It would probably be a good thing for Steele to distance himself from Rush. Rush tends to scare away any moderate support the GOP might stand to gain.nickb64 wrote:
Steele has said that he had not intention of attacking Rush, and that Rush is an important voice and his friend. He also said that he was recognizing what people say about Rush's remarks and was responding to that.Turquoise wrote:
Obama isn't part of the same party that just apologized to Rush. If you wanna see dysfunction, observe the hilarity between Rush and Steele.usmarine wrote:
no not really. the white house has engaged so i am not sure what you mean.
Everyone is trying to pass this kid off as being brain washed, I dunno, it sounds like to me he is very educated on what is happening around him.
Also, public speaking is more feared than death or the IRS, and this kid seems very comfortable doing it. I wish you would forget the brain washed argument and try and argue against the points he makes. Kinda tough to do, so yeah, better off just dismissing him as brain washed and there fore his argument doesn't count. It is easier that way.
Also, public speaking is more feared than death or the IRS, and this kid seems very comfortable doing it. I wish you would forget the brain washed argument and try and argue against the points he makes. Kinda tough to do, so yeah, better off just dismissing him as brain washed and there fore his argument doesn't count. It is easier that way.
Why?argo4 wrote:
feel sorry for the kid tbh
Little bastard could play Cello at the age of 3. He's a smart cookie. I don't think he's been brainwashed half as bad as some of you lot claim.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
But you have to admit, he is a duchebag. His hand gestures are pretty aggressive, so Id say he was told that shit, rather than learning it.Flecco wrote:
Why?argo4 wrote:
feel sorry for the kid tbh
Little bastard could play Cello at the age of 3. He's a smart cookie. I don't think he's been brainwashed half as bad as some of you lot claim.
noice 
Again, wiki article suggests that it was something he learned himself. Not saying it's true but my little brother was pretty aggressive and forceful at that age too.
Maybe he's just spoiled (which tends to make people strong willed, arrogant, forceful and aggressive). Besides, if he wrote a book there's more to it than brainwashing in my opinion.
Seriously, if he was able to proficiently play the cello before he was 10, then cut him some slack. He probably is pretty smart. Sounds very confident too if the wiki article is true. Spent a lot of time on stage already and he's still young. Wow you disagree with him. So do I on some points but seriously, he's had work published before he could legally vote. Shouldn't that count for something?
Maybe he's just spoiled (which tends to make people strong willed, arrogant, forceful and aggressive). Besides, if he wrote a book there's more to it than brainwashing in my opinion.
Seriously, if he was able to proficiently play the cello before he was 10, then cut him some slack. He probably is pretty smart. Sounds very confident too if the wiki article is true. Spent a lot of time on stage already and he's still young. Wow you disagree with him. So do I on some points but seriously, he's had work published before he could legally vote. Shouldn't that count for something?
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
cute kid.
who doesn't like hearing a child's opinion on serious issues? I'm sure he undersands what's coming out of his mouth, on a fundamental level, but until he's an adult with real world experience, he has no moral or ethical reference beyond what his parents have given him. what does a child know of respecting life? what does a child know of responsibility?
who doesn't like hearing a child's opinion on serious issues? I'm sure he undersands what's coming out of his mouth, on a fundamental level, but until he's an adult with real world experience, he has no moral or ethical reference beyond what his parents have given him. what does a child know of respecting life? what does a child know of responsibility?
Last edited by Reciprocity (2009-03-07 01:32:29)
I'm with Flecco. I don't think he's brainwashed, else he would be inarticulate.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Our country has gone essentially socialist, it is time to get the pitchforks. Back on topic, I personally like the kid, seems very smart.lowing wrote:
IT is a thread about our country turn socialist. I am sorry if that is not thread worthy to you, if it is not then ignore it, if it is, post a comment as such. Either way, I couldn't care less, but you are not my censor nor are you the one who decides what is important to me or not. In other words you are not my current govt.FatherTed wrote:
for the love of god...lowing wrote:
You like most on here are easy to read, when you can not make a decent argument against a comment, you trash the comment or the poster instead. I would do the same if liberalism was not so easy to tear down. Pretty much the same reason you can not get a liberal talk radio show to be successful. Liberalism can not be argued with credibility and when faced with the truth, crumbles.
I was stating that this isn't thread worthy. And don't try and stick me into some political cubbyhole, thankfully over here you don't have to be labeled and conform to anything.
Don't think you know what socialism is...nickb64 wrote:
Our country has gone essentially socialist, it is time to get the pitchforks. Back on topic, I personally like the kid, seems very smart.lowing wrote:
IT is a thread about our country turn socialist. I am sorry if that is not thread worthy to you, if it is not then ignore it, if it is, post a comment as such. Either way, I couldn't care less, but you are not my censor nor are you the one who decides what is important to me or not. In other words you are not my current govt.FatherTed wrote:
for the love of god...
I was stating that this isn't thread worthy. And don't try and stick me into some political cubbyhole, thankfully over here you don't have to be labeled and conform to anything.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
I don't know why but I'd like to punch that little smartass in the face.
The odd combination of self-righteousness and smugness...teddy..jimmy wrote:
I don't know why but I'd like to punch that little smartass in the face.
Trust me I wanted to slap the little bastard too. It'd be nice if that brain of his was coupled with something resembling compassion.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
Noooo, I think I'd rather punch some damn sense into the kid. Not on his political values because frankly I couldn't care less what he has to say but whatever happened to enjoying your childhood? This little guy should be running around with friends, riding a skateboard, playing paintball and discovering the joys of alcohol. Instead he'll remember his childhood as sucking up to conservatives and writing a boring book. He probably won't even get laid until he's 30.Flecco wrote:
The odd combination of self-righteousness and smugness...teddy..jimmy wrote:
I don't know why but I'd like to punch that little smartass in the face.
Trust me I wanted to slap the little bastard too. It'd be nice if that brain of his was coupled with something resembling compassion.
....and a boring book it probably will be. I'm certain the main reason it got published is because it will sell well simply because a "child prodigy" wrote a book at 14, i.e, public interest will be age related not content related.
Last edited by ..teddy..jimmy (2009-03-07 02:49:01)
That's true.
Fuck the skateboarding though. Broke bones doing that. Painful.
Fuck the skateboarding though. Broke bones doing that. Painful.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
I love your assumptions, if one does not like, want or agree, with what LIBERALS like, want, or say, you are either stupid, a racist, a Nazi or ignorant as what you SHOULD like, want or agree to. Fits right in with the collective mindset.Spark wrote:
Don't think you know what socialism is...nickb64 wrote:
Our country has gone essentially socialist, it is time to get the pitchforks. Back on topic, I personally like the kid, seems very smart.lowing wrote:
IT is a thread about our country turn socialist. I am sorry if that is not thread worthy to you, if it is not then ignore it, if it is, post a comment as such. Either way, I couldn't care less, but you are not my censor nor are you the one who decides what is important to me or not. In other words you are not my current govt.
ANother observation, all of you want to kick the shit outta this kid, yet the car thief in the other thread does not deserve it....Kinda funny
Last edited by lowing (2009-03-07 04:05:19)
The car thief probably could do with a good slap, but not from a cop.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
You all have been more insulting and more violent as to what you want to see happen to this kid, who has done nothing but voice an opinion you disagree with, than you ever were about the kid who stole a car with an attitude against authority ( even before her ass whippin). You guys really are something to seeFatherTed wrote:
The car thief probably could do with a good slap, but not from a cop.
Just a side note here, I think the kid is obviously intelligent. However, there's a difference between intelligence and wisdom. Wisdom is something mostly gained with experience, and it is likely that the kid will become less dogmatic with time.
Turquoise has it right.
The entire time I was watching the video all I could think of was Michael Oakshott's "Rationalism in Politics." The book talks about the fundamental downfalls of Liberalism's break from traditional thought while also calling attention to the shortcomings of Conservatism, drawing the conclusion that it is devotion to Rationalism which separates the two. Of course there are many other factors he addresses that I am not, but conservatism seems to ride on only two types of knowledge; practical and technical. The practical is what is accumulated over time. It is not so much taught as it is internalized; it cannot be written down. technical knowledge is the opposite, it can be taught by route and learned as quickly as needs be.
How can a child posses the practical knowledge required of proper conservative thought if he is yet to experience ANYTHING. He may well be a genius and have been able to compile the technical knowledge required to write a book, but he has certainly not earned his connoisseurship in an entirely theological debate. I am impressed with his intelligence, but not with his arrogance.
The entire time I was watching the video all I could think of was Michael Oakshott's "Rationalism in Politics." The book talks about the fundamental downfalls of Liberalism's break from traditional thought while also calling attention to the shortcomings of Conservatism, drawing the conclusion that it is devotion to Rationalism which separates the two. Of course there are many other factors he addresses that I am not, but conservatism seems to ride on only two types of knowledge; practical and technical. The practical is what is accumulated over time. It is not so much taught as it is internalized; it cannot be written down. technical knowledge is the opposite, it can be taught by route and learned as quickly as needs be.
How can a child posses the practical knowledge required of proper conservative thought if he is yet to experience ANYTHING. He may well be a genius and have been able to compile the technical knowledge required to write a book, but he has certainly not earned his connoisseurship in an entirely theological debate. I am impressed with his intelligence, but not with his arrogance.
The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families
QFTPochsy wrote:
I am impressed with his intelligence, but not with his arrogance.
Good points, yet all of us can solve the worlds problems on this forum by doing the exact same thing... SO you tell me, why he should be dismissed for his opinions.Pochsy wrote:
Turquoise has it right.
The entire time I was watching the video all I could think of was Michael Oakshott's "Rationalism in Politics." The book talks about the fundamental downfalls of Liberalism's break from traditional thought while also calling attention to the shortcomings of Conservatism, drawing the conclusion that it is devotion to Rationalism which separates the two. Of course there are many other factors he addresses that I am not, but conservatism seems to ride on only two types of knowledge; practical and technical. The practical is what is accumulated over time. It is not so much taught as it is internalized; it cannot be written down. technical knowledge is the opposite, it can be taught by route and learned as quickly as needs be.
How can a child posses the practical knowledge required of proper conservative thought if he is yet to experience ANYTHING. He may well be a genius and have been able to compile the technical knowledge required to write a book, but he has certainly not earned his connoisseurship in an entirely theological debate. I am impressed with his intelligence, but not with his arrogance.
I don't think Pochsy was dismissing him. I think he was pointing out that the kid still has a lot to learn.lowing wrote:
Good points, yet all of us can solve the worlds problems on this forum by doing the exact same thing... SO you tell me, why he should be dismissed for his opinions.Pochsy wrote:
Turquoise has it right.
The entire time I was watching the video all I could think of was Michael Oakshott's "Rationalism in Politics." The book talks about the fundamental downfalls of Liberalism's break from traditional thought while also calling attention to the shortcomings of Conservatism, drawing the conclusion that it is devotion to Rationalism which separates the two. Of course there are many other factors he addresses that I am not, but conservatism seems to ride on only two types of knowledge; practical and technical. The practical is what is accumulated over time. It is not so much taught as it is internalized; it cannot be written down. technical knowledge is the opposite, it can be taught by route and learned as quickly as needs be.
How can a child posses the practical knowledge required of proper conservative thought if he is yet to experience ANYTHING. He may well be a genius and have been able to compile the technical knowledge required to write a book, but he has certainly not earned his connoisseurship in an entirely theological debate. I am impressed with his intelligence, but not with his arrogance.
Ideology will only get you so far.
Another thing to consider is that practical considerations are much of the reason why social programs exist. I think we can agree that not everyone is intelligent or ambitious. Inevitably, one of the burdens of living in a society is that you have to take care of poor people somewhat, regardless of whether or not they are poor for good reasons.
If you don't handle poverty in a sensible way, then you have massive problems with crime. America obviously still has a lot of crime for a First World country, so there's much work to be done.
The answer you seek is already in my prior post. The reason he should be discredited (not dismissed, technical intelligence should be recognized) is simply because he lacks the half of his own ideological standing that separates it from its liberal opponent. He lacks practical knowledge. It is the same reason children who have read the bible do not (or should not) attempt to educate a priest.lowing wrote:
Good points, yet all of us can solve the worlds problems on this forum by doing the exact same thing... SO you tell me, why he should be dismissed for his opinions.Pochsy wrote:
Turquoise has it right.
The entire time I was watching the video all I could think of was Michael Oakshott's "Rationalism in Politics." The book talks about the fundamental downfalls of Liberalism's break from traditional thought while also calling attention to the shortcomings of Conservatism, drawing the conclusion that it is devotion to Rationalism which separates the two. Of course there are many other factors he addresses that I am not, but conservatism seems to ride on only two types of knowledge; practical and technical. The practical is what is accumulated over time. It is not so much taught as it is internalized; it cannot be written down. technical knowledge is the opposite, it can be taught by route and learned as quickly as needs be.
How can a child posses the practical knowledge required of proper conservative thought if he is yet to experience ANYTHING. He may well be a genius and have been able to compile the technical knowledge required to write a book, but he has certainly not earned his connoisseurship in an entirely theological debate. I am impressed with his intelligence, but not with his arrogance.
I have no idea what you were referring to in saying "yet all of us can solve the worlds problems on this forum by doing the exact same thing." I assume you mean we all argue about things we know nothing of? If so you are correct. But the difference between me and this child is I am not attending press conferences and writing books to convince people I do. I instead argue on a gaming forum to see if I can better understand the opposing side of the argument and educate myself.
The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families
It's just occurred to me, that's exactly how I imagine FM's childhood went.
Perhaps, but what is worse his writing a book you think he is not qualified to write, or people buying it? Don't blame him because he can draw an audiencePochsy wrote:
The answer you seek is already in my prior post. The reason he should be discredited (not dismissed, technical intelligence should be recognized) is simply because he lacks the half of his own ideological standing that separates it from its liberal opponent. He lacks practical knowledge. It is the same reason children who have read the bible do not (or should not) attempt to educate a priest.lowing wrote:
Good points, yet all of us can solve the worlds problems on this forum by doing the exact same thing... SO you tell me, why he should be dismissed for his opinions.Pochsy wrote:
Turquoise has it right.
The entire time I was watching the video all I could think of was Michael Oakshott's "Rationalism in Politics." The book talks about the fundamental downfalls of Liberalism's break from traditional thought while also calling attention to the shortcomings of Conservatism, drawing the conclusion that it is devotion to Rationalism which separates the two. Of course there are many other factors he addresses that I am not, but conservatism seems to ride on only two types of knowledge; practical and technical. The practical is what is accumulated over time. It is not so much taught as it is internalized; it cannot be written down. technical knowledge is the opposite, it can be taught by route and learned as quickly as needs be.
How can a child posses the practical knowledge required of proper conservative thought if he is yet to experience ANYTHING. He may well be a genius and have been able to compile the technical knowledge required to write a book, but he has certainly not earned his connoisseurship in an entirely theological debate. I am impressed with his intelligence, but not with his arrogance.
I have no idea what you were referring to in saying "yet all of us can solve the worlds problems on this forum by doing the exact same thing." I assume you mean we all argue about things we know nothing of? If so you are correct. But the difference between me and this child is I am not attending press conferences and writing books to convince people I do. I instead argue on a gaming forum to see if I can better understand the opposing side of the argument and educate myself.
I do not blame him for for drawing an audience, instead I condemn him for ignoring half of his own ideological viewpoint (which I'm sure he is aware of) and leading sheep astray. As a basic introduction to the ideology of conservatism his book could potentially be quite good; I have stated this already too. But he is no authority. He is not one to stand in front of the press and make such statements, or at least he shouldn't be. Ulowing wrote:
Perhaps, but what is worse his writing a book you think he is not qualified to write, or people buying it? Don't blame him because he can draw an audience
Unfortunately in this instance I do not think people have bought his book for the reasons you may like to believe (IE he is good author). Instead he's managed to take on the burden of a freak-show, selling copies so people can see if it's true. I assure you had this child been 14-17 (still young enough to consider him a child genius) he would be laughed at and called an arrogant teenager.
You've managed to change the issue at hand as well, why?
The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families