Real Question

[Mr. T]

While much of what you say about the Bible is true, the chronology of it and what not, that's hardly proof that Jesus didn't exist. It suggests embellishment over time, not complete fiction. But historians are pretty certain that Christ exists. The Romans kept their own lists, after all.

 

And Sev, I'm almost with you on the Mormon thing. I find the religion, the origins of it, almost comical. For the life of me, I can't understand how it convinces a man of Romney's intellect.

 

I'd just ask you to consider the clownish Republican alternatives. I'll take the two Mormons any day.

 

Dude you are weird. Do you live your life inside of a test tube?

 

 

[VaporTrail]

Exactly the point doc.

That was within my lifetime and on TV and we still aren't that sure what happened.

Let alone 2000 years ago with little more than word of mouth among a fairly backwward population...

WSS

 

Sorry, I think that's a bad analogy. What we can conclude from the JFK tapes is that he WAS assassinated. You don't have a single contemporary Roman or Jewish document that says Pontius Pilate asked a crowd to decide a prisoners fate, nor one that says Jesus of Nazareth was crucified on this date/time/location. You're comparing apples to oranges. For JFK, there is contemporary evidence of death, for Jesus, there is not.

[Westside Steve]

Sorry, I think that's a bad analogy. What we can conclude from the JFK tapes is that he WAS assassinated. You don't have a single contemporary Roman or Jewish document that says Pontius Pilate asked a crowd to decide a prisoners fate, nor one that says Jesus of Nazareth was crucified on this date/time/location. You're comparing apples to oranges. For JFK, there is contemporary evidence of death, for Jesus, there is not.

 

 

Anyrthing documented 2K years ago would be "contemporary" today.

 

I'd expect that whatever the documentation of that era was is considered contemporary for the time.

WSS

[VaporTrail]

Anyrthing documented 2K years ago would be "contemporary" today.

 

I'd expect that whatever the documentation of that era was is considered contemporary for the time.

WSS

 

Steve, here's what I mean by contemporary.

 

1 - Related to the subject at hand

2 - First hand accounts of the subject

3 - Written as it happened, not in the same era, but in the same exact set of days or months that an event happened

 

Yes, you are correct in saying there are contemporary accounts of happenings in the Middle East during the time of Jesus' alleged existence. There are not, however, ANY documents that fit ALL the above criteria; there's a huge difference. If you're trying to find out what actually happened, you need first-hand accounts of it. The earliest known record of Jesus happened at least ten years after his alleged death.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Wait, Obama is a fundamentalist Christian? ...Wha?

 

Paul Krugman, Princeton professor, world-renown economist, and Nobel prize winner is stupid? ..What reality are you working in?

 

And Hope and Change were slogans, not policy proposals, Steve. It's be like comparing Newt's ideas to "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow." There's a fair critique!

[heckofajobbrownie]

And Vapor, a contemporary account of Jesus' life would not be the historical barometer to determine whether the man existed, or what he preached. What that would suggest, however, is that you might not want to take everything in the accounts as, you know, gospel.

 

Jeez, I never thought I'd get an intra-agnostic dispute in here.

 

We're arguing over the same basic idea. I just happen to think there's more to Christianity than you do, whereas Mormonism is invented out of whole cloth.

 

And Steve, Harry Reid is a Mormon. Democrats obviously don't have problems with Mormons in high places. And Romney and Huntsman are my two preferred Republican candidates, so I obviously don't have a problem with them as presidents either.

 

That doesn't change the fact that I find Mormon theology to be a ludicrous con that defies all common sense.

[VaporTrail]

And Vapor, a contemporary account of Jesus' life would not be the historical barometer to determine whether the man existed, or what he preached.

 

No it wouldn't. But if there were a bunch of those contemporary accounts, then I'd absolutely admit that they supported this man's existence. I just find it mind-boggling that there isn't even a single one.

 

We're arguing over the same basic idea. I just happen to think there's more to Christianity than you do, whereas Mormonism is invented out of whole cloth.

That doesn't change the fact that I find Mormon theology to be a ludicrous con that defies all common sense.

 

What then, makes mainstream Christianity more legitimate to you?

[Westside Steve]

And Vapor, a contemporary account of Jesus' life would not be the historical barometer to determine whether the man existed, or what he preached. What that would suggest, however, is that you might not want to take everything in the accounts as, you know, gospel.

 

Jeez, I never thought I'd get an intra-agnostic dispute in here.

 

We're arguing over the same basic idea. I just happen to think there's more to Christianity than you do, whereas Mormonism is invented out of whole cloth.

 

And Steve, Harry Reid is a Mormon. Democrats obviously don't have problems with Mormons in high places. And Romney and Huntsman are my two preferred Republican candidates, so I obviously don't have a problem with them as presidents either.

 

That doesn't change the fact that I find Mormon theology to be a ludicrous con that defies all common sense.

 

Oh I was just kinda kidding Heck.

Seems like the left hates Christians if they're Republicans.

 

They're the "religious right."

 

WSS

[Westside Steve]

Wait, Obama is a fundamentalist Christian? ...Wha?

 

Paul Krugman, Princeton professor, world-renown economist, and Nobel prize winner is stupid? ..What reality are you working in?

 

Krugman is a Nobel Laureate like Arafat. Michael Moore has an Oscar.

Eugene Robinson a Pulitzer.

 

Unfortunately being an idealogue for the left is a foot in the door.

 

No matter he's a garden variety shill now.

 

WSS

 

And Hope and Change were slogans, not policy proposals, Steve. It's be like comparing Newt's ideas to "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow." There's a fair critique!

 

But "Hope and Change" was all he had.

Sure as hell wasnt economic, foreign military or health policy.

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

This is just so, so clueless. Once again, you can live in your own reality, but it's not reality. It's just what you say to have an answer to things you don't know about.

 

Krugman's Nobel Prize was for work on trade theory and economic geography. You may disagree with his politics, and many do, but this award had nothing to do with that. Likening the Nobel Prize in Economics to an Oscar is ridiculous. Even you should know that. Sadly, it doesn't seem that you do.

 

I wouldn't suspect that even Krugman's fiercest critics would label him as "stupid", especially when speaking of his work in economics. But you would!

 

Honestly, it's like an Onion headline: "Bar act calls Nobel Laureate stupid." And this picture runs under the headline.

 

Don't be that guy, Steve.

 

And the idea that "Hope and Change" amounted to the totality of Obama's policy positions ...Jesus Christ. Just clueless. If you only went by what was on his campaign website - never mind all of the policy speeches, the debates, the position papers, etc. - you'd know that there were pages and pages of Obama outlining his views and proposals on a number of issues. It was all there for anyone to read. Yes, his economic proposals, tax proposals, military proposals, health care policy. It's bizarre. Usually the critique of Obama's policies is that they're too wonky, too driven by technocrats, and that they lack an overall theme and are rarely communicated well enough to the public. To you ...I don't even know what. You don't seem to have looked beyond the sign on the podium. This is clearly your weakness, rather than any sort of critique of Obama.

 

I'm sure at some point Rich must have noted that Bush didn't give us "compassionate conservatism" and stopped there as well. Perhaps he even wrote, "Moving America Forward? As if!!" Well, congrats, my man. That's where you are too.

 

It'd be much easier to say, "Okay, I'm not saying Krugman is stupid, but..." and then make a point about how you disagree with him. Or "You're right - I shouldn't make so much out of political slogans or imagine that they're the same as policy proposals" and then make a real point. Because it would show that you can acknowledge objective reality.

 

But no, you just keep digging.

 

God, every time I think there's something worth discussing with you, you write something like this.

[Westside Steve]

>> God, every time I think there's something worth discussing with you, you write something like this.

 

<<

 

Actually Heck, again you've let partisan anger override your mind.

 

I didn't call Krugman stupid.

Krugman called ME (and any other sane person) stupid for thinking Guingrich is bright.

 

Read the damn quote.

 

Same deal.

 

Krugman has a Nobel, yes.

So does Arafat, so does Obama. (and even he was a little embarrassed) so don't try to pretend it has no political ramification.

Like it or not.

So do the Oscars and the Pull it sir.

Unfortunate? You tell me.

 

But aside from that Krugman doesn't earn a living from discussing the finer points of the economy, he earns it by being a left wing commentator.

A shill or a hack if you prefer.

 

I've read enough of the guy to know he's as nasty and partisan as any on the right.

Sure there's a place for that but for Gods sake lets not put him on a pedestal.

 

I picked one topic to respond to here.

We'll do the rest soon.

 

 

 

Oh and a PS

You're enchanted by the ivy league right?

My friend Doug went to school in Ohio and took the bar here. Passed on the first try unlike three of his aquaintances who went to Harvard.

 

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Oh, God. I'm going to withdraw from this one. Nobel Prizes in Economics are still like Nobel Peace Prizes. (Wait until we get you started on Nobel Prizes s in Physics!) And also like Oscars. And when you said Krugman's quote was autobiographical, you didn't mean that it was about him. You meant it was about you..

 

Have a nice Thanksgiving.

[Mr. T]

Steve, good luck trying to convince Heck of anything different than what he has been programmed to say or change his beliefs.

 

The poor boy plays like a an old 33 album with a scratch and he continues to skip back and repeat the chorus.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvXBNnpHFDI

[heckofajobbrownie]

And some more fun Newt: "The Congressional Budget Office is a reactionary socialist institution which does not believe in economic growth, does not believe in innovation and does not believe in data that it has not internally generated."

 

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former CBO director and Republican, called the Gingrich allegation "ludicrous." "I think if you parse that phrase carefully, he got one out of three right," Holtz-Eakin said. "I do agree it is an institution. If you're playing baseball, that's a decent batting average."

[Westside Steve]

Oh, God. I'm going to withdraw from this one. Nobel Prizes in Economics are still like Nobel Peace Prizes. (Wait until we get you started on Nobel Prizes s in Physics!) And also like Oscars. And when you said Krugman's quote was autobiographical, you didn't mean that it was about him. You meant it was about you..

 

Have a nice Thanksgiving.

 

Thanks Heck.

But, let's recap.

He said that Gingrich is the kind of person that stupid people think is smart!

I said that sounded autobiographical.

Why would that be?

Because it seems more like Krugman himself is the type of person that stupid people think are smart.

I hope that's not too difficult to understand.

( And yes I understand that krugman is trying to insult me than anyone else feels that way. Just another reason I find krugman to be an asshole.)

 

Happy thanksgiving old buddy.

Don't forget to order from the 99 cent menu!

WSS

[calfoxwc]

Again, why is it always some thing that a rep said that is proof of their stupidity?

 

But the ignore the dems stupidity in making statements.

 

Like Pelosi. And Reid.

 

But mostly, the "57 states"...

 

and the most recent? "here in Asia" (when Obamao was IN HAWAII)....

 

come on. Please Heck, TRY just once to be sincere and stop the ignorant leveraging democrat attacks to see what works ?

[Westside Steve]

Of course you're right Cal.

I'd be very surprised if george will would be Hecks gold standard for every opinion we have here.

But for you Heck let me ask this:

Is it your position that ideology has no place inside the nobel selection committee?

Also how would you describe Krugman's job category today?

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

The Nobel Prize in Economics has no discernible political motivation, no. You seem to think the Peace Prize and the awards for economics and physics are all the same thing, and that Krugman's win was akin to Obama's. It wasn't.

 

Or maybe you can discern the ideological message being sent by naming these winners:

 

 

2011: THOMAS J. SARGENT , and CHRISTOPHER A. SIMS for their empirical research on cause and effect in the macroeconomy.

 

 

2010: PETER A. DIAMOND , DALE T. MORTENSEN , and CHRISTOPHER A. PISSARIDES for their analysis of markets with search frictions.

 

 

2009: ELINOR OSTROM for her analysis of economic governance, especially the commons and OLIVER E. WILLIAMSON for his analysis of economic governance, especially the boundaries of the firm

 

 

2008: PAUL KRUGMAN for his analysis of trade patterns and location of economic activity.

 

 

2007: LEONID HURWICZ , ERIC S. MASKIN , and ROGER B. MYERSON for having laid the foundations of mechanism design theory.

 

 

2006: EDMUND S. PHELPS for his analysis of intertemporal tradeoffs in macroeconomic policy.

 

 

2005: ROBERT J. AUMANN and THOMAS C. SCHELLING for having enhanced our understanding of conflict and cooperation through game-theory analysis.

 

 

2004: FINN E. KYDLAND and EDWARD C. PRESCOTT for their contributions to dynamic macroeconomics: the time consistency of economic policy and the driving forces behind business cycles

 

 

2003: ROBERT F. ENGLE for methods of analyzing economic time series with time-varying volatility (ARCH) and CLIVE W. J. GRANGER , for methods of analyzing economic time series with common trends (cointegration)

 

 

2002: DANIEL KAHNEMAN for having integrated insights from psychological research into economic science, especially concerning human judgment and decision-making under uncertainty and VERNON L. SMITH, for having established laboratory experiments as a tool in empirical economic analysis, especially in the study of alternative market mechanisms

 

 

2001: GEORGE A. AKERLOF, A. MICHAEL SPENCE, and JOSEPH E. STIGLITZ, for their analyses of markets with asymmetric information.

[heckofajobbrownie]

And Krugman's job category? He's an economist, a professor of economics, an economics and public finance columnist for the New York Times, as well a political editorial writer for the New York Times.

 

Am I missing something here? This seems like a question that could have been answered by Google.

[heckofajobbrownie]

I said that sounded autobiographical.

Why would that be?

Because it seems more like Krugman himself is the type of person that stupid people think are smart.

 

Huh? Krugman is smart. So it wouldn't make stupid people seem stupid to think he's smart.

[Westside Steve]

Yes heck, you are correct. Krugman is a very intelligent and educated man. 1 might think that it would be stupid to glean ones political advisor from a man from someone who's experience is in theoretical economics, but....

Of course his statement had nothing to do with his expertise, it was really a snark against Gingrich and those who like him.

I have noticed of course that before Newt became the front runner, the self appointed left wing intelligensia used to think he was smart too.

Mostly your guys would attack him for morals or some perceived inconsistencies in his positions.

Now of course you've received your marching orders. The new talking point is that he's stupid ha ha ha ha ha.

Maybe cal is correct and you boys really do sleep with the Saul Alinsky playbook.

Personally I'd guess it was more following orders of david axelrod.

But basically, no, krugman is not stupid and neither is gingrich.

Krugman's statement is no more insightful than anything beck hannity or limbaugh toss out.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

I thought Krugman's statement was clever, actually. It rings true to me. In a party that seems to grow more and more anti-intellectual with every passing year, with fewer and fewer of what I would consider "smart" or "wise" people at the head of it, Newt is what passes for really smart. But that says more about the Republican Party than it does about Newt's intellect. So I just disagree with you. Newt's read a bunch of history books, and can talk until seasons change, so that sounds brilliant to lots of people. But what comes out of his mouth, or his pen, isn't all that mind-boggling.

 

Newt isn't dumb, of course. Far from it. The bigger point is that he's entirely flawed and an incomplete personality. He's hardly the genius he imagines himself to be, and there's nobody who thinks Newt Gingrich is as smart as Newt Gingrich does. But there are ranges of intellect, and I wouldn't put him in the high end. And there are also things like temperament and judgment and good sense and ability. I'm not of the opinion that Newt is the type of person you let run a country, and the country has already learned what it's like when Newt runs the House.

 

As for the "marching orders" stuff ...I mean, come on. Frontrunners get hit because they're frontrunners. If Bachmann were in front - and she was for a spell, if you can wrap your head around that - everyone would be still talking about Bachmann. Go look at the growing list of Republicans - even some of those still in office - who have already publicly declared that they can't support Newt for president. And it's not because they don't know him, and haven't worked with him. It's because they do, and they have.

 

But hey, if I have to pick from a list of people to run the country and it includes Rick Perry and Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann, I'd vote for Newt, too. I'd just vote for Romney and Huntsman first.

[calfoxwc]

Heck translation, as best I can think it through including reading between the lines:

 

"I think only intellectuals want gay perverted marriage to be legal, and assaults on children to be legal, and drugs to be legal,

and all the people should get a lot of money from those who have some of it, and only intellectuals should be allowed to vote,

and like, I think that all the people who don't have any money should be supported by the federal government with free everything,

and only intellectuals want to have sex with exotic animals made legal, and I want in on some of that handout action,

and only intellectuals want to get rid of God out of everything and everywhere

because I agree with them and Calfox makes me cry when he uses phrases and compound words like "pseudo-intellectuals" and "perverted stuff".... "

[Westside Steve]

Well, a couple of points, Heck.

First, I'm not at all surprised that you thought that was a pretty funny line.

So since we both agree the krugman is an educated man I doubt that you would think it was as hilarious had someone made the same statement about the president.

Especially since you seem to think that a law degree is not much of a test for intelligence.

Now remember I'm not saying little Obama is stupid, but many of those who think that he's brilliant are by and large swayed by his speaking voice and the ability to read david axelrod's words for prompter.

 

 

But to the other point, sure I understand that the front runner will attract more fire.

That's not what I meant by marching orders. I actually spend more time watching the left lane news than I do fox. Seems to me that the plan is to pimp the guy that's not in the lead.

When gingrich was a long shot they all talked about how smart he was and how is really not that conservative and that republicans should wake up and see that.

Now republican darling of the left is huntsman. I hear how smart and wonderful and by golly conservative he is. I don't have much doubt that should he take the lead he'll be painted as big an idiot as rick perry.

 

Furthermore I understand your criticisms of gingrich. He might well be an ego maniac a loose cannon non disciplined what ever.

And if my main goal was to change the president I suppose it might be a better idea to vote for mitt.

But I'll think on that andmake my decisions closer to next fall.

WSS

[Westside Steve]

Dude he just posted 2 posts ago.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Well, a couple of points, Heck.

First, I'm not at all surprised that you thought that was a pretty funny line.

So since we both agree the krugman is an educated man I doubt that you would think it was as hilarious had someone made the same statement about the president.

Especially since you seem to think that a law degree is not much of a test for intelligence.

Now remember I'm not saying little Obama is stupid, but many of those who think that he's brilliant are by and large swayed by his speaking voice and the ability to read david axelrod's words for prompter.

WSS

 

Let me straighten some things out for you. And perhaps you'll defer to me because I know a little bit about this stuff.

 

David Axelrod does not write the president's speeches. He's an advisor, and he has a hand in message crafting, but he's not writing speeches. You know who writes Obama's speeches? It's often President Obama. Certainly all of the major speeches are largely written by the President himself, and the final drafts are all his. And he's also got a speechwriting team, like any president, led by a guy named Jon Favreau. But nothing but the most general stuff is written for the President without him being involved in the process. It's also common knowledge that the best speechwriter in the White House is the president himself. (Obama famously thinks this as well.) So to say he's just reading David Axelrod's words off a teleprompter is just wrong on a whole host of levels. It's an effort to use falsehoods to make him sound like he's an incompetent actor, or what you like to call "an empty suit." The problem with this line is that it's simply not true.

 

Will that stop you from using it? Of course not. You love it too much.

[heckofajobbrownie]

As to your question, I think it's clear, judging from his books/writing to his educational background and years as a professor to his grasp of policy and his ability to articulate it to the fact that he came from pretty much nothing to become the President of the United States, that President Obama is a remarkably bright guy. I don't think any fair observer questions his intellect. Whether or not that translates into a great or effective politician is another story. I happen to think that if you could merge Obama's personal disposition and character with Clinton's political skill you might really have something. I think Obama could use some Clinton, and Clinton could have really benefitted from some Obama.

 

As for your mix up, I do think a law degree is a decent barometer for measuring someone's intelligence. I just think it's laughable to suggest that graduating from Harvard Law and editing the Law Review and becoming a professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago is even remotely the same thing as graduating from Regent University Law. It simply isn't. That should be a pretty easy distinction to make, even for you. One is one - if not the - toughest, most selective, and most highly respected law school in the world, and the other is ranked at the bottom of every survey.

 

So there's no reason to hold up a JD and insist that it levels the playing field. Michele Bachmann gives us evidence of her policy ignorance almost daily. And policy is her job. What are we supposed to think of people who live and breathe issues for a living and still can't display a working knowledge of the relevant issues? That they're really smart?

[Westside Steve]

Yes dear I know you you think you made a big fun point but of course I realize that david axelrod doesnt write obama's speeches.

I merely use him as your guys used karl rove as the pit from where all evil springs.

Or the way napoleon used farmer jones.

And you did make the point that not all tax lawyers are smart.

Only the democrats right?

WSS

[Westside Steve]

and let me repeat that my buddy Doug went to cleveland state or toledo or somewhere and passed the bar on his first try. Unlike 3 others from that section who had gone to harvard.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

I guess when you write that "many of those who think that he's brilliant are by and large swayed by his speaking voice and the ability to read david axelrod's words for prompter" I'm supposed to know that what you mean is that Daxid Axelord is not writing the words on the prompter. You're making an unrelated point about Democrats and Karl Rove somehow. And assuming people who think Obama is smart are relying solely on his speeches, which would be dumb because they were written by someone else and he's only performing them. Except you're not saying they were written by someone else. Even though that's what you always mean when you call him an "empty suit."

 

Gotcha, buddy.