(11-24-2019 05:54 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-24-2019 11:43 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  For those following along at home:

An opinion piece by Casey Michel is posted that suggest that Joe Biden's efforts to oust Shokin increased the potential for scrutiny of his son's dealings with Bursima, countering the conservative narrative that Joe Biden was acting to protect or support his son.

Instead of just saying they don't buy the article, folks suggest that liberal posters only believe this oped because Michel is on their side. Lad points out that Michel is highly credentialed when it comes to corruption in post-soviet states, OO and Tanq spend a couple days calling Lad a dummy for believing that degrees or experience in a topic should confer weight to this person's opinion.

It finally gets pointed out that OO and Tanq's line of attack on Lad suggests that no one can be an expert on anything. Michel is obviously an expert in this field. If you reject his opinion, that's your prerogative.

I am just sitting here calmly and serenely posting my opinions. From here it looks like Fountains, AtEase, and Lad having the temper fits.

Im still waiting for a cogent response of 'yes, or no' to my question posted earlier, in a much calmer tone. Funny that hasnt happened. <crickets>

It is a seemingly easy question to understand. I wonder what the problem is in a simple answer.

And actually, Fountains was correct in a manner about a 'false equivalence' -- to rectify it here is a redline of the question:

Let us assume someone has I have a JD, a degree in law accorded a doctorate level. Accordingly, I that someone should be considered an expert, or have expertise, in tax implications of the ownership of foreign-based entities that have interests in gambling in Indian reservations. A simple yes or no should suffice,

Or even this: Assume someone has some general doctorate in accounting. Should that someone be accorded as having expertise in the tax implications of the ownership of foreign-based entities that have interests in gambling activities on Indian reservations, simply as a byproduct of having that advanced degree? Yes or No.

(11-24-2019 01:39 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-24-2019 01:19 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

(11-22-2019 06:57 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I have been told I am intentionally obtuse. Probably so.

Yep. That usually happens when I ask people to back up their words or what they attribute to me.

I guess it is happening again. Rather than show that I called lad a dummy, you choose t call me obtuse. Bait and switch.

Imagine that. Who would have thunk.

(11-24-2019 01:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-24-2019 01:03 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  oh my god. Michel's master's thesis literally mentions John Solomon as a shill for whitewashing Russian and post-soviet kleptocracies.

OMG, it's in a master's thesis? That makes it unassailable truth.

Based on the response they dont quite get your point.

Well, moving on to somebody we can all (except AE) agree is NOT an expert...

Adam Schiff will never give up

Sounds to me like he is beginning to believe himself.



If he really truly believes, is it still hypocrisy?

(11-24-2019 05:58 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-24-2019 05:39 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

Does AE get his info from anywhere besides Twitter?

Mr Pop Up Video only deems a sentence or two per month per post. Kind of a cross between Pop Up Video format and a sloth. Kind of why I have him on ignore.

Quote:And who is Carol anyway? Is she an expert? Does she have any degrees?

As much as AE likes Twitter, you would think he would be a Trumpophile.

Lucky she doesnt have a Master's. Though. lad would be licking her feet if that were the case. Though.

Im still shocked that we are arguing about whether or not education and experience in a matter confer expertise. Dumbfounded that any of you received a diploma after high school since it obviously means nothing about one’s knowledge in a certain subject.

They certainly don’t mean someone is infallible, but the repetition of that comment seems to have been missed.

(11-24-2019 07:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Im still shocked that we are arguing about whether or not education and experience in a matter confer expertise. Dumbfounded that any of you received a diploma after high school since it obviously means nothing about one’s knowledge in a certain subject.
They certainly don’t mean someone is infallible, but the repetition of that comment seems to have been missed.

And I'm shocked that anyone would consider a master's plus less than ten years of experience to confer any significant amount of expertise. I think it is one of the failings of academia to assume that a degree confers expertise. A diploma is not meaningless. But it is the entry ticket, not the culmination of anything. In conjunction with significant experience, it can mean a lot. But a master's and 9 years of writing about things, rather than actually doing things, does not confer great expertise, and when that is combined with apparent bias, then that certainly does not amount to significant reliability.

(11-24-2019 07:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Im still shocked that we are arguing about whether or not education and experience in a matter confer expertise. Dumbfounded that any of you received a diploma after high school since it obviously means nothing about one’s knowledge in a certain subject.

As for a whole bunch of related areas, the answer would be 'it may, or it may not'. A point you still dont seem to really understand, mind you.

And, even in the specific subject, you are amazingly naive about expertise. But then again, you are too fing wet behind the ears to have seen that much of that aspect in real life.

But that doesnt stop you from getting maddy poo. I will absolutely agree that my diploma(s) from Rice in no way, shape, or form, except in the broadest of senses of knowledge, was directly applicable to what I did professionally for the next 7-8 years.

Yep, I knew the basics about electrical engineering and applied math -- but it in no way made the cut to 'expertise'. But now you conflate 'general knowledge' with 'expertise' in your reply. The generalized knowledge of an area in a Bachelor's has almost zero overlap with 'expertise' in the manner in which we are speaking of. Strike one on your only pitch in that reply, I guess.

And, back to the degrees and what they conferred, the subsequent higher degree really didnt change that.

And, in that second professional career, it brought me into a multitude of direct contacts with such people who had such degrees you find so esteemed. And funny enough, even in the very subset of their area, and many times the subset of the subset of the 'thesis' of those degrees, it could be noted very explicitly that they did not have that expertise.

Thus, the answer of 'it may, or it may not' confer such expertise is spot on, even in light of your conflating general knowledge in your example of BAs and BSs with that of expertise. You are correct that those degrees indicated an exposure, at the very least, to such 'added generalized knowledge'. You are incorrect to equate that 'generalized knowledge' as 'expertise'.

I suggest you cut the 'horror' at that fact. Most people who have aged and actually been tempered with a little bit of life will note what I just said as accurate.

I would give it up, but some dude who thinks that any thought other than his on this subject is accurately described as 'full of hubris' and 'pompous' keeps flapping their wings and chirping their chirp on it. Note the subject of what this post is responding to.

(11-24-2019 07:24 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  it can mean a lot.

Undoubtedly. It may, or it may not.

The funny thing is I was going to fisk Fountains more cogent, but evasive response to note that the proper answer was: no, not automatically.

I would have hoped to do the same with the lad's, but in true lad world fashion he chose not to bother to read the fing question and instead had an answer to another one that wasnt asked.

Fountains evasive response relied on changing the predicate of the degree to include a raft of other items to prove their point of 'yes' -- even in the absolute correct answer of no, not automatically.

And having to change that predicate is a viable path -- no doubt. It also means that 'it may, or it may not'. Something I have said for a number of days now.

Im not shocked lad is still arguing this. The lad is way to invested in his position now to even rationally think the mere thought of the mouth breather that 'it may, or it may not'.

But funnily his blathering answer to a question that wasnt asked seemingly is par on course with his pattern of 'characterization issues' he seems to have encountered lately.

Kind of rich when you think about it a little. Though.

Dow over 28K today, again. Up almost 10K since Election Day, 2016, or just about three years.

Oh, the misery. We need to get rid of Trump ASAP so we can get the economy down again. Calling Adam Schiff!!!

(11-25-2019 01:37 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Dow over 28K today, again. Up almost 10K since Election Day, 2016, or just about three years.

Oh, the misery. We need to get rid of Trump ASAP so we can get the economy down again. Calling Adam Schiff!!!

This is all I can think about when you make these posts.

(11-25-2019 02:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-25-2019 01:37 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Dow over 28K today, again. Up almost 10K since Election Day, 2016, or just about three years.

Oh, the misery. We need to get rid of Trump ASAP so we can get the economy down again. Calling Adam Schiff!!!

This is all I can think about when you make these posts.

The only difference is that one has a demonstrable, raw fact, with an attached commentary; the other is just raw opinion. Other than that exactly the same.

(11-25-2019 02:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-25-2019 01:37 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Dow over 28K today, again. Up almost 10K since Election Day, 2016, or just about three years.

Oh, the misery. We need to get rid of Trump ASAP so we can get the economy down again. Calling Adam Schiff!!!

This is all I can think about when you make these posts.

If that is ALL you can think about, then your thinking is very limited.

How has your 401K fared since Trump was elected? I suggest you take the entire gain and donate it to whatever save the world movement you prefer.

Out of curiosity, what would do you think Hillary would have done to save the Earth?

(11-25-2019 06:18 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-25-2019 02:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-25-2019 01:37 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Dow over 28K today, again. Up almost 10K since Election Day, 2016, or just about three years.

Oh, the misery. We need to get rid of Trump ASAP so we can get the economy down again. Calling Adam Schiff!!!

This is all I can think about when you make these posts.

If that is ALL you can think about, then your thinking is very limited.

How has your 401K fared since Trump was elected? I suggest you take the entire gain and donate it to whatever save the world movement you prefer.

Out of curiosity, what would do you think Hillary would have done to save the Earth?

When someone makes a post about how good anyone is for the economy, when only looking at a measure of shareholder value (i.e. the stock market), that is all I can think about.

If you want to throw in wage growth, unemployment, GDP growth, etc. then I don't immediately think of that comic because it isn't so darn on the nose (especially with Trump being a champion of cutting EPA regs as much as he can).

Had Clinton won, I think we wouldn't see the federal government suing the state of California from creating its own emission limits for vehicles. I don't think we would have conversations about expanding drilling to some of our most sensitive environments when we have plenty of production in our current oil fields. I don't think we would have seen roll backs or post-postponements of regulations of waste products like CCRs. I think we would have been leading by example in GHG emission reductions and implementing a market-based reduction program like cap and trade.

I can go on with respect to what sort of differences I could have expected if you want.

Frankly, my 401k would have likely kept growing around the rate it had under Obama, and it wouldn't have changed in a way that matters much to me - I'm still decades from worrying about its final value, and I expect there to be downturns in between now and then that will eat away at some, or most, of the gains seen during the Trump administration.

(11-25-2019 05:59 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-25-2019 02:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-25-2019 01:37 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Dow over 28K today, again. Up almost 10K since Election Day, 2016, or just about three years.

Oh, the misery. We need to get rid of Trump ASAP so we can get the economy down again. Calling Adam Schiff!!!

This is all I can think about when you make these posts.

The only difference is that one has a demonstrable, raw fact, with an attached commentary; the other is just raw opinion. Other than that exactly the same.

Cool.

(11-25-2019 06:29 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-25-2019 06:18 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-25-2019 02:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-25-2019 01:37 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Dow over 28K today, again. Up almost 10K since Election Day, 2016, or just about three years.

Oh, the misery. We need to get rid of Trump ASAP so we can get the economy down again. Calling Adam Schiff!!!

This is all I can think about when you make these posts.

If that is ALL you can think about, then your thinking is very limited.

How has your 401K fared since Trump was elected? I suggest you take the entire gain and donate it to whatever save the world movement you prefer.

Out of curiosity, what would do you think Hillary would have done to save the Earth?

When someone makes a post about how good anyone is for the economy, when only looking at a measure of shareholder value (i.e. the stock market), that is all I can think about.

If you want to throw in wage growth, unemployment, GDP growth, etc. then I don't immediately think of that comic because it isn't so darn on the nose (especially with Trump being a champion of cutting EPA regs as much as he can).

Had Clinton won, I think we wouldn't see the federal government suing the state of California from creating its own emission limits for vehicles. I don't think we would have conversations about expanding drilling to some of our most sensitive environments when we have plenty of production in our current oil fields. I don't think we would have seen roll backs or post-postponements of regulations of waste products like CCRs. I think we would have been leading by example in GHG emission reductions and implementing a market-based reduction program like cap and trade.

I can go on with respect to what sort of differences I could have expected if you want.

Frankly, my 401k would have likely kept growing around the rate it had under Obama, and it wouldn't have changed in a way that matters much to me - I'm still decades from worrying about its final value, and I expect there to be downturns in between now and then that will eat away at some, or most, of the gains seen during the Trump administration.

One day, if you are lucky, you will be my age - or more importantly, the age of many Americans. How many Americans are, say, 55 or older? It will be more important to you then. I doubt that when you are facing a financial squeeze 50 years from now, you will be saying "Damn! My only regret is that we didn't have more restrictive regulations sooner!"

But you and I also disagree on this whole climate change thing. I think climate change is mostly natural, and so most of these regulations and so forth that you hold so dear are to me like sweeping the deck of the Titanic as she goes down. If the change is 50% man-caused, and those actions you list will reverse 5% of that 50, all we have done is stuff a rag into the gash in the side of the Titanic.

The thing that will end this world is overpopulation, not climate change, and your side is doing zero about it, as is mine.

But, and here's the rub, you yourself mention many of the things that signal a good economy, and a good economy is good for us all. I only signaled one measure, not because it is the only thing that matters, but because it is the one that reached a new record high today.

You say, "I expect there to be downturns in between now and then that will eat away at some, or most, of the gains seen during the Trump administration." I agree. So the fact that there may be some lean years means we should not lay aside some to get us through the hard times? Plus, IMO, the hard times will come when you team gets the power.

Bottom line (do you know what that means?), Trump has been good for the economy, and your team wants that to stop, preferably before November 2020. Economic misery (for others) as the price of political victory is a price the Democrats are quite willing to pay, especially the ones who have it good.

What I see as Lad's fatal error is the assumption that we would be doing things to address climate change in a meaningful way, if only it weren't for Orange Man Bad. I don't see much of the green stuff that we are doing or considering as having much impact on the temperature of the planet in 2120. Bottom line, if we don't get China and India and the Third World to go along, it really doesn't matter what we do. So if we want to have a material impact, we have to find things that China and India and the Third World can get onboard with. So far, all we appear to know is that they will get onboard with the USA writing massive checks to them.

(11-25-2019 07:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What I see as Lad's fatal error is the assumption that we would be doing things to address climate change in a meaningful way, if only it weren't for Orange Man Bad. I don't see much of the green stuff that we are doing or considering as having much impact on the temperature of the planet in 2120. Bottom line, if we don't get China and India and the Third World to go along, it really doesn't matter what we do. So if we want to have a material impact, we have to find things that China and India and the Third World can get onboard with. So far, all we appear to know is that they will get onboard with the USA writing massive checks to them.

In order to get the other big polluters to curb their emissions, we have to lead by example. There is no question that they won’t listen to agree to significant reductions if we aren’t actively pursuing the same goal in a meaningful way.

Surprised you don’t see that as a rather obvious fact.

(11-25-2019 09:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-25-2019 07:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What I see as Lad's fatal error is the assumption that we would be doing things to address climate change in a meaningful way, if only it weren't for Orange Man Bad. I don't see much of the green stuff that we are doing or considering as having much impact on the temperature of the planet in 2120. Bottom line, if we don't get China and India and the Third World to go along, it really doesn't matter what we do. So if we want to have a material impact, we have to find things that China and India and the Third World can get onboard with. So far, all we appear to know is that they will get onboard with the USA writing massive checks to them.

In order to get the other big polluters to curb their emissions, we have to lead by example. There is no question that they won’t listen to agree to significant reductions if we aren’t actively pursuing the same goal in a meaningful way.
Surprised you don’t see that as a rather obvious fact.

It's not that I don't see that as an obvious fact. It's that I don't think we can assume that they will listen or agree to significant reductions even if we actively pursue that goal in a meaningful way. Environmentalism is a rich man's game. When you don't know where your next meal is coming from, the temperature of the planet in 2120 is not going to be a primary concern. We've got to present it to them in ways that make it better for them. The idea that gets bandied about here, that we can sacrifice a bit because it's almost as good in the short run and it makes a difference in the long run, is not an argument that plays well with them. If we are going to deal with this problem, we need to find ways to make them want to do it.

(11-25-2019 09:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  we have to lead by example.

We have been the example for democracy for a long time. How's that working with China?



I think the lead by example is a fallacy and an excuse for unilateral, futile action. We will just end up all alone in left field.