Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Diavlog comments
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Diavlog comments Post comments about particular diavlogs here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121  
Old 12-01-2011, 03:15 PM
thouartgob thouartgob is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 765
Red face Re: The Bob Show

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrrell McAllister View Post
Bob could call his show "Some Non-zero".
techincally "non-zero sum" but illustrative in any case since it could be attached to the non-for-profit foundation.

He could branch out from the Atlantic to a food column. Call it "Non-Zero Yum".
__________________
Newt Gingrich:“People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz.”
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 12-01-2011, 03:28 PM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: The Bob Show

Quote:
Originally Posted by thouartgob View Post
techincally "non-zero sum" but illustrative in any case since it could be attached to the non-for-profit foundation.

He could branch out from the Atlantic to a food column. Call it "Non-Zero Yum".
Alternatively, given his recent diavlog on cardiovascular health, and his confessed interest in the cocoa bean, he could call it Wright Chocolate.
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 12-01-2011, 03:42 PM
thouartgob thouartgob is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 765
Default Re: The Bob Show

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
Alternatively, given his recent diavlog on cardiovascular health, and his confessed interest in the cocoa bean, he could call it Wright Chocolate.
I think he should change his first name to Walter cause "Breaking Bad" is cool

He could have a sign-off if his diavlogs become more confrontational to get better ratings: "I'm Wright your Gone !"
__________________
Newt Gingrich:“People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz.”
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 12-01-2011, 04:13 PM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: An opposing view of tea and thee ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Florian View Post
Has bhtv helped keep the freak show going?
Less so than the MSM. But to an extent, yes; primarily because Bob has labored the entire time under the increasingly dangerous delusion that it's possible to have a dialogue with conservatives. It's not. Among the many important things Bob has accomplished in the past five years, proving that conservatives are beyond the reach of the rational appeal is chief among them. This has been proven in the diavlogs, and in the comments.

But that's not all Bob has done.

BhTV has also served as a kind of farm system for the development of liberal pundits who later find their way in more conventional media -- a conventional media which until very recently (mid-Bush years) had aggressively eschewed the liberal viewpoint. I've been watching Up With Chris Hayes on MSNBC on Saturday mornings recently, and noticed that his guest lists draw heavily from left-leaning BhTV alumni: In addition to Chris Hayes, the show regularly features Ezra Klein, Michelle Goldberg, Rebecca Traister, Jeff Sharlet, Ta-Nehisi Coates, and others. Bob helped these people to hone their skills so they could eventually be more effective voices once they reached the MSM.

The other key thing Bob has done for which I think any non-wingnut can be grateful is he gave voice, over the loud complaint from the hatemongers, to the other side in the middle east conflict, particularly the Israel/Palestine conflict. American media for decades has almost completely excluded any point of view that wasn't explicitly supportive of Israel's prerogatives. It took enormous moral courage and character for Bob to go against the tide and give voice to Israel's victims - the millions of Palestinians suffering apartheid in a West Bank that Israel steals more of every day.

So, a tip of the hat to you again, Bob.

If only there were more like you.
__________________
"All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind." -- Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 12-01-2011, 05:56 PM
Tyrrell McAllister Tyrrell McAllister is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 121
Default Re: The Bob Show

Quote:
Originally Posted by thouartgob View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrrell McAllister
Bob could call his show "Some Non-zero".
techincally "non-zero sum" but illustrative in any case since it could be attached to the non-for-profit foundation.

He could branch out from the Atlantic to a food column. Call it "Non-Zero Yum".
It was my attempt at a pun. It was derived, on the one hand, from "non-zero sum" --> "sum non-zero" --> "some non-zero", and, on the other hand, from the following imagined dialogue:

Critic A (while watching Bob): "Who is this guy?"
Critic B: "Some zero, I guess."
Bob (to B): "I'll have you know that I'm not a zero. I'm a non-zero."
Critic B (to A): "Oh. I guess it's some non-zero, then."

I guess the explanation can't make it less funny, if it already wasn't funny.
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 12-01-2011, 06:03 PM
thouartgob thouartgob is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 765
Default Re: An opposing view of tea and thee ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwinSwords View Post
Less so than the MSM. But to an extent, yes; primarily because Bob has labored the entire time under the increasingly dangerous delusion that it's possible to have a dialogue with conservatives. It's not. Among the many important things Bob has accomplished in the past five years, proving that conservatives are beyond the reach of the rational appeal is chief among them. This has been proven in the diavlogs, and in the comments.
That's kind of a conservative attitude you have there. Fellow conservatives on the board would be proud

This kind reminds me of the drama over behe and the idea that even sharing the stage with a IDster or neo-creationist is a sign of failure.

Quote:
But that's not all Bob has done.

BhTV has also served as a kind of farm system for the development of liberal pundits who later find their way in more conventional media -- a conventional media which until very recently (mid-Bush years) had aggressively eschewed the liberal viewpoint. I've been watching Up With Chris Hayes on MSNBC on Saturday mornings recently, and noticed that his guest lists draw heavily from left-leaning BhTV alumni: In addition to Chris Hayes, the show regularly features Ezra Klein, Michelle Goldberg, Rebecca Traister, Jeff Sharlet, Ta-Nehisi Coates, and others. Bob helped these people to hone their skills so they could eventually be more effective voices once they reached the MSM.
Don't forget:
Reihan Salam ( also on UP )
ross douthat
matt yglesias

Quote:
The other key thing Bob has done for which I think any non-wingnut can be grateful is he gave voice, over the loud complaint from the hatemongers, to the other side in the middle east conflict, particularly the Israel/Palestine conflict. American media for decades has almost completely excluded any point of view that wasn't explicitly supportive of Israel's prerogatives. It took enormous moral courage and character for Bob to go against the tide and give voice to Israel's victims - the millions of Palestinians suffering apartheid in a West Bank that Israel steals more of every day.

So, a tip of the hat to you again, Bob.
Never thought too much about that dynamic but it's quite true. Of course had bhtv become a larger enterprise relying on a more broad base of financial support taking such a position would have been even more difficult. No that I don't think he'd stick it out but just saying. In any case having in depth conversations with people who actually live in other countries ( something that can bewilder many americans ) and ( hold onto your hats ) people who live in other countries that diavlog with other such creatures for an hour at at time about foreign affairs.

Another thing to be thankful for.
__________________
Newt Gingrich:“People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz.”
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 12-01-2011, 06:08 PM
thouartgob thouartgob is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 765
Default Re: The Bob Show

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrrell McAllister View Post
It was my attempt at a pun. It was derived, on the one hand, from "non-zero sum" --> "sum non-zero" --> "some non-zero", and, on the other hand, from the following imagined dialogue:

Critic A (while watching Bob): "Who is this guy?"
Critic B: "Some zero, I guess."
Bob (to B): "I'll have you know that I'm not a zero. I'm a non-zero."
Critic B (to A): "Oh. I guess it's some non-zero, then."

I guess the explanation can't make it less funny, if it already wasn't funny.
Sorry that one passed me by and that is the kind of thing I usually would notice ( why some indeed ?) but I like the palindromesque-ness

Take it further: Some Knotted-Zero to take account of Bob's uptight-self-conscious tendencies
__________________
Newt Gingrich:“People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz.”
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 12-01-2011, 06:19 PM
rfrobison rfrobison is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 1,629
Default Re: An opposing view of tea and thee ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwinSwords View Post
Less so than the MSM. But to an extent, yes; primarily because Bob has labored the entire time under the increasingly dangerous delusion that it's possible to have a dialogue with conservatives. It's not. Among the many important things Bob has accomplished in the past five years, proving that conservatives are beyond the reach of the rational appeal is chief among them. This has been proven in the diavlogs, and in the comments.
In other words, we're open-minded, you're not.

I don't know why I bother, but...
__________________
Send lawyers, guns and money/Dad, get me outta this
--Warren Zevon--
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 12-01-2011, 07:24 PM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: An opposing view of tea and thee ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by rfrobison View Post
In other words, we're open-minded, you're not.

I don't know why I bother, but...
I understand where you're coming from, but I think you have acknowledged that your perspective is, shall we say, a minority one in your party.
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 12-01-2011, 10:16 PM
uncle ebeneezer uncle ebeneezer is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,332
Default Re: An opposing view of tea and thee ...

I think it's fairly obvious that "have a dialogue" as Twin refers to it, is referring to having a dialogue with some possibility of compromise. As such, I would love to see examples of this trait among conservatives in 2011. On what issues has the GOP shown any willingness to budge from the furthest point on the right-end spectrum that can be safely held? Taxes? Obamacare? Jobs programs? The debt ceiling? Immigration? Abortion? Campaign-finance reform? Financial regulation? Feel free to list prominent voices on the Right who are arguing sincerely (or have since say 2000) that the need is for the GOP to move toward the middle and be tolerant and considerate of Progressive points of view. Show me some elected officials who have or are taking that position. Show me some Right-wing noise peddlers (Limbaugh, Beck, etc.) who advocate that approach. Show me some election results showing supporting this idea that the GOP is willing to have embrace such an approach. Show me some Right-leaning diavloggers who you consider Conservative that make such appeals to their party here on BHTV. Show me some commentors (other than yourself) who take such an approach to their discussions with their liberal counterparts.

There are plenty of people on the left who are willing to make far too many compromises with the Right. They are in Congress, they make up the majority of the "liberal" media, and are very well represented even here at Librul BHTV. Show me those people on the other side and show me how big their voices are within the party at large.
__________________
Uncle Ebeneezer Such a fine line between clever and stupid.
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 12-01-2011, 10:39 PM
Sulla the Dictator Sulla the Dictator is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,364
Default Re: An opposing view of tea and thee ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer View Post
I think it's fairly obvious that "have a dialogue" as Twin refers to it, is referring to having a dialogue with some possibility of compromise. As such, I would love to see examples of this trait among conservatives in 2011. On what issues has the GOP shown any willingness to budge from the furthest point on the right-end spectrum that can be safely held? Taxes?
Where are the liberal compromises on spending cuts? REAL spending cuts to domestic spending and entitlements?

Quote:
Obamacare?
Why would we compromise with that? We oppose it, itself. There was a plausible argument about this kind of social democratic impulse BEFORE the obvious cancer that is the Eurozone. There is no plausible defense of it now. This will destroy us, if we aren't already doomed.

Quote:
Jobs programs?
This is where people get in the weeds. When the stimulus was passed, the GOP said that it wasn't really stimulative. It was MOSTLY tax credits to liberal special interests, bailouts for states to fill budget holes (Which should have been dealt with then by cuts or taxes or whatever the states wanted to do), and patches for Medicaid. There was a pittance for actual government spending on job creation. Now, you can create all the myths you want. But you folks wrote this "program", and it failed. You had 59 votes in the Senate, and five or six moderate GOP votes, and probably another dozen Republicans who, during that crisis, were more than interested in actually getting a real stimulus done. The OBJECTIONS were almost entirely about the total price tag. So you could have had the program designed with $500 billion in infrastructure spending instead of $100 billion, and the GOP would have been more supportive than it was for supporting state teachers unions.

Lets put it this way. If you guys can't get your policies achieved with 59 votes in the Senate, the President, and the US House, then you folks probably aren't qualified to hold power.


Quote:
The debt ceiling?
Excuse me? The President proposed a budget with another $400 billion in spending in it, and demanded a CLEAN debt ceiling vote. What is there to compromise with that? Spend $100 billion more, and give the President his vote? No spending cuts, that's the compromise? This is why political debate in the United States is ridiculous. You have a rump of left wing elites, amplified by the media, making false diagrams of political arguments. The left sets the bar at the FAR EXTREME of dialogue, and demands compromise be 50% from the center, leftward.

No.

Quote:
Immigration?
Amnesty or you're a racist. That is the "reasonable liberal argument" on immigration. You won't support amnesty? You want border control? Why do you hate Hispanic children so much?

Quote:
Abortion?
Wait, Conservatives won't compromise on this? The left wing of your party considers parental notification to be controversial. In my state, an underage girl can't get a tattoo without parental notification. You folks balk at the idea of banning late term abortion.

Why don't you compromise? Abolish Roe. Let the states decide.

Quote:
Campaign-finance reform?
Passed by a Republican idiot and a Republican President, also substandard. The last time the issue came up was in 2008, when McCain proposed they both take public financing for their campaign. Obama refused, because he was raking in so much money from the Financial sector. Otherwise known as "Big Bankers". Who are Democrats to ever talk about Campaign finance reform?

And why? Conservatives have to compete with a media establishment and a degenerate Hollywood industry constantly churning out left wing memes to the public.

Quote:
Financial regulation?
Fannie and Freddie? Hey, who was on the President's transition team, once upon a time?

Quote:
Feel free to list prominent voices on the Right who are arguing sincerely (or have since say 2000) that the need is for the GOP to move toward the middle and be tolerant and considerate of Progressive points of view.
Where is the left's version of this, exactly?

Quote:
Show me some election results showing supporting this idea that the GOP is willing to have embrace such an approach.
Didn't you people kick Joe Lieberman out of the party for being too friendly to the GOP?

Quote:

There are plenty of people on the left who are willing to make far too many compromises with the Right.
Pffft. Example?
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 12-01-2011, 11:11 PM
Globalcop Globalcop is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 114
Default Re: Dunkirk (Robert Wright & Mickey Kaus)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderment View Post
Awesome rant, Globo! You're the first Bloggingheads Truther.
Thanks, but it's a stretch to compare the transition of BHTV from a diverse forum to the Bob Wright show and the transition of two packed commercial airliners into missiles that killed 3000 people.

Saying that Bob is being disingenuous about the reasons he gives (his equivocation and stammering explanation certainly don't dampen my skepticism) is a far cry from blaming President Bush of taking down WTC in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Congrats for the juvenile reply; as usual, the peanut gallery is there to encourage the shameless trolling. Still waiting for a substantive reply.
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 12-01-2011, 11:22 PM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: Dunkirk (Robert Wright & Mickey Kaus)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Globalcop View Post
Thanks, but it's a stretch to compare the transition of BHTV from a diverse forum to the Bob Wright show and the transition of two packed commercial airliners into missiles that killed 3000 people.

Saying that Bob is being disingenuous about the reasons he gives (his equivocation and stammering explanation certainly don't dampen my skepticism) is a far cry from blaming President Bush of taking down WTC in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Congrats for the juvenile reply; as usual, the peanut gallery is there to encourage the shameless trolling. Still waiting for a substantive reply.
A substantive reply? Okay.

How much do you suppose it costs to run BhTV? To pay for the web hosting, support the personnel necessary to maintain the technical infrastructure, to edit the videos, and to do the copy editing necessary to create diavlog topics, topic titles, to book guests, to distribute equipment to diavloggers, to manage the forum, and whatever else is needed to keep the operation running as smoothly as it has for all these years?

And whatever figure you come up with -- however many hundreds of thousands of dollars per year you figure (because it's certainly no less than that) -- where did you think that money was coming from all this time? And where do you propose Bob get that money in 2012?

And while you're thinking of the answers to those questions, here's another: Why would Bob bust his ass for five years building what is possibly his proudest professional accomplishment only to sabotage it in 2012?

Bob Wright: If you are reading this, you should know that on a per post basis, there has never been a more hostile and belligerent person in this forum than "Globocop." He can't match Whatfur, kidneystones, or Lyle for volume of posts, but his per post rate of vitriol and hysteria surpasses even those now thankfully banned wingnuts.
__________________
"All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind." -- Adam Smith

Last edited by TwinSwords; 12-01-2011 at 11:44 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 12-01-2011, 11:25 PM
Globalcop Globalcop is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 114
Default Re: Dunkirk (Robert Wright & Mickey Kaus)

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
Yeah, it was a pretty dumb criticism that completely ignored the nature of what was being criticized. I know plenty about computers and I'm comfortable around recording equipment, and there were technical issues with both of my diavlogs, some of them completely my fault. People are generally not physically present, do these things only occasionally, are unpaid, and often inexpert; nevertheless, we've seen nearly two thousand successfully completed diavlogs.
All of these excuses point to the main problem with the BHTV set up: the participants are not listening to the audio that we will hear, they are listening to the phone. Those of you who are making excuses for BHTV and who claim to have some technical skills understand that it is a fundamental flaw to put so much time and effort into a recording that no one is monitoring.

Even on Skype, at least the person on the other end can say, "Hey, I can't hear you."

No wonder this thing has been running down the wrong track for so long, everyone just loves to kiss ass. When someone tries to point out a problem, you all just us it as an opportunity to show the world how much of a true fan you are, by trashing the messenger. The fact remains: this experiment has failed.

And anyone who says the show is immune from criticism because it is free is a damn fool. Why even bother to waste time posting such sycophantic drivel? Hoping Bob might read your post and award you with a signed book?
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 12-01-2011, 11:27 PM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: An opposing view of tea and thee ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator View Post
Where are the liberal compromises on spending cuts? REAL spending cuts to domestic spending and entitlements?
Obama's been the only one and I've always respected him for being the only adult. He pissed off a lot of Democrats in the process, too.

Quote:
Why would we compromise with that? We oppose it, itself. There was a plausible argument about this kind of social democratic impulse BEFORE the obvious cancer that is the Eurozone. There is no plausible defense of it now. This will destroy us, if we aren't already doomed.
It depends on how good those death panels are. That's where all of America's wealth is going: grandma spending $50K a year on medication that gives her hope, but won't keep her alive.

Quote:
This is where people get in the weeds. When the stimulus was passed, the GOP said that it wasn't really stimulative. It was MOSTLY tax credits to liberal special interests, bailouts for states to fill budget holes (Which should have been dealt with then by cuts or taxes or whatever the states wanted to do), and patches for Medicaid. There was a pittance for actual government spending on job creation. Now, you can create all the myths you want. But you folks wrote this "program", and it failed. You had 59 votes in the Senate, and five or six moderate GOP votes, and probably another dozen Republicans who, during that crisis, were more than interested in actually getting a real stimulus done. The OBJECTIONS were almost entirely about the total price tag. So you could have had the program designed with $500 billion in infrastructure spending instead of $100 billion, and the GOP would have been more supportive than it was for supporting state teachers unions.
I agree about 60%. You have to admit that Republicans have also been especially uncooperative.

Quote:
Lets put it this way. If you guys can't get your policies achieved with 59 votes in the Senate, the President, and the US House, then you folks probably aren't qualified to hold power.
Agreed.

Quote:
Excuse me? The President proposed a budget with another $400 billion in spending in it, and demanded a CLEAN debt ceiling vote. What is there to compromise with that? Spend $100 billion more, and give the President his vote? No spending cuts, that's the compromise? This is why political debate in the United States is ridiculous. You have a rump of left wing elites, amplified by the media, making false diagrams of political arguments. The left sets the bar at the FAR EXTREME of dialogue, and demands compromise be 50% from the center, leftward.
Social Security can be saved by moving to Chilean style private accounts. People oppose it because they don't understand it. Huntsman's plan to move from 100K troops to 10-15K is also sensible. So, the big fish is Medicare, which Republicans don't want to cut. I believe the idea is for death panels to stop grandma from spending $50K of taxpayer money per year on pills that won't keep her alive, but give her hope. If ObamaCare's mandate is found constitutional, then the thing that will save money is to let death panels do their job.

Quote:
Amnesty or you're a racist. That is the "reasonable liberal argument" on immigration. You won't support amnesty? You want border control? Why do you hate Hispanic children so much?
Agreed. This is totally annoying. However, the GOP didn't give an articulate, nuanced position on immigration until the CNN debate. I was really glad to hear the candidates talking about the need to welcome high skilled immigrants. That's America's biggest advantage. Smart people want to come here and be Americans.

Quote:
You folks balk at the idea of banning late term abortion.
You're exaggerating a bit. I think most Democrats would be okay with banning late term.

Quote:
Why don't you compromise? Abolish Roe. Let the states decide.
I totally would. Why don't you like Ron Paul then?

Quote:
Passed by a Republican idiot and a Republican President, also substandard. The last time the issue came up was in 2008, when McCain proposed they both take public financing for their campaign. Obama refused, because he was raking in so much money from the Financial sector. Otherwise known as "Big Bankers". Who are Democrats to ever talk about Campaign finance reform?
Completely true.

Quote:
And why? Conservatives have to compete with a media establishment and a degenerate Hollywood industry constantly churning out left wing memes to the public.
I don't think you're appreciating Hollywood enough. That's the primary mechanism for spreading American Exceptionalism. Granted, I understand why you object to the message in most of Hollywood's product. However, the American way of life still gets disseminated in a way that has no substitute.

America is definitely not a multicultural, harmonious melting pot. It is, however, a shining example of how diversity can be achieved peacefully, imperfect as that peace may be. If a multiethnic America did not exist, the impetus for war would be much greater.

Quote:
Fannie and Freddie? Hey, who was on the President's transition team, once upon a time?
I believe this was a bi-partisan failure, but I agree they both need to go as soon as it's feasible.

Quote:
Didn't you people kick Joe Lieberman out of the party for being too friendly to the GOP?
They don't like Mickey Kaus, either. The extreme elements anyway.
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 12-01-2011, 11:43 PM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: Dunkirk (Robert Wright & Mickey Kaus)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Globalcop View Post
All of these excuses point to the main problem with the BHTV set up: the participants are not listening to the audio that we will hear, they are listening to the phone.
And yet, BhTV has been enormously successful at generating more than a diavlog a day for a number of years. The truth is that the "real problem" you've identified hasn't been very much of a problem at all. The instances when diavlogs were cut short or had audio modulation problems have been few and far between. There's certainly no evidence that these problems are the cause of the coming changes to BhTV.

The truth, Globocop, is that your complaints are more about your own sociopathy and less about BhTV. You're the kind of aggressive, authoritarian bully who sees someone down and immediately starts fantasizing about getting your boot on their neck, and stomping. You live for this sort of thing; it's what makes you feel good. You're hateful, and you're mean. And you know it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Globalcop View Post
Those of you who are making excuses for BHTV and who claim to have some technical skills understand that it is a fundamental flaw to put so much time and effort into a recording that no one is monitoring.
Then how do you explain the consistency of the diavlogs, Bob's ability to reliably post more than one new diavlog a day over a period of years? The "fundamental flaw" never amounted to more than an occasional problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Globalcop View Post
No wonder this thing has been running down the wrong track for so long, everyone just loves to kiss ass. When someone tries to point out a problem, you all just us it as an opportunity to show the world how much of a true fan you are, by trashing the messenger. The fact remains: this experiment has failed.
Hey, wait a minute; you're changing your story. At first it was a conspiracy where Bob was gutting BhTV to bring more glory to himself. Now, without any evidence at all, you're asserting that the changes are due to the "failure" of an experiment.

I'd like to see you try to substantiate that claim with anything resembling compelling evidence -- or even compelling argumentation. We both know you can't.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Globalcop View Post
And anyone who says the show is immune from criticism because it is free is a damn fool. Why even bother to waste time posting such sycophantic drivel? Hoping Bob might read your post and award you with a signed book?
The truth is far more nuanced than you can grasp. The truth is that people can simultaneously be supportive of an enterprise and offer constructive criticism in an effort to be helpful. You don't seem to realize that.
__________________
"All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind." -- Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 12-01-2011, 11:51 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Dunkirk (Robert Wright & Mickey Kaus)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Globalcop View Post
All of these excuses point to the main problem with the BHTV set up: the participants are not listening to the audio that we will hear, they are listening to the phone. Those of you who are making excuses for BHTV and who claim to have some technical skills understand that it is a fundamental flaw to put so much time and effort into a recording that no one is monitoring.

Even on Skype, at least the person on the other end can say, "Hey, I can't hear you."

No wonder this thing has been running down the wrong track for so long, everyone just loves to kiss ass. When someone tries to point out a problem, you all just us it as an opportunity to show the world how much of a true fan you are, by trashing the messenger. The fact remains: this experiment has failed.

And anyone who says the show is immune from criticism because it is free is a damn fool. Why even bother to waste time posting such sycophantic drivel? Hoping Bob might read your post and award you with a signed book?
You started out saying something cogent, if not completely aligned with reality. Some of the problems with BhTV's presentation are certainly due to the fact that participants often aren't listening to the signal that is being recorded. You win some, you lose some. Since the premise here is cheap tech and getting by, and since that means that the participants' voices are being recorded locally, then having them focus on the telephone conversation, rather than the recorded signal, is an important factor in service of the goal of creating a conversation worth recording.

After a promising start the post just seemed to devolve into vitriol, unfortunately. Nice try, though.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!

Last edited by AemJeff; 12-01-2011 at 11:58 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 12-02-2011, 12:05 AM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: An opposing view of tea and thee ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
You're exaggerating a bit. I think most Democrats would be okay with banning late term.
I know this isn't your hobby horse, but this is an annoying example.

Late term abortions are vanishingly rare, and nearly always done to save the mother's life.

Are you really comfortable with a blanket ban, no exceptions? Given that such a ban would mean the rare instances in which the mother's life can only be saved by abortion would now result in the mother's death?

I understand that Sulla is because he believes that producing babies is the greatest and only purpose in life, but you're a reasonable guy.

Are you really comfortable supporting a law whose effect would be the needless and preventable deaths of several women in the prime of their lives?
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 12-02-2011, 12:13 AM
Globalcop Globalcop is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 114
Default Re: Dunkirk (Robert Wright & Mickey Kaus)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwinSwords View Post
A substantive reply? Okay.

How much do you suppose it costs to run BhTV? To pay for the web hosting, support the personnel necessary to maintain the technical infrastructure, to edit the videos, and to do the copy editing necessary to create diavlog topics, topic titles, to book guests, to distribute equipment to diavloggers, to manage the forum, and whatever else is needed to keep the operation running as smoothly as it has for all these years?

And whatever figure you come up with -- however many hundreds of thousands of dollars per year you figure (because it's certainly no less than that) -- where did you think that money was coming from all this time? And where do you propose Bob get that money in 2012?

And while you're thinking of the answers to those questions, here's another: Why would Bob bust his ass for five years building what is possibly his proudest professional accomplishment only to sabotage it in 2012?

Bob Wright: If you are reading this, you should know that on a per post basis, there has never been a more hostile and belligerent person in this forum than "Globocop." He can't match Whatfur, kidneystones, or Lyle for volume of posts, but his per post rate of vitriol and hysteria surpasses even those now thankfully banned wingnuts.
All I'm saying is, his explanation doesn't make sense.

Vitriol and hysteria? Is that the same as not kissing Bob's ass and making excuses for the terrible technical problems?

Is there any other podcast that anyone here listens to/watches that comes even close to the audio problems that BHTV has?

Why hasn't Bob simply gotten a single sponsor, like Audible? He sure ain't concerned with conflict of interest or undue influence of content (Ford Foundation?).

Bob says there is no business model that works. Huh? Leo LaPorte is making over $1 million a year with TWiT. Maybe because he started off using normal tech like Skype and you can actually hear what people are saying (and at least if there is an audio problem, everyone knows it right away and they don't waste an hour recording useless audio).

Why is everyone so freaked out about someone pointing out that there has been a serious flaw with Bob's proprietary method since day one? Why has he never tried a different method of recording, when there are so many other options? Anyone could record a simple BHTV diavlog using Google+ Hangouts in about 15 minutes.

I'm sorry, but Bob's insistence to do this thing in the most arcane and complicated manner is the reason why it has failed, and he just can't admit it. It fits perfectly with his personality to have a group such as you all to pat him on the back and assure him that he's a hero on the 'net and any critic, if not banned already, is only a few posts away from being censored.

It is hilarious that you're actually speaking to Bob directly. Way to prove my point sycophant.

Last edited by Globalcop; 12-02-2011 at 12:17 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 12-02-2011, 12:19 AM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: Dunkirk (Robert Wright & Mickey Kaus)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Globalcop View Post
Is there any other podcast that anyone here listens to/watches that comes even close to the audio problems that BHTV has?
There is no other podcast I listen to/watch, period. Full stop.
Reply With Quote
  #141  
Old 12-02-2011, 12:35 AM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: An opposing view of tea and thee ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
It depends on how good those death panels are.
There are no death panels. And if you were capable of even the fleetingest moment of reflection, you'd realize that the vocal opponents of any efforts at cost containment in Medicare during the last 2-3 years were the Republicans -- led by Sarah Palin and her lies that there were death panels in the health care legislation.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
That's where all of America's wealth is going: grandma spending $50K a year on medication that gives her hope, but won't keep her alive.
Let's be clear about something: Health care and medicine actually do keep people alive. It's remarkable that you don't know this. I know right wing ideology warps minds, but I am always amazed by the variety and depth of the delusions.

The Ryan Plan, voted for by 98% of House Republicans, would replace the existing system with a coupon for up to $15,000 worth of health insurance. This means that tens of millions of Americans would be unable to receive any meaningful health care at all, with the known -- the planned -- result that millions of people would die of untreated illness, disability, and disease. That is, the Republican plan is to sacrifice millions of elderly people in exchange for more tax cuts for the top .5%.

Pretty depraved. It honestly strikes me as only slightly different than open programs of genocide. It's basically genocide by policy instead of by oven or machete.

And it's the kind of ethical barbarism that defines conservatism in America today.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
Social Security can be saved by moving to Chilean style private accounts. People oppose it because they don't understand it.
Social Security doesn't need saving. It's perfectly solvent for decades to come, and then can be "saved" with relative simple fixes that have been extensively discussed elsewhere in this forum.

The Chilean system, which was the basis for one of the plans put forth by George W. Bush and Congressional Republicans in 2005, was remarkable (according to extensive news reporting at the time) because it had the highest costs to administer of any of the privatization schemes. The existing Social Security system, as I understand, spends <1% of revenue on administration and overhead; the overwhelming majority of disbursements are in payments to beneficiaries. That is, it's a model of efficiency -- something rational people care about.

By contrast, according to reporting on the Chilean system from 2005-2006, somewhere between 25% and 40% of the money paid into the system is spent on "administration" -- really banker fees, broker commissions, and other ways for private interests to line their silk pockets with the hard earned dollars of the program's alleged beneficiaries.

This is why Republicans favor the Chilean model: It would allow investment bankers to siphon off hundreds of billions of dollars. It's a massive scam -- a giant wealth transfer program. The reason conservatives hate the current system is that it doesn't contain any mechanism for transferring wealth from the population at large to the top .5%.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
So, the big fish is Medicare, which Republicans don't want to cut.
First of all, kudos on the honest metaphor: "The big fish!" Pro tip: Take it to the next level now and call it "the jackpot!"

Second of all: It's simply embarrassing that you would say something like "Republican don't want to cut" Medicare. See the Ryan Plan.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
I believe the idea is for death panels to stop grandma from spending $50K of taxpayer money per year on pills that won't keep her alive, but give her hope. If ObamaCare's mandate is found constitutional, then the thing that will save money is to let death panels do their job.
What the hell are you talking about? Do you really not know that the death panels charge was just made up out of whole cloth by the Republicans? (First by Sarah Palin.)

It's true that after Palin's claim was roundly rejected as a lie, Republicans attempted to save face by redefining "death panels" to mean something other than what Palin, Fox News, and millions of conservative activists originally meant. But the positions the GOP has retreated to in their many attempts to redefine "death panels" have been fundamentally dishonest as well.

If you're going to assert that the health care legislation contains "death panels," you should at least be able to describe what those panels are and how they operate. But you can't do that.

Just a reminder to readers. This term was introduced into the lexicon with this deranged and paranoid Sarah Palin rant:

Quote:
Statement on the Current Health Care Debate
by Sarah Palin on Friday, August 7, 2009 at 5:26pm

As more Americans delve into the disturbing details of the nationalized health care plan that the current administration is rushing through Congress, our collective jaw is dropping, and we’re saying not just no, but hell no!

The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

Health care by definition involves life and death decisions. Human rights and human dignity must be at the center of any health care discussion.

Rep. Michele Bachmann highlighted the Orwellian thinking of the president’s health care advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the White House chief of staff, in a floor speech to the House of Representatives. I commend her for being a voice for the most precious members of our society, our children and our seniors.

We must step up and engage in this most crucial debate. Nationalizing our health care system is a point of no return for government interference in the lives of its citizens. If we go down this path, there will be no turning back. Ronald Reagan once wrote, “Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.” Let’s stop and think and make our voices heard before it’s too late.

- Sarah Palin
__________________
"All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind." -- Adam Smith

Last edited by TwinSwords; 12-02-2011 at 12:43 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 12-02-2011, 12:48 AM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: An opposing view of tea and thee ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator View Post
Didn't you people kick Joe Lieberman out of the party for being too friendly to the GOP?
Um, Joe Lieberman was defeated by the voters of his state in a primary election. If that's "kicking him out of the party," then both parties "kick people out" all the time -- and most people consider it an essential American right.
__________________
"All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind." -- Adam Smith
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 12-02-2011, 01:00 AM
rfrobison rfrobison is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 1,629
Default Re: An opposing view of tea and thee ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer View Post
I think it's fairly obvious that "have a dialogue" as Twin refers to it, is referring to having a dialogue with some possibility of compromise. As such, I would love to see examples of this trait among conservatives in 2011. On what issues has the GOP shown any willingness to budge from the furthest point on the right-end spectrum that can be safely held? Taxes? Obamacare? Jobs programs? The debt ceiling? Immigration? Abortion? Campaign-finance reform? Financial regulation? Feel free to list prominent voices on the Right who are arguing sincerely (or have since say 2000) that the need is for the GOP to move toward the middle and be tolerant and considerate of Progressive points of view.
Forgive me, Eb, but this is just another way of repeating TS' "liberals-good-conservatives-bad" er, argument. I will concede that it is much harder to reach legislative compromises than in the past, for a lot of complicated reasons -- gerrymandering, changes to the media landscape, the primacy of the "culture wars" as a result of (until recently) broad consensus on economic policy, the weakening of the seniority system in congressional comittees. But regardless of the reason, the ideological sorting is a bipartisan phenomenon, almost by definition. To say it's all the fault of one side strikes me as plain silly and self-serving.

I don't think it's worth the effort to go through your laundry list of policies and try to "prove" Republican/conservative willingness to compromise. I don't think you're prepared to be persuaded -- and I am certain Twin isn't.


Quote:
Show me some Right-leaning diavloggers who you consider Conservative that make such appeals to their party here on BHTV.
Hmm, how about Reihan Salam, for starters? Matt Lewis seems like a reasonable guy. David Frum -- though he's heartily disliked by many on his own side (Is he still on "our" side?) and an infrequent contributor -- is nothing if not moderate. Russ Douthat? Even a guy like Jonah Goldberg, a hate figure among lefty commenters here, does not seem rigidly ideological to me, particularly on socal issues.

But these are subjective perceptions. Someone on the left might argue that Bob Wright is a "reasonable" voice on the left, whereas I think he's pretty knee-jerk and has a tendency to whine when he's annoyed and/or getting the worst of an argument.

Quote:
Show me some commentors (other than yourself) who take such an approach to their discussions with their liberal counterparts.
Among regulars, chiwhi and jimM47 and Jon Irenicus spring to mind... And I think regular posters further to the right than I are perfectly capable of having a reasonable disagreement. The trouble is, from my point of view, the more partisan one is to begin with, the harder it is to avoid falling into reflexive "gotcha"-type interactions with those on the other side of the ideological fence.

Quote:
There are plenty of people on the left who are willing to make far too many compromises with the Right. They are in Congress...
So your solution to an excess of rigidity on the right is to copy it on the left. I don't see how that benefits the country or our political discourse.

As for the rest, and again this is my subjective view, since the mainstream media is, in fact, dominated by the sort of center-left "New Republic" type of liberal, it's awfully hard to come up with counterparts on the right who would meet your demand. By and large the left has "journalists" and the right has "pundits." All I have to do is watch one installment of "GPS with Fareed Zakharia" to be reminded why I don't feel like my own views are fairly represented.

That and show up for work each day.
__________________
Send lawyers, guns and money/Dad, get me outta this
--Warren Zevon--

Last edited by rfrobison; 12-02-2011 at 03:50 AM.. Reason: deleted extraneous "to"; misspelling
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 12-02-2011, 01:11 AM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: An opposing view of tea and thee ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by thouartgob View Post
That's kind of a conservative attitude you have there.
I understand the point you are making, but I disagree.

Your interpretation reminds me of the conservatives who say liberal tolerance is a lie because we oppose racism. We oppose racism because we're tolerant. By definition, being tolerant means opposing intolerance. Only in conservative Bizarro World would liberals be seen as intolerant because they oppose racism.

The "conservative attitude" about dialogue is not my attitude; I engage in a free exchange of viewpoints with all sorts of people all the time. Among non-conservatives, the discussion and debate goes on continuously. Liberals question and evaluate their own beliefs every day. That's just who we are, but it's also what what makes us different from conservatives.

The "conservative attitude" with respect to dialogue is that no dialogue is necessary because the Truth has been revealed, they think they're right about everything, and they consider their opponents to be a literal enemy.

Remember who we're talking about: The party of Rush Limbaugh, of Sean Hannity, of Fox News, of Sarah Palin, of Andrew Breitbart, of James O'Keefe. And their activist spawn. Look at the conservatives in the forum: which do you consider like the aforementioned? And which do you consider genuinely amenable to reason?

See?

This is the party of Newt Gingrich, who used to train Republican Representatives in Congress and candidates for office to describe liberals from a list of pejorative terms like "corrupt," "traitor," "anti-flag," "anti-family," "anti-child," "anti-jobs," "cheat," "steal," "radical," "pathetic," "lie," "incompetent," "destroy," "destructive," "sick," and "betray."

This is not the profile of a movement that is open to discourse or reason. Review Uncle Ebeneezer's post for further clarification of the people we're talking about.
__________________
"All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind." -- Adam Smith

Last edited by TwinSwords; 12-02-2011 at 01:35 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 12-02-2011, 01:31 AM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: An opposing view of tea and thee ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwinSwords View Post
Review Uncle Ebeneezer's post for further clarification of the people we're talking about.
I'll just repost it here, in case people don't want to click the link. Uncle Eb posted this comment from Balloon Juice. The comment was a response to conservative calls for "civility" after an 18 year old high school student in Kansas City had the nerve to express her opinion of the state's extremist governor, Sam Brownback:

Quote:
After Willie Horton ads, Swiftboating, GOP convention-goers waving purple band-aids to mock a veteran’s war wounds, birtherism, Ann Coulter saying the “only choice was whether to impeach or assassinate” President Clinton, Coulter claiming 9/11 widows were “enjoying their husband’s deaths,” Rush Limbaugh mocking Michael J. Fox’s Parkinson’s disease, ads falsely claiming Barack Obama favored “comprehensive sex education for Kindergartners,” Rand Paul supporters trying to stomp the head of a protester, ads claiming Kay Hagen was “godless,” Michelle Bachmann calling for an investigation of ‘un-American views” among the Congress, “If ballots don’t work, maybe bullets will,” “Obama hates white people,” ‘GET OFF MY PHONE YOU LITTLE PINHEAD!” “YOU LIE!”, wingnuts at FreeRepublic calling 11-year old Sasha Obama a “street whore” for wearing a peace sign on her t-shirt, outright lies about “death panels,” “Bury Obamacare with Kennedy,” cheering for executions, booing soldiers in war zones for being gay, comparing poor people to stray animals you shouldn’t feed, “’we’ve got one raghead in the White House, we don’t need a raghead in the governor’s mansion,” supposed “Christians” suggesting that people pray for the President using Psalm 109:8 (“May his days be few; may another take his office. Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow”) as a text, Limbaugh calling the First Lady “uppity,” and on and on and on, all without a single peep from the Right…They can take their whiny-ass bullshit about liberal “rudeness” and peddle it somewhere else. We ain’t buyin’ it here.
That toxic list of rhetorical terrorism is just a tiny drop of the vitriol that is spewed by the right every single day. The entire movement is devoted to this kind of demonization of non-conservatives -- and rfrobison knows it. Even from half way around the world, he must still know enough about America to know what his party has become.
__________________
"All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind." -- Adam Smith

Last edited by TwinSwords; 12-02-2011 at 12:17 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 12-02-2011, 01:54 AM
uncle ebeneezer uncle ebeneezer is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,332
Default Re: An opposing view of tea and thee ...

Rob, I agree that Reihan, Frum and even Matt Lewis are reasonable (on some issues) but they are hardly the powerplayers the arm of the Right's media machine. They are relatively obscure, and the one who does have pretty solid name-recognition (Frum) is routinely blasted by winger's as a turncoat to the cause. And all of them are decidedly not what I would consider the voice of the Republican conscience at this point.

In the halls of Congress you have a bunch of zealots who have steadfastly refused to compromise on anything suggested by Democrats. Fillibusters. Blocked judicial appointments. Etc. etc. Look at the Presidential candidates fer chrissakes. So long as Republicans continue to vote people into office whose sole purpose seems to be to refuse to give Democrats anything, then the GOP has no claim on an interest in dialogue. So long as your elected representatives have to apologize to Rush Limbaugh when he gets upset, you're gonna have a tough time arguing that Matt Lewis is representative of the Republican Party.

You, Chi and Jim are great commentors. However, I can't think of too many others.
__________________
Uncle Ebeneezer Such a fine line between clever and stupid.
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 12-02-2011, 02:19 AM
Sulla the Dictator Sulla the Dictator is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,364
Default Re: An opposing view of tea and thee ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
Obama's been the only one and I've always respected him for being the only adult. He pissed off a lot of Democrats in the process, too.
He was 'open' to it for a very brief window.

Quote:
I agree about 60%. You have to admit that Republicans have also been especially uncooperative.
Depends on what you mean. When you have 41 seats in the Senate, you need to be unified in order to wield any power. Now, people often forget what things were like before the Tea Party really started to exercise influence on the debate. People forget that originally, the left was angry that Olympia Snow was only willing to back a trigger for a public option.

It is not the case that Susan Collins, Olympia Snow, and Arlen Specter (D, Always) were right wing ideologues. So one must ask: what was so extreme about that 2009 agenda to keep them with the caucus?

Quote:
Social Security can be saved by moving to Chilean style private accounts. People oppose it because they don't understand it.
People oppose it because Democrats demonize it. Remember the ads with Paul Ryan pushing a woman off of a cliff? You'll see that a thousand times over with this proposal.

Quote:
Huntsman's plan to move from 100K troops to 10-15K is also sensible.
Eh. The Afghan campaign has been hopelessly mismanaged from the start, so a draw down is going to be necessary. The Northern Alliance should have been armed and placed firmly on the throat of the Pashtun in 2003, while we got out of there. The Indians probably would have been happy to bear the expense of propping up that arrangement even after we left.

Quote:
So, the big fish is Medicare, which Republicans don't want to cut.
I do. Let's put it this way, the only place there is political space to propose the necessary cuts to Medicare is with the Republican party.

Quote:
I believe the idea is for death panels to stop grandma from spending $50K of taxpayer money per year on pills that won't keep her alive, but give her hope. If ObamaCare's mandate is found constitutional, then the thing that will save money is to let death panels do their job.
The only upside of Obamacare is that it turns the American health care system into some ugly private/public version of the British NHS. In order to restore some semblance of the previous system, it might be possible to make Medicare cuts in the process.

Quote:
Agreed. This is totally annoying. However, the GOP didn't give an articulate, nuanced position on immigration until the CNN debate. I was really glad to hear the candidates talking about the need to welcome high skilled immigrants. That's America's biggest advantage. Smart people want to come here and be Americans.
Agreed. But we don't need an endless supply of low skilled labor to this country. That's the real problem.

Quote:
You're exaggerating a bit. I think most Democrats would be okay with banning late term.
I don't think most liberals support banning late term.

Quote:
I totally would. Why don't you like Ron Paul then?
Because I believe in the moral nature and enduring necessity of American power. I believe strategic and military position is won by blood and sacrifice, and it is a mistake to give up such position for convenience when so much has been sacrificed to gain it.

Quote:
I don't think you're appreciating Hollywood enough. That's the primary mechanism for spreading American Exceptionalism. Granted, I understand why you object to the message in most of Hollywood's product. However, the American way of life still gets disseminated in a way that has no substitute.
I think that is less true than it was even 10 years ago. I don't think you can stress enough how much the Bush Administration seems to have gotten into the heads of the leftist cultural elite. So much so that America seems to have failed them by electing him.

Even before that, their portrayal of the American way of life was highly materialistic, centered around vulgar consumerism.

Quote:
America is definitely not a multicultural, harmonious melting pot. It is, however, a shining example of how diversity can be achieved peacefully, imperfect as that peace may be. If a multiethnic America did not exist, the impetus for war would be much greater.
I would prefer a harmonious multi ethnic melting pot. I have no interest in multiculturalism. The Balkans has never been a source of cultural inspiration for me. I would suggest that the "multiculturalist" impulse of the left has led exactly to this political impasse we have today.
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 12-02-2011, 02:22 AM
Sulla the Dictator Sulla the Dictator is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,364
Default Re: An opposing view of tea and thee ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer View Post
In the halls of Congress you have a bunch of zealots who have steadfastly refused to compromise on anything suggested by Democrats. Fillibusters. Blocked judicial appointments. Etc. etc.
Salve to Comrades Olympia Snow, Susan Collins, and Arlen Specter (D, Always). And to Senators Voinivich, McCain, and Graham. The front rank of the hard right wing Falange.

These right wing fanatics obviously worked very hard to thwart a centrist agenda.
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 12-02-2011, 07:00 AM
thouartgob thouartgob is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 765
Default Re: An opposing view of tea and thee ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwinSwords View Post
I understand the point you are making, but I disagree.

Your interpretation reminds me of the conservatives who say liberal tolerance is a lie because we oppose racism.
Well that wasn't my point per se but I could have made my point more clearly ( being a liberal I will confess MY failure here ) We are all conservative to one extent or another in the fact that we fear things like having our beliefs challenged, losing an election to a bunch of people who don't share our view of the world. Stuff like that. I will speak for myself as a liberal that I understand many of the "conservative impulses" in my own political mind ( for lack of a better term ) and it can get it the way of a fruitful dialog. That was MY point about the absolutest attitude of some commenters/diavlogers about engaging neo-creationists or id types or whatever they wanna call themselves.
Quote:
We oppose racism because we're tolerant. By definition, being tolerant means opposing intolerance. Only in conservative Bizarro World would liberals be seen as intolerant because they oppose racism.
If we are intolerant of intolerance then we are not being liberal. Those who work against intolerance are most likely liberal though not exclusively so.
Quote:
The "conservative attitude" about dialogue is not my attitude; I engage in a free exchange of viewpoints with all sorts of people all the time. Among non-conservatives, the discussion and debate goes on continuously. Liberals question and evaluate their own beliefs every day. That's just who we are, but it's also what what makes us different from conservatives.
I don't have the energy for questioning my beliefs every day to be honest but I do agree that we are who we are. As for how much conservatives question their beliefs I don't know, but it is a good reason to talk to them.
Quote:
The "conservative attitude" with respect to dialogue is that no dialogue is necessary because the Truth has been revealed, they think they're right about everything, and they consider their opponents to be a literal enemy.
That is their seemingly innate tendency. As liberals when it comes to the fate of our country and world we also have a similar tendency, we just have a few more tools at our disposal to respond to "enemies" as opposed to "reacting" to them.
also my response to denvillesteve:
Quote:
Originally Posted by thouartgob View Post
How are things in the bunker ? Anybody hit one of your tripwires and got impaled yet ? Slightly more seriously when the Great Collapse comes and all of the blacks, homosexuals, uncircumcised women, liberals, hispanics, atheists, soccer fans, jews, art museums, folk singers, teachers, doctors, the sick, children under 4 and the rest of the unarmed are all swept away, like bhtv in it's present form, you will miss us ya big lug.


Isn't Jim Pinkerton enough of a science fiction response to the events of the day. Do we need Larry Niven's bromance partner as well ?( Jerry actually is recovering from brain cancer treatments so I hope he is doing well ). I'd of really preferred Robert Heinlein but alas ...

I think a real complaint is that social conservatives didn't appear as much and while that is true I am sure Bob would love to have had more of them. Problem is you only need one or 2 of them because there is only 1 right answer so it doesn't take long to exhaust a discussion with them.
Quote:
Remember who we're talking about: The party of Rush Limbaugh, of Sean Hannity, of Fox News, of Sarah Palin, of Andrew Breitbart, of James O'Keefe. And their activist spawn. Look at the conservatives in the forum: which do you consider like the aforementioned? And which do you consider genuinely amenable to reason?
Nope.

Quote:
See?

...

This is not the profile of a movement that is open to discourse or reason. Review Uncle Ebeneezer's post for further clarification of the people we're talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thouartgob View Post
Nice.

If any one of those "sweet nothings" were said by anybody left of center it would be flogged to death by the right. Say a month of coverage for each utterance ?
Actually at 11:35 am est yesterday I did.

and also I recently checked out UE post about the difference between a dialog and willingness to compromise and I take that point as well if it is descriptive of your point of view.

I haven't read the rest of threads before this so I am sure there are plenty of examples of this, that or the other thing about republicans vs democrats but I don't have the inclination or time at this point. I will say as a liberal and not speaking for any other that indulging in binary logic about our opponents isn't the best way to win an argument or an election. Mind you there are things to fight for and that FIGHT part is something that I as a liberal have to work with on a conscious level, when time permits of course

Thanks for the link about Newt. He was always an asshole
__________________
Newt Gingrich:“People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz.”
Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 12-02-2011, 07:04 AM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: An opposing view of tea and thee ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator View Post
It is not the case that Susan Collins, Olympia Snow, and Arlen Specter (D, Always) were right wing ideologues. So one must ask: what was so extreme about that 2009 agenda to keep them with the caucus?
Valid points. However, the Democrats were in a different place then. Jesus had just been elected into office and big change was supposed to be happening.

Quote:
People oppose it because Democrats demonize it. Remember the ads with Paul Ryan pushing a woman off of a cliff? You'll see that a thousand times over with this proposal.
Actually, I don't. I don't have a TV. I do remember that Harry posted a screencap a while back.

Quote:
Eh. The Afghan campaign has been hopelessly mismanaged from the start, so a draw down is going to be necessary. The Northern Alliance should have been armed and placed firmly on the throat of the Pashtun in 2003, while we got out of there. The Indians probably would have been happy to bear the expense of propping up that arrangement even after we left.
It's probably a good time to think about developing our relationship with India and away from China.

Quote:
I do. Let's put it this way, the only place there is political space to propose the necessary cuts to Medicare is with the Republican party.
I hope you're right. The AARP advert doesn't give me much hope. Old people have no idea how much their health care costs the country.

Quote:
Agreed. But we don't need an endless supply of low skilled labor to this country. That's the real problem.
I'm perfectly willing to sacrifice low skilled labor if that means causing brain drain in all the other countries for the benefit of the U.S.

Quote:
I don't think most liberals support banning late term.
I don't even know what it means to be a liberal anymore. Maybe you mean "progressives." At some point in the last decade or two, liberals became anti-freedom statists. But even if progressives find later term abortions less objectionable in comparison to social cons, I don't know that they wouldn't be willing to wheel and deal on the issue.

Quote:
Because I believe in the moral nature and enduring necessity of American power. I believe strategic and military position is won by blood and sacrifice, and it is a mistake to give up such position for convenience when so much has been sacrificed to gain it.
I believe in peace through strength also. But all power, whether it's political or military, must start from a foundation of economic strength. No money, no power.

I understand why you wouldn't want Ron Paul, but how about Jon Huntsman? He's more pro-life, more fiscal con, and more pro-guns than either Mitt or Newt. It's time for a President with hot daughters.

Quote:
Even before that, their portrayal of the American way of life was highly materialistic, centered around vulgar consumerism.
That vulgar consumerism is essential to free market capitalism and has always existed. I think your objection to it is that it used to be tempered against a more prevalent Judeo-Christian morality. Even as an atheist, I find this somewhat lamentable. Capitalism unchecked leads to people treating other people as means and not ends.

Still, Hollywood does a number of good things. It normalizes the idea of interethnic tolerance around the world and keeps communism at bay. Those are two fundamental problems that I don't take for granted.

Quote:
I would prefer a harmonious multi ethnic melting pot. I have no interest in multiculturalism.
I mostly agree. America needs time to digest its current crop of immigrants. Perhaps we could have a policy of immigration expansion during economic booms and immigration restriction during economic recessions. But even before that, the border should probably be secured.
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.
Reply With Quote
  #151  
Old 12-02-2011, 07:17 AM
thouartgob thouartgob is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 765
Default Re: An opposing view of tea and thee ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer View Post
Rob, I agree that Reihan, Frum and even Matt Lewis are reasonable (on some issues) but they are hardly the powerplayers the arm of the Right's media machine. They are relatively obscure, and the one who does have pretty solid name-recognition (Frum) is routinely blasted by winger's as a turncoat to the cause. And all of them are decidedly not what I would consider the voice of the Republican conscience at this point.
Don't forget Christopher Buckley was kicked out of the National Review for criticizing Palin. Conservatives are quite efficient in dealing with heretics.

I was just thinking about why some conservatives "wear" better than other in our american media environment. They seem to either foreigners ( Frum, Reihan ) catholic ( Ross, michael dougherty, Ramesh ) or a non-movement conservative with a sense of humor ( Lewis ). The foreigner thing speaks for itself as to why but the whole catholic thing ... maybe it's the bureaucratic nature of the church that gets between the absolutist will of a brutal deity and their flock ?
Quote:
In the halls of Congress you have a bunch of zealots who have steadfastly refused to compromise on anything suggested by Democrats. Fillibusters. Blocked judicial appointments. Etc. etc. Look at the Presidential candidates fer chrissakes. So long as Republicans continue to vote people into office whose sole purpose seems to be to refuse to give Democrats anything, then the GOP has no claim on an interest in dialogue. So long as your elected representatives have to apologize to Rush Limbaugh when he gets upset, you're gonna have a tough time arguing that Matt Lewis is representative of the Republican Party.
Republicans have such a soft spot for being told what to do these days don't they. Rush, Grover, Newt ... who comes up with these names anyway ??
__________________
Newt Gingrich:“People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz.”
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old 12-02-2011, 10:03 AM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: An opposing view of tea and thee ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
That vulgar consumerism is essential to free market capitalism and has always existed. I think your objection to it is that it used to be tempered against a more prevalent Judeo-Christian morality. Even as an atheist, I find this somewhat lamentable. Capitalism unchecked leads to people treating other people as means and not ends.
This. People used to consider this a problem, even if they disagreed about whether it was happening or not. Now the disagreement is often over whether this is a bug or a feature, whether people as means is a Good Thing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
Still, Hollywood does a number of good things. It normalizes the idea of interethnic tolerance around the world and keeps communism at bay. Those are two fundamental problems that I don't take for granted.
I suspect that the causality is kind of backwards in general with attributions to Hollywood and decadence. Hollywood is a symptom, not a cause. Hollywood didn't cause, say, Little Fockers to gross 148 million while movies like Hubble or Secretariat or even Hereafter were grossing fractions of that amount. I guess I would echo Barney Frank's criticism of the OWS people framed as a criticism of movie goers.
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 12-02-2011, 02:59 PM
Simon Willard Simon Willard is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The sylvan exurbs west of Boston Massachusetts.
Posts: 1,328
Default Re: Dunkirk (Robert Wright & Mickey Kaus)

Quote:
Originally Posted by piscivorous View Post
Just got back from my yearly sabbatical, in which I leave most things technical TV, radio, internet .... behind, and am saddened to see one of my favorite internet forums going thru such a dramatic change. Thanks Mr Wright and all those who have participated here it's been a slice.
Join us in the new forum, pisc.
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 12-03-2011, 12:12 AM
Mr. Morden Mr. Morden is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 8
Default Re: "The Wright Stuff"

Quote:
Originally Posted by thouartgob View Post
It is not just botched recordings that drive the cost up it's having to pay somebody to edit it together, adjust audio, format it for the web, keep it on the web, pull out the handy topics and create dingalinks etc. If all of that is done ahead of time it wouldn't be too much of a bother I guess. Maybe Bob can dupe an Atlantic intern to do it
Right. I do understand that. Yet Bob makes this "keep the platform open" comment:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/401...7:10&out=17:46

and I'm wondering if he can address what that means in his future Commenter Klatch. I guess this means that if a pair of the regular Heads takes all of the initiative, then their contribution will be more likely to be accepted on the site, but it's not a guarantee?

I'm also curious about how often in the existing BHTV model this already happens, that a pair of regular Heads decides on their own to do a diavlog rather than being first invited by BHTV? This was my one question about production that I don't think was discussed in the Wright / JimM47 diavlog:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/39538

IIRC, the infamous McWhorter / Behe diavlog was initiated by McWhorter, but I'm not sure how often something like that happens.
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 12-03-2011, 05:25 AM
JonIrenicus JonIrenicus is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,606
Default Re: "The Wright Stuff"

Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 12-03-2011, 02:38 PM
alexanderf alexanderf is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6
Default Re: Dunkirk (Robert Wright & Mickey Kaus)

Just a short note to say thank you to Bob and the rest of the team at BHTV. I've watched these for 5-6 years, through some very different periods of my life. My wife occasionally refers to the heads as my "friends" so i hope they aren't away for long.
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 12-03-2011, 04:04 PM
thouartgob thouartgob is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 765
Default Re: "The Wright Stuff"

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonIrenicus View Post
LOL

Bluto reacts
__________________
Newt Gingrich:“People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz.”
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 12-04-2011, 07:36 AM
ledocs ledocs is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: France, Earth
Posts: 1,165
Default Re: Dunkirk (Robert Wright & Mickey Kaus)

My mean reason for being at the bhtv site is to read your posts, Globalcop.
__________________
ledocs
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 12-04-2011, 07:59 AM
ledocs ledocs is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: France, Earth
Posts: 1,165
Default Re: Dunkirk (Robert Wright & Mickey Kaus)

I think the nonprofit status is the way to go, partly because I suspect that if the nonprofit were successful, in the sense that it could fund the amount of "classic" episodes that have existed in the past, the site could also present real leftists more easily, if there were a disposition to do so.

I do look forward to more Wright.

It's difficult to say how I, or others, will react to the fact that bhtv will, for a while at least, not have the sort of function that a daily newspaper, or reading the sports page, can have. I suspect that I will turn to more strictly educational content, online course lectures, as I had already begun to do.

Thanks to Bob, thanks to Mickey, thanks to the staff, and thanks to the commenter community. Onward and upward with the arts.
__________________
ledocs
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:26 PM.


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