Jack: no, she didn’t. She DID admit, as did Obama, that the system should have been better tested, and WORKED. When a SERVER is overloaded, thus slow, or even dropping ""off line", it does NOT mean the program, or the “system”, actually “Crashed”. When you can’t get it to restart, and codes are totally screwed up as a result of the computer error, that, is a “crash”.
From 2002 til he left the White House, I had two bumper stickers along with my ’Nam vet sticker, 1. “Support our Troops” 2. the logical way to do that: “Impeach Bush”.
There is absolutely no perspective comparison between the lies and wars of Bush, to a computer system design with regard to “impeachment”, or even firing. Trying to compare the PPACA to the impact on our “privacy” and “security” to the impacts form “Patriot Act”, and “Military Commissions Act”, is likewise a miserable attempt at fraud.
TEA party theme is from Forrest Gump: “Stupid is, as stupid does”.
“Some people like to drink out of a red Solo cup”- typical of the more “brilliant” Republicans’ comments. I watched enough of the “hearings” to realize TEA folks elected morons. There WERE a couple Republicans who asked relevant questions, but they were the rarity. The Secretary answered their questions, but like our “righties” here, no matter how rational, they weren’t heard, or accepted by the kangaroos.
Reading the comments above, I thought to myself that perhaps selective blindness might have a term associated. Indeed it does! Eureka! When I googled “selective blindness”, I came across this (from wiki but it suits the purpose):‘Inattentional Blindness’
So I asked myself: why would one concentrate on one subject, with a complaint which is open to debate, while more flagrant occurrences of the actual complaint are going on all over and from more sources?The likelihood that the subject on which one concentrates is more rational and therefore more likely to respond? The subject is therefore considered more of value and the others worthless; not worth the bother of attempting to open discussion with because one knows a priori that it is useless?Or is there a bias? A filter; a disingenuous mask. One sides with the other sources, if not specifically but ideologically and is therefore more tolerant of their excesses?Or a past annoyance that explains the inordinate attention given to one subject?Or another explanation from paperback psychology?
At any rate, it’s curious, mildly amusing and while entertaining to many and possibly annoying to one, what does it tell us about the author of such posts?
said 30 minutes ago: “I am fairly certain that you would agree with me that DrCanuck’s ubiquitous use of the word “redneck” in such direct phrases as “You rednecks…” in reference to other posters here is objectionable behavior.”
Ah, my pop-corn is still warm, the butter melted nicely.
No, you’d be wrong to be fairly certain. I have noted that when the good Doc uses the term, it is often in response to a flagrant ad hominem by a poster, rewarded with a satirical put-down with a term which can only hit its mark if that poster self-identifies with that remark. One rarely wants to be known as a “red-neck”, Jeff Foxworthy being the exception. Americans are not “red-necks” and “red-necks” are not Americans. (“Rooi-nekke” in my part of the woods are British and very much derogatory and specific to a nation).
It’s turning the name-calling strategy used by the bigot on its head, and slamming it back at the initiator with, in its modern usage, a nebulous, broad term which includes being a bigot within its definition. It only hits the mark if the target is affected by it. Most are because they use that strategy themselves.
You did answer one of my questions though:
Julia said " I simply flag them, as I do not find their output worthy of additional response. "
also said: “Overanalysis is an appropriate word here. I”
Oh, for sure. However, your single-minded “hounding”, albeit polite, on one subject, just as you did with Eryx a year ago and now with DrCanuck, smacks of, the appropriate word here being, obsessiveness.
Your efforts might be better rewarded with commenting on actual cartoons. :)
klr562 over 10 years ago
Obama leadership, the trickle down model. or did she model her answer after Clinton?
Dtroutma over 10 years ago
Jack: no, she didn’t. She DID admit, as did Obama, that the system should have been better tested, and WORKED. When a SERVER is overloaded, thus slow, or even dropping ""off line", it does NOT mean the program, or the “system”, actually “Crashed”. When you can’t get it to restart, and codes are totally screwed up as a result of the computer error, that, is a “crash”.
From 2002 til he left the White House, I had two bumper stickers along with my ’Nam vet sticker, 1. “Support our Troops” 2. the logical way to do that: “Impeach Bush”.
There is absolutely no perspective comparison between the lies and wars of Bush, to a computer system design with regard to “impeachment”, or even firing. Trying to compare the PPACA to the impact on our “privacy” and “security” to the impacts form “Patriot Act”, and “Military Commissions Act”, is likewise a miserable attempt at fraud.
TEA party theme is from Forrest Gump: “Stupid is, as stupid does”.
Dtroutma over 10 years ago
“Some people like to drink out of a red Solo cup”- typical of the more “brilliant” Republicans’ comments. I watched enough of the “hearings” to realize TEA folks elected morons. There WERE a couple Republicans who asked relevant questions, but they were the rarity. The Secretary answered their questions, but like our “righties” here, no matter how rational, they weren’t heard, or accepted by the kangaroos.
OmqR-IV.0 over 10 years ago
Reading the comments above, I thought to myself that perhaps selective blindness might have a term associated. Indeed it does! Eureka! When I googled “selective blindness”, I came across this (from wiki but it suits the purpose):‘Inattentional Blindness’
So I asked myself: why would one concentrate on one subject, with a complaint which is open to debate, while more flagrant occurrences of the actual complaint are going on all over and from more sources?The likelihood that the subject on which one concentrates is more rational and therefore more likely to respond? The subject is therefore considered more of value and the others worthless; not worth the bother of attempting to open discussion with because one knows a priori that it is useless?Or is there a bias? A filter; a disingenuous mask. One sides with the other sources, if not specifically but ideologically and is therefore more tolerant of their excesses?Or a past annoyance that explains the inordinate attention given to one subject?Or another explanation from paperback psychology?
At any rate, it’s curious, mildly amusing and while entertaining to many and possibly annoying to one, what does it tell us about the author of such posts?
-ping!- Ah, my pop-corn is ready.
OmqR-IV.0 over 10 years ago
said 30 minutes ago: “I am fairly certain that you would agree with me that DrCanuck’s ubiquitous use of the word “redneck” in such direct phrases as “You rednecks…” in reference to other posters here is objectionable behavior.”
Ah, my pop-corn is still warm, the butter melted nicely.
No, you’d be wrong to be fairly certain. I have noted that when the good Doc uses the term, it is often in response to a flagrant ad hominem by a poster, rewarded with a satirical put-down with a term which can only hit its mark if that poster self-identifies with that remark. One rarely wants to be known as a “red-neck”, Jeff Foxworthy being the exception. Americans are not “red-necks” and “red-necks” are not Americans. (“Rooi-nekke” in my part of the woods are British and very much derogatory and specific to a nation).
It’s turning the name-calling strategy used by the bigot on its head, and slamming it back at the initiator with, in its modern usage, a nebulous, broad term which includes being a bigot within its definition. It only hits the mark if the target is affected by it. Most are because they use that strategy themselves.
You did answer one of my questions though:
Julia said " I simply flag them, as I do not find their output worthy of additional response. "
Cheers.
OmqR-IV.0 over 10 years ago
also said: “Overanalysis is an appropriate word here. I”
Oh, for sure. However, your single-minded “hounding”, albeit polite, on one subject, just as you did with Eryx a year ago and now with DrCanuck, smacks of, the appropriate word here being, obsessiveness.
Your efforts might be better rewarded with commenting on actual cartoons. :)