answer is no.

                  If I were not trying to set you up to expose your nastiness, I would merely have gone to the original source from the outset.

                  https://youtu.be/tRtdA1w7AAQ

                  Even more interesting, WABC then removed the interview from their website, although many people had saved it by then:
                  notice that https://www.youtube.com/57c431c3-8d0...1-f6275951cb74 now brings up an error message.

                  Someone saved the full interview before WABC deleted it, however.
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6e3ARRQpyzA

                  So, did Dr. Drew Pinsky actually do an interview with WABC? and was he quoted accurately?
                  Last edited by FreshFish; 08-23-2016, 04:45 PM.
                  "Hope is a good thing; maybe the best of things."

                  "Beer is a sign that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- Benjamin Franklin

                  "Being Irish, he had an abiding sense of tragedy, which sustained him through temporary periods of joy." -- W. B. Yeats

                  "People generally are most impatient with those flaws in others about which they are most ashamed of in themselves." - folk wisdom

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by FreshFish View Post
                    I knew your partisan bile would blind you to the obvious: I laid a trap and you walked right into it!

                    If you weren't so eager to put your unpleasantness on display for all to see (again) you might have had more sense.




                    Are you seriously trying to say that WABC did not do the interview with Dr. Drew? and that Dr. Drew did not say the things he was quoted as saying?


                    I assume the answer is no.

                    If I were not trying to set you up to expose your nastiness, I would merely have gone to the original source from the outset.

                    https://youtu.be/tRtdA1w7AAQ

                    Even more interesting, WABC then removed the interview from their website, although many people had saved it by then:
                    notice that https://www.youtube.com/57c431c3-8d0...1-f6275951cb74 now brings up an error message.

                    Someone saved the full interview before WABC deleted it, however.
                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6e3ARRQpyzA

                    So, did Dr. Drew Pinsky actually do an interview with WABC? and was he quoted accurately?
                    Why would I care either way? I believe the medical opinion of a celebrity doctor who is best known for a sex advice show with Adam Corolla about as much as I trust the legal opinion of Judge Judy. As in not at all.

                    And it certainly isn't evidence.

                    Comment


                    • Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

                      Not to mention, he's basically giving a diagnosis without actually seeing the patient. Pretty sure that's considered rather unethical in medicine.

                      Millions of people think Dr. Oz is a real doctor, too. He used to be. Oz stopped being a doctor years ago when he found the real money was in brand marketing, and abusing his credentials to endorse ethically questionable products and "treatments". You may recall he was hauled in front of Congress over it.

                      Much like Trump's entire campaign being about keeping his name and brand out there, Pinsky is just keeping himself in the news with this "diagnosis".

                      Comment


                      • Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

                        Originally posted by FreshFish View Post
                        Kudos to Associated Press for doing some actual investigative journalism, the kind where you piece together a story using bits found here and there to compile a picture.

                        The story is by AP no matter what newspaper happens to pick it up from the wire service and publish it:



                        The story is quite long and detailed and gives plenty of names and correlates the dollar amounts of donations to visits to Secretary Clinton to actions then taken by the State Department. This article seems directly aligned with the request at the outset of this thread: the authors are cautious not to draw many conclusions, and instead focus on providing lots of well-sourced information and then showing the connections among various data elements.
                        The Clintons ran an airbnb out of the White House bedrooms when they were last there, for crying out loud. I don't think it takes a great deal of thinking to draw the only conclusions possible.
                        That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

                        Comment


                        • Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

                          In keeping with the spirit of the original post at the outset of this thread, I am going to try and develop a logical thread so that all those playing along at home can follow and decide if they agree or not each step of the way. I have a destination in mind of course...

                          Phase 1: understanding ourselves (oversimplified version)
                          -- everyone has a blind spot (Daniel Kahneman, Thinking Fast and Slow)
                          -- many if not most of us are unaware of where our blind spots are (Kahneman again)
                          -- our blind spots are much more obvious to others than they are to us (Kahneman once more).

                          Are we all on board so far?

                          Phase 2: the value of free speech with which we disagree
                          -- free speech with which we disagree can be valuable because it forces us to refine our thinking to refute it (John Stuart Mill, On Liberty)
                          -- the best way to counter free speech with which we disagree is to refute it with superior arguments (Mill again)
                          -- a useful exercise along the way is to clarify / confirm whether we are understanding where the other person is coming from in the first place (Kepler, original post in this thread; also a logical inference from Phase I and the two points above, no?)

                          Still on board?


                          More to follow.... tldr otherwise.
                          "Hope is a good thing; maybe the best of things."

                          "Beer is a sign that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- Benjamin Franklin

                          "Being Irish, he had an abiding sense of tragedy, which sustained him through temporary periods of joy." -- W. B. Yeats

                          "People generally are most impatient with those flaws in others about which they are most ashamed of in themselves." - folk wisdom

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by FreshFish View Post
                            Phase 2: the value of free speech with which we disagree
                            -- free speech with which we disagree can be valuable because it forces us to refine our thinking to refute it (John Stuart Mill, On Liberty)
                            -- the best way to counter free speech with which we disagree is to refute it with superior arguments (Mill again)
                            -- a useful exercise along the way is to clarify / confirm whether we are understanding where the other person is coming from in the first place (Kepler, original post in this thread; also a logical inference from Phase I and the two points above, no?)

                            Still on board?
                            The key word in the first part is "can." Note that it states a possibility, not a certainty or even a likelihood.

                            What you are ignoring is that not all speech is equal in terms of the weight it should be afforded. It all may be equally protected under the law, because one man's trash is another's pinnacle of enlightenment, but that doesn't mean an individual has to value of the same as everything else.

                            To believe otherwise gives us the modern media's fake equivalency, where it gives both sides of an issue at all times, even if the second side is one of Flaggy's conspiracy theories run amok, because to not do so would be evidence of bias.

                            Not responding, and ignoring speech, can be just as effective a response when the situation calls for it. And yes, snark is a valid tool as well.

                            Comment


                            • Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

                              I needed to do some research the other day about private foundations, and came across Internal Revenue Code Section 4941(d), which lays out prohibitions against "self-dealing" among Foundation sponsors, their family members, and major donors.

                              For purposes of this section, the term “self‐dealing” means any direct or indirect—
                              ...
                              (C) furnishing of goods, services, or facilities between a private foundation and a disqualified person;
                              ....
                              (F) agreement by a private foundation to make any payment of money or other property to a government official (as defined in section 4946(c)), other than an agreement to employ such individual for any period after the termination of his government service if such individual is terminating his government service within a 90‐day period. [emphasis added]
                              Based on the plain text of IRC Section 4941(d)(1)(F), it sure sounds like it was illegal for Huma Abedin to be on the Clinton Foundation payroll while she was employed by the State Department, doesn't it?

                              The penalty prescribed by law is an excise tax on the Foundation and on the executives of the Foundation who approved the payment....which indicates that, based on information made public, that an IRS audit of the Clinton Foundation practices is clearly warranted. You know, that apolitical IRS that goes after all significant taxpayer violations no matter who makes them.

                              Based on the plain text of the IRC and information already disclosed publicly (there is more than I cited that appears to apply), it looks like substantial excise taxes over several years could be involved.
                              Last edited by FreshFish; 08-26-2016, 09:46 AM.
                              "Hope is a good thing; maybe the best of things."

                              "Beer is a sign that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- Benjamin Franklin

                              "Being Irish, he had an abiding sense of tragedy, which sustained him through temporary periods of joy." -- W. B. Yeats

                              "People generally are most impatient with those flaws in others about which they are most ashamed of in themselves." - folk wisdom

                              Comment


                              • Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread

                                I have heard some people express bewilderment that Hillary Clinton has as much support as she does.

                                I can think of plenty of good reasons for people to vote for Hillary, in some cases, because they believe she is corrupt; in other cases, they merely don't care at all either way.

                                1) Wall Street bankers and hedge fund managers love Hillary. They know they can count on her to keep them flush. According to Federal Election report, as of June 30, they had given $48,000,000 to Hillary, and $19,000 to Trump. Goldman Sachs pays her $225,000 an hour. She will need to bring lots of federal debt to the market, and she will rely on them heavily.

                                2) Plaintiffs' trial attorneys; they know she has no interest whatsoever in tort reform.

                                3) College professors, deans, and administrators: keep that federal tuition funding rolling in, we love it!

                                4) Leaders of public sector unions, she will keep hiring and expanding government, more dues for their coffers! Teachers' unions in particular, no way we will see any educational reform that puts students first: they don't vote, they don't pay union dues, they count for nothing.

                                5) people who work in the professional grievance industry: as long as we keep sniping at each other, we won't band together to protest just how much of a mess we are in, all of us together. Keep us divided and weak and arguing amongst ourselves over symbolism.

                                6) mainstream media, they are "rent-seekers" just like anyone else these days. They love the idea of restrictions on First Amendment rights, they figure it will give them a competitive advantage as they expect to be among the chosen (The New York Times even ran an editorial suggesting that the government needs to issue licenses on which media companies have protected free speech rights; that was their response to Citizens United, which was a competitor).
                                "Hope is a good thing; maybe the best of things."

                                "Beer is a sign that God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- Benjamin Franklin

                                "Being Irish, he had an abiding sense of tragedy, which sustained him through temporary periods of joy." -- W. B. Yeats

                                "People generally are most impatient with those flaws in others about which they are most ashamed of in themselves." - folk wisdom

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X