Do You Parrot Your Favorite Commentators?

Are You a Parrot of Your Favorite Commentators?


  • Total voters
    11
The economy has remained depressed for much longer than 2 years. We're going on twice that timeframe.
You're misreading what he said. You must be putting a "not" in where it shouldn't be.

Can you really fault him for predicting that unemployment would peak at 9%? He wasn't being pessimistic enough. He wasn't even giving a kind estimate for the Obama administration. For all of his partisanship, he's hard on Obama.

Why don't you predict the unemployment rate nine months from now? Let's see if you have pinpoint accuracy.
 
Last edited:
asterism, would you mind explaining your choice?

Answered above.

Not only your choice about the poll, but also why you chose a username that is so similar to that of asaratis?

The two are not similar. Asaratis seems to be a name. Asterism is a term in Astronomy. It's the name of a recognizable pattern of stars that are not a Constellation. "The Big Dipper" or "Orion's Belt" or the "Lazy W."
 
Good. Now answer the substantial he-said-she-said thread we have about Paul Krugman.
 
The economy has remained depressed for much longer than 2 years. We're going on twice that timeframe.
You're misreading what he said. You must be putting a "not" in where it shouldn't be.

No, but I get your point. I still think he spins and supported failed policies.

Can you really fault him for predicting that unemployment would peak at 9%? He wasn't being pessimistic enough. He wasn't even giving a kind estimate for the Obama administration. For all of his partisanship, he's hard on Obama.

No, he just says that Obama isn't Keynesian enough. He has never stated that Obama's policies were wrong. He always says that they just weren't big enough.

Why don't you predict the unemployment rate nine months from now? Let's see if you have pinpoint accuracy.

I don't advocate policies and then make predictions. He does, and expects people to do what he says. There's a difference.
 
Perhaps I should clarify. I get asked for links for things that I believe are fairly well known. .

Many things that are "fairly well known" are defective memes. If someone makes an unsubstantiated claim, asking for evidence is not out of line just because the claim is "fairly well known".

It is "fairly well known" to some people that Obama was born in Kenya.

See what I mean?

Critical thinking is in very short supply these days.
 
Last edited:
No, but I get your point. I still think he spins and supported failed policies.

No, he just says that Obama isn't Keynesian enough. He has never stated that Obama's policies were wrong. He always says that they just weren't big enough.

I don't advocate policies and then make predictions. He does, and expects people to do what he says. There's a difference.

Holy fuck, dude. Don't slice up the quotes and slide them into wherever you want. Just my personal preference, because it makes your post a bear to quote cleanly. When I sliced up a quote, I didn't use the quote function. It's probably a Luddite tendency of mine.

However, back to substance.

I'm not going to be polite. Can you not fucking read?

"The economy is likely to remain depressed for at least two years, but probably much longer than that, Krugman said."

^^^^ That is a direct fucking quote!

It is Krugman's analysis that Obama was yielded to Republicans to make the stimulus smaller. Lawrence Summers directly that he advised the president to err on the small side so as to not overreach. It is also Krugman's analysis that because of the small stimulus, the recovery was not robust. Krugman has come to these conclusions through a review of evidence. Also, it's not his fault that everyone expects economists to know what the unemployment rate will be at a certain time in the future.

And you know what? This is a rather serious digression from the whole point of the thread. You have already been proven wrong on this point:

Have you noticed that none of his predictions have ever been correct and that he never proposes a workable solution?

Do you want to keep up this he-said-she-said bullshit?
 
Last edited:
Holy fuck, dude. Don't slice up the quotes and slide them into wherever you want. Just my personal preference, because it makes your post a bear to quote cleanly. When I sliced up a quote, I didn't use the quote function. Probably a Luddite tendency of mine.

However, back to substance.

I'm not going to be polite. Can you not fucking read?

"The economy is likely to remain depressed for at least two years, but probably much longer than that, Krugman said."

^^^^ That is a direct fucking quote!

It is Krugman's analysis that Obama was yielded to Republicans to make the stimulus smaller. Lawrence Summers directly that he advised the president to err on the small side so as to not overreach. It is also Krugman's analysis that because of the small stimulus, the recovery was not robust. Krugman has come to these conclusions through a review of evidence. Also, it's not his fault that everyone expects economists to know what the unemployment rate will be at a certain time in the future.

And you know what? This is a rather serious digression from the whole point of the thread. You have already been proven wrong on this point:

Have you noticed that none of his predictions have ever been correct and that he never proposes a workable solution?

Do you want to keep up this he-said-she-said bullshit?

I might be daving way too much, but dumbfuckedness is tiring.
 
Congratulations to SayMyName for being the first poster to admit to being a parrot of some sort! Outside of me, of course.
 
No, but I get your point. I still think he spins and supported failed policies.

No, he just says that Obama isn't Keynesian enough. He has never stated that Obama's policies were wrong. He always says that they just weren't big enough.

I don't advocate policies and then make predictions. He does, and expects people to do what he says. There's a difference.

Holy fuck, dude. Don't slice up the quotes and slide them into wherever you want. Just my personal preference, because it makes your post a bear to quote cleanly. When I sliced up a quote, I didn't use the quote function. It's probably a Luddite tendency of mine.

However, back to substance.

I'm not going to be polite. Can you not fucking read?

"The economy is likely to remain depressed for at least two years, but probably much longer than that, Krugman said."

^^^^ That is a direct fucking quote!

It is Krugman's analysis that Obama was yielded to Republicans to make the stimulus smaller. Lawrence Summers directly that he advised the president to err on the small side so as to not overreach. It is also Krugman's analysis that because of the small stimulus, the recovery was not robust. Krugman has come to these conclusions through a review of evidence. Also, it's not his fault that everyone expects economists to know what the unemployment rate will be at a certain time in the future.

And you know what? This is a rather serious digression from the whole point of the thread. You have already been proven wrong on this point:

Have you noticed that none of his predictions have ever been correct and that he never proposes a workable solution?

Do you want to keep up this he-said-she-said bullshit?

You take a different connotation from that one Krugman quote than I do. On that we can agree to disagree.

You are correct that this is a digression from your thread.
 
I do not parrot. However, I have learned a great deal from several commentators especially my favorite commentator, Mark Levin.

I always get a "thrill up my leg" when I hear him articulating something I have been saying or thinking. Granted, he does it in a more precise fashion. But still. Any time I see that happening, I feel like I am getting pretty solid with the underlying political philosophy.
Try Jason Lewis some time.
 
I dont parrot anyone. But im surprised how often commentators parrot me. They say things I was thinking and saying months before they said it. It's alittle creepy sometimes.
 
I do not parrot. However, I have learned a great deal from several commentators especially my favorite commentator, Mark Levin.

I always get a "thrill up my leg" when I hear him articulating something I have been saying or thinking. Granted, he does it in a more precise fashion. But still. Any time I see that happening, I feel like I am getting pretty solid with the underlying political philosophy.

That's semantics, in my opinion, but it's a pretty honest answer.

I guess I'm not exactly a parrot if I can phrase my opinions in different wordings from the original, but I still depend quite heavily on my sources.

No no. I think you missed what I was saying.

If one develops a consistent political philosophy and then makes judgments based on the logic of that political philosophy, then one IS making his own assessments and not parroting. My own political philosophy has been informed by the thinking of others, just as the great political philosophers studied the thinking of their own predecessors.

But in the end, if I choose to forgo complete consistency (and that is a choice I sometimes have to make), it's nice to be able to recognize it and articulate the "why" part of an answer. I have addressed several claims and engaged in several political arguments here (sometimes with more clarity than other times). In these cases, what I was saying before is that it is kind of cool to LATER listen to the man whose political insights I respect (Levin) and hear him articulating very similar thoughts -- and using similar logic.

If you consider that parroting, that's ok. But I don't.
 
I do not parrot. However, I have learned a great deal from several commentators especially my favorite commentator, Mark Levin.

I always get a "thrill up my leg" when I hear him articulating something I have been saying or thinking. Granted, he does it in a more precise fashion. But still. Any time I see that happening, I feel like I am getting pretty solid with the underlying political philosophy.
Try Jason Lewis some time.

:)

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess: libertarian?

And NOW I'll go find out. :cool:
 
Last edited:
He's also more economically literate than just about any other radio guy.

If you like Levin's books, you'll also like...

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Power-Divided-Checked-Argument-States/dp/1935098500]Amazon.com: Power Divided is Power Checked: The Argument for States' Rights (9781935098508): Jason Lewis: Books[/ame]
 

Forum List

Back
Top