Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Welcome to the Jungle (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=2415)

marcegoodman 12-11-2008 02:05 PM

Re: Welcome to the Jungle
 
(even though I almost cackled when I saw Jesse Jackson Sr. crocodile crying on election night in Grant Park)

Whatever one thinks of Jesse Jackson Sr.'s life as lived in public or in private, what would be the reason to believe his tears at that moment in time were not genuine?

bjkeefe 12-11-2008 02:07 PM

Re: Know-Nothing McArdle
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jstrummer (Post 99035)
I don't know where to begin. Megan McArdle does not know what she's talking about. [...]

Great critique, js, and ditto for the other comments you posted on this thread.

It's an enduring mystery to me why Megan keeps getting invited back to BH.tv.

Salt 12-11-2008 02:17 PM

Re: Welcome to the Jungle
 
"It's an enduring mystery to me why Megan keeps getting invited back to BH.tv."
Maybe it's because Bob Wright wants to have one commentator who doesn't spell capital with a 'k'.

bkjazfan 12-11-2008 02:37 PM

Re: Know Nothingness II
 
Since the government is bailing out the financial industry to such a large degree I think they should do the same with the auto. Now, I don't have the slightest clue what the outcome will be from the loans given to the banks and such under TARP. That said unlike Ayn Rand and Karl Marx I have worked in many factories spanning a period of 25 years. The way I see it the Big 3 are toast if they don't radically changed their business models. To date, the unions and management have not appeared to be moving in that direction. Sure, Ford may be better off than the other 2 but have you looked at their stock at $2 a share or whatever it is. So, I would limit the bailout to one and not anymore.

John

Jeff Morgan 12-11-2008 03:09 PM

Re: Know-Nothing McArdle
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jstrummer (Post 99035)
Ford has like 87,700 according to Wikipedia, GM has like 266,000, and Chrysler has 58,000.

That's not entirely inconsistent with what she was trying to recall

All your points are fine though, but let's not sound too mean!

uncle ebeneezer 12-11-2008 03:20 PM

Re: Welcome to the Jungle
 
The best part of this diavlog was Bob's "Dreamworld" line about Libertarianism. Classic Bob!

bjkeefe 12-11-2008 04:16 PM

Re: Welcome to the Jungle
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Salt (Post 99063)
"It's an enduring mystery to me why Megan keeps getting invited back to BH.tv."
Maybe it's because Bob Wright wants to have one commentator who doesn't spell capital with a 'k'.

I bet you're a big Sarah Palin fan.

Flaw 12-11-2008 05:05 PM

Get an iPhone bob
 
As a former treo user I think the iPhone overall is better.

Bottom line you lose a bit of functionality with e-mail and your calendar but gain loads in ability read news and view video.

What the treo did better:
-- The today screen on the treo is divine. I miss it.
-- For most people the treo is better to type on.
---- (I can thumb type on the iPhone so it is nearly the same for me...)

The treo has no real RSS reader. The iPhone has one that remotely gets feeds and syncs to your desktop RSS reader so you don't have to read the same news twice.
-- NetnewsWire (All you RSS feeds on your phone anytime)

The iPhone also has podcasts, which you can now sync remotely.
-- Podcasts BHTV, ect.

In addition you get lots of other programs some of which the treo has but mostly done better on the iPhone.
-- Maps/GPS
-- Wikipedia
-- Stanza
-- Fring
-- Wordpress
-- Translator

(All above are free)

I'm not an apple fan and have a strong dislike for Steve Jobs but right now the iPhone is the best game in town.

Titstorm 12-11-2008 07:05 PM

Re: Get an iPhone bob
 
yeah, i love mine. fantastic machine it is. my friend did the "jailbreak" thing to his so he's putting all sorts of crazy software on his. you can even get all SNES, nintendo, genesis games for it. all i want is a flash player, though.

nyc123 12-11-2008 07:20 PM

Re: Know Nothingness II
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jstrummer (Post 99038)
Ok, one more post just to drive home my point:

Listen to this discussion here about the UAW and work rules. Ok, it may be true that the UAW has stupid work rules. I'm totally open to hearing about that, and about structural inefficiencies.

But what's McArdle's source? "A friend of mine's brother" who works for not GM, but a supplier. I mean, is this for real? Are you serious? Does this even approach a kind of journalism that ought to be taken seriously, or that is deserving of publication by The Atlantic?

This wasn't published in the Atlantic, it was a con-ver-sa-tion. As far as I can tell, Bob is not an expert on the auto industry either. Maybe you should tell him not to come back. Jeez, some people really have a bug up their butts about Megan.

Her points are sound about why the big-3 bailout makes much less sense than them just restructuring under chapter 11. You can read her latest on the big-3 here, which brings up some good questions about the "car czar" role and market vs. fuel efficiency. I mean, customers will have to buy these cars some day, right?

She's also right that there are better ways to use less taxpayer money to help more people.

Thank you, Bob and Megan for an interesting conversation.

jstrummer 12-11-2008 07:24 PM

Re: Know Nothingness II
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by fredsbreakfast (Post 99058)
Well -- have you been driving their cars? I guess not.

Did I say their cars are any good? No. I said I'm totally prepared to believe they make shitty cars with shitty components. What I object to is this just-so anecdotal nonsense that McArdle supplies about how she knows some "gearheads" (precious!) who say GM makes cars with crappy components BECAUSE of high labor costs. I want her to actually, you know, supply some evidence, rather than engage in cheap off-the-cuff philosophizing with reference to anecdotes of the sort that: "a friend of my brother's", "some guy I know".

I mean, this is totally absurd. But you know, I see Michael Goldfarb is featured today, it evidently gets worse before it gets better at BHTV. What next? David Frum? Ann Althouse.

There's a core of decent stuff on here. Free Will is usually pretty good, Ramesh Ponnuru, Ross Douthat, Kerry Howley, Emily Bazelon. These are smart people.

McArdle. NOT SO MUCH.

Titstorm 12-11-2008 07:25 PM

Re: Welcome to the Jungle
 
as i've said before, the title of "libertarian" is pointless and can be merged with "common sense." bob was trying to politely point this out. anyway, why defend an ideology that was proven to be and announced in front of the entire world as a "false ideology."
you want stuff to make sense and for people to have freedoms and stuff and junk? wow! let's make a whole separate category for that!

jstrummer 12-11-2008 07:32 PM

Re: Know Nothingness II
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by nyc123 (Post 99082)
This wasn't published in the Atlantic, it was a con-ver-sa-tion. As far as I can tell, Bob is not an expert on the auto industry either. Maybe you should tell him not to come back. Jeez, some people really have a bug up their butts about Megan.

Her points are sound about why the big-3 bailout makes much less sense than them just restructuring under chapter 11. You can read her latest on the big-3 here, which brings up some good questions about the "car czar" role and market vs. fuel efficiency. I mean, customers will have to buy these cars some day, right?

She's also right that there are better ways to use less taxpayer money to help more people.

Thank you, Bob and Megan for an interesting conversation.

Yeah. Right. So anyway, I don't read her blog because it's chock a block full of this nonsense that you see on this blog. If you want to understand the financial markets, you read Calculated Risk. If you want to understand how some pseudo-libertarian thinks the market might work if she had her way, you read Megan McArdle.

My point about the Atlantic reference is the reason why "people" by which I mean I have a bug up my ass about Megan McArdle is because it perplexes me to NO END why she's tolerated at a publication that in its finest hours featured essays by Mark Twain, Booker T. Washington, Thoreau, Michael Kelly, William Langeweische.

Also, I basically agree that there probalby shouldn't be a bailout. My problem with her isn't that I disagree with her on lots of things. It's everything else.

rgajria 12-11-2008 07:32 PM

Re: Welcome to the Jungle
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by direwolfc (Post 99041)
Re: Bob Wright's comment about a 'US-Israel-India' zionist force a la 'clash of civilizations' seems like sloppy thinking. Am I wrong in thinking that India and Israel have historically had a relatively rocky relationship? I was under the impression that India has been less than wholeheartedly in support of Israel, despite their supposed common enemy of Islamic extremists, because its seen Israel as a product of colonial western powers.

I've also never heard of extreme Islamist comments that conflate Hindus with Jews...

You are right. India did not have any diplomatic relations with Israel till 1992.
I have heard atleast a couple of Islamists conflate Hindus with Zionists. Namely Dr. Israr Ahmed from Pakistan and a fellow called Zaid Hamid who does an infomercial of an opinion show called Brass Tacks. You can hear/watch both these blokes on youtube if you can follow Urdu. The Hindu, Christian, Jewish Zionists meme is gaining ground amongst the Islamists.

claymisher 12-11-2008 07:54 PM

Re: Welcome to the Jungle
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulL (Post 99037)
I suspect the hatred of McArdle by some of the commenters here is due to her previous schooling of Glenn Greenwald.
Or her schooling of John Bowe on Cuba having a lower infant mortality rate than the US.

Nope. I never read Greenwald. His posts are too long!

No, McArdle reminds me too much of myself back when I was an undergrad. I'd taken a few econ classes, read "Free to Choose" by Milton Freidman, and thought I knew everything. You know, literally sophomoric ("conceited and overconfident of knowledge but poorly informed and immature"). She makes me wince.

claymisher 12-11-2008 09:26 PM

Re: Welcome to the Jungle
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by fredsbreakfast (Post 99053)
You've got me quite curious --- how exactly do you mean that Megan's "abusing economics" here? And what do you believe might be her "weird political goals"?

Here's one example.

For weird political goals, I mean libertarianism. I have a lot of problems with libertarians, despite being a baseline libertarian. But since I'm a slow writer and lazy I'll give you one ... okay, what does a libertarian want? Generally speaking, to maximize individual liberty, and relatedly, a small state. The rationale for the small state is that the state pushes you around a million little ways, takes your money, and puts you in prison if you don't play along. These are serious issues, and libertarians are smart to care about them. The main libertarian critique is that small groups can work together to enrich themselves at the expense of society (economists put related issues under the heading of "public choice," "collective action," and "game theory"). For example, agricultural subsidies, state-sponsored monopolies, protectionism, etc.

It's fairly easy for a handful of companies to work together to advance their interests. It's really, really hard for the multitudes to coordinate their actions. What libertarians what is for everybody to stop using the state to advance their interests. In a way they want everyone to surrender. But in practice that means the multitudes concede and powerful cliques rule the day. In practice most libertarians mainly complain about welfare and consumer protection and environmental protection. You don't often hear libertarians fighting against corporate power. So in practice libertarianism resembles old-fashioned aristocratic conservatism: more power for them that's got. The deal they're offering is: everybody give up politics, and then we'll just let money decide the rules. No thanks.

Okay, one more: government=bad is quite the shortcut. The messy truth is you have to evaluate every government program on its merits and faults. It's boring, but there's really no substitute. Generalized scorn isn't a path to enlightenment.

elementaryteacher 12-11-2008 09:49 PM

Re: Megan Contra Megan on Labor Costs
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeDrew (Post 99029)
Megan goes to lengths to point out that the UAW's negotiation aims are disporoportionately aimed at satisfying their lagacy memebers, which is hugely on point in many of the debates giong on now (see Leonhardt's Weds Times piece).

However, when she then goes on to make her theoretically sound point (notwithstanding Bob's skepticism) about the effect of total labor costs on the quality of parts used [The argument wouldn't be limited to parts, and I doubt Megan has a deep understanding of how GM structures the burden of its total labor costs, but the basic point is fair.], she uses the misleading phrase 'in order to pay their workers more,' to explain the theoretical skimping on part quality, completely disregarding the important point of the proportion of total labor costs that are legacy payments, even though she herself had pointedly explained that fact herself not seconds earlier!

Hmm, her point seemed to be that they asked for standard rather than metric sized parts to steer work towards the states, and UAW parts plants. My dad who is pretty anti-union, and is a real propeller-head loathed metric sized parts because they were not spec'ed as well as standard ones which were based on work done by some professional association of machinists or engineers. He felt the tolerances on the metrics were much lower, so, there would be a good reason to "buy American", but dad is fond of quixotic positions on arcane matters like that.

violetcrown 12-11-2008 09:59 PM

Re: Welcome to the Jungle
 
"hunter gatherer societies suck"

hahahaha. I thought all the Megan-bashers were a little harsh till I heard her say that. I did like seeing Bob's eyes pop out of his head then, though.

The idea that rich people "benefit from modern society" in the same way that the disabled and women do is pretty silly. Rich people weren't born that way (hmmm.... wait a sec) - what I mean to say is that while they evolve at the same time, modern secular humanist egalitarianism and modern (libertarian-tax-structured, in Bob's scenario) capitalism are not the same thing. It's not capitalism that keeps ladies from being pregnant constantly through their 20s and thirties, and it's not capitalism that protects the disabled from discrimination.

TwinSwords 12-11-2008 10:09 PM

Re: Welcome to the Jungle
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by claymisher (Post 99092)
Here's one example.

For weird political goals, I mean libertarianism. I have a lot of problems with libertarians, despite being a baseline libertarian. But since I'm a slow writer and lazy I'll give you one ... okay, what does a libertarian want? Generally speaking, to maximize individual liberty, and relatedly, a small state. The rationale for the small state is that the state pushes you around a million little ways, takes your money, and puts you in prison if you don't play along. These are serious issues, and libertarians are smart to care about them. The main libertarian critique is that small groups can work together to enrich themselves at the expense of society (economists put related issues under the heading of "public choice," "collective action," and "game theory"). For example, agricultural subsidies, state-sponsored monopolies, protectionism, etc.

It's fairly easy for a handful of companies to work together to advance their interests. It's really, really hard for the multitudes to coordinate their actions. What libertarians what is for everybody to stop using the state to advance their interests. In a way they want everyone to surrender. But in practice that means the multitudes concede and powerful cliques rule the day. In practice most libertarians mainly complain about welfare and consumer protection and environmental protection. You don't often hear libertarians fighting against corporate power. So in practice libertarianism resembles old-fashioned aristocratic conservatism: more power for them that's got. The deal they're offering is: everybody give up politics, and then we'll just let money decide the rules. No thanks.

Okay, one more: government=bad is quite the shortcut. The messy truth is you have to evaluate every government program on its merits and faults. It's boring, but there's really no substitute. Generalized scorn isn't a path to enlightenment.

Excellent observations, well made. In this and your other posts on this thread. Bravo.

Tara Davis 12-11-2008 10:10 PM

Re: Welcome to the Jungle
 
God bless you, Megan. I never thought I would find myself saying this about anybody, but you might be too good for The Atlantic.

As far as I'm concerned, you can sit in for Mickey any time. You challenge Bob's assumptions better than anybody I've seen, and make him better as well as scoring your own points.

steviemalkmus 12-11-2008 10:48 PM

Re: Welcome to the Jungle
 
Megan's emphasis on the union is misplaced.

The Camry, Altima and Accord, Civic and Corolla are top sellers in the US. What are the American models that compete head to head with these models? Are buyers overwhelmingly choosing these models because of price.

I suspect that the primary reasons have to do with factors that are out of the union's control--design, engineering and marketing.

The unions are a problem--primarily because of the legacy costs and the culture they maintain. But, make no mistake, the unions and big 3 management deserve each other.

Salt 12-11-2008 11:18 PM

Re: Welcome to the Jungle
 
quoting bjkeefe: "I bet you're a big Sarah Palin fan."

I know you're a big Eliot Spitzer fan and I can't wait to see you try to rehab the newest edition blue-state liberal sleazebag machine politician/community organizer/lawyer. You probably know as little about Illinois as you do about New York. Also, you can derogate Sarah all you want, but it wasn't her that threw you under the Prop 8 bus. The irony! She was the only one who laid a glove on Obama, unpardonable sin, I know, but your electees and their proxies in MSM now have to govern. Stumbling pretty badly out of the gate. I will give Obama credit for one thing, though. He actually seems to know the difference between Chris Matthews fantasy land and actual policy.

bjkeefe 12-11-2008 11:44 PM

Re: Welcome to the Jungle
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Salt (Post 99100)
quoting bjkeefe: "I bet you're a big Sarah Palin fan."

I know you're a big Eliot Spitzer fan and I can't wait to see you try to rehab the newest edition blue-state liberal sleazebag machine politician/community organizer/lawyer. You probably know as little about Illinois as you do about New York. Also, you can derogate Sarah all you want, but it wasn't her that threw you under the Prop 8 bus. The irony! She was the only one who laid a glove on Obama, unpardonable sin, I know, but your electees and their proxies in MSM now have to govern. Stumbling pretty badly out of the gate. I will give Obama credit for one thing, though. He actually seems to know the difference between Chris Matthews fantasy land and actual policy.

Hope you didn't wreck your keyboard with all the spittle flying around there.

Guess I touched a nerve, huh?

Salt 12-11-2008 11:56 PM

Re: Welcome to the Jungle
 
BJ, I have to tell you that you remind me of the hippies I knew in college who took too much acid and wound up in therapy. Favorite riposte: "Duude, that's so uncooool!" You're last resort is always whining and trying to pretend that the rational person has lost their equanimity. Keep dreaming. To your credit, you're not as bad as the lawyers I know today who freak and threaten to call the ACLU when they get over their head.

claymisher 12-12-2008 12:36 AM

Re: Welcome to the Jungle
 
Don't bother flaming bjk. He's indefatigable. You'll lose.

bjkeefe 12-12-2008 04:07 AM

Re: Welcome to the Jungle
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Salt (Post 99102)
BJ, I have to tell you that you remind me of the hippies I knew in college who took too much acid ...

So you're saying there's a right amount. Glad to hear we agree on something.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Salt (Post 99102)
Favorite riposte: "Duude, that's so uncooool!"

Since you label the phrase a "riposte," I gather you mean it's effective. Thanks for letting me know. I don't think I've ever used that line. Maybe I'll start.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Salt (Post 99102)
You're last resort is always ...

I am last resort is always. You betcha. Also.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Salt (Post 99102)
... trying to pretend ...

Is this different from pretending?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Salt (Post 99102)
... that the rational person has lost their equanimity.

But not, apparently, the multiple personalities.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Salt (Post 99102)
To your credit, you're not as bad as the lawyers I know today who freak and threaten to call the ACLU when they get over their head.

When "they get over their head?" Is this another hippie drug reference? Sounds like you were quite the wannabe back in the day, Salt. Is that where these cartoonish stereotypes bubbling up from your spleen come from? Bitterness at being rejected by the cool kids?

But never mind that. Here's what I really want to know: Why do these several lawyers have among them only one head to get over? Maybe they should swap places with "the rational person [who] has lost their equanimity."

No, wait. There remains one more question about your time in college.

Salt 12-12-2008 10:31 AM

Re: Welcome to the Jungle
 
BJ. Thanks for the grammar lesson. Back in the day, the mandarins of china had excellent grammar as well, and they used it to great advantage as they stuck their heads up their asses and sailed their country into centuries of poverty and despair. I like bantering with you because you are symbolic of the effete, Keynesian, attorniocracy that is destroying our country. You share Harry Reid's contempt for the "smelly constituents" and it doesn't take much to draw out your snobbery or your cowardly/juvenile ad hominem attacks. You can say what you want about me. You can accuse me of adopting my pregnant daughters baby or mock my diction and grammar. I like to see you debase yourself. You may be fourteen years old for all I know, but you seem to be a good proxy for the MSM puditocracy. Later.

uncle ebeneezer 12-12-2008 12:08 PM

Re: Welcome to the Jungle
 
Only 3 liberal stereotypes (hippies, lawyers, ACLU)?? Come on, you can do better than that. Next time try throwing in some of these: latte drinking, arrugula eating, affirmitive action, Vietnam protesting, academia, New York Times, media bias, socialist, San Francisco, Greenwich Village, multicultural, atheist, anti-American, activist judges etc., etc. Think of it like your own, personalized "mad libs."

uncle ebeneezer 12-12-2008 12:16 PM

Re: Welcome to the Jungle
 
Quote:

So you're saying there's a right amount. Glad to hear we agree on something.
This is something I hear often from people of the 60's generation and it always surprises me. Being of generation X (went to college in early 90's) but hanging around with plenty of substance-friendly peers, I know many people who have done some pretty extreme amounts of hallucinogens (no comment personally;) but I don't know many who have ended up in thereapy. Granted, as a Gen X'er, probably 75% of people I know are (or have been) in therapy at some point for various reasons, but there has never been a strong correlation between hallucinogen use and therapy (that I have seen.) Surprisingly, some of the people I know who arguably have fried their brains to an unhealthy extent are the ones who are NOT in therapy (though they probably should be.)

Anyways, I'm just wondering if this is a generational urban legend of sorts, like that acid user who decided he could fly and jumped off a building, or the razor-blade in Halloween candy myth. Just curious.

DoctorMoney 12-12-2008 12:22 PM

Re: Welcome to the Jungle
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Salt (Post 99113)
You may be fourteen years old for all I know, but you seem to be a good proxy for the MSM puditocracy. Later.

Later, dude.

popcorn_karate 12-12-2008 12:45 PM

Re: Welcome to the Jungle
 
thpew! yuck! had to spit this comment section out - too much salt.

Salt 12-12-2008 12:47 PM

Re: Welcome to the Jungle
 
uncle ebeneezer, Since you seem genuinely curious. The example I was thinking wound up in the hospital, but I don't actually know if he's in therapy now. A couple of others didn't make it to their thirties.

bkjazfan 12-12-2008 12:50 PM

Re: Welcome to the Jungle
 
Knowing very little about cars I do have the impression that the upper strata in the U.S. favor foreign makes like BMW, Mercedes Benz, Ferrari's, and the various high end Japanese models.

I will say where I live the automobile to have is the Chrysler 300. It's kind of a nice looking, modern, muscle car. You go to the nice part of town and the above mentioned ones are all over the place.

John

bjkeefe 12-12-2008 01:50 PM

Re: Welcome to the Jungle
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Salt (Post 99113)
BJ. Thanks for the grammar lesson.

You're welcome.

As to the rest of your comments, particularly your whining about "ad hominem attacks," you might review what you yourself have posted. As far as I can see, you've done nothing but insult caricatures of people you don't like.

bjkeefe 12-12-2008 01:56 PM

Re: Welcome to the Jungle
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer (Post 99115)
Anyways, I'm just wondering if this is a generational urban legend of sorts, like that acid user who decided he could fly and jumped off a building, or the razor-blade in Halloween candy myth. Just curious.

It is. More precisely, it is an attempt to generalize from a very few cases, while ignoring the evidence that the overwhelming majority of people who played around with hallucinogens suffered no lasting ill effects, and indeed, derived some benefits from the experiences. It's just "Reefer Madness," repackaged.

It also ignores the possibility that correlation is being mistaken for causation; i.e., it's not clear that those who took drugs who also had mental health problems wouldn't have had to seek therapy independent of this.

metacodger 12-12-2008 02:10 PM

Re: Welcome to the Jungle
 
After carefully reading all the comments above, I have a better understanding of why many people find MM irritating, but some of the criticism seems more ad hominen than substantive - for instance, criticism of how she makes the point about Ford's financial situation without actually challenging the point itself.

Still, I do understand better now, and think she ought to be more substantive and cite better sources to back her assertions. I guess she just doesn't rub me the wrong way as much as she does other people here, even though I only like some of what she says.

I don't post much, and find I usually agree with BJK, but will definitely maintain a civil tone when I find the need to disagree. The exchange with Salt was a pleasure to read.

uncle ebeneezer 12-12-2008 02:32 PM

Re: Welcome to the Jungle
 
Yeah, of the few people I know who did lots of drugs and have been in therapy, all of them clearly were headed for both long before they got there. IE- it was pretty obvious that they had substantial issues, in some cases genetic, that was going to lead them down one or both of those roads.

I do find it ironic that so many people point to the route of drugs->lead to->therapy as a way of showing how bad drugs are (and I'm not syaing they aren't bad) but pay little/no attention to the fact that war is pretty bad for mental health as well (especially the soldiers.)

I wonder if the makers of Reefer Madness ever realized how many people would do drugs and then enjoy the hillarity of their movie!

Salt 12-12-2008 03:06 PM

Re: Welcome to the Jungle
 
Quoting BJ: "As far as I can see, you've done nothing but insult caricatures of people you don't like."

At least I keep my tone consistently vitriolic. I've had alot of instruction listening to Olberman, Maddow, Matthews, Krugman, Dowd, et. al. for the last two years. You, however, seem to have a list of rhetorical personas that come straight from ninth grade. Watching you go through the progression reminds me of watching a quarterback check down his list of receivers who are all covered until he finally dumps it to the fullback in the moral highground for a two yard loss.

bjkeefe 12-12-2008 04:15 PM

Re: Welcome to the Jungle
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Salt (Post 99132)
At least I keep my tone consistently vitriolic.

Another point of agreement! Although I wonder why this is something you take pride in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Salt (Post 99132)
I've had alot of instruction listening to Olberman, Maddow, Matthews, Krugman, Dowd, et. al. for the last two years.

You're blaming others for your own choices in what to watch on TV and read in the newspapers? Is this a part of the conservative ethos of "personal responsibility" I keep hearing about?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Salt (Post 99132)
You, however, seem to have a list of rhetorical personas that come straight from ninth grade.

Just keeping it where you can reach it, Salt. I worry about your reaction to even the appearance of elitism.

However ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Salt (Post 99132)
Watching you go through the progression reminds me of watching a quarterback check down his list of receivers who are all covered until he finally dumps it to the fullback in the moral highground for a two yard loss.

... Ms. O'Brien would be unhappy if I did not insist that she taught me, in seventh grade, about the danger of unintentional hilarity posed by mixed metaphors.

Perhaps if you spent more time with the sports pages and ESPN, and less time browsing op-eds and cable news shows looking for cherries to pick to feed your outrage, you'd be aware that football is played on a level field. It is baseball whose field of play features regions of differing elevations.

Salt 12-12-2008 04:40 PM

Re: Welcome to the Jungle
 
Okay, BJ. You finally wrote something mildly entertaining and I congratulate you.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:23 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.