Conquer Club

So I see that someone from the political right made her reemergence into the political arena and it is now once again vogue to laugh at her, misquote her and feel so smug about ourselves in that we are not like her.

Now while one might be tempted to use the same lack of rhetoric on the other side, I believe in a higher standard. I shall not do this. I shall only speak highly of ...



This is Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a lady five years my junior, Chair of the Democratic National Committee and representative of Florida's 20th congressional district.

Now one might be tempted to treat her in the manner you might treat someone else whom I won't mention. But I would never yield to such temptations, for this Queens born woman is an honorable lady.

Nor would I even bring up the subject of the top ten outrageous quotes because she is an honorable lady.

Nor would I mention the many Democrats who hate her because she is using her position to keep the debates as hidden as possible to help keep Sanders numbers low.

Nor would I even consider throwing up interesting images of her as "Debbie Downer."

show

Nope, not going to do that ...

tzor wrote:Nor would I even bring up the subject of the top ten outrageous quotes because she is an honorable lady.

OK so this is the only actual content-related thing you posted that deals with the subject of why people might make fun of someone. And I'm not even sure you actually read this page, because approximately zero of these quotes are anything like the things that people make fun of Sarah Palin for.

(I find some of the things said about Palin repugnant -- see my comment to "Bernie Sanders" in the Israel thread -- but this thread is really, really weak. You haven't actually given examples of Schultz saying anything like the things Palin says. If I were you, I would just accept that Palin is a moron and move on instead of trying to use this as yet another excuse to point out that you don't like liberals.)

Yes, many of my liberal friends dislike her for how they perceive she and the DNC have treated Sanders. Many think she should resign. But they all dislike her precisely because of the relationship between the DNC and Sanders, not because of her personality or the way she formulates arguments or give speeches. Your premise is that they do in fact hate her personality and her speaking style and are just hiding it because she's a Democrat... but somehow you fail to account for the fact that maybe they just don't see any of those things in her. Even if we accept that the quotes you provided are outrageous to you personally because of your politics, they're not outrageous to people on the left.

I got one about how stupid Schultz is, back when the debate was going about if the USG should bail out the auto industry she said this-

Debbie Schultz wrote:“If it were up to the candidates for president on the Republican side, we would be driving foreign cars,”

which is all fine and dandy I suppose. Except that Schultz owned and was driving a 2010 Infiniti FX35 at the time. A Japanese car!
HAHAHAHAHA!

I think she projects quite a bit IMO.

She's said a lot of stupid things over the years, Anderson Cooper ripped her a new arsehole when he called her out for flat out lying. She does that a lot, lie. Then when you call her out on it you are "attacking women". She's just horrible. But meh, whatever, it's not like anyone cares what she says. She's delusional.

patches70 wrote:I got one about how stupid Schultz is, back when the debate was going about if the USG should bail out the auto industry she said this-

Debbie Schultz wrote:“If it were up to the candidates for president on the Republican side, we would be driving foreign cars,”

which is all fine and dandy I suppose. Except that Schultz owned and was driving a 2010 Infiniti FX35 at the time. A Japanese car!

That's actually really funny.

tzor wrote:So I see that someone from the political right made her reemergence into the political arena and it is now once again vogue to laugh at her, misquote her and feel so smug about ourselves in that we are not like her.

Now while one might be tempted to use the same lack of rhetoric on the other side, I believe in a higher standard. I shall not do this. I shall only speak highly of ...



This is Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a lady five years my junior, Chair of the Democratic National Committee and representative of Florida's 20th congressional district.

Now one might be tempted to treat her in the manner you might treat someone else whom I won't mention. But I would never yield to such temptations, for this Queens born woman is an honorable lady.

Nor would I even bring up the subject of the top ten outrageous quotes because she is an honorable lady.

Nor would I mention the many Democrats who hate her because she is using her position to keep the debates as hidden as possible to help keep Sanders numbers low.

Nor would I even consider throwing up interesting images of her as "Debbie Downer."

show

Nope, not going to do that ...

I have faith that many Democrats can be honest enough to easily see but perhaps not publicly agree when it comes to Palin vs. wasserman-Schultz, Palin is going to most often wind up looking like the smart one. People who really really dislike Palin, you are free to decide whatever you like and say whatever you like about her, but keep it in perspective. She isn't elected to any position, she certainly isn't running the Republican party. She isn't running for president and she rarely offers a couple political comments here and there on cable news. I could be wrong and that is straight up assumption as I don't watch FOX, but I do know her contractual obligations.

Actually, it looks like a pretty sure thing that if Trump wins the Presidency, Palin will be Secretary of Energy (she has said she wants that job). Which scares the living shit out of me (though admittedly in part because they pay for the type of science I do).

Metsfanmax wrote:Actually, it looks like a pretty sure thing that if Trump wins the Presidency, Palin will be Secretary of Energy (she has said she wants that job). Which scares the living shit out of me (though admittedly in part because they pay for the type of science I do).

Mets what type of science do you do?

Metsfanmax wrote:Actually, it looks like a pretty sure thing that if Trump wins the Presidency, Palin will be Secretary of Energy (she has said she wants that job). Which scares the living shit out of me (though admittedly in part because they pay for the type of science I do).

Pretty sure thing? Does Trump actually want her or is she, according to him, on his short list? If the answer is yes then I will start considering how much to worry or even how much to be scared if at all. All I know about our current En Sec (if it's even still him) is that he is Asian (Wu?) and rides a bike to work or something to do with talking about bikes a lot. Mot much ever came to the top of my priority list, but obviously it's on yours because it affects you personally. Most concerning to me and by miles was when the head of NASA stated Islamic outreach was 'first and foremost a the main/major priority for NASA'

NASA Administrator Charles Bolden created a firestorm after telling Al Jazeera in June 2010 that President Obama told him before he took the job that he wanted him to do three things: 'perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science ... and math and engineering.'

If people can stomach this, then I have a hard time believing they have problems stomaching anything.

Phatscotty wrote:Most concerning to me and by miles was when the head of NASA stated Islamic outreach was 'first and foremost a the main/major priority for NASA'

NASA Administrator Charles Bolden created a firestorm after telling Al Jazeera in June 2010 that President Obama told him before he took the job that he wanted him to do three things: 'perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science ... and math and engineering.'

If people can stomach this, then I have a hard time believing they have problems stomaching anything.

Except.. phatscotty, you do realize that algebra, etc were pretty much invented by the Arabic world? Also, since when did accepting other country's accomplishments diminish us?

Unless there is a great deal more context to this than you have given, the idea of reaching out to what represents a large portion of this world, working to forge links and bonds rather than just strife.. seems that is a good thing, not a bad thing.

Working with someone does not mean you have to share their religion. I see people feeling threatened by jobs exported to India,but I don't seem folks like you seeing the fact that Indians, Hindus as a whole are becoming more mathematically educated, etc as a threat. Competition, but not threat, as you seem to imply encouraging Muslims would be.

Metsfanmax wrote:Actually, it looks like a pretty sure thing that if Trump wins the Presidency, Palin will be Secretary of Energy (she has said she wants that job). Which scares the living shit out of me (though admittedly in part because they pay for the type of science I do).

You are worried about grant money?
I would feel sorry for you but I know someone who used to get grant money for the electron microscope at the lab near where I live.
He's had a very hard time getting grant money.
There were some recent years he was working there for free, because there was so little grant money.

Back in the 70's / 80's the lab used to get a bucket ton of grant money from AUI. Now they seem to be stuck in astrophysics and no longer in high energy physics.

I'm switching out of astrophysics soon >.>

Maybe to weapons, not sure. Surely even Palin would know not to cut the weapons budget.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Except.. phatscotty, you do realize that algebra, etc were pretty much invented by the Arabic world?

No, that is a common misconception. They didn't invent algebra, they borrowed it from the babylonians before them. (Much like Arabic numerals were actually borrowed from India.)

Not that this is a bad thing, European Christians borrowed heavily from the pagan Greeks for centuries.

Metsfanmax wrote:I'm switching out of astrophysics soon >.>

What particular area of astrophysics?

(You do know that Radio Astronomers do it during the day in air conditioned rooms, right? In wonderful locations no less. Visual Astronomers do it at night, on a mountain, in the cold with no heating whatsoever. Yes, most of my professors back in R.P.I. were radio astronomers.)

I do suspect that you are going to get into the same problem I had in 1983, when I graduated into a complete lack of jobs in the sciences and engineering; a product of bad timing.

tzor wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Except.. phatscotty, you do realize that algebra, etc were pretty much invented by the Arabic world?

No, that is a common misconception. They didn't invent algebra, they borrowed it from the babylonians before them. (Much like Arabic numerals were actually borrowed from India.)

Not that this is a bad thing, European Christians borrowed heavily from the pagan Greeks for centuries.

I am going to take you at your word (at least for now.. lol), since its basically irrelevant.

I think ancient Arabs did use it/improve upon it a great deal? But even if that were not true, my point is why would encouraging and recognizing scholarship be a bad thing? Take out the word "Muslim" and the suggestion would not only not be seen as a threat, it would likely be a cause for celebration.

That said, I don't like specific targeting of ANY specific group, on philosophical grounds -- pro or con. We need to look more at individuals, not rely simply upon labels as our sole definitions.

PLAYER57832 wrote:I think ancient Arabs did use it/improve upon it a great deal? But even if that were not true, my point is why would encouraging and recognizing scholarship be a bad thing? Take out the word "Muslim" and the suggestion would not only not be seen as a threat, it would likely be a cause for celebration.

Here is the problem. European culture went into a couple of centuries of self flagellation after the combined actions of the reformation and age of enlightenment. The tendency to push the previous centuries in the worst list as possible resulted in a tendency to over glamorize the nearest neighbor's culture; that of Islam. (Even though, during these same times, Islam was conquering much of Western Europe.) As a result the view is overly tilted towards Islam.

Nevertheless, scholarship had advanced throughout the whole world, in various ways and in no case was it perfect. We find advances in Asia, in the Americas, in Europe, in India and yes in the Middle East. All by vastly different cultures with vastly different worldviews. As cultures mixed and mingled these ideas also mixed and mingled. A holistic approach is therefore required. Concentrating on any one aspect or whitewashing parts of history to fit a narrative does the subject harm. After all, the second biggest scourge of Europe during these times, the Vikings, were master tradesmen who traveled all over the world with their trade routes. (That's poor consolation when your village is the subject of one of their periodic raids.)

This oddly has a lot to do with the subject. Asymmetric history is a lot like asymmetric rhetoric. What's good for one culture should be good for another.

tzor wrote: A holistic approach is therefore required. Concentrating on any one aspect or whitewashing parts of history to fit a narrative does the subject harm.

Very True!


and per the "whitewashing" bit.. that is a big reason why so many pseudo-hypiists and such have latched onto Native American cultures so much. To a large extent, its not just wrong, but plain disrespectful.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

tzor wrote: A holistic approach is therefore required. Concentrating on any one aspect or whitewashing parts of history to fit a narrative does the subject harm.

Very True!


and per the "whitewashing" bit.. that is a big reason why so many pseudo-hypiists and such have latched onto Native American cultures so much. To a large extent, its not just wrong, but plain disrespectful.

Clarify player disrespectful to who? And keep in mind the pope apologized to the natives of central/south American people for what the church did to their culture

PLAYER57832 wrote:To a large extent, its not just wrong, but plain disrespectful.

Agreed, the many great peoples of North America, forced to relocate due to a number of reasons over the decades should not be made into caricature for the sake of making points.

jgordon1111 wrote:And keep in mind the pope apologized to the natives of central/south American people for what the church did to their culture

He tends to apologize a lot these days ... and often is misquoted in the process.

Tzor are you implying that he was misquoted when he apologized? Explain please, precaution my whole family speaks Latin that is used in that particular part of the world quiet fluently. And for that matter where are native Americans located?
Or are you saying he was placating the people, if so to what end?

Tzor are you implying that he was misquoted when he apologized? Explain please, precaution my whole family speaks Latin that is used in that particular part of the world quiet fluently. And for that matter where are native Americans located?
Or are you saying he was placating the people, if so to what end?

On the other hand it was quiet noble of you to jump to players defense,not like she can handle the conversation on her own or was it the Catholic meme of intolerance kicking in.

jgordon1111 wrote:Tzor are you implying that he was misquoted when he apologized? Explain please, precaution my whole family speaks Latin that is used in that particular part of the world quiet fluently. And for that matter where are native Americans located?

Well, do you have the exact quote? I don't but I do know of a ton of examples where words are taken out of context. (Was the apology in Latin? That would be odd, even for Pope Francis.) You would be surprised how you can twist one word to get something that was never intended. People use his arguments against military arms trading to imply that the possession of weapons for self defense is immoral, for example.

tzor wrote:

jgordon1111 wrote:Tzor are you implying that he was misquoted when he apologized? Explain please, precaution my whole family speaks Latin that is used in that particular part of the world quiet fluently. And for that matter where are native Americans located?

Well, do you have the exact quote? I don't but I do know of a ton of examples where words are taken out of context. (Was the apology in Latin? That would be odd, even for Pope Francis.) You would be surprised how you can twist one word to get something that was never intended. People use his arguments against military arms trading to imply that the possession of weapons for self defense is immoral, for example.

Ok I generalized when I said Latin,and beings You have declared your not a literalist, I shall be more clear he spoke in his native language Argentina Spanish, lol don't be lazy I am sure there are plenty of unbiased sites that you can see and hear for yourself his exact words.

And just for kicks Arriba la Razza

jgordon1111 wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

tzor wrote: A holistic approach is therefore required. Concentrating on any one aspect or whitewashing parts of history to fit a narrative does the subject harm.

Very True!


and per the "whitewashing" bit.. that is a big reason why so many pseudo-hypiists and such have latched onto Native American cultures so much. To a large extent, its not just wrong, but plain disrespectful.

Clarify player disrespectful to who? And keep in mind the pope apologized to the natives of central/south American people for what the church did to their culture

I think you might be thinking of something different than I.

I am referring to a specific brand of folks in parts of CA, who decide that Christianity is the "big bad religion", causing all kids of problems, and who then decide they are suddenly going to adopt Native American traditions or Eastern traditions. In some cases, they engage is real and legitimate investigation/inquiry, maybe even really adopt these religions. But, there is a number who just touch on parts of it, while convenient.. who would do thinks like call themselves "sunchild" or whatever, eat veggies and dress, well, "loosely" (or not at all) in the name of being "native American" -- except it seemed the main attraction was the substances they thought the Native American tribes used.

Now, on the other side of that, the Roman Catholic church in particular is known for systematic destruction of Native American cultures. Protestants, indeed basically all whites, some blacks as well, did not do all that much better, but were perhaps less systematic about it.

The thing is that these tragedies have to be seen in light of many, many other mistakes made by the church as it grew. and in comparison with a real view of the many Native American tribes. Native American cultures went to war, attacked and killed their enemies and at times altered the natural environment significantly. Western cultures have destroyed, but also respected, lived with nature. Neither (no culture or religion that lasts more than a brief time, I would argue) is either wholly bad or wholly good. The real truth is that there is no perfection in humanity, period.