Thursday open thread

Have at it, ya’ll

I forgot to post last night that the ‘Canes won game two of the Stanley Cup finals last night in a 5-0 rout of the Oilers. Next game is Saturday in Edmonton and will be broadcast on NBC at 8PM ET.

22 Responses to "Thursday open thread"

Baklava says:

June 8, 2006 at 12:27 pm

Thomas Sowell must read.

Some excerpts:
1) The fact is that George W. Bush and John Kerry both went to Yale, where Bush had a higher grade-point average. Bush also scored higher than Kerry on intelligence tests that both took in the military. Gore went to Harvard, where he finished in the bottom fifth of his class two years in a row.

2) In the 2000 elections, the counties that voted for Bush had a smaller percentage of their population with annual incomes over $100,000 than the counties that voted for Gore. The Bush counties also had a higher percentage of their population earning under $30,000 a year.

3) It has become axiomatic in the liberal media that big-money donors give most of that big money to the Republicans. But the hard data show that the top ten donors to political campaigns gave far more to the Democrats, with the lone exception being the National Association of Realtors, who gave 50 percent to the Democrats and 49 percent to the Republicans.
Baklava says:

June 8, 2006 at 12:40 pm

Tammy Bruce writes about the U.S.S. Cole setting out to a 6 month deployment with a role in the war on terror
Baklava says:

June 8, 2006 at 12:43 pm

Death Tax Repeal Fails. Hugh Hewitt’s co blogger writes with quotes from Bill Frist
andrew says:

June 8, 2006 at 1:01 pm

” The fact is that George W. Bush and John Kerry both went to Yale, where Bush had a higher grade-point average. Bush also scored higher than Kerry on intelligence tests that both took in the military. Gore went to Harvard, where he finished in the bottom fifth of his class two years in a row.”

Gore made a corollary point about Bush. According to him its not that Bush is dumb or un-intelligent. It’s that he’s incurious.
Baklava says:

June 8, 2006 at 1:11 pm

Andrew, You are being purposefully naive if you are denying (there are BOOKS on this subject by liberals) that liberals all over weren’t claiming Bush isn’t smart or up to the task due to his intelligence.

Let me call it what it is. You are being dishonest. I guess Thomas Sowell and the book he was talking about made the points for NO reason. They were just making points out of the blue.

It’s one thing to have an opinion and or disagree. It’s another thing to have facts of your own.
andrew says:

June 8, 2006 at 1:28 pm

“Andrew, You are being purposefully naive if you are denying (there are BOOKS on this subject by liberals) that liberals all over weren’t claiming Bush isn’t smart or up to the task due to his intelligence.”

What am I denying? I made a corollary point. I have no idea how intelligent dubya is. You do need some to get into business school. Then again, he got rejected from law school. You do need some to fly a plane. Then again he has made lots of stupid decisions in his life, such as the drugs and alcohol.

But from what i’ve read of him, I do think its true that hes incurious. Which is always a shame. But especially so in an executive.
blogagog says:

June 8, 2006 at 1:51 pm

Check out Allahpundit’s Zarkowi remix! Probably not work safe, since it has pictures of a dead Zarkowi at the end.
Baklava says:

June 8, 2006 at 2:00 pm

You made an irrelevant point Andrew. Nowhere did Thomas Sowell say what Kerry claimed only by Kerry’s self. It is irrelevant. Off subject. Didn’t add to the discussion. Deflected if anything. I brought it right back around for everyone. Liberals in general have been disparaging Bush’s so-called intelligence but there have been alternative news sources other than the by media who have pointed out the false charges by leftists (like yourself) concerning the choice between Kerry and Bush.

Yes. Incurious as defined by lefties as “not watching the polls like Slick Wille did”. He continues to do what he believes is right instead of cutting and running like 99% of lawmakers voted against a few months ago. How incurious…..
blogagog says:

June 8, 2006 at 2:15 pm

Thanks Bak, I forget to read Sowell’s column. He certainly makes that book sound interesting!
andrew says:

June 8, 2006 at 2:21 pm

“Nowhere did Thomas Sowell say what Kerry claimed only by Kerry’s self.”

Neither did I. I was talking about the interesting point that Gore made. And that point was that its more accurate to say that Bush is intelligent but incurious, rather than to say he is not intelligent. Thats not off subject. Thats on the subject of dubya’s intelligence, and how its perceived.

“Incurious as defined by lefties as “not watching the polls like Slick Wille did”. ”

I think its incurious as in not reading as much or knowing as much or being as attuned to policy as clinton. As in not being a nerd like Gore.
blogagog says:

June 8, 2006 at 3:03 pm

The data points in the opposite direction though andrew. If bush didn’t know as much, he would have likely scored lower than Kerry or Gore. And who knows how much or what they read? Even if Gore somehow does read more (which I doubt) it’s probably Greenpeace type articles, and that stuff makes you dumber the more you read.
blogagog says:

June 8, 2006 at 3:27 pm

Here’s James Lileks on the “all conspiracy, all the time” moonbat wing of the Democratic party. It’s funny, but I hope it’s far from the truth.

I have the day off, and was planning to clean up the yard, but that #$%@&* Zarkawi had to go and die. Now I can’t stop reading the blogs. Help!
andrew says:

June 8, 2006 at 3:29 pm

“If bush didn’t know as much, he would have likely scored lower than Kerry or Gore.”

Know as much about policy. Once president. I see my syntax was ambiguous.
Baklava says:

June 8, 2006 at 3:33 pm

Andrew wrote, “I think its incurious as in not reading as much or knowing as much or being as attuned to policy as clinton. ”

Yeah. Policy as defined as what the newspapers write….

Why would Bush have to read the newspapers when he is briefed much more quickly by his own staff on what the relevant issues of the day are? It would WASTE the president’s time to read the Times or WashPo. In fact, I’d ask the President to resign if I knew he was spending his work day reading those rags. He would be DUMBER and more incurious to read those rags.

So, I disagree with your reckless (why do you like to do that) charge.

And.. Why do you make reckless irresponsible charges?
andrew says:

June 8, 2006 at 3:59 pm

“Why would Bush have to read the newspapers when he is briefed much more quickly by his own staff on what the relevant issues of the day are?”

But that’s not what I’m talking about. I suppose it is good for the president to know what the MSM is presenting, and if he was curious about that, he’d either read it or get briefed on it.

But its not just about being briefed. Its about being an active participant in briefings. Its about being curious about policy, about what are good and bad policies. About what the issues are. Google “Bush tribal sovereignty” and you’ll see an example of what that incuriousity results in.

“So, I disagree with your reckless (why do you like to do that) charge. ”

Firstly it was gore’s point. I made that clear. No need to call it my charge, as you can read. Also I don’t think he made it recklessly — as in knowingly running a risk of being untrue — he gave some examples
Severian says:

June 8, 2006 at 4:24 pm

But Bush is curious, haven’t you heard of Curious George? Hey, you liberals all like to call him Chimpy McHitler, and you never made the connection? Damn, I’m ashamed of you, I thought you all were more creative than that, NOT.
Sister Toldjah says:

June 8, 2006 at 4:30 pm
Baklava says:

June 8, 2006 at 4:46 pm

Andrew wrote, “Its about being an active participant in briefings.”

Are you saying that Clarence Thomas is incurious also because he asks less questions during a session? Just because a liberal states a behavior is “x” because that is what their interpretation is doesn’t make it so. In fact, it’s usually another reckless irrelevant charge. Why do you like to perpetuate those charges.

Andrew wrote, “Firstly it was gore’s point. ” In response to Thomas Sowell’s point you made an irrelevant and separate charge that liberals make due to their interpretation of “x” behavior. I charge that Andrew is irrelevant and reckless. There. Tit for tat. There are plenty of things I disagree with Bush on but I don’t understand your propensity to make reckless charges.

Andrew wrote, “he gave some examples” Yep. He gave some examples as to why he thought “x” behavior was the accusation he was spouting. Let me give some examples as to why Gore’s a liar… eh. Never mind. You believe him and you lie so what’s the point.
Baklava says:

June 8, 2006 at 5:56 pm

A soldier in Mosul’s view
Severian says:

June 8, 2006 at 6:59 pm

A soldier in Mosul’s view

Excellent link. Loyalty, is there any virtue more important? Loyalty to truth, loyalty to country, loyalty to family, loyalty to comrades in arms, loyalty to oneself. Nothing is more important, and loyalty is something that is almost completely lacking in liberals/leftists/and Democrats. They are all opportunistic, disloyal, self centered backstabbers, who’d sell their own mothers into sexual slavery if they thought it’d get them elected. The amount of disgust I feel for these traitorous prima donnas is immeasurable.
andrew says:

June 8, 2006 at 8:42 pm

“Are you saying that Clarence Thomas is incurious also because he asks less questions during a session?”

Hrm. I don’t think oral arguments are the same thing as briefings. I dont think they’re learning that much at argument.

“reckless charges.”

Whats so ‘reckless’?
Big Bang Hunter says:

June 8, 2006 at 8:57 pm

– The hard left is becoming a yoke around the Demoratic party’s neck. It will be interesting to see how much longer the party leadership will go before they cut off this small group of unhinged moonbats….

– Bang

Comments are closed.