17 Mar 10
Originally posted by Sam The ShamNo one is denying he said it Sam. Good grief. It's a verbal flub. The whole point of verbal flubs is that they undeniably happen! 🙄🙄🙄
The original poster asked if there were any other sources confirming he said it and I gave a link of the actual speech is that OK with you?
17 Mar 10
He probably meant 3,000 dollars.
Still funny, though. Kind of like the 57 states.
But hey, a guy that speaks in public that much on that little sleep is going to have that happen every once in a while.
Of course, when Bush did it, it was always lauded by the left leaning blogs as evidence of his stupidity and thoughtlessness; but that's another matter.
17 Mar 10
Originally posted by sh76The more thoughtful left leaning blogs looked at his utter failure of a career as a businessman, going AWOL from the National Guard, him getting away with insider trading, and how he set new heights in the personification of nepotism and cronyism - and STILL got to be president and cited it as evidence of his skills, savvy and smarts ...and as evidence of the stupidity and thoughtlessness of so many American voters.
Of course, when Bush did it, it was always lauded by the left leaning blogs as evidence of his stupidity and thoughtlessness; but that's another matter.
17 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76Of course it's evidence supporting the hypothesis that Obama is stupid. But there's surely much more evidence supporting the alternative. For Bush...not really.
Of course, when Bush did it, it was always lauded by the left leaning blogs as evidence of his stupidity and thoughtlessness; but that's another matter.
17 Mar 10
Originally posted by PalynkaNo, it's not. One slip of the tongue isn't evidence of anything substantive. It's evidence of a slip of the tongue. If I mean "dollars" and say "percent," it's not evidence that I'm stupid. It's evidence that I misspoke once.
Of course it's evidence supporting the hypothesis that Obama is stupid. But there's surely much more evidence supporting the alternative. For Bush...not really.
Oh, and Bush is and was not stupid.
17 Mar 10
Originally posted by sh76You don't seem to know what evidence is. Every message has a component of noise and signal. If I have a dice that may be rigged to show 6's slightly more often, then I need to throw the dice many times to make a reasonable claim about each hypothesis. Yet every additional throw IS evidence. The likelihood of the dice being rigged increases every time I draw a 6.
No, it's not. One slip of the tongue isn't evidence of anything substantive. It's evidence of a slip of the tongue. If I mean "dollars" and say "percent," it's not evidence that I'm stupid. It's evidence that I misspoke once.
Oh, and Bush is and was not stupid.
17 Mar 10
Originally posted by PalynkaI know what evidence is, thank you.
You don't seem to know what evidence is. Every message has a component of noise and signal. If I have a dice that may be rigged to show 6's slightly more often, then I need to throw the dice many times to make a reasonable claim about each hypothesis. Yet every additional throw IS evidence. The likelihood of the dice being rigged increases every time I draw a 6.
Misspeaking is not evidence of stupidity. The two have no relationship. Period.
I could say "57" instead of "47' 8,000 times; it would not tend to show that I'm stupid- only that I have a propensity to misspeak.
17 Mar 10
2 edits
Originally posted by sh76Well, you evidently don't.
I know what evidence is, thank you.
Misspeaking is not evidence of stupidity. The two have no relationship. Period.
I could say "57" instead of "47' 8,000 times; it would not tend to show that I'm stupid- only that I have a propensity to misspeak.
How do you know if he misspoke or if he seriously didn't understand what he was talking about?
You see, you seem to believe it's possible to identify this but the fact is that the only reason you assume he misspoke was because there is important evidence in favour of the hypothesis that he is not stupid. Signal and noise.
As for you... the jury's still out.
17 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaThe possibility that Barack Obama really thinks that that costs can fall 3,000 percent or that he traveled to 57 states in the US is so remote as to be functionally nonexistent. The odds of that being the case are "about the same as discovering that the entire roster of the Baltimore Orioles consists of cleverly disguised leprechauns." United States v. Eisenhardt, 10 F. Supp. 2d 521 (D. Md. 1998).
Well, you evidently don't.
How do you know if he misspoke or if he seriously didn't understand what he was talking about?
You see, you seem to believe it's possible to identify this but the fact is that the only reason you assume he misspoke was because there is important evidence in favour of the hypothesis that he is not stupid. Signal and noise.
As for you... the jury's still out.
As such, I can make an assumption that his misstatement was not a result of his "seriously not understanding what he was talking about."
Your odd insult notwithstanding, you can rest assured that it is a mathematical certainty that I am not stupid.