Brainfade Posted August 12, 2012 Posted August 12, 2012 Fareed Zakaria should count, shouldn't he? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/10/fareed-zakaria-plagiarism-new-yorker-time_n_1764954.html
Lurker Posted August 12, 2012 Posted August 12, 2012 Fareed Zakaria should count, shouldn't he? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/10/fareed-zakaria-plagiarism-new-yorker-time_n_1764954.html No. Fareed Zakaria does not count as intellactual. His father Rafiq Zakaria certainly does. Maybe I am being harsh on Fareed, but my impression of him is that he is another of those who happened to be in the right place at the right time in 90s. Sure he is a smart, articulate and well read guy, but it is surprising to find him Editor-at-Large at some of the iconic journalistic domains - Newsweek, time, CNN yada yada. He rarely offers anything that sets you thinking. His background, South Asian Muslim, comes in handy to deal with Middle East and Asian matters but I have always scratched my head after watching any of his interviews as to why he is so popular. I seriously doubt this was the first instance of his plagiarism.
Alchemist Posted August 12, 2012 Posted August 12, 2012 I have times and I am happy that he is gone. His views are at large liberal and he does not have guts to question Obama policies. His attitude atleast in times magazine is everything obama is good and everything republican is bad.
Brainfade Posted August 12, 2012 Author Posted August 12, 2012 I have times and I am happy that he is gone. His views are at large liberal and he does not have guts to question Obama policies. His attitude atleast in times magazine is everything obama is good and everything republican is bad. Now that he has a lot of time on his hands, he could post here on ICF. He'd fit right it, and can even be anointed the board intellectual!
Lurker Posted August 13, 2012 Posted August 13, 2012 Now that he has a lot of time on his hands' date=' he could post here on ICF. He'd fit right it, and can even be anointed the board intellectual![/quote'] Really? In your thread when most seem to agree with you, you still take a jibe at the board? Are you transforming from a reasonable right wing/Libertarian to a consipracy-Tea-Bagger-nutcase CA :winky:
Brainfade Posted August 13, 2012 Author Posted August 13, 2012 Really? In your thread when most seem to agree with you, you still take a jibe at the board? Are you transforming from a reasonable right wing/Libertarian to a consipracy-Tea-Bagger-nutcase CA :winky: Irritation and schadenfreude! I was letting some of my irritation show that many (not you) on this board are not willing to accept the Paul Ryan's depth of budgetary knowledge, and his ability to bring some seriousness into the debt/deficit discussions. He has done his homework and has a plan with some radical ideas for the long-term sustenance of our safety nets. One may not agree with his ideas, but to dismiss him as lacking intellectual depth is absurd. I don't agree with his lack of willingness to touch defense spending, with his "God" ideas etc., but I see him as someone who realizes the gravity of the spending issue and is willing to take it on head-on and bring it to the table for serious discussion. It then occurred to me that intellectualism is oddly associated only with liberal ideas (more taxes, more govt spending, Keynesian and Krugmanian economics, an anti-Israel stance etc). Hence the schadenfreude when someone widely considered an intellectual due only to his liberal views and unflinching support of President Obama was caught plagiarizing. Hence the somewhat OTT jibe.
Brainfade Posted August 13, 2012 Author Posted August 13, 2012 :hysterical: Couldnt help but laugh out loud in violent agreement on that note. :two_thumbs_up: Any conservative idea is so easily dismissed as "stupid" that it is irritating!
Lurker Posted August 13, 2012 Posted August 13, 2012 Irritation and schadenfreude! I was letting some of my irritation show that many (not you) on this board are not willing to accept the Paul Ryan's depth of budgetary knowledge, and his ability to bring some seriousness into the debt/deficit discussions. He has done his homework and has a plan with some radical ideas for the long-term sustenance of our safety nets. One may not agree with his ideas, but to dismiss him as lacking intellectual depth is absurd. I don't agree with his lack of willingness to touch defense spending, with his "God" ideas etc., but I see him as someone who realizes the gravity of the spending issue and is willing to take it on head-on and bring it to the table for serious discussion. I am not a Ryan fan for various reasons but this selection has excited me personally. Mitt Romney would be hard pressed to pick a better candidate and Democrats would be making a mistake if they take Ryan lightly. Mitt-Ryan candidacy has its faults, but in current economic scenario it makes for a formidable ticket I think. It then occurred to me that intellectualism is oddly associated only with liberal ideas (more taxes, more govt spending, Keynesian and Krugmanian economics, an anti-Israel stance etc). Hence the schadenfreude when someone widely considered an intellectual due only to his liberal views and unflinching support of President Obama was caught plagiarizing. Not really CA. Intellactualism, in general, is fast dying anyway. Thomas Friedman, who I like to read by the way, is considered an intellactual and it baffles me too. Just as many of the so called Right wing intellactuals on the right. By the way dont let the board get to you. Indians, generally, are more Democrat than Conservative anyway and that may manifest itself in various ways.
punjabi_khota Posted August 13, 2012 Posted August 13, 2012 Irritation and schadenfreude! I was letting some of my irritation show that many (not you) on this board are not willing to accept the Paul Ryan's depth of budgetary knowledge, and his ability to bring some seriousness into the debt/deficit discussions. He has done his homework and has a plan with some radical ideas for the long-term sustenance of our safety nets. One may not agree with his ideas, but to dismiss him as lacking intellectual depth is absurd. I don't agree with his lack of willingness to touch defense spending, with his "God" ideas etc., but I see him as someone who realizes the gravity of the spending issue and is willing to take it on head-on and bring it to the table for serious discussion. It then occurred to me that intellectualism is oddly associated only with liberal ideas (more taxes, more govt spending, Keynesian and Krugmanian economics, an anti-Israel stance etc). Hence the schadenfreude when someone widely considered an intellectual due only to his liberal views and unflinching support of President Obama was caught plagiarizing. Hence the somewhat OTT jibe. Yeh lo bhai depth vepth pe thoda comment likha hai kuch logon ne. Aap to aise bol rahein jaise aapne uski poori report padh li aur saare numbers khud check kiye hain. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_big_idea/2011/04/the_ryan_reaction.html "After my last column, I got pummeled in the liberal blogosphere for asserting that the Ryan budget represented a big step in the direction of conservative honesty. I deserved some of the abuse. Though I criticized Ryan for his unsupported rosy assumptions (shame on you, Heritage Foundation hacks), I reacted too quickly and didn't sort out just how laughable Ryan's long-term spending projections were. His plan projects an absurd future, according to the Congressional Budget Office, in which all discretionary spending, now around 12 percent of GDP, shrinks to 3 percent of GDP by 2050. Defense spending alone was 4.7 percent of GDP in 2009. With numbers like that, Ryan is more an anarchist-libertarian than honest conservative."
punjabi_khota Posted August 13, 2012 Posted August 13, 2012 Here's Krugman, but I guess you probably won't think much of what he has to say. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/13/the-ryan-role/?smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto
Clarke Posted August 13, 2012 Posted August 13, 2012 Irritation and schadenfreude! I was letting some of my irritation show that many (not you) on this board are not willing to accept the Paul Ryan's depth of budgetary knowledge, and his ability to bring some seriousness into the debt/deficit discussions. He has done his homework and has a plan with some radical ideas for the long-term sustenance of our safety nets. One may not agree with his ideas, but to dismiss him as lacking intellectual depth is absurd. I don't agree with his lack of willingness to touch defense spending, with his "God" ideas etc., but I see him as someone who realizes the gravity of the spending issue and is willing to take it on head-on and bring it to the table for serious discussion. Here's your intellectual bunch that completely agrees with your cult leader Norquist and the messiah Ryan. You expect us all to simply suck up to this no compromise attitude ? Try convincing fellow conservatives like Frum, Jeb & Sullivan for starters.
jind Posted August 13, 2012 Posted August 13, 2012 Now that he has a lot of time on his hands' date=' he could post here on ICF. He'd fit right it, and can even be anointed the board intellectual![/quote'] :hysterical::hysterical:
punjabi_khota Posted September 2, 2012 Posted September 2, 2012 The mother****er Ryan lies all the way to glory in the RNC speech. So much for mother****ing honesty. Broke ALL records for bullshyting in the history of election time speeches Here's the leftwing agenda website talking about the speech. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/30/paul-ryans-speech-in-three-words/ Fact: While Ryan tried to pin the downgrade of the United States’ credit rating on spending under President Obama, the credit rating was actually downgraded because Republicans threatened not to raise the debt ceiling. Fact: While Ryan blamed President Obama for the shut down of a GM plant in Janesville, Wisconsin, the plant was actually closed under President George W. Bush. Ryan actually asked for federal spending to save the plant, while Romney has criticized the auto industry bailout that President Obama ultimately enacted to prevent other plants from closing. Fact: Though Ryan insisted that President Obama wants to give all the credit for private sector success to government, that isn't what the president said. Period. Fact: Though Paul Ryan accused President Obama of taking $716 billion out of Medicare, the fact is that that amount was savings in Medicare reimbursement rates (which, incidentally, save Medicare recipients out-of-pocket costs, too) and Ryan himself embraced these savings in his budget plan. Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/30/paul-ryans-speech-in-three-words/#ixzz25GngrUrO
ravishingravi Posted September 2, 2012 Posted September 2, 2012 The mother****er Ryan lies all the way to glory in the RNC speech. So much for mother****ing honesty. Broke ALL records for bullshyting in the history of election time speeches Here's the leftwing agenda website talking about the speech. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/30/paul-ryans-speech-in-three-words/ Fact: While Ryan tried to pin the downgrade of the United States credit rating on spending under President Obama, the credit rating was actually downgraded because Republicans threatened not to raise the debt ceiling. Fact: While Ryan blamed President Obama for the shut down of a GM plant in Janesville, Wisconsin, the plant was actually closed under President George W. Bush. Ryan actually asked for federal spending to save the plant, while Romney has criticized the auto industry bailout that President Obama ultimately enacted to prevent other plants from closing. Fact: Though Ryan insisted that President Obama wants to give all the credit for private sector success to government, that isn't what the president said. Period. Fact: Though Paul Ryan accused President Obama of taking $716 billion out of Medicare, the fact is that that amount was savings in Medicare reimbursement rates (which, incidentally, save Medicare recipients out-of-pocket costs, too) and Ryan himself embraced these savings in his budget plan. Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/30/paul-ryans-speech-in-three-words/#ixzz25GngrUrO They dont call him an intellectual for nothing
Crookbond Posted September 2, 2012 Posted September 2, 2012 Fareed Zakaria should count, shouldn't he? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/10/fareed-zakaria-plagiarism-new-yorker-time_n_1764954.html I do not understand how he was re instated.
ravishingravi Posted September 2, 2012 Posted September 2, 2012 I do not understand how he was re instated. Why ?
ravishingravi Posted September 2, 2012 Posted September 2, 2012 Because he plagiarized? :dontknow: Oh I see. But he was suspended for it.
Crookbond Posted September 2, 2012 Posted September 2, 2012 Oh I see. But he was suspended for it. and reinstated IIRC after the investigation, makes no sense.
Recommended Posts