Oh, no, you're quite wrong about that, guys - you need some Web-savvy right now. Your Internet representation is a shambles.

Even I, a geezer, have learned some web tricks.

Open mouth, insert foot.

Well, "it’s not even really a web site," so I guess it's understandable.

their web designer thinks [Link: www...] for we're worthlessly weak ...

re: #5 _RememberTonyC

their web designer thinks [Link: www...] for we're worthlessly weak ...

that should have said "www" stands for ...

With any luck, the GOP will advertise their new site on LGF.

I wonder what skills they do consider are a must?

All it's saying is similar to any business Help Wanted Ad stating
Experienced (sales/service/stock clerk) Preferred, but not required
As long as they get the people in CHARGE of it to have "savvy", the "grunt" workers can be trained

Ron Paul kooks think Israel is funding LGF -- it's impossible for one person to run a site like this, they say.

[Link: www.dailypaul.com...]

re: #6 _RememberTonyC

that should have said "www" stands for ...

Well, you can still get that intern position at least.

GoOP is exactly what their website has looked like.

re: #1 thedopefishlives

Even the shambles of their shambles are in shambles.ff

re: #10 Charles

Bwahahahaa

re: #6 _RememberTonyC

OT ,, you see that Seau signed with the Pats last night?

Five hate mails already this morning. Looks like it's going to be a great day!

re: #12 bosforus

GoOP is exactly what their website has looked like.

Cluelessness incarnate.

re: #11 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Well, you can still get that intern position at least.

gee ... thanks ...

re: #10 Charles

Ron Paul kooks think Israel is funding LGF -- it's impossible for one person to run a site like this, they say.

[Link: www.dailypaul.com...]

Haven't the left and far-right kooks been claiming you were funded and operated by AIPAC for years?

re: #10 Charles

Ron Paul kooks think Israel is funding LGF -- it's impossible for one person to run a site like this, they say.

[Link: www.dailypaul.com...]

The real question is, is it impossible for Cthulhu!

re: #16 Charles

Five hate mails already this morning. Looks like it's going to be a great day!

Look on the bright side. At least they're intertooby savvy!
/

re: #15 sattv4u2

OT ,, you see that Seau signed with the Pats last night?

Yeah, but he should change his name to Senior Seau ... the dude's older than dirt!

re: #16 Charles

Five hate mails already this morning. Looks like it's going to be a great day!

Paulians, nut jobs, and hate mail and you laugh at it all. I marvel at you sometimes, Charles.

re: #16 Charles

Five hate mails already this morning. Looks like it's going to be a great day!

Ever tempted to take the email addresses and sign them up to spammer email listings?

//

re: #22 _RememberTonyC

Yeah, but he should change his name to Senior Seau ... the dude's older than dirt!

he's only 40!
I was a senior in High School when he was born!!

WWAAAHHH!!

re: #20 Danny

The real question is, is it impossible for Cthulhu!

Ask Walter.

re: #26 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Ask Walter.

You mean...he survived?!

It appears as though the Republicans are committing suicide, first with their apparent support of kooks like creationists and birthers, and now with their ignoring one of the most powerful information tools since movable type.
I manifestly do not like seeing this happen.

re: #22 _RememberTonyC

On the same topic,, GREAT news

Patriots left tackle Matt Light, who injured his right leg in Sunday’s loss to the Broncos, has no significant ligament damage in his knee or ankle, according to a Twitter report by ESPN’s Adam Schefter.

If Light was gone for the year, Brady would be real nervous in the pocket

Irony may not be necessary.

They are not really saying what position an intern would fill. Most likely the intern would be a go-fer and would not be messing with any code.

re: #27 Danny

You mean...he survived?!

Walter, or something that looks like Walter, returned. I will say no more except to beware the moors.

re: #25 sattv4u2

he's only 40!
I was a senior in High School when he was born!!

WWAAAHHH!!

i guess I should start calling you "sir." respect for elders and all that :)

re: #27 Danny

You mean...he survived?!

???

re: #32 _RememberTonyC

i guess I should start calling you "sir." respect for elders and all that :)

Thats right, sonny!

re: #10 Charles

Ron Paul kooks think Israel is funding LGF -- it's impossible for one person to run a site like this, they say.

[Link: www.dailypaul.com...]

So one group says you are anti-Semitic; another says Israel is funding you.

re: #10 Charles

"Site should be called, 'Little Green Smarmy Statists.'"

Awww, man - they got you there. Wow, razor sharp. You get it? It's because you cite a lot of stats to back up your assertions... and because they think you display certain amount of smarm while you do that. Let this be a lesson to you, Charles - You mess with them at your peril.

re: #10 Charles

Ron Paul kooks think Israel is funding LGF -- it's impossible for one person to run a site like this, they say.

[Link: www.dailypaul.com...]

And I'm still waiting for my check. I need a new roof and siding and rewiring and new plumbing.

Lots of haters showing up now in the 'Hot Air Comments of the Day' thread.

Looks like that will be a popular new recurring feature.

re: #35 Kosh's Shadow

So one group says you are anti-Semitic; another says Israel is funding you.

this song comes to mind ...

re: #32 _RememberTonyC

Whats the weather up there this weekend? It's the head Of The Charles Regatta. I used to love to go to the Cambridge side of the Charles with a cooler and a grill and spend the day

re: #34 sattv4u2

Thats right, sonny!

maybe clint eastwood can play you in the movie ...

re: #38 Charles

Lots of haters showing up now in the 'Hot Air Comments of the Day' thread.

Looks like that will be a popular new recurring feature.

I can't find that thread. I have trouble finding any of their "threads" if they aren't on the front page. The place is a mess.

re: #40 sattv4u2

Whats the weather up there this weekend? It's the head Of The Charles Regatta. I used to love to go to the Cambridge side of the Charles with a cooler and a grill and spend the day

50's and starting to get a bit windy ... but the sun is out

re: #36 Splatt

"Site should be called, 'Little Green Smarmy Statists.'"

Awww, man - they got you there. Wow, razor sharp. You get it? It's because you cite a lot of stats to back up your assertions... and because they think you display certain amount of smarm while you do that. Let this be a lesson to you, Charles - You mess with them at your peril.

To quote Crow T. Robot. "Well parried my rapier witted friend. This battle of wits is over!"

Can't quite seem to get the condescension and mocking tone to carry over though. Pity

re: #3 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I think they're knee deep on the foot insertion.

On the plus side, the front page allows you to "vote" for el presidente to be nominated for the "Hollywood Actors Guild Lifetime Achievement Award."

With all his TV time, he may have a shot...

I really hope Michael Steele makes an appearance on Weekend Update. Steele is living up to Keenan Thompson's caricature more and more every day.

re: #42 reine.de.tout

I can't find that thread. I have trouble finding any of their "threads" if they aren't on the front page. The place is a mess.

No, I meant the thread here at LGF. Two flounces already this morning.

I'm new here - what's a "flounce?"

re: #42 reine.de.tout

I can't find that thread. I have trouble finding any of their "threads" if they aren't on the front page. The place is a mess.

Most agreed. It's worthless, IMHO, for finding anything. I dropped reading it long before they went bonkers.

re: #10 Charles

Ron Paul kooks think Israel is funding LGF -- it's impossible for one person to run a site like this, they say.

[Link: www.dailypaul.com...]

Wait I thought the meme was that you hated us Jews now? It is one thing to face haters, it is another to face ones who can't get their stories straight.

re: #44 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

+1 anyway for an mst3k quote.

re: #49 Splatt

I'm new here - what's a "flounce?"

It's when someone self righteously makes a goodbye cruel world speech and asks to be deleted.

re: #49 Splatt

I'm new here - what's a "flounce?"

A posted hissy fit saying "You guys sucks and I'm leaving". Read em fast, cuz they go buh-bye quick.

re: #49 Splatt

I'm new here - what's a "flounce?"

Flounce

hey - how difficult can the internets be - it's just a series of tubes.

i mean, people, come on!!!

re: #10 Charles

From the comments:

Could be that AIPAC sends them some money?

So... Charles... where's my cut of the take, hmmm?

/I thought it was Soros who was funding you...

re: #29 sattv4u2

On the same topic,, GREAT news

Patriots left tackle Matt Light, who injured his right leg in Sunday’s loss to the Broncos, has no significant ligament damage in his knee or ankle, according to a Twitter report by ESPN’s Adam Schefter.

If Light was gone for the year, Brady would be real nervous in the pocket

the Pats should be OK, but last Sunday's loss was disheartening. Denver really put the wood to them in the second half

re: #49 Splatt

I'm new here - what's a "flounce?"

A French unit of weight measurement.

re: #49 Splatt

I'm new here - what's a "flounce?"

It's a contraction for "flatulence by the ounce".

re: #10 Charles

Ron Paul kooks think Israel is funding LGF -- it's impossible for one person to run a site like this, they say.

[Link: www.dailypaul.com...]

Well, it's true, isn't it?

BWAHAHAHA!

re: #49 Splatt

I'm new here - what's a "flounce?"

A flounce is a post in which someone expresses their desire to no longer be a part of a blog community.

An example:

#100 Hater
You used to have such a good site, now you've turned liberal and I can't stand it anymore. You are such an idiot, I now hate you and your site.

It is usually followed by this,

#101 Blog Owner
Buh-bye.

Such posts tend to be very whiny in nature.

Repost, because I posted this just as everyone went upstairs.

An angry rant about obesity, consumption, the people at Wallmart and AGW:

Yesterday, I noticed how many GOP faces in the public spotlight are obese. I made some people uncomfortable about that, and it got me to thinking. Now before I delve deeply into this phillipic, let me say that of course there is a difference between having a medical condition or whatever circumstance that got some overweight (as in not their fault) and eating an endless stream of cheesburgers, bacon, cheetos and ice-cream (as in it is absolutely their fault that they are disgusting tubs of lard).

Do I have it in for fatties? No, not exactly. I have it in for the whiny American mindset that divorces reality from desires and cause from effect. The short from is that the attitude that somehow, the extra helping of gravy won't make me fat, and moreover, I am entitled to the extra helping of gravy, because I am an American, coupled with no notion of consequence, is exactly the same problem we have in our diplomacy and in AGW.

Yes it is your right to consume more calories in a day than many families do in several days. We certainly have a system that tells you that consumption is happiness. Does that mean you should do it though? The point is not to go and compare to the less fortunate as to point out that you don't need it. The United States consumes more than any other nation on the planet in terms of all resources. And we buy endless streams of crap with it. The crap defines who we are these days as a culture. I look at the Jabba the hut like creatures shopping at Wallmart, and I realize that we will never really fix any of the world's eco problems until it is too late.

No we are Americans, we want our cake and eat it too. It is much better to drain the health care system with an avoidable triple bypass than it is to actually not be Jabba the hutt. Who cares if the shirt we just bought was sewn by a five year old. It's cheap at Wallmart!

We want our SUV! We have the right to waste resources! It is not us! There are no consequences! We refuse to believe that the AGW is really real. Just like we refuse to believe that we really will get old, or that extra helping will go to our bellies and hips. It is ultimately a wide ranging denial of responsibility.

So what really got to me looking at all of those fat Republicans is that their philosophies show on their bodies. It is not their fault. It is never their fault. No, they just have an entire philosophy of economics based on endless growth on a finite planet. It is of course impossible. But facts do not get in the way of a fatty and his sundae.

Ohhh don't call the morbidly obese, morbidly obese, it hurts their sensitive feelings. Their over consumption and the attitudes that go with it are killing the environment and destroying the future. I am more worried about the morbid obesity in the collective culture and its mindset.

Anyone who thinks that this was just about being overweight missed the point entirely.

Regarding the topic of the thread... I've just spent the last 4 hours reading [Link: www.w3schools.com...] ...

I guess I am now overqualified to work on the GOP website?

re: #31 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Walter, or something that looks like Walter, returned. I will say no more except to beware the moors.

the klankers will get you.

re: #38 Charles

Lots of haters showing up now in the 'Hot Air Comments of the Day' thread.

Looks like that will be a popular new recurring feature.

Oh goody, a daily dose of tehcrazy is always fun.

The New Media division is responsible for ensuring there is an effective online component to RNC operations. Web savvy students are a plus, but not a must.

I'd like too see a student that wasn't web savvy these days. At least they didn't say "intertubes".

Classic. I can't wait for my flounce. One day, maybe.re: #54 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

That's hilarious. I actually "flounced" yesterday on the QQQ board on Yahoo finance... and I didn't even know I was flouncing. Classic.

(I keep getting killed trying to short the market up here at these levels. It just. won't. die.)

re: #63 LudwigVanQuixote

Right on time for the new thread! :)

re: #53 LudwigVanQuixote

It's when someone self righteously makes a goodbye cruel world speech and asks to be deleted.

Deletion is usually the result, but the explicit asking to be deleted may be a symptom of a more recent mutation of the flounce virus. I say that, because the definition on encyclopediadramatica.com gives several flounce examples but doesn't seem to show any explicit calls for deletion.

re: #63 LudwigVanQuixote

Repost, because I posted this just as everyone went upstairs.

An angry rant about obesity, consumption, the people at Wallmart and AGW:

Yesterday, I noticed how many GOP faces in the public spotlight are obese. I made some people uncomfortable about that, and it got me to thinking. Now before I delve deeply into this phillipic, let me say that of course there is a difference between having a medical condition or whatever circumstance that got some overweight (as in not their fault) and eating an endless stream of cheesburgers, bacon, cheetos and ice-cream (as in it is absolutely their fault that they are disgusting tubs of lard).

Do I have it in for fatties? No, not exactly. I have it in for the whiny American mindset that divorces reality from desires and cause from effect. The short from is that the attitude that somehow, the extra helping of gravy won't make me fat, and moreover, I am entitled to the extra helping of gravy, because I am an American, coupled with no notion of consequence, is exactly the same problem we have in our diplomacy and in AGW.

Yes it is your right to consume more calories in a day than many families do in several days. We certainly have a system that tells you that consumption is happiness. Does that mean you should do it though? The point is not to go and compare to the less fortunate as to point out that you don't need it. The United States consumes more than any other nation on the planet in terms of all resources. And we buy endless streams of crap with it. The crap defines who we are these days as a culture. I look at the Jabba the hut like creatures shopping at Wallmart, and I realize that we will never really fix any of the world's eco problems until it is too late.

No we are Americans, we want our cake and eat it too. It is much better to drain the health care system with an avoidable triple bypass than it is to actually not be Jabba the hutt. Who cares if the shirt we just bought was sewn by a five year old. It's cheap at Wallmart!

We want our SUV! We have the right to waste resources! It is not us! There are no consequences! We refuse to believe that the AGW is really real. Just like we refuse to believe that we really will get old, or that extra helping will go to our bellies and hips. It is ultimately a wide ranging denial of responsibility.

So what really got to me looking at all of those fat Republicans is that their philosophies show on their bodies. It is not their fault. It is never their fault. No, they just have an entire philosophy of economics based on endless growth on a finite planet. It is of course impossible. But facts do not get in the way of a fatty and his sundae.

Ohhh don't call the morbidly obese, morbidly obese, it hurts their sensitive feelings. Their over consumption and the attitudes that go with it are killing the environment and destroying the future. I am more worried about the morbid obesity in the collective culture and its mindset.

Anyone who thinks that this was just about being overweight missed the point entirely.

Is there actually data on obesity by party affiliation?

No no no no! Whatever you do, don't actually go to GoOP.com ... you'll end up getting bizarre lifestyle advice from Gwyneth Paltrow and her celebrity friends!

re: #56 wozzablog

hey - how difficult can the internets be - it's just a series of tubes.

i mean, people, come on!!!

you will need punch cards too.

re: #63 LudwigVanQuixote

[My reply from the prior thread]

So, Republicans and "deniers" are also fat and gluttonous?

Can you not reflect on this occasion of our host being libeled as immoral by those who disagree with him and are unable to make intelligent counter-points as a cautionary tale about doing the same?

They are angry because in their opinion Charles doesn't take their preferred threats seriously so they lash out at him, demonise him and question his morality.

They use Islam and Socialism as their excuse and you use AGW as yours to demonise people. I've been accused of being a liar and a shill. What's next for me?

re: #63 LudwigVanQuixote

You're sounding a bit like Debbie Schlussel.

Pretty soon their next website redesign at gop.com will be full of frames and those stickmen digging holes with under construction flashing underneath

re: #63 LudwigVanQuixote

vile rant.

re: #70 John Neverbend

I'd guess that's probably because ED's a little more cutting edge. When something in internet culture gets defined on ED and is then enacted consciously that's usually when said event has gotten old and tiresome. I believe the modern lgf flouncer is little more than an attention whore.

re: #74 Bagua

And my reply to you updated.

Can you not reflect that the attitudes in this nation I am talking about are the real problems? Do you deny a certain bread and circus effect and a culture that has been indoctrinated to believe that material consumption is happiness? Those attitudes lead to the massive obesity across this nation. Worse they lead to us buying form sweatshops that pollute and polluting ourselves. We have replaced meaningful pursuit for materialism and consumption of things we do not need and are actually harmful to us as a culture. This is not some small point to dismiss as invalid or not thought out.

re: #71 pianobuff

Missing the point of the metaphor entirely.

re: #73 Eowyn2

well - DUH!

I mean, you obviously need the punch cards to access in to the googles through the side panels in one of the relevant tubes

/

re: #75 meeshlr

You're sounding a bit like Debbie Schlussel.

You are one of the bigger AGW deniers here. Of course you hate to have the fact that conspicuous over consumption is an issue.

re: #74 Bagua

Because you are stuck in hyper literal mode, I will repeat what I bolded.

I have it in for the whiny American mindset that divorces reality from desires and cause from effect.

What might I mean by that?

re: #82 LudwigVanQuixote

I never said that it was bad to sound like Schlussel. Your comments simply reminded me of her recent post.

re: #79 LudwigVanQuixote

Demonising human beings and calling them "creatures" because you don't approve of them is poor behaviour. It is ugly and I will not engage in such a discussion.

You feel justified in lashing out because they don't take AGW seriously enough in your opinion, those we both condemn, the morons slandering Charles are doing so because they think he is not taking their views serious enough.

Reflect on this my friend. It is possible for you to promote AGW and liberal politics through intelligent debate, there is no need to paint your opponents as immoral.

re: #85 Bagua

Demonising human beings and calling them "creatures" because you don't approve of them is poor behaviour. It is ugly and I will not engage in such a discussion.

You feel justified in lashing out because they don't take AGW seriously enough in your opinion, those we both condemn, the morons slandering Charles are doing so because they think he is not taking their views serious enough.

Reflect on this my friend. It is possible for you to promote AGW and liberal politics through intelligent debate, there is no need to paint your opponents as immoral.

Reflect on this my friend. Some things are actually in reality immoral.

re: #86 LudwigVanQuixote

Reflect on this my friend. Some things are actually in reality immoral.

Obesity?

re: #86 LudwigVanQuixote

Obesity is immoral?

Shopping is immoral?

SUVs are immoral?

I honestly can't understand how you can make that argument.

re: #85 Bagua

Demonising human beings and calling them "creatures" because you don't approve of them is poor behaviour. It is ugly and I will not engage in such a discussion.

You feel justified in lashing out because they don't take AGW seriously enough in your opinion, those we both condemn, the morons slandering Charles are doing so because they think he is not taking their views serious enough.

Reflect on this my friend. It is possible for you to promote AGW and liberal politics through intelligent debate, there is no need to paint your opponents as immoral.

Also, your language is dangerously close to false relativism. For instance, I do not, and neither do you, take the views of a neo-nazi seriously. Those views are immoral. The people who espouse them proclaim their immorality by espousing them. That is reality.

As to the attitudes I refer to in my post. Deciding that there are no consequences to one's greedy actions - as in the case of AGW, or buying stuff you know was made in a sweatshop, by child labor, is not only immoral but funding immorality.

re: #88 meeshlr

re: #87 pianobuff

Again, no, being fat in of itself is not immoral. Being fat (in a much more broad use of the word) at the expense of others is.

That is why I wrote:

I have it in for the whiny American mindset that divorces reality from desires and cause from effect.

And:

Anyone who thinks that this was just about being overweight missed the point entirely.

re: #86 LudwigVanQuixote

Reflect on this my friend. Some things are actually in reality immoral.

I can see your type of arguments on the stalker blog anytime I choose, I don't because I consider such discussion immature and an insulting.

If you can not accept my observations then so be it. Just know that the people slandering our host also think their demonisation is justified because of issues important to them. They are wrong and you are wrong.

re: #90 dimestorenovel

No, but any health care provider will tell you of huge correlations between obesity and heart disease as well as many other preventable ailments that cost billions each year to treat.

The point is not just about being fat. It is about the mindset that denies cause and effect, like your post just did.

re: #88 meeshlr

SUVs are immoral?

I honestly can't understand how you can make that argument.

they are obnoxious vehicles and largely not needed. They have far lower MPG's than Station Wagons of equal space and practicallity while having hideous safety and ecology records.

re: #92 Bagua

I can see your type of arguments on the stalker blog anytime I choose, I don't because I consider such discussion immature and an insulting.

If you can not accept my observations then so be it. Just know that the people slandering our host also think their demonisation is justified because of issues important to them. They are wrong and you are wrong.

Bagua, what is interesting is that you always go for the most extreme language yourself. I assure you the people at the stalker blog would hat the notion that they have responsibility to others.

The one who lashes out is usually you in these things.

Do you deny the mindset I am talking about is real in America?

Do you deny that we have built an economy on over consumption and that it affects Americans from the girth of their bellies to their impact on sweatshops to the overall fate of the planet in terms of emissions?

Ludwig and Bagua - Cool down.

I'm new here - but invoking the *other* place and talking of crossed purposes and dreging up eachothers histories won't lead anywhere positive.

I'm new here - but been around the 'sphere long enough to know which direction you are both headed on this thread.

re: #91 LudwigVanQuixote

By your argument, you are saying that all fat people are immoral because they are consuming more than they need to. In fact, anyone eating more than actually required would be immoral.

I'm curious. Do you think that we should buy locally whenever possible?

re: #93 LudwigVanQuixote

Correlations do not prove causation.

re: #95 LudwigVanQuixote

Ludwig, I'll not play the game in which you rephrase what you said and argue with the StrawBagua.

Your demonisation of fat people as "creatures', Republicans as selfish gluttons and sceptics as "deniers" is offensive and not a logical argument.

I note the slanders on other sites because that is what they do, question everyone's morality and make argument via insults. We were talking about such slanders when Ludwig made his cruel observations attacking Americans, Obese people and Republicans.

re: #94 wozzablog

they are obnoxious vehicles and largely not needed. They have far lower MPG's than Station Wagons of equal space and practicallity while having hideous safety and ecology records.

How does that make them immoral?

As a social networking professional, give them a little growing pains. I don't understand what all the fuss is about. They are just YASNS (yet another social networking site).

It looks polished enough.

re: #97 meeshlr

By your argument, you are saying that all fat people are immoral because they are consuming more than they need to. In fact, anyone eating more than actually required would be immoral.

I'm curious. Do you think that we should buy locally whenever possible?

I think that we should love lives which are sustainable and realistic about cause and effect.

IN the case of being obese you are mostly just hurting yourself, though you do raise insurance rates ultimately. In the case of all the crap we buy from sweatshops and all the fossil fuels we consume, we are actively bringing about an eco-collapse and yes that is immoral.

The obesity is a good case in point to the kind of thinking that prevents clar discussion on AGW.

My brother is a cardiologist. He had a 50 year old patient come in. The man smoked two packs a day for 30+ years, was 285 lbs and 5'11. His diet consisted of large amounts of fat, more fat and some gravy on that.

He was wondering why he had heart problems.

He just couldn't believe it would happen to him.

GO figure.

If you tell that man to quit smoking and eat enough for one instead of three he will whine piteously.

It is the same thing as telling people that no, you really do have to change things to prevent an eco-collapse. They whine piteously and invent reasons it won't happen to them.

re: #98 meeshlr

Correlations do not prove causation.

So just out of curiosity... when is a correlation strong enough that you can be convinced there is a deciding factor? Just out of curiosity, what is the evidence of cigarettes causing multiple diseases based on?

What kind of math do you think is used?

re: #99 Bagua

Bagua, I am not attacking straw Bagua. You seem to be willfully missing the points I am trying to bring by calling them unfair names.

Again, this is about over consumption, and the attitudes of a society that revels in it and then takes offense at having the consequences pointed out.

I don't know how to make that more clear.

I don't understand why that isn't obvious or why it would not obviously effect efforts to get people to change their ways on greater issues like climate change.

re: #63 LudwigVanQuixote

repost, because I am hounding the Lug. Nut.

Of course your rant about obesity is not just about being fat, hell you started it off with a reference to the GOP. Which of course invalidates the rest of it to pure lunacy.

In particlular because minorities tend to be both more often over weight and more often, liberal. (visit last thread for a link if you need one.)

Trying to make a valid point by starting with a false premise is lunacy.

Web savvy students are a plus, but not a must.

Perhaps this has already been said - I only glanced through the comments already posted, so sorry if this is beating a dead horse - but we have several web sites at work whose contents are maintained by folks who have no knowledge of web design, HTML, Flash or any other web savviness. The sites were designed that way from the ground up, and allow people who have little more than typing skills to add, modify and delete content as they see fit, under the control of the underlying software. This, in fact, is the future of web design - the complete separation of content from the details of the underlying delivery system.

Someone whose job is to post the company's weekly newsletter online when it's PDF file is delivered, or who wants to update their employee profile, or any of a number of other activities doesn't - and, in my opinion, shouldn't - need to have any knowledge whatsoever of how the underlying hardware and software operate. Most websites, in fact - especially once they're beta tested and have undergone a final deployment shakeout - need little more than content providers without any web savvy at all; this is the major requirement at most sites, rather than ongoing software development and maintenance.

I agree that the RNC site was released prematurely. But I don't see anything untoward or oafish about this ad. It's simply the reality of how websites are actually operated.

re: #101 dimestorenovel

You are correct on the science except that you are incomplete.

The point is that obesity carries with it numerous conditions. Predispositions are obviously exacerbated by it as well.

What is making you a denier is that you are driving attention away from the main point which is, and continues to be:

This is about over consumption, and the attitudes of a society that revels in it and then takes offense at having the consequences pointed out.

I don't know how to make that more clear.

I don't understand why that isn't obvious or why it would not obviously effect efforts to get people to change their ways on greater issues like climate change.

re: #106 filetandrelease

repost, because I am hounding the Lug. Nut.

Of course your rant about obesity is not just about being fat, hell you started it off with a reference to the GOP. Which of course invalidates the rest of it to pure lunacy.

In particlular because minorities tend to be both more often over weight and more often, liberal. (visit last thread for a link if you need one.)

Trying to make a valid point by starting with a false premise is lunacy.

Except that you missed the point all along due to your stupidity.

re: #105 LudwigVanQuixote

Ludwig, you always rephrase and change your arguments from the one I'm actually challenging. Then you introduce ideas that I'm not challenging and wonder why I am. It is tiresome and I won't engage on that level. I made my points.

You simply can not accept any sort of disagreement or suggestion that you are other than infallible, part of taking responsibility is having the integrity to consider others ideas and accept their opinions and observations.

re: #107 SixDegrees

I agree that the RNC site was released prematurely. But I don't see anything untoward or oafish about this ad. It's simply the reality of how websites are actually operated.

You're kind of missing the point. I agree that modern web sites are designed so that non-web savvy people can operate them.

But this comment in their ad for interns is simply humorous, because their website was so horribly designed and launched.

re: #110 Bagua

Ludwig, you always rephrase and change your arguments from the one I'm actually challenging. Then you introduce ideas that I'm not challenging and wonder why I am. It is tiresome and I won't engage on that level. I made my points.

You simply can not accept any sort of disagreement or suggestion that you are other than infallible, part of taking responsibility is having the integrity to consider others ideas and accept their opinions and observations.

No this is what I have been arguing all along. Re read the OP id you doubt me.

I have it in for the whiny American mindset that divorces reality from desires and cause from effect.

re: #109 LudwigVanQuixote

Except that you missed the point all along due to your stupidity.

LOL. Add Homonym attack. That is disappointing. Actually, if you read carefully, I used the phrase, "valid point", it is just that as the pompous ass that you are, you have to start it out by referencing the GOP. Which of course has nothing to do with your point. But it did make you feel good.

re: #112 LudwigVanQuixote

It's OK Ludwig, I'm not saying you are a bad person, just that you are wrong for often demonising and insulting your opponents. You say a lot of other, very sensible things as well and I agree with much of what you write otherwise. It is for you to decide whether to take my observations seriously or to dismiss them with rationalisation.

As I know you respect Jewish Philosophy I suggest you make a study of something called, "Evil Speech," I am told it is considered as being prohibited.

re: #113 filetandrelease

LOL. Add Homonym attack. That is disappointing. Actually, if you read carefully, I used the phrase, "valid point", it is just that as the pompous ass that you are, you have to start it out by referencing the GOP. Which of course has nothing to do with your point. But it did make you feel good.

Ummm you called me a LUD NUt and then whine about ad hominem.

So I will add hypocrite who can't take what he dishes along with stupid to my perception of you.

I also was clear that obesity crossed party lines and that I was talking about a mindset that the physical is a manifestation of as a real problem.

Sometimes arguing with people here is like arguing with a pack of hypersensitive, hyper literal slow thinkers.

I am not really in the mood today to play nice with the intellectually lazy.

re: #114 Bagua

It's OK Ludwig, I'm not saying you are a bad person, just that you are wrong for often demonising and insulting your opponents. You say a lot of other, very sensible things as well and I agree with much of what you write otherwise. It is for you to decide whether to take my observations seriously or to dismiss them with rationalisation.

As I know you respect Jewish Philosophy I suggest you make a study of something called, "Evil Speech," I am told it is considered as being prohibited.

Loshan HaRa also includes that notion of Toelet.

Toelet is when you tell someone something true that they don't want to hear, for their own good.

re: #63 LudwigVanQuixote

An awful lot of that outsourcing happened during the 8 years of the WJC administration. You can't pin that on the GOP. Both parties are equally guilty of that one.

NAFTA was a big WJC accomplishment. Nutty Ross Perot and lots of conservative types opposed NAFTA. The Wall St Journal GOP types love outsourcing because it pads corporate wallets, but the actual physical changes (moving textile factories to China and elsewhere) mainly took place in the late 1980s (GHWB) and the 1990s (WJC).

re: #115 LudwigVanQuixote

Ummm you called me a LUD NUt and then whine about ad hominem.

So I will add hypocrite who can't take what he dishes along with stupid to my perception of you.

I also was clear that obesity crossed party lines and that I was talking about a mindset that the physical is a manifestation of as a real problem.

Sometimes arguing with people here is like arguing with a pack of hypersensitive, hyper literal slow thinkers.

I am not really in the mood today to play nice with the intellectually lazy.

Please Ludwig, take it easy. The "people here" are not an ignorant bunch of rubes just because they disagree with you.

re: #63 LudwigVanQuixote

Ummm, did you canvass the tubbies to see if they are members of the GOP? Michael Steele isn't fat. John McCain isn't fat. The Palins aren't fat. I don't like Tom Delay, but he's not fat. Boehner, Hatch, DeMint, Coburn, Ryan, etc and so forth ... no fatties there.

Ted Kennedy was fat. Paula Deen (Food Network) is a proud democrat and is fat.

The highest concentration of obesity in America is concentrated in the underclass, which tends to vote democrat. I think your premise is flawed.

February 27, 2003, 9:10 a.m.
Poor and Fat
A special problem in America.

By Kate O’Beirne

From the February 10, 2003, issue of National Review.
When Bush budget officials recently reviewed the federal government's spending habits, they realized they weren't the only ones looking to trim some fat. Federal agencies, concerned with our eating habits, were proposing a host of initiatives aimed at fighting obesity; clearly, it isn't just the federal budget that needs a diet. About 60 percent of Americans are overweight, to such an extent that they risk health problems; 20 percent of us are obese; and 5 million Americans meet the criteria for being identified as morbidly so. With rates of excess weight and obesity highest among low-income households, budget officials should be asking themselves why tens of billions of dollars are being spent each year by federal nutrition programs aimed at boosting food consumption by the poor.

That's the question Douglas Besharov of the American Enterprise Institute posed in a recent paper, "We're Feeding the Poor as if They're Starving." He examines the three major nutrition programs run by the Department of Agriculture and concludes that they are badly in need of modernization to meet the current need for less food consumption by large numbers of large low-income Americans.

The government spends about $35 billion a year on feeding the poor. The evidence that the rate of hunger in America is very small, while health experts now see the rate of obesity as an epidemic."

[Link: article.nationalreview.com...]

re: #116 LudwigVanQuixote

Loshan HaRa also includes that notion of Toelet.

Toelet is when you tell someone something true that they don't want to hear, for their own good.

Ludwig, I know you consider yourself an authority on Jewish law, as well as science, medicine, politics, and a variety of other subjects. I have it on good authority that you are wrong on this point. What you are doing is rationalising your use of something called 'evil speech.'

I have nothing more to say on this subject.

re: #118 Bagua

Please Ludwig, take it easy. The "people here" are not an ignorant bunch of rubes just because they disagree with you.

NO not at all. Lots of people got it.

Those who are trying to somehow argue that the American addiction to over consumption is not a problem on many levels are stupid.

Those who think this is just about the GOP are missing the point. I said that seeing fat GOP faces on their website got me thinking about the problem as a whole.

However, the fact is, that the GOP is the party of big business and over consumption coupled with the party of the oil industry. They are the very ones who are getting by on selling the snake oil that you can have your cake and eat it too without consequences. The Dems are simply hypocrites about the matter.

Those who assume that I am demonizing are also missing the point. Some things deserve to be called out as terrible because they are. I really don't cer if it hurts your feelings to put together that when you buy stuff from a sweat shop, not only did that industry seriously pollute in China or India, or some other third world place, but it was likely put together by children.

However, I imagine that the purchaser just needed what ever crap they just bought so much that it out weighed all other considerations.

Just like they needed that extra piece of chocolate cake.

re: #115 LudwigVanQuixote

Well, I will just stick with pompous ass for my description of you. And I still think you are a nut for the gratuitous insert of the GOP into an otherwise interesting read. It added nothing and took a way a lot. If your head wasn't so big, you might see that.

re: #123 filetandrelease

And I mentioned the GOP because of the attitude of having no responsibility to the environment or others that they espouse. It fits in directly.

re: #122 LudwigVanQuixote

Ludwig, you called overweight people "fatty" and "creature" and "Jabba the Hut" and "disgusting tubs of lard" and insinuate they are "killing the environment," whatever other points you may have had are overwhelmed by this nasty demonisation. You have no right to judge other human beings in such harsh and demeaning terms. It is insensitive in the extreme.

re: #121 Bagua

Ludwig, I know you consider yourself an authority on Jewish law, as well as science, medicine, politics, and a variety of other subjects. I have it on good authority that you are wrong on this point. What you are doing is rationalising your use of something called 'evil speech.'

I have nothing more to say on this subject.

You see, this is an example of being utterly insulting and you just don't see it in yourself. You decide to completely belittle everything I say by calling me names and implying I am some sort of an ignoramus. It gets very old Bagua. It is really pretty passive aggressive of you.

Political opinions are my own. Take them or leave them.

I am no expert in medicine. I have never claimed to be. However, just like one does not need a PhD in physics to know that the Sun is at the center of the solar system, one does not need an MD to know that obesity leads to many health concerns.

Further, that is not the point, other than it fits in with the whole culture of denial of cause and effect.

As to physics. If I tell you something is a fact of physics, you can bet your pecker on it.

As to the nature of Toelet, if you actually wish to go there, (because you see I am Yeshiva educated, and I will claim to know what I am talking about) you really have a long and detailed conversation.

When I respond to snarks by calling people stupid, you are right, it would be Loshan Ha Ra - if they were actually here. Since they are just espousing their stupid views anonymously, I am not insulting them rather the stupid things that their pixels wrote.

However, you are correct, I do need to watch my temper.

On the other hand, When I write about fat people in Wallmart who are addicted to over consumption, I am stating the truth. When I write about how this attitude poisons other endeavors, I am stating the truth.

For something to be toelet it must be:

1. True

2. Stated with good intent - the intent here is to get people to be more aware of the consequences of their actions and hence save lives.

3. Not specifically designed to embarrass anyone publicly. Clearly I differentiated between those who were overweight for medical reasons and those who brought it on themselves.

4. Another aspect of toelet is to shout a warning to the group. You do not worry about embarrassing a criminal by stopping him in the act and calling for help.

This attitude of over consumption is destroying American bodies, American minds and the whole global ecosphere.

Do find me a rabbi who would disagree with anything I just said.

Yesterday, I noticed how many Democrats in the public are uneducated. It got me to thinking. Now before I delve deeply into this phillipic, let me say that of course there is a difference between being uneducated or whatever circumstance that kept someone from being educated (as in not their fault) and being stupid.

Hmmm, does adding Democrat into that make it a better point, or not?

re: #125 Bagua

Ludwig, you called overweight people "fatty" and "creature" and "Jabba the Hut" and "disgusting tubs of lard" and insinuate they are "killing the environment," whatever other points you may have had are overwhelmed by this nasty demonisation. You have no right to judge other human beings in such harsh and demeaning terms. It is insensitive in the extreme.

No, I made specific reference to the sorts you see at people of Wallmart.

They are exactly that.

At what point does reality set in?

If you are over 300 lbs, and not a very large body builder, you are obese.

If you got that way through means you can not control, then you have my sympathy. the same sympathy that anyone with an ailment would get. If you did it to yourself by living in a deluded state of denial, then perhaps that jolt of reality, that no, you really are a disgusting tub of lard will get you to change your ways.

re: #127 filetandrelease

There are people with a college education that know nothing. There are also people without formal education that are very wise. I've not seen any correlation between parties and these conditions.

There is another group - just plain stupid! Could that be those of whom you are thinking?

re: #127 filetandrelease

Yesterday, I noticed how many Democrats in the public are uneducated. It got me to thinking. Now before I delve deeply into this phillipic, let me say that of course there is a difference between being uneducated or whatever circumstance that kept someone from being educated (as in not their fault) and being stupid.

Hmmm, does adding Democrat into that make it a better point, or not?

Well largely because:

1. While the Dems do have a lot of very stupid people in their ranks, they are at least pro-education, so it really doesn't fit.

2. The GOP is all about mass consumption and keeping the continuous growth business model going. So, well it really does fit with my over all point.

3. The GOP is behind AGW denialism - so it very much fits with my point.

4. Last but not least those "faces of the GOP" that the GOP website had up were well "jolly" and it really did get the thought process started.

Probably because almost all "web-savvy" students have figured out through non GOP fed sources that the Republican party is going down in flames.

From Chairman Stelle

"I'm not trying to be an obstructionist here. To the contrary, I'm saying, Can we all get in the room and have a Rodney King moment?"

[Link: tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com...]

re: #126 LudwigVanQuixote

[...]

Do find me a rabbi who would disagree with anything I just said.

Somehow, I just knew you'd write a small essay rephrasing everything you said to appear reasonable:

I have a counter challenge, you find me a rabbi who says it is just OK to refer to overweight people as "fatty" and "creature" and "disgusting tubs of lard" and "Jabba the Hut" and that this does not represent evil speech. How you find my pointing out your error in this as "utterly insulting" I can not comprehend.

I am not insulting you, I am challenging your over the top hate speech just as I challenge those who direct hate speech towards our host, as we were discussing. Note that they too believe their hate speech justified because they are saving America, or fighting Islam, or whatever pitiful rationisations they use.

Now, write me another essay citing the points I was not addressing and avoiding taking personal responsibility for your words.

re: #129 Univac
My apoligies Univac, my intent was to make a point with Ludwig about gratuitous insults by rewriting an ealier post he had written. IMO, by omitting Democrats in my post, and by he omitting GOP in his, our respective points would not be obscured by insults, intended or otherwise, and therefor clearer.

re: #104 LudwigVanQuixote

So just out of curiosity... when is a correlation strong enough that you can be convinced there is a deciding factor? Just out of curiosity, what is the evidence of cigarettes causing multiple diseases based on?

What kind of math do you think is used?

Smoking is a cause of some diseases (ie. lung cancer). Smoking is associated with an increased risk of other diseases.

Correlations can show that two things might be related but are insufficient to prove cause and effect.

re: #132 checked08

He wants them to all do cocaine together? Or was it PCP?

schtoopid is as schtoopid does.

re: #133 Bagua

Somehow, I just knew you'd write a small essay rephrasing everything you said to appear reasonable:

I have a counter challenge, you find me a rabbi who says it is just OK to refer to overweight people as "fatty" and "creature" and "disgusting tubs of lard" and "Jabba the Hut" and that this does not represent evil speech. How you find my pointing out your error in this as "utterly insulting" I can not comprehend.

I am not insulting you, I am challenging your over the top hate speech just as I challenge those who direct hate speech towards our host, as we were discussing. Note that they too believe their hate speech justified because they are saving America, or fighting Islam, or whatever pitiful rationisations they use.

Now, write me another essay citing the points I was not addressing and avoiding taking personal responsibility for your words.

Bagua, the reason I am not doing so is because there is no over the top hate speech.

You seem to have a problem with any definitive statement said clearly and without some form of wishywashyness. Then you project a lot about what you think my motives are when I try to write in ten different ways what I am saying. I thought I said it clearly the first time, I thought was more clear teh second time. By the fifth time and on, it really just seems that you need to correct your own biases about what I write.

So no, I do not feel I was over the top at all.

I am a big believer in calling things as they are. I do not say someone passed away... they died.

I do not say someone is baking a bun in the oven, I say pregnant.

And if someone who is of greater than 50% body fat thinks they are just a little chubby, or curvy or whatever, no, they are fat. In fact, they are morbidly obese and at much higher risk for many diseases that will cost more to treat than an ounce of prevention.

The state of denial that people live in would be greatly reduced by greater honesty.

It is like the Carlin joke about PC BS reducing raped women into "unwilling sexual partners." No. The poor woman was raped.

There is such a thing as personal responsibility. There is such a thing as cause and effect. There is also such a thing as being fed up with all the crap.

Further, if all you are opposed to is my choice of strong words, but you agree with my points, then perhaps you could say that first.

However, in typical Bagua fashion, you rip apart the entire post and call it names and then only after ten iterations decided that no, you really agreed, but wish I had said it differently.

How about you try saying that first - or are you going to project and accuse me of shifting goal posts again?

Again,
Ludwig, I'll not play the game in which you rephrase what you said and argue with the StrawBagua.

As always, you then rephrase your statements into a more acceptable version, but you never own up to your original comment. I’ll not play that game with you. My comments, all of them, are directed at your initial post, not the several follow ups.

When I say you were offensive (to overweight people and Republicans) I do not mean every statement you have ever made, nor the follow up statements, just the ones I was citing in which you referred to overweight people as “creature” and “disgusting tubs of lard.”

This is why I say you are dodging my point through straw man arguments. You do this a lot when I try to discuss things with you.

re: #100 meeshlr

How does that make them immoral?

re: #94 wozzablog

they are obnoxious vehicles and largely not needed. They have far lower MPG's than Station Wagons of equal space and practicallity while having hideous safety and ecology records.

My morallity is a personal choice and you don't have to agree with it.

But - you don't personally have to believe they were a cheap stunt to cut costs and avoid CAFE standards for passenger vehicles - and have been sold to familys as a safe way to protect their kids - whilst at the same time being less safe than their equivalents in the station wagon/estate car market... whilst at the same time being sold with two wheel drive and a sport-utillity tag (mmm off road 2WD goodness feel the mammoth grip of 2 wheels)...

they are stunt. and stunts designed to part hard pressed familys from their cash - are - i believe - immoral/