Politcal Pundits: Offer any real value?
#1
I (like you, no doubt) read politcal pundits. Of late, it seems that most of them hold strong views, right or left, up or down, and sometimes a bit sideways. 

And sometimes pundits can offer up views that might...just might...encourage us to consider other ways of seeing and reacting to our politics. 

It todays NYT, David Brooks posts a coulumn that, for me at least, offers that kind fo view. 

An excerpt:


But it’s increasingly clear that the roots of political dysfunction lie deep in society. If there’s truly going to be improvement, there has to be improvement in the social context politics is embedded in.


In healthy societies, people live their lives within a galaxy of warm places. They are members of a family, neighborhood, school, civic organization, hobby group, company, faith, regional culture, nation, continent and world. Each layer of life is nestled in the others to form a varied but coherent whole.
But starting just after World War II, America’s community/membership mind-set gave way to an individualistic/autonomy mind-set. The idea was that individuals should be liberated to live as they chose, so long as they didn’t interfere with the rights of others.

You can go to NYT.com and find it. (Don't have to subscribe to log on 10 times a month). I think he has a good and worthwhile point and it's worth a read. Just my opinion. 
Reply
#2
(04-12-2016, 09:17 AM)Wonky3 Wrote: I (like you, no doubt) read politcal pundits. Of late, it seems that most of them hold strong views, right or left, up or down, and sometimes a bit sideways. 

And sometimes pundits can offer up views that might...just might...encourage us to consider other ways of seeing and reacting to our politics. 

It todays NYT, David Brooks posts a coulumn that, for me at least, offers that kind fo view. 

An excerpt:


But it’s increasingly clear that the roots of political dysfunction lie deep in society. If there’s truly going to be improvement, there has to be improvement in the social context politics is embedded in.


In healthy societies, people live their lives within a galaxy of warm places. They are members of a family, neighborhood, school, civic organization, hobby group, company, faith, regional culture, nation, continent and world. Each layer of life is nestled in the others to form a varied but coherent whole.
But starting just after World War II, America’s community/membership mind-set gave way to an individualistic/autonomy mind-set. The idea was that individuals should be liberated to live as they chose, so long as they didn’t interfere with the rights of others.

You can go to NYT.com and find it. (Don't have to subscribe to log on 10 times a month). I think he has a good and worthwhile point and it's worth a read. Just my opinion. 

I don't always agree with him  but he's smart and worth listening to.
Reply
#3
(04-12-2016, 05:33 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(04-12-2016, 09:17 AM)Wonky3 Wrote: I (like you, no doubt) read politcal pundits. Of late, it seems that most of them hold strong views, right or left, up or down, and sometimes a bit sideways. 

And sometimes pundits can offer up views that might...just might...encourage us to consider other ways of seeing and reacting to our politics. 

It todays NYT, David Brooks posts a coulumn that, for me at least, offers that kind fo view. 

An excerpt:


But it’s increasingly clear that the roots of political dysfunction lie deep in society. If there’s truly going to be improvement, there has to be improvement in the social context politics is embedded in.


In healthy societies, people live their lives within a galaxy of warm places. They are members of a family, neighborhood, school, civic organization, hobby group, company, faith, regional culture, nation, continent and world. Each layer of life is nestled in the others to form a varied but coherent whole.
But starting just after World War II, America’s community/membership mind-set gave way to an individualistic/autonomy mind-set. The idea was that individuals should be liberated to live as they chose, so long as they didn’t interfere with the rights of others.

You can go to NYT.com and find it. (Don't have to subscribe to log on 10 times a month). I think he has a good and worthwhile point and it's worth a read. Just my opinion. 

I don't always agree with him  but he's smart and worth listening to.

Holy crap! For a second there I thought you meant Wonky Blink 




WWWWWWWWWWWwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa hahahahahahahah
Reply
#4
(04-12-2016, 05:41 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(04-12-2016, 05:33 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(04-12-2016, 09:17 AM)Wonky3 Wrote: I (like you, no doubt) read politcal pundits. Of late, it seems that most of them hold strong views, right or left, up or down, and sometimes a bit sideways. 

And sometimes pundits can offer up views that might...just might...encourage us to consider other ways of seeing and reacting to our politics. 

It todays NYT, David Brooks posts a coulumn that, for me at least, offers that kind fo view. 

An excerpt:


But it’s increasingly clear that the roots of political dysfunction lie deep in society. If there’s truly going to be improvement, there has to be improvement in the social context politics is embedded in.


In healthy societies, people live their lives within a galaxy of warm places. They are members of a family, neighborhood, school, civic organization, hobby group, company, faith, regional culture, nation, continent and world. Each layer of life is nestled in the others to form a varied but coherent whole.
But starting just after World War II, America’s community/membership mind-set gave way to an individualistic/autonomy mind-set. The idea was that individuals should be liberated to live as they chose, so long as they didn’t interfere with the rights of others.

You can go to NYT.com and find it. (Don't have to subscribe to log on 10 times a month). I think he has a good and worthwhile point and it's worth a read. Just my opinion. 

I don't always agree with him  but he's smart and worth listening to.

Holy crap! For a second there I thought you meant Wonky Blink 




WWWWWWWWWWWwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa hahahahahahahah

I don't know Wonky.     Razz
Reply
#5
(04-12-2016, 09:17 AM)Wonky3 Wrote: I (like you, no doubt) read politcal pundits. Of late, it seems that most of them hold strong views, right or left, up or down, and sometimes a bit sideways. 

And sometimes pundits can offer up views that might...just might...encourage us to consider other ways of seeing and reacting to our politics. 

It todays NYT, David Brooks posts a coulumn that, for me at least, offers that kind fo view. 

An excerpt:


But it’s increasingly clear that the roots of political dysfunction lie deep in society. If there’s truly going to be improvement, there has to be improvement in the social context politics is embedded in.


In healthy societies, people live their lives within a galaxy of warm places. They are members of a family, neighborhood, school, civic organization, hobby group, company, faith, regional culture, nation, continent and world. Each layer of life is nestled in the others to form a varied but coherent whole.
But starting just after World War II, America’s community/membership mind-set gave way to an individualistic/autonomy mind-set. The idea was that individuals should be liberated to live as they chose, so long as they didn’t interfere with the rights of others.

You can go to NYT.com and find it. (Don't have to subscribe to log on 10 times a month). I think he has a good and worthwhile point and it's worth a read. Just my opinion. 

At the very least, I am grateful that you didn't refer to him as a conservative, as you have in the past.  That ship sailed long ago.
Reply
#6
(04-12-2016, 07:48 PM)Someones Dad Wrote:
(04-12-2016, 09:17 AM)Wonky3 Wrote: I (like you, no doubt) read politcal pundits. Of late, it seems that most of them hold strong views, right or left, up or down, and sometimes a bit sideways. 

And sometimes pundits can offer up views that might...just might...encourage us to consider other ways of seeing and reacting to our politics. 

It todays NYT, David Brooks posts a coulumn that, for me at least, offers that kind fo view. 

An excerpt:


But it’s increasingly clear that the roots of political dysfunction lie deep in society. If there’s truly going to be improvement, there has to be improvement in the social context politics is embedded in.


In healthy societies, people live their lives within a galaxy of warm places. They are members of a family, neighborhood, school, civic organization, hobby group, company, faith, regional culture, nation, continent and world. Each layer of life is nestled in the others to form a varied but coherent whole.
But starting just after World War II, America’s community/membership mind-set gave way to an individualistic/autonomy mind-set. The idea was that individuals should be liberated to live as they chose, so long as they didn’t interfere with the rights of others.

You can go to NYT.com and find it. (Don't have to subscribe to log on 10 times a month). I think he has a good and worthwhile point and it's worth a read. Just my opinion. 

At the very least, I am grateful that you didn't refer to him as a conservative, as you have in the past.  That ship sailed long ago.

Brooks IS a conservatie. Maybe not your kind of conservative, but by any resonalble definition he is a conservative. 
Reply
#7
(04-12-2016, 07:57 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(04-12-2016, 07:48 PM)Someones Dad Wrote:
(04-12-2016, 09:17 AM)Wonky3 Wrote: I (like you, no doubt) read politcal pundits. Of late, it seems that most of them hold strong views, right or left, up or down, and sometimes a bit sideways. 

And sometimes pundits can offer up views that might...just might...encourage us to consider other ways of seeing and reacting to our politics. 

It todays NYT, David Brooks posts a coulumn that, for me at least, offers that kind fo view. 

An excerpt:


But it’s increasingly clear that the roots of political dysfunction lie deep in society. If there’s truly going to be improvement, there has to be improvement in the social context politics is embedded in.


In healthy societies, people live their lives within a galaxy of warm places. They are members of a family, neighborhood, school, civic organization, hobby group, company, faith, regional culture, nation, continent and world. Each layer of life is nestled in the others to form a varied but coherent whole.
But starting just after World War II, America’s community/membership mind-set gave way to an individualistic/autonomy mind-set. The idea was that individuals should be liberated to live as they chose, so long as they didn’t interfere with the rights of others.

You can go to NYT.com and find it. (Don't have to subscribe to log on 10 times a month). I think he has a good and worthwhile point and it's worth a read. Just my opinion. 

At the very least, I am grateful that you didn't refer to him as a conservative, as you have in the past.  That ship sailed long ago.

Brooks IS a conservatie. Maybe not your kind of conservative, but by any resonalble definition he is a conservative. 

How can he be a conservative when he doesn't spout anti everything Obama?
Reply
#8
(04-12-2016, 08:13 PM)cletus1 Wrote:
(04-12-2016, 07:57 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(04-12-2016, 07:48 PM)Someones Dad Wrote:
(04-12-2016, 09:17 AM)Wonky3 Wrote: I (like you, no doubt) read politcal pundits. Of late, it seems that most of them hold strong views, right or left, up or down, and sometimes a bit sideways. 

And sometimes pundits can offer up views that might...just might...encourage us to consider other ways of seeing and reacting to our politics. 

It todays NYT, David Brooks posts a coulumn that, for me at least, offers that kind fo view. 

An excerpt:


But it’s increasingly clear that the roots of political dysfunction lie deep in society. If there’s truly going to be improvement, there has to be improvement in the social context politics is embedded in.


In healthy societies, people live their lives within a galaxy of warm places. They are members of a family, neighborhood, school, civic organization, hobby group, company, faith, regional culture, nation, continent and world. Each layer of life is nestled in the others to form a varied but coherent whole.
But starting just after World War II, America’s community/membership mind-set gave way to an individualistic/autonomy mind-set. The idea was that individuals should be liberated to live as they chose, so long as they didn’t interfere with the rights of others.

You can go to NYT.com and find it. (Don't have to subscribe to log on 10 times a month). I think he has a good and worthwhile point and it's worth a read. Just my opinion. 

At the very least, I am grateful that you didn't refer to him as a conservative, as you have in the past.  That ship sailed long ago.

Brooks IS a conservatie. Maybe not your kind of conservative, but by any resonalble definition he is a conservative. 

How can he be a conservative when he doesn't spout anti everything Obama?

Brooks is a grown up, that's why.
Reply
#9
(04-12-2016, 07:57 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(04-12-2016, 07:48 PM)Someones Dad Wrote:
(04-12-2016, 09:17 AM)Wonky3 Wrote: I (like you, no doubt) read politcal pundits. Of late, it seems that most of them hold strong views, right or left, up or down, and sometimes a bit sideways. 

And sometimes pundits can offer up views that might...just might...encourage us to consider other ways of seeing and reacting to our politics. 

It todays NYT, David Brooks posts a coulumn that, for me at least, offers that kind fo view. 

An excerpt:


But it’s increasingly clear that the roots of political dysfunction lie deep in society. If there’s truly going to be improvement, there has to be improvement in the social context politics is embedded in.


In healthy societies, people live their lives within a galaxy of warm places. They are members of a family, neighborhood, school, civic organization, hobby group, company, faith, regional culture, nation, continent and world. Each layer of life is nestled in the others to form a varied but coherent whole.
But starting just after World War II, America’s community/membership mind-set gave way to an individualistic/autonomy mind-set. The idea was that individuals should be liberated to live as they chose, so long as they didn’t interfere with the rights of others.

You can go to NYT.com and find it. (Don't have to subscribe to log on 10 times a month). I think he has a good and worthwhile point and it's worth a read. Just my opinion. 

At the very least, I am grateful that you didn't refer to him as a conservative, as you have in the past.  That ship sailed long ago.

Brooks IS a conservatie. Maybe not your kind of conservative, but by any resonalble definition he is a conservative. 

Can you point to anything in his writing that coincides with Conservatives?  I mean... in the last.. five years?  You say he IS..  Emphatically you want to project this idea.  But it just isn't true.

Should I be POUNDING on the fact that David Horowitz is a LIBERAL? Smiling   Should I INSIST that Dennis Miller was ONCE a LIBERAL, therefore everything that comes out of his mouth is forever a liberal point of view?  For an old man, you need to grow up.  Other people have.
Reply
#10
(04-12-2016, 08:39 PM)Someones Dad Wrote:
(04-12-2016, 07:57 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(04-12-2016, 07:48 PM)Someones Dad Wrote:
(04-12-2016, 09:17 AM)Wonky3 Wrote: I (like you, no doubt) read politcal pundits. Of late, it seems that most of them hold strong views, right or left, up or down, and sometimes a bit sideways. 

And sometimes pundits can offer up views that might...just might...encourage us to consider other ways of seeing and reacting to our politics. 

It todays NYT, David Brooks posts a coulumn that, for me at least, offers that kind fo view. 

An excerpt:


But it’s increasingly clear that the roots of political dysfunction lie deep in society. If there’s truly going to be improvement, there has to be improvement in the social context politics is embedded in.


In healthy societies, people live their lives within a galaxy of warm places. They are members of a family, neighborhood, school, civic organization, hobby group, company, faith, regional culture, nation, continent and world. Each layer of life is nestled in the others to form a varied but coherent whole.
But starting just after World War II, America’s community/membership mind-set gave way to an individualistic/autonomy mind-set. The idea was that individuals should be liberated to live as they chose, so long as they didn’t interfere with the rights of others.

You can go to NYT.com and find it. (Don't have to subscribe to log on 10 times a month). I think he has a good and worthwhile point and it's worth a read. Just my opinion. 

At the very least, I am grateful that you didn't refer to him as a conservative, as you have in the past.  That ship sailed long ago.

Brooks IS a conservatie. Maybe not your kind of conservative, but by any resonalble definition he is a conservative. 

Can you point to anything in his writing that coincides with Conservatives?  I mean... in the last.. five years?  You say he IS..  Emphatically you want to project this idea.  But it just isn't true.

Should I be POUNDING on the fact that David Horowitz is a LIBERAL? Smiling   Should I INSIST that Dennis Miller was ONCE a LIBERAL, therefore everything that comes out of his mouth is forever a liberal point of view?  For an old man, you need to grow up.  Other people have.

I see, Wonky needs to grow up because he thinks someone is a conservative and you don't?

 It sounds to me like you are the little whining kid here.
Reply
#11
What is a conservative anyway? What is a liberal too?

Lets get this definition down

I have some basics.
Liberals want abortion on demand
Conservatives want woman to carry a child to term no matter what.

Liberals want to increase taxes on the Rich and decrease it on the poor
Conservatives want to increase taxes on the poor and decrease it on the rich.

....
Reply
#12
(04-13-2016, 12:30 PM)chuck white Wrote: What is a conservative anyway? What is a liberal too?

Lets get this definition down

I have some basics.
Liberals want abortion on demand
Conservatives want woman to carry a child to term no matter what.

Liberals want to increase taxes on the Rich and decrease it on the poor
Conservatives want to increase taxes on the poor and decrease it on the rich.

....

This liberal doesn't "want" any abortions. He just thinks women have rights and it's none of my bidness.
But even so I wouldn't be opposed to banning late term abortions.
If you are a woman and you couldn't figure out you wanted an abortion until you were 7 months pregnant? You are an idiot and don't deserve an abortion. At that point I say kill the mother and save the baby.

Buy as far a generalizations...

Liberals are all for the environment.

Conservatives are all for the environment.. Unless of course it affects how much money they make or if it negatively affects any business or if they don't think a particular species is worth protecting.
Reply
#13
(04-13-2016, 12:55 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(04-13-2016, 12:30 PM)chuck white Wrote: What is a conservative anyway? What is a liberal too?

Lets get this definition down

I have some basics.
Liberals want abortion on demand
Conservatives want woman to carry a child to term no matter what.

Liberals want to increase taxes on the Rich and decrease it on the poor
Conservatives want to increase taxes on the poor and decrease it on the rich.

....

This liberal doesn't "want" any abortions. He just thinks women have rights and it's none of my bidness.
But even so I wouldn't be opposed to banning late term abortions.
If you are a woman and you couldn't figure out you wanted an abortion until you were 7 months pregnant? You are an idiot and don't deserve an abortion. At that point I say kill the mother and save the baby.

Buy as far a generalizations...

Liberals are all for the environment.

Conservatives are all for the environment.. Unless of course it affects how much money they make or if it negatively affects any business or if they don't think a particular species is worth protecting.
Yeah, it's fun to do this kind of stuff. But, it's so easy to pigeon-hole people. I admire many "conservative" values. (Although I won't easily see these values ONLY as Conservative) 
"We" Liberals like to feel we promote personal freedoms more than Conservatives, but I admire the Conservative attitude of personal responsibility, and feel that freedom and responsibility should come in equal doses. 
But, I read both David Brooks's columns and books, and I see good strong Conservative thought in his writing. True: He is NOT a Tea Party nut job who feels the government should be shut down on a whim. An example: He favors comprehensive national health care but feels "Obama Care" is deeply flawed and needs to be "tweaked" to improve it to make it work. (He reminds us that it was the Heritage Foundation, a Conservative think tank, who first suggested a national health care plan)

And, Someones's Dad, what I don't know would fill volumes. But, I'd never make a blanket "off the wall" remark as you did without knowing a whole lot more about the individual I direced it at. (Unless of course it was directed at TVg...God knows any negavitve thing said about him will be spot on)  Razz.  Thaks the gods we have TVg to beat up...It's not only easy, but SO much fun.  Smiling
Reply
#14
liberals think the world is getting unnaturally warmer.
conservatives think it's just natural warming.
Reply
#15
(04-14-2016, 01:04 PM)chuck white Wrote: liberals think the world is getting unnaturally warmer.
conservatives think it's just natural warming.

Yeah, well...
All to often we see this kind of stuff as "Liberal"/Conservative. Really, it's not political at all. It's science, polluted by politcal agrument that comes from differences in how we see the source of information. If, for instance, we neglect information about weather/climate because it might (will) effect return on investment and we may want to "conserve" that profit at the expense of all else, we are "conserving" for reasons that are simply wrong. 
On the other hand, when we act on information not yet proven we can often cause negative effects on our economy. I suspect all too often Liberals are guilty of reacting in this way, anxious to protect our environment when sometimes the facts don't warrant it. I wonder if protecting the Spotted Owl really did protect our old growth forests. I'm not sure the science ever proved the fact. 

So, it would seem the lesson would be to collect, absorb, and process information to the point where it meets scientific standards and only then, act on it. At that point it is no longer political. 

Or something like that. Hard nut to crack, and I struggle with the definitions and conclusions. I think it's important that sooner that later we resolve this stuff and find a way to eliminate it from our politics. 

Science, peer reviewed and widely published, will help more than any other action, I think. 
Reply
#16
(04-13-2016, 08:13 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(04-13-2016, 12:55 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(04-13-2016, 12:30 PM)chuck white Wrote: What is a conservative anyway? What is a liberal too?

Lets get this definition down

I have some basics.
Liberals want abortion on demand
Conservatives want woman to carry a child to term no matter what.

Liberals want to increase taxes on the Rich and decrease it on the poor
Conservatives want to increase taxes on the poor and decrease it on the rich.

....

This liberal doesn't "want" any abortions. He just thinks women have rights and it's none of my bidness.
But even so I wouldn't be opposed to banning late term abortions.
If you are a woman and you couldn't figure out you wanted an abortion until you were 7 months pregnant? You are an idiot and don't deserve an abortion. At that point I say kill the mother and save the baby.

Buy as far a generalizations...

Liberals are all for the environment.

Conservatives are all for the environment.. Unless of course it affects how much money they make or if it negatively affects any business or if they don't think a particular species is worth protecting.
Yeah, it's fun to do this kind of stuff. But, it's so easy to pigeon-hole people. I admire many "conservative" values. (Although I won't easily see these values ONLY as Conservative) 
"We" Liberals like to feel we promote personal freedoms more than Conservatives, but I admire the Conservative attitude of personal responsibility, and feel that freedom and responsibility should come in equal doses. 
But, I read both David Brooks's columns and books, and I see good strong Conservative thought in his writing. True: He is NOT a Tea Party nut job who feels the government should be shut down on a whim. An example: He favors comprehensive national health care but feels "Obama Care" is deeply flawed and needs to be "tweaked" to improve it to make it work. (He reminds us that it was the Heritage Foundation, a Conservative think tank, who first suggested a national health care plan)

And, Someones's Dad, what I don't know would fill volumes. But, I'd never make a blanket "off the wall" remark as you did without knowing a whole lot more about the individual I direced it at. (Unless of course it was directed at TVg...God knows any negavitve thing said about him will be spot on)  Razz.  Thaks the gods we have TVg to beat up...It's not only easy, but SO much fun.  Smiling

"But, it's so easy to pigeon-hole people." 

Ha!! You say you want A kinder gentler forum and you make a vulgar comment like that! NOW I know what you do when you go to the park.. I hope they catch you some day!!! Sheesh what a perv.
Reply
#17
(04-14-2016, 04:27 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(04-13-2016, 08:13 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(04-13-2016, 12:55 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(04-13-2016, 12:30 PM)chuck white Wrote: What is a conservative anyway? What is a liberal too?

Lets get this definition down

I have some basics.
Liberals want abortion on demand
Conservatives want woman to carry a child to term no matter what.

Liberals want to increase taxes on the Rich and decrease it on the poor
Conservatives want to increase taxes on the poor and decrease it on the rich.

....

This liberal doesn't "want" any abortions. He just thinks women have rights and it's none of my bidness.
But even so I wouldn't be opposed to banning late term abortions.
If you are a woman and you couldn't figure out you wanted an abortion until you were 7 months pregnant? You are an idiot and don't deserve an abortion. At that point I say kill the mother and save the baby.

Buy as far a generalizations...

Liberals are all for the environment.

Conservatives are all for the environment.. Unless of course it affects how much money they make or if it negatively affects any business or if they don't think a particular species is worth protecting.
Yeah, it's fun to do this kind of stuff. But, it's so easy to pigeon-hole people. I admire many "conservative" values. (Although I won't easily see these values ONLY as Conservative) 
"We" Liberals like to feel we promote personal freedoms more than Conservatives, but I admire the Conservative attitude of personal responsibility, and feel that freedom and responsibility should come in equal doses. 
But, I read both David Brooks's columns and books, and I see good strong Conservative thought in his writing. True: He is NOT a Tea Party nut job who feels the government should be shut down on a whim. An example: He favors comprehensive national health care but feels "Obama Care" is deeply flawed and needs to be "tweaked" to improve it to make it work. (He reminds us that it was the Heritage Foundation, a Conservative think tank, who first suggested a national health care plan)

And, Someones's Dad, what I don't know would fill volumes. But, I'd never make a blanket "off the wall" remark as you did without knowing a whole lot more about the individual I direced it at. (Unless of course it was directed at TVg...God knows any negavitve thing said about him will be spot on)  Razz.  Thaks the gods we have TVg to beat up...It's not only easy, but SO much fun.  Smiling

"But, it's so easy to pigeon-hole people." 

Ha!! You say you want A kinder gentler forum and you make a vulgar comment like that! NOW I know what you do when you go to the park.. I hope they catch you some day!!! Sheesh what a perv.
They already caught me. I has hitting on some young chick (I'd guess early 70's) and she called from her cell phone to report me. Damn cell phones. I think she was a liberal 'cause her cell phone played "Happy days are here again" when it rang. 
And we already have a "kinder gentler forum. We are as kind and gentle and we want to be. And it IS easy to pigeon-hole people: We do it all the time by seizing on one comment and makeing all further conclusions from it. I've done it. So have you, I reckon. 

Pigeon Hole:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


[/url]
[Image: 220px-TooManyPigeons.jpg]


Pigeons in holes. Here there are n = 10 pigeons in m = 9 holes. Since 10 is greater than 9, the pigeonhole principle says that at least one hole has more than one pigeon.

In mathematics, the pigeonhole principle states that if n items are put into m containers, with n > m, then at least one container must contain more than one item.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigeonhole_principle#cite_note-Herstein64-1][1] This theorem is exemplified in real-life by truisms like "there must be at least two left gloves or two right gloves in a group of three gloves". It is an example of a counting argument, and despite seeming intuitive it can be used to demonstrate possibly unexpected results; for example, that two people in London have the same number of hairs on their heads
Reply
#18
(04-13-2016, 08:13 PM)Wonky3 Wrote: Yeah, it's fun to do this kind of stuff. But, it's so easy to pigeon-hole people. I admire many "conservative" values. (Although I won't easily see these values ONLY as Conservative) 
"We" Liberals like to feel we promote personal freedoms more than Conservatives, but I admire the Conservative attitude of personal responsibility, and feel that freedom and responsibility should come in equal doses. 
But, I read both David Brooks's columns and books, and I see good strong Conservative thought in his writing. True: He is NOT a Tea Party nut job who feels the government should be shut down on a whim. An example: He favors comprehensive national health care but feels "Obama Care" is deeply flawed and needs to be "tweaked" to improve it to make it work. (He reminds us that it was the Heritage Foundation, a Conservative think tank, who first suggested a national health care plan)

And, Someones's Dad, what I don't know would fill volumes. But, I'd never make a blanket "off the wall" remark as you did without knowing a whole lot more about the individual I direced it at. (Unless of course it was directed at TVg...God knows any negavitve thing said about him will be spot on)  Razz.  Thaks the gods we have TVg to beat up...It's not only easy, but SO much fun.  Smiling
Funny thing, I live in a state run by conservatives but is known for having the 2nd most personal freedoms in the US. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/...the-least/
Reply
#19
(04-14-2016, 05:57 PM)HolyMaryMotherOfGod Wrote:
(04-13-2016, 08:13 PM)Wonky3 Wrote: Yeah, it's fun to do this kind of stuff. But, it's so easy to pigeon-hole people. I admire many "conservative" values. (Although I won't easily see these values ONLY as Conservative) 
"We" Liberals like to feel we promote personal freedoms more than Conservatives, but I admire the Conservative attitude of personal responsibility, and feel that freedom and responsibility should come in equal doses. 
But, I read both David Brooks's columns and books, and I see good strong Conservative thought in his writing. True: He is NOT a Tea Party nut job who feels the government should be shut down on a whim. An example: He favors comprehensive national health care but feels "Obama Care" is deeply flawed and needs to be "tweaked" to improve it to make it work. (He reminds us that it was the Heritage Foundation, a Conservative think tank, who first suggested a national health care plan)

And, Someones's Dad, what I don't know would fill volumes. But, I'd never make a blanket "off the wall" remark as you did without knowing a whole lot more about the individual I direced it at. (Unless of course it was directed at TVg...God knows any negavitve thing said about him will be spot on)  Razz.  Thaks the gods we have TVg to beat up...It's not only easy, but SO much fun.  Smiling
Funny thing, I live in a state run by conservatives but is known for having the 2nd most personal freedoms in the US. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/...the-least/

Something i have noticed lately about so-called Liberals, is that in their endeavor to hate the "haters" the perceive on the right, they appear to have more hate than the haters they hate.

 I really hate that.
Reply
#20
It looks like some libertarian conservative designed a methodology to get those results. I mean how the hell are those anti abortion, anti Union, anti weed, in your face churchies expect us to believe they are the free states. I guess being a gun nut got you double points.  Rolling Eyes
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)