PDA

View Full Version : Always Cynical


Always Cynical
09-10-2010, 05:51 PM
I've asked this question before and have yet to receive a significant, passable answer. Time to ask it again.

What are Kristen Soltis's qualifications for bloggingheads.tv apart from being the Erin Andrews of this website?

Ms. Soltis is another attractive Gator grad. Ms. Soltis is the former lead singer in a rock band that took a dive five minutes after it formed.

Ms. Soltis has a prominent "sugar daddy" and/or "stake horse": Jeb Bush. In 2002, Bush appointed Ms. Soltis to something called the Florida Commemorative Quarter Committee. (Perhaps the Florida Commemorative Dime Committee already had its fill of members?)

Apart from that, Ms. Soltis deserves to be on bloggingheads for what reason(s) exactly? How is Ms. Soltis not really just the S.E. Cupp of this website?

With Ms. Soltis, there's none of the veritable "there" there. So little substance. So little merit. So much appearance. Just enough of the proper connections in Mr. Bush.

Anyone care to answer this question, the question of merit and qualifications?

DenvilleSteve
09-10-2010, 06:28 PM
I've asked this question before and have yet to receive a significant, passable answer. Time to ask it again.

What are Kristen Soltis's qualifications for bloggingheads.tv apart from being the Erin Andrews of this website?

Ms. Soltis is another attractive Gator grad.


why single her out? Being an attractive young woman who can speak in complete paragraphs is gold in media and politics. I like this channel to hear what the conventional wisdom is and see the up and coming players. But outside of Kaus and Pinkerton, you know you are not going to hear anything that challenges the listener. What you esp dont get is anyone who challenges their own side.

What I don't follow is why the good looking don't challenge the establishment more. As in, if they fail they will be able fall on their feet and get a job elsewhere. Instead, being good looking seems to make a person into a careerist.

David Edenden
09-10-2010, 07:13 PM
[QUOTE=Anyone care to answer this question, the question of merit and qualifications?[/QUOTE]

You have to start somewhere and lets face it, Bloggingheads is not ... whatever!

The first time I heard her speak I found her to be insightful, intelligent and informative ... plus she's delicious!

BRING HER ON! ... All Kristen Soltis ... All the time!

bkjazfan
09-10-2010, 08:17 PM
I have watched just the first 1/3 of the diavlog but didn't find Kristen to be an "airhead." She appeared to have some knowledge of the various political races going on.

I guess I'll have to google Erin Andrews since I don't know who she is.

John

Always Cynical
09-10-2010, 08:36 PM
I have watched just the first 1/3 of the diavlog but didn't find Kristen to be an "airhead."

John,

I never used the term "airhead" to describe Ms. Soltis.

You would know this to be true if (a) you mouse-clicked on "go to forum" to read my original post or (b) the czars at bloggingheads declined to censor that post and instead allowed that post to appear atop the original thread on the main page.

Why do you assert that I called Ms. Soltis an "airhead"? Do you wish to undercut my position by employing both a slur and a false claim?

Why do the czars at bloggingheads censor my post from appearing atop the thread on the main page and, instead, restrict its view only to the forum on this website?

Thank you.

AemJeff
09-10-2010, 08:41 PM
John,

I never used the term "airhead" to describe Ms. Soltis.

You would know this to be true if (a) you mouse-clicked on "go to forum" to read my original post or (b) the czars at bloggingheads declined to censor that post and instead allowed that post to appear atop the original thread on the main page.

Why do you assert that I called Ms. Soltis an "airhead"? Do you wish to undercut my position by employing both a slur and a false claim?

Why do the czars at bloggingheads censor my post from appearing atop the thread on the main page and, instead, restrict its view only to the forum on this website?

Thank you.

Because they have an explicit policy regarding the content of posts on the front page. Getting relegated to the forum view is a relatively minor sanction nowadays.

bkjazfan
09-10-2010, 08:44 PM
OK, OK! I retract what I said. No offense intended.

John

DenvilleSteve
09-10-2010, 08:53 PM
John,

Why do the czars at bloggingheads censor my post from appearing atop the thread on the main page and, instead, restrict its view only to the forum on this website?



democrat web sites appear to be heavy into censorship. I was having fun debating at huffington post and was banned 3 times, down the memory hole. Never could get anyone there to explain how the democrats were going to balance the budget or why people would work if their unemployment benefits continued to be extended.

jimM47
09-10-2010, 10:01 PM
I don't even know if it is that much of a sanction. There are just things that, even if they are worth discussing, would be better if they weren't at the top of the diavlog page. I wish our bh.tv overlords would give us a tag that would allow us to take our own comments off the front page automagically.

Always Cynical
09-11-2010, 12:32 AM
Because they have an explicit policy regarding the content of posts on the front page. Getting relegated to the forum view is a relatively minor sanction nowadays.

Questioning the merit-based qualifications of a bloggingheads' participant violates said policy in what manner?

The site has chosen to sanction those who dare to question its bosses?

Please explain. Thank you.

Always Cynical
09-11-2010, 12:32 AM
OK, OK! I retract what I said. No offense intended.

John

John,

Thank you for your retraction. Have a nice weekend.

AemJeff
09-11-2010, 12:39 AM
Questioning the merit-based qualifications of a bloggingheads' participant violates said policy in what manner?

The site has chosen to sanction those who dare to question its bosses?

Please explain. Thank you.

Search the forum. Read the faq (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/faq.php?faq=vb3_board_faq#faq_guidelines).

Wonderment
09-11-2010, 12:42 AM
Questioning the merit-based qualifications of a bloggingheads' participant violates said policy in what manner?

There are guidelines about criticizing or calling attention to a guest's physical appearance, which you did.

Also, your comments could be construed as sexist. Not a reason to censor you (which no one did), but something you might want to think about. I'd especially reflect on these two, if I were you:

What are Kristen Soltis's qualifications for bloggingheads.tv apart from being the Erin Andrews of this website?


Ms. Soltis has a prominent "sugar daddy" and/or "stake horse": Jeb Bush.

Always Cynical
09-11-2010, 12:51 AM
Never could get anyone there to explain how the democrats were going to balance the budget or why people would work if their unemployment benefits continued to be extended.

Steve,

A budget is balanced by an increase in revenue and a corresponding decrease in expenses. Those who develop an enact a budget can no more balance it by declining to acknowledge the short- and long-term impacts of a decreasing revenue or increasing expenses.

Mr. Bush, for example, received a budget surplus in 2001 and opted to (a) decrease revenues with tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 and (b) increase expenses with the enactment of Medicare prescription drug coverage and the initiation of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the corresponding ancillary costs for those wars.

A government, much like a private citizen, can initiate short-term and medium-term deficit spending with the promise and, more preferably, the corresponding establishment of policies for enactment at a set time in the future to cover such a short- or medium-term deficit.

A government may cut taxes to transfer more income to citizens over a set period with the promise that at a given time said tax cuts will expire and the prior or other higher rate of taxation will take effect. That's what the current Bush tax cuts have done in the short term and would do in the long-term were they to expire at year's end, as promised, and return to the prior Clinton-era rates.

A citizen may take out a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage on house, knowing that he/she would essentially owe a set amount over a specific period of time. Such a citizen/homeowner, in effect, would be financially underwater, if you will, for most or much of that period until the mortgage is paid. The citizen/homeowner will have more debt in the house than he/she does financial capital in stocks, bonds, the bank, or other holdings. During the term of the mortgage, the citizen could sell the home (pending the legal conditions of the mortgage, of course) at a gain to pay off the debt and reap a profit, at par to pay off the debt in full, or at a loss to pay off a specific amount of the debt leaving himself/herself responsible for the remaining cost.

Most important, there is no mathematical difference offered in spending beyond the budgeted amount or cutting revenues (i.e taxes for a government or personal income for an individual). To do either would only transfer the actual cost of the activity to the future in time or generation.

Hope this answers your question.

Always Cynical
09-11-2010, 01:48 AM
Search the forum. Read the faq (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/faq.php?faq=vb3_board_faq#faq_guidelines).

AemJeff,

Thank you.

Per bloggingheads FAQ:

#1 No name-calling aimed at fellow commenters or diavloggers.

I asserted that Ms. Soltis is or was:

An "attractive Gator grad";

The "former lead singer in a rock band"; and,

One of then-Florida Governor Jeb Bush's 2002 appointees to "something called the Florida Commemorative Quarter Committee."

From bottoms up, the third described a position on a Florida state committee, the second dealt with a hobby, and if bloggingheads somehow wants to call "attractive" a form of name-calling, please get Frankie Luntz on the line to explain.

#2 No gratuitously rude comments about diavloggers’ physical appearance or speaking style.

I termed Ms. Soltis an "attractive Gator grad". If bloggingheads' bosses wish to call that rude, much less gratuitously rude, I've got to ask which version of Webster's Dictionary they used to make that call.

#3 No fabricated quotes—use the vBulletin quote function only for real quotations.

I never quoted Ms. Soltis. As such, this does not apply.

Further, I believe my comments were quite civil and thus adhered to the policy of bloggingheads.

The bloggingheads policy also includes the following:

Fair warning: We may use the “hide” function a bit more freely on the first dozen or so posts—the ones that appear in the prominent space right below the diavlog. We’ll even hide early posts containing four-letter words (which are not so much of a concern further down in the comments).

Again, bottoms up. I did not employ four-letter words or any sort of foul language. As a result, that does not apply. The first sentence is much more vague and arbitrary. It appears that bloggingheads' bosses have opted to give themselves the authority to hide or censor the first dozen or so posts - for any reason whatsoever. The operators even admit that such censorship, as per four-letter words, is less likely after the first dozen posts.

But in the first dozen posts, bloggingheads' leaders have given themselves the right to hide or censor any post. For any reason. Or no reason at all.

If I have read or interpreted this incorrectly, please inform me and I will make the necessary correction. Thank you.

Always Cynical
09-11-2010, 01:49 AM
The first time I heard her speak I found her to be insightful, intelligent and informative ... plus she's delicious!

BRING HER ON! ... All Kristen Soltis ... All the time!

Mr. Scher,

Hate to type I told you so, but........................... (shrug)

Always Cynical
09-11-2010, 02:15 AM
There are guidelines about criticizing or calling attention to a guest's physical appearance, which you did.

From the bloggingheads' FAQ, guideline number two states: No gratuitously rude comments about diavloggers’ physical appearance or speaking style.

I termed Ms. Soltis an "attractive Gator grad". If you or the bloggingheads' bosses wish to call such a description rude, much less gratuitously rude, I've got to ask which version of Webster's Dictionary they used to make that call.

[QUOTE=Wonderment;178496]Also, your comments could be construed as sexist. Not a reason to censor you (which no one did), but something you might want to think about. I'd especially reflect on these two, if I were you:

You, sir, noted that I wrote the following:

What are Kristen Soltis's qualifications for bloggingheads.tv apart from being the Erin Andrews of this website?

To which I can only respond by quoting the subsequent post offered on this thread by a Mr. David Edenden. Of Ms. Soltis, Mr. Edenden wrote:

The first time I heard her speak I found her to be insightful, intelligent and informative ... plus she's delicious!

BRING HER ON! ... All Kristen Soltis ... All the time!

Kind of proves my point, does it not?

You also questioned a second quote. Note: I added the portion in parenthesis from the original quote that you declined to post in your response.

Ms. Soltis has a prominent "sugar daddy" and/or "stake horse": Jeb Bush. (In 2002, Bush appointed Ms. Soltis to something called the Florida Commemorative Quarter Committee. <Perhaps the Florida Commemorative Dime Committee already had its fill of members?>)

To which I respond: I could have used the terms:

"Rabbi", which is common phrase but may have been misconstrued as somehow anti-Semitic - something I most certainly am not and oppose in all its forms;

"Angel", which may bring about castigation from the Evangelical crowd; and/or,

"Fairy godmother", which may get me in trouble with the Maggie Gallagher set.

Webster's, for example, defines "sugar daddy" as "a generous benefactor of a cause or undertaking." The term "stake horse" comes from my background in horse racing and billiards, more specifically straight pool. In both arenas, a "sugar daddy" or "stake horse" is known as a source of financial support, knowledge, connections, and/or authority. Both are common terms that carry with them no direct or indirect means of gender, ethnic, religious, age, or form of discrimination. In fact, both terms always have been considered beneficial assets to their beneficiaries and, in the long run, often their benefactors.

In my case, I neither meant nor intended any offense, either direct or indirect, with the use of the terms and I believe that Webster's supports my factual and logical applications of one or both.

Hope that answers all your questions. Thanks for your feedback.

Ocean
09-11-2010, 10:56 AM
Always Cynical,

I have been quite vocal criticizing the whole concept of this dungeon. However, I admit that there are times when it may be better used than others.

You ask why your post was moved here. The humorous response would be: "because Brenda is back!"

But the real reason is pretty obvious to everybody. When my 16 year old son says something that I disapprove and then starts to defend it in the way you did above, I look at him straight into his eyes and tell him "Don't play games. We both know what you said and what you meant." It saves me a lot of time and energy. And I think it would be easier for you to defend your right of saying whatever you wanted to say than pretending that you said something else. Just my point of view here, because, really, I don't care too much one way or the other. In my opinion Kristen is doing a good job in her role here, and the fact that she is young, attractive and pleasant doesn't bother me a bit.

If none of the above is to your liking, you can always apply the last rule that you cited from the FAQ:

But in the first dozen posts, bloggingheads' leaders have given themselves the right to hide or censor any post. For any reason. Or no reason at all.


I call this one "the arbitrary cause", if that makes you happy.

kezboard
09-11-2010, 11:49 AM
I was having fun debating at huffington post and was banned 3 times, down the memory hole.

I would imagine your "first post!" trolling of every single article to post something about why the downtrodden, white, rural population of America has no choice but to secede has something to do with it.

Whatfur
09-11-2010, 01:10 PM
A budget is balanced by an increase in revenue and a corresponding decrease in expenses.

Actually, a budget is balanced by having expected revenues equal expected expenses.


Those who develop an enact a budget can no more balance it by declining to acknowledge the short- and long-term impacts of a decreasing revenue or increasing expenses.

Your authoritative tone seems to belie the fact that you seem to not know what a budget actually is. Those who develop a budget have numerous tools at their disposal including those things you say they "can no more". Of course doing those things might invalidate its effectiveness and cause a bit of finger waving by the opposition while of course many budget items have historical steadfastness causing any illogical manipulation to be transparent demogoguery. However, another alternative is to do what the Democrats in Congress did this year and that is to shuck all responsibilty and hide their inadequacies by not producing a budget at all. Oh the screaming from the left and the media we would hear if a Republican led Congress attempted to hide their plans and sweep its shortcomings under the rug like the Reid/Pelosi led Congress has done here. Such ironically, duplicitous, constituents they must have for us to hear nothing but the usual affirming, bleating.


Mr. Bush, for example, received a budget surplus in 2001 and opted to (a) decrease revenues with tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 and (b) increase expenses with the enactment of Medicare prescription drug coverage and the initiation of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the corresponding ancillary costs for those wars.
Ahhh yes, so Mr. Bush, that alway present scapegoat of the left, was handed a declining economy and a piece of paper that projected, guessed, yes budgeted, 2001 to still possibly end up in the black. Unfortunately, the economy's decline was accelerated by a little event whose anniversary is today. We can argue the duel-edged budgetary sword that tax-cuts produce and I could point out that Medicare Part D did not go into effect until Democrats took over the Congress (2006) and I can point to who voted for the War funding but all that would be almost as superfluous as the paragraph of yours I am responding to. Maybe "shit happens" might suffice.


A government, much like a private citizen, can initiate short-term and medium-term deficit spending with the promise and, more preferably, the corresponding establishment of policies for enactment at a set time in the future to cover such a short- or medium-term deficit.

A government may cut taxes to transfer more income to citizens over a set period with the promise that at a given time said tax cuts will expire and the prior or other higher rate of taxation will take effect. That's what the current Bush tax cuts have done in the short term and would do in the long-term were they to expire at year's end, as promised, and return to the prior Clinton-era rates.


I guess this section can be effectively responded to with a "yeah, so?" or "so what.".


A citizen may take out a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage on house, knowing that he/she would essentially owe a set amount over a specific period of time. Such a citizen/homeowner, in effect, would be financially underwater, if you will, for most or much of that period until the mortgage is paid. The citizen/homeowner will have more debt in the house than he/she does financial capital in stocks, bonds, the bank, or other holdings.

Again you are taking liberties with definitions or you are ignorant of them. A "citizen" of course is not "underwater" unless the appraised value of the home is less than the mortgaged value and his/her "other holdings" do not factor into the equation.


During the term of the mortgage, the citizen could sell the home (pending the legal conditions of the mortgage, of course) at a gain to pay off the debt and reap a profit, at par to pay off the debt in full, or at a loss to pay off a specific amount of the debt leaving himself/herself responsible for the remaining cost.

Riiiiight??? And the price of tea in China is what?


Most important, there is no mathematical difference offered in spending beyond the budgeted amount or cutting revenues (i.e taxes for a government or personal income for an individual). To do either would only transfer the actual cost of the activity to the future in time or generation.


Ya know, if the accounting thing doesn't work out, I might suggest brain surgery.

Hope this answers your question.

I guess DS will have to answer that, but I read two questions in his post and your post does not actually seem to answer either.

handle
09-11-2010, 06:57 PM
Thank god that's all cleared up.
Let's summarize: The Republicans are smart and do good things, while the Democrats are stupid and do things that are bad for us. And if you disagree, you are dumb, and/or incompetent.