• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Another Conservative Pundit Gets Another Issue Completely Wrong [W:28]

At least mine was relevant - your anecdote (and a famous one) citing Charles Krauthammer's observations from the 80s isn't even contemporary.

Thinking anecdotes are relevant to social policy is teabaggery all the way down.

By the way, I cited a scientific study. But you didn't bother to read it, did you?
 
Re: Another Conservative Pundit Gets Another Issue Completely Wrong

Instead of your constant snipe about "conservative" this or "tea party" that, why don't you tell us what leads a woman to become addicted to crack and have a baby and 20 to 30 years later still be in poverty. Are you now admitting that the past 30 plus years of liberal social engineering and the provision of trillions in supports and services for those in poverty have been an abyssmal failure and new ideas are needed?

I'd like to hear your new ideas for how to make things better - got any?

No sniping going on by me. I just proved that Krauthammer is an imbecile by citing a scientific study that showed one of his ridiculous claims was pure dreck. I could do that again and again.

It's easy with conservative pundits for whom facts mean nothing.
 
Re: Another Conservative Pundit Gets Another Issue Completely Wrong

No sniping going on by me. I just proved that Krauthammer is an imbecile by citing a scientific study that showed one of his ridiculous claims was pure dreck. I could do that again and again.

It's easy with conservative pundits for whom facts mean nothing.


i see, when the same must apply to Paul Krugman because he tows the same imbecile line.
 
Thinking anecdotes are relevant to social policy is teabaggery all the way down.

By the way, I cited a scientific study. But you didn't bother to read it, did you?

What you cited was a study for the sole purpose of slagging Charles Krauthammer who had an opinion 20 plus years ago and who continues to have opinions today.

I could cite a hundred opinion polls that show the majority of Americans still think Obama's signature accomplishment, Obamacare, is a POS - that doesn't mean that Obama and Pelosi and any number of other liberal hacks didn't have the right and/or ability to base an opinion on the facts as they existed at the time.

As for you citing a "scientific" study, I appreciate you believe everything ever written that gives a liberal's wet dream slant is scientific but that doesn't make this type of study scientific.

I did read it, and it is an interesting piece of work, but your take on it and the way you posted it negates any possibility of an interesting and meaningful discussion of the contents because all you're interested in is slagging a conservative.
 
Re: Another Conservative Pundit Gets Another Issue Completely Wrong

Or it could be considered an appropriate comment. Depends on who's passing judgement.

So much for the non-judgmentalism and tolerance of the Left.
 
Thinking anecdotes are relevant to social policy is teabaggery all the way down.

By the way, I cited a scientific study. But you didn't bother to read it, did you?


A big part of the problem, she argues, is environmental: Of the children in her study, "81 percent of the children had seen someone arrested; 74 percent had heard gunshots; 35 percent had seen someone get shot; and 19 percent had seen a dead body outside." The children themselves acknowledged the effect of these events: "Those children who reported a high exposure to violence were likelier to show signs of depression and anxiety and to have lower self-esteem."

In other words, while prenatal crack abuse may not have a major effect on children, the societal conditions in crack-ravaged communities most certainly do.
Here's my favorite part of the article, where he separates crack use from poverty, like they aren't related in any way. :roll: Like spending your hard earned money on crack, can't make you poor, consequently putting your children into a life of poverty. This is leftwing science.
 
Drumming up the conservative fixation on drug abuse, the dubious and apocalyptic Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer predicted in the 80s that "crack babies" would be condemned to "a life of certain suffering, of probable deviance, of permanent inferiority."

A little over 20 years later, Krauthammer's predictions have proven almost embarrassingly inaccurate.

That's a problem that is common across all media programs and platforms on which predictions are made. Whether one is listening to talk radio or watching a CNBC program, the reality is that many predictions are made with little or no concrete evidence to support them. They are little more than guesses colored by subjective considerations, which may include ideology, garnering publicity, among others. They are stated in overconfident terms that all but ignore uncertainty, which can be so great in cases that reasonably reliable predictions are not practical.

Unfortunately, none of the media platforms nor watchdogs keep a running tally of who made what predictions, when, and how those predictions fared. Hence, the practice continues largely unabated, the quality of such predictions remains dismal, and the information that is conveyed has little useful value to the public.
 
That's a problem that is common across all media programs and platforms on which predictions are made. Whether one is listening to talk radio or watching a CNBC program, the reality is that many predictions are made with little or no concrete evidence to support them. They are little more than guesses colored by subjective considerations, which may include ideology, garnering publicity, among others. They are stated in overconfident terms that all but ignore uncertainty, which can be so great in cases that reasonably reliable predictions are not practical.

Unfortunately, none of the media platforms nor watchdogs keep a running tally of who made what predictions, when, and how those predictions fared. Hence, the practice continues largely unabated, the quality of such predictions remains dismal, and the information that is conveyed has little useful value to the public.

Not a running tally; Just a one-off study, but your post reminded me of this:

http://www.hamilton.edu/documents/Analysis-of-Forcast-Accuracy-in-the-Political-Media.pdf
 
So the medical community did not think, at the time, that crack would be harmful to babies? [rhetorical]
How could Krauthammer ever come up with an off the wall prediction that crack would be harmful to babies. He's a crazy man, he is.
 
Re: Another Conservative Pundit Gets Another Issue Completely Wrong

Not to be disrespectful, but do you know what the topic is? We don't.

Moderator's Warning:
Please do not comment on Mod boxes. If you have a question or issue, please PM the mod.
 
That's a problem that is common across all media programs and platforms on which predictions are made. Whether one is listening to talk radio or watching a CNBC program, the reality is that many predictions are made with little or no concrete evidence to support them. They are little more than guesses colored by subjective considerations, which may include ideology, garnering publicity, among others. They are stated in overconfident terms that all but ignore uncertainty, which can be so great in cases that reasonably reliable predictions are not practical.

Unfortunately, none of the media platforms nor watchdogs keep a running tally of who made what predictions, when, and how those predictions fared. Hence, the practice continues largely unabated, the quality of such predictions remains dismal, and the information that is conveyed has little useful value to the public.

I'm willing to bet, without having done the research, that there are many on the left and professionals in child care who believed and suggested the exact same thing that Krauthammer did and used those predictions to lobby for and secure lots of public funding for supports and services for "crack babies". But you won't hear anything about their faulty predictions.
 
I'm willing to bet, without having done the research, that there are many on the left and professionals in child care who believed and suggested the exact same thing that Krauthammer did and used those predictions to lobby for and secure lots of public funding for supports and services for "crack babies". But you won't hear anything about their faulty predictions.

I agree. Notice my general description where I did not refer specifically to predictions by conservative pundits. This issue is not confined to conservatives. It's a broad issue that concerns people from all ideologies. In part, it has to do with a framework that does not encourage accountability from the public's having knowledge of a person's track record in forecasting. In part, humans are not great at forecasting (but overly confident hence the use of strong, deterministic language when making predictions).
 
.

This is typical of the conservative media's attempt to deflect attention from the real fundamental issue the US faces -- income inequality -- ll?

Well that should be easy to fix. We should model our economy after Haiti. Income nequality isn't a huge problem there at all!
 
Re: Another Conservative Pundit Gets Another Issue Completely Wrong

Yeah, guys... the reason crackheads buy drugs is because they have no money for food!

.. hey, wait a minute...
 
A big part of the problem, she argues, is environmental: Of the children in her study, "81 percent of the children had seen someone arrested; 74 percent had heard gunshots; 35 percent had seen someone get shot; and 19 percent had seen a dead body outside." The children themselves acknowledged the effect of these events: "Those children who reported a high exposure to violence were likelier to show signs of depression and anxiety and to have lower self-esteem."


Here's my favorite part of the article, where he separates crack use from poverty, like they aren't related in any way. :roll: Like spending your hard earned money on crack, can't make you poor, consequently putting your children into a life of poverty. This is leftwing science.

To argue that drug addiction is the sole cause of poverty in America, or even a significant cause, is tea baggery all the way down.

More to the point, Krauthammer wasn't arguing that drug use caused poverty and poverty was the real problem. He was arguing that we needed to crack down on drug use, and in this way continue the conservative narrative that poverty is just some natural condition that we needed worry about.
 
Well that should be easy to fix. We should model our economy after Haiti. Income nequality isn't a huge problem there at all!

Wow, a failed attempt at conservative humor! But isn't Haiti a lawless unregulated low tax haven -- and thus a conservative paradise.

Maybe you should try harder.
 
So the medical community did not think, at the time, that crack would be harmful to babies? [rhetorical]
How could Krauthammer ever come up with an off the wall prediction that crack would be harmful to babies. He's a crazy man, he is.

Of course it's harmful, but not as harmful as poverty, something Krauthammer and the conservative talking heads think builds character.

READ THE ARTICLE!
 
What you cited was a study for the sole purpose of slagging Charles Krauthammer who had an opinion 20 plus years ago and who continues to have opinions today.

I could cite a hundred opinion polls that show the majority of Americans still think Obama's signature accomplishment, Obamacare, is a POS - that doesn't mean that Obama and Pelosi and any number of other liberal hacks didn't have the right and/or ability to base an opinion on the facts as they existed at the time.

As for you citing a "scientific" study, I appreciate you believe everything ever written that gives a liberal's wet dream slant is scientific but that doesn't make this type of study scientific.

I did read it, and it is an interesting piece of work, but your take on it and the way you posted it negates any possibility of an interesting and meaningful discussion of the contents because all you're interested in is slagging a conservative.

"Slagging" Krauthammer is easy. He's a dope. My slagging is bigger is than that. My point is that conservative pundits are all dopes and only make counterfactual claims. Krauthammer's stupidity on this issue is just a case in point.
 
"Slagging" Krauthammer is easy. He's a dope. My slagging is bigger is than that. My point is that conservative pundits are all dopes and only make counterfactual claims. Krauthammer's stupidity on this issue is just a case in point.

Are you certain and so confident that no liberal Democrat or "progressive" had the same view as Krauthammer did back in the 80s? Do you believe as a certainty that all liberals, progressives and Democrats viewed crack as harmless and irrelevant to the health and wellbeing of a fetuses and the children born of crack addicted women? Are you also certain that no liberals, progressives and Democrats used crack addiction in pregnant women as a means to increase the levels of supports and services provided such women in the 80's, 90's and beyond?

Or are you just interested, as usual, in grunting out a nonsensical "all conservatives are bad" screech?
 
Re: Another Conservative Pundit Gets Another Issue Completely Wrong

To be clear, are you now advocating that it is recommended that pregnant women smoke crack or that there is no medical reason not to smoke crack if you're pregnant?

Could it also be possible that if Mommy Dearest wasn't spending every last penny she earned in whatever nefarious way on crack, she might not be raising her little one in poverty?

Are you saying drug addicts should just stop using drugs? Does it look that simple to you?
 
Dumbass probably thought Pluto was a planet too. Seriously, crack bad for babies, idiot.
 
Are you certain and so confident that no liberal Democrat or "progressive" had the same view as Krauthammer did back in the 80s? Do you believe as a certainty that all liberals, progressives and Democrats viewed crack as harmless and irrelevant to the health and wellbeing of a fetuses and the children born of crack addicted women? Are you also certain that no liberals, progressives and Democrats used crack addiction in pregnant women as a means to increase the levels of supports and services provided such women in the 80's, 90's and beyond?

Or are you just interested, as usual, in grunting out a nonsensical "all conservatives are bad" screech?

I'm certain progressives take poverty seriously. I'm certain conservatives do not want to discuss the causes and amelioration of poverty, because they say so. According to most conservatives rich people deserve to be rich and poor people are lazy and deserve to be poor.

Don't blame me for our own propaganda.

By the way, the way to deal with drug addiction is as a health problem. So we need to pay for clinics and treatment. Once again, conservatives avoid the real issue and assess bogus moral blame and call for less spending on social issues.

Honestly defending Krauthammer or any conservative on drug issues is hopeless task. Conservatives are fundamentally wrong on the issue, anyway you look at it.
 
Re: Another Conservative Pundit Gets Another Issue Completely Wrong

Most people on the right have little interest in doing anything to help the many victims of poverty in the USA.




"Republicans have been accused of abandoning the poor. It's the other way around. They never vote for us." ~ Dan Quayle

most people on the right-at worst-want to subject such poor to benign neglect even though conservatives give far more to charity than liberals

liberals on the other hand-take affirmative action to keep people dependent and in poverty
 
Re: Another Conservative Pundit Gets Another Issue Completely Wrong

most people on the right-at worst-want to subject such poor to benign neglect even though conservatives give far more to charity than liberals

liberals on the other hand-take affirmative action to keep people dependent and in poverty

Those conservative gifts to charity, how do you know about them and how are they positive social action as opposed to government social assisstance?
 
Re: Another Conservative Pundit Gets Another Issue Completely Wrong

Those conservative gifts to charity, how do you know about them and how are they positive social action as opposed to government social assisstance?

well the study that was discussed for days on this forum noted that liberals tend to give to think tanks that advocate more government redistribution of wealth

we do know that the dems are better served by having lots of people dependent on the government than the GOP
 
Back
Top Bottom