Ooh! Ooh! Post hoc ergo propter hoc plus probably selection bias. Forgive my excitement; I don’t usually hang out in Great Debates so I don’t get the chance to do this much.
And yet strangely, he doesn’t find correlations like “The religious, conservative south has higher STD rates than other parts of the country” significant. Go figure.
Well, he tends to sound quite a bit like my grandpa after the Alzheimers took hold, so make of that what you will.
SA is not insane. He’s just a fucking tool. He’s not particularly bright, but he’s nowhere near as dumb as xtisme. SA He knows what he’s saying is complete bullshit.
Having just watched Stripes again, here’s how the aforementioned SDMB’ers fall into their Stripes roles:
Starving for Attention is Stillman, incompetent and blaming everyone else for his mistakes.
xtisme is Cruiser, who joined the Army to avoid the draft, and who has to have poker explained to him in the midst of playing against someone else, by showing him his cards.
Clothahump is Francis. Nuff said.
Here’s the great thing about Starving for Attention: He thinks you care about where he’s going and what he’s doing away from the boards, and will always give you the John Boy “Goodnight Mary Ellen.”
With that, I’m off to the restroom to urinate. I’ll be back in five minutes. Unless I stop for some coffee. Then it may be more like 10 to 12 minutes.
Huh. I thought Starving Artist was female. 
Since he’s a he, maybe he’d like to know that this liberal also deplores the raunch that pervades our culture now. But I don’t blame it on liberalism–I have yet to see any real liberalism at work on a cultural level. We live in a very conservative country.
I don’t know much about computers or the internet, but I’m fairly sure that it’s not just Dems who are responsible for internet porn. It’s not just pinko loving fags who buy smutty magazines and smoke that evil marijuana.
Fact is, as our society got wealthier and wealthier, we ALL became hedonistic and entitled. I think he is mistaking coincidence with causality. I confess I am at a loss re the whole “I can’t find a decent woman” or whatever. That seems odd in this day and age. And a little crazy.
Shrill?
ROTFLMAO! Thanks for the laugh, I needed one this morning.
Oh, and btw…if you think our finances are fucked up now, wait until BO has been in office for a while and rammed his tax increases up our collective asses. That is why I have said repeatedly that this is the first Presidential election ever where I am voting for someone to keep the other guy out - literally, the lesser of two evils.
Haven’t voted in many Presidential elections, have you?
You obviously haven’t studied much cultural history. Society has always been crass, impolite and vulgar - they were complaining about moral decay in ancient Greece, in the Middle Ages, in Enlightenment Europe…you name it. People always think the world is going to hell in a handcart and that things were better in the “old days”, yet this Golden Age never seems to have existed in reality.
OTOH I’m not sure whether a VPOTUS ever previously told a Senator to go f**k himself on the Senate floor before, so perhaps courtesy and restraint has declined somewhat of late…
Clothahump: if taxes don’t increase, who’s going to pay all those bills Bush has run up over the past 8 years?
Just to tie a couple of these things together, and give a shout out to Paul Krugman, who just won the Nobel Prize for economics, I’ll note that Krugman agrees (in a very limited sense) with our pal Starving for Attention. The 50’s were a great period of productivity and stability for our country. They were so because FDR’s New Deal rapidly ushered in a period of the lowest income inequality in our country’s history. He makes the point that economic policy can make very clear and very dramatic changes in the economy of the country and the prosperity of the people in a very clear way. This is in stark contrast to the shrugging off of responsibility for economic outcomes that the people who just want to give all the money to the wealthy generally respond to.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/introducing-this-blog/
Here’s what Krugman has to say about that period in our nation’s history:
So, congrats to Nobel Prize Winner Paul Krugman. To Clothahumper, what you understand about tax policy would overflow a thimble, and to SA, I have to go down the hallway and talk to someone for a little while. I’ll be back in 15 minutes or so.
Hentor, only an ass like you would think that a movie has anything to do with reality.
Probably more than you.
I’ve never understood what the problem is that some of you guys have with xtisme. Lord knows I disagree with him on a regular basis, but I’ve found him to be intellectually honest. I’ve rarely seen him bring up the sort of bullshit arguments that Sam Stone all too often does, let alone to the degree that losers like Shodan, Starving Artist, Clothahump, and magellan01 do.
Sorry for being on your lawn, Clothahump, Starving Artist.
Dude, in a current GD thread, you, apparently in all seriousness, referred to Barack Obama as “barking mad” and a “Marxist”. If that wasn’t shrill, I don’t know what is.
As for the subject of this thread, maybe, like I did, Starving Artist had just rewatched North by Northwest for the umpteenth time and was feeling grumpy because life isn’t as elegant and glamourous for him as it seemed to be for Roger Thornhill. Try and remember, it’s only a movie.
As for being polite compared to some of the other nutters around here, I don’t care how polite someone is: if they are trying to blame all of society’s ills on on something as general as liberalism, that person is either an asshole or has a shaky grip on reality.
I just think he can’t or won’t think through things very clearly. His recent offering on the rising faction of anti-capitalists Democrats (with a hat tip to Sam Stone) and his fears about what the Democrats will do (economically, I assume) when they take office are good examples. Of course, he’s not able to provide any evidence to suggest who these anti-capitalist Democrats are (even though they are coming out of the woodwork), it’s just that Sam Stone said that they were.
Democracy isn’t classy. It’s loud and rude while a bunch of people with major differences of opinion all argue their views.
Classy was back when a small group of like-minded people ran everything and everyone knew their place and kept quiet. Or else.
I think we’re better off for having abandoned classiness.
I can’t conceive how these mythical ‘anti-capitalist’ democrats could have possibly done a worse job than capitalists and their political enablers have done so far.
Also I want to step in and defend a couple of people who’ve been mentioned here.
I’ve met Clothahump. We sharply disagree on our political views and I’ve argued that with him but on every other subject he’s a great guy.
I also have a lot of respect for xtisme (who I’ve never met in person). I have sometimes disagreed with him but I’ve never found him to be irrational or stupid or unwilling to listen to what someone with an opposing view is saying.
Perhaps I’m being too hard on xtisme. I do think that he listens. My problem is that despite listening, his thinking never seems to change. Also, the things I’ve notice from him recently are things like the above, as well as the assertion at the time that McCain’s campaign suspension was a brilliant move, and that Palin is not a drag on the ticket. Each of these offerings, like most of his posts, come with a line or two about how we might not understand them because the SDMB is so darn liberal - not that it was plainly foolish for McCain to suspend his campaign, or because any empirical evidence shows that Palin is a drag on the McCain ticket.
However, I do accept that I might have been too harsh in my earlier characterizations of him.