November 30, 2011

Interesting Point By Dennis Miller On The Ego Of The Gut
— Ace

I have written about this about eight times, usually in comments, I think.

I will get complaints that this is another Cain-bashing post. Well, Miller does un-endorse Cain, but that is honestly not the reason I'm posting this.

It's because of a theory I've been fumbling towards which Miller endorses here.

I have wondered why some arguments get so heated, especially on the Internet, even among friends, or, at least digital acquaintances of long standing and some amount of mutual goodwill.

The way I put it is that the arguments that get the most ferocious are those which should actually cause the least amount of heat and fire -- arguments in which the fact-set is substantially unknown.

In situations where most facts are unknown or only partly known, that really should, if we're being all logical and intellect-based, cause the least emotional involvement in one side or the other, because both sides are, if they're being completely honest, both pretty much ignorant.

I don't mean "ignorant" as it generally applies-- ignorant of things, generally. I mean that in specific situation where facts are barely known by anyone, all parties are groping in the darkness, and hence are ignorant of the true facts.

And they should know they're ignorant, and should know that the facts of the matter can only be guessed at, and ergo any conclusions they draw from the mostly-hidden fact-set must be tentative at best, and, being tentative at best, should produce the least emotional heat, for such tentative, provisional, contingent, weakly probabalistic best-guess conclusions should have the least certitude behind them, and, if they have the least certitude behind them, the least emotional and egotistical investment in them.

Right? I mean, this stands to reason. If I'm arguing with you about, say-- well, let's say Cain, since Miller is talking about Cain here -- we're both ignorant. I don't know, and you don't know. We are both guessing, relying on rules of thumb, patterns of human behavior, general worldview, general cynical vs. idealistic factory setting, etc. We are relying entirely on proxies to find an answer, because the actual direct evidence, which we'd both gladly admit is necessary to really answer the question, is entirely absent.

So we are forced to resort to secondary, indirect, inferential evidence, and general rules of thumb.

And so we should both be rather modest in our confidence in our conclusions, as our conclusions are built on foundations of sand.

And we both know that.

And so this discussion should produce almost no heat, no anger, no cursing, no frustration. We're both sitting here taking stabs in the dark, and we both, if asked, have to confess the complete inadequacy of

That's not true, though, is it? In fact, this specific situation seems to consistently produce the most anger and heat.

I'm including myself -- I am not saying "You suck and here's why." I am not saying "Here's why you suck." I am analyzing a specific set of human responses, which are common to myself as well, and wondering about them.

Why are we getting so angry and emotionally invested in stuff that we actually have the least information about, and therefore the least confidence as regards conclusions based on our meager information?

I have guessed previously that it's precisely because these discussions are not about information that can be readily determined and assessed that makes them so personal.

Because facts and data are, by their nature, impersonal. If tomorrow it's proven -- proven -- that all of Herman Cain's accusers were recruited by David Axelrod, I will promptly admit "Man did I get that one wrong."

And similarly I imagine if proof emerges of impropriety on Cain's part, most of his defenders will similarly confess error.

But in that case, it would have been taken out of the realm of the personal. It's not personal, anymore, once it's about proof and facts. Now it's a purely intellectual affair -- no heat. No anger.

Less of a bruised ego. Because people don't get invested, as far as emotional and egositiscially investment, in facts and data.

What they get emotionally and egotistically invested in is probabilities and guesses based upon underlying worldview.

It's this -- the gut, the "psychic vibe," the horse-sense, the common-sense, the cunning, the read on people, the ability to predict the future based on incomplete information -- that people really get personally invested in.

It really makes no sense. Everyone knows there is no such thing as psychic vibes, everyone knows the "gut" is a decent instinctual device but hardly something you'd want to start betting big money on, and everyone knows that predicting the future is a job for charlatans and fools, but when we start making predictions -- "Sarah Palin can't win!"; "No, Sarah Palin will dominate!" -- all of a sudden we start speaking with a level of assuredness and confidence and emotional investment that we are too smart to apply to virtually any other situation.

And this keeps happening. No matter what the topic, the less that is known about a situation, the less intellectually confident we can each be about our tentative conclusions, the more emotionally confident we will become.

The Intellect is detached from each of us. It is impersonal. The Intellect is a separate thing, a place we visit but do not live in.

We call upon the Intellect to answer some questions (but not most); but we're just tapping into this impersonal thing called logic. It's not us.

But the gut? The gut is us. The gut is really us, and it is really personal to us.

So when someone contradicts your hunch, they're not just making an intellectual observation (about which we'd shrug and just say either "Eh I agree" or "Eh I disagree" without much passion).

When someone's gut is contradicted, that is, in a real way, a personal slight, because that's saying that someone's inborn sense of things is flawed.

Anyway, this is something that interests me (and must interest you, as well, if you've made it to this line). So I'm interested to see Dennis Miller talking about just this, the ego we each invest in the never-stated-but-definitely-assumed proposition that of all the gut-senses and psychic antennae in the world, our own gut-senses and psychic antennae are the most finely tuned, or, at least, top 0.1%.

Certainly it's terribly unlikely we'd ever actually meet someone with a better gut-sense than our own. Sure, it's mathematically possible, but statistically very unlikely, so we should just always assume that whenever a gut-sense is involved, we're totally right and our opposites are completely wrong and not just wrong, but likely immoral, stupid, and acting in bad faith and with a hidden ulterior motive.

Posted by: Ace at 12:20 PM | Comments (336)
Post contains 1146 words, total size 7 kb.

1 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at November 30, 2011 12:22 PM (8y9MW)

2

I haven't heard of this movie. Did it only open in New York?

Posted by: fluffy at November 30, 2011 12:22 PM (4pSIn)

3 Trust your gut. Rule #? for an 18-year old.

Posted by: cicerokid at November 30, 2011 12:23 PM (GM96x)

4 OT, apropos of nothing, etc.

Did you know the word "Omphaloskepsis" means "The act of gazing at one's naval while meditating?"  That, in fact, there is a word for "naval gazing."

I played Balderdash with the family over Thanksgiving.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at November 30, 2011 12:24 PM (8y9MW)

5 I've always tried to comment under the credo:  The only think worse than fakey internet friends, is fakey internet enemies.

I make an exception for PS and Raykon the Hutt.

Posted by: toby928© Perrykrishna with tattooed knuckles at November 30, 2011 12:26 PM (IfkGz)

6 How is that Ace doesn't have a bong sponsorship deal.  His agent must suck.

Posted by: MJ at November 30, 2011 12:26 PM (BKOsZ)

7 That's the only thing you can see when you look down, your naval?

Posted by: cicerokid at November 30, 2011 12:27 PM (GM96x)

8

Well Ace, you got what you wanted. The Cain train is derailed permanantly. Say just as an offhand here. Hows Gov Tardasil doing in the polls these days?

Not too good huh? Well you cant have everything

Posted by: GMB who is building his own maginot line at November 30, 2011 12:27 PM (wY55N)

9 Obama is a stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure.

Posted by: steevy at November 30, 2011 12:28 PM (7WJOC)

10 Jees dudes, there's not a battleship down there. Navel!

Posted by: Oldcat at November 30, 2011 12:28 PM (z1N6a)

11 brb, relieving my gut feelings.

Posted by: toby928© Perrykrishna with tattooed knuckles at November 30, 2011 12:29 PM (IfkGz)

12 Jees dudes, there's not a battleship down there. Navel!

Bah.  Who needs spelling?

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at November 30, 2011 12:29 PM (8y9MW)

13 And in other news tonight, we consider the disturbing question, Barney Frank's Seat: Wide Open?

Posted by: CoolCzech at November 30, 2011 12:29 PM (niZvt)

14 that's a lot of words.

Posted by: garrett at November 30, 2011 12:29 PM (MHerQ)

Posted by: Minor Threat at November 30, 2011 12:30 PM (MHerQ)

16 10 Jees dudes, there's not a battleship down there. Navel! Posted by: Oldcat at November 30, 2011 05:28 PM (z1N6a) Fuck you. I could sink a battleship from down here.

Posted by: Ace's Torpedo at November 30, 2011 12:31 PM (niZvt)

17 The whole issue with Cain is -primal. Everyone is an "expert" on sex and has been in one position or the other-so to speak....um this is derailing faster than I thought it would. \ And then it all involves Judgement with the capital "J" and I'm not talking as in Dr. J that would be _____ist.

Posted by: tasker at November 30, 2011 12:31 PM (rJVPU)

18 The gut is stupid. 


So, I just saw Herman Cain on Neal Cavuto's show on Fox News.  Man o Man I like him.  A good attorney (and the book "The Firm") would say "Deny, deny, deny."

But I have to say: Herman Cain should not refer to himself in the third person.  It's just plain creepy.

Posted by: Jimbo at November 30, 2011 12:31 PM (O3R/2)

19

Ace, you've never been more wrong about anything, ever.

And I never, ever use hyperbole.

/s

Posted by: connertown at November 30, 2011 12:31 PM (+q3dR)

20 It's time to hit the ReVet button on Obama.

Posted by: SethPower at November 30, 2011 12:32 PM (e6MoS)

21 People feel free to make with the unsubstantiated assertions because it's unlikely they'll ever actually meet in person.  It's one thing to be dead wrong to a screen, another to stand in front of a crowd of your peers and look like an ignoramus.  Just as people will do things in an anonymous big city that they wouldn't consider in a small town.  (I'm thinking of you, inflatable scrotum man)  Shame: it's what's for dinner.

Posted by: pep at November 30, 2011 12:32 PM (6TB1Z)

22 I'm too shazy to read it.

Posted by: Dr Spank at November 30, 2011 12:32 PM (H/kgP)

23

I have wondered why some arguments get so heated, especially on the Internet, even among friends, or, at least digital acquaintances of long standing and some amount of mutual goodwill.

If you ask Hollowpoint, he does it to for educational purposes. Or tough love.

Posted by: Soothsayer at November 30, 2011 12:32 PM (sqkOB)

24

Why are we getting so angry and emotionally invested in stuff that we actually have the least information about, and therefore the least confidence as regards conclusions based on our meager information?

That's easy. Because people jump to conclusions without enough data. Data that's accessible but somehow too bothersome to accumulate. Like, say, what a real sexual harassment settlement looks like (they're usually pretty big.)

I can't really say my gut was ever involved in that throwdown because my gut tells me all politicians--to a man--are scumbags.

In other social situations, of course, I follow my gut and punch those who disagree.

Posted by: spongeworthy at November 30, 2011 12:33 PM (puy4B)

25 Fact is, we make decisions, important ones, based on gut instinct all the time. That's what advertising is all about. Good trial lawyers know this too.

Posted by: Dave at November 30, 2011 12:33 PM (Xm1aB)

26 "Right? I mean, this stands to reason. If I'm arguing with you about, say-- well, let's say Cain, since Miller is talking about Cain here -- we're both ignorant. I don't know, and you don't know."

While true, the side of ignorance should always weigh less on those giving the benefit of the doubt.

You don't know that Cain DIDN'T have an affair.

I don't know that he did.

Neither of us is positive because we aren't one hundred percent solid on our facts. However, there is a difference of legitimacy between the two arguments.

You don't know that Cain DIDN'T have an affair, but it is not reasonable to assume that because you don't know he didn't, it means he did.

I don't know that he had an affair, and by giving him the benefit of the doubt, my argument is more legitimate.

The burden of proof is on the accuser to prove their accusations are true. It is not on the accused to prove the accusations are false. It is only a burned on the accused to prove the evidence against him is either faulty or false.

There is no evidence against Cain, only supposition based on settlements, and one accuser's claim of an affair.

For cryin' out loud, Paula Jones had WITNESSES! Bill Clinton settled out of court. Cain never directly settled anything and there are - as of now - no witnesses.

Clinton wasn't exactly run out of office.

Posted by: Sgt. York at November 30, 2011 12:33 PM (H3Kr3)

27 My gut is telling me it's Cannoli time.

Posted by: Chris Christie at November 30, 2011 12:33 PM (MHerQ)

28 Ace, your thesis (that both sides are aware they don't know) is wrong.

One side has faith (hey he's a pastor, he's a good man, why he's a gospel singer!). The other side admits it doesn't know (and acknowledges both pastors and gospel singers have been caught with their pants down). This dynamic -- faith-based vs. evidence-driven -- has all the elements for heated arguments.

Posted by: Random at November 30, 2011 12:33 PM (YiE0S)

29

For some of us, politics takes the place of sports, shopping or other hobbies. It's easy to get a little too personally/emotionally invested in things. But this time it feels different. It feels like the weight of the world is riding on the next election. It's hard to stay detached but I don't get negative with other morons and don't like watching it. Snark? Yes please. 

Posted by: Ms Choksondik, Juggy for Rick Perry at November 30, 2011 12:33 PM (fYOZx)

30 Let's all run from the Moron's Naval Hoard.

Posted by: elizabethe at November 30, 2011 12:33 PM (Ee4VZ)

31 Meh...

Posted by: Yip IN Texas at November 30, 2011 12:34 PM (Mrdk1)

32 >>>Well Ace, you got what you wanted. The Cain train is derailed permanantly. Say just as an offhand here. Hows Gov Tardasil doing in the polls these days? >>>Not too good huh? Well you cant have everything Next we'll have to discuss the childish conceit that Wishing Makes It So, and if we just all Wish together for the same thing, we'll Wish our preferred Reality into Existence. Sorry I don't want to do the Coordinate Group Wish-Fighting with you. You will have to find some other dedicated Wishers to join you in shaping reality. I know, I Wished for Christine O'Donnell to be dumb and kooky and demolished in an election, and she was. I Wished for Sarah Palin to not run, and she didn't run. I Wished for Herman Cain to sound like a guy who doesn't read the newspaper, period, and to maybe seem like he's got a problem with scamper, and again, my amazing powers of Wish Magic made all these things happen. I know you are afraid of my Native American Big Medicine of Wishing things to happen, which then do happen, because I Wished them, and you would like to recruit me for your own Wishing Team. But may I suggest my Wishing had very little to do with these things? And that your own Wishing had little to do with these things, too? And perhaps it wasn't the Wishing, so much as looking at a situation and making guesses based on the known (but incomplete facts), and events would have turned out much as they did whether I (allegedly) Wished them into existence or not? And perhaps, taking this further, it was the underlying cause that engendered the resultant effect, and not my super psychic Wishing Power at all?

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2011 12:34 PM (nj1bB)

33 *burden

Sheesh, I rely far too much on auto-correct.

Posted by: Sgt. York at November 30, 2011 12:34 PM (H3Kr3)

34 But I have to say: Herman Cain should not refer to himself in the third person. It's just plain creepy. Posted by: Jimbo at November 30, 2011 05:31 PM (O3R/2) Bob Dole doesn't know what you mean...

Posted by: Bob Dole at November 30, 2011 12:35 PM (niZvt)

35 4 OT, apropos of nothing, etc.

Did you know the word "Omphaloskepsis" means "The act of gazing at one's naval while meditating?" That, in fact, there is a word for "naval gazing."
_________

Yes, but is there also a word for navel gazing?

Not that I don't think ships are purty, mind you, but...

Posted by: Anachronda at November 30, 2011 12:35 PM (NmR1a)

36 The intellect is a wonderful thing but, trust you gut.  If a situation frightens or skeeves you out, run.  100,000 years of survival of the fittest can't be wrong.

Posted by: toby928© Perrykrishna with tattooed knuckles at November 30, 2011 12:35 PM (IfkGz)

37 But I have to say: Herman Cain should not refer to himself in the third person.  It's just plain creepy.

Posted by: Jimbo at November 30, 2011 05:31 PM (O3R/2)

 

Bob Dole disagrees.

Posted by: Bob Dole at November 30, 2011 12:35 PM (fYOZx)

38 When you have to look someone in the eyes, you simply cannot be as rude  and harsh to them as you can be in a blog.  Unless, you are from New York.

Posted by: Jimbo at November 30, 2011 12:35 PM (O3R/2)

39 Or maybe we can horde things in our navels.

Posted by: elizabethe at November 30, 2011 12:36 PM (Ee4VZ)

40 Ace@32 -- that's more like it.

Posted by: Random at November 30, 2011 12:36 PM (YiE0S)

41 Why are we getting so angry and emotionally invested in stuff that we actually have the least information about Heh.

Posted by: Lord Barack Hussein Obama at November 30, 2011 12:36 PM (FcR7P)

42 You suck, and here's why: You suck.

Posted by: You Suck at November 30, 2011 12:37 PM (TRlpJ)

43 @38 Or unless you're my wife after 2 scotch and waters.

Posted by: Dave at November 30, 2011 12:37 PM (Xm1aB)

44

Thank God I'm a dog rather than an intellectual, otherwise I'd have to read all of that.

/are you using that leg right now?

Posted by: maddogg at November 30, 2011 12:37 PM (OlN4e)

45 If you ask Hollowpoint, he does it to for educational purposes. Or tough love.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 30, 2011 12:37 PM (SY2Kh)

46 Next we'll have to discuss the childish conceit that Wishing Makes It So, and if we just all Wish together for the same thing, we'll Wish our preferred Reality into Existence.

Yeah, thanks a lot, Ace.  What the hell did we do to you to make you wish an earthquake/tsunami/nuclear disaster on us?

Posted by: The Japanese at November 30, 2011 12:37 PM (6TB1Z)

47
And perhaps, taking this further, it was the underlying cause that engendered the resultant effect, and not my super psychic Wishing Power at all?


You just blew my mind!

Posted by: Cosmo Kramer at November 30, 2011 12:37 PM (MHerQ)

48

Your theory is stupid and you're stupid!

Posted by: Truman North at November 30, 2011 12:37 PM (I2LwF)

49 ace said ;
Why are we getting so angry and emotionally invested in stuff that we actually have the least information about, and therefore the least confidence as regards conclusions based on our meager information?

I can't speak for anyone else, but i know in my case, because i feel the situation is so dire, everytime one of our team is getting gored, I know that makes it one less to fight obama and his team.

Posted by: willow at November 30, 2011 12:38 PM (h+qn8)

50 I get really good and pissed when I hear some OWS dork say something like, "I don't believe in private property, but this is my iPad and it's personal property."  The guy is trying to put a pot-smoke-filled-dorm-room idea into the real world, where it doesn't fit, work or belong.  Like a guy in the emergency room because he has a light bulb stuck in his ass.  I hate that guy.  Really.

So does that have something to do with my gut,  or not?  I want to understand.  I just don't want to read.  All those words.  And stuff.

Posted by: Dang at November 30, 2011 12:39 PM (BbX1b)

51 I love all you guys, except you assholes. And, all the RINOs. And, the pussy moderates. And, the brownnosers. And, the purists. And, the aspiring novelists. And, don't get me started on the cob loggers! Now that I think about it, I hate all you morons. Unless you have titties; then, you're cool.

Posted by: Beefy Meatball at November 30, 2011 12:39 PM (yn6XZ)

52 100,000 years of survival of the fittest can't be wrong.

It can if you are one of the unfit.

Posted by: pep at November 30, 2011 12:39 PM (6TB1Z)

53 so it's simply fear for me.

Posted by: willow at November 30, 2011 12:39 PM (h+qn8)

54

Apropos of nothing, I hate CloseTalkers, especially excited ones.  I always find myself setting my feet to throw an uppercut.

Posted by: toby928© Perrykrishna with tattooed knuckles at November 30, 2011 12:39 PM (IfkGz)

55 This is also why the "electability" arguments get so heated.  People are making assertions about how candidates will do a year from now. 

Which is why I think we should be voting our consciences in the primary and why our discussions should be focusing on issues, accomplishments, campaign promises, etc.  

Posted by: Y-not at November 30, 2011 12:40 PM (5H6zj)

56 I've probably posted this before, but on the off chance I haven't:

There are two parts to your brain: the rational part, and what we like to call the emotional part.

The rational part is easy to explain: it's a dinky little calculator that we can watch. We're aware of the inputs, we understand the operations that act upon those inputs, and the outputs are clear and concise. The problem is that it's a dinky little calculator with around ten memory stores.

The so-called emotional part is also included in our decision-making. The difference is that you're not really aware that you're dumping in inputs, and when you ask it for an answer, the only answers are emotional ones: fear, or confidence. What's scary for most of us is that this opaque supercomputer can handle really complex problems, and come up with good answers. (The best example I've heard relates to car shopping: there are too many variables for your dinky little calculator to handle, so most of us make the decision on "gut feel".)

Finally, it's worth mentioning that a human's morals are connected to that supercomputer. We claim that our morals are rational, but the truth is that the emotional part of are brain has decided the issue, and then the dinky calculator rationalizes that decision.

So -- on topic -- the heat is generated partially because, if I question your instinct about Cain, I'm also questioning the same part of your brain that handles your morals. Your calculator might not know this, but I bet your supercomputer does, and it doesn't like that.

Posted by: Meiczyslaw at November 30, 2011 12:40 PM (bjRNS)

57

Posted by: Beefy Meatball at November 30, 2011 05:39 PM (yn6XZ)

Yeah, well I hated you first asshole! 

Posted by: Sgt. Fury at November 30, 2011 12:40 PM (xx92t)

58  Now that I think about it, I hate all you morons. Unless you have titties; then, you're cool.

Posted by: Beefy Meatball at November 30, 2011 05:39 PM (yn6XZ)

I have 8! how cool is that?

Posted by: maddogg at November 30, 2011 12:40 PM (OlN4e)

59 Nobody thinks that they're a bad driver or a bad judge of character.

Posted by: Lincolntf at November 30, 2011 12:41 PM (Qjh0I)

60 >>>While true, the side of ignorance should always weigh less on those giving the benefit of the doubt. This is just another proxy. The proxy you offer is simply, "Use this Other Rule, the Rule of Giving Benefit of the Doubt, to side with my gut rather than your own gut during this period of incomplete information." I can only say I did not, in fact, give Clinton the benefit of the doubt, and neither did you, and don't tell me there was proof- -there was proof, eventually, and at that point even the liberals stopped denying reality and simply started arguing that "it's only a blowjob." Before the proof, you were not agitating for this Benefit of the Doubt rule, and neither was I. Furthermore, the "Benefit of the Doubt" rule applies ONLY to the question of how to treat someone, given an accusation without smoking gun evidence. It does not apply to guesses as to whether the person involved is actually guilty or innocent of the conduct alleged. I can agree that any accused criminal should be "given the benefit of the doubt" at court, and that only proof beyond a reasonable doubt can overcome this benefit of the doubt, while nevertheless harboring beliefs as to whether he's guilty or not. And it's simply not true to say we all don't do this. This claim that we must NEVER guess that someone is guilty is *selectively invoked.* Any rule that is selctively invoked is not a rule at all and, since it's not actually a rule, I am under no ethical obligation to follow it. It's not a rule. Liberals cry "benefit of the doubt" when theirs are accused, and we don't give it to them; we cry the same (or some of us do), and they don't give it to us.

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2011 12:41 PM (nj1bB)

61 Regardless of what anyone thinks about Cain, the last bimbo eruption sank him. It has all the elements of legitimacy.

And that is besides his other really bad stuff. Face it folks all he had was his plank and his integrity so that you could trust him on his plank.

He no longer has integrity.

Posted by: Vic at November 30, 2011 12:41 PM (YdQQY)

62
I read this post aloud in Spock's voice.

Try it.

Posted by: Dr. Varno at November 30, 2011 12:41 PM (QMtmy)

63 The average person believes that they are above average.  And that is how we got SCOAMF

Posted by: Jimbo at November 30, 2011 12:42 PM (O3R/2)

64 I read this post aloud in Spock's voice.

Did he have a beard?

Posted by: toby928© Perrykrishna with tattooed knuckles at November 30, 2011 12:43 PM (IfkGz)

65 Y-not at November 30, 2011 05:40 PM (5H6zj) this. How candidates will do a year from now with a completely different segment of the electorate.

Posted by: elizabethe at November 30, 2011 12:43 PM (Ee4VZ)

66 Anybody who disagrees with me is a summabitch.

Posted by: nickless will probably get accidentally banned again soon at November 30, 2011 12:43 PM (MMC8r)

Posted by: Shiggz - Newt (maximum warp at November 30, 2011 12:43 PM (I9fXA)

Posted by: Def Leppard at November 30, 2011 12:43 PM (MHerQ)

69 This is not racist, while it is probably racial.  Most blacks think that they are smart.

Posted by: Jimbo at November 30, 2011 12:43 PM (O3R/2)

70

I haven't heard of this movie. Did it only open in New York?

Posted by: fluffy at November 30, 2011 05:22 PM (4pSIn)

fluffy, I love your work!

This is my favorite. Check it out all: you'll be glad you did; not completely safe for work though ... but if your boss has a sense of humor, s/he'll dig it too.

Fluffee's humor on YouTube (oh, a different fluffy? still, a great one!)

Posted by: Random at November 30, 2011 12:43 PM (YiE0S)

71

Posted by: Beefy Meatball at November 30, 2011 05:39 PM (yn6XZ)

 

You sound delicious to me.

Posted by: Michael Moore at November 30, 2011 12:43 PM (fYOZx)

72 >>>The so-called emotional part is also included in our decision-making. The difference is that you're not really aware that you're dumping in inputs, and when you ask it for an answer, the only answers are emotional ones: fear, or confidence. What's scary for most of us is that this opaque supercomputer can handle really complex problems, and come up with good answers. (The best example I've heard relates to car shopping: there are too many variables for your dinky little calculator to handle, so most of us make the decision on "gut feel".) Yeah I agree it actually processes a hell of a lot of decision-making for us and does so in background and unappreciated. It also does a reasonably good job. And I also believe that 99% of our "logical" beliefs are not logical at all. They are born of the gut. The intellect only engages to create a plausible chain of logic justifying the conclusion *already made in the gut.* The intellect is less a decsion-making tool and more a backwards-reason justifying/rationalizing tool.

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2011 12:43 PM (nj1bB)

73

I have 8! how cool is that?

Posted by: maddogg at November 30, 2011 05:40 PM (OlN4e)

That's pretty fucking cool right there.

Posted by: Beefy Meatball at November 30, 2011 12:44 PM (yn6XZ)

74 I read this post aloud in Spock's voice.

Try it.

Ow, ow, ow! Eyebrow cramp. Damn you Varno, you're responsible for this.

Posted by: Heorot at November 30, 2011 12:44 PM (Nq/UF)

75 But then, in truth, most whites, asians, latinos also think that they are smart.

Posted by: Jimbo at November 30, 2011 12:44 PM (O3R/2)

76 Interesting piece, Ace.

I've often had the experience of reading something that incensed me because I knew it was factually incorrect.  Then, when I really cross-examine myself, I have to admit that my own set of facts has no firmer a foundation than the one I was so confident in rejecting.  That's happened to me more than once on this site.  The experience has made me more circumspect in attacking other peoples' positions and more careful about making sure I had a defensible basis for my own.  It's also an ongoing lesson in humility.

I see OWS-types spouting utter nonsense with a smugness that says they've never really been challenged, or challenged themselves on their beliefs. You can also see it in our current POTUS.  "Hothouse geniuses" is what my late father-in-law called them, and it's a perfect description.

Posted by: al-Cicero, Tea Party Jihadist at November 30, 2011 12:44 PM (QKKT0)

77 I thought this was going to be about a movie. Now I'm confused. Think I'll watch that Adam Corolla video again.

Posted by: Dave at November 30, 2011 12:44 PM (Xm1aB)

78 Cramming on the last day of NaNoWriMo, I see.

Posted by: Waterhouse at November 30, 2011 12:45 PM (Npcnj)

79 So the new, kinder gentler Regime here lasted about twenty posts. Sweet!

Posted by: Oldcat at November 30, 2011 12:45 PM (z1N6a)

80 "And I also believe that 99% of our "logical" beliefs are not logical at all. They are born of the gut. The intellect only engages to create a plausible chain of logic justifying the conclusion *already made in the gut.* " 4 out of 5 hypnotists agree and the last one isn't very good.

Posted by: elizabethe at November 30, 2011 12:45 PM (Ee4VZ)

81  I'm too shazy to read it.
Posted by: Dr Spank

Shazy.  Sounds like when you're watching tv and shit your jammies because you don't want to get up to go to the can.  I used to do that all the time.  Before we got the DVR.  And I weighed under 800 pounds.  Now I'm lucky to hit the bucket.

Posted by: Dang at November 30, 2011 12:45 PM (BbX1b)

82 #50 Beefy Meatball 2012

Posted by: Cajun Carrot at November 30, 2011 12:45 PM (zHl9z)

83 The intellect is less a decsion-making tool and more a backwards-reason justifying/rationalizing tool.

True. But it's also better as dealing with novel situations than your gut. The gut is programmed by things you know and have experienced, which is why it can get you in real trouble sometimes.

Posted by: Meiczyslaw at November 30, 2011 12:46 PM (bjRNS)

84

Ace,

Why did you nix the Amazon button? I have been buying stuff through it.

Posted by: robtr at November 30, 2011 12:46 PM (MtwBb)

85 Just checked. Yep, Romney still sux.

Posted by: Live Free Or Die at November 30, 2011 12:47 PM (2UR//)

86 So to sum up, we like what we like, and we get mad at people who gainsay it.

Posted by: toby928© waxes philosophical at November 30, 2011 12:47 PM (IfkGz)

87 You wanna know something.... other than I was voted most gullible in high school- I believed Clinton. I thought since I had once helped a VP dodge his Secret Service so that he could take a crap at the O'Club that there was no way in hell Clinton was .. gettin' jiggy with an intern. I mean how in the hell was he pulling that off-she must be nuts.... I believed it till Carville pre-leaked the blue dress results.

Posted by: tasker at November 30, 2011 12:47 PM (rJVPU)

88 @83 This all reminds me of getting home with the hot chick you picked up in a bar and discovering she's a he.

Posted by: Dave at November 30, 2011 12:47 PM (Xm1aB)

89 >>>One side has faith (hey he's a pastor, he's a good man, why he's a gospel singer!). The other side admits it doesn't know (and acknowledges both pastors and gospel singers have been caught with their pants down). This dynamic -- faith-based vs. evidence-driven -- has all the elements for heated arguments. I don't agree. I am a rational person (rational enough to always be examining my own irrationalities), and I do this all the time, get overly heated about things which are really just fuckin' stab-in-the-dark guesses. Whether someone does it "more" or whatever is kind of besides the actual point of this, which is a global sort of "how we actually think" type point.

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2011 12:48 PM (nj1bB)

90 I'm too shazy to read it.
Posted by: Dr Spank

Shiftless bastard.

Posted by: al-Cicero, Tea Party Jihadist at November 30, 2011 12:48 PM (QKKT0)

91 I agree, that movie sucked.

Oh, it wasn't a movie review post?

Posted by: jimmuy at November 30, 2011 12:48 PM (ycMO4)

92 Okay, I did *not* see that coming. From the headline I thought there was some sort of blood feud between Miller and Greg Gutfield.

Posted by: blaster at November 30, 2011 12:48 PM (Fw2Gg)

93 So.

What do y'all (you all) think of "teh Bernank" engaging in a "currency swap"?  You know giving our precioussssssss dollars away for worthless beans, oh I mean "valuable" Yen, Euros, etc.

Posted by: Jimbo at November 30, 2011 12:49 PM (O3R/2)

94 >>>True. But it's also better as dealing with novel situations than your gut. The gut is programmed by things you know and have experienced, which is why it can get you in real trouble sometimes. sure, which is why true artificial intelligence will probably have an organic monkey-brain as its core processor!

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2011 12:49 PM (nj1bB)

95 Actually I'm not sure the VP wanted to take a crap...but he was almost runnin'...

Posted by: tasker at November 30, 2011 12:49 PM (rJVPU)

96 This is also why the "electability" arguments get so heated.  People are making assertions about how candidates will do a year from now.

Except we do have over 200 years worth of history to draw upon.  While nobody has a crystal ball, between past performance and a simple reading of winning candidates it's not at all invalid to discuss and assess electability- even without consulting the polls.

What annoys me is that too many pretend that electability is irrelevant as it relates to and election, or that it can in no way be judged in advance.  Of course it can.  As popular as they might be with the base, does anyone really think that Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh could the presidency?

When people like me and others said early on that Bachmann, Palin, and Cain were unelectable, it had nothing to do with their conservative credentials (despite what the Purity Brigade kept claiming), but rather that their level of experience and the likelyhood of gaining support from the electorate at large was such that their chances would be very poor.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 30, 2011 12:49 PM (SY2Kh)

97

Excellent thoughts on this and in thinking about it and looking from my own experience I believe this is right on. I know when I married my first wife, everyone close to me begged me not to marry her. "What, I said, she's great!" "No, she's mean and horrible", they said.

I got it wrong and they were right. My gut was wrong. She did have an incredible ass so maybe that cancels out the gut thingy?

Posted by: Sgt. Fury at November 30, 2011 12:49 PM (xx92t)

98 88 @83

This all reminds me of getting home with the hot chick you picked up in a bar and discovering she's a he.

Posted by: Dave at November 30, 2011 05:47 PM (Xm1aB)

Thats why you always sniff their asses, it pays to be careful....

Posted by: maddogg at November 30, 2011 12:49 PM (OlN4e)

99 What do y'all (you all) think of "teh Bernank" engaging in a "currency swap"?

No.  We'd have to be getting something in return.  He's just giving away our money.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at November 30, 2011 12:50 PM (8y9MW)

100 Shazy = shiftless and lazy.

Is ace saying that the more facts that are known, the greater/more heated the argument should be and the less facts are known the less heated the argument should be? If so, I think the opposite is true.

Posted by: Dr Spank at November 30, 2011 12:50 PM (H/kgP)

101 Oh I thought you were saying the gut was better at novel situations. I think the gut is better at novel situations. I do not think the intellect can do anything in truly novel situations -- strict logic wold say that lacking all data, a decision is impossilbe.

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2011 12:50 PM (nj1bB)

102 OT

-Of the many rights that women are thankfully free to exercise in this great nation, anyone one have documented proof of them exercising their right to remain silent yet?  Is the last frontier for wimmin kind?

-Just saw Rand Paul opposing a new bill (by reach around the isle specialists Linsdsey Graham and McCain) that states that if you have

-multiple guns
-missing fingers
-more then 7 days of food storage
-etc...

That you can be classified as a domestic terrorist and held indefinitely.

http://tinyurl.com/74p2fqy

Posted by: Shiggz - Newt (Maximum Warp!) at November 30, 2011 12:50 PM (I9fXA)

103
Oh yeah, well you suck pal.  Just kidding.

My emotion gets going usually based on the fact that the media is so biased that my gut tells me to take everything from them with a grain of salt.  Or less.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at November 30, 2011 12:50 PM (JYheX)

104 This all reminds me of getting home with the hot chick you picked up in a bar and discovering she's a he.

Posted by: Dave at November 30, 2011 05:47 PM (Xm1aB)

Who've you been talking too?

Posted by: Sherman "Tank" Kane at November 30, 2011 12:51 PM (yn6XZ)

105 In situations where most facts are unknown or only partly known, that really should, if we're being all logical and intellect-based, cause the least emotional involvement in one side or the other, because both sides are, if they're being completely honest, both pretty much ignorant.

So it's a wide-open field, baby! And we're all kick-ass runners.

Anywho, go back and read the part that starts with the first "if". Because we're really, deep down in our reptilian brain stems, neither logical nor especially intellect-based.

Posted by: No Whining at November 30, 2011 12:51 PM (UzjcV)

106
What do y'all (you all) think of "teh Bernank" engaging in a "currency swap"?  You know giving our precioussssssss dollars away for worthless beans, oh I mean "valuable" Yen, Euros, etc.

Sounds like world finance has gone all Enron.

Posted by: nickless will probably get accidentally banned again soon at November 30, 2011 12:51 PM (MMC8r)

107 97, you have nobody to blame but yourself.  A friend of my friend came up later and said "I really thought that she was a bitch."  And his response was "Why didn't you speak up?"

Posted by: Jimbo at November 30, 2011 12:52 PM (O3R/2)

108

Ace,

I am not now nor have I ever been on the Cain train. However I WAS not in the room when Perry announced like you were. Everything you post about about another repub candidate reeks of "he,she,it, is not Rick Perry.

 

You are way to emotionally invested in Gov Tardasil to be objective when comes to any other repub candidate. Get over it. Perry is toast. Burnt toast. No amount of butter and jelly will cover up Perry's burntness.

 

Have a nice day.

Posted by: GMB who is building his own maginot line at November 30, 2011 12:52 PM (wY55N)

109 And then what the hell was it that Clinton was doing to Stephanopoulos's sink.... or his desk...

Posted by: tasker at November 30, 2011 12:52 PM (rJVPU)

110 My gut tells me we will all soon be drunken.  Half wanting to fight, half wanting to tell everyone deh lubb dem, mannn.

Posted by: toby928© waxes philosophical at November 30, 2011 12:52 PM (IfkGz)

111 Anybody who disagrees with me is a summabitch.

Posted by: nickless will probably get accidentally banned again soon at November 30, 2011 05:43 PM (MMC8r)

The proper spelling is "sumbitch."

Jeez you people are stupid!

Posted by: ErikW at November 30, 2011 12:53 PM (jGDVS)

112 Why are we getting so angry and emotionally invested in stuff that we actually have the least information about . Because people are stupid enough to tie their personal self-worth to a fucking politician. Then, you're not telling therm you have a problem with their preferred candidate, you're telling them that they have a tiny e-cock. That's why they freak out. Because it's always about THEM.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at November 30, 2011 12:53 PM (vzFJV)

113 We're a bunch of blind folks trying to describe elephants by what we're able to feel of them.  It would be comical if it wasn't so likely to end in tragedy.

Posted by: DarkLord© for Prez!
This message brought to you by Morons Against HTML Abuse
at November 30, 2011 12:53 PM (GBXon)

114 Oh yeah, well you suck pal.

I'm not your pal, buddy.

Posted by: Terrance at November 30, 2011 12:53 PM (MHerQ)

115 Everyone who drives slower than me is an idiot, everyone who drives faster is a maniac.

Posted by: toby928© steals from Carlin at November 30, 2011 12:54 PM (IfkGz)

116 The gut and the intellect are not necessarily separate...

Posted by: tasker at November 30, 2011 12:54 PM (rJVPU)

117 OT Anyone know if Chucky Johnson has had a conniption fit over climategate II yet?

Posted by: Dave at November 30, 2011 12:54 PM (Xm1aB)

118 That post was some heavy shit. I think basically people(we) are no damned good and self-absorbed. People(we) will defend any notion that comes into their head if they are of a mind to. And some people (we) just love to argue. Oh yeah, and people (I) are basically uninformed and illogical. Except for all of you exceptions/special snowflakes.

Posted by: tubal at November 30, 2011 12:55 PM (BoE3Z)

119 Anyone know if Chucky Johnson has had a conniption fit over climategate II yet?

I never go over there, but from what people on the blog were saying, I think he's been taking an ostrich approach to the whole thing.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at November 30, 2011 12:55 PM (8y9MW)

120 "Any rule that is selectively invoked is not a rule at all and, since it's not actually a rule, I am under no ethical obligation to follow it."

Two parts to this:

1) as the proprietor of a public forum, you may be legally obligated to do so in order to avoid libel. A link to a Cain story is one thing, but following that link with something that even sounds like a declared "guilty" such as "I sort of think he's guilty now" can be problematic... if I felt your blog were influential enough to sway opinion on unfounded charges that may effect my presidential campaign, I might consider dragging you into court to have a clear definition on what constitutes an absence of malice.

2) as a private citizen, you are correct, we all engage in selective granting of the benefit of a doubt. But calls for Clinton's impeachment did not come until there was solid proof, and the matter you refer to was separate from Paula Jones. Jones had an Arkansas State Trooper as a witness to the unwanted sexual advance. Lewinsky had a stained dress. Even Kathleen Willey had a tertiary witness. Cain's accusers have none of these things. And no one can say for certain if he DID something. You may have the right to be selective in your judgements-without-evidence but ti doesn't make you right/ In fact, it diminishes your respectability.

Your argument as to Cain's qualifications based on his own Naive or idiotic statements are legitimate because the facts being argued are those that came straight from the candidate's mouth. What's not legitimate - under any circumstances no matter who the subject is - are arguments that assume guilt based on the accused not issuing a strong enough denial.

I mean, why spend all this time going after Cain on unsubstantiated charges, when I've never once seen you reference any of the accusations listed at LarrySinclair.org?

Posted by: Sgt. York at November 30, 2011 12:55 PM (H3Kr3)

121 Special Report is almost on.  Another whiskey and branch.  "see" you later.

Posted by: Jimbo at November 30, 2011 12:55 PM (O3R/2)

122 If you feel PERSONALLY BETRAYED because Ace or any blogger criticizes ANY politician, the problem is that you're a huge fag. Knock it off.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at November 30, 2011 12:55 PM (0yt4x)

123 Thought itself is like this, Ace:

And I also believe that 99% of our "logical" beliefs are not logical at all. They are born of the gut. The intellect only engages to create a plausible chain of logic justifying the conclusion *already made in the gut.*

The intellect is less a decsion-making tool and more a backwards-reason justifying/rationalizing tool.

Even our conscious "thoughts" are made by our brains before "we" (our conscious) becomes aware of it. Many neuroscientists and biologists believe that humans don't have free will.

I concur.

No

Free

Will.

There is no soul, and our brains make decisions (~300 ms., movement; ~7-10 s., "voluntary conscious decisions") before our consciousness even becomes aware of them.

Posted by: Random at November 30, 2011 12:56 PM (YiE0S)

124 Everyone who drives slower than me is an idiot, everyone who drives faster is a maniac.

I'm more nuanced, I have a 5-10 mph window either side.

Anyone driving slower than the posted speed limit should be shot, though.

Posted by: Waterhouse at November 30, 2011 12:56 PM (Npcnj)

125 @119 I don't go over there either, but it doesn't suprise me that he would be ignoring the whole deal.

Posted by: Dave at November 30, 2011 12:56 PM (Xm1aB)

126 >>>Everyone is an "expert" on sex and has been in one position or the other-so to speak....um this is derailing faster than I thought it would. Oh that's probably a big part of it, now that you mention it. being knowing about something primal like sex is a big ego thing. Look, let me cut to the chase: I assume there's a high probability (60%) virtually any male politician has had an affair. That's my sense of men, especially men who have a lot of opportunity (alone time, travel, lots of female acquaintances, many of whom are selected for employment based partly on their looks). Someone might have a more idealistic sense of marriage, or, and I hate to inject this but it's there, of the "immunizing" power of Christian belief as regards selfish sexual behavior. I don't share the opinion that a strong faith provides much more than a very marginal amount of immunization against sinful behavior. Maybe 5% resistance, at best, to put some kind of quanitification on it. So a lot of this argument is probably motivated by my Cynical Satanism, as an opponent wold think it, versus someone's belief that Christians sin less. Less? Okay I'll give you that with a strong super-ego and moral grounding it will be less... but not MUCH less.

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2011 12:57 PM (nj1bB)

127 A side plot in Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game has Ender's brother and sister, both of whom are quite smart and rather young, initiating and carrying on rational give-and-take discussions regarding the nature of government, man and so forth on the story's version of the Internet. It's all very refined and extremely wondrous to those who take part in it because they never realize that the discussions they are having is with children.

At least, that is how I remember it...

Our real Internet? Not like that at all...

Posted by: No Whining at November 30, 2011 12:57 PM (UzjcV)

128 Ace, God bless him, is incapable of hurting my feelings. I'm a man of steel. You would be too if you were married to my wife.

Posted by: Dave at November 30, 2011 12:57 PM (Xm1aB)

129 Meh,it's simple,people love to be agreed with and hate to be disagreed with.Especially if there is no or little evidence to support either side.

Posted by: steevy at November 30, 2011 12:58 PM (7WJOC)

130 Random, No free will? Cool. Nothing's my fault then. I'm gonna go take out school buses with an RPG, then finish it off with a milkshake and a pack of Pall Mall's. It's what I would've done anyway.

Posted by: moviegique at November 30, 2011 12:59 PM (kNN2d)

131 I imagine Ace getting stoned in college and writing 15,000 words on 'Man, My Hands are HUUUUUUGGGGEEEE.'

Posted by: nickless will probably get accidentally banned again soon at November 30, 2011 12:59 PM (MMC8r)

132 as the proprietor of a public forum, you may be legally obligated to do so in order to avoid libel. *** Doubt it. A) Cain is a public figure. B) Prove intentional, premeditated malice-not easy.

Posted by: tasker at November 30, 2011 12:59 PM (rJVPU)

133

ace,

Part of the problem is that we imagine people here are our political "friends" and so a disagreement feels like a stab in the back. Personally, I've enjoyed the fighting, but thats just me.

Posted by: Max Power at November 30, 2011 12:59 PM (q177U)

134 @126 ace, I think Billy Graham would agree with you. He would never allow himself to be in a room alone with a woman who was not his wife. It has been reported that he would have an assistant actually enter and make sure his hotel room was unoccupied before he would enter.

Posted by: Dave at November 30, 2011 01:00 PM (Xm1aB)

135

Next we'll have to discuss the childish conceit that Wishing Makes It So, and if we just all Wish together for the same thing, we'll Wish our preferred Reality into Existence.

I wish Katy Perry would show up at my door topless.....

I wish Katy Perry would show up at my door topless.....

Hey....some of you aren't wishing hard enough cause she still isn't here.

I wish Katy Perry would show up at my door topless....

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life, Moron with Manners at November 30, 2011 01:00 PM (OWjjx)

136 Cain's policies are as bad as Newt's. At least 999 is unlikely to pass. Also what is the difference between Newt and Obama? Who the cronies are?
We don't need smart. We need honest and shrewd. Cain is as close to honest as you are likely to get in this situation. I don't see any shrewd. DC is eating him up.

Posted by: Huggy at November 30, 2011 01:01 PM (9AagA)

137 4 more years of Obama scares the crap out of me.

Posted by: Pecos, All Perry, all the time at November 30, 2011 01:01 PM (2Gb0y)

138 Ace, you suck, and here's why...


Posted by: JewishOdysseus at November 30, 2011 01:02 PM (93YMp)

139 #135 Yeah, as long as she keeps her pie-hole shut.

Posted by: tubal at November 30, 2011 01:02 PM (BoE3Z)

140 [sorry, cdn't resist!]

Posted by: JewishOdysseus at November 30, 2011 01:02 PM (93YMp)

141 129 Meh,it's simple,people love to be agreed with and hate to be disagreed with.Especially if there is no or little evidence to support either side.

Posted by: steevy at November 30, 2011 05:58 PM (7WJOC)

WRONG!!!11!

Posted by: Rex Harrison's Hat at November 30, 2011 01:02 PM (4136b)

142 Posted by: Vic at November 30, 2011 05:41 PM (YdQQY)

+100

Vic is completely on the mark here. And that really pisses me off, because I can't even make a crack about how he's just a dumb Johhny Reb refighting the War of The Rebellion -- and losing.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at November 30, 2011 01:02 PM (nEUpB)

143 I don't agree. I am a rational person (rational enough to always be examining my own irrationalities), and I do this all the time, get overly heated about things which are really just fuckin' stab-in-the-dark guesses.

Whether someone does it "more" or whatever is kind of besides the actual point of this....

I get what you're saying, I think. Everyone is driven by emotions. There is no rational reason to do anything, including live. It's emotions or feelings that cause us to care about politics, drink a cup of water, sleep, go to work, or even - ironically - to care about truth.

But I do think some people ideologically believe faith is actual real and important, and other people discount faith and believe evidence is actually important. And that this different way of seeing things leads to a lot of arguments.

So someone "knows in their gut" that Cain is a good man, and someone else (like me) thought he probably was, but then sees enough mistakes and far-fetched coverups that their opinions change.

One side -- evidence-based -- changes opinions far faster than faith-based people do. And the lag time between them creates a spaces for serious, heaftfelt disagreements.

Posted by: Random at November 30, 2011 01:02 PM (YiE0S)

144 99% of logical thought is "gut". 

Not so with people in the Engineering fields ace. One thing you learn very quickly is "gut" will get you in damn trouble fast.

Hell after working in the EOP field for > 10 years I actually started thinking in binary logic.

Posted by: Vic at November 30, 2011 01:03 PM (YdQQY)

145 >>>He would never allow himself to be in a room alone with a woman who was not his wife. There are a lot of "Old-Timey" rules like that that, get this, *make a great deal of sense.* Men and women have one thing in common. One thing. Not to be all Old-Timey religion, but less opportunity = less adultery, so really, people could do themselves a lot of favors by being a little more Old-Timey about spending alone-time with the opposite sex. Especially a member of the opposite sex they find atttractive. The more situations like this one puts oneself into, the higher the chance that one will soon be doing the Devil's Business.

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2011 01:03 PM (nj1bB)

146
The other side of it is that people deep down in defending their candidate really want to defeat OdipO and seeing a candidate flail about or be criticized bothers them that he may win again, so they must defend.  Because the other option is apocalyptic.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at November 30, 2011 01:03 PM (JYheX)

147 Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 30, 2011 05:49 PM (SY2Kh)

The most electable candidate is the one who gets elected. 

And we control that

Moreover, the candidates we have now are not going to be in the same 'political state,' so to speak, as they will be at the convention or next November.  They are not static entities and the system is not closed, particularly once we get to the general. 

If people want to use their primary votes to prove they're great at making picks, I can't stop them.  But it seems foolish to me, particularly given that we're told Romney is the inevitable nominee.  Where's the damage in voting your conscience in your primary?  (And by voting your conscience, I mean weighing the factors that you think are the most important in producing the sort of president you want -- I don't just mean voting based on your unique blend of ideological purity.) 

Our nominee and party need to get a true sense of their electorate.  The best way to make that happen is through the ballot box.

Posted by: Y-not at November 30, 2011 01:03 PM (5H6zj)

148 Because people are stupid enough to tie their personal self-worth to a fucking politician.

That's it in some cases (she who will not be named), but not all.

Consider the Birther debates, which got pretty heated at times.  It shouldn't at all be surprising that the issues for which we have incomplete facts are the most heated- if we had solid evidence / proof that pointed one way, there wouldn't be that much to argue.

When there's incomplete evidence, we have to go on what we have, including circumstantial evidence, behavior, judging plausibility, etc.  These all are subject to interpretation, with different interpretations leading to arguments and (on the Internet) heated debates / fights.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 30, 2011 01:03 PM (SY2Kh)

149 Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life, Moron with Manners at November 30, 2011 06:00 PM (OWjjx)

Here ya go!

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at November 30, 2011 01:04 PM (nEUpB)

150 That's my sense of men, especially men who have a lot of opportunity (alone time, travel, lots of female acquaintances, many of whom are selected for employment based partly on their looks). **** oh gawd... that's probably why the divorce rate is upwards of 80% for one career field in the _______. Except for maybe that last part. So I believe you, but being a female I'll just take your word for it-but I wish it wasn't that way. I blame Disney.

Posted by: tasker at November 30, 2011 01:04 PM (rJVPU)

151 @145 Preach it brother! I feel like I'm back at Shady Grove First Baptist!

Posted by: Dave at November 30, 2011 01:04 PM (Xm1aB)

152 People have a tendency to argue most about those things in which they are heavily personally invested, and it sometimes motivates us to act like kindergartners on the playground.

Posted by: Miss'80s at November 30, 2011 01:04 PM (d6QMz)

153 >>>Not so with people in the Engineering fields ace. One thing you learn very quickly is "gut" will get you in damn trouble fast. right but that's abstract and mathematical and the gut really has little to say about things that are so intangible and do not exist in solid, Prime Material Plane 3-dimensional existence. Stuff like math and engineering is obiously the province of the intellect. Even the gut knows to shut the hell up.

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2011 01:04 PM (nj1bB)

154 I wish Katy Perry would show up at my door topless.... Here. I've got Steve Perry. Best I can do. Next time don't wait until three weeks before Christmas, asshole.

Posted by: AoS Wish Fulfillment Coordinator at November 30, 2011 01:06 PM (XE2Oo)

155 >>>I wish Katy Perry would show up at my door topless..... let me spare you the time it took me to learn: Won't work. I have spent a lot of time on this, so, you know, trust me. Also doesn't work on Kate what's-her-face, the English broad with the knockers and hips.

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2011 01:07 PM (nj1bB)

156 And that really pisses me off, because I can't even make a crack about how he's just a dumb Johhny Reb refighting the War of The Rebellion -- and losing.

Here we go, trying to start another flame war because we don't have one going here yet..

Posted by: Vic at November 30, 2011 01:07 PM (YdQQY)

157 @150 tasker If it's any consolation, I think ace is probably on the high side in estimating the percentage of men taking some on the side. Probably due to the "friends" he hangs with in New York City. Skewed vision and all. No doubt, upwards of 60% of married men have thought about it though. But, I suppose that's probably the same for married women. I don't cheat, but could I suppose with little consequence. My wife just says make sure she's willing to help with the laundry and you can play all you want.

Posted by: Dave at November 30, 2011 01:08 PM (Xm1aB)

158

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at November 30, 2011 06:04 PM (nEUpB)

Further supporting my position that, once my RINO Administration is in office, my first act will be signing an Executive Order compelling Ms. Perry to stand topless at the Smithsonian in celelbration of "America's National boobies Week". (well, second. The first, directing her to divorce that git, Russel Brand).

I also plan on appointing a Boobie Czar.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life, Moron with Manners at November 30, 2011 01:08 PM (OWjjx)

159 Maybe if we all wish for the same thing at the same time, it will work!
Wasn't that what Rush was saying?
Tinkerbell for Prez!

Posted by: Pecos, All Perry, all the time at November 30, 2011 01:09 PM (2Gb0y)

160 Here's a clue guys if you call her- "Kate What's your face.... she's probably bolting -just a hunch, gut feel...instinct.

Posted by: tasker at November 30, 2011 01:09 PM (rJVPU)

161 Stuff like math and engineering is obiously the province of the intellect. Even the gut knows to shut the hell up.

I wish. Working with fluid dynamics requires assumptions, because the equations are insoluble otherwise. The gut is a big player, there.

(Though, to assuage the fears of those of you flying soon, the gut can be trained. It's why we're not just "creatures of emotion". It only seems that way in the act.)

I liked orbital mechanics a lot better; it was more straight-forward.

Posted by: Meiczyslaw at November 30, 2011 01:09 PM (bjRNS)

162 doing the Devil's Business
do they like pancakes?

Posted by: willow at November 30, 2011 01:10 PM (h+qn8)

163 (well, second. The first, directing her to divorce that git, Russel Brand).

That's just unacceptable.

.


.

I'd send a loaded Predator after him.

Posted by: Slublog at November 30, 2011 01:10 PM (Dasho)

164 That's it in some cases (she who will not be named), but not all. In "some" cases? FUCK YOU!

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at November 30, 2011 01:10 PM (0yt4x)

165 Posted by: ace at November 30, 2011 06:04 PM (nj1bB)

The gut is incredibly powerful because we become indecisive and fearful in the absence of fact and other information.

So what do we trust if our logical brain is saying, "I have no fucking clue what to do...go talk to somebody else?"

So we trust those icky feelings that we have tried to tamp down because we all pride ourselves on our intellects.

The problem is that those gut instincts have guided us into some great things, and guided us out of some potentially nasty situations. So the lure of the emotional is very strong.


Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at November 30, 2011 01:11 PM (nEUpB)

166 The most electable candidate is the one who gets elected. 

And we control that.

Sorry, but no, we don't.

We don't control that at all.  We (the conservative / blog reading / reasonably informed) constitute a very small percentage of the general electorate.

Assume that about 1/3rd of the electorate votes GOP, another 1/3rd votes Dem, and 1/3 are swing voters.  How many of the GOP voters are conservative and closely follow the issues and candidates?  If we assume half, that leaves 1/6th (under 17%) of the electorate.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 30, 2011 01:11 PM (SY2Kh)

167

Kate What's your face....

she's probably bolting -just a hunch, gut feel...instinct.

But, if you wish to get rid of one in the morning, using the wrong name can be effective in getting her to leave.

Of course, make sure the area is clear of any small items that can be thrown at you.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life, Moron with Manners at November 30, 2011 01:11 PM (OWjjx)

168 I have never cheated on my wife and I have had numerous "opportunities". Hell I had a woman at work come up and sit on my desk right in front of me, spread her legs and then flash her tits at me. She was also about 10 or 15 years younger than me and hawt.

I passed it up.

Posted by: Vic at November 30, 2011 01:11 PM (YdQQY)

169 I think something that gets overlooked with Palin is this: Palin appealed narrowly to a single band of the cultural spectrum. Initially she appealed broadly, to many bands. Which was why she was popular. Eventually she just started playing to her core, which tended to be of a similar cultural background. She stopped making efforts to appeal to other cultural cohorts, and in fact began to make the case that the one cultural cohort which supporter her was in fact *superior by definition* to all others. So I understand why that cultural cohort would like her. What I didn't get is why THEY didn't get why I would get behind a candidate who was, not quite explicitly but pretty much, telling me I was not among this superior group. Further, I didn't see why they couldn't see why my reaction would be fairly common. Sure, if she's flattering you, you'd like her. Got that part of it. But if she's not flattering me, and sort of doing the opposite (By flattering only you), I won't like her as much ,and further, given the fact she's not really trying to flatter, say, 51% of the population rather than just 25%, I have to sort of doubt her viability as a general election candidate.

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2011 01:11 PM (nj1bB)

170  doing the Devil's Business.
If i were super religious that might sound really evil.
as it is, it sounds so much better (cleaner?)than, doing bump and grind or other terms i've read here.
weird

Posted by: willow at November 30, 2011 01:12 PM (h+qn8)

171 Posted by: Vic at November 30, 2011 06:07 PM (YdQQY)

Dude -- it was a joke. I was agreeing with you (thus the +100 that you obviously missed).

Lighten up.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at November 30, 2011 01:12 PM (nEUpB)

172 I think "wishing for" and "faith" are at least somewhat synonymous.

And Ace is being berated by the "wishing for" people, and he is berating them right back.

So my point is these different modes of thinking -- "wishing for" something vs. facing what's really happening -- cause lots of arguments.

Posted by: Random at November 30, 2011 01:12 PM (YiE0S)

173 Haven't read comments yet, but I will, as this is an interesting topic. But FWIW, there is a psych premise to the effect that anger is often a reaction to, or outward expression of, fear. So maybe situations with a lot of unknowns lead to more fear, and then anger.

Posted by: Mikeyboss at November 30, 2011 01:13 PM (IgpkI)

174 No doubt, upwards of 60%(!?!) of married men have thought about it though. [...] My wife just says make sure she's willing to help with the laundry and you can play all you want. ***** Man I'm depressed I'm off to hit the Slivovitz.

Posted by: tasker at November 30, 2011 01:13 PM (rJVPU)

175 Anyone know if Chucky Johnson has had a conniption fit over climategate II yet?

I wondered over there a few times after CII broke and predictably, Chucky is in denial about the whole thing. 

What is really pissing me off about the whole thing is the depths that Jones et al went through to pillory and defame Dr. Chris de Freita, even going so far to denigrate de Freita's doctorial thesis work (which really nobody looks at - you look at the papers generated from the thesis research, generally not the thesis itself). 

Critiquing de Freita's work from a scientific viewpoint is fine, but when they call him corrupt without cause, that's crossing the line.

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at November 30, 2011 01:13 PM (UR5vq)

176 @168 Vic, with all due respect, you weren't using your intellect that day.

Posted by: Dave at November 30, 2011 01:13 PM (Xm1aB)

177 Here we go, trying to start another flame war because we don't have one going here yet..

Festivus and the airing of grievances will be here soon enough.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at November 30, 2011 01:13 PM (JYheX)

178 161
I liked orbital mechanics a lot better; it was more straight-forward.
Posted by: Meiczyslaw at November 30, 2011 06:09 PM (bjRNS)

Until you got to me, that is!

Posted by: The Three Body Problem at November 30, 2011 01:13 PM (UzjcV)

179 39 Or maybe we can horde things in our navels.

Posted by: elizabethe at November 30, 2011 05:36 PM (Ee4VZ)

Naval navels hoarding hordes--of things.

Posted by: EyeTest at November 30, 2011 01:13 PM (ReC4P)

180

I'm gonna have to down twinkle this. There's a lot of negativity coming out of this post that will hurt peoples feelings.

Trophys for everyone!

Posted by: Bosk at November 30, 2011 01:13 PM (n2K+4)

181 @175 so I guess it was no consolation, sorry

Posted by: Dave at November 30, 2011 01:14 PM (Xm1aB)

182 "...solid, Prime Material Plane 3-dimensional existence." Now that there is some Deep 3-Dimensional Material Shit, that is! MY Gut tells me we need to be rid of Obama come January 2013. I look at candidate after candidate, and NONE of them are the quintessential conservative, all of them either flip-flopped or said dumb stuff or plain weird crap. But I will vote for WHOEVER the Republican candidate is, because Mitt Romney on his worst day is no communist. He may have changed his positions to cater to Massachusetts, but hey, that's what politicians do. Newt is erratic and took a ton of money as a lobbyist, whether he wants to admit it or not. Cain is a horndog and if he's missing his wedding ring, he should apparently look up some female job applicants. Bachmann may have skipped her meds on occasion. Santorum is a nothing. Paul is Plan 9 from Planet X. Huntsman is a smug little snot, but I'll tell ya what: I'd vote for him in a heartbeat over the Communist that got his start in the living room of a marxist terrorist that even today stomps on the American flag. I'd vote for ANY OF THEM, and GLADLY. Let's keep perspective, Folks... yes, we can argue over who may or may not be more electable, but at the end of the day, we are all on the same side: the AMERICAN one. Let's stop the mutual hate, and save it for the Liberals destroying our country and way of life.

Posted by: CoolCzech at November 30, 2011 01:14 PM (niZvt)

183

Hey....some of you aren't wishing hard enough cause she still isn't here.

I wish Katy Perry would show up at my door topless....

 The problem is that we are wishing her in so many different directions at once.

Posted by: Moron fappin' to pictures of Katy Perry at November 30, 2011 01:14 PM (4pSIn)

184

I also plan on appointing a Boobie Czar.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life, Moron with Manners at November 30, 2011 06:08 PM (OWjjx)

I would like to volunteer my services for that position.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at November 30, 2011 01:15 PM (nEUpB)

185 "But may I suggest my Wishing had very little to do with these things? And that your own Wishing had little to do with these things, too?"

Ace, this wd be a more compelling argument if you hadn't spent about a month telling us that Gov. Perry had chiseled the Ten Commandments out of the rock at Sinai with his bare hands, and verily you could swear to it since you had heard the man's AWESOMEST!! announcement speech with your own ears.

Posted by: JewishOdysseus at November 30, 2011 01:15 PM (93YMp)

186

All attorneys and many laypeople are familiar with the aphorism:

When the law is on their side, argue the facts.

When the facts are on their side, argue the law.

When the law and the facts are on their side, pound the table.

The intensity of arguments based on low information is related to this advice.  If neither side has actual facts to power its arguments, whichever side argues most intensely will "win" (where winning rarely means anything more than getting the last word in).

Posted by: stuiec at November 30, 2011 01:15 PM (Di3Im)

187 Dude -- it was a joke. I was agreeing with you (thus the +100 that you obviously missed).

LOL, I know it was a joke. So was my reply. I guess we both need to put <sarc> tags in.

Posted by: Vic at November 30, 2011 01:15 PM (YdQQY)

188
Is "down twinkling" the same as punching down?

Posted by: Dr. Varno at November 30, 2011 01:15 PM (QMtmy)

189 At the end of the day I want a candidate who will push Tea Party messages, but using language that will appeal to people outside the Tea Party. Because the shibboleths of the Tea Party only work with people already in the club, and the club is only 35%. Sizable, but not majority. So when I see Pureblood Narrowcasters like Bachmann, I just shrug. I don't see any noble purity in being a sure loser. Candidates HAVE to flatter/persuade that 15-20%. The answer cannot just keep being "that 15%-20% should just wake the hell up and BE LIKE US!" they're not, and they're not going to change, in all likelihood.

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2011 01:15 PM (nj1bB)

190 Palin appealed narrowly to a single band of the cultural spectrum. Initially she appealed broadly, to many bands. Which was why she was popular.

Eventually she just started playing to her core, which tended to be of a similar cultural background. She stopped making efforts to appeal to other cultural cohorts, and in fact began to make the case that the one cultural cohort which supporter her was in fact *superior by definition* to all others.

So I understand why that cultural cohort would like her.

What I didn't get is why THEY didn't get why I would get behind a candidate who was, not quite explicitly but pretty much, telling me I was not among this superior group.

This. Exactly.

Posted by: Random at November 30, 2011 01:15 PM (YiE0S)

191 A corollary: I do not need to be confident that I am right in order to win an argument with you -- I only need to be confident that YOU are not confident that you are right, and then I need only wait you out until you give in to your nagging self-doubt.

Posted by: stuiec at November 30, 2011 01:16 PM (Di3Im)

192 Sorry, but no, we don't.

We don't control that at all.  We (the conservative / blog reading / reasonably informed) constitute a very small percentage of the general electorate.
-------
We as individuals voting in the GOP primary.  (You're right, of course, that we have no influence on the general electorate... which kind of makes my argument for me about not chasing after someone who we hope will appeal to those folks in the general.)

If individuals behave like lemmings and say 'we must elect candidate X not because of his/her credentials but because we predict that Z percent of Indies will vote for him a year from now,' then candidate X wins. 

Obviously there are other factors (money, organization) that we can assess right now and some (possible scandals that may erupt in the future, a change in the state of the electorate caused by something like 9/11 or the Iranian hostage crisis) that we cannot really anticipate.

Posted by: Y-not at November 30, 2011 01:17 PM (5H6zj)

193

I decided to not get mad when I saw a post here bashing Cain.  Many Cain-bashing posts seemed pretty unfounded, so I got to a point that whenever I saw one here, I moved on to another blog and didn't come back for the day.

Simple, really.

Posted by: Marmo at November 30, 2011 01:17 PM (W1puH)

194 @191 stuiec You're a mean SOB, aren't you?

Posted by: Dave at November 30, 2011 01:17 PM (Xm1aB)

195 >>>Ace, this wd be a more compelling argument if you hadn't spent about a month telling us that Gov. Perry had chiseled the Ten Commandments out of the rock at Sinai with his bare hands, and verily you could swear to it since you had heard the man's AWESOMEST!! announcement speech with your own ears. Exaggerate much? I'd read that announcement speech post again. Anyway, I said he was the most conservative plausible candidate and I continue to think that. if you want to go with Newt or Mitt, hey, fine by me. They're not terribly conservative but that's fine by me, because either can win. Well, it will be tough with Newt I think, but it's still quite possible.

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2011 01:17 PM (nj1bB)

196 188 Is "down twinkling" the same as punching down? Posted by: Dr. Varno at November 30, 2011 06:15 PM (QMtmy) Don't twinkle on my back and tell me it's raining...

Posted by: CoolCzech at November 30, 2011 01:18 PM (niZvt)

197 >>>1) as the proprietor of a public forum, you may be legally obligated to do so in order to avoid libel. A link to a Cain story is one thing, but following that link with something that even sounds like a declared "guilty" such as "I sort of think he's guilty now" can be problematic... if I felt your blog were influential enough to sway opinion on unfounded charges that may effect my presidential campaign, I might consider dragging you into court to have a clear definition on what constitutes an absence of malice.

With all due respect, you know absolutely nothing about libel law.  Especially as pertains to public figures under the NY Times v Sullivan

To briefly summarize: 1.) merely expressing an opinion that "I think he is guilty" is by definition not libellous -- you couldn't even get that claim into court, as it is facially inadequate for the elements of any sort of defamation claim in any American jurisdiction; 2.) furthermore, the rules pertaining to public figures (of which Herman Cain is most certainly one) are incredibly permissive w/r/t what one is allowed to publish.

Posted by: Jeff B. at November 30, 2011 01:18 PM (hIWe1)

198 Nikki Haley:

Great win for Boeing and the employees of Boeing. The Machinist's union has asked the NLRB to lift their complaint. This proves what we said this entire fight...the unions run the NLRB and Pres. Obama is in their back pocket. If the NLRB attacks any company in South Carolina, we will fight and we will win! Thank you to Boeing for their strength and the people of this country for their support!!!

Posted by: Miss'80s at November 30, 2011 01:19 PM (d6QMz)

199 stuiec, falls to the floor in admiration, maybe fear, but at least  a touch of admiration.

Posted by: willow at November 30, 2011 01:19 PM (h+qn8)

200 Right, Ace, how many parts of her record and positions, like her support of the Ryan plan, did we have to remind you of. You jumped the gun in Tucson, also fell for both pathetic little feints on the budget,

Posted by: clayton endicott at November 30, 2011 01:19 PM (AH8RI)

201

I would like to volunteer my services for that position.

Time for vetting. Show us your tits.

Posted by: fappin' Moron at November 30, 2011 01:20 PM (4pSIn)

202

Posted by: The Three Body Problem at November 30, 2011 06:13 PM (UzjcV)

Nope, still easier than compressible fluids.

To me, anyway. YMMV.

Posted by: Meiczyslaw at November 30, 2011 01:20 PM (bjRNS)

203

if you want to go with Newt or Mitt, hey, fine by me.

can I haz Alan Keyes please?

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life, Moron with Manners at November 30, 2011 01:20 PM (OWjjx)

204 ace, Perry, do you think He can get up in the polls. DrewM said he doesn't have time to recover in 5 weeks.
what would be your honest assessment?

Posted by: willow at November 30, 2011 01:20 PM (h+qn8)

205 I wish I had better eyebrows.

Posted by: mpfs at November 30, 2011 01:21 PM (iYbLN)

206 re: Perry
ugh

Posted by: willow at November 30, 2011 01:21 PM (h+qn8)

207 Only 31 more 100-watt incandescent light bulb days before the new Dark Age!

Posted by: nickless will probably get accidentally banned again soon at November 30, 2011 01:21 PM (MMC8r)

208 I wish Newt was electable.

Posted by: steevy at November 30, 2011 01:21 PM (7WJOC)

209 @191 stuiec

You're a mean SOB, aren't you?

Posted by: Dave at November 30, 2011 06:17 PM (Xm1aB)

I can be.  Why?

Posted by: stuiec at November 30, 2011 01:22 PM (Di3Im)

210 Vic, with all due respect, you weren't using your intellect that day.

Posted by: Dave at November 30, 2011 06:13 PM (Xm1aB)

Sure I was, that's why I avoided it and I am still married, and still have my retirement funds, all of them.

Posted by: Vic at November 30, 2011 01:22 PM (YdQQY)

211 mpfs, pluck?
i'm sure that unibrow is better than none 

giggling.

Posted by: willow at November 30, 2011 01:22 PM (h+qn8)

212

@102: "Just saw Rand Paul opposing a new bill (by reach around the isle specialists Linsdsey Graham and McCain) that states that if you have

-multiple guns
-missing fingers
-more then 7 days of food storage
-etc...

That you can be classified as a domestic terrorist and held indefinitely
."

Oh, go fuck yourselves.  I stick my neck out for you, suffer the indignity of a spider bite and a Stoor bite, save the whole of goddamn creation, and this...this is how you repay me?

Posted by: Frodo the Survivalist with his brace of AK-47s at November 30, 2011 01:22 PM (jAqTK)

213 207 Only 31 more 100-watt incandescent light bulb days before the new Dark Age!

I bought about fifty today to add to my horde. 

Posted by: Y-not at November 30, 2011 01:22 PM (5H6zj)

214 @Ace,

if you want to go with Newt or Mitt, hey, fine by me. They're not terribly conservative but that's fine by me, because either can win. Well, it will be tough with Newt I think, but it's still quite possible.


You should be right, in an ideal world, but I think you're not. This is because Romney has a ceiling of conservative support that Newt simply doesn't have (or if he does, it's a higher ceiling). A lot of this, I think, is simply because of Romney's Mormonism, which doesn't sit well with a sizable number of the conservative Christian base. His religion shouldn't matter very much, but I think it really does.

Posted by: Random at November 30, 2011 01:22 PM (YiE0S)

215

Time for vetting. Show us your tits.

Posted by: fappin' Moron at November 30, 2011 06:20 PM (4pSIn)

If my tits give you wood then you bat for the wrong team.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at November 30, 2011 01:23 PM (nEUpB)

216 205 I wish I had better eyebrows. Posted by: mpfs at November 30, 2011 06:21 PM (iYbLN) I hear Andy Rooney doesn't need his anymore...

Posted by: CoolCzech at November 30, 2011 01:23 PM (niZvt)

217 I bought about fifty today to add to my horde.

Horde or hoard? 

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at November 30, 2011 01:24 PM (UR5vq)

218 17 I bought about fifty today to add to my horde. Horde or hoard? Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at November 30, 2011 06:24 PM (UR5vq) Horde. She's giving each moron one for Christmas

Posted by: CoolCzech at November 30, 2011 01:25 PM (niZvt)

219 And I'm not paying lip service. I don't think Mitt's Mormonism should matter.

(OK, I'm being hypocritical here, because I'd like a right-wing non-believer to win, in an ideal world; it's that I just don't have a preference among Christians and Mormons).

Posted by: Random at November 30, 2011 01:25 PM (YiE0S)

220 Good for you, Vic.


I had a chance as well while I was overseas for a month.  I guess I was actually tempted, to be honest.  It was someone I knew and worked with and we had a certain intensity to our relationship.  (I cannot fathom cheating on my husband with a stranger, to be frank.  I feel like that's more of a guy thing.) But I just don't have what it takes to cheat.  I was raised very old-fashioned and have stayed that way. 

Posted by: Y-not at November 30, 2011 01:26 PM (5H6zj)

221 But if she's not flattering me, and sort of doing the opposite (By flattering only you), I won't like her as much ,and further, given the fact she's not really trying to flatter, say, 51% of the population rather than just 25%, I have to sort of doubt her viability as a general election candidate.

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2011 06:11 PM (nj1bB)

This puzzles me.  I know that Palin heaps scorn on various groups, like "crony capitalists" and "big-spending big-government politicians," but I am curious what the cultural or social divide is by which you believe she separates herself from you.  Why do you think she regards you as "the other"?  Or, if you prefer, why do you regard her as "the other"?

Posted by: stuiec at November 30, 2011 01:26 PM (Di3Im)

222 Ace, it's actually simpler and more basic than even the "ego of the gut."

It's consensus-building, caveman style.

When operating with a complete lack of objective facts, especially when it is unlikely that facts will ever be at hand, the proposition that wins out in the end is the one that is argued the most forcefully, by the largest number of people.

When there are no facts from which to prevail, bluster, emotion, guile and brow-beating are the masters of the arena. He who convinces the most to agree ends up manufacturing the "common wisdom" from whole cloth.

Emotional investment in one's own BS position is merely the first step in it. The pattern can be seen even in lower primates. It's at least as old as civilization.

Look at the Occupy crowd for a prime example. Emotional investment in their fairyland leads directly to the attempt to get others to believe in it too... and hooting the loudest and flinging poo the hardest is the path to success.



Posted by: Sarge at November 30, 2011 01:26 PM (We5IL)

223 211 mpfs, pluck?
i'm sure that unibrow is better than none 

giggling.
Posted by: willow

I DO NOT have a unibrow willow. I just wish they were more defined and not in a George Costanza's mother way either.

Posted by: mpfs at November 30, 2011 01:26 PM (iYbLN)

224 A hidden fund or supply stored for future use; a cache. v. , hoard·ed , hoard·ing , hoards . v.intr. To gather or accumulate a hoard. v.tr. To accumulate a hoard .

horde of tourists. 2. a tribe or troop of Asian nomads. 3. any nomadic group. 4. a moving pack o

Posted by: willow at November 30, 2011 01:27 PM (h+qn8)

225 Honestly, Ace is being far too sanguine about the ability of Newt to win in the general election.  I understand why he is: because 1.) he really doesn't like Romney at all; 2.) Newt could well end up the nominee, in which case why pronounce the election over already...sort of defeatist.

But here?  In the comments?  Let's not kid ourselves: even in a world where the Eurozone collapses and the economy gets even worse, Gingrich will STILL lose the race, the same way Sharron Angle lost to the hugely unpopular Harry Reid writ large: by being less likeable and acceptable and plausible than the unpopular incumbent.

Posted by: Jeff B. at November 30, 2011 01:27 PM (hIWe1)

226

If my tits give you wood then you bat for the wrong team.

My point is, your 55 year old hairy moobs are not right for this position.

Posted by: fappin' Moron what faps at November 30, 2011 01:27 PM (4pSIn)

227 I'd still be riding the Cain Train if I hadn't heard him fumble over the most basic of foreign policy topics. Dear Herm, Stop the fucking "flirtations" and read a damn book.

Posted by: Nickie Goomba at November 30, 2011 01:28 PM (jeLTI)

228

Oh, go fuck yourselves.  I stick my neck out for you, suffer the indignity of a spider bite and a Stoor bite, save the whole of goddamn creation, and this...this is how you repay me?

Posted by: Frodo the Survivalist with his brace of AK-47s at November 30, 2011 06:22 PM (jAqTK)

Why is it I can't find anywhere to buy a two year supply of elfin cakes?

Posted by: stuiec at November 30, 2011 01:28 PM (Di3Im)

229 I was raised very old-fashioned and have stayed that way.

Same here.

Posted by: Vic at November 30, 2011 01:28 PM (YdQQY)

230 But I just don't have what it takes to cheat. I was raised very old-fashioned and have stayed that way. Posted by: Y-not at November 30, 2011 06:26 PM (5H6zj) Wait... what?? But... I bought 10 boxes of bacon...

Posted by: CoolCzech at November 30, 2011 01:28 PM (niZvt)

231

Perry, do you think He can get up in the polls. DrewM said he doesn't have time to recover in 5 weeks.
what would be your honest assessment?

I'm not Ace, but I will take a shot. He can...but it is highly unlikely.

First problem, the schedule is a lot more compressed. Second problem, messaging: what is the rational for a Perry candidacy. This is the same problem with Santorum....what is the rational for the candidacy.

Now, having said that, all is not lost for Perry supporters. Lets go back in the time machine. Relax, its a short trip, 2004. Iowa.

We are about 2 weeks out of the Democratic primary. Dean leads, Gephart is second and Kerry and Edwards are after thoughts. So, what happened. Dean tried to run out the clock by making every day a new endorsement day. Great...except it didn't add much to his campaign. Gephart decided to go full scale negative on Dean and Dean decided to do the same. Result - both Dean and Gephart's negatives went through the roof. Kerry and Edwards decided to play nice - their positives went through the roof. And the rest is history. With the 2 frontrunners destroying each other, the guys in 3rd adn 4th managed to take the day.

Now, Perry needs to either win Iowa or finish 2nd. But Iowa is a weird place. Its a caucus. Here is how it works, in a nutshell. You go to your caucus place and they designate certain spots for each candidate's supporters. They take a first round of votes. If you, as a candidate, do not get to 15% in your caucus, you get a re-vote for a candidate who does have 15%. Thus, who you have in the room matters. If you have a local pol (a mayor or alderman) in your corner, they can work the room, gather up the fresh votes and move you from 4th to 1st in your caucus. You have a popular person....same effect. Or, if your a bunch of college kids with no clue what is going on (Dean) you stare off into the abyss and wonder why people are not migrating to your wonderful candidate.

And remember, its a weird process in Iowa. In January, your not even picking who is going to the National Convention. Your picking who is going to the state convention...where the National delegates are to be picked. So, the point: weird things can happen in a caucus and, sometimes, being the second pick is just as important as being the first.

If Perry can do well in Iowa, he can move forward. If not, it is probably over.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life, Moron with Manners at November 30, 2011 01:28 PM (OWjjx)

232 225 Alot of wishcasting going on vis a vis Newt.I remember what the MFM did to him when he was just speaker.I agree,he has very little chance.

Posted by: steevy at November 30, 2011 01:29 PM (7WJOC)

233 I think you hairy legged men get more emotionally invested in this shit than women do.  I can't believe how you all go off on each other, when like Ace says we don't even know the facts yet.

Posted by: jeanne! at November 30, 2011 01:29 PM (GdalM)

234 So it must be a T thing.

Posted by: jeanne! at November 30, 2011 01:29 PM (GdalM)

235 We as individuals voting in the GOP primary.  (You're right, of course, that we have no influence on the general electorate... which kind of makes my argument for me about not chasing after someone who we hope will appeal to those folks in the general.)

Why wouldn't we then want to insure that the candidate will appeal to the general electorate, given that they're they ones who largely decide the election?  I really don't understand this line of thinking.

Note that the ability to gain widespread appeal to the general electorate doesn't imply that they must be a RINO.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 30, 2011 01:29 PM (SY2Kh)

236 mpfs, alright.  but...
o nothing

Posted by: willow at November 30, 2011 01:30 PM (h+qn8)

237 They're a group of animatronic light bulbs, apparently. 

Posted by: Y-not at November 30, 2011 01:30 PM (5H6zj)

238 A hidden fund or supply stored for future use; a cache. v. , hoard·ed , hoard·ing , hoards . v.intr. To gather or accumulate a hoard. v.tr. To accumulate a hoard .

horde of tourists. 2. a tribe or troop of Asian nomads. 3. any nomadic group. 4. a moving pack o

Posted by: willow at November 30, 2011 06:27 PM (h+qn

whored, v. p. t. How Bill Clinton spent his years in public office.

Posted by: stuiec at November 30, 2011 01:30 PM (Di3Im)

239 >>>This puzzles me.  I know that Palin heaps scorn on various groups, like "crony capitalists" and "big-spending big-government politicians," but I am curious what the cultural or social divide is by which you believe she separates herself from you.  Why do you think she regards you as "the other"?  Or, if you prefer, why do you regard her as "the other"?

Did you forget all those times when she implicitly (and occasionally explicitly)  criticized the 'educated classes' and Northeasterners as being inauthentic and certainly by no means capable of conservatism?   Because I sure as shit didn't.  And neither did the educated conservatives whom I know in my family and my professional life.  This is what Ace is referring to: her appeals to naked anti-intellectualism as being more "authentic" and "American" and "truly conservative" than those People In The Credentialed Class.

Posted by: Jeff B. at November 30, 2011 01:30 PM (hIWe1)

240

My anger comes from cocksuckers thinking they are so damn smart/cute/clever.

Opinion as fact is mighty annoying.

For the record:  This blog has taken me down a couple pegs.  I try to stay humble because cocky will get you into trouble, but I know I am not as smart, funny, or clever as those around me think.  There are some gifted individuals on this site.  Funnier, more clever, and smarter.

FYNQ

 

 

 

 

Posted by: nip at November 30, 2011 01:30 PM (3g6Qr)

241 >>>It's consensus-building, caveman style. >>>When operating with a complete lack of objective facts, especially when it is unlikely that facts will ever be at hand, the proposition that wins out in the end is the one that is argued the most forcefully, by the largest number of people. Yes that it a major factor too. I would mention that in the post but it would tend to undermine the major point I spent an hour writing so go *** yourself. Just kidding of course, but no it would undermine my point so go **** yourself. Still just kidding. But I'm only acknowledging the complicating factor here.

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2011 01:30 PM (nj1bB)

242 Newt might actually be a damn good President, but I tend to agree with Steevy... I suspect he's just the current Flavor of the Month. Once the MSM lovingly rolls out all his dirty underwear for the world to see, I wonder who'll be next? I seriously doubt Santorum... don't be shocked if Huntsman gets his Month in The Sun.

Posted by: CoolCzech at November 30, 2011 01:31 PM (niZvt)

243 236 mpfs, alright.  but...
o nothing
Posted by: willow

LOL

Posted by: mpfs, I pop in, I pop out. Too much drama!!! at November 30, 2011 01:32 PM (iYbLN)

244 "if you want to go with Newt or Mitt, hey, fine by me. They're not terribly conservative but that's fine by me, because either can win. Well, it will be tough with Newt I think, but it's still quite possible."

And FWIW, I'll gladly vote for the Lone Star Guv in our primary, unless Newt is WAYYYY ahead of him vs Romney.

Posted by: JewishOdysseus at November 30, 2011 01:32 PM (93YMp)

245 243 Salma Hayak had a unibrow in that one movie and she was still hawt.

Posted by: steevy at November 30, 2011 01:33 PM (7WJOC)

246 243 Salma Hayak had a unibrow in that one movie and she was still hawt.

Posted by: steevy at November 30, 2011 06:33 PM (7WJOC)

That's because you knew it was fake.

Posted by: stuiec at November 30, 2011 01:34 PM (Di3Im)

247 (mpfs) kiss

stuiec, shmarty pants.

Posted by: willow at November 30, 2011 01:35 PM (h+qn8)

248 235 We as individuals voting in the GOP primary.  (You're right, of course, that we have no influence on the general electorate... which kind of makes my argument for me about not chasing after someone who we hope will appeal to those folks in the general.)

Why wouldn't we then want to insure that the candidate will appeal to the general electorate, given that they're they ones who largely decide the election?  I really don't understand this line of thinking.

Note that the ability to gain widespread appeal to the general electorate doesn't imply that they must be a RINO.
---

We simply disagree, I guess, on how we would predict in a meaningful way the appeal candidate X will hold for the electorate a year from now. 

Candidate X will change.  The electorate will change.  The country will change.  There are too many moving parts to satisfy me that the exercise is worth conducting.  Perhaps it's my scientist gene kicking in, but I won't throw away my vote on such tenuous data. 

If you think you can do that, fine.  You should probably also move to Vegas. 

If a candidate is viable - ie: running a real campaign with real resources and a real platform - he or she is on the table for me.  It's my job - and all of our jobs and the Party's job - to carry him or her to victory in the general after the convention. 

Posted by: Y-not at November 30, 2011 01:36 PM (5H6zj)

249 I agree that this is what makes non-personal arguments "personal", and is also, I would say, 99% of what makes political discussions so intense.  Often a basic sense of intelligence and, even more importantly, motives are assumed to be part of the equation.  Think of how you felt the last time you were told that you opposed Obama because, well, obviously, you're rrrrraaaaaaaciiiist.

Posted by: Filly at November 30, 2011 01:37 PM (247Qj)

250 >>>Did you forget all those times when she implicitly (and occasionally explicitly) criticized the 'educated classes' and Northeasterners as being inauthentic and certainly by no means capable of conservatism? Because I sure as shit didn't. And neither did the educated conservatives whom I know in my family and my professional life. This is what Ace is referring to: her appeals to naked anti-intellectualism as being more "authentic" and "American" and "truly conservative" than those People In The Credentialed Class. Yeah this is the thing. Some people might enjoy it to hear the Smarty-Smarts ridiculed and such, but... uh... what do you think the people who consider themselves Smarty-Smarts would think? And by the way, the actual number of Smarty-Smarts is much lower, by a couple of orders of magnitude, than the people who merely WISH TO THINK OF THEMSELVES as Smarty-Smarts, but still and all, what do you think is the net effect of so many insults? Further, claims like Palin's, that knowledge doesn't matter, or like Cain's, that America needs a leader not a reader (books are for FAGGOTS!!!), is simply abhorrent to anyone who thinks intelligence and knowledge are kind of good things. Maybe not the be-all end-all as the faux-intellectual class thinks -- but to dismiss them so casually and glibly? Hey, what did she, or her supporters, think would happen? John Nolte, who is a real-life friendly acquaintance, nevertheless always baits people on Twitter by ragging on "the #GOPSmartSet." Hey, I'm smart. I like being smart. I'm proud of it. That is an egotistical thing, and yes, it's irrational. But of course it is no less real for being irrational. What does he think will be the natural effect of baiting the "GOPSmartSet"? To persuade or to repel? He's a smart guy, by the way, so I guess he means people who think they're smart, but really are stupid, and he means me, or people like me. A politics based so much on a cultural identity is not a politics, because it cannot prevail. Coalitions of *diverse* people must be assembled. People who don't necessarily agree with you, or share your cultural background, but who nevertheless have *something* in common with you as far as politics or sense of America. You cannot keep telling people, essentially, they suck, and are not welcome.

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2011 01:37 PM (nj1bB)

251 Breitbart wishes ace would swear more in the comments .

Posted by: Bill D. Cat at November 30, 2011 01:38 PM (npr0X)

252 But here?  In the comments?  Let's not kid ourselves: even in a world where the Eurozone collapses and the economy gets even worse, Gingrich will STILL lose the race, the same way Sharron Angle lost to the hugely unpopular Harry Reid writ large: by being less likeable and acceptable and plausible than the unpopular incumbent.

Posted by: Jeff B. at November 30, 2011 06:27 PM (hIWe1)

I've agreed with you a lot in the past, but I think you're smoking dope here. Newt is no Sharron Angle. I think he'll mop the floor with Obama, whereas Mitt can't (unfortunately) gain any traction with the Christian conservative base ... in part 'cause of his ambitious flip-flopping, and also because of religious differences.

Posted by: Random at November 30, 2011 01:39 PM (YiE0S)

253 You cannot keep telling people, essentially, they suck, and are not welcome.

Unless they're crackaz.

Posted by: you know at November 30, 2011 01:39 PM (cePv8)

254 I keeping hearing crap about "Texans don't like Perry".
Texans just voted him back for a 3rd run as Gov.
Houston doesn't like Perry.
Houston. Home of that brilliant woman Shelia Jackson Lee.

Posted by: Pecos, All Perry, all the time at November 30, 2011 01:39 PM (2Gb0y)

255 >>>225 Alot of wishcasting going on vis a vis Newt.I remember what the MFM did to him when he was just speaker.I agree,he has very little chance.

I can't tell you how depressed it's all made me over the last few days, seeing people saying "I'm backing Newt!  At least he's not a moderate or a flip-flopper!"  Despite the fact that he's a self-proclaimed "proud Rockefeller Republican moderate" whose flip-flops and liberal heresies are a thousand times more egregious than Romney's...plus he's almost sociopathically arrogant AND a miserable cheating scumbag in his personal life.  It seems like a complete abnegation of every principle that conservatives claimed to believe in, to nominate such a liberal sleazebag -- guaranteed to lose, almost DESERVING of a loss given his manifest unfitness for the Presidency except for the fact that his opponent is friggin' Obama -- just so they can have the pleasure of making a Big Statement by rejecting the so-called "Establishment RINO" in favor of an even bigger Establishment RINO. 

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills when I see people, even people here whose intellect I respect highly, seriously argue that "hey, Newt's such a good debater that he'll be able to win!" All in complete, seemingly willing ignorance of the fact that 1.) the voters who decide general elections aren't familiar with Gingrich's baggage, and when they are they'll run screaming from him because EVEN OBAMA will be more acceptable than this crazy guy the GOP has brought back from the crypt; 2.) Gingrich himself will inevitable start to make megalomaniacal statements and campaign errors that would doom him anyway -- it's beginning already, have you seen his recent cocky statements?

No joke, for the first time in my life I'm seriously questioning my reason to live.  If we nominate Gingrich he will lose, granting Obama four more years...those will be the darkest days of my life.

Posted by: Jeff B. at November 30, 2011 01:39 PM (hIWe1)

256 Sorry, CoolCzech!  (*)(*)

Posted by: Y-not at November 30, 2011 01:39 PM (5H6zj)

257 Did you forget all those times when she implicitly (and occasionally explicitly)  criticized the 'educated classes' and Northeasterners as being inauthentic and certainly by no means capable of conservatism?   Because I sure as shit didn't.  And neither did the educated conservatives whom I know in my family and my professional life.  This is what Ace is referring to: her appeals to naked anti-intellectualism as being more "authentic" and "American" and "truly conservative" than those People In The Credentialed Class.

Posted by: Jeff B. at November 30, 2011 06:30 PM (hIWe1)

That's kind of funny.

Palin spends a lot of time in her op-eds, speeches and Facebook posts quoting intellectuals.  So she's hardly anti-intellectual.

However, she is pretty anti-credentialism -- that is, the idea that merely holding a degree from the right institution transforms an ordinary human being into an infallible oracle.  Credentialism is a big part of what elected Barack Obama: there was obviously no way he could be a stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure when he held degrees from Columbia AND Harvard, AND knew how to press his slacks properly to boot.

Posted by: stuiec at November 30, 2011 01:40 PM (Di3Im)

258 her appeals to naked anti-intellectualism as being more "authentic" and "American" and "truly conservative" than those People In The Credentialed Class.

Spoken like a former beauty queen.

Posted by: Random at November 30, 2011 01:41 PM (YiE0S)

259 Some pratfalls Newt might run into: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWKTOCP45zY&feature=player_embedded

Posted by: CoolCzech at November 30, 2011 01:41 PM (niZvt)

260 256 Sorry, CoolCzech! (*)(*) Posted by: Y-not at November 30, 2011 06:39 PM (5H6zj) BUNK!

Posted by: CoolCzech at November 30, 2011 01:42 PM (niZvt)

261 >>>However, she is pretty anti-credentialism -- that is, the idea that merely holding a degree from the right institution transforms an ordinary human being into an infallible oracle. I disagree. I will agree that anti-credentialism, as you term it, is inviting, and can welcome a good 60% of people into a coalition. So long as you are careful always to make sure you only mean anti-faux-credentialism, and anti-FAUX-intellectualism, and so on. I don't think Palin did that. I think she often got careless and spoke of what she really intended -- actual anti-intellectualism. Or sort of this liberal "we're all equally smart and educated and knowlegable" anti-elistism, which is frankly dumb. We're not all equally smart, nor equally talented, nor equally beautiful. That is a hippie lefty idea. Any politics which invites me to agree with the proposition that I have the same intelligence as an OWS moron or a Klansman is a politics I'm not getting involved in. That whole thing was less about politics than personal self-esteem. That's like oprah bullshit. What has that got to do with the tangible decisions we have to make?

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2011 01:44 PM (nj1bB)

262

@168: "I have never cheated on my wife and I have had numerous "opportunities". Hell I had a woman at work come up and sit on my desk right in front of me, spread her legs and then flash her tits at me. She was also about 10 or 15 years younger than me and hawt.

I passed it up
."

So, how you doin'?

Posted by: Zombie Liberace at November 30, 2011 01:44 PM (jAqTK)

263 Cracked was talking about this earlier this month. you'd think we'd be getting smarter and more informed. Unfortunately, the very wiring of our brains ensures that all these lively debates only make us dumber and more narrow-minded. http://www.cracked.com/article_19468_5-logical- fallacies-that-make-you-wrong-more-than-you- think.html (cut and paste to make the link work)

Posted by: Comrade Arthur at November 30, 2011 01:45 PM (7hwUm)

264 What kinda annoys me also isn't whether people go with their "gut" or not, but do so selectively.

Not to harp on the Cain business again, but as an example- because they didn't want to believe that someone on "our side" was guilty of indiscretion, only Cold Hard Facts were relevant.

When it came to the allegations against Clinton (again, for example), I suspect the same people more freely went with their gut, saying to themselves "yeah, something about that guy and the way he's handled the situation makes me think he's lying."

For those of us who did (and for me, still do) believe that there is some "there" there is because our gut- namely the way Cain has described and handled the situation- leads our "gut" to suggest there's something there.  For someone who (for their guy) disregards such as irrelevant, they're often going to be upset that we'd even consider it as it's not tangible "proof".

If gut impressions weren't relevant, we probably wouldn't bother using a jury system to decide court cases, but we do.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 30, 2011 01:45 PM (SY2Kh)

265 "I have never cheated on my wife and I have had numerous "opportunities". Hell I had a woman at work come up and sit on my desk right in front of me, spread her legs and then flash her tits at me. She was also about 10 or 15 years younger than me and hawt. OK, so how do you do it? Pack kielbasa in your shorts??

Posted by: CoolCzech at November 30, 2011 01:45 PM (niZvt)

266 Any politics which invites me to agree with the proposition that I have the same intelligence as an OWS moron or a Klansman is a politics I'm not getting involved in.

But it appeals the other way around, when you convince people who aren't that bright that they're as smart as college professors or whomever else.

Posted by: Random at November 30, 2011 01:47 PM (YiE0S)

267 OK, so how do you do it? Pack kielbasa in your shorts??

Posted by: CoolCzech at November 30, 2011 06:45 PM (niZvt)

I will neither confirm nor deny the presence of a lethal weapon stored in my shorts.

Posted by: Vic at November 30, 2011 01:51 PM (YdQQY)

268 Houston doesn't like Perry.

Hey hey, let's not go besmirching a great city.  I live in Sheila Jackass Lee's district (ah, the joys of gerrymandering) and Perry has plenty of support here. Austin doesn't like Perry.

Posted by: Sterling Archer at November 30, 2011 01:51 PM (1H47k)

269 >>>But it appeals the other way around, when you convince people who aren't that bright that they're as smart as college professors or whomever else. Any "leveling" theory like this will naturally appeal to one set, the set that is elevated by the leveling, and be rejected by the other set, the one reduced by the leveling. If your politics includes a necessary and unavoidable f-you to people who actually need to vote for you, UR doing it wrong, or you're not really engaging in poltics-- for example, you might actually just be playing to a consumer base which is far less than 51% but is rather large as far as the number of buyers needed to make a book a bestseller.

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2011 01:53 PM (nj1bB)

270 >>>But it appeals the other way around, when you convince people who aren't that bright that they're as smart as college professors or whomever else.

Not really.  Because here's one of the big, dirty secrets of politics: people ultimately WANT to be led by a person who they think is smarter, more experienced, and better credentialed for the job than they are.  That's what the Palinite/Tea Party anti-intellectual faction is blind to, the fact that they really only represent a tiny sliver of the voting public.  Nobody wants to vote for a guy who ACTS like he's better than you because he went to a better school, of course not....but most people DO want to vote for a guy who seems like he's super-sharp and competent, because holy shit the job of President ain't easy and god knows we need someone with a lot of wattage in there handling the job.

There is a constituency out there for genuine, straight-up anti-intellectualism: "I like Palin because she's ignorant and provincial like me! It's authentic! She's fightin' against them Ivy League snoots!"  Those, at the end, were basically most of her fanbase.  But vastly more people, both in America and in the world, recognize that the job of the Presidency is terrifyingly difficult, something that they themselves would be utterly incapable of doing, and therefore like the idea of voting for a guy (or gal) who actually seems like he would be better qualified for the job than the average Joe.

That's why the anti-intellectualism of Palin and (some of) her fans is so benighted and self-destructive. 

Posted by: Jeff B. at November 30, 2011 01:54 PM (hIWe1)

271

Ever run across one of those insufferable evangelical athiests who claim that they do not make emotion based decisions becaue they prize logic and rationality above all?

And yet they're always running around  venting their anger at the God in Whom They Do Not Believe?

Anyway, if you want to fuck one of them up sometime when he's going on about logic and rationality while sneering at faith, just look at him and say, "Why are you so angry at people who believe in God? How can one's purely rational thoughts lead to such an emotional response as anger? This is completely illogical and the fact that it escapes you leads me to question your intellect, your self awareness, and your ability to understand how the world around you works."

Then walk away whistling.

Posted by: Warden at November 30, 2011 01:57 PM (HzhBE)

272 The arguments don't always start when both sides rely on gut. They sometimes start when one guy (cough.. Ace) relies on gut, and the other guy says, "but you have no evidence of that", and then the first guy says, "Well you just obsess about Sarah because you're, like, a stupid obsessor." And the second guy says, "You also know nothing of Cain's private sex life, so why do you keep hammering away at he-said-she-said anecdotes?" And the first guy says, "You are a crazy wing-nut who takes orders from Rush Limbaugh to shut people like me up just because we don't believe in taking orders from King Rush."

And like that.

Posted by: Randall Hoven at November 30, 2011 01:58 PM (UtlA+)

273 This is going to be the first and last time I ever write these words, but HOLY SHIT THIS NEW AD FROM THE RON PAUL CAMPAIGN IS ABSOLUTELY THE MOST DEVASTATING THING I'VE EVER SEEN:

http://tinyurl.com/7nh289e

It absolutely destroys -- destroys -- Newt Gingrich.  I mean, honestly...I have no idea how you could watch this and still tell yourself that Newt is really the True Conservative hope that's so obviously preferable to Romney.  And it doesn't even get into his marriages!

Posted by: Jeff B. at November 30, 2011 02:00 PM (hIWe1)

274 Ego will defend itself. Ego will do illogical things to keep its sense of superiority in sound condition. When your gut feeling attaches itself (perhaps they are one and the same) to said ego, emotionalism and fervent defense are sure to follow. "How can I be wrong, when I know Im right?" Ego is highly defensive by design. (Ole Echardt Tolle taught me that)

Posted by: denver 'ron at November 30, 2011 02:02 PM (WEpOU)

275 Seriously...now that Ace has devoted a post to Romney's (admittedly poor) interview on Fox News, is there any reason why not to create a post about this?  This blog has been COMPLETELY silent about Gingrich's many, many flaws.  Conspicuously so.  Might as well air all the dirty laundry, right?

Posted by: Jeff B. at November 30, 2011 02:02 PM (hIWe1)

276 Randall Hoven, are you really disputing the fact that "you can't say that, it hurts the cause!" has become a reflexive shut-up from a big swath of the party? I am sick of hearing about causes and how I must adjust my thoughts to C O N F O R M with the agreed upon national coordinated messaging strategy of the day. Fuck conformity. As I've said an awful lot, the left-wing's insistence on creepy conformity convinced me they were Controllers, and the rightwing doesn't seem any less creepy when they try it too. There are a large number of people on the right who convinced that we MUST employ the tactics of the mind-control left to prevail. Offer rejected. You ask too much. If that's really the "only way" to win, then I chose to lose, because at the end of the day freedom of thought is too important. By the way, I don't think that's the only way to win. I think that is a very likely way to lose.

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2011 02:03 PM (nj1bB)

277 @271: just don't try that shit with me during Vulcan Pon Farr.

Posted by: Spock at November 30, 2011 02:03 PM (niZvt)

278 (Put this is the wrong thread. Repeated here.)

Oh, boo hoo. No one's saying you can't bring up the flaws in a candidate.

What IS being said is don't be so f'n GLEEFUL about it if it's not YOUR candidate stepping on their wang.

Or acting like you KNEW this was going to happen. Or they're just not handlin' it the way YOU think they should.

Or so snarky, or so repetitive, or so persistent.

Plus, just because Axelrod didn't choreograph Bielek and the other one. Doesn't mean they're not out to do damage by lying. Notice there's been no follow up?

And as far as White goes; she's even LESS credible than the other two.

But that doesn't matter to some (mostly on the left) it's the CHARGE alone that matters (only when it comes to conservatives) and that just because someone's had a CHARGE laid against them with little actual PROOF shown so far shouldn't mean that we should discard a candidate on that basis only. (yeah I know you've got other reasons for disliking Cain)

It's how liberals work, it's how politics has always been implemented by the less ethical amongst us. Smear, lie, smear some more.

Seems to me the only thing preventing Perry or some of the others from being a target of this sort of thing is that he's been doing such a great job of sabotaging himself, no one thinks it's worth their while to bother.

And that's probably what really sticks in your craw.

Quit acting like a liberal pundit (unless you really ARE one).

Posted by: Fight the nattering nabobs of negativism at November 30, 2011 02:05 PM (xqpQL)

279

Yes, yes, but . . .

 

TEBOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Discuss . . .

Posted by: Sharkman at November 30, 2011 02:06 PM (wMsKw)

280 Or sort of this liberal "we're all equally smart and educated and knowlegable" anti-elistism, which is frankly dumb.

We're not all equally smart, nor equally talented, nor equally beautiful. That is a hippie lefty idea.

Any politics which invites me to agree with the proposition that I have the same intelligence as an OWS moron or a Klansman is a politics I'm not getting involved in.

That whole thing was less about politics than personal self-esteem. That's like oprah bullshit. What has that got to do with the tangible decisions we have to make?

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2011 06:44 PM (nj1bB)

Well, we are all equally responsible for participating in our form of government -- that is, everyone 18 and over who isn't a felon gets to vote.  Even the stupid people have political rights equal to yours or mine.  And while it may be hard to build a majority coalition by offending people with Ivy League degrees, it's a damn sight harder to build one by holding in outright contempt people who aren't as smart as oneself.

Perhaps Palin's world view is colored by the fact that she, a housewife with a bachelor's in broadcasting that took her five colleges to achieve, managed to outmaneuver the politicians in her state who believed they had the right to run the place.  Maybe her view is that the lowly "ordinary citizen" can participate in politics, run for local or state or even national office, and achieve through common sense and hard work better results than those who set out on the poli sci-law degree career path into public office have managed to achieve.

Posted by: stuiec at November 30, 2011 02:06 PM (Di3Im)

281 If tomorrow it's proven -- proven -- that all of Herman Cain's accusers were recruited by David Axelrod, I will promptly admit "Man did I get that one wrong."

Hmm, ok I'll issue a "mea culpa" there as well on assuming guilt early.

But I'm still standing pat on the lawyerese first-response he had didn't help matters; saying basically "Consensual sex with a woman other than my wife isn't your business, it isn't a matter of character, and I won't talk about it so drop it already everyone; you don't need to know how many times I've cheated on my wife".

I mean when I get caught with a dead hobo under me, bloody knife in hand; I don't say "Hey, hobos die every day, who cares about how this one died; we don't need the details; and I'm not answering any questions because it's none of your business". 

The first words out my my mouth will be "I was trying to perform CPR on this poor stabbing victim; the assailant was a 6'5" one-armed man and he fled that way".

The first answer may arguably be true; but it certainly doesn't help my case if I want to plead my innocence later.

And in Cain's case; lots of "family values" and "honesty and integrity" voters ARE going to think cheating on your wife for over a decade DOES matter in terms of character and qualifications to be President.  Claiming it shouldn't ever matter won't win you any points with them; and most of them vote Republican.

Yeah, he very well could be completely innocent and pure as the driven snow here; but given the first answer he had... I doubt it.

You know who doesn't think it matters if you cheat on your spouse?  People who cheat on their spouses.  Because nobody likes to think THEIR sins are bad ones; just the sins other people commit.  If you hear someone say cheating on your spouse for a decade behind her back isn't bad; you're talking to someone who has done that (or at least would do that in a heartbeat).

This isn't complicated psychology here.

Posted by: gekkobear at November 30, 2011 02:07 PM (X0NX1)

282 If your politics includes a necessary and unavoidable f-you to people who actually need to vote for you, UR doing it wrong, or you're not really engaging in poltics-- for example, you might actually just be playing to a consumer base which is far less than 51% but is rather large as far as the number of buyers needed to make a book a bestseller.

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2011 06:53 PM (nj1bB)

Quite.

Posted by: Random at November 30, 2011 02:07 PM (YiE0S)

283

don't share the opinion that a strong faith provides much more than a very marginal amount of immunization against sinful behavior. Maybe 5% resistance, at best, to put some kind of quanitification on it.

Then we should start arguing this way.

E.g. I believe Cain is innocent and think you, ace are a big RINO poopy-head because Cain's +5 Cloak of Christianity combined with his +40 Ring of Fidelity gives him protection against virtually all sexual temptation.

Only if a lvl69 or higher temptress were to cast Pork My 23 Year Old Ass While I Wear Only Black Stockings could he possibly be guilty of this.

Posted by: Warden at November 30, 2011 02:08 PM (HzhBE)

284

@239: "Because I sure as shit didn't.  And neither did the educated conservatives whom I know in my family and my professional life."

Ahhh...your pussy got hurt after some NOCD upstart NOCD'd you.  Gotcha.

Posted by: Bubba Throckmorton, drinking a Pabst with his pinkie extended at November 30, 2011 02:08 PM (jAqTK)

285 Because here's one of the big, dirty secrets of politics: people ultimately WANT to be led by a person who they think is smarter, more experienced, and better credentialed for the job than they are

Yes, Jeff B., I was simplifying. In fact, I've said this a dozen times in the comments here if I've said it once: People want to be led by someone they perceive as smarter than them, but not that much smarter. So to the relatively low IQ segment of the GOP base, a Palin appeals (because Palin actually is fairly smart, just not so much smarter they can't relate to her).

Posted by: Random at November 30, 2011 02:10 PM (YiE0S)

286 >>>Ahhh...your pussy got hurt after some NOCD upstart NOCD'd you.  Gotcha.

NOCD?  What does that even mean?

And spare me the stupid "yer a pussy" invective, as if it makes you a Proven Internet Alpha Male or something.  Guess what?  People who denigrate intelligence or experience ARE both making a stupid political calculation (for reasons I described in #270) and just pathetic losers in an objective sense.  I'm not athletic in the slightest -- do you see me denigrating the value of physical excellence? 

Posted by: Jeff B. at November 30, 2011 02:13 PM (hIWe1)

287 It's how liberals work, it's how politics has always been implemented by the less ethical amongst us. Smear, lie, smear some more.

Indeed.  Can you imagine what kind of candidate would, say, accuse an innocent guy of something he didn't do and smear his good name and reputation?  Or jump on a thinly-sourced smear job from the MSM just to make another candidate look bad?  I agree.  Only a candidate with a lack of character would take part in such abhorrent behavior.

Posted by: Slublog at November 30, 2011 02:13 PM (Dasho)

288 Ever run across one of those insufferable evangelical athiests who claim that they do not make emotion based decisions becaue they prize logic and rationality above all?

lol

As an atheist, I'll say this is phenomenally stupid. Emotions are what drive us to do anything, including caring about the truth (that the Biblical God is a myth  ). In fact, there is no objective rational basis to do anything! Why live? Or, as Benjamin Franklin once said, "What good is a newborn baby?" (Answer: we care about newborn babies as a result of natural selection.)

However, criticizing "faith" is different. Faith is a mode of thought more so than an emotion. And it isn't a rational, evidence-based mode of thought.

Posted by: Random at November 30, 2011 02:16 PM (YiE0S)

289

@250: "A politics based so much on a cultural identity is not a politics, because it cannot prevail. Coalitions of *diverse* people must be assembled. People who don't necessarily agree with you, or share your cultural background, but who nevertheless have *something* in common with you as far as politics or sense of America.

You cannot keep telling people, essentially, they suck, and are not welcome."

Of course you can.  Well, maybe not you you, but we sure can.  My God, man, we've been telling those stupid, mouthbreathing "lemme keep my money and guns" conservatives to go fuck themselves for years, and yet they still keep voting for us and giving us money.

Posted by: Your GOP Elites at November 30, 2011 02:19 PM (jAqTK)

290 >>>Or, as Benjamin Franklin once said, "What good is a newborn baby?" (Answer: we care about newborn babies as a result of natural selection.)

Nonsense.  We care about newborn babies because they're just so goshdarn cute.  At least when they're not crapping themselves, or bawling in public, or waking us up at 3:00AM.

(Yes, yes, I understand your point.)

Posted by: Jeff B. at November 30, 2011 02:20 PM (hIWe1)

291 Guess what?  People who denigrate intelligence or experience ARE both making a stupid political calculation (for reasons I described in #270) and just pathetic losers in an objective sense.  

Posted by: Jeff B. at November 30, 2011 07:13 PM (hIWe1)

Oh, I agree.  Which is why it's always amusing to see the anti-anti-intellectual crowd trying to prove to a geometric certainty (like Capt. Queeg and his strawberries) that Sarah Palin can only ever appeal to congenital idiots.  In making that argument, that crowd denigrates the intelligence of people who disagree with them, as if disagreement was identical with stupidity.

I sometimes suspect that certain people on the Right got tired of hearing their friends tease them about being in the same party as an obvious cretin like Sarah Palin, and so began to create scenarios and axioms to prove to themselves that only stupid people could possibly support Palin, and then extended those to prove to themselves that Palin only ever tries to appeal to stupid people.  I sometimes even envision those people like the alien in Plan Nine from Outer Space: "You and your stupid, stupid minds!"

Posted by: stuiec at November 30, 2011 02:22 PM (Di3Im)

292 Ace,

I think you would like reading, if you haven't already, some of Robin Hanson's stuff at OvercomingBias.com. Tyler Cowen at MarginalRevolution also looks at this issue fairly regularly.

He looks at issues like this a lot. I find I always learn things whenever I read Hanson.

That said Hanson (and Cowen) are highly unusual people. Probably best thought of as a members of a hyper-intelligent alien species who, for some reason, have taken a keen interest in the affairs of humans.

I enjoy vitriolic ranting, but I recognize I'm probably least accurate when I'm in that mode.

Hanson often tries to pick apart the evolutionary heritage that has lead to the human psycho. A couple of his big ideas are forager vs farmer ways of thinking and near vs far. (Near is practical, day-to-day thinking, far is story-telling, philosophizing, coalition building.)

I think part of the reason we get so upset is that the parts of our minds that argue politics and predict the future like this are built for coalition building around the tribal fire.

We get emotional because, in early human societies, it's really, really important to be in the winning coalition -- since the penalty for losing might be getting no food and dying.

The point isn't to be correct in our predictions (from our tribal forager brain), the point is to win the argument and build the strongest coalition.

We overreact to politics for the same reason we overreact to porn. Our brains are built to interpret seeing a naked woman as a really, really big deal and not just one of billions on the internet. And our brains are built to treat political coalition building as a really, really big deal with severe, potentially deadly consequences.

I probably made a hash of my understanding Hanson's ideas.

There's also the Bayesian principle of ... I'm probably wrong. Especially if I'm in the minority on an issue. And the more complex the issue, the more likely there's something I'm wrong or confused about or unaware of.

Despite that, it's clear that confidence and moralizing and demonizing are the most effective way to build a winning coalition given human nature.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at November 30, 2011 02:23 PM (QcFbt)

293 human psyche, not psycho.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at November 30, 2011 02:24 PM (QcFbt)

294 However, criticizing "faith" is different. Faith is a mode of thought more so than an emotion. And it isn't a rational, evidence-based mode of thought. And believing the Universe came into being ex nihilio strikes you as rational, Random? My God, your faith in Something From Nothing is the biggest leap in the dark I can imagine.

Posted by: Spock at November 30, 2011 02:25 PM (niZvt)

295 Off, oddly a propos sock...

Posted by: CoolCzech at November 30, 2011 02:28 PM (niZvt)

296 255 Jeff B. My husband has exactly the same thoughts as you re: Gingrich. His nightmares are about if Newt gets elected. I like Newt. I would love to see him debate Obama. I will vote for him if it comes down to it. But two things keep me off the Newt train. 1. he's arrogant. He thinks he's the smartest guy in the room. That may be true, in his case, but it doesn't mean he can discount other people's opinions and concerns. I've heard him say, when talking about the base's position on immigrations "well, they might be wrong about that." 2. he's never really led anything. The one leadership role he had was an abject failure -- not even in the sense of "he didn't get things done" but in the sense of "there was a Congressional mutiny against him and he was drummed out of his position by those he was supposed to lead." Not exactly making confident about what a Newt presidency would look like.

Posted by: elizabethe at November 30, 2011 02:29 PM (g8Wdt)

297

@286: "NOCD?  What does that even mean?"

Not Our Class, Dear.  Guess you ain't welcome at too many Head of the Charles parties iff'n you ain't familiar with that one.

"And spare me the stupid "yer a pussy" invective"

Read more closely, old bean.  I didn't say you are a pussy, I said you have a pussy.

Posted by: Bubba Throckmorton, sippin' Dom on his BassTracker at November 30, 2011 02:31 PM (jAqTK)

298

@294: "And believing the Universe came into being ex nihilio strikes you as rational, Random?

My God, your faith in Something From Nothing is the biggest leap in the dark I can imagine
."

Uh, so where did Your God come from, if not ex nihilo?

Posted by: Just Playing Devil's Advocate at November 30, 2011 02:34 PM (jAqTK)

299 Even when I'm not really sure I agree with him or what the hell he's talking about, Ace cracks me up. I sincerely wonder if you spend a lot of time in the comments here...if you then sort of tend to take this writing for granted. Cracks me up. Only thing better might be to actually hear someone sort of working through these funny rants.

Posted by: Tari aka Darcysport at November 30, 2011 02:35 PM (DeYNS)

300 '
296

This.

Newt caved to Clinton. Reneged on the Contract.

He folded like a cheap camera and the freshmen Republicans never forgave him or the establishment Republicans for making it easy for him to do it.

1. I doubt he'll sign a bill repealing Obamacare (if one even makes it to his desk.)
2. He's still certain there's GW and there's something man has done and can do about it.
3. I wouldn't trust his SCOTUS nominees.
4. I don't trust his weaseling on Immigration.
5. Too connected to the Dems and Estab Reps.
6. Intelligent. Not smart.
7. Narcissist. Just hides it better.

Posted by: Fight the nattering nabobs of negativism at November 30, 2011 02:36 PM (xqpQL)

301 heh.

Posted by: sifty at November 30, 2011 02:37 PM (WsOiK)

302 293 human psyche, not psycho.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at November 30, 2011 07:24 PM (QcFbt)

Thanks, Clubber.  I stumbled over that a couple times before deciding to move on and read the rest, which clued me in that you meant to end it in "e".

Must be that gut thing working.

Posted by: EyeTest at November 30, 2011 02:37 PM (ReC4P)

303

@286: "NOCD?  What does that even mean?"

Not Our Class, Dear.

New iteration of that for me - in the U.K., the most frequent forumulation I encountered was NOK ("Not Our Kind") or NOT ("Not Our Type"), usually drawled out by a Sloane Ranger type with an accompanying roll of the eye.

The Brits excel at the condescending slam as an art form.

Posted by: A. Pendragon at November 30, 2011 02:38 PM (XDdB5)

304 it took you a thousand words and yet you're still a stooge/shill/troll for that retard perry.

Posted by: A. Fufkin at November 30, 2011 02:42 PM (7F26S)

305

The Brits excel at the condescending slam as an art form.

Posted by: A. Pendragon at November 30, 2011 07:38 PM (XDdB5)

Not PLU (people like us).

Posted by: stuiec at November 30, 2011 02:43 PM (Di3Im)

306 People want to be led by someone they perceive as smarter than them, but not that much smarter.

Damn.

Posted by: Sheldon Cooper at November 30, 2011 02:43 PM (6TB1Z)

307 Jeff B. My husband has exactly the same thoughts as you re: Gingrich. His nightmares are about if Newt gets elected.

I have a different nightmare.  I am very concerned that Newt gets the nom, and then the press stops holding its fire and let's him have it, resulting in a fatally wounded candidate long before the election but after any possibility of choosing someone else. 

Posted by: pep at November 30, 2011 02:46 PM (6TB1Z)

308 >>>I have a different nightmare.  I am very concerned that Newt gets the nom, and then the press stops holding its fire and let's him have it, resulting in a fatally wounded candidate long before the election but after any possibility of choosing someone else.

This is, of course, what would happen.

You know what the most infuriating part of it would be, in a weird way?  The absolute avoidance of any accountability for the people who pushed and supported him.  The Limbaughs, Levins, TrueCon spokesmen, etc. would all get off scot-free.  The believer in comment sections would blame people like me (or Ace) for "making it possible by printing the MSM's lies!!!" just like they did with Cain.  At no point would these folks ever face a reckoning for the disaster they foisted upon us.

Posted by: Jeff B. at November 30, 2011 02:51 PM (hIWe1)

309 Another way to think of it. Imagine a small tribe arguing about plans for the winter. Team A says do X, Team B says do Y.

At a certain level, it doesn't matter whether X or Y is the right strategy to prepare for winter -- the important thing for your personal survival is to be on the winning team.

Let's say Team A wins, but it turns out Team B's strategy would have been better. So what? It's winter now and food is short. Who gets the remaining food? Team A. Cause Team A is in charge. Even though Team A was wrong and fucked up and now some of the tribe are gonna starve to death.

But you know who's not starving to death? The people in the Team A winning coalition.

Most bad decisions won't kill of the whole tribe. Just 10-20-30%. So you just need to make sure you aren't in that bottom hated group.

(Which is one reason why many people are so turned off by heated political rhetoric. One survival tribal strategy is just be quiet and go with whoever wins. The goal being to avoid being in the hated, losing, no-food-for-you bottom 20%.)

Men are attracted to politics because we are nature's gamblers. If we are a big part of the winning coalition we get the best women and the more and better food and more offspring. Nature says go for it.

Young fertile women don't need to pick sides as much since the winning side will always feed the hot young chicks if there is enough food.

Older women better make sure they are on the winning team, though.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at November 30, 2011 02:54 PM (QcFbt)

310 That Ladd guy (Ehrlinger?) said everyone who's been to CPAC knows Cain likes to part and flirt. Is this true? Does anyone know?

Posted by: Baldy at November 30, 2011 02:55 PM (Ua1ps)

311 The reason, I think, that discussions get most heated when facts are few, is because of the possibility of causing to occur, an 'otherwise-yet-to-be-determined' event, -- occurring based significantly on help from your speculation that it <i>might</i> be true. 

The reason there is not a 'run' on your local bank tomorrow, is because few if any believe it will occur. But no one <i>knows</i> whether the rumor of a weak Bank is true or not. Your publicly speculating that it <i>might</i> be true is thus met with great passion by the side that would prefer that the presumption be that the Bank is strong.

Regarding the Cain thing, expressing your 'gut' that there might indeed be something disqualifying in the accusations, thus rendering Cain not-electable, can have a big effect on simply the whiff-of-scandal, said whiff  rendering Cain not-electable.

So those of us who  think 'benefit-of-the-doubt' is the fairest play, get pretty passionate about speculations that might obviate the otherwise exonerating facts, should they manifest.

Bottom line, we sense foul and self-defeating play. And it get passionate quick, with good reason.

Posted by: MyCherryS'mores at November 30, 2011 02:57 PM (VOBGw)

312

Look it here, chumps, I don't need some dime store psycho-urinalysis to explain to me who to attack, how to attack them and who, how and why to purge from my Republican Party.  All RINOs must be expunged.  Only true and pure conservative patriots can remain. 

Dr. Cain is a true and pure conservative patriot.  It's as clear as crystal meth.  If you're questioning General Cain that means you're a RINO.  If you're a RINO that means your points of view have no value and that you need to be shouted down and suppressed.  The hallmark of any democracy is to purify its political parties.  Throughout history the very best political movements have been based upon loyalty oaths and litmus tests.  Germany.  Cambodia.  Zimbabwe.  I approach religion the same way.  That's why I believe that other denominations are nothing but cults.  Hell, even in my own denomination if you're at a different church that means you're in a cult.  Step on or step off, punks, but don't tread.

If we don't stamp out all opposing points of view that'll mean we'll drift towards the center and only over your dead body will I allow that to happen.  I'll not rest until each and every candidate agrees 100% with what I say and think.  To settle for less would be political and I reject politics as a means of achieving my politics.  That's why as a true and pure conservative patriot I've only voted for Democrats, or not voted at all, since the Goldwater election in '64.  Get some, geeks.

Cain-Palin-Bachmann-Palin, '12.  On your feet or on your knees, punks!

Posted by: Totally Irrational Political Malcontent at November 30, 2011 02:58 PM (f8XyF)

313 283 Warden ROFLMAO!!!! Anytime any quality can be discussed in terms of hit points, it's a conversational win/win.

Posted by: elizabethe at November 30, 2011 03:02 PM (g8Wdt)

314 "Right? I mean, this stands to reason. If I'm arguing with you about, say-- well, let's say Cain, since Miller is talking about Cain here -- we're both ignorant. I don't know, and you don't know. We are both guessing, relying on rules of thumb, patterns of human behavior, general worldview, general cynical vs. idealistic factory setting, etc. We are relying entirely on proxies to find an answer, because the actual direct evidence, which we'd both gladly admit is necessary to really answer the question, is entirely absent.  

So we are forced to resort to secondary, indirect, inferential evidence, and general rules of thumb."

------------------------------------     I guess I kind of know where you are trying to go with this... but I just can't buy it. A woman you and I know nothing about came on stage to give a press conference on her alleged affair with Cain. She came on stage with Gloria Allred. We do know a whole helluva alot about her. Go to hoebag to destroy Republicans. We both KNOW this, this is not a guess. And at that time we both knew that Cains 3 previous accusers would have been released from their confidentiality agreement by the NRA. The very next day they clamed up. These are established facts. Only later did Ann Coulter connect a few dots pointing in Axelrod's general direction. The reason I can't buy this is because you Ace, went full fucking retard for the accuser. You acted as if you were the last sane man in the room and were being presecuted by irrational imbeciles. Not even a scintilla of doubt did you express. You don't like Cain, never did and that tainted your coverage of Cain in general. You brought this on yourself dude. We have met and I would look you in the eye and tell you that you owe a few people an apology. This blog such as it is is a responsibilty, act like it. (Notice Ed and Allah didn't catch half the shit you did and reported on Cain just as much, even more because they posted articles that were at least somewhat skeptical of the Cain accusers. When Allah let his personal feelings taint his coverage of teh Fred he got spanked too.)

Posted by: theworldisnotenough at November 30, 2011 03:07 PM (JpqtI)

315 I just want to say, as a Perry supporter, that if Ace is a Perry stooge/wishcaster, he's not doing a very good job.

Posted by: elizabethe at November 30, 2011 03:11 PM (g8Wdt)

316 >>>That Ladd guy (Ehrlinger?) said everyone who's been to CPAC knows Cain likes to part and flirt. I don't know about the flirting part but the partying part -- the drinking -- is really beyond question. A lot of drinking.

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2011 03:12 PM (nj1bB)

317 Many supporters want Sarah Palin to reconsider running for President. Today, Conservatives4Palin will begin running an ad on TV. To show that you think she should run, you can wear items that proclaim the message and help spread it far and wide. Please go to the link to find a t-shirt, jewelry, hat, tote bag, button, mug, water bottle or other item to advertise your support of the “Reconsider Movement”! http://www.cafepress.com/TrueRedWhiteAndBlue

Posted by: TLemmbert at November 30, 2011 03:14 PM (BtT2V)

318 315 I just want to say, as a Perry supporter, that if Ace is a Perry stooge/wishcaster, he's not doing a very good job.

^LOL, this

Posted by: Y-not at November 30, 2011 03:15 PM (5H6zj)

319 Thank you Ace for the answer. 

Posted by: Baldy at November 30, 2011 03:18 PM (Ua1ps)

320 Ace, there you go again. Pretend my written words are within half a mile of what I really mean.

And no pissing contest tonight. Uncle. I'm drinking, and it would not be wise. You can say whatever you want about anybody: Cain sucks cocks in hell, Trig is the spawn of Satan and Bristol, Bachmann has orgies with her foster kids... Nobody can tell you what to think or write. No. Fucking. Body. Not me. Not ever. No way. Not my chair, not my problem; that's what I say.

As for me, I love sea horses. And lighthouses.

Posted by: Randall Hoven at November 30, 2011 03:42 PM (UtlA+)

321

The way I put it is that the arguments that get the most ferocious are those which should actually cause the least amount of heat and fire -- arguments in which the fact-set is substantially unknown.

I doubt I've ever mentioned it but I've been mulling over something similar.

The way I'd been thinking about, I have come to think that Daniel Patrick Moynahan had it all wrong. Backwards.

Everybody has pretty much the same opinion. They are all using different sets of facts.

Posted by: Entropy at November 30, 2011 04:08 PM (ccBqU)

322 You made a few good points there. I did a search on the matter and found a good number of people will agree with your blog.

Posted by: Fate’s Edge ePub at November 30, 2011 04:16 PM (vaJa6)

323

I think I came to start thinking about that around the time that whole Terri Shiavo thing happened.

You've got one group of people who operate on the simple fact that she is a vegetable with no brain and no hope of recovery.

You've got another group of people who operate on the simple fact that she has been rendered retarded possibly by the husband who is trying to kill her off so he can remarry, and while she is basically a pet labrador retriever now, she is concious and expresses emotion.

Now both groups assume bad faith and attribute terrible motive to the other.

They both have the same opinion. Neither wants to murder a poor retard girl, and neither is really trying to keep alive a real vegetable.

They disagreed over the simple fact of what she actual was.

A lot of that was fostered by the media, and there's a lesson there as well. The plain facts of the matter is the one thing the media will NEVER tell you, ever. They trotted out one expert to assert one set of facts as fact, then trot another to assert the opposite, and call it debate. What it is, is conflict. Conflict is compelling and increases viewership, and thus, ratings. That is the real metric by which the media operates, what the incentive system selects for and rewards. The best most successful media is not the one who tells the most facts; it is the one who has the most viewers and ad revenue.

Posted by: Entropy at November 30, 2011 04:21 PM (ccBqU)

324 Clubber Lang, Interesting, I think someone also mentioned the Winning Coalition theory upthread. Entropy, Your claim "we all have the same opinion" is interesting but I don't really get what you mean based on your example. if you have time, clarify, because the claim sounds interesting (by being insanely counterintuitive). But i really don't get what you mean at all.

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2011 04:49 PM (nj1bB)

325 You really make it seem so uderstandable with your presentation but I find this topic before really hard to understand. It seems too complicated and very broad for me.

Posted by: Hedy’s Folly epub at November 30, 2011 04:52 PM (vaobd)

326 #130 nickless, I give you top honors in three comment categories: (1) briefest, (2) funniest, and (3) most right-on.

Posted by: Randall Hoven at November 30, 2011 04:54 PM (UtlA+)

327 Its Pleasure to understand your blog.The above articles is pretty extraordinary, and I really enjoyed reading your blog and points that you expressed. I really like to appear back over a typical basis,post a lot more within the topic.Thanks for sharingÂ…keep writing!!!

Posted by: Pricing the Future ePub at November 30, 2011 05:10 PM (mLPSm)

328 You are onto something with the gut thing, but I think that an important aspect you overlook, at least in this piece, is basic fairness.

I am not a Cain supporter, but I was and am troubled by the way he was treated with the unsubstantiated smear jobs. If I see someone at AoSHQ doing a point by point comparison of Cain and Perry, and bringing up things like Cain's political inexperience or the downsides of his 9-9-9 plan as reasons to support Perry over Cain, I wouldn't be bothered. Whether or not I agree with the assessment of his strengths and weaknesses, those are fair things to look at and people of good conscience can come to different conclusions. However, when I see someone who is purportedly on my side just accepting Gloria Allred's latest client's smear job as an immediate disqualification of someone like Cain, that pisses me off. Especially if I know they are big Perry supporters and I believe they are making common cause with the left to knock out someone on my side. I say that as someone who doesn't even support Cain. When I saw similar things done to someone who I did support (Palin), it was especially hard not to take it personally. I figure if everyone gets their fair shot, then fine, let the chips fall where they may. But, if some are playing dirty pool, I figure that we are no longer just friends having a fair debate; the other guy is behaving in an underhanded matter, so he must not really be a friend of mine.

No doubt someone will point out that dirty pool is par for the course in politics (yes, I did mix metaphors; thank you for noticing). And that's true enough. I fully expect the left will use every cheap shot they can. It still hurts more when someone one my side does it.

Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at November 30, 2011 06:04 PM (gl7f3)

329 Well said, anon.  It seems denial is not just a river in Africa, when the subject is in-the-tank blog journalism here.

Posted by: JewishOdysseus at November 30, 2011 06:31 PM (PYxvn)

330 Ace, I knew you'd say that.

Posted by: Rick at November 30, 2011 06:35 PM (aGWCI)

331

Well, we don't really all always have the same opinion. There are, of course, lots of different opinions.

But lots of times (like the Schiavo example above, and a gajillion others on all sorts of issues), you may find that reverse-Moynahan mantra holds true for the debate over a given issue.

Especially if you look at a lot of left-right crosstalk, that holds too.

The really subjective things, wants and desires and wishes and the ideal outcome, is basically the same for everyone.

The facts, or what ought be a matter of fact, how to get that, what cause will consistently produce which effect, what the state of the status quo is, whether or not we are in a recession.

Baby murder, right or wrong? Opinion. 95% of everyone? Same opinion.

Abortion? Difference of opinions... on what the facts are.

Posted by: Entropy at November 30, 2011 06:44 PM (ccBqU)

332

Education.

People will argue all day about school funding. Show them numbers, their eyes glaze over. Then they shrug and go back to arguing.

But we all have the same opinion mostly - the education system ought be better. That is subjective, total opinion. I cannot prove the education ought be better with math. What the hell is 'ought' from an empirical, positivist, fact-based perspective?

But does money make it better?

That is a good question that is very simply tested, very well tested, with very definitive answers. It ought be fact, I should say.

Most people though won't see this connundrum and turn to peer-reviewed repeatable expirimental observation. They will just argue, accuse each other of having a different opinion, of actually wanting the schools to suck worse.

And then part and continue on under two completely exclusive assumptions about what facts constitute the state of the reality they both live in.

Even if we find people who do want to argue facts and numbers - rare - I doubt the joy will last long. It will probably turn out they don't want to argue facts and numbers after all, they want to argue some bullshit numbers and studies totally different from ours and just called it 'facts'.

Posted by: Entropy at November 30, 2011 06:59 PM (ccBqU)

333 As the article says ....I really enjoy your blog. Intelligent and to the point.

Posted by: December 1941 ePub at November 30, 2011 09:40 PM (5FOUx)

334 Thank you for the good writeup. It in fact was a amusement account it. Look advanced to more added agreeable from you! mtv downloader  flv to dvd converter  dvd creator
pdf to word transfer

Posted by: nanonu at November 30, 2011 10:02 PM (vzqIo)

335 As some have said, with the Cain affaire, this just doesn't fit. The process of third-party accusation, the claims of secret evidence, is unacceptable and I object to it. I don't want to see it again. I don't want to see it now. I guess you forgot Ace, that your position was not "I don't know what Cain did". At the time, you were claiming to have had prior knowledge of rumors regarding Cain. You thought we ought to know just that --that "everybody who was a political operative knew this was coming". Not who told you, not even what they specifically said. Just enough, so we'd have a bad opinion of Cain.

Posted by: Chris at December 01, 2011 06:06 AM (3GtyG)

336 Check out Fox right now. They're discussin Barney Frank and have on their caption bar: "Barney's Rubble" Nice.

Posted by: MaxMBJ at December 03, 2011 06:16 PM (deaac)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
294kb generated in CPU 0.29, elapsed 1.3646 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.1409 seconds, 572 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.