Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Spam This Poll
What's a debate without an unscientific Internet survey?
|6.5.07 @ 9:10PM|#
I thought God won the debate. He got even more mention than 9/11, Fred Thompson, and Ronald Reagan combined.
|6.5.07 @ 9:14PM|#
Speaking times, from Chris Dodd's site:
Wolf 10:22
McCain 6:01
Romney 5:12
Rudy 4:48
Brownback 3:42
Hunter 3:01
Huckabee 2:23
Gilmore 2:18
Thomspson 2:04
Tancredo 2:02
Paul 2:00
That's bogus.
|6.5.07 @ 9:19PM|#
Vote Dondero or the terrorists win! Seriously, those Islamofascists hate frrrreeeeedom.
|6.5.07 @ 9:21PM|#
On second thought, I can't believe Paul only had 2:00. Weren't they given a minute for each answer? I know he had more than two questions asked of him. And, at one point I was timing to see how much time Wolf was letting him have, and it looked like he was getting a full minute.
Franklin Harris|6.5.07 @ 9:27PM|#
Hmmm. Maybe Ron Paul's lack of speaking time is due to the fact that he responds to questions with clear, direct statements rather than with droning, (9/11) platitudes about nothing (9/11) of substance (9/11). Obviously, he need to learn how to suck all of the air out of the room the way John "Gates of Hell" McCain does.
|6.5.07 @ 9:30PM|#
CNN had commentary from Arianna Huffington and some schmuck from
the Romney campaign. They were talking about the placement of the
candidates and the schmuck noted that "ironically, Ron Paul is on
the right end of the stage."
As if someone associated with Romney has a place to question
someone else's conservative credentials!
|6.5.07 @ 9:35PM|#
According to Chris Dodd, the numbrs were:
Brownback........7:12
Gilmore..........5:59
Giuliani........12:35
Huckabee.........6:48
Hunter...........7:14
McCain..........12:44
Tancredo.........5:43
Thomson..........4:21
Paul.............5:51
Romney..........11:41
|6.5.07 @ 9:43PM|#
The Romney schmuck is actually making fun of Ron Paul, visibly
mocking his hand motions, saying he's doing a "chicken hop".
Where's that lightning button!
|6.5.07 @ 9:46PM|#
Still, the shortage of time for Paul was glaring, especially
given how well he did with the time he had.
Personally, I think the effect was to leave 'em wanting more.
|6.5.07 @ 9:51PM|#
Of course, the MSM pundits are saying that Paul didn't distinguish himself, if not ignoring him entirely. Are they simply lying, or does talking about the importance of small government, non-intervention, and respect for the constitution just come across as Charlie Brown's teacher's wa-was to these people?
Fluffy|6.5.07 @ 10:06PM|#
Apparently that stupid positive-negative meter thing CNN did went off the chart for Paul in real time - but that wasn't newsworthy enough to make it into the postdebate feature on the dumb toy.
Didja Get Any Onya?|6.5.07 @ 10:07PM|#
CNN has Paul's pic on their front page debate story
told ya he's gonna win...
Hayekian Dreamer|6.5.07 @ 10:16PM|#
Debate scorecard!!!!! Ron Paul's already ahead in all categories.
thoreau|6.5.07 @ 10:23PM|#
joe-
That's a fair point. Perhaps a full 12 minutes for Paul would have
been enough rope to hang himself with.
But he could have done good stuff with 8 minutes, I think.
|6.5.07 @ 10:33PM|#
Seriously, that debate scorecard at CNN is so easy to spam. It
doesn't check for duplicate IPs apparently.
And, as Ron Paul is running a strong second in the "best dressed"
category as well as all the good ones, I'm going to have to
question its accuracy!
Hayekian Dreamer|6.5.07 @ 10:33PM|#
Question 3 in CNN's debate scorecard is horribly biased because with their three analysts they can cherrypick 3 (actually they sneak in 4) candidates and leave the other 6 out to dry and was probably designed to affect the results (not that its a surprise, its just disappointing its so blatant)
Hayekian Dreamer|6.5.07 @ 10:35PM|#
Crimethink - Its equally easy for all candidates to spam. Paul has Liberty Vision, but hey, at least Romney has nice hair.
|6.5.07 @ 10:37PM|#
What I don't get is how the brainless chick on the right said that Rudy's lightning strike incident was the best one-liner. He didn't even say anything about it, just laughed when McCain and the other candidates near him started moving away from him.
|6.5.07 @ 10:57PM|#
When Wold asked about the most important moral issue facing
America, each of the candidates obediently proclaimed themselves
pro-life. Except Guiliani, who said we weren't doing enough to
civilize the heathens.
And Ron Paul, who actually gave an answer that wasn't written for
him by a professional political consultant.
"WASHINGTON (CNN) - Texas Rep. Ron Paul said at Tuesday's GOP
presidential debate that America's most pressing moral issue is its
adoption of a preemptive military policy, declaring it a rejection
of the "Just War theory of Christianity."
"We in the past have always declared war in the defense of our
liberties or go to aid of somebody," he said. "But now we have
accepted the principle of preemptive war - we have rejected the
Just War theory of Christianity.
"We have to come to our senses about this issue of war and
preemption and go back to traditions and our constitution and
defend our liberties and defend our rights," he added.
Paul is the only GOP member of Congress running for president who
voted against authorizing the use of force in Iraq."
This is not a kook. This is a thoughtful person. The people talking
about incinerating Iranians with a nuclear first strike are
kooks.
Bhh|6.5.07 @ 11:02PM|#
Well those Iranians aren't going to incinerate themselves. Right Jesus? High-five!
Grotius|6.5.07 @ 11:15PM|#
So, which Christian Just War Theory is he talking about? There ain't just one.
Fluffy|6.5.07 @ 11:16PM|#
All of the theories that don't allow you to launch a nuclear attack on a nation that hasn't attacked you or anyone else first.
Grotius|6.5.07 @ 11:16PM|#
I wonder if reporters, etc. are now scrambling to look at cliff note versions of the works of Aquinas, Grotius, Pufendorf, Hobbes, etc. on just war theory?
Grotius|6.5.07 @ 11:17PM|#
Fluffy,
Any of the Just War Theories can be stretched to allow for that
situation. The thing about each and every one of them is that they
can be quite subjective and elastic.
Grotius|6.5.07 @ 11:19PM|#
Fluffy,
Indeed, I recall Christians using the thoughts of Aquinas to
justify the Iraq war before it started.
thoreau|6.5.07 @ 11:30PM|#
I remember being unimpressed with Paul a month or two ago. He's
improving.
While his answer may not satisfy experts on the intricacies of
Christian theories of war, if your goal is to attract votes in a
Republican primary, invoking Christianity as often as possible is a
good tactic.
Yeah, yeah, maybe he hasn't read as enough books on just war theory
to give an answer that would satisfy experts. Big deal. Neither
have most Republican primary voters. By simply tying his opposition
to the war to a religious stand, he shows political savvy.
And by tying it to a religious stance more sophisticated than the
"Who would Jesus bomb?" sound bite, he shows more brains than most
of his opponents displayed on stage. (Yeah, I know, that's saying
appallingly little.)
Ron Paul's performance is growing on me.
|6.5.07 @ 11:34PM|#
Are there really 40 other Canadians reading this thread?
Didn't watch the debate so I can't say for sure, but I would be
VERY surprized if Canada even got mentioned other than in the "need
to secure our borders" statements.
Fluffy|6.5.07 @ 11:38PM|#
I will defer to Grotius' superior knowledge of Just War
theory.
On a lighter note: there used to be a comment section at CNN.com
for people to post their opinion about who won the debate.
It was here: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/?p=234
It's now been taken down because of too many Ron Paul posts.
Hayekian Dreamer|6.5.07 @ 11:43PM|#
There's actually another place you can comment on who won, here.
Hayekian Dreamer|6.5.07 @ 11:50PM|#
Hmmm... you're right. You can see the comments but you are unable to add new ones. booo
Grotius|6.6.07 @ 12:02AM|#
thoreau,
...invoking Christianity as often as possible is a good
tactic.
Are you suggesting that he commit demagoguery or engage in how
Plato defined sophistry?
Fluffy,
It is an interesting subject but ultimately it is pretty
unsatisfying.
Grotius|6.6.07 @ 12:05AM|#
Anyway, at this point Paul - likeable fellow that I am sure he is - doesn't seem to have a snowball's chance in hell of making it past New Hampshire.
|6.6.07 @ 12:22AM|#
Maybe ten years ago Ron Paul couldn't have become president
(becuase it wasn't an election year) but remember, 9/11 changed
everything.
Do you think people are still taking shots on that now or are they
all passed out?
lunchstealer|6.6.07 @ 1:00AM|#
Deus | June 5, 2007, 10:03pm | #
The poll is missing URKOBOLD. Who will stand up against this
injustice.
It is clear that The Physicists won the debate.
|6.6.07 @ 2:06AM|#
just a side note...will someone, anyone, inform Arianna Huffington and Paul Begala that Christian social teaching is based on the voluntary choices (thats a big deal in the eyes of god)of individuals to help the poor and says nothing about, and does not at all imply, the creation of a superstate backed by force to administer welfare programs!!!!
|6.6.07 @ 8:42AM|#
Hey, I voted in this poll for myself 8,493 times. So I won the debate. The fact that it doesn't show I won the debate and that the media hasn't reported I won the debate, including Reason, just goes to prove you all are in cahoots with the international banking conspiracy. We all know these "unscientific" polls are the only ones we can trust.
thoreau|6.6.07 @ 8:54AM|#
Are you suggesting that he commit demagoguery or engage in
how Plato defined sophistry?
I'm suggesting that he establish a rapport with his audience by
relating his ideas to beliefs that they hold dear. This use of
rapport as a means of persuasion was first articulated by Biggus
Dickus in his Rhetorical Fulminations and later expanded
upon by Theven Athyrian Athathins in How to Break Hearts and
Influence People. See also Encyclopedia Madeupia for
more details.
Chucklehead|6.6.07 @ 9:02AM|#
Dunno if anyone linked it yet, but the transcript can be found
here.
(NY Times link)
|6.6.07 @ 9:20AM|#
thoreau,
"I remember being unimpressed with Paul a month or two ago. He's
improving."
I agree. In the last debate, the moderator asked if he was saying
the United Stated invited the 9/11 attacks, and he didn't say "No."
The word "No" appeared nowhere in his answer, even though ths
substance of his remarks made it clear that he was not assigning
any moral culpability at all to the US. He's certainly gotten
better at crisp, clear answers.
His demeanor and appearance are much better, too. He doesn't look
lost or awkward anymore. Except for the hand-flapping thing.
Grotius, of course Paul isn't going to win the Republican
nomination - but he is using the platform he's been given very
effectively, and I detect some movement towards his positions among
the other candidates, especially on the second tier.
|6.6.07 @ 9:30AM|#
Giuliani........12:35
I thought Rudy spoke longer than that in his simple yes-or-no
answer to Wolf's "Would you pardon Libby?" question.
|6.6.07 @ 9:31AM|#
The hand flapping thing must be a tick he developed after
delivering 900 babies and slapping their behinds. Who cares?
Why would anyone vote for a candidate based on looks?
|6.6.07 @ 9:37AM|#
Ron Paul is the best thing to come to DC in a hundred and fifty years. Of course he has no chance of winning the nomination, that was never the point. He's articulating a libertarian vision of government. He's being heard by millions of Americans. He's getting the first steps we've been stumbling over for decades done. The next election cycle will be critical. We need to see a number of candidates the build on Paul's constitutional framework. I'm putting the corn squeez'ns back on the shelf. I have more hope for our government than I have in years. Thank you Ron Paul.
|6.6.07 @ 9:53AM|#
I agree with Warren. After watching the Daily Show appearance and the debate, I'm much more excited than I was when he was just some no-voting gold nut. I feel like incremental progress may actually be made!
Grotius|6.6.07 @ 9:54AM|#
thoreau,
How does it feel to be the second biggest douche in the
universe?
I'm the third, so I am quite jealous.
Didja Get Any Onya?|6.6.07 @ 10:00AM|#
It was only two weeks ago that 2008 Presidential candidate Ron
Paul was listed at Sportsbook.com with odds of 200 to 1. In fact,
early in the month he was not even offered on the political betting
menu. My how things have changed in the past month
....Sportsbook.com had experienced such a dramatically insurgence
of betting action on Mr. Paul over the past two weeks they were
forced to slash odds from 200 to 1 to the current 15 to 1
odds.
http://www.gambling911.com/Ron-Paul-Odds-053107.html
Grotius|6.6.07 @ 10:03AM|#
joe,
I really don't see him changing the positions of the folks who
count in the Republican primaries - the "Republican base."
Fluffy|6.6.07 @ 10:18AM|#
The gambling thing isn't really that significant.
If a longshot attracts a lot of betting interest, the oddsmakers
will lower the odds. Long odds are basically the "price" oddsmakers
pay to attract betting action, and if they can get bets anyway at
lower odds, there's no reason to leave the odds high.
So I think the odds reduction doesn't reflect a real change in
Paul's calculable chances as much as they reflect the fact that a
lot of Paul supporters are willing to step up and bet even if the
odds being offered are reduced.
Grotius|6.6.07 @ 10:18AM|#
thoreau,
Or let me put my point more succinctly. I think what the ancients
had to say is very important. Ergo, I draw on what they had to say.
Like Leo Strauss, I read lots of old books.
LarryA|6.6.07 @ 10:26AM|#
They were talking about the placement of the candidates and
the schmuck noted that "ironically, Ron Paul is on the right end of
the stage."
Not surprising. The right-left dichotomy is a big reason no one
understands libertarians.
Are they simply lying, or does talking about the importance of
small government, non-intervention, and respect for the
constitution just come across as Charlie Brown's teacher's wa-was
to these people?
All of the above. Sort of like when the Mormon White Horse story
broke and "saving the Constitution" was held up as so crazy that
it's something only a man on a white horse would consider.
|6.6.07 @ 10:32AM|#
I'm surprised you guys aren't all over Paul for violating separation of Church and State. Remember, if his position on the Iraq war was influenced by his Christian faith, it must be wrong. Or at least we should ignore him since he used a faith-based argument.
thoreau|6.6.07 @ 10:32AM|#
How does it feel to be the second biggest douche in the
universe?
I'm the third, so I am quite jealous.
Well, mostly I feel kind of puzzled. After making it to number 2 I
still have no idea who number 2 works for. I had sort of figured
that I'd get some friggin answers by now.
Grotius|6.6.07 @ 10:37AM|#
thoreau,
You need to talk to Urkobold about that. After Urkobold withers
your soul that is.
Grotius|6.6.07 @ 10:42AM|#
crimethink,
Just War Theory existed prior to the Christian faith (though not by
that name), so it is basically a secular doctrine which various
Christian thinkers adopted. In its primary forms it hasn't changed
all that much for a couple of thousand years. So there isn't much
of a Church-State problem for me. ;)
thoreau|6.6.07 @ 10:43AM|#
No, Urkobold is a troll, not a douche.
I have a hunch that Number One is probably a spokesperson for a
campaign, but I haven't figured out which one yet. But if I had to
guess I'd guess that Number One is that EPA guy from
Ghostbusters.
Who does Number Two work for? I really want to know.
Oh, shit, I didn't work any unnecessary references into this post.
OK, I guess I'd say that I'm a Hamiltonian douche, not a Lagrangian
douche. Hamilton mechanics uses slightly fancier definitions for
its variables, while Lagrangian mechanics cuts through all the BS
to accomplish things with the least action possible.
|6.6.07 @ 10:44AM|#
I wonder if reporters, etc. are now scrambling to look at
cliff note versions of the works of Aquinas, Grotius, Pufendorf,
Hobbes, etc. on just war theory?
AHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Reporters, doing something intelligent... HAHAHA!
I'll bet Fox News will be first to publish a story on it...
AHAHAHA!!
Didja Get Any Onya?|6.6.07 @ 10:44AM|#
If Bush's adventure in Iraq continues to flounder, there's a
good chance that, come 2008, the "Republican base" will suffer from
an insurgency of first time primary voters.
As the primaries draw nigh, look for the Paul campaign to make a
concerted effort at getting new voters to sign on for the GOP party
primaries.
If the Republican party wants to endure for the 21st century,
they're going to have to throw their fanged, nation building, Scoop
Jackson style liberals overboard.
Grotius|6.6.07 @ 10:45AM|#
thoreau,
Oh, shit, I didn't work any unnecessary references into this
post.
I guess from my perspective my references aren't unnecessary. If
you don't already, you might wish to take that into
consideration.
thoreau|6.6.07 @ 10:47AM|#
Grotius, the second biggest douche in the universe only takes
two things into consideration:
1) Whatever I want to take into consideration.
2) Whatever Number One tells me to take into consideration.
You are Number Three, so you have no say in this matter.
Grotius|6.6.07 @ 10:51AM|#
thoreau,
Well, the higher into douchery one climbs the less people pay
attention to what you take into consideration, and since you've
apparently formally adopted the number two position...
|6.6.07 @ 10:51AM|#
LOL thoreau,
When I took my Newtonian Dynamics course, I had a subconscious
resistance to using Hamiltonians which cracked me up. It came from
reading the Probability Broach at a young age; the bad guys, the
intellectual heirs of Alexander Hamilton, are called "Hamiltonians"
in the book.
thoreau|6.6.07 @ 10:55AM|#
The Second Biggest Douche in the Universe is no longer
interested in this exchange, unless Number One orders me to resume,
or I arbitrarily change my mind.
tarran-
The problem I had with Hamiltonians is that the classic textbooks
basically say "Here, take the Lagrangian, add a few terms to it,
now you've got a Hamiltonian. Now, manipulate it a bit and you can
solve the same problems that you solved before." Um, OK.
The real power of the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian approaches is not
for solving some motion problem that could just as easily be solved
by setting it up with Newton's Laws and getting a differential
equation to integrate. No, the real power is that it gives insight
into the general structure of physics, and to a lesser extent it
can be useful in stat mech and advanced QM (not basic QM, however,
where the Hamiltonian is just This Thing We Use). But they don't
teach it that way.
|6.6.07 @ 10:58AM|#
I wonder if reporters, etc. are now scrambling to look at
cliff note versions of the works of Aquinas, Grotius, Pufendorf,
Hobbes, etc. on just war theory?
They could do that. Or they could just insert a throwaway "Duncan
Hunter, Jim Gilmore, and Ron Paul also participated" to their
summary of the far more interesting battle between Rudy McRomney
and Tom Huckaback on who loves Jesus the most.
Timothy|6.6.07 @ 10:59AM|#
But, thoreau, you can use Lagrangian douches for optimization of
the Douche Quotient, and to calculate the cross-douche elasticity
of the internet? What'd a Hamilton douche ever optimize? Nothing,
that's what.
But, Gary, don't sell yourself short mate, you're definitely in
line for promotion to Number Two, the problem is that you'll really
work for Number Six...and he isn't a number at all, he's a FREE
MAN.
|6.6.07 @ 11:00AM|#
thoreau,
I suggest you read the back of a Massengil bottle before you
embarrass yourself further.
|6.6.07 @ 11:02AM|#
thoreau,
Maybe they should teach the Hamiltonian before the
Lagrangian. Then, the students are all happy that they got rid of a
few terms from the operator.
Sort of like folks get all giddy when they get their income tax
return back, not questioning why they had to pay too much to begin
with.
Grotius|6.6.07 @ 11:06AM|#
thoreau,
The Second Biggest Douche in the Universe is no longer
interested in this exchange...
Here, let me paraphase: Run away! ;)
crimethink,
...of the far more interesting battle between Rudy McRomney and
Tom Huckaback on who loves Jesus the most.
Maybe I ought to start watching these things.
thoreau|6.6.07 @ 11:06AM|#
crimethink-
We could also grade on a progressive scale:
The best students lose the most points for minor errors in their
computer simulations.
The next best students lose somewhat fewer points for mathematical
errors in their hand-written solutions.
And students who copy the answer from the back of the book onto a
greasy napkin and hand it in late have no points deducted.
thoreau|6.6.07 @ 11:09AM|#
Timothy, as Feeble of Thebes said, it's pretentious to go around tacking on unnecessary jargon and references in matters of rhetoric.
Grotius|6.6.07 @ 11:09AM|#
Timothy,
No, I ain't selling myself short, I assure you. I know my place as
a douche. I know can't ever aspire to the high levels of assholery
that you have climbed to.
|6.6.07 @ 11:10AM|#
thoreau,
I shall toss a logo embossed plate into the air (noting that it
wobbles twice as fast as it rotates) in your honor today.
Grotius|6.6.07 @ 11:13AM|#
timothy,
I forget myself; you are one of the folks who hangs at gyrilliade,
where all the cool folks out.
thoreau|6.6.07 @ 11:20AM|#
Don't you wish your forum was cool like me!
Don't you wish your forum was a freak like me!
Timothy|6.6.07 @ 11:21AM|#
Thoreau: Well, as Jargonious the Verbose of Herculaneum's
Largest Library wrote, "technically specific jargon in discussions
of general interest is what proves one superior; pretentiousness is
merely the insult of the more feeble and dimwitted. Also, Feeble of
Thebes sucks dirty hose water."
Grotius: Sometimes I deign to investigate what the denizens of Jerk
Mountain, of which I am king, are doing with themselves. I do this
while wearing my dapper leather jacket and French-inhaling
cigarettes. My brand is Kool, because that's how I roll.
dhex|6.6.07 @ 11:33AM|#
i believe the actual title, timothy, is "king shit of fuck
mountain."
someone else on another forum i used to frequent (and study,
actually) was given that sobriquet for pretty much no reason, but
it's poetically delicious. and thus i pass it along!
Grotius|6.6.07 @ 11:36AM|#
thoreau & Timothy,
I realize that mockery feels good emotionally, but intellectually
is it fairly unsatisfying. It is also doesn't defeat the argument
of your opponent, as much as it delays the argument to another
day.
thoreau|6.6.07 @ 11:38AM|#
You know, you could have just refrained from tacking on a
needless Plato reference to your point about Ron Paul, and none of
this would have happened.
When you tack on "Look at me! Look how much I know!" stuff to
otherwise good points, don't be surprised if Timothy and I play the
"Look at me! Look how well we mock!" game.
VM|6.6.07 @ 11:43AM|#
TIMOTHY!!!
What'd a Hamilton douche ever optimize? Nothing, that's
what.
Use the Hamiltonian in continuous time dynamic optimization: RAMSEY
MODEL!!!!!
Grotius|6.6.07 @ 11:45AM|#
thoreau,
It wasn't needless from my perspective. You know, I've talked about
the Sophists enough, Plato's views of the Sophists, etc. for most
folks to realize this. At least that is my perspective on the
matter.
When you tack on "Look at me! Look how much I know!" stuff to
otherwise good points...
The thing is I am not doing that. It is not was not what I was
thinking when I presented the question. What I was thinking was
this: "How can I present this question as specifically as I can so
that thoreau understands my full meaning?"
Remember, I take classical thinkers and old books seriously.
Grotius|6.6.07 @ 11:47AM|#
thoreau,
So really, this wouldn't have happened if you would take a
nano-second of time to understand why I take old books
seriously.
thoreau|6.6.07 @ 11:47AM|#
Well, then I stand by what I wrote in the first sentence of my
8:54 am post, prior to the sarcasm about classical
references:
I'm suggesting that he establish a rapport with his audience by relating his ideas to beliefs that they hold dear.
If you can frame something in terms that the audience relates to,
and argue that your position is consistent with principles that
they value, you're going to be more effective.
VM|6.6.07 @ 11:49AM|#
And Doktor T and Grotius: Walter Peck, formerly of the EPA (way
back in 1984 in NYC) has been hired by URKOBOLD to be his chief
lobbyist.
read about it
hier
|6.6.07 @ 11:49AM|#
Remember, I take classical thinkers and old books
seriously.
Therein lies your problem. You would be much happier if everything
you knew could be gleaned from a two-hour episode of American
Idol.
Grotius|6.6.07 @ 11:49AM|#
thoreau,
And my response would have been:
Yeah, that makes sense and I agree.
BTW, it would be perfectly acceptable to question why I take old
books seriously. But I ain't insincere in the matter.
Grotius|6.6.07 @ 11:51AM|#
thoreau,
Anyway, I hope we understand each other better and can stop
grousing so damn much.
crimethink,
You are probably right. ;)
|6.6.07 @ 12:13PM|#
Grotius,
Let me try to explain this.
No one here is questioning the worth of your favorite old books.
Take them seriously if you like. However, there is absolutely no
need to directly reference these books or their authors unless
you're actually citing them, and unless an actual citation would be
plainly relevant to the issues at hand. Short of that rare
occassion, we expect that your classical learnings will be
(silently) reflected in your substantive arguments rather than
posted on a neon sign adjacent to your arguments. For instance, no
one cares whether Leo Strauss is the muse inspiring you to post at
10:18, and comparing yourself to him adds absolutely no weight to
your arguments. However, feel free to draw inspiration from him
while making a substantive argument about the merits of your
favorite authors. With respect to the Plato reference, Plato's
definition of sophistry is essentially the modern, standard usage
of that term ("term" as defined by Noah Webster -- see my
point?).
|6.6.07 @ 12:17PM|#
Oh, and I've taken more than a nano-second to reflect on your love of old books. My conclusion is that your constant name dropping is sophomoric despite my appreciation for old books.
Timothy|6.6.07 @ 12:20PM|#
Grotius: You know, you're going to have to stop saying things
that make sense if I'm going to continue my campaign of off-topic
mockery.
Point is, anyway, that as seriously as old books should be taken at
times, maybe Plato isn't relevant to Ron Paul connecting to his
audience by invoking religion, or at least not relevant in a way
that most folks are going to recognize or care about.
VM|6.6.07 @ 12:25PM|#
Gro - good question.
URKOBOLD may be a douche if the URKOBOLD so chooses.
Oftentimes on a Summer's Eve, he prefers to be a stream of bat's
piss, however. That would be, "shining out like a shaft of gold
when all else is dark".
And by "shining" I mean "unqualified evil"; and by "gold" I mean
"haggis".
(Timothy - you're still in trouble for the Ramsey/Hamiltonian
comment, grin)
Grotius|6.6.07 @ 12:39PM|#
Chris S.,
However, there is absolutely no need to directly reference
these books or their authors unless you're actually citing them,
and unless an actual citation would be plainly relevant to the
issues at hand.
They are plainly relevant from my perspective. When you can tell me
why they are irrelevant I might have something to discuss with
you.
With respect to the Plato reference, Plato's definition of
sophistry is essentially the modern, standard usage of that term
("term" as defined by Noah Webster -- see my point?).
Actually, it isn't.
Grotius|6.6.07 @ 12:47PM|#
Chris S.,
Or rather, the term sophist as it is used today doesn't give any
scope to Plato's criticism of sophism as a discipline. In today's
terminology it is largely a behavioral definition, whereas for
Plato that wasn't much of a concern.
|6.6.07 @ 12:50PM|#
They are plainly relevant from my perspective. When you can
tell me why they are irrelevant I might have something to discuss
with you.
The fact that Leo Strauss reads (or read, rather) old books more or
less defines irrelevance in any thread that isn't about Leo
Strauss. If I need to explain that in further detail, then we truly
have nothing to discuss here.
Grotius|6.6.07 @ 12:53PM|#
Chris S.,
The fact that Leo Strauss reads (or read, rather) old books
more or less defines irrelevance in any thread that isn't about Leo
Strauss.
The thing is that this thread (and any other thread) is about the
commentators here ultimately wish to make it about. Furthermore,
the reason that I mentioned Strauss was directly related to a
comment put to me. It wasn't a comment out of the blue; it dealt
directly with a comment by another commentator. Try again.
Grotius|6.6.07 @ 12:54PM|#
Chris S.,
In other words, you can try to isolate my comments as if they
weren't part of an ongoing conversation, but that dog won't hunt
much.
|6.6.07 @ 1:01PM|#
Or rather, the term sophist as it is used today doesn't give
any scope to Plato's criticism of sophism as a discipline. In
today's terminology it is largely a behavioral definition, whereas
for Plato that wasn't much of a concern.
Grotius, you said "engage in how Plato defined sophistry..." with
reference to Paul's debating tactics. Even if I accept your broader
characterization of Plato's definition of sophistry, the above use
was plainly a reference to the common behavioral definition of
"sophistry."
VM|6.6.07 @ 1:06PM|#
Timothy:
better yet - Giggles the Midget S&M Clown will do the spanking.
Then you'll get twenty minutes alone with the Noam Chomsky Blow up
doll!
All of this while Mr. Crane reads from the sweaty pillow fight
scene on page 69 of the leather-bound edition of "Heather Has Two
Mommies".
|6.6.07 @ 1:09PM|#
The second para above shouldn't be italicized.
With respect to your last comment, Grotius:
Furthermore, the reason that I mentioned Strauss was directly
related to a comment put to me. It wasn't a comment out of the
blue; it dealt directly with a comment by another commentator. Try
again.
No one referenced Strauss or anything even vaguely evoking him.
Your "try again" and "dog won't hunt" comments are fair attempts at
Internet forum colloqualisms (as opposed to philosopher name
dropping), but I doubt that anyone reading this thread will
disagree with my characterization of your Strauss reference.
VM|6.6.07 @ 1:38PM|#
Crane has been detained. He flew off his bike and bruised his
taintal regions. And he's workin' hours.
Hi Chucklehead.
|6.6.07 @ 2:14PM|#
So there's this IM transcript going around. Supposively someone
from CNN. Is there any truth to this? Anyone know?
repudi08: but not many of us enjoyed that debate. it was same ol
same ol with the Three dominating airtime
atlnewsgal: Yes, indeed..I don't know if I shud say anything
repudi08: whatdo you mean?
atlnewsgal: I know that there was a concerted effort here to focus
on the top tier and leave out the others.
repudi08: come on that is obvious ;-)
atlnewsgal: No, specifically, production-wise, it was Ron Paul that
was to be..as they call "iced" as he was gaining expediency.. I
dunno.. I think people are listening to him more? I can't be quiet
about it. It disturbs me to my core.
repudi08: it doesn't surprise me the top tier gets more focus, but
this was pre-meditated? u gotta be kidding me
atlnewsgal: It was, and I'll get my bell rung if they knew I told
anyone. It doesn't sit well with me and I dunno what's going on.
This is not how I see my country and I am not the only one here at
the desks feeling this way.
repudi08: its worrisome but...hang on, gotta take this call.
brb.
atlnewsgal: I gotta go kiddo. Cant be talking about this now. Talk
l8r.
|6.6.07 @ 2:47PM|#
"I was actually pleasantly surprised by Rudy, and I hate the
man."
I was glad to see him come out against socialized medicine. Too bad
he's such a warmonger.
|6.6.07 @ 3:02PM|#
"They were talking about the placement of the candidates and the
schmuck noted that "ironically, Ron Paul is on the right end of the
stage."
Yeah, I guess Ron Paul is so right, he's almost left. I guess
that's why so many Democrats plan to vote in the Republican
primaries for him.
|6.6.07 @ 3:43PM|#
"Anyway, at this point Paul - likeable fellow that I am sure he
is - doesn't seem to have a snowball's chance in hell of making it
past New Hampshire."
What about Iowa. A recent poll among Republicans in Iowa shows over
50% favoring getting out of Iraq within 6 months.
Equality 7-2521|6.6.07 @ 6:30PM|#
Someone should tip Drudge about CNN "icing" Paul.
Of course, Drudge himself may go ahead and "ice" Paul too.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245