fireworks with Trump in DC

[spence]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

So you're saying he was stupid?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bad info. Things change. Etc...

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

its the Fable of the Snake

One winter a farmer (voter)found a snake (Trump)stiff and frozen with cold. He had compassion on it, and taking it up, placed it in his bosom. The warmth quickly revived the Snake, and resuming its natural instincts, bit its benefactor, inflicting on him a mortal wound.

You do realize that you can make anyone or any group or any ideology the "snake" in your fable. e.g.--Obama, Clinton, illegal immigrants, Muslim refugees, McCain, Democrat Party, Republican Party, Socialism, etc. The "snake" is in the eye of the beholder.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Bad info. Things change. Etc...

Isn't most stupidity the result of bad info?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Isn't most stupidity the result of bad info?

No.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

No.

Merriam-Webster Definition of stupid
1
a :slow of mind btuse

The speed of mind (whatever that is) does not, in itself, prevent right or wrong, good or bad, decisions or ideas. Given the right (good) info, a slow mind can make a good decision. Or, given wrong info the slow mind, or fast mind, can make a bad decision

b :given to unintelligent decisions or acts :acting in an unintelligent or careless manner

If intelligence is defined as "one's capacity for logic, understanding, self-awareness, learning, emotional knowledge, planning, creativity, and problem solving . . . more generally described as the ability or inclination to perceive or deduce information, and to retain it as knowledge," it would require good info to gather and retain knowledge that is beneficially useful. An "intelligent" person (Lenin for example) whose knowledge is composed of bad info would necessarily have bad knowledge, which would be considered "stupid" because it would lead to harmful or destructive or useless or "unintelligent" decisions or acts.

c :lacking intelligence or reason :brutish

Don't know how one can lack intelligence other than either your mind being filled with bad info or your brain being functionally, physically deficient (which would be a result of its receptors not receiving sufficient or good info).

2
:dulled in feeling or sensation :torpid still stupid from the sedative

Again, for whatever reason, being physically unable or disabled from receiving signals (info) relating to actual conditions.

3
:marked by or resulting from unreasoned thinking or acting :senseless a stupid decision

Reason requires information. Bad info leads to bad reasoning.

4
a :lacking interest or point a stupid event

It requires info to create "interest" or "point." No info leads to no interest or point. Ergo, an event about which there is no info, or bad info could be considered a "stupid" event.

b :vexatious, exasperating the stupid car won't start

This is totally a colloquial expression. A car is not actually stupid, it is inanimate. Metaphorically, however, it won't start because it's "brain" (its mechanism) is not receiving the mechanical signals (info) in order to function properly. And the ensuing exasperation of the would be driver results from his immediate inability (lack of knowledge or info) to make the car start. He emotionally blames the car, but eventually settles down and gets help from those who have the proper info to get the car working.

So, yes, bad info which includes lack of info (which is a bad thing) is the cause of most stupidity.

[spence]

That was a really long response. I'd just say in this context it's more about a lack of curiosity to understand or an inability to understand.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

That was a really long response. I'd just say in this context it's more about a lack of curiosity to understand or an inability to understand.

Lacking the curiosity to understand something is endemic to somewhere in the highest percentile of the human population. Except for a miniscule minority, most of us lack the curiosity to understand SOME things. That doesn't make us stupid. Just willingly ignorant in those areas which we lack curiosity.

And the "inability to understand" is either a lack of the physical mental capability to function at the normal human level, which is not "stupid" except in the sense that the brain is not able to process information. That is, it is not capable of properly receiving information. In which case only mentally impaired people would, by your definition, be "stupid." That is not how that word is used.

Or, otherwise, in a physically sound brain/body connection, the "inability to understand" would be a result of bad information as described in my "really long response."

I'll stick with Webster's definition over yours.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

You do realize that you can make anyone or any group or any ideology the "snake" in your fable. e.g.--Obama, Clinton, illegal immigrants, Muslim refugees, McCain, Democrat Party, Republican Party, Socialism, etc. The "snake" is in the eye of the beholder.

No just Trump in my example .. the eye of the beholder has nothing to do with its the actions of the snake that concern me

you knew what he was when you picked him up...

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

No just Trump in my example .. the eye of the beholder has nothing to do with its the actions of the snake that concern me

you knew what he was when you picked him up...

It's true that your eye saw your example. That's a tautology. A needless repetition. It's also true that other's eyes could see the opposite example, or the examples I gave. Your example is your opinion. Others would disagree with you, and others would give whatever variation of examples they came up with. They all would be as valid as yours.

You used a "fable" as a metaphor for what you think is reality. A reality that is contingent on future possibility. A reality based on biased opinion. Your thrice removed from reality metaphor is no better or truer in any real sense than other such metaphors.

In short, your little fiction is not worth much.

And yes, I knew something about what he was, as I did about his opponent. When I considered what would be the most important outcome in terms of the impact either candidate would have on our constitutional form of government, the choice was not difficult. There have been several scoundrel Presidents who, in spite of their flaws, did not damage our system of government. There have been some very "intelligent," slick ones who promised various collective groups more money in their pocket, but did harm to our constitutional foundation in order to fulfill their promises. And individuals in the collective groups were happy to get their goodies, not concerned about the change in the nature and power of government.

Using your fable as metaphor for the harmless, even beneficial sounding, snake, brought to life by voters who cared more for their pockets than for a system that guaranteed them freedom, I insert in place of the snake all the Progressive Presidents of the past whose resuscitation by unaware, ignorant, voters brought us to the point where we either elected another one of them who could potentially wrap her Progressive snake body around the Constitution and squeeze the final life out of it (after all, it's a living breathing thing, right?), or elect a reproachable character who might do one of the things left, and necessary, to help reverse the trend. You know, the supposedly "stolen" Justice. Hopefully Trump gets the chance to nominate a few more.

And if expanding your pocketbook a little more is so important to you that you would prefer, in order to get a few more shekels, an unbridled government which can dictate what and how your life is, and spend our way to oblivion in order to hold on to its power, then I don't give a fig about your little, useless fable.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

None of those are lies.

Not to a Strategic Messaging guy that can pirouette around a tune - but to most other non-beleivers it was crap.

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

So you're saying he was stupid?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think he was pretty smart but he is a politician with a streak of narcissism mixed with bad ideology

Originally Posted by spence

They found the IRS acted improperly out of convenience, not political motivation.

The evidence was on Lerner's hard drive

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

They found the IRS acted improperly out of convenience, not political motivation.

"conservative groups that had their applications for tax exempt status delayed “based solely on their viewpoint or ideology"

http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/26/ju..._medium=Social

[PaulS]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/u...democrats.html

WASHINGTON — A federal watchdog investigating whether the Internal Revenue Service unfairly targeted conservative political groups seeking tax-exempt status said that the agency also scrutinized organizations associated with liberal causes from 2004 to 2013.

The findings by the Treasury Department’s inspector general mark the end of a political firestorm that embroiled the I.R.S. in controversy, led to the ouster of its commissioner and prompted accusations the tax collection agency was being used as a political weapon by the Obama administration.

The exhaustive report, which examined nine years worth of applications for tax-exempt status, comes after a similar audit in 2013 found that groups with conservative names like “Tea Party,” “patriot” or “9/12” were unfairly targeted for further review.

[Slipknot]

So what, they also targeted Democrats. Big deal, they must be so proud of their smokescreen. I say it marks the end of the watchdog investigating, not the end of the firestorm or controversy.
Maybe Obama is a saint

[spence]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

So what, they also targeted Democrats. Big deal, they must be so proud of their smokescreen. I say it marks the end of the watchdog investigating, not the end of the firestorm or controversy.
Maybe Obama is a saint

Maybe, just maybe...there's no conspiracy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

So what, they also targeted Democrats. Big deal, they must be so proud of their smokescreen. I say it marks the end of the watchdog investigating, not the end of the firestorm or controversy.
Maybe Obama is a saint

Just pointing out that they only didn't target Republicans for all who have brought this subject up numerous times. So the "firestorm or controversy" should continue on even though there's nothing here? that's a good one.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Slipknot]

I thought you'd like that

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Just pointing out that they only didn't target Republicans for all who have brought this subject up numerous times. So the "firestorm or controversy" should continue on even though there's nothing here? that's a good one.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim wrote...."conservative groups that had their applications for tax exempt status delayed “based solely on their viewpoint or ideology"

your article simply confirms that this was happening after years of denial and claims that this was not the case...that some liberal groups were scrutinized should not be news as all applications should have been "scrutinized" through the process....the complaint was that applications were unfairly delayed based on viewpoint/ideology.....based on what has been reported, Lerner and crew were overstepping their bounds...not surprised the NY Times took this angle on the story

“The IRS admits that its treatment of Plaintiffs during the tax-exempt determination process, including screening their applications based on their names or policy positions, subjecting those applications to heightened scrutiny and inordinate delays, and demanding some Plaintiffs’ information that TITA determined was unnecessary to the agency’s determination of their tax-exempt status, was wrong,” the IRS said in court documents. “For such treatment, the IRS expresses its sincere apology.”

[PaulS]

The IRS targeted both sides as a shortcut bc they were overwhelmed due to a lack of personnel and a huge increase in entities applying for non profit status. There was no political targeting like what happened w/Nixon and other Pres.

The whining is funny.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

The IRS targeted both sides as a shortcut bc they were overwhelmed due to a lack of personnel and a huge increase in entities applying for non profit status. There was no political targeting like what happened w/Nixon and other Pres.

The whining is funny.

who is whining?...winning?...yes... the IRS/DOJ settled with hundreds of groups...apparently no wrong doing...The DOJ reached an undisclosed monetary settlement with over 400 conservative groups that had their applications for tax exempt status delayed “based solely on their viewpoint or ideology,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced Thursday.

someone should notify Trump that you and the left have no problem with the IRS acting in such a way going forward....he'll have fun with that

[PaulS]

Complaining that they targeted Cons. when they also targeted Libs. is whining. No one said it was appropriate.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Complaining that they targeted Cons. when they also targeted Libs. is whining. No one said it was appropriate.

your article only stated that a few lib keywords were used...there was no mention that or if those groups after being "identified" were subjected to the same harassment that the conservative groups alleged...

they clearly targeted and impeded conservative groups...not sure regarding the lib groups...we'll assume that they(libs) wouldn't mind..OK

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Complaining that they targeted Cons. when they also targeted Libs. is whining. No one said it was appropriate.

The DOJ concluded that conservative groups were specifically targeted because of their ideology. Come on, Paul.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The DOJ concluded that conservative groups were specifically targeted because of their ideology. Come on, Paul.

They looked at keywords, ideology, etc. bc they were trying to determine if they were social orgs. and not political. Low level ees made that decision.

What did Obama have to do w/it other than fire the head of the agency bc Obama viewed it as wrong?

I guess the moral is that the Repub. shouldn't starve an agency of the necessary funds to do its job.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I guess the moral is that the Repub. shouldn't starve an agency of the necessary funds to do its job.

I thought they were stretched thin because Obamacare was taking all their time and effort

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

they were trying to determine if they were social orgs. and not political.

why?

[PaulS]

BC to be a nonprofit there are certain requirements. Maybe there are different type of nonprofit status' and for the status they were applying required they not engage in political activities.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

They looked at keywords, ideology, etc. bc they were trying to determine if they were social orgs. and not political. Low level ees made that decision.

What did Obama have to do w/it other than fire the head of the agency bc Obama viewed it as wrong?

I guess the moral is that the Repub. shouldn't starve an agency of the necessary funds to do its job.

"Low level ees made that decision. " Agreed. But it happened. You seemed to be saying that conservatives were not targeted by the IRS.

"What did Obama have to do w/it "

Nothing. It happened on his watch though. Except these employees, presumably, thought they were doing the just thing. I wonder where they got that idea.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

BC to be a nonprofit there are certain requirements. Maybe there are different type of nonprofit status' and for the status they were applying required they not engage in political activities.

you can't seem to settle on whether it was ok because they did it to everyone, or that it's not ok, or that it was intentional or that it was a mistake

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Low level ees made that decision. " Agreed. But it happened. You seemed to be saying that conservatives were not targeted by the IRS.never said that. There were more Cons. target than Lib. but there more Cons. applying.

"What did Obama have to do w/it "

Nothing. It happened on his watch though. Except these employees, presumably, thought they were doing the just thing. I wonder where they got that idea.

NM

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by scottw

you can't seem to settle on whether it was ok because they did it to everyone, or that it's not ok, or that it was intentional or that it was a mistake

See post 80.