Quick Hits: 1. Always moaning about your family's nixing of the dog name BINGO - but you hardly ever mention that they settled on call him "John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt." 2. Biden "is doing a good job of not being Donald Trump." Oddly, still a win. 3. Has John Williams heard the half orange joke?
That joke is very funny! You're waiting for (1) the genie-guess-gone-wrong that will explain the result (2) in some clever, comical fashion. To learn that the person simply asked for it outright violates not only your expectations about a genie story (1) but also your expectations about jokes (2). I think that's why it's extra funny.
Also glad that Rittenhouse is trying to get to a normal life and avoid being a political pawn or exploiting a tragedy. Too bad that there are so many people that want create and exploit an image of him. It would help if the media would stop covering him, but of course that is also a dream.
Not Trump is what got him elected (yay!). His problem is that Sanders and Warren are also 'Not Trump', and that faction is not happy with him. The folks that wanted 'Not Trump' and 'Not Sanders' also have reason to be unhappy. If you are right, that most Democrats believe that 'Not Trump' is good enough, then he can avoid a primary challenge. And he has to hope that the GOP gives him Trump or a very Trumpy replacement that he can make hay with.
He will only avoid a serious primary challenge if the party's voters are persuaded that he's the most likely candidate to stave off Trump Part Deux. I had plenty of debates with Bernie Bros in 2020 about the need for those on the left edges of the party to accept reality and get behind Biden, who wasn't my first choice either, because not only was he destined to be the party's nominee at that point, he was the most likely to attract swing voters and beat Trump. My hope right now is that Biden gives way in late 2023 to a younger, more energetic, charismatic moderate Democrat who can appeal to those Obama/Trump voters. Who that is I don't know.
Trump Derangement Syndrome, Eric. In 9 months voters will answer the question, "Are you better off now than you were two years ago". In two years and 9 months they will answer the same question.
regarding "they are being hypocritical, we are being principled." This is one of my favorite observations about political rhetoric. The original poster is on to something - hypocrisy is ALMOST always a weak charge. The reason is, if you read the charge carefully, it almost always puts the accuser in a similar position of hypocrisy. From any side, that's just how people think. I call it Pete's law of the hypocritical boomerang.
From both sides, you can find accusations of hypocrisy on bodily autonomy, the filibuster, the moral authority of Dick Cheney, gerrymandering, everywhere that politicians find it convenient to drop their supposed principles and take up the other side's. And then the other side, instead of welcoming them and agreeing with their new embrace of (automony, the filibuster, Dick Cheney), accuses them of hypocrisy.
True, some charges of hypocrisy don't pass the test. I'm pro abortion rights but I do see the difference between the anti-vax "my body my choice" argument and the pro-abortion-rights "my body, my choice" argument. When it comes to the filibuster or the electoral college and so on, when your position shifts depending on partisan advantage, you are a hypocrite if you have ever argued from principle. If you just follow your principles when they're convenient, they're not really principles at all, are they? Your life is just one long game of Calvinball.
I’m saying it’s mostly Calvinball; almost no principle. If you criticize A for holding both X and not X as justifications of Y and Z, you better agree with either Y or Z, or admit that X vs notX doesn’t carry your argument either.
In real life, team B criticizes ALL of team A and vice versa, even when the so-called hypocrisy must mean you accept one of the other guy’s hypocritical statements. You can’t reject both on the same underlying principal, because the other guy has hypoxritically taken stances on both sides of the principal. which one is wrong?
No clean hands. I am amused by hypocrisy but am insulted by disingenousness. Lets see how many who are against the filibuster become for it when the Senate flips. Which it eventually will. Then we will hear the disingenuous arguments.
On the topic of the filibuster, the Democrats used it just a few days ago, if I’m following this correctly. A bill approved by 55-45 was stopped in Senate by Democratic filibuster.
Can we really consider “my body, my choice” as a Principle, not just a slogan? If it’s not a principle, but just a rule of thumb, then nobody is being hypocritical in discarding it when it doesn’t work out. Now, most of the anti-mandate types are just using the slogan as ironic rhetoric, and plenty of them don’t hold to it. Likewise, as we’re seeing, many abortion rights folks don’t hold to it either. It’s not a principle- just a slogan to brandish or parry as needed.
Loved the idea of an 'Oh, Come On!" officer. But the educrats are not pusillanimous. They, along with many of the professor's colleagues, are true believers. The 'Oh. Come On!' officer candidates would be referred to the diversity consultant for reeducation before being cast back into the wilderness. But one would think that Dr. Sheng would present them with at least a logical conundrum. Anti-racist and Critical Race theory is clear that only whites are racists and that it is not possible for People of Color to be racist. But, the fear, pain, trauma, insult, etc. is based on the individual and their 'lived experience' and must be accepted without question or evaluation. So, he only committed a 'racist act' and as a non-white is redeemable, so he will probably get a reprimand and reeducation, and maybe some form of community service where he can demonstrate contrition.
Also, the 'Oh, Come On!' officer would be trying to get people to be reasonable. But 'being reasonable' is a white cultural construct that is in itself racist because it facilitates white's avoiding accountability and responsibility for their racist nature. This is in part because it allows the offender, and the officer, to challenge/evaluate the level of offense, which is also a further racist act.
These are not my opinions. I am quoting from the anti-racist, Critical Race Theory, and diversity consultant handbook. And yes, by defining the terms as they do, they are able to label any disagreement as racist. My point, to Eric, is that the school administration is not weak and cowed by the vocal students, they are in full agreement with their line of thought. They have no interest in being reasonable. And they would reject the concept of the "Oh, Come On!' officer.
Regarding the professors like Greg Patton getting in trouble for sound a like or redacted words, how long until we can’t use the word niggardly? Not that I make a practice of it.
That’s a word that is best avoided because it has near exact synonyms and is likely to cause confusion. For the record, however, it is not at all related to slur that it brings to mind.
Concerning the referee not enforcing the rule of misplaced masks on HS basketball players, and your graduated technical foul solution. Perhaps you've got a plan on traveling when the now famous Euro Step is used, or the step back over the three point line which dominates that shot. Maybe the lack of fouls called when the defense starts with hands on the offensive player whether they have the ball or not that doesn't ever get called except in the post. Better yet, the full palming of the ball to beat the defense off the dribble. Since the beginning of the game and in every era, the rules are what the refs actually call. Players adjust, and if that adjustment isn't what keeps the pace of the game going, the refs readjust. Nobody will support the slowing down of the game in this era. Your idea could be the start of a transition to "no shot clock" and the "four corners" in this new era of all rules violations being called.
orange head joke kills it---thanks for all the visual tweets today, I actually LOLed with all of them! If I can't get a haircut soon, I'll need some scrunchies too
Quick Hits: 1. Always moaning about your family's nixing of the dog name BINGO - but you hardly ever mention that they settled on call him "John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt." 2. Biden "is doing a good job of not being Donald Trump." Oddly, still a win. 3. Has John Williams heard the half orange joke?
I did share half-orange with John. Not exactly a "speed joke."
Love the visual tweets. Laughed out loud at the picture of Mom and the headline.
Regarding the half orange bit, I guess I don’t get it because I’m still waiting for the punch line.
I get it, but do not find it funny. A little too absurd.
Half an orange - funny
Righteous!
That joke is very funny! You're waiting for (1) the genie-guess-gone-wrong that will explain the result (2) in some clever, comical fashion. To learn that the person simply asked for it outright violates not only your expectations about a genie story (1) but also your expectations about jokes (2). I think that's why it's extra funny.
Also glad that Rittenhouse is trying to get to a normal life and avoid being a political pawn or exploiting a tragedy. Too bad that there are so many people that want create and exploit an image of him. It would help if the media would stop covering him, but of course that is also a dream.
Not Trump is what got him elected (yay!). His problem is that Sanders and Warren are also 'Not Trump', and that faction is not happy with him. The folks that wanted 'Not Trump' and 'Not Sanders' also have reason to be unhappy. If you are right, that most Democrats believe that 'Not Trump' is good enough, then he can avoid a primary challenge. And he has to hope that the GOP gives him Trump or a very Trumpy replacement that he can make hay with.
He will only avoid a serious primary challenge if the party's voters are persuaded that he's the most likely candidate to stave off Trump Part Deux. I had plenty of debates with Bernie Bros in 2020 about the need for those on the left edges of the party to accept reality and get behind Biden, who wasn't my first choice either, because not only was he destined to be the party's nominee at that point, he was the most likely to attract swing voters and beat Trump. My hope right now is that Biden gives way in late 2023 to a younger, more energetic, charismatic moderate Democrat who can appeal to those Obama/Trump voters. Who that is I don't know.
Trump Derangement Syndrome, Eric. In 9 months voters will answer the question, "Are you better off now than you were two years ago". In two years and 9 months they will answer the same question.
“Who that is I don’t know.” That means we DO know that it’s not Harris.
Orange joke good
regarding "they are being hypocritical, we are being principled." This is one of my favorite observations about political rhetoric. The original poster is on to something - hypocrisy is ALMOST always a weak charge. The reason is, if you read the charge carefully, it almost always puts the accuser in a similar position of hypocrisy. From any side, that's just how people think. I call it Pete's law of the hypocritical boomerang.
From both sides, you can find accusations of hypocrisy on bodily autonomy, the filibuster, the moral authority of Dick Cheney, gerrymandering, everywhere that politicians find it convenient to drop their supposed principles and take up the other side's. And then the other side, instead of welcoming them and agreeing with their new embrace of (automony, the filibuster, Dick Cheney), accuses them of hypocrisy.
True, some charges of hypocrisy don't pass the test. I'm pro abortion rights but I do see the difference between the anti-vax "my body my choice" argument and the pro-abortion-rights "my body, my choice" argument. When it comes to the filibuster or the electoral college and so on, when your position shifts depending on partisan advantage, you are a hypocrite if you have ever argued from principle. If you just follow your principles when they're convenient, they're not really principles at all, are they? Your life is just one long game of Calvinball.
I’m saying it’s mostly Calvinball; almost no principle. If you criticize A for holding both X and not X as justifications of Y and Z, you better agree with either Y or Z, or admit that X vs notX doesn’t carry your argument either.
In real life, team B criticizes ALL of team A and vice versa, even when the so-called hypocrisy must mean you accept one of the other guy’s hypocritical statements. You can’t reject both on the same underlying principal, because the other guy has hypoxritically taken stances on both sides of the principal. which one is wrong?
No clean hands. I am amused by hypocrisy but am insulted by disingenousness. Lets see how many who are against the filibuster become for it when the Senate flips. Which it eventually will. Then we will hear the disingenuous arguments.
On the topic of the filibuster, the Democrats used it just a few days ago, if I’m following this correctly. A bill approved by 55-45 was stopped in Senate by Democratic filibuster.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/13/politics/nord-stream-pipeline-democrats-defeat-cruz-bill/index.html
Yeah. See what I mean?
Can we really consider “my body, my choice” as a Principle, not just a slogan? If it’s not a principle, but just a rule of thumb, then nobody is being hypocritical in discarding it when it doesn’t work out. Now, most of the anti-mandate types are just using the slogan as ironic rhetoric, and plenty of them don’t hold to it. Likewise, as we’re seeing, many abortion rights folks don’t hold to it either. It’s not a principle- just a slogan to brandish or parry as needed.
If half his head was an egg, it might slightly be funny. The orange I don’t get.
Loved the idea of an 'Oh, Come On!" officer. But the educrats are not pusillanimous. They, along with many of the professor's colleagues, are true believers. The 'Oh. Come On!' officer candidates would be referred to the diversity consultant for reeducation before being cast back into the wilderness. But one would think that Dr. Sheng would present them with at least a logical conundrum. Anti-racist and Critical Race theory is clear that only whites are racists and that it is not possible for People of Color to be racist. But, the fear, pain, trauma, insult, etc. is based on the individual and their 'lived experience' and must be accepted without question or evaluation. So, he only committed a 'racist act' and as a non-white is redeemable, so he will probably get a reprimand and reeducation, and maybe some form of community service where he can demonstrate contrition.
Also, the 'Oh, Come On!' officer would be trying to get people to be reasonable. But 'being reasonable' is a white cultural construct that is in itself racist because it facilitates white's avoiding accountability and responsibility for their racist nature. This is in part because it allows the offender, and the officer, to challenge/evaluate the level of offense, which is also a further racist act.
Thanks for caling me a racist if I don't agree with you. I won't bother challenging your post since my point of view is obviously racist.
These are not my opinions. I am quoting from the anti-racist, Critical Race Theory, and diversity consultant handbook. And yes, by defining the terms as they do, they are able to label any disagreement as racist. My point, to Eric, is that the school administration is not weak and cowed by the vocal students, they are in full agreement with their line of thought. They have no interest in being reasonable. And they would reject the concept of the "Oh, Come On!' officer.
Sorry. Missed the sarcasm. I am so accustomed to the name calling that I have lost my ability to discern. Apologies.
The huge orange joke is not funny. Nor is the famously dirty Bob Saget joke that made the rounds again after his passing.
Regarding the professors like Greg Patton getting in trouble for sound a like or redacted words, how long until we can’t use the word niggardly? Not that I make a practice of it.
That’s a word that is best avoided because it has near exact synonyms and is likely to cause confusion. For the record, however, it is not at all related to slur that it brings to mind.
Best avoided? Or banned?
The orange joke kills. As you were.
Concerning the referee not enforcing the rule of misplaced masks on HS basketball players, and your graduated technical foul solution. Perhaps you've got a plan on traveling when the now famous Euro Step is used, or the step back over the three point line which dominates that shot. Maybe the lack of fouls called when the defense starts with hands on the offensive player whether they have the ball or not that doesn't ever get called except in the post. Better yet, the full palming of the ball to beat the defense off the dribble. Since the beginning of the game and in every era, the rules are what the refs actually call. Players adjust, and if that adjustment isn't what keeps the pace of the game going, the refs readjust. Nobody will support the slowing down of the game in this era. Your idea could be the start of a transition to "no shot clock" and the "four corners" in this new era of all rules violations being called.
orange head joke kills it---thanks for all the visual tweets today, I actually LOLed with all of them! If I can't get a haircut soon, I'll need some scrunchies too