Posted on 12/05/2019 5:55:36 AM PST by ChicagoConservative27
On Wednesday’s broadcast of Fox News Radio’s “Guy Benson Show,” Fox News Political Analyst and co-host and columnist for the Hill Juan Williams criticized that day’s impeachment hearing as “a distraction.”
Williams said, “I don’t think that this is informing the public about much of the facts in any way. Because I don’t think we have any fact-based witnesses or evidence being introduced. So, what this is about, I think, is, you have scholars engaged in scholarly discourse with regard to whether or not what we know so far, in their opinion, rises to an impeachable offense. That’s the best face I could put on it. But, in all honesty, I don’t see that this is — I think this is a distraction.”
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
I assume you mean Chris Hahn. He is one of the most annoying commentators I think I've ever seen. He is a living, breathing version of Zippy the Pinhead.
Exactly my point. Intellectual yet tone-effin' deaf idiot. She isn't even an intellectual, simply a leftist tool as is that even smugger globaloniest idiot from Harvard.
I am amused at various effort by Harvard to "correct" it's errors through various outreach programs to try to understand what drives "the common man" in America. It used to be that Harvard represented the best of America (in 1632 or whenever it was founded). Now it is simply utterly out of touch. This effin globalist idiot proves it.
It's really a matter of wasted brains more than the lack of them. And I'm saying this as someone who was a student when she was a professor.
He is...I turn him off as fast as I can reach the remote.
There’s another one who counters, Candice Owens....actually two. One is a black professor at Harvard or somewhere that looks like he’s never bathed, and the other is a black female, far left...who has the fuzzy brain.
Judge Napolitao will give him a pep talk, and Juan will be back on board.
I think roughly half of Democrats are just sitting and waiting for some type of criminal act to be introduced, and it simply hasn’t happened (nor will it).
In terms of the news media carrying the ‘load’...the best you can say is that they are carrying a load of chicken-feathers, and most people can’t see wasting all the man-hours that have been invested into this. Heck, half of nation can’t even identify on a map the country of the Ukraine.
Juan has the IQ of a weed.
Except that the law professor from Stanford was claiming that Trump actually threatened the Ukrainian leader to investigate Biden - as though she had heard the conversation herself. She did not stop at saying, “If he did that, it is an impeachable offense.”
Yea...You did. . .I saw it too. . .but how about this month of Sundays were having!!
I am going to express a strong disagreement here, not that you could not make a case that she has a high neuro-cognitive capability. But we have learned a lot about high performance over the last decade or so. The short summary is that you have to spend "10,000 hrs" in deliberate exercise of a capability to become and expert at it. She, and I make the same charge against John Roberts, hasn't spent 10 minutes at it, doing the hard work, working through problem by problem and example by example, set exercise by set exercise until you have mastered something.
She demonstrated that with her Barron Trump attack, just like the smartest guy in the room John Roberts did it with his "it's a tax" opinion. They are cheap party tricks not worthy of true masters of their profession who ought to be wiser than the rest of us - not attempt to confound us with transparent trickery, you know - the scantily clad assistant wasn't actually in the box you thrust the sword through. Once you know there is no actual magic, these folks just come across as cheap street barkers promoted to tenure at prestigious institutions.
Wordsmiths distraction. It’s B.S.
A pig? I saw a wing of pigs flying in formation.
The problem with the lefties like Karlan is that they let their intellect become subservient to their ideology. So rather than reaching the conclusions required by logic, they decide on the conclusion they want first, and then come up with whatever reasoning they can to justify it. That inevitably leads to them making dumb arguments.
But that's not because they're dumb. It's because advancing leftist ideology is more important to them than making consistent legal arguments.
I knew Karlan when she was a law professor at Virginia. An annoyingly strident leftist hag, but intelligent nonetheless. If you tried to engage her without recognizing that, you'd get stomped. But now...as she's had 30 more years to ingrain that ideology into her legal thinking, the legal analysis just isn't there any more. It's all agenda-driven.
You are right. Makes me think this might actually be the outcome.
1) House impeachment vote is held.
2) It FAILS
3) Pelosi blames Nadler for that by effing up these hearings
4) Democrats running for re-election in purple areas get a mulligan
Wow! The demwits are losing Juan!!!
Let me say something here that I think is important for everyone to understand having to do with Jewish education - and these are not anti-semitic statements. I am a physicist and attended 1st rate universities. I have as a consequence gotten to know some of the most respected phycisists in the world, a significant fraction of whom are Jewish. One of the distinct educational advantages that many jews have is that they learn directly or through social contact the art of "Talmudic disputation" which in the western world used to be taught as rhetoric, of which logic is a constituent component. It is fine training in intellectual rigor and the finest scientists carefully use these skills to elicit important truths from the dross of supposition and ill-understood facts.
But a lot of people brought up in that tradition don't use these skills as a disciplined part of coming to a reasoned conclusion and instead use these skill like cheap card tricks to perpetrate intellectual fraud.
The anti-dote is to teach everyone this stuff, but we don't. Catholic schools sometimes get there, but it is certainly not part of the American protestant tradition that believes in revealed truths rather than reasoned truths.
An excellent book on this subject is "Historians Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought" by David Hackett Fischer. While writing for historians, the logical and rhetorical fallacies he describes are just as valid for scientists - or lawyers - and a major source for his book is Karl Popper "The Logic of Scientific Discovery." But Fisher is readable and Popper is heavy going.
Once you read this book, you will understand the cheap trickery of intellectual frauds like this Karlan and have no respect for them any more.
I contrast her with a famous physicist, Richard Feynman. Another famous physicist I know once remarked to Feynman about his fantastic intution in seeing through problems no one else understood. His response was - "no,..., your problem is that you are lazy. I spent thousands and thousands of hours working through little examples and details to develop what you call intuition."
Now I don't want to suggest for a minute that Feynman did not have a quickness of mind not possessed by mortals. But he put it in harness, worked hard and tried to assure himself that he wasn't fooling himself when he reached conclusions he reached - his definition of integrity.
So no you will not convince me that the Karlan is anything other than a cheap intellectual fraud who is where she is because she made herself a useful idiot. Was she quick and clever about it - certainly or she would have been displaced by some other even smarter fraud.
Juan Williams is like Mikey.
“I know...let’s give it to Mikey. He’ll eat anything”...
Agreed. More people should read it.
Academics can have great knowledge of a very small field and not know much about the world outside of it and never hear anything that contradicts their opinion. Or they may be highly skilled reasoners and rhetoricians applying their skills in a narrow sphere of acceptable opinions.
Whether that makes them stupid or not is something to be decided on a case-by-case basis. These professors were representative in some ways, but perhaps not in others. Differences of opinion can be attributed to stupidity in some cases, but not in others. If these three professors were stupid, fine, but it can be hard to judge just how intelligent people really are when deep ideological divides get in the way.
As for Roberts, the Supreme Court doesn't like to overturn federal laws if they appear to be acceptable to the public and if the constitution grounds for invalidating them aren't undeniable. So one or more justices will go looking for a way to avoid creating discord and upheaval. You may not approve of the grounds they find, but that doesn't mean they are stupid.
Guess Juan don’t want no shit on his suit...
Too late, Wah Wah Juan — you’re ‘all in’ with the rats.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.