Stats

Comments Posted By nellie

Displaying 3,541 To 3,570 Of 3,698 Comments

Is this the definition of cognitive dissonance?

I’m reluctant to answer the “prove it” posts. I will discuss. But I will not be baited. But since our debt to China as a result of borrowing is so well known, I will post a link that you can “read up on.” But honestly, if your knowledge is so limited as to be unaware of that commonly known information, I don’t know that there will be much to discuss.

» Posted By nellie On November 5, 2009 @ 5:14 pm

Yes, and I notice even with posting all day, there is as yet no answer to my question.

» Posted By nellie On November 5, 2009 @ 5:11 pm

Wonderful post, Kalima. Definitely a keeper. Thanks.

» Posted By nellie On November 5, 2009 @ 3:34 pm

Of course we are, Will. And if you don’t believe that we live in a country where the people govern themselves, that we have a unique and magnificent system of checks and balances, self governance, and representative government, then you and I are so far apart in our beliefs that there really is no common ground.

» Posted By nellie On November 5, 2009 @ 3:16 pm

The thing the media would like us to believe — and the GOP pushes this idea as well — is that the government is some exclusive entity completely removed from the population. We ARE the government. We elect people to run it, we pressure them to put through legislation that we want. That’s what’s happening right now with health care. That’s what happened last November when we elected Mr. Obama.

It’s so ironic to hear people claim to be uber-pro-America, and then bash our system of government — the amazing constitutional creation that makes this country unique in the world, that makes us who we are.

» Posted By nellie On November 5, 2009 @ 3:10 pm

WE do. We’re the government. When it is not operating the way we want it to, we change the people running it.

» Posted By nellie On November 5, 2009 @ 3:08 pm

Wilt, the off budget deficit run ups during Reagan and Bush are common knowledge. We need to start from some base of common knowledge. We can’t spend all our time arguing about whether 2 + 2 = 4.

» Posted By nellie On November 5, 2009 @ 2:43 pm

This is inexcusable. It is utter heartlessness.

» Posted By nellie On November 5, 2009 @ 1:12 pm

Just hearing about this. One person in custody, person or persons still at large with sniper rifles. People are being told to stay away from windows. Seven killed, twenty injured. Nine schools on the base on alert.

» Posted By nellie On November 5, 2009 @ 1:09 pm

The HuffPo paradigm is, unfortunately, where a lot of the online community cut its debating teeth. And that paradigm was shaped largely by the “trolling” posters whose main purpose was to derail discussion.

It’s a real problem in the country. I read Al Gore’s Assault on Reason and it made me hyper aware of the problem.

This is a good place, though. A good place to develop a different paradigm. If it catches on big time, great. If not, I’m happy with the community we have. It’s so much better to discuss something without having the snark weaponry engaged all the time.

» Posted By nellie On November 5, 2009 @ 12:06 pm

I totally agree with you in principle. I wish it were only a matter of doing what’s right and what makes sense. I often post this link over at HP because it really made an impression on me. I’ve always been a little to’d at Clinton for messing up the health care effort. This clip changed my mind:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFa5Dkvmrmw

At this point, I feel we’re lucky to be getting the legislation we’re getting.

» Posted By nellie On November 5, 2009 @ 11:57 am

I remember that. It’s one of several techniques used to derail a conversation away from the central topic. Phony outrage, nitpicking, asking for details that are unavailable, asking for proof of something that is generally accepted, re-defining words to mean something else… It’s endless.

I’m always glad to see the president call people out on these tactics. Comparing Fox News to talk radio was an excellent sound bite. He sets a good example of keeping the exchange cordial, but also keeping it real.

» Posted By nellie On November 5, 2009 @ 11:41 am

Pepe — Don’t apologize. We all need to learn how to keep our discussions from being derailed by misdirection. I know I can get pulled into it, and have to be very aware of when it happens and very disciplined to ignore it. It’s going to happen all the time. It happens in our media every day. It’s certainly going to happen when more and more people find their way to this site.

I see this kind of thread as a path to building the strength of discourse. To handling misdirection and unproductive commentary. Recognizing it when it happens and finding a way to keep the topic on track.

And last but not least, your point is NOT LOST. It’s a good point that has not been successfully refuted.

» Posted By nellie On November 5, 2009 @ 11:30 am

Wilt, that’s just more misdirection. When you post something substantial, I’ll respond.

» Posted By nellie On November 5, 2009 @ 10:27 am

I agree with you. The system needs an overhaul. But we have to start from where we are. And over time, we’ll get it right. This is the first step in that direction. It’s not going to be the best we can do. Not yet. But we’ve got to take that first step.

» Posted By nellie On November 5, 2009 @ 10:25 am

Why not try countering the argument rather than tossing insults at people? I haven’t heard one fact from you yet.

» Posted By nellie On November 5, 2009 @ 10:23 am

It’s a perfect example of how our public discourse can be hijacked by clever misdirection! A good reminder that this is what is happening all the time in our media.

» Posted By nellie On November 5, 2009 @ 10:17 am

It’s a ploy to tamp down debate. Nothing more than that.

» Posted By nellie On November 5, 2009 @ 10:10 am

I’m going to bring this back up to the top, because I’ve never heard this question addressed by Tea Party supporters:

And I’ll start off by saying I don

» Posted By nellie On November 5, 2009 @ 9:55 am

So you’re saying the representations of the Tea Party groups that we see on TV are NOT representative. That’s what I’m getting from your post.

I’m going to leave this issue alone because, frankly, I don’t think it matters who’s in this group if they have a legitimate point of view. I’d rather talk about that.

» Posted By nellie On November 5, 2009 @ 9:45 am

Actually — I didn’t. I don’t pay a lot of attention to that group because they’re not constructive.

And, here is another contradiction. The original Tea Party movement was not about being anti-government. It was about being anti-corporation. So even that label is misleading.

» Posted By nellie On November 5, 2009 @ 9:38 am

I have a basic question then — because, frankly, I don’t think the membership of the group is relevant to the point they’re trying to make.

My question is this — what is their position? They’re against government administered health care, but they don’t want the government meddling with Medicare. That makes no sense to me. They say they’re supporting the constitution, but they never quote it. They call themselves patterned after the origial Tea Party — but that movement was not anti-government (quite the contrary, in fact), it was anti-corporation.

I can’t tell what their goals are except to block reform. What policy do they favor?

» Posted By nellie On November 5, 2009 @ 9:36 am

You didn’t answer the questoin — which I asked in good faith.

What’s the preferred terminology?

» Posted By nellie On November 5, 2009 @ 9:32 am

You keep asking baiting questions. So I’ll let this thread end here.

» Posted By nellie On November 5, 2009 @ 9:28 am

I thought that’s what they were calling themselves. What’s their terminology?

» Posted By nellie On November 5, 2009 @ 9:28 am

Definitely welcome! I’d continue our discussion but I’ve got to get to work. Hope to see more of you here.

» Posted By nellie On November 5, 2009 @ 7:16 am

Being a statistician, I echo Monk’s excellent comment above. I think one can generalize from the evidence. And the fact that outliers must be referenced means just that — they are outliers, and not representative of the group.

» Posted By nellie On November 5, 2009 @ 7:13 am

I’d like to see more of this. I like discussion and disagreement. We’ll see if people can adjust to the paradigm here.

» Posted By nellie On November 5, 2009 @ 7:10 am

“a lot of young people”

Notice that I can answer you without insulting you.

» Posted By nellie On November 5, 2009 @ 7:08 am

I have seen what they’ve televised. And they’ve televised everything.

» Posted By nellie On November 5, 2009 @ 7:07 am