Er… what? Amazon is the largest book retailer in the world. Since when does the New York Times have any special authority?
Way harsh. The Time’s best seller list typically culls the top ten “best sellers”, I don’t think they mean to suggest that each of the ten listed are, each and every, number one. That would be absurd, it is simply a figure of speech.
Sam has an unfortunate tendency, as herein demonstrated, to trust sources who supply him with agreeable talking points, without subjecting them to the rigorous standards of the Boards. This may well be sloppy, it may well be less than rigorous, it is not lying.
We must also have some sympathy for his countrymen, on the long, long road to recovery after their crushing defeat at the hands of the US Hockey Team. Even a well-ordered and cogent mind might be somewhat unhinged, given the magnitude of the humiliation. Let us all take a moment and offer our comfort and condolences.
We are here for you, Sam. There, there.
Oh, you didn’t!
It seems “best seller” is not so simple a thing to pin down (just looked it up and if Wiki is to be believed). One of those things that seems like it should be simple and obvious but becomes problematic to pin down once you get in to it.
Just a data point here FWIW:
I’m not gloating,** BG**, simply expressing a compassionate sympathy for the bereaved beaverboys.
Hey just looking at the past conversation tells me when people are into demagoguery. I was trying to save his fingers some work. It’s easy to attack someone as part of a group, but most of those arguments don’t hold water when you want to talk about an individual, especially when it’s an individual who doesn’t identify with said group.
Also, sarcasm was heavily laden in both of those statements.
Anyway, I know I’m not perfect but I’m not 100% sure on what beam of mine you are referring to. Best I can figure is my “assumption” about an attack. If it’s something other than that (see above explanation) please, I’m all ears.
@ Dick Dastardly, I’d consider my self sympathetic to the TEA Party’s focus on reduced taxes, reduced government, and Constitutionalism/Libertarianism, and yes, I think illegal immigration is a huge problem. I also think the Immigration process is unrealistic. We expect immigrants learning a second culture to know more about American History than most college graduates do in this country. We’re riddled with fear that immigrants are “crooks” and “thieves” and “murderers” when in reality, they are probably harder workers than ourselves. I say streamline the process, do criminal background checks, but make the system easier to access and more people would enter legally. Then start enforcing immigration laws. It would relieve a portion of the tax burden that exists. People will still deal in identity theft and other illegal means, but the easier we make it, the more people might be inclined to go through legal venues.
@ Sam Stone’s comments regarding Obama’s spending freeze - Just to reinforce what you said, Obama’s spending freeze is essentially the same thing proposed by McCain during the debates. The one Obama called a hatchet job. It was a bad idea when McCain suggested it, and it’s still a bad idea when Obama executed it.
Also Sam, can you cite where most people want to stop the Taliban? Or is it Al-Queda? Or are we fighting terror? I just can’t keep it straight.
Ah, so it makes sense why you might resent them so much, having to live with a lot of Republicans could be rather frustrating. I’d just encourage you not to fall into stereotypes and “group think.” My parents are registered Republicans and neither of them are homophobic or racist. In fact, neither of them has any problem with same-sex marriage as part of the state, they just think homosexuality is sinful (which is their opinion and they are entitled to it, even if I think they are off base). I think it’s important to try and be understanding of the cultural baggage that shapes people’s biases as well, no matter what those biases might be. I’m not saying you should like the person or want to vote for them. Just encouraging you to try and understand someone at the same time you completely disagree with them.
Just because the visible members of the party promotes something and a lot of close minded prejudiced people follow along doesn’t mean everyone affiliated with the group thinks the same way.
Though, I think it’s safe to say that there are a lot of both of those types of people in the Republican Party.
All the comments related to the poll, from a research standpoint, this fails every reliability test (and perhaps even some of the validity tests) to apply it to the national level. All it tells us is about the people at CPAC, who are likely not representative of the whole nation. Also, as far as the “young crowd,” most of them were likely there for Ron Paul (who won the straw poll there) and are more libertarian leaning individuals in that crowd than Republican party supporters. It is very likely they are not representative of the national party.
You’re not allowed to call another poster a liar in this forum. I know you’re new here, so please read the rules. “Liar” is discussed in post 5.
Thanks for your attention and please don’t do this again.
Um – The New York Times is the newspaper of record in this country. Their best seller list has been the definitive one for a hundred years. I find that more convincing than just what numbers Amazon decided sounded good.
sorry to tell you, man, but your parents are bigots and homophobes. Calling someone a sinner because they’re gay isn’t an opinion, it’s hate. You help evil, you are evil.
Uh, right. You know, before this meme sticks, I suppose I’m going to have to start playing this game and demanding cites for every ‘fact’ your side espouses, and then start getting all snarky about your lack of rigor if you ever post anything from a cite that could be considered friendly to liberal/democratic causes. Won’t that be fun? Then we can spend all our time arguing about whose cites are more biased, and stop actually trying to understand each other.
Oh, that hurts. And while I’m still in the denial stage of grief, even. May a thousand diseased snowy owls gang-hoot your sister.
Okay, so ummm – “he said something that wasn’t true.” That’s okay, right?
So it’s ok to hate when it’s someone you hate?
Thanks for your input on two people you know nothing about. I think this is bordering on personal attacks, and I’d appreciate it if you stopped. I’ve been very polite and respectful, so that’s all I want back.
We’ll be fine, thanks.
Hold on. The US has a hockey team? I know of Europeans and Canadians who play hockey while living in the US, and I think having a Yank or two on each team of foreigners is a condition of the lease, but when did you get a hockey team? I can’t pin it down any more accurately then “since the last Olympics”.
Not really.
You may challenge the accuracy of the statement, but leave the judgment about “truth” out out it.
(This is particularly true when your own position is based on an arbitrary decision of what “truth” might be.)
[ /Moderating ]
Ooooh. I love it when people try to cite Amazon for book sales numbers. When I looked earlier, Atlas Shrugged was at 241. Now it’s at 226.
Doesn’t that tell you something about the validity of Amazon book numbers as an indicator of sales? But if you want to play this game, you know what’s fun to do? Look at the books that are better sellers than Atlas Shrugged. Like “The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 6th Ed.”
How about “Chelsea Chelsea Bang Bang”? That’s a better seller than Altas Shrugged, according to Amazon, even though its release date is March 9, 2010.
“So Long Insecurity: You’ve Been A Bad Friend to Us” is also a better seller than Atlas Shrugged.
Do you really feel you’ve supported your claim? Even if you, for some reason, put stock in Amazon book sales numbers, what about the rest of your claim? You said “This explains why books like Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom” and Ayn Rand’s books are best sellers again…”
You feel you’ve supported this claim? Fail.
There is an old internet practice that you would do well to emulate: LURK. Find out the culture and the rules of a site before posting. Wading into a thread to hurl insults at other posters, (or their immediate kin), would seem to be a good way to get one hurled off the site.
Knock it off.
[ /Moderating ]
Wait, what? We can’t consider the truth of a statement in GD anymore?
What is truth?
That which is not false.
Minus the stuff with no truth value at all.