The Omarosa Chronicles

[funhusker]

2 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

 

Read about the Clintons. Hell, just read about the money the Clinton Foundation stole from Haiti. How do you think they wound up rich? They’ve been selling influence for decades.

Link these articles that are so hard to find.

 

That is my point.  Say something, cite it, and defend it.

 

For a college professor, you seem to have a hard time grasping that.  Hell, I teach middle school and expect more.  But hey, I guess I don't teach at OPS....

[Ric Flair]

9 hours ago, Moiraine said:

It’s not relevant what % like Trump or if it’s 50%. People misuse the word bias all the time.

 

In order for a judgement (positive, negative, neither) to be biased, it needs to be unwarranted or unfair. It depends on the actual merits of the person being judged.

 

I dislike Hitler. That doesn’t mean I’m biased against him.

 

This applies both in the way most people use it day to day and also statistically. A parameter has a certain value. If the statistic consistently estimates the parameter’s value to be too high, it’s biased. If it consistently estimates it to be too low, it’s biased. But the value of the parameter is what it is.

 

Trump has a certain value. If he’s an awful person and a lot of people dislike him, that doesn’t mean they’re biased or unfair.

 

It’s ok to be biased against people who deserve it. Huh. That sounds like a justification for all bias. After all, anyone who dislikes someone will think that person deserves it.

[Ric Flair]

7 minutes ago, funhusker said:

Link these articles that are so hard to find.

 

That is my point.  Say something, cite it, and defend it.

 

For a college professor, you seem to have a hard time grasping that.  Hell, I teach middle school and expect more.  But hey, I guess I don't teach at OPS....

 

For a teacher, you sure seem to have trouble with basic internet searches.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37826098

[funhusker]

1 minute ago, Ric Flair said:

 

For a teacher, you sure seem to have trouble with basic internet searches.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37826098

Thank you.  That took about 2 minutes between your post and mine.  Not very long.

 

Honestly, I would have seen your article. Chose to read it.  And probably not engage any further unless I found a reason to discount the article.

 

Congratulations!!! You've passed a 7th grade Industrial Tech research assignment!   

[Ric Flair]

4 minutes ago, funhusker said:

Thank you.  That took about 2 minutes between your post and mine.  Not very long.

 

Honestly, I would have seen your article. Chose to read it.  And probably not engage any further unless I found a reason to discount the article.

 

Congratulations!!! You've passed a 7th grade Industrial Tech research assignment!   

 

No offense, but I think you need to step up your game a bit. The kids high schools are turning out lately are disappointingly unprepared for college.

[Moiraine]

18 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

It’s ok to be biased against people who deserve it. Huh. That sounds like a justification for all bias. After all, anyone who dislikes someone will think that person deserves it.

 

If someone is a murderer, there is no bias necessary to hate them. If someone is an asshole, there is no bias necessary to dislike them. If 90% of people think Tom Osborne is a good football coach, it doesn't require them to be biased for him. Dislike or hate itself does not require one to be biased. The same goes with any other feeling, negative or positive. Bias occurs when the positivity/negativity/neutrality is an undeserved response based on other factors.

There is definitely bias for and against Trump, but not everyone who hates/loves him does so because they are biased. A good example of bias is Fox thinking Trump meeting with Kim was fantastic, but when Obama suggested the possibility of meeting with Kim, they acted like it was the most terrible idea they'd ever heard. They supported the idea when it was Trump because he's a Republican, and were against it when it was Obama because he's a Democrat (or for another reason). That's bias. They weren't for/against the action because of the action itself.

Most people who are against Trump are against the actions he takes.

[funhusker]

7 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

 

[RedDenver]

51 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

 

I was a Rubio supporter. But Trump is a thousand times better than Hillary. He says stupid and insensitive things. She is one of the most corrupt people on the planet and should be in jail.

That's some mind-boggling logic. Trump might be the only person more corrupt than the Clintons.

 

49 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

 

How many times have the numbers been ‘adjusted’ to make them show the warming they claim is happening?

 

How many times has it been proven that they are lying about the results and intimidating any dissenters?

 

Science seeks truth. The whole global warming fraud is built upon a preconceived notion that the data has to be manipulated to fit. That’s the opposite of science.

Many years ago I didn't think global warming was happening or was man-made. But the beautiful thing about science is that you can test it yourself, so I went out and analyzed the data, and sure enough, those professional scientists are actually good at what they do and are correct that humankind is causing global warming. You don't have to trust me, do the analysis yourself.

 

Here's some links to get you started:

https://www.climate.gov/maps-data

https://www.climatedata.eu/continent.php?cid=150&lang=en

http://data.un.org/Data.aspx?d=CLINO&f=ElementCode%3a01

[Landlord]

3 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

 

95% or more here seem to be like minded when it comes to Trump hate.

 

#SAD

 

That doesn't mean what you think it means.

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Ric Flair said:

 

That this board isn’t representative of America and needs far more ideological diversity? Agreed. 

 

I'd love more ideological diversity here - there is a good amount (still not a proportionate amount, but internet messageboards do generally lean left) already, but I'd love more. Problem is, too many (certainly not all, as evidenced by people like @BigRedBuster and @TGHusker) hyper conservatives can't seem to defend positions or deal with criticism in here, and they decide to leave. Then, after they leave of their own accord, they criticize those who are left of being an echo chamber. It's some weird snowflake victim mentality stuff.

[NM11046]

6 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

 

Read about the Clintons. Hell, just read about the money the Clinton Foundation stole from Haiti. How do you think they wound up rich? They’ve been selling influence for decades.

Ummmm ... have you heard about this family called the Trumps? 

 

You can argue the Clintons are dirty and mean and bad.  I respect your opinion and there are some facts out there that support it.  If you can't see that the Trumps are equally so, (and we may find significantly more so) then you are ignoring the facts and you lose credibility.

[knapplc]

Funny how nobody is arguing that the Clintons aren't corrupt. For a board that is "95% liberal" everyone seems to be on board with this very anti-liberal fact. 

 

Weird how that works.

[TGHusker]

9 hours ago, Landlord said:

 

That doesn't mean what you think it means.

 

 

 

 

 

I'd love more ideological diversity here - there is a good amount (still not a proportionate amount, but internet messageboards do generally lean left) already, but I'd love more. Problem is, too many (certainly not all, as evidenced by people like @BigRedBuster and @TGHusker) hyper conservatives can't seem to defend positions or deal with criticism in here, and they decide to leave. Then, after they leave of their own accord, they criticize those who are left of being an echo chamber. It's some weird snowflake victim mentality stuff.

I think it is hard to defend extreme positions regardless of what extreme you are trying to defend.  I'd say BRB and I are right of center.  As I've become more receptive to the views of others - including(especially those on the left) - I've seen that no one holds the fountain of all knowledge.  It is best to assume: What I know is not all of the truth, and What I know may not be accurate. That there are gaps in my understanding and I need others to fill those gaps."   In other words: "Be aware of half truths, you may have the wrong half!" To think otherwise is arrogance at the highest level.  It takes strength to question one's assumptions and it is weakness to stand behind arrogant assumptions that cannot be backed up.   I think the vast majority of people are in the spectrum of center right to center left - there abides most balanced knowledge. With that said - it is often those who are on the outside of that spectrum that bring new ideas and challenge assumptions and bring change.  But that shouldn't be the norm - everyone being on one of the extremes - otherwise chaos would rule.  Chinese proverb: Learning is like rowing a canoe upstream, when you stop, you go backwards. 

[RedDenver]

9 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

I think it is hard to defend extreme positions regardless of what extreme you are trying to defend.  I'd say BRB and I are right of center.  As I've become more receptive to the views of others - including(especially those on the left) - I've seen that no one holds the fountain of all knowledge.  It is best to assume: What I know is not all of the truth, and What I know may not be accurate. That there are gaps in my understanding and I need others to fill those gaps."   In other words: "Be aware of half truths, you may have the wrong half!" To think otherwise is arrogance at the highest level.  It takes strength to question one's assumptions and it is weakness to stand behind arrogant assumptions that cannot be backed up.   I think the vast majority of people are in the spectrum of center right to center left - there abides most balanced knowledge. With that said - it is often those who are on the outside of that spectrum that bring new ideas and challenge assumptions and bring change.  But that shouldn't be the norm - everyone being on one of the extremes - otherwise chaos would rule.  Chinese proverb: Learning is like rowing a canoe upstream, when you stop, you go backwards. 

Well said.

[Landlord]

2 hours ago, TGHusker said:

I think it is hard to defend extreme positions regardless of what extreme you are trying to defend.  I'd say BRB and I are right of center.  As I've become more receptive to the views of others - including(especially those on the left) - I've seen that no one holds the fountain of all knowledge.  It is best to assume: What I know is not all of the truth, and What I know may not be accurate. That there are gaps in my understanding and I need others to fill those gaps."   In other words: "Be aware of half truths, you may have the wrong half!" To think otherwise is arrogance at the highest level.  It takes strength to question one's assumptions and it is weakness to stand behind arrogant assumptions that cannot be backed up.   I think the vast majority of people are in the spectrum of center right to center left - there abides most balanced knowledge. With that said - it is often those who are on the outside of that spectrum that bring new ideas and challenge assumptions and bring change.  But that shouldn't be the norm - everyone being on one of the extremes - otherwise chaos would rule.  Chinese proverb: Learning is like rowing a canoe upstream, when you stop, you go backwards. 

 

Weird how all of the well-spoken people on this board hate Trump!!!!

[BigRedBuster]

On 8/19/2018 at 5:18 PM, Ric Flair said:

 

https://nypost.com/2017/04/01/obama-was-terrible-for-economic-growth/

Interesting.

 

You see....you have done a great job of pointing out how throwing out a statistic really doesn't show reality.

 

Try this graph for a minute.

 

 

LINK