And that's the last straw. I've chosen my candidate, and it's Fred. I was behind Fred early on, but I haven't been quite sure what to make of him since he officially entered the race. The media certainly aren't behind him, not in the way they've been behind Obama from day one, relentlessly referring to him as a "rising star," argh.
Sheesh. Folks, if you want more of the last eight years (and probably worse), by all means vote for Fred Thompson.
The very thought of another term with a president: completely devoid of intellectual curiosity, a vigorously and unapologetic one dimensional approach to foreign policy, in total servitude to the military industrial complex (aka corporate entitlement), and who simply doesn't give a crap about most of the duties and responsibilities that he or she is required to carry out...well...it makes me ill to the core. I honestly don't know if our country would survive it.
So, tell us, Mark, just how it is that you know these things about him. Did you just ask yourself questions until something "obvious" farted itself into your head?
Personally, I find his approach to gubmint service quite refreshing. In that regard, he is the complete opposite of a John Kerry or a Hillary Clingon. Our country survived Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, and Slick Willie Clinton, so I think it could survive ole' Fred quite well. But, I'm not the demagogue that you are.
The problem with Fred is, what does he stand for? He's for the war, and continuing the fight on terrorism, and he's made a few comments about other things here and there. He just doesn't seem to inspire people. He has the same ideas as all the rest, with a few differences here and that.
This current crop of candidates all just scare me, save for Paul. And if he wasn't running, I don't know who I'd vote for- probably none of them. They bring nothing new to the table. I don't even think any of them can beat any of the Democrats.
Go read about his positions. There are white papers on several topics linked there as well.
Paul doesn't scare me (because he's not electable) but even if he were, he could not accomplish anything. Normally I'm a big fan of gridlock, but now is not the time.
"The very thought of another term with a president: completely devoid of intellectual curiosity, a vigorously and unapologetic one dimensional approach to foreign policy,..."
Tell you what, you thimble-headed gherkin, tell me what "intellectual curiosity" is, and what you'd like to see its application put towards and maybe I won't dismiss crap like this out of hand.
And another thing, the next time ANYONE, and I mean anyone, wants to bring up how BJ Boy was SOOOOOOO much the intellectual, well, let me just say that there hasn't been a president in MY LIFETIME who has any more innate intelligence than me, or most of Kevin's readership, dimwit!
Shut up and stay in Minnesota, where you Viking immigrants like to sit around and ice fish.
(Be nice, B. thimble-headed gherkins get to express their opinions here, too. [I happen to love that Tam-ism, BTW] Show a little more civility, eh? Besides, I get the impression that Mark is not of Viking descent.)
Yes, it seems that Fred's positions are all there, but the MSM doesn't get them out the way they do with the "rising star" or the carpet bagger. Odd, that.
You'd think they'd be having little kittens over his Social Security plan, but I guess since they've decided he won't be a contender, they don't need to bother.
I'm sure that as soon as he becomes a contender, however, the howls, howls will be forthcoming.
"So, tell us, Mark, just how it is that you know these things about him"
I've watched hours of interviews with him, mostly on Fox News, as well as read numerous articles about him, both in newspapers and online. I've also spent some time looking through his site at his positions on the various issues. I have done this will all the candidates.
"Of the current crop, who's your pick?"
Obama is my favorite. Although I like Richardson and Giuliani as well. Thompson and Hillary are the worst on each side.
"He just doesn't seem to inspire people."
Save for the people that post here, conservatives are in a general state of yawn in regards to Fred Thompson. Matt's comment is absolutely correct.
"Tell you what, you thimble-headed gherkin, tell me what "intellectual curiosity" is"
First of all, I am about as Nordic as they come, Kevin :)
Intellectual curiosity, in terms of the presidency, should be someone who has an active interest in understanding the motivations of other cultures and its people. To put it another way, someone who is tenacious in learning the causes of the various geopolitical problems of the world, learning from history, and shaping a policy accordingly.
I do agree, though, that people that post here would be excellent additions in helping to shape that future, intelligence wise.
First of all, I am about as Nordic as they come, Kevin
It must have been that comment about the Scandanavian Mafia that misled me.
I do agree, though, that people that post here would be excellent additions in helping to shape that future, intelligence wise.
It must confound and annoy you that we are all so steadfastly against "progressivism" and unable to see the qualities you see in candidates like Obama.
I find it fascinating that in the conservative blogosphere Thompson seems to be the leader (that is, among the non-Ronulans.)
On the "intellectual curiosity" topic, I think you misjudge both Thompson and Bush, but then you've got a lot of help in the media on that.
"I've watched hours of interviews with him, mostly on Fox News, as well as read numerous articles about him, both in newspapers and online. I've also spent some time looking through his site at his positions on the various issues. I have done this will all the candidates."
Hmmm ...
I can't help but wonder why you have such a different opinion of him than does, oh, say Kevin, for example. Did you watch different interviews, perhaps? Or is it that you have a remarkably different conception of just what a President's job is?
I admit that I'm reasonably enthusiastic about Fred, but that's mostly because I'm not gung-ho for any politician in any circumstance. I favor removing the breed from the gene pool. Overall, I think he would do just fine. Mostly, a President should refrain from doing bad, and I think that is part of his approach to gubmint.
But ole' Fred has one thing going for him that none of the other candidates do, namely that he has not disqualified himself (per my standards, that is) by his "position" (damn, but I hate that word in this context) regarding the Second and First Amendments. Note the order, as it is significant. ANY politician who would disarm me or shut me up will NOT get my support, EVER.
"Intellectual curiosity, in terms of the presidency, should be someone who has an active interest in understanding the motivations of other cultures and its people. To put it another way, someone who is tenacious in learning the causes of the various geopolitical problems of the world, learning from history, and shaping a policy accordingly."
Mark, give us some warning, willya? Goddamn, man, my sides are split from my crotch to my eyeballs and I still can't stop laughing. Why, who would have thought such a priceless gem, "learning from history", would come from YOU!
Dude, it's almost a new year (well, a new label, anyway). Is it too much to expect that YOU will learn from the history you have spent here this year, or are you gonna give us another year of the same old blather?
"It must confound and annoy you that we are all so steadfastly against "progressivism" and unable to see the qualities you see in candidates like Obama."
Not really. I think if you took the time to really study what he had to say and what he would like to do, I think you would find more in common with him than you think.Actually, I've had this vision of many of you sitting in a room with him and listening to each other. It would be very interesting to hear what he would have to say to some folks here. I know I would enjoy it!
"but then you've got a lot of help in the media on that."
I don't pay much attention to the media. Actually, I recall forwarding some articles to you that were positive towards Fred. It's what he says, especially the Fox News interview with Hannity a while back, that really shapes my opinion. He is the exact opposite of what this country needs right now. Hillary is also included in this category.
"Is it too much to expect that YOU will learn from the history you have spent here this year, or are you gonna give us another year of the same old blather?"
History or your version of history? No doubt, I have learned a lot here and consider myself to be a more open minded person.
What I find side splittingly funny is that you have not learned anything nor do you want to learn anything from history, especially recent history. You are, as always DJ, steadfast and unwavering in your beliefs.
Mark, you are an Obama supporter, and yet you call Fred's positions unclear? Are you serious?
Fred has clear and consistent positions on every issue. Go to his website. Now, you'd most likely disagree with all of them, but you cannot say he does not have positions. Your statement is simply untrue.
You want to talk about unclear positions your man is far and away the best in the race for that. He's an empty headed pretty boy, and you can tell him I said that. He'd probably just give us that little smile and talk about the Audacity of Hope.
I first and foremost want a conservative, and I mean that in the real sense of someone who will curb the growth of the federal government, and roll it back. I mean a real trimming of bloated programs, useless deadwood in the bureaucracy and overall a promotion of self-reliance among the American people. I'm sick and tired of having morons get in my face and tell me they have the right to things like health care, education, and entertainment. I see this election as a real crossroads. All the Democrats are socialist, to their core. I am a student of history, but maybe not your history Mark, and I see what socialism does to countries. It kills them, slowly, but it kills them.It takes away economic growth, it kills the individual spirit, it makes the state the driving force in public life.
I'm sick of seeing politicians (mostly the Democrats, but a lot of Republicans) buy votes with my money. Because when Hillary ran her Christmas ad, I pounded my fist on the desk. Because she sat there and proposed to give people all these things, with my money. Obama is no different. Obama is not a moderate, he is not a centrist. He sounds nice, but he is just as bad as Hilary. The only question is whether stupidity or malice is more destructive to the Republic.
"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."- Alexis de Tocqueville
"History or your version of history? No doubt, I have learned a lot here and consider myself to be a more open minded person.
What I find side splittingly funny is that you have not learned anything nor do you want to learn anything from history, especially recent history. You are, as always DJ, steadfast and unwavering in your beliefs."
I've told you before, Mark, several times, that I'm a student of history. It's a sincere interest, one of my hobbies, and it has been since before you were born.
All the beliefs that I hold on any subject are tentative, pending acquisition of new data and/or re-evaluation of old data, as it is with any competent engineer. The point is that what I believe results through logical reasoning from facts that I can verify. I do not understand any other way to approach reality, and so it takes more than bullshit to budge me.
You can indeed convince me that I'm wrong about anything, including history, but to do so requires the same kind of logical reasoning from facts that I can verify. Many of us have tried and tried to teach you that, to convince you of both the correctness and the necessity of that approach, but you apparently reject the concept as thoroughly as you refuse to practice it.
What I hope you understand, regardless of how it appears, is that we do not hammer on you as some sort of sport, rather we have been trying for a long time to get you to understand our approach to understanding reality. So far, you give little evidence of understanding it, and even less of adopting it. I honestly don't expect you to adopt it, but I sincerely hope that one day you'll give some evidence of understanding it. Your latest comment shows clearly that you don't.
All of this discussion about "history" is very interesting. There is a certain attitude with some folks here that I find to be quite, well, arrogant actually. Basically, many of the arguments that have been put forth in direct contrast to my own have used, as the foundation, "history."
In other words, "history" proves that you are right and I am wrong. And yet, in all my time of studying history, all that I have found that it really proves is that history is not simple. Nor is one viewpoint exclusively right...which seems to be the prevailing opinion here.
Howard Zinn's book, The People's History of the United States, is a great example of how "history" is not always clear. He is also a great example of how someone, who doesn't meet your pre-approved version of history, is trashed and called a traitor/communist/socialist/murderer/rapist/pedophile/destroyer of all wholesome goodness. So how could anything he says possibly true?
DJ, I could use logical reasoning to deduce that JFK was the victim of a coup d'etat. Everyone here would laugh at me. Why? Because Americans don't kill their own presidents and anyone that thinks so is conspiracy kook. Yeah, sounds logical to me. And you think I'm naive?
Britt, have you read Obama's books? Have you read through his web site?
Yeah, his book was pabulum. I also happened to have met with him. See I'm from Richmond, Virginia. Jim Webb is the new Senator, and Barack came out to campaign for him.
Anyway I talked to him for a couple minutes, which was cool, him being a sitting US Senator. I told him I would not be voting for him, and that I didn't like some of his ideas. Then he did the one political thing that pisses me off more then any otherthing. Well ok, there is a long list of stuff like that.
What he said was that I demonstrated the need for bipartisanship, and he waxed rhapsodic on that for a while. So I responded.
Here's the thing about that word "bipartisanship". When a Dem says it, he means "shut up and be a liberal". Because there are differences, there are different policies to follow. Often these options to not have room to compromise. You cannot "sort of" fight the War on Terror. You cannot "sort of" have gun control. Politics is the battle of ideas, and it is not supposed to be a nice fuzzy we're all together thing. Parties form to put their ideas forth. I don't like it when people call for bipartisanship because to me that just sounds like someone who wants me to shut up and go along with whatever thing he wants to impose on me. Well I don't like that. I tend to stand on my hind legs and give people the finger when they pat me on the head and tell me they know what is best for me.
That patronizing, infantilizing attitude is what I can't stand from Obama, Hillary, and indeed all of nanny state socialists that infest what was once a decent party.
That is why I like Fred. He doesn't treat adults like children, he treats them like adults. He is humble, he doesn't want to rule, he wants to serve.
"DJ, I could use logical reasoning to deduce that JFK was the victim of a coup d'etat."
Logical reasoning proceeds from verifiable facts to conclusions. You could try to do that, buy you've failed dismally most of the times you've tried it in the past.
"Everyone here would laugh at me. Why?"
Because, if you behaved as you have done in the past: 1) you would not present the facts from which you reasoned such that we could verify them; 2) you would present endless argument as to why you shouldn't present those facts; and, 3) your reasoning would not be logical.
"Because Americans don't kill their own presidents and anyone that thinks so is conspiracy kook."
Americans do kill their own Presidents, but it is rare. It has happened four times, as I recall, once when I was in the fifth grade. They were Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, William McKinley, and John Kennedy.
Are you seriously suggesting that we would present the argument that the assassination of John Kennedy was not a conspiracy because Americans don't kill their own Presidents?
"Yeah, sounds logical to me. And you think I'm naive?"
You have just proved you are naive.
Now, did you have some reason for tossing out this bullshit?
"Intellectual curiosity, in terms of the presidency, should be someone who has an active interest in understanding the motivations of other cultures and its people. To put it another way, someone who is tenacious in learning the causes of the various geopolitical problems of the world, learning from history, and shaping a policy accordingly."
In other words, intellectual curiosity insn't really intellectual curiosity since you are just attempting to redefine the issue by saying that being PC and sensitive to the "world's minorities", or some other rot, and placating those who have about as much civility as a loin-wearing Cro-Magnon will somehow bring peace to the world.
Is that about right, Mark?
Fuzzy bunnies in your world.
BTW, Mark, there is almost NO difference, in any actual terms of ANY policy they are proposing, betweeen Shrillary and your horse, Obama, the Commie dujour.
Y'know, when we look back at Presidents who were hailed for their intellectual curiosity, the record isn't too kind about their performance.
Clinton, obviously, was a big brain whose performance was abysmal.
But also Nixon, probably one of the greatest intellects to sit in the Oval Office.
LBJ, while never accused of being a Deep Thinkur, was a guy who breathed, ate, and slept politics 24/7/365, and his legacy was the loss in Viet Nam and Federally-built and -owned vertical ghettoes blighting American metropolises.
Contrast that record with Presidents who were considered mental bantamweights: Truman,Eisenhower, Reagan, and (in his day), Lincoln.
And yes, Bush #43. I'm one of the few people who are of the opinion that W has done okay. Not great...he's definitely stepped on his dick a few times, both foreign and domestically, but on the whole, he's turned in a creditable performance.
What I find attractive about Fred, and it may be a Southern cultural bias, but I get the vibe that the man does not like to be rushed into anything.
That's a very Southern trait. It can be a distinct weakness, granted, but on the whole, and especially in the domestic sphere, I would rather a President who can resist being bull-dogged. Take our time, talk it over, chew it up good , spit it out and discuss the flavor and splat-pattern a spell.
Then sleep on it.
If it then still seems like a good idea, THEN make it law or policy.
Frankly, this is the opposite vibe I get from Giuliani.
I don't think any candidate on either side can match the cred of Rudy as the man who calls the tribe together to do what must be done and bear what must be borne...he was, after all, the man of the hour on our darkest day this century, and all eyes turned to him.
He didn't let his city, (or his nation), down in the crunch.
But I think the GOP would be making a bad mistake if Fred isn't on the ticket in November.
Your crew of Democrats?
They'd all be runners up for my vote after Ron Paul and Tony Blair.
Logic and reasoning aren't rhetorical devices that you can use to arrive at whatever conclusion you suspect or find most appealing, they're a formal system for analyzing and understanding reality. The rules are easy to find, they're agreed upon across positions by people who have learned and can apply the concepts. In universities, you sometimes find logic taught in the math department and sometimes in the philosophy department; this is because it's equally useful to the evaluation of natural law and of ideas. Complaining that someone is making you use logic- or that they're only doing it to "win" unfairly, or that they won't accept "your" logic- is like complaining that the other players in a game of football won't let you evade tackling by picking up the ball, leaving the field, and departing on the crosstown bus.
During World War II, a lot of remote South Pacific islands that had been of absolutely no relevance to the rest of the world suddenly became important as refueling stops. Small tribes that had had no contact with anything outside their small worlds were suddenly inundated with military bases, strange people, bearing strange and fascinating items- cargo- that they had never seen before. When the war ended and the militaries left, some of the tribes built elaborate "airstrips" and "planes" and "radio towers" out of whatever local material was available. They were trying to make the cargo come back- they aped the form, having no understanding of the substance. The phenomenon is referred to in anthropology as "cargo cults".
We don't reject your arguments because we're threatened by them, we don't do it because we're not open-minded, we don't do it because that would be betraying the "side". (Most of us here don't have a "side", other than "not strongly leftist".) We do it because they don't work as real logic anymore than bamboo planes will fly- you've aped the form with none of the substance, and still don't understand the problem.
Intellectual curiosity, in terms of the presidency, should be someone who has an active interest in understanding the motivations of other cultures and its people. To put it another way, someone who is tenacious in learning the causes of the various geopolitical problems of the world, learning from history, and shaping a policy accordingly.
Interesting, Markadelphia would like to see the return of Dr. Kissinger. Who'd'a thunk it. ;-)
OK, but seriously, there is a note that has been struck here by Mark, and echoed by others - and that has to do with the role of the President. Mark, and others of not so left of center persuasions seem to believe that we need someone inspirational or even charismatic. What is interesting is that this suggests a very, very old myth - superbly portrayed in the movie "The Lion King": the myth of the rightful ruler. This is a myth (some might say affliction) of both left and right. What is fascinating is the power this myth continues to exert over supposedly modern man.
You can go back through these threads and find places where, for instance, DJ and I have disagreed. You should note how we responded to each other in those cases.
Mark, you're all talk, no action. (Notably, you then insist you want action, not all talk.) You insult us by saying we don't understand history, when we've spent a lot of the last year schooling you in that exact subject.
You *consistently* fail to understand basic concepts. But you can't understand that you can't build upon faulty bad concepts.
If you pour a unstable foundation, and then keep trying to add stories to a building, what will happen?
You at some depth understand this, because you run away when you get pinned against some blatantly obvious flaw in your argument.
All of your complaints about Thompson echo totally those of other people. I've got 1 problem with Thompson, that's gotten almost no comment by anybody else.
But Mark, just think about it like this:
If you think that we really can get these things done by talking and consensus, why are you supporting a candidate who's called for/sponsored legislation/stumped on the need to make people behave in a way that the consensus doesn't agree with?
My biggest point for supporting Fred, who's the best candidate, with the 2nd best platform is simple. (I'll pick and choose the good parts of Paul's, and give him the award for the "best").
He has not shaped his whole life toward becoming President. (Or even a large fraction of it.) His decisions haven't been shaped for 40 years to best position him for a Presidential run. He's got a better idea of the "right" idea for a President than any of the others.
Britt, I think your LDS (liberal derangement syndrome) has gotten the better of you. Obama actually believes in bipartisanship. Hillary does not, I'll give you that.
And your comments on the war on terror and gun control prove that conservatives are more "Shut up and do what your told" than Democrats. It's my way or the highway, right?
DJ,
"verifiable facts to conclusions"
Anytime you want me to pile a mountain of them on you, in regards to JFK, just say the word.
"Now, did you have some reason for tossing out this bullshit?"
My reason for tossing out this bullshit is that your view of history is selective. Oh, and by Americans, I meant that there were a group of them that killed JFK, not just Oswald.
"Is that about right, Mark?"
No, it isn't. It's not about PC cultural sensitivity. It's about understanding our enemy. Right now we have an administration (and supporters) who have a childish understanding of the region with one central goal.
Bilge, good points all around and your assessment of past presidents is astute, save for LBJ, who I view as pretty much even with 43 on the intelligence level. I completely agree with your assessment of Our Mayor. If it comes down to him and Hillary, I will vote for him.
Lab, also good points. I will endeavor to take them to heart.
Juris, true. All too true. But Obama's message is one of finding your own inspiration...inside of yourself. It's not his job.In fact, if spend time really studying him, he is NOT about entitlement at all. His one simple goal is to open up government again to regular people (i.e. not lobbyists). Everything else, including the shared dream here of less and more efficient government, could come from this.
I completely agree with your assessment of Our Mayor. If it comes down to him and Hillary, I will vote for him.
Let me take this opportunity to remind the both of you that on Sept 10th, New Yorkers couldn't get rid of Giuliani fast enough. All of his 'heroic leadership' occurred in the waning days of his administration (and of all things, he was praised for NOT putting off elections and turning over his office). Excuse me, but F*** that! I really can't imagine voting for Hillary, but if the choice is her or Giuliani I'll do so in a New York Minute.
"Anytime you want me to pile a mountain of them on you, in regards to JFK, just say the word."
You brought up the subject of the JFK assassination, I didn't. I have NO interest in that subject whatever and I never have. My comments were addressed toward your manner of thinking, not toward your thoughts on that subject. It is quite telling that you didn't understand that, and so missed the point completely.
Oh, and note that attempting to change the subject didn't work this time either. Same old shit, different day, same old result.
Bilgerman:
"Y'know, when we look back at Presidents who were hailed for their intellectual curiosity, the record isn't too kind about their performance."
Don't forget Woodrow Wilson.
Kevin:
"That would be his support for McCain/Feingold?"
Bingo. But he had the grace to admit the error. When did you ever hear such from any of the other candidates?
"Anybody taking bets on the outcome of that New Year's Resolution?"
Suddenly, he's reformed. Naah, I'll try the lottery; the odds are better.
Amazingly, you were able to guess what I was bothered by! How about that.
Mark, pay attention. Kevin's just done something that you haven't.
Kevin: Somewhat sadly he's never - really - admitted error. He's said, IIRC, "We should have done it differently." But he (at least) has what McCain doesn't, the ability to realize that it was (in my view unconstitutional), but a amazingly poor law with the opposite effect as intended.
Mark: Obama actually believes in bipartisanship.
You say that based upon WHAT, other than his own STATEMENTS?
Really. I want some proof. Proof that he's willing to work with the other party. Not that he, or anybody supporting him says that he'll work with the other party.
Want to see bipartisanship? See President Bush. Either one. Both were/have been exemplary bipartisan. Based on your comments about Bush, it demonstrates that either you don't know what bipartisanship is, or you don't place the importance on that that you claim to.
And your comments on the war on terror and gun control prove that conservatives are more "Shut up and do what your told" than Democrats.
We're back to being Nazi's again?
I don't know what you're referring to, other than Obama and Clinton have both given public talks lauding the concepts of removing arms from the peons in this country. (In all fairness, McCain and Guilani are in the same boat.)
Anytime you want me to pile a mountain of them on you, in regards to JFK, just say the word.
The Word.
I want to see you provide proof as to anything. Proof. You're going to have a hard time with that. Proof.
My reason for tossing out this bullshit is that your view of history is selective.
Irony is not an element on the Periodic Table, Mark.
No, it isn't. It's not about PC cultural sensitivity. It's about understanding our enemy. Right now we have an administration (and supporters) who have a childish understanding of the region with one central goal.
Childish? Central Goal?
http://assistantvillageidiot.blogspot.com/2007/12/lenore-from-san-fran.html
Juris, true. All too true. But Obama's message is one of finding your own inspiration...inside of yourself. It's not his job.In fact, if spend time really studying him, he is NOT about entitlement at all.
http://www.extrememortman.com/presidential-election/the-obama-domino-theory/ “We’ve got to make sure that people who have more money help the people who have less money,” Obama said. “If you had a whole pizza, and your friend had no pizza, would you give him a slice?
His one simple goal is to open up government again to regular people (i.e. not lobbyists). Everything else, including the shared dream here of less and more efficient government, could come from this.
(Yet, and yet, and yet, and yet) Again, you've never proven you can piece together someone's motivation from evidence.
So tell me, who told you that that was Obama's goal? And what proof did they use?
(And, um, Mark? Lobbyists... aren't in government. That's why they're lobbyists. They... Lobby legislatures and regulatory agencies. So "opening up" government to "regular people" is a non-sequitur, at best.)
No, it isn't. It's not about PC cultural sensitivity. It's about understanding our enemy. Right now we have an administration (and supporters) who have a childish understanding of the region with one central goal."
Oh, please, enlighten me then, Mark, about what it is that I'm apparently not understanding about the death-cult Islamists who are very much running the show in the Mid-East.
Honestly, you may be right about some of what you say regarding the "understanding" part, but you are delusional if you believe someone has the ablility to step in to the snake pit and somehow wave the magic wand and make the jihadists stop doing their bit with the semtex sweaters.
Quit being so naive about your charasmatic-leader-as-Jesus bit that you've being carrying on about for YEARS here at Kevin's place. It's not a realistic expectation, and if you think it IS, then you've obviously been a victim of a cult of personality (no doubt Bill, or to a lesser degree, Obama), which is something that you can read about in the history books.
(Months. Even though it seems like years, he's only been here a few months! ;) )
U-J: You say that based upon WHAT, other than his own STATEMENTS?
Actually, as I recall, at the start of this Congressional session he signed on with one of the non-leadership Republicans on some Senate reform initiative [ear-mark transparency maybe?]. He backpedalled away from it in a big hurry when Reid and the rest of the Dem leadership called him on it too.
Then again, a lot of bipartisanship talk reminds me of Franklin's observation on democracy.
His one simple goal is to open up government again to regular people (i.e. not lobbyists).
The NRA acts as a lobby. I am a "regular person." The NRA acts on my behalf, since I can't go to Washington D.C. and influence elected officials directly. In fact, the NRA does the job far better than I alone could, because it represents 3.5 million members, and an unknown number of people who share my personal beliefs (and vote) but who are not members. The NRA lets our elected officials know what we want.
You may not like that, but to counter the NRA is the VPC, the Brady Campaign, etc.
The difference is that those groups don't represent many voters - and the #1 job of any elected official is to keep getting re-elected.
I have no problem with lobbyists, as long as they're honest. Of course, that's a difficult thing to ensure.
Just to add to Kevin's point, the unquestioned 800lb gorilla of Washington lobbyists is...
The American Association of Retired Persons.
AARP.
I'd like to see you defend youself from the little-old blue-haired lady when you criticize her evil lobby. And AARP, like the NRA, derives it's political power not from money, but from it's membership. Kind of like unions do Mark.
juris and Kevin are both correct - but therein lies part of the rub.
They are formulating a rational "rebuttal" - but Mark's original statement was non-rational and incoherent.
To use LabRat's comparision, they're trying to discuss the finer points of airspace management with the native with the bamboo radar screen. He thinks what he's doing is the same thing, but it's all in his mind.
What Mark is describing is not any sort of plan for a President. (Much as Paul's statement that he would "Outlaw the IRS", it's utterly meaningless. The President can't outlaw the IRS (as much as I'd support that goal).
By that same token, "Getting Lobbyists out of Government" is utterly meaningless. They're not in government. They exist because of what the structure of government. And most importantly in this discussion: the more power government has, the more power "Lobbys" have.
Thus, Obama's "claim" (since it's through Mark, I'm taking it with a small mountain of salt) that he'll (presumably reduce the power) of Lobbyists is a nice speech. Unrelated to what his plans are going to be.
" And AARP, like the NRA, derives it's political power not from money, but from it's membership. Kind of like unions do Mark."
Uhh, as a 20 year rank and filer, there's one great big difference between being a Union member and an NRA member:
When you get tired of their "beggar mailings" clotting up your mailbox,you can just leave the NRA.
I did.
When you get tired of the union's bullshit,(and Lord, am I ever!), you have to give up your job to leave.
If Right to Work were national and Federal, or barring that, the AFL-CIO would abolish Article 20 of the Merger, (the No-Raiding Clause), union PACs would shrivel away like a fart in a typhoon.
Or else they'd stop spending memberships' funds to get non-union member fast-food workers a raise.
Thus, Obama's "claim" (since it's through Mark, I'm taking it with a small mountain of salt) that he'll (presumably reduce the power) of Lobbyists is a nice speech.
Exactly. A nice speech to induce the naive into voting for him. No particular fault in that, it's what nearly every politician does. What's sad is that the gullible fools gobble it up the way they do.
Bilgerman: I was referring more to the way union political endorsements used to work. Politicians paid attention because there were votes at stake. Seems to still be that way with AFSCME/NEA [a particular dig if Markadelphia is a teacher], even if the trades are all but dead.
While you're thinking on it, consider again what I've tried hard to get you to understand. If you're right, then you don't need bullshit. If you're wrong, then bullshit won't make you right.
Now, consider the implications of that. If you think you need to use bullshit to convince us you're right, then you're not thinking, or you're not right, or you're both.
So, don't just jerk your knees again. Put some effort into HOW you might convince us of something. Perhaps you've not noticed, but our bullshit detectors are deployed, and they work.
"why are you supporting a candidate who's called for/sponsored legislation/stumped on the need to make people behave in a way that the consensus doesn't agree with?"
Unix-Well, I guess I just don't see that at all. Obama is not about MAKING people believe anything. And I'm not sure I understand what you mean by consensus.
"My comments were addressed toward your manner of thinking"
DJ-Clearly, that is a major difference between the two of us-we think differently. Our perception of events and how we interpret them are at opposite poles.
"You say that based upon WHAT, other than his own STATEMENTS?"
Unix, not exclusively that. Look at the way he behaves, his actions...study him for awhile. Read his books. It's just not in his personality to be all that partisan.
Sometimes I wonder if the real issue with an Obama presidency would be the inevitable end (gasp!) of the childishness of conservative pundits and followers. You can almost see this in their criticisms of him. They are restrained and sort of forced, like the really don't know what to do. I think Obama scares the hell out of the right and I love it. What ever will they do?
"Want to see bipartisanship? See President Bush."
Um, Unix, you can't be serious. This statement, if you seriously believe it, shows that you quite literally have not been paying attention to what has been going on in DC for the last 8 years.
"The Word.
I want to see you provide proof as to anything. Proof. You're going to have a hard time with that. Proof."
Alright, then I suggest that if we are to have this discussion, a few things should be set up. First, I want an OK from Kevin to turn this into a JFK conspiracy thread. Or to set up another one. Second, an agreed upon definition of proof. I define proof, in regards to the JFK assassination as evidence, eyewitnesses, ear witnesses, the suspect (Oswald) and the dead body itself. CSI type stuff. Agreed?
"What it is that I'm apparently not understanding about the death-cult Islamists who are very much running the show in the Mid-East."
B, The fact that you ask this question means that you don't really have a clear idea of what is going on over there. If you are interested, research start with the history of US-Saudi relations, paying particular attention to the deal Nixon made with them in the 70s. I would also suggest that you get to know some people who come from the region. Ask their perspective. Be reflective. Remember, learning is a relatively permanent change in an organism due to EXPERIENCE.
"If you're right, then you don't need bullshit..."
Well, we agree there. But I don't think what I am saying is bullshit. You do.
And you might want to look under the hood at your deployed bullshit detector. It seems that one of the filters on it is defective...forgiving many things from one side and absolutely nothing from the other.
"DJ-Clearly, that is a major difference between the two of us-we think differently. Our perception of events and how we interpret them are at opposite poles."
No shit? Really?
Now, read these two quotes carefully, Mark:
Me: "If you're right, then you don't need bullshit ..."
You: "Well, we agree there. But I don't think what I am saying is bullshit. You do."
Apparently, what you don't understand is what I mean by "Bullshit", and this:
"And you might want to look under the hood at your deployed bullshit detector. It seems that one of the filters on it is defective...forgiving many things from one side and absolutely nothing from the other."
makes that (ahem!) obvious. In fairness to you, it's possible that you've not understood my use of this term in this context for a long time, and that could be my fault for not explaining it.
So, I'll try to 'splain it.
By the term "bullshit", in this context, I do not mean what it is that you would have us believe, rather I mean the manner and method by which you try to convince us to believe it. It applies to the process, not the content.
Now, if you don't understand that, if the distinction therein is just lost on you, then just say so and don't bother reading further.
I won't bother explaining again in detail what I mean by "the manner and method by which you try to convince us to believe it". I've done that already, many times. If you've forgotten, then go read the summary thereof again. You'll find it at http://www.haloscan.com/comments/khbaker/4504295673427610819/#584483
As I've stated before, many times, you're entitled to your own opinion. Like assholes, everybody has one, and they seldom withstand close scrutiny. But you are not entitled to your own facts. When you shovel out words by the hundredweight that you would have us believe are facts, but you don't support them, won't support them, and won't cooperate with us to verify them, and when you would have us believe that you know what other people think, what they want, and what motivates them, when you can't possibly know such things, and, finally, when all you offer in support is more such words, more blather, that process is what "bullshit" is. It's just spouting opinion, and the output is not worth examining closely any more than is the orifice whence it came.
You're right, Mark. Our perception of events and of reality are different from yours. Our evaluations are fact-based and logic-based and so are our methods of discussing them. Your methods are not, and we can't seem to convince you that this is the gulf that separates us. I stated to you many moons ago that what you think might merit scrutiny, but it's not worth wading through your "bullshit" to find out.
Get the facts, Mark. Show 'em to us. Don't just blather onward, show us how we can verify 'em. If you're right, that oughta be easy, but if you can't do it, then perhaps you're not right.
U-J: why are you supporting a candidate who's called for/sponsored legislation/stumped on the need to make people behave in a way that the consensus doesn't agree with?"
Mark: Unix-Well, I guess I just don't see that at all. Obama is not about MAKING people believe anything. And I'm not sure I understand what you mean by consensus.
This is very simple, Mark. If, as you say, Obama was about consensus, then there would be very little need to force people to give pizzas away. Outlaw guns. Any of his current, stated, policy platform.
Since Obama's stated platform is to force DJ, and LabRat, and Kevin, and you and I, because we don't agree, and thus aren't in consensus, this means your platitude is shown to be illusory in nature.
It's that simple. You can't claim he's out for "bipartisanship consensus", when his plans are extremely biased toward government control, oversight and new programs for said same. You could claim that you prefer the control, make arguments for that, but that's not what you're claiming.
U-J: You say that based upon WHAT, other than his own STATEMENTS?
Mark: Unix, not exclusively that. Look at the way he behaves, his actions...study him for awhile. Read his books. It's just not in his personality to be all that partisan.
According to who? I said, give me something other than what he's said to demonstrate that. Your reply is to cite his books? That's exactly what I asked you not to give me, and it's the first thing you came up with.
Along with "proof" from your depth of "Knowing the questions to ask yourself (Mark)". It's just not in his personality to be all that partisan.
Mark, you can like the guy fine. But that doesn't make him "Bipartisan". What proof would you demonstrate to me that he's bipartisan?
Sometimes I wonder if the real issue with an Obama presidency would be the inevitable end (gasp!) of the childishness of conservative pundits and followers.
You didn't read those AVI links, did you? Childishness? (much less that it would be "inevitably ended").
How, Mark? For the sake of this point and this point alone, let's (erroneously in fact, but for the sake of argument) assume you're right. Everybody who disagrees with you is "childish".
How will Obama inevitably cause this to end?
Explain to me, please, how, other than your hero-worship (that you project to us for Bush, a man most of us here aren't that fond of, nor support that much), that Obama could inevitably cause this to end?
I think Obama scares the hell out of the right and I love it. What ever will they do?
He doesn't "scare the hell" out of me. I believe you think that, but you've been utterly incapable of learning that your ability to analyze is woefully inadequate. I just feel he's totally out of his league for President, running for the wrong reasons, and unlikely to be successful for those reasons. He's running on a platform that's very liberal, very anti-liberty. (And that's even aside from what shouldn't matter to us, but you're the one telling us we don't understand the rest of the world: In the eyes of the Islamics, he's a apostate. One who was raised in the faith and who rejected it. To us, meaningless. To the countries you're presuming he'll magically cause the US to "regain stature", mayhap nowhere near as much as you'd think. But then, I don't know anything about Islam, do I?)
U-J: Want to see bipartisanship? See President Bush.
Mark: Um, Unix, you can't be serious. This statement, if you seriously believe it, shows that you quite literally have not been paying attention to what has been going on in DC for the last 8 years.
No, Mark, it does. Bush (both of them) extended just about every olive branch possible, and were demonized for it. "No Child Left Behind?" "McCain-Feingold"? Hell, Bush has allowed the Federal Judiciary to be backlogged and paralyzed rather than forcing the issue with the malpracticing Senate Democrats. Iraq War? 77-23.. Kyoto? 95-0 in the Senate. Against.
No, Mark, the "division" of the country didn't come from Bush. There are very few items you could legitimately point to that in any real way were decisively "divisive", nowhere near as many as should have been seen with a divided Executive/Judiciary. In almost all cases, Bush did not start, and tried to minimize the division.
If you'd like to argue that, then start bringing up examples. I've given you several to support my way of thinking. Demonstrate to me how Bush deliberately divided the country. I think you'll run from this, because of the constant drumbeat of division that's come from the Democrats since 2000.
I would also suggest that you get to know some people who come from the region. Ask their perspective. Be reflective. Remember, learning is a relatively permanent change in an organism due to EXPERIENCE.
Easy for you to say, but you've yet to demonstrate learning. Ah kin it'all be strange and all to yew, but I rightly shore reckon that Ah've knewn quite a few of dem-dare A-rabs and Turkmen, Persians, and hells-fire boy, but I've even been known to know some of them there "Palestintians".
Shucks. Even chatted with 'em a few times. Traded recipes with 'em. Even related to some of them Persian-sorts. Rightly nough good folk, if a might tiched in the 'ead.
But at the end Mark, despite your insults, what I asked of you - and DJ pleaded with you to consider - you ignored. You witnessed that Obama has said what you said that he said, when I asked you for proof that it was more than mere words. You've failed to note the reality of more than this situation, and failed to accurately predict, well, just about everything. But you continue with your prediction based upon what is essentially Messiah-hood and charismatic words. And it's I who "quite literally haven't been paying attention".
Sorry, Kev. Shouldn't have challenged him to the JFK nonsense here. My bad.
Mark:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/khbaker/1679833497815732710/?a=40113#585660
Click on that. Read it. Try and understand what it says. Try and restate it. Research it if you want.
LabRat's dead on here, I hate to tell you. You've built your bamboo "control tower", and you've got your headset on, and you're clearing planes to land to bring you goodies...
But you're talking to no-one, because you don't understand what made those towers work. The Radios. The Headsets.
Let me just reiterate one thing to you: I asked you to demonstrate to me some proof that your oft-stated belief that Obama would be "bipartisan", other than what he's said.
You referred me to his books.
It's not that your tower is made of Bamboo, it's that you don't know how to contact the planes, you don't understand how to think logically, and for all your insults to us about "education" and "learning from others", you've steadfastly kept building more and more bamboo and rock planes.
Even when we tried to show you flight tracking, and explain trade, and tell you the war's over, and that you'll need to do something different to get the cargo planes in now. "Nonsense! They'll be back! We just have to DO THIS RIGHT!" We tried to build you model airplanes to demonstrate lift and thrust, how jet engines work. You instead tried to make a more realistic DC-3.
Seriously, Mark. I asked you for something other than Obama's words, and you referred me to the books he wrote.
If you weren't in a "Cargo Cult" of logic, that would be immediately apparent to you.
Hey, Kevin, no problem. And sorry as well. Anytime, Unix, my blog or yours, just let me know. Although if we do mine, it would have to be after Iowa and New Hampshire as I have some things planned for the next week.
DJ-
"But you are not entitled to your own facts."
Nor are you, sir.
"Our evaluations are fact-based and logic-based and so are our methods of discussing them"
"Your methods are not"
I couldn't disagree more. You begin with the belief that nothing good can every come from liberalism and you go from there. Because you (and Unix) suffer from confirmation bias, you seek out information that supports your belief. Yes, some of it is true. Some of it is not. Some of it is only half the picture. And some of the links, like Unix's above (yes I did read them) are conservative blogs. I can't link to liberal blogs, can I, lest I be accused of not sticking to the facts? Hmm...seems unfair.
I understand the process, DJ. The problem occurs when I introduce a fact into the process that doesn't jibe with your belief system. Thus, it is deemed not a fact, bullshit, and the vilification begins.
Unix, we each of a perception of Obama that is vastly different. Oh well. Since the chief issue on this blog is gun control, I think you would all find it interesting that he has no link for gun control on his web site in his issues section. I don't think it is all that important to him. I think I could safely say that not much would change were he president in this area.
As far as the bipartisan thing goes, how about his work with Richard Lugar? I forgot about that one. Or his views on abortion? I know this might be a difficult concept for you to grasp but the man isn't built to be a divider. It's just not in him.
"He's running on a platform that's very liberal, very anti-liberty"
Wow. Clearly not listening at all. Such a shame....
"No, Mark, the "division" of the country didn't come from Bush."
Yes, Unix, it fucking well did. It started with him and Rove and the whole divide and conquer mentality. They used conservative pundits as lap dogs, swift boating anyone who disagreed with them, and employing appeal to fear as a way to maintain the support they did have. And the Democrats let them because, for the most part, they are a bunch of spineless turds.
Our current president has little regard for the legislative branch of our government. He doesn't have to worry about the courts as he has his friends on there or has bought the votes he needs. He and Cheney have pretty much done whatever they have wanted to do with no oversight.
And they put people in place in the executive branch...many of whom oddly seem to come from Pat Robertson's university...who are good "Bushies" ...who will do anything he says.
"because of the constant drumbeat of division that's come from the Democrats since 2000."
Oh, God my stomach still hurts from laughter on this one. Democrats, in their typical naivete, stuck to the issues and look what happened? Ten Years of the Republican slime and fear machine. The only reason why groups like MoveON.org are around is because conservatives had groups like that first. Please...
"I understand the process, DJ. The problem occurs when I introduce a fact into the process that doesn't jibe with your belief system. Thus, it is deemed not a fact, bullshit, and the vilification begins."
NO, MARK, A MILLION TIMES, NO.
Damnit, man, try to understand plain English.
The problem occurs: 1) when you state what you would have us believe is a fact but you won't support it by showing us where and/or how we can verify it; or, 2) when you state what you would have us believe is a fact when you can't possibly know it to be true or false.
You provide a gorgeous example just above:
"You begin with the belief that nothing good can every (sic) come from liberalism and you go from there."
You attributed a belief to me which only I can know the truth or falseness of, and you have never once asked me whether or not I believe it. For the record, I don't believe the statement you have attributed to me.
Goddamn, man, are you really this dense? Do you really not understand what I've been stating to you?
"Since the chief issue on this blog is gun control, I think you would all find it interesting that he has no link for gun control on his web site in his issues section. I don't think it is all that important to him. I think I could safely say that not much would change were he president in this area."
Perhaps the reason there is no "link for gun control" on his web site is that he doesn't want voters to think of him and gun control in the same thought. Why not? Perhaps because his record is unabashadly anti-gun, and perhaps because he wants to win.
Try googling "Obama gun control" and spend five minutes digging and verifying.
"Our current president has little regard for the legislative branch of our government. He doesn't have to worry about the courts as he has his friends on there or has bought the votes he needs. He and Cheney have pretty much done whatever they have wanted to do with no oversight."
Count 'em, Mark:
1) How do you know what our President has "regard for"? Can you read his mind?
2) How do you know that he has bought votes? Got any proof, meaning facts that we can verify?
3) George W. Bush is the President, Mark. Dick Cheney is the Vice-President. Bush is the head of one branch of the Federal Gubmint. NOBODY has oversight over the President except the voters.
Might I add, because this is a point that I think has gone wanting and is a big part of the reason why I don't do anything but drive-bys with these little go-rounds anymore: Telling someone else what they think and what motivates them in lieu of asking them is incredibly, profoundly, insulting and disrespectful.
I don't give a damn whether anybody has warm feelings about my general existence or thinks I'm the second coming of the Wicked Witch of the West. Not the slightest jitter on the needle of my temper appears when my positions, personality, or ancestry are attacked. You could call me a cock-swizzling hellcunt and I'd congratulate you on your skill with advanced profanity.
But when someone tells me I only think or believe something because of some retarded reason like "automatically filtering out anything 'liberal'", that is a direct personal assault on my integrity, my intelligence, and my honesty. It may mean nothing to a person who places no great value on their own intellectual integrity, but it's a profound insult to anyone who does- especially if they've done absolutely nothing to merit the charge and it's being hurled by some punk who can't construct an argument even if you give him annotated blueprints.
That is why your reception is increasingly caustic and dismissive. It's not because you're a liberal. It's not even because you couldn't make a credible argument to save your own life. It's because you constantly serve up a stream of deep insult along with the puffball politics- maybe you're not aware of it, which is why I suspect you get the tolerance you do, but it's why you also get absolutely zero respect even though you CLAIM to "respect" us: because constantly going around telling people what they really think and why isn't only telling them things that they have every reason to know are completely untrue, but it's treating them like children- SMALL children- in the process.
(C)onstantly going around telling people what they really think and why isn't only telling them things that they have every reason to know are completely untrue, but it's treating them like children- SMALL children- in the process.
Not to hijack the commentary, but this is a hallmark of liberal Democrat politics. It is, unfortunately, also an increasing hallmark of Republican politics. One's always been parental, the other is growing ever moreso. I can't remember who said it, but the Democrats are the "mommy" party, and the Republicans are the "daddy" party.
Fuck that, because in what family do the children get to choose who is in charge? Mommy and Daddy tell you what's best for you.
And that's the very direction we've been going since at least the New Deal.
True enough, Kevin, and God alone knows there's plenty of "this is the REAL liberal/conservative agenda" commentary out there, and worse- pieces that purport to psychoanalyze "liberals" or "conservatives" and diagnose them with various mental deficiencies.
I have different rules for one-on-one interactions, individual to individual, and campaigning, or demagoguing.
Doesn't seem unabashedly anti gun to me. But there's that perception thing again...
And, did he actually say:
"we need to acknowledge that there's a hole in his heart, one that government programs alone may not be able to repair."
Hmm...
"1. How do you know what our President has "regard for"? Can you read his mind?"
I don't have to. I just listen to what he has to say. Unlike yourself, DJ, (re: Michael Moore) I actually listen to what people are saying and follow what they do before I call them a liar. Hey, that's what is so great about Fahrenheit 9-11. The best lines in the film are the ones by Bush, not Moore. He does a pretty good job of showing us where he stands.
"2) How do you know that he has bought votes? Got any proof, meaning facts that we can verify?"
Well, let's see. Janet Rehnquist was appointed the inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services, and Eugene Scalia was given a job as solicitor general at the Labor Department. It's common knowledge that the conservative judges that voted for Bush were rewarded for their votes. Oh and Eugene Scalia? He was one of Bush's attorneys when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the then-Republican presidential candidate in the Florida election case.
Services given, payment received.
"3) George W. Bush is the President, Mark. Dick Cheney is the Vice-President. Bush is the head of one branch of the Federal Gubmint. NOBODY has oversight over the President except the voters."
So, I guess you missed the part about the checks and balances. For your review:
Make sure you read items 4 and 5 in the first column.
Oh, and the voters are represented by the Legislative Branch so technically we are both right.
Lab, I respectfully submit that you re-read some of my posts and then re-read DJ's and Unix's. Invariably, they resort to name calling and insults. I do not. Who's the child again?
The problem occurs when I introduce a fact into the process that doesn't jibe with your belief system.
No Markadelphia, the problem is you don't know what a fact is.
Let's take an example. The top 10% of income earners pay a bit over 50% of all federal tax (income, SS, etc.). That is a fact (see Table 2).
Whether you believe that to be too much or too little is opinion/belief/whatever. What is bullshit is claiming that that isn't really how much the rich pay. Does that make sense?
I couldn't disagree more. You begin with the belief
And you're not name-calling?
DJ, I, LabRat, Kevin. Russell all have repeatedly tried to get you to begin at the same point. To get on the same page. To have a factual discussion of some worth. Not just praying to a messiah figure, or presuming that the person you like will behave in a perfect condition.
You just invent more BS and keep wandering around.
that nothing good can every come from liberalism and you go from there.
Utterly false. As I've told you before.
You keep projecting strawmen onto us - just as you did when you called us Nazi's. (Forget that?)
Because you (and Unix) suffer from confirmation bias,
Demonstrate this. Simple enough, if true.
I can't link to liberal blogs, can I, lest I be accused of not sticking to the facts? Hmm...seems unfair.
You say this at least once a week, and once a week it's debunked. The links I had above were opinion. They were relating observations. Damn good ones in my opinion. They didn't "prove" anything other than they described your behavior to a "T". They don't describe my behavior, or DJ's or LabRat's, nor Kevin's. Because we don't base our argument on why you, Obama, Hillary, Bush do things. Your arguments always devolve back to "your questions you know to ask" to "get to the key internal thoughts of someone else". Even though every time you've done it here you've been shown to be wrong.. 100% Failure Rate. (Well, I guess you're "Perfect", but not in a way that bolsters your methodology.)
The problem occurs when I introduce a fact into the process that doesn't jibe with your belief system.
No, Mark, it comes when you introduce a "fact" that we demand some proof of. It's not a fact, it's a "Fact" - and when we ask for some backing of it, you turn to circular logic. Michael Moore's claims are justified by you using ... Michael Moore. (When he's proved to be lying out of his ass, you refuse to admit that damages his credibility.) Your "fact" that "Obama" would "inevitably cause this to end" is unsubstantiated. I asked you for some proof outside of Obama's words (he doesn't have a long track record), and you... referred me back to Obama. You didn't explain, how he'd "inevitably cause this to end" I note. That was your claim, it's for you to defend that you were right and not just making up "facts" out of whole cloth.. I know systems. I know that even if Obama was the second best president to George Washington, that there's no possible way that he could inevitably stop "childishness".
Apparently, you do as well, but you don't have the decency to retract your statement.
Now, where have I appealed to emotion here? Where have I demonized Obama? I've stated that what you're saying is silly and wishful thinking, because it's never happened in the past, it's not a possibility - but you've gone on the record as it being a 100% certainty.
Yes, Unix, it fucking well did.
I noted a small list (of what's possible) of where it didn't.
I'm waiting on your proof of where you disagree.
The rest of your spew is factually devoid - but I'll let it pass - for now. Becuase I'm waiting on the specifics of where Bush "divided".
There has been a huge divide, Mark, as the media elite (essentially a division of the Democrat party) have been repeating - just as you are - that it's all Bush's fault for not doing as the Democrats "want" for him to do. Of course, when it comes to voting on the record, apparently he's not so divisive.
But, you tell me where Bush has been divisive. We'll compare that to the historical record, and see how you do.
If you're right, you'll be right, Mark. All you have to do is not give generalities, (or slander the Swift Vets), and just give me concrete examples.
I think you would all find it interesting that he has no link for gun control on his web site in his issues section. I don't think it is all that important to him.
I don't. Gun Control is a losing proposition. (In my opinion. Notably because almost all politicians are either embracing gun rights, or being "Vewy, Vewy qwiet" about them.) Obama's record and beliefs are as DJ pointed out, easily Googleable. For most people who would vote for Obama (so far, almost all of whom are "gungrabbers") they understand that he's not going to give Kevin and me the "easy ammo" - but he's on the "right side".
So you project upon Obama a belief (at odds with his statements and actions), and then you insist you know what his beliefs are, what his mind is.
Then you presume to inform me of what goes on in my mind. When I tell you're you're wrong - even showing evidence that you're yet again wrong - and you undeterred insist that you - you! - know the "questions to ask" to understand me.
Let's start the discussion on childishness with the fact that despite subtle hints, despite good natured attempts to point it out, despite blatantly being told how insulting that your arrogant, ignorant presumption, you still can't understand how insulting you are.
LabRat: "Telling someone else what they think and what motivates them in lieu of asking them is incredibly, profoundly, insulting and disrespectful."
Mark: "Lab, I respectfully submit that you re-read some of my posts and then re-read DJ's and Unix's. Invariably, they resort to name calling and insults. I do not. Who's the child again?"
Unix: "Let's start the discussion on childishness with the fact that despite subtle hints, despite good natured attempts to point it out, despite blatantly being told how insulting that your arrogant, ignorant presumption, you still can't understand how insulting you are."
Enough, Mark.
I diagnosed you, correctly in my opinion (and that is what it is, my opinion), as suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Since then, you have confirmed it mightily. If an engineer can do it that easily and score a bullseye, then it's pretty solid, methinks. A psychologist could write a textbook on the subject with you as the case study.
I do not for one microsecond believe that you are not intelligent enough to understand what Kevin, Labrat, Unix, I, and others have been labored to help you understand, and so there has to be a reason why you refuse to exhibit any such understanding. There is. Your inflated, childish ego just won't let you. The metaphor which describes it is that you continue to dig the hole you are in ever deeper, all the while refusing to admit that the hole exists. With Monty Python, it is funny. With you, it is sad and pathetic.
We see the hole, Mark, and the ultimate insult you deliver on us is that you treat us as if we don't. Courtesy is the default, but respect must be earned. You haven't earned it, you will never earn it with the behavior you routinely exhibit, and our frustration with trying to help you earn it bleeds through.
And so, LabRat's observation:
"It may mean nothing to a person who places no great value on their own intellectual integrity, but it's a profound insult to anyone who does- especially if they've done absolutely nothing to merit the charge and it's being hurled by some punk who can't construct an argument even if you give him annotated blueprints."
"you do recall that many, many Democrats supported the invasion of Iraq, don't you?"
Yes, but wasn't that bipartisan on their part and not Bush's?
"What is bullshit is claiming that that isn't really how much the rich pay. Does that make sense?"
Go back and check my research in the thread where DJ and I debated this. There are plenty of facts in there that were conveniently ignored.
"And you're not name-calling?"
No, I don't think so. And if I did, I was wrong and I apologize. Still haven't gotten an apology yet for being called: an idiot, a fool, pond scum etc etc..
"Michael Moore's claims are justified by you using..."
Really?
http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/checkup/
Factual backup for Sicko, F911 and Bowling for Columbine..all from sources other than Moore. Have fun refuting them. You won't.
"as the media elite (essentially a division of the Democrat party)"
You mean the ones at Fox News? Or how about Rush Limbaugh? Laura Ingraham? Hugh Hewitt? Dennis Praeger? Or how about General Electric, owner of NBC? Or Viacom, owner of CBS?
"But, you tell me where Bush has been divisive. "
I don't think I can. If you can't see something as obvious as this, it is definitely beyond my capability, that's for sure.
We're really at the endgame now. You've been trounced through the opening, midgame, and I bet you can't see we're at the endgame.
Yes, but wasn't that bipartisan on their part and not Bush's?
No.
You don't know what bipartisan means. Don't tell me that you do, you just declared (proved, even!), right there, that you do not.
"Michael Moore's claims are justified by you using..."
Really?
http://www.michaelmoore.com/sick.../sicko/checkup/
What? Surely you didn't just answer me by citing MICHAEL MOORE to argue that you cite Michael Moore to prove Michael Moore?
You have to be trolling. Because I have a hard time believing anyone literate could be that utterly clueless. Well, I did have a hard time.
You mean the ones at Fox News?
I love the FNC talisman. "You know, there's a lot of liberal bias..." "FOX NEWS! FOX NEWS! FOX NEWS! Look, a FOX NEWS! FOX NEWS!"
FNC isn't even that right-wing, they measure pretty much middle of the road, overall. They have some commentators who might not (and O'Reilly isn't "conservative").
But their reporting is almost entirely the same as CNN's. Notice how many of the journalists bebop back and forth around between stations?
EVEN IF you were able to use that as a counter, there's a slight problem.
Fox News isn't the "Media elite". They've been (just as Bush has) slandered (just as you are now), vilified, used as whipping boys. After all of that, they're kicking CNN's ass in ratings - and have less than a 1/4 of the total eyeballs of the "Big Three".
That's right, Mark. As Jonah Goldberg has offered many a time, if FNC is that powerful, let's "Swap" the FNC people with the ABC/CBS/NBC lineup and evening news. Fair is fair, right?
There's almost no "conservative" thought in papers - they have "token conservatives". Or on the major networks. Or on PBS. NPR.
Or how about Rush Limbaugh?
What about him? He's on AM talk radio. (Hell, he made AM talk radio. Because there was no other place for him.)
Laura Ingraham?
You mean, the talk radio again? Never heard her show. Gee, she must be really big.
Hugh Hewitt? Dennis Praeger?
Who weren't heard of prior to the internet, and their continual good coverage of events. I've listened to Hewitt's show over the internet (since it's not broadcast anywhere near me), and never heard Praeger, but I've read some of his columns. On a small web site.
You yet again, prove my point. The "conservative" commentators may be influential, but they're hardly "mainstream". Or how about General Electric, owner of NBC? Or Viacom, owner of CBS?
So what? You throw disjointed accusations out. How about the forged documents CBS tried to throw the last Presidential election with? What did Viacom's ownership matter with that? What matters is what they do.
Which you cannot, no matter how many times we point out to you, understand.
I don't think I can. If you can't see something as obvious as this, it is definitely beyond my capability, that's for sure.
I don't see why it would be hard, Mark. If, you were right, and Bush has spent the last 7 years dividing America.
Don't try and show me them. Show the others, not as blind as I.
Or admit that "something as obvious as this" is so non-obvious you can't demonstrate it.
Come on. You've told us you know how to formulate the "right questions" to ask. So demonstrate that you do.
"What? Surely you didn't just answer me by citing MICHAEL MOORE to argue that you cite Michael Moore to prove Michael Moore?"
Surely, Unix, you didn't actually go to "he who shall not be named"'s web site and follow the links to other sites that he has provided. Links that are all most assuredly not Michael Moore.
"Because I have a hard time believing anyone literate could be that utterly clueless."
Did you read this part of what I wrote?
"all from sources other than Moore."
Apparently not. But, go ahead, by all means. Ignore the factual backup listed on his site. It simply proves my point about the fact selection process that occurs in our debates.
Unix, do a little research and find out who runs GE, Viacom, and Disney (ABC owner). They are all hard core Republicans.
What? Surely you didn't just answer me by citing MICHAEL MOORE to argue that you cite Michael Moore to prove Michael Moore?
You have to be trolling. Because I have a hard time believing anyone literate could be that utterly clueless.
Click on the link before you insert your foot in your mouth. Yes, the link is to Michael Moore's site. The links within it are not. That was Mark's point - you won't even look. I did, and organizations like the CDC and the Institute of Medicine require actual consideration and rebuttal.
So I suggest you might want to whoa for a moment and at least reconsider that point.
But my point still stands. I've challenged Mark to substantiate his claims, which he's failed to do.
Pointing to Moore's "Bibliography", as it were, does not do that. But it does show that that's the extent of his research - what Moore says he presents. (I'd really rather talk about the Obama claims he's made, which I note he's trying to obfuscate and bury now. You know, the "he is NOT about entitlement at all" ... "I wonder if the real issue with an Obama presidency would be the inevitable end (gasp!) of the childishness of conservative pundits and followers."
Now, if I were to counter, by citing a Moore page, and showing that his sources do not show what he says they do - that would be evidence of a far stronger sort.
(But as we know, Moore rarely makes claims that aren't (arguably), if not reasonably backed - at least in some measure.)
I looked at it. My claim that Mark will only (and possibly that's a "can only") point to his original source (and the sources the OS claims) stands without modification. Not to be too snarky, but I of course went and looked to see what it was (I've read through it before, back when I felt like arguing MM's stuff way back when.)
Sorry if I wasn't clear that I i check Mark's cite - but his cite proves that he's (at best) capable of "citing" circularly - and merely pointing at a "bibliography" doesn't, IMO, count as a "cite".
Unix, do a little research and find out who runs GE, Viacom, and Disney (ABC owner). They are all hard core Republicans.
Which matters very little as the overwhelming majority of people in journalism are leftists, Mark, and admittedly so.
I just finished reading a fascinating book, Professor Brian Anse Patrick's The National Rifle Association and the Media: The Motivating Force of Negative Coverage. In this book, Patrick studied what he called "elite press," differentiated from the "mainstream media" and the "local media," defined as "the serious papers and/or magazines of political-social reporting and analysis that enjoy national (or at least regional) and sometimes international status, reputations, and circulations." These include the New York Times, LA Times, Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News and World Report.
He studied the coverage of five groups: the NRA, NAACP, ACLU, AARP, and HCI (Handgun Control at the time, now The Brady Campaign.)
You want to know what I found most fascinating about it? He found a consistent, statistically significant case of bias, but not just against the NRA. No, there was bias against two groups, and for two others. The order, from most negative to most positive, was as follows:
NRA
ACLU
NAACP
AARP
HCI
He thought long and hard about why that might be. Here's his conclusion, that I think even you might grasp:
The larger concept that lies behind the consistent ranking is a broad cultural level phenomenon that I will label an administrative control bias. It has profound implications. Administrative control in this usage means rational, scientific, objective social management by elite, symbol-manipulating classes, and subclasses, i.e., professionalized administrators or bureaucratic functionaries. The thing administered is often democracy itself, or a version of it at least. Here and throughout this chapter terms such as "rational," "objective," "professional," and "scientific" should be read in the sense of the belief systems that they represent, i.e. rationalism, objectivism, professionalism, and scientism. Scientism is not the same as being scientific; the first is a matter of faith and ritualistic observance, the other is difficult creative work. William James made a similar distinction between institutional religion and being religious, the first being a smug and thoughtless undertaking on the part of most people, the second, a difficult undertaking affecting every aspect of a life. The term scientistic administration would pertain here. Note that we move here well beyond the notion of mere gun control and into the realm of general social control, management and regulation.
In other words, "central planning" - aka socialism.
Here are some quotes concerning journalists and journalism that you might also want to consider:
The opinion of the press corps tends toward consensus because of an astonishing uniformity of viewpoint. Certain types of people want to become journalists, and they carry certain political and cultural opinions. This self-selection is hardened by peer group pressure. No conspiracy is necessary; journalists quite spontaneously think alike. The problem comes because this group-think is by now divorced from the thoughts and attitudes of readers. Robert L. Bartley
--
Those convinced that liberals make up a disproportionate share of newsroom workers have long relied on Pew Research Center surveys to confirm this view, and they will not be disappointed by the results of Pew's latest study released today. . . .
At national organizations (which includes print, TV and radio), the numbers break down like this: 34% liberal, 7% conservative. At local outlets: 23% liberal, 12% conservative. At Web sites: 27% call themselves liberals, 13% conservatives.
This contrasts with the self-assessment of the general public: 20% liberal, 33% conservative. . . .
While it's important to remember that most journalists in this survey continue to call themselves moderate, the ranks of self-described liberals have grown in recent years, according to Pew. For example, since 1995, Pew found at national outlets that the liberal segment has climbed from 22% to 34% while conservatives have only inched up from 5% to 7%. Editor and Publisher, 5/04
--
One point that can't be overstressed is that the Pew findings are based on self-assessment. I worked in the newsroom at three large newspapers for 22 years, and many of the journalists who rate themselves as politically moderate are well to the left of center, especially on social issues. They are moderate by newsroom standards, not by the general public's standards.
Perhaps the most pervasive way in which journalists are different from normal people is that journalists live in a world dominated by government, and they reflexively see government action as the default way to approach any problem. Mike Gordon, quoted by Instapundit in his piece on that Editor and Publisher piece.
I intend to get a post out of this book, but this seemed a remarkably appropriate place to bring it up.
Unix, do a little research and find out who runs GE, Viacom, and Disney (ABC owner). They are all hard core Republicans.
Which does not answer my question. (DJ, your turn to repeat to him about logic.)
I asked, if what you're saying is true, to explain the Forged CBS "Air National Guard" Memos.
You reply that the owners are "Hard Core Republicans." That's a non-answer. Again.
Who the "owners" are is irrelevant if the media's actions demonstrate that it doesn't matter. (Furthermore, all of those are corporations. GE. Viacom. Disney.
Meaning that you're completely, totally wrong about the "Owner".)
Links that are all most assuredly not Michael Moore.
So why did you not link to those that are particularly telling?
But my point was when we challenged your use of Moore, you cited Moore. Which you just re-cited.
When I asked you about Obama, you told me to read his books. But I'd asked for something besides his words.
I think my case has been well made, and don't feel the need to argue it with you any longer.
The more I've asked you, the less specific you've gotten.
You claimed to know many things. Including that Obama would be bipartisan (Then you proved you don't know what bipartisan is). That he would inevitably change the actions of opposing pundits.
Let's work on those, shall we? Explain to me those things. (If you get time, I'd still like you to answer the other questions, like particular examples of Bush's "divisiveness".
You tried to score a cheap shot (failed again, just as you failed when you insisted I didn't know anybody from "those cultures"). But notice you've not engaged a single point I've made, shown the proof asked for in at least 10 posts here. You've tried to change the subject instead - and DJ and LabRat have called you on that, and in an attempt to explain it to you, done so brilliantly. But you're still refusing to engage - but insisting it's somehow our fault.
Click on the link before you insert your foot in your mouth. Yes, the link is to Michael Moore's site. The links within it are not. That was Mark's point - you won't even look. I did, and organizations like the CDC and the Institute of Medicine require actual consideration and rebuttal.
No, Moore is once again selectively citing factoids which he finds and then uses in completely inappropriate context. This is part of his technique - to take something that is truthful (at least in part) and then use it in a way completely twisted from it's original context. He then pounds his chest over his "honesty" and clings to the misused fact life a piece of toilet paper on your heel.
That's when he isn't just flat out lying as in his "quoting" the transcript of BfC as his 'source' (see link for the bank clerk).
Markadelphia may be suckered by such, but you sure as hell shouldn't be.
I stated to Mark that Obama's record is unabashedly anti-gun, and I suggested that he google "Obama gun control" and investigate. Google turned up about 1,050,000 hits. He cherry-picked one web site, posted its URL, and stated,
"Doesn't seem unabashedly anti gun to me. But there's that perception thing again..."
Apparently, this constituted "analysis" on his part.
Now, note that he did this in comments on a site that is about guns, gun laws, and the Constitution, a site where his host and his "opponents" (I suppose that is the correct term) are experts on the subject and he is not. Can you imagine getting a more clear or a more unmistakable picture of just what constitutes "thinking" and "analysis" in his mind? Have you ever seen such shallowness in your whole life?
No, this little gem pushed me over the edge. He is unreachable, I see no reason to try further, and I am done with him.
Juris, the links or sources for Sicko are after each fact in the film such as...
"The U. S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds." "World Health Organization Assesses The World's Health Systems," Press Release, WHO/44, June 21, 2000. http://www.who.int/inf-pr-2000/en/pr2000-44.html
And for F911
“John Ellis, a first cousin of George W. Bush, ran the network's ‘decision desk’ during the 2000 election, and Fox was the first to name Bush the winner. Earlier, Ellis had made six phone calls to Cousin Bush during the vote-counting.” William O’Rourke, “Talk Radio Key to GOP Victory,” Chicago Sun-Times, December 3, 2002
With Bowling for Columbine, the sources are on Moore's site but they are the original sources.
Go here:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/
scroll down to the paragraph starting with The Truth and read how Moore did in fact get the gun the same day. What's interesting about this is that I actually thought he did bend the time frame. Oh my god, DJ, you're right! I am gulliable. I believed the Moore truth watchers were telling the truth. Could it be they were lying? Say it ain't so, Virginia!
scroll down to the paragraph starting with The Truth and read how Moore did in fact get the gun the same day.
Mark, I understand you're really too self-absorped (per anon's ref to your own blog) and too damn stupid to get it - but Moore's site references Moore's transcript of Moore's movie as *proof* of what Moore's movie claims. That's what I mentioned to Kevin. Maybe if you ask him REAL nice he'll have the patience of Job and explain it to you.
See here for an even more complete deconstruction. Or buy Dave Hardy's book.
Very amusing link. Whatever David Kopel was trying to say, it came out to me as this:
Hi, I am a conservative. We don't take kindly to any sort of critical thinking whatsoever regarding our set-in-rock granite belief system. We quite literally can't stand it.
So, rather than being reflective about what some people like Michael Moore are saying about us and possibly improve ourselves, we like to put all of our efforts into finding every single possible fault we can with anything that liberals like Moore do and say. We know that they are reflective (a weakness, to be sure) and we can exploit that.
If there aren't any faults, let's make some up! We have a large group of people that will believe anything we say. That way, we are always assured of being right. And fully in control of not only what people think but how they think.
Whatever David Kopel was trying to say, it came out to me as this
That you would say precisely that doesn't surprise me in the least. Jacques Derrida would have loved you.
You and Moore believe in the same kind of "facts" (not objective, agreed upon things, but ANYTHING that can be said in defense of your beliefs). That is a characteristic you also share with Bush and the neo-cons. It is what makes intelligent discussion impossible with you (as it is with Bush). No wonder you people suffer from BDS - you share the same damn disease.
It's not the man, it's his actions. If you actually took the time to watch Moore's films, you would see that is the actions of Bush and some conservatives that he criticizes. To think that BFC was anti-gun is to completely miss the point of what he was trying to say.
And there will never be "facts" or "objective, agree upon things" as long as many people on the right willingly remain ignorant.
Best just to let it go. There's just no point. And I think I've given it enough of a fair shot to be the ranking expert here on trying.
(Though if DJ or Russ or Kevin or LabRat or ... wanted to lay claim, I'd gladly defer.
Because at this point, I think it shows ill of *my* good sense to keep throwing good time after bad.)
And there will never be "facts" or "objective, agree upon things" as long as many people on the right willingly remain ignorant.
Asshole. I just pointed out the people on the 'right', Bush and the neo-cons, who are as willfully ignorant as you insist on remaining. You and they believe only in facts either made up or twisted out of context (and rendered meaningless). I don't care if you praise Bush or condemn him - it's that your mind works the same goddam way as his.
To think that BFC was anti-gun is to completely miss the point of what he was trying to say.
LMAO, that's what Kopel was SAYING - but your pathetic little mind couldn't grasp that. Now, go measure your girth and talk to "bobo" - I'm sure you two will come to agreement eventually.
U-J: Yeah, it's like a moth to a flame, isn't it? Nothing good is possibly going to come from it, but you just fly right in anyway.
I think you and DJ are both contenders for that title. For better or worse!
I'm guessing the "winner" is determined by whomever's forehead has developed the most impressive scar tissue (from slamming it against the granite monolith of ignorance).
Hey juris, you may have answered this already but have you seen any of Moore's films? I know DJ hasn't. Unix, I don't know about. Kevin has seen BFC for sure.
I've seen Roger and Me and BfC, and that was enough, particularly given Moore's penchant for being less than honest in both. Oh, I know, it's all in a good cause, right? Lies are okay if told for a noble purpose (like making people become more liberal)? But, as you note, Moore didn't even really make an anti-gun movie; he made a movie that fit Glassner's thesis to a tee - scare people about something (school violence) that is very, VERY unlikely to actually impact them. I think Kopel hit the X - the ultimate joke is that Moore is putting one over on his audience. An audience that fancies themselves sophisticated but are just as easily led around by the nose as the most dirt-ignorant red-stater you can imagine. You are part of Moore's audience - congratulations.
That was not the point of the film, at least in my opinion. The point of the film was that our culture, especially the people that run it, want us to remain afraid because that way we are better consumers. We're also easier to control because a society that is as insecure as we are will never recognize the true power that each of us has to change the world.
That is the message that Moore gave to me and basically I feel like I am a better person because of it.
The point of the film was that our culture, especially the people that run it, want us to remain afraid because that way we are better consumers.
Well, that would probably be because you are an idiot leftie that doesn't even pay attention to the NAME and DEFINING EVENT of the film. You might notice Mark that I'm simply not taking you seriously any more; you want to assert that you have the intellect of a not particularly bright 7 year old, that's how I'll treat you.
That is the message that Moore gave to me and basically I feel like I am a better person because of it.
Substitute 'Pat Robertson and Jesus' for Moore and you'd fit right in anywhere in the Bible Belt.
"That was not the point of the film, at least in my opinion. The point of the film was that our culture, especially the people that run it, want us to remain afraid because that way we are better consumers. We're also easier to control because a society that is as insecure as we are will never recognize the true power that each of us has to change the world."
ROFL!
Kinda redefines the meaning of "DENSE", doesn't he?
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2007/12/fred-thompson-as-himself-q-courtesy-abc.html (89 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
And that's the last straw. I've chosen my candidate, and it's Fred. I was behind Fred early on, but I haven't been quite sure what to make of him since he officially entered the race. The media certainly aren't behind him, not in the way they've been behind Obama from day one, relentlessly referring to him as a "rising star," argh.
Go Fred. Stickwick and I will give you our votes.
yep. That seals the deal for me. I'm with Fred.
Sheesh. Folks, if you want more of the last eight years (and probably worse), by all means vote for Fred Thompson.
The very thought of another term with a president: completely devoid of intellectual curiosity, a vigorously and unapologetic one dimensional approach to foreign policy, in total servitude to the military industrial complex (aka corporate entitlement), and who simply doesn't give a crap about most of the duties and responsibilities that he or she is required to carry out...well...it makes me ill to the core. I honestly don't know if our country would survive it.
(Here's hoping we get to find out! - Ed.)
Edited By Siteowner
So, tell us, Mark, just how it is that you know these things about him. Did you just ask yourself questions until something "obvious" farted itself into your head?
Personally, I find his approach to gubmint service quite refreshing. In that regard, he is the complete opposite of a John Kerry or a Hillary Clingon. Our country survived Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, and Slick Willie Clinton, so I think it could survive ole' Fred quite well. But, I'm not the demagogue that you are.
That is interesting, Mark. Of the current crop, who's your pick?
The problem with Fred is, what does he stand for? He's for the war, and continuing the fight on terrorism, and he's made a few comments about other things here and there. He just doesn't seem to inspire people. He has the same ideas as all the rest, with a few differences here and that.
This current crop of candidates all just scare me, save for Paul. And if he wasn't running, I don't know who I'd vote for- probably none of them. They bring nothing new to the table. I don't even think any of them can beat any of the Democrats.
The problem with Fred is, what does he stand for?
Go read about his positions. There are white papers on several topics linked there as well.
Paul doesn't scare me (because he's not electable) but even if he were, he could not accomplish anything. Normally I'm a big fan of gridlock, but now is not the time.
Mark thinks Obama is the guy who can change everything and make government work.
"The very thought of another term with a president: completely devoid of intellectual curiosity, a vigorously and unapologetic one dimensional approach to foreign policy,..."
Tell you what, you thimble-headed gherkin, tell me what "intellectual curiosity" is, and what you'd like to see its application put towards and maybe I won't dismiss crap like this out of hand.
And another thing, the next time ANYONE, and I mean anyone, wants to bring up how BJ Boy was SOOOOOOO much the intellectual, well, let me just say that there hasn't been a president in MY LIFETIME who has any more innate intelligence than me, or most of Kevin's readership, dimwit!
Shut up and stay in Minnesota, where you Viking immigrants like to sit around and ice fish.
(Be nice, B. thimble-headed gherkins get to express their opinions here, too. [I happen to love that Tam-ism, BTW] Show a little more civility, eh? Besides, I get the impression that Mark is not of Viking descent.)
Edited By Siteowner
Yes, it seems that Fred's positions are all there, but the MSM doesn't get them out the way they do with the "rising star" or the carpet bagger. Odd, that.
You'd think they'd be having little kittens over his Social Security plan, but I guess since they've decided he won't be a contender, they don't need to bother.
I'm sure that as soon as he becomes a contender, however, the howls, howls will be forthcoming.
Remember that major media weenie who said the press could get Kerry a 15-point bump? I think they did.
And I think they're trying to do the same, in reverse, to Thompson.
"So, tell us, Mark, just how it is that you know these things about him"
I've watched hours of interviews with him, mostly on Fox News, as well as read numerous articles about him, both in newspapers and online. I've also spent some time looking through his site at his positions on the various issues. I have done this will all the candidates.
"Of the current crop, who's your pick?"
Obama is my favorite. Although I like Richardson and Giuliani as well. Thompson and Hillary are the worst on each side.
"He just doesn't seem to inspire people."
Save for the people that post here, conservatives are in a general state of yawn in regards to Fred Thompson. Matt's comment is absolutely correct.
"Tell you what, you thimble-headed gherkin, tell me what "intellectual curiosity" is"
First of all, I am about as Nordic as they come, Kevin :)
Intellectual curiosity, in terms of the presidency, should be someone who has an active interest in understanding the motivations of other cultures and its people. To put it another way, someone who is tenacious in learning the causes of the various geopolitical problems of the world, learning from history, and shaping a policy accordingly.
I do agree, though, that people that post here would be excellent additions in helping to shape that future, intelligence wise.
First of all, I am about as Nordic as they come, Kevin
It must have been that comment about the Scandanavian Mafia that misled me.
I do agree, though, that people that post here would be excellent additions in helping to shape that future, intelligence wise.
It must confound and annoy you that we are all so steadfastly against "progressivism" and unable to see the qualities you see in candidates like Obama.
I find it fascinating that in the conservative blogosphere Thompson seems to be the leader (that is, among the non-Ronulans.)
On the "intellectual curiosity" topic, I think you misjudge both Thompson and Bush, but then you've got a lot of help in the media on that.
"I've watched hours of interviews with him, mostly on Fox News, as well as read numerous articles about him, both in newspapers and online. I've also spent some time looking through his site at his positions on the various issues. I have done this will all the candidates."
Hmmm ...
I can't help but wonder why you have such a different opinion of him than does, oh, say Kevin, for example. Did you watch different interviews, perhaps? Or is it that you have a remarkably different conception of just what a President's job is?
I admit that I'm reasonably enthusiastic about Fred, but that's mostly because I'm not gung-ho for any politician in any circumstance. I favor removing the breed from the gene pool. Overall, I think he would do just fine. Mostly, a President should refrain from doing bad, and I think that is part of his approach to gubmint.
But ole' Fred has one thing going for him that none of the other candidates do, namely that he has not disqualified himself (per my standards, that is) by his "position" (damn, but I hate that word in this context) regarding the Second and First Amendments. Note the order, as it is significant. ANY politician who would disarm me or shut me up will NOT get my support, EVER.
"Intellectual curiosity, in terms of the presidency, should be someone who has an active interest in understanding the motivations of other cultures and its people. To put it another way, someone who is tenacious in learning the causes of the various geopolitical problems of the world, learning from history, and shaping a policy accordingly."
Mark, give us some warning, willya? Goddamn, man, my sides are split from my crotch to my eyeballs and I still can't stop laughing. Why, who would have thought such a priceless gem, "learning from history", would come from YOU!
Dude, it's almost a new year (well, a new label, anyway). Is it too much to expect that YOU will learn from the history you have spent here this year, or are you gonna give us another year of the same old blather?
"It must confound and annoy you that we are all so steadfastly against "progressivism" and unable to see the qualities you see in candidates like Obama."
Not really. I think if you took the time to really study what he had to say and what he would like to do, I think you would find more in common with him than you think.Actually, I've had this vision of many of you sitting in a room with him and listening to each other. It would be very interesting to hear what he would have to say to some folks here. I know I would enjoy it!
"but then you've got a lot of help in the media on that."
I don't pay much attention to the media. Actually, I recall forwarding some articles to you that were positive towards Fred. It's what he says, especially the Fox News interview with Hannity a while back, that really shapes my opinion. He is the exact opposite of what this country needs right now. Hillary is also included in this category.
"Is it too much to expect that YOU will learn from the history you have spent here this year, or are you gonna give us another year of the same old blather?"
History or your version of history? No doubt, I have learned a lot here and consider myself to be a more open minded person.
What I find side splittingly funny is that you have not learned anything nor do you want to learn anything from history, especially recent history. You are, as always DJ, steadfast and unwavering in your beliefs.
He is the exact opposite of what this country needs right now.
In your opinion.
What I find side splittingly funny is that you have not learned anything nor do you want to learn anything from history, especially recent history.
Pot? Meet kettle!
Mark, you are an Obama supporter, and yet you call Fred's positions unclear? Are you serious?
Fred has clear and consistent positions on every issue. Go to his website. Now, you'd most likely disagree with all of them, but you cannot say he does not have positions. Your statement is simply untrue.
You want to talk about unclear positions your man is far and away the best in the race for that. He's an empty headed pretty boy, and you can tell him I said that. He'd probably just give us that little smile and talk about the Audacity of Hope.
I first and foremost want a conservative, and I mean that in the real sense of someone who will curb the growth of the federal government, and roll it back. I mean a real trimming of bloated programs, useless deadwood in the bureaucracy and overall a promotion of self-reliance among the American people. I'm sick and tired of having morons get in my face and tell me they have the right to things like health care, education, and entertainment. I see this election as a real crossroads. All the Democrats are socialist, to their core. I am a student of history, but maybe not your history Mark, and I see what socialism does to countries. It kills them, slowly, but it kills them.It takes away economic growth, it kills the individual spirit, it makes the state the driving force in public life.
I'm sick of seeing politicians (mostly the Democrats, but a lot of Republicans) buy votes with my money. Because when Hillary ran her Christmas ad, I pounded my fist on the desk. Because she sat there and proposed to give people all these things, with my money. Obama is no different. Obama is not a moderate, he is not a centrist. He sounds nice, but he is just as bad as Hilary. The only question is whether stupidity or malice is more destructive to the Republic.
"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."- Alexis de Tocqueville
"History or your version of history? No doubt, I have learned a lot here and consider myself to be a more open minded person.
What I find side splittingly funny is that you have not learned anything nor do you want to learn anything from history, especially recent history. You are, as always DJ, steadfast and unwavering in your beliefs."
I've told you before, Mark, several times, that I'm a student of history. It's a sincere interest, one of my hobbies, and it has been since before you were born.
All the beliefs that I hold on any subject are tentative, pending acquisition of new data and/or re-evaluation of old data, as it is with any competent engineer. The point is that what I believe results through logical reasoning from facts that I can verify. I do not understand any other way to approach reality, and so it takes more than bullshit to budge me.
You can indeed convince me that I'm wrong about anything, including history, but to do so requires the same kind of logical reasoning from facts that I can verify. Many of us have tried and tried to teach you that, to convince you of both the correctness and the necessity of that approach, but you apparently reject the concept as thoroughly as you refuse to practice it.
What I hope you understand, regardless of how it appears, is that we do not hammer on you as some sort of sport, rather we have been trying for a long time to get you to understand our approach to understanding reality. So far, you give little evidence of understanding it, and even less of adopting it. I honestly don't expect you to adopt it, but I sincerely hope that one day you'll give some evidence of understanding it. Your latest comment shows clearly that you don't.
Now, I suggest you revisit
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/khbaker/21449378878006548/#585469
where you'll find this observation about you by our gracious host, Kevin:
"Damn, boy, you don't read any history, do you?"
Sigh ...
Have a nice new year, but drink a big dose of reality tonight, willya?
All of this discussion about "history" is very interesting. There is a certain attitude with some folks here that I find to be quite, well, arrogant actually. Basically, many of the arguments that have been put forth in direct contrast to my own have used, as the foundation, "history."
In other words, "history" proves that you are right and I am wrong. And yet, in all my time of studying history, all that I have found that it really proves is that history is not simple. Nor is one viewpoint exclusively right...which seems to be the prevailing opinion here.
Howard Zinn's book, The People's History of the United States, is a great example of how "history" is not always clear. He is also a great example of how someone, who doesn't meet your pre-approved version of history, is trashed and called a traitor/communist/socialist/murderer/rapist/pedophile/destroyer of all wholesome goodness. So how could anything he says possibly true?
DJ, I could use logical reasoning to deduce that JFK was the victim of a coup d'etat. Everyone here would laugh at me. Why? Because Americans don't kill their own presidents and anyone that thinks so is conspiracy kook. Yeah, sounds logical to me. And you think I'm naive?
Britt, have you read Obama's books? Have you read through his web site?
Yeah, his book was pabulum. I also happened to have met with him. See I'm from Richmond, Virginia. Jim Webb is the new Senator, and Barack came out to campaign for him.
Anyway I talked to him for a couple minutes, which was cool, him being a sitting US Senator. I told him I would not be voting for him, and that I didn't like some of his ideas. Then he did the one political thing that pisses me off more then any otherthing. Well ok, there is a long list of stuff like that.
What he said was that I demonstrated the need for bipartisanship, and he waxed rhapsodic on that for a while. So I responded.
Here's the thing about that word "bipartisanship". When a Dem says it, he means "shut up and be a liberal". Because there are differences, there are different policies to follow. Often these options to not have room to compromise. You cannot "sort of" fight the War on Terror. You cannot "sort of" have gun control. Politics is the battle of ideas, and it is not supposed to be a nice fuzzy we're all together thing. Parties form to put their ideas forth. I don't like it when people call for bipartisanship because to me that just sounds like someone who wants me to shut up and go along with whatever thing he wants to impose on me. Well I don't like that. I tend to stand on my hind legs and give people the finger when they pat me on the head and tell me they know what is best for me.
That patronizing, infantilizing attitude is what I can't stand from Obama, Hillary, and indeed all of nanny state socialists that infest what was once a decent party.
That is why I like Fred. He doesn't treat adults like children, he treats them like adults. He is humble, he doesn't want to rule, he wants to serve.
"DJ, I could use logical reasoning to deduce that JFK was the victim of a coup d'etat."
Logical reasoning proceeds from verifiable facts to conclusions. You could try to do that, buy you've failed dismally most of the times you've tried it in the past.
"Everyone here would laugh at me. Why?"
Because, if you behaved as you have done in the past: 1) you would not present the facts from which you reasoned such that we could verify them; 2) you would present endless argument as to why you shouldn't present those facts; and, 3) your reasoning would not be logical.
"Because Americans don't kill their own presidents and anyone that thinks so is conspiracy kook."
Americans do kill their own Presidents, but it is rare. It has happened four times, as I recall, once when I was in the fifth grade. They were Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, William McKinley, and John Kennedy.
Are you seriously suggesting that we would present the argument that the assassination of John Kennedy was not a conspiracy because Americans don't kill their own Presidents?
"Yeah, sounds logical to me. And you think I'm naive?"
You have just proved you are naive.
Now, did you have some reason for tossing out this bullshit?
"Intellectual curiosity, in terms of the presidency, should be someone who has an active interest in understanding the motivations of other cultures and its people. To put it another way, someone who is tenacious in learning the causes of the various geopolitical problems of the world, learning from history, and shaping a policy accordingly."
In other words, intellectual curiosity insn't really intellectual curiosity since you are just attempting to redefine the issue by saying that being PC and sensitive to the "world's minorities", or some other rot, and placating those who have about as much civility as a loin-wearing Cro-Magnon will somehow bring peace to the world.
Is that about right, Mark?
Fuzzy bunnies in your world.
BTW, Mark, there is almost NO difference, in any actual terms of ANY policy they are proposing, betweeen Shrillary and your horse, Obama, the Commie dujour.
Mark:
Y'know, when we look back at Presidents who were hailed for their intellectual curiosity, the record isn't too kind about their performance.
Clinton, obviously, was a big brain whose performance was abysmal.
But also Nixon, probably one of the greatest intellects to sit in the Oval Office.
LBJ, while never accused of being a Deep Thinkur, was a guy who breathed, ate, and slept politics 24/7/365, and his legacy was the loss in Viet Nam and Federally-built and -owned vertical ghettoes blighting American metropolises.
Contrast that record with Presidents who were considered mental bantamweights: Truman,Eisenhower, Reagan, and (in his day), Lincoln.
And yes, Bush #43. I'm one of the few people who are of the opinion that W has done okay. Not great...he's definitely stepped on his dick a few times, both foreign and domestically, but on the whole, he's turned in a creditable performance.
What I find attractive about Fred, and it may be a Southern cultural bias, but I get the vibe that the man does not like to be rushed into anything.
That's a very Southern trait. It can be a distinct weakness, granted, but on the whole, and especially in the domestic sphere, I would rather a President who can resist being bull-dogged. Take our time, talk it over, chew it up good , spit it out and discuss the flavor and splat-pattern a spell.
Then sleep on it.
If it then still seems like a good idea, THEN make it law or policy.
Frankly, this is the opposite vibe I get from Giuliani.
I don't think any candidate on either side can match the cred of Rudy as the man who calls the tribe together to do what must be done and bear what must be borne...he was, after all, the man of the hour on our darkest day this century, and all eyes turned to him.
He didn't let his city, (or his nation), down in the crunch.
But I think the GOP would be making a bad mistake if Fred isn't on the ticket in November.
Your crew of Democrats?
They'd all be runners up for my vote after Ron Paul and Tony Blair.
Logic and reasoning aren't rhetorical devices that you can use to arrive at whatever conclusion you suspect or find most appealing, they're a formal system for analyzing and understanding reality. The rules are easy to find, they're agreed upon across positions by people who have learned and can apply the concepts. In universities, you sometimes find logic taught in the math department and sometimes in the philosophy department; this is because it's equally useful to the evaluation of natural law and of ideas. Complaining that someone is making you use logic- or that they're only doing it to "win" unfairly, or that they won't accept "your" logic- is like complaining that the other players in a game of football won't let you evade tackling by picking up the ball, leaving the field, and departing on the crosstown bus.
During World War II, a lot of remote South Pacific islands that had been of absolutely no relevance to the rest of the world suddenly became important as refueling stops. Small tribes that had had no contact with anything outside their small worlds were suddenly inundated with military bases, strange people, bearing strange and fascinating items- cargo- that they had never seen before. When the war ended and the militaries left, some of the tribes built elaborate "airstrips" and "planes" and "radio towers" out of whatever local material was available. They were trying to make the cargo come back- they aped the form, having no understanding of the substance. The phenomenon is referred to in anthropology as "cargo cults".
We don't reject your arguments because we're threatened by them, we don't do it because we're not open-minded, we don't do it because that would be betraying the "side". (Most of us here don't have a "side", other than "not strongly leftist".) We do it because they don't work as real logic anymore than bamboo planes will fly- you've aped the form with none of the substance, and still don't understand the problem.
Intellectual curiosity, in terms of the presidency, should be someone who has an active interest in understanding the motivations of other cultures and its people. To put it another way, someone who is tenacious in learning the causes of the various geopolitical problems of the world, learning from history, and shaping a policy accordingly.
Interesting, Markadelphia would like to see the return of Dr. Kissinger. Who'd'a thunk it. ;-)
OK, but seriously, there is a note that has been struck here by Mark, and echoed by others - and that has to do with the role of the President. Mark, and others of not so left of center persuasions seem to believe that we need someone inspirational or even charismatic. What is interesting is that this suggests a very, very old myth - superbly portrayed in the movie "The Lion King": the myth of the rightful ruler. This is a myth (some might say affliction) of both left and right. What is fascinating is the power this myth continues to exert over supposedly modern man.
LabRat:
As usual, a spot-on description.
Mark:
You can go back through these threads and find places where, for instance, DJ and I have disagreed. You should note how we responded to each other in those cases.
Mark, you're all talk, no action. (Notably, you then insist you want action, not all talk.) You insult us by saying we don't understand history, when we've spent a lot of the last year schooling you in that exact subject.
You *consistently* fail to understand basic concepts. But you can't understand that you can't build upon faulty bad concepts.
If you pour a unstable foundation, and then keep trying to add stories to a building, what will happen?
You at some depth understand this, because you run away when you get pinned against some blatantly obvious flaw in your argument.
All of your complaints about Thompson echo totally those of other people. I've got 1 problem with Thompson, that's gotten almost no comment by anybody else.
But Mark, just think about it like this:
If you think that we really can get these things done by talking and consensus, why are you supporting a candidate who's called for/sponsored legislation/stumped on the need to make people behave in a way that the consensus doesn't agree with?
My biggest point for supporting Fred, who's the best candidate, with the 2nd best platform is simple. (I'll pick and choose the good parts of Paul's, and give him the award for the "best").
He has not shaped his whole life toward becoming President. (Or even a large fraction of it.) His decisions haven't been shaped for 40 years to best position him for a Presidential run. He's got a better idea of the "right" idea for a President than any of the others.
Britt, I think your LDS (liberal derangement syndrome) has gotten the better of you. Obama actually believes in bipartisanship. Hillary does not, I'll give you that.
And your comments on the war on terror and gun control prove that conservatives are more "Shut up and do what your told" than Democrats. It's my way or the highway, right?
DJ,
"verifiable facts to conclusions"
Anytime you want me to pile a mountain of them on you, in regards to JFK, just say the word.
"Now, did you have some reason for tossing out this bullshit?"
My reason for tossing out this bullshit is that your view of history is selective. Oh, and by Americans, I meant that there were a group of them that killed JFK, not just Oswald.
"Is that about right, Mark?"
No, it isn't. It's not about PC cultural sensitivity. It's about understanding our enemy. Right now we have an administration (and supporters) who have a childish understanding of the region with one central goal.
Bilge, good points all around and your assessment of past presidents is astute, save for LBJ, who I view as pretty much even with 43 on the intelligence level. I completely agree with your assessment of Our Mayor. If it comes down to him and Hillary, I will vote for him.
Lab, also good points. I will endeavor to take them to heart.
Juris, true. All too true. But Obama's message is one of finding your own inspiration...inside of yourself. It's not his job.In fact, if spend time really studying him, he is NOT about entitlement at all. His one simple goal is to open up government again to regular people (i.e. not lobbyists). Everything else, including the shared dream here of less and more efficient government, could come from this.
I've got 1 problem with Thompson, that's gotten almost no comment by anybody else. - Unix-Jedi
That would be his support for McCain/Feingold?
Me too. He has since said he was wrong, on at least some of it. I haven't heard the same from McCain.
And DAMN LabRat, but you do cut to the core like a laser when you want to!
I completely agree with your assessment of Our Mayor. If it comes down to him and Hillary, I will vote for him.
Let me take this opportunity to remind the both of you that on Sept 10th, New Yorkers couldn't get rid of Giuliani fast enough. All of his 'heroic leadership' occurred in the waning days of his administration (and of all things, he was praised for NOT putting off elections and turning over his office). Excuse me, but F*** that! I really can't imagine voting for Hillary, but if the choice is her or Giuliani I'll do so in a New York Minute.
If the choice is her or Giuliani, I'm staying home.
"Thompson 2008: Because Giuliani is too difficult to spell!"
--
"Lab, also good points. I will endeavor to take them to heart." - Markadelphia
Anybody taking bets on the outcome of that New Year's Resolution?
Mark:
"Anytime you want me to pile a mountain of them on you, in regards to JFK, just say the word."
You brought up the subject of the JFK assassination, I didn't. I have NO interest in that subject whatever and I never have. My comments were addressed toward your manner of thinking, not toward your thoughts on that subject. It is quite telling that you didn't understand that, and so missed the point completely.
Oh, and note that attempting to change the subject didn't work this time either. Same old shit, different day, same old result.
Bilgerman:
"Y'know, when we look back at Presidents who were hailed for their intellectual curiosity, the record isn't too kind about their performance."
Don't forget Woodrow Wilson.
Kevin:
"That would be his support for McCain/Feingold?"
Bingo. But he had the grace to admit the error. When did you ever hear such from any of the other candidates?
"Anybody taking bets on the outcome of that New Year's Resolution?"
Suddenly, he's reformed. Naah, I'll try the lottery; the odds are better.
LabRat:
BRAVO! 100/10X, and with style!
If the choice is her or Giuliani, I'm staying home.
Actually, if that is our ultimate choice this year, I may have to look into emigrating to New Zealand.
Kevin:
Amazingly, you were able to guess what I was bothered by! How about that.
Mark, pay attention. Kevin's just done something that you haven't.
Kevin: Somewhat sadly he's never - really - admitted error. He's said, IIRC, "We should have done it differently." But he (at least) has what McCain doesn't, the ability to realize that it was (in my view unconstitutional), but a amazingly poor law with the opposite effect as intended.
Mark:
Obama actually believes in bipartisanship.
You say that based upon WHAT, other than his own STATEMENTS?
Really. I want some proof. Proof that he's willing to work with the other party. Not that he, or anybody supporting him says that he'll work with the other party.
Want to see bipartisanship? See President Bush. Either one. Both were/have been exemplary bipartisan. Based on your comments about Bush, it demonstrates that either you don't know what bipartisanship is, or you don't place the importance on that that you claim to.
And your comments on the war on terror and gun control prove that conservatives are more "Shut up and do what your told" than Democrats.
We're back to being Nazi's again?
I don't know what you're referring to, other than Obama and Clinton have both given public talks lauding the concepts of removing arms from the peons in this country. (In all fairness, McCain and Guilani are in the same boat.)
Anytime you want me to pile a mountain of them on you, in regards to JFK, just say the word.
The Word.
I want to see you provide proof as to anything. Proof. You're going to have a hard time with that. Proof.
My reason for tossing out this bullshit is that your view of history is selective.
Irony is not an element on the Periodic Table, Mark.
No, it isn't. It's not about PC cultural sensitivity. It's about understanding our enemy. Right now we have an administration (and supporters) who have a childish understanding of the region with one central goal.
Childish? Central Goal?
http://assistantvillageidiot.blogspot.com/2007/12/lenore-from-san-fran.html
Juris, true. All too true. But Obama's message is one of finding your own inspiration...inside of yourself. It's not his job.In fact, if spend time really studying him, he is NOT about entitlement at all.
http://www.extrememortman.com/presidential-election/the-obama-domino-theory/
“We’ve got to make sure that people who have more money help the people who have less money,” Obama said. “If you had a whole pizza, and your friend had no pizza, would you give him a slice?
His one simple goal is to open up government again to regular people (i.e. not lobbyists). Everything else, including the shared dream here of less and more efficient government, could come from this.
(Yet, and yet, and yet, and yet) Again, you've never proven you can piece together someone's motivation from evidence.
So tell me, who told you that that was Obama's goal? And what proof did they use?
(And, um, Mark? Lobbyists... aren't in government. That's why they're lobbyists. They... Lobby legislatures and regulatory agencies. So "opening up" government to "regular people" is a non-sequitur, at best.)
""Is that about right, Mark?"
No, it isn't. It's not about PC cultural sensitivity. It's about understanding our enemy. Right now we have an administration (and supporters) who have a childish understanding of the region with one central goal."
Oh, please, enlighten me then, Mark, about what it is that I'm apparently not understanding about the death-cult Islamists who are very much running the show in the Mid-East.
Honestly, you may be right about some of what you say regarding the "understanding" part, but you are delusional if you believe someone has the ablility to step in to the snake pit and somehow wave the magic wand and make the jihadists stop doing their bit with the semtex sweaters.
Quit being so naive about your charasmatic-leader-as-Jesus bit that you've being carrying on about for YEARS here at Kevin's place. It's not a realistic expectation, and if you think it IS, then you've obviously been a victim of a cult of personality (no doubt Bill, or to a lesser degree, Obama), which is something that you can read about in the history books.
(Months. Even though it seems like years, he's only been here a few months! ;) )
Edited By Siteowner
Mark: Obama actually believes in bipartisanship.
U-J: You say that based upon WHAT, other than his own STATEMENTS?
Actually, as I recall, at the start of this Congressional session he signed on with one of the non-leadership Republicans on some Senate reform initiative [ear-mark transparency maybe?]. He backpedalled away from it in a big hurry when Reid and the rest of the Dem leadership called him on it too.
Then again, a lot of bipartisanship talk reminds me of Franklin's observation on democracy.
Let me comment on this:
His one simple goal is to open up government again to regular people (i.e. not lobbyists).
The NRA acts as a lobby. I am a "regular person." The NRA acts on my behalf, since I can't go to Washington D.C. and influence elected officials directly. In fact, the NRA does the job far better than I alone could, because it represents 3.5 million members, and an unknown number of people who share my personal beliefs (and vote) but who are not members. The NRA lets our elected officials know what we want.
You may not like that, but to counter the NRA is the VPC, the Brady Campaign, etc.
The difference is that those groups don't represent many voters - and the #1 job of any elected official is to keep getting re-elected.
I have no problem with lobbyists, as long as they're honest. Of course, that's a difficult thing to ensure.
Just to add to Kevin's point, the unquestioned 800lb gorilla of Washington lobbyists is...
The American Association of Retired Persons.
AARP.
I'd like to see you defend youself from the little-old blue-haired lady when you criticize her evil lobby. And AARP, like the NRA, derives it's political power not from money, but from it's membership. Kind of like unions do Mark.
But, but, but... Juris, the AARP isn't a lobby, it's a citizen's group.
More of that right-wing language manipulation, don'tchaknow.
juris and Kevin are both correct - but therein lies part of the rub.
They are formulating a rational "rebuttal" - but Mark's original statement was non-rational and incoherent.
To use LabRat's comparision, they're trying to discuss the finer points of airspace management with the native with the bamboo radar screen. He thinks what he's doing is the same thing, but it's all in his mind.
What Mark is describing is not any sort of plan for a President. (Much as Paul's statement that he would "Outlaw the IRS", it's utterly meaningless. The President can't outlaw the IRS (as much as I'd support that goal).
By that same token, "Getting Lobbyists out of Government" is utterly meaningless. They're not in government. They exist because of what the structure of government. And most importantly in this discussion: the more power government has, the more power "Lobbys" have.
Thus, Obama's "claim" (since it's through Mark, I'm taking it with a small mountain of salt) that he'll (presumably reduce the power) of Lobbyists is a nice speech. Unrelated to what his plans are going to be.
juris:
" And AARP, like the NRA, derives it's political power not from money, but from it's membership. Kind of like unions do Mark."
Uhh, as a 20 year rank and filer, there's one great big difference between being a Union member and an NRA member:
When you get tired of their "beggar mailings" clotting up your mailbox,you can just leave the NRA.
I did.
When you get tired of the union's bullshit,(and Lord, am I ever!), you have to give up your job to leave.
If Right to Work were national and Federal, or barring that, the AFL-CIO would abolish Article 20 of the Merger, (the No-Raiding Clause), union PACs would shrivel away like a fart in a typhoon.
Or else they'd stop spending memberships' funds to get non-union member fast-food workers a raise.
Thus, Obama's "claim" (since it's through Mark, I'm taking it with a small mountain of salt) that he'll (presumably reduce the power) of Lobbyists is a nice speech.
Exactly. A nice speech to induce the naive into voting for him. No particular fault in that, it's what nearly every politician does. What's sad is that the gullible fools gobble it up the way they do.
Bilgerman: I was referring more to the way union political endorsements used to work. Politicians paid attention because there were votes at stake. Seems to still be that way with AFSCME/NEA [a particular dig if Markadelphia is a teacher], even if the trades are all but dead.
Hey folks, lots to respond to here. Let me think on it awhile and I will do so tomorrow.
While you're thinking on it, consider again what I've tried hard to get you to understand. If you're right, then you don't need bullshit. If you're wrong, then bullshit won't make you right.
Now, consider the implications of that. If you think you need to use bullshit to convince us you're right, then you're not thinking, or you're not right, or you're both.
So, don't just jerk your knees again. Put some effort into HOW you might convince us of something. Perhaps you've not noticed, but our bullshit detectors are deployed, and they work.
"why are you supporting a candidate who's called for/sponsored legislation/stumped on the need to make people behave in a way that the consensus doesn't agree with?"
Unix-Well, I guess I just don't see that at all. Obama is not about MAKING people believe anything. And I'm not sure I understand what you mean by consensus.
"My comments were addressed toward your manner of thinking"
DJ-Clearly, that is a major difference between the two of us-we think differently. Our perception of events and how we interpret them are at opposite poles.
"You say that based upon WHAT, other than his own STATEMENTS?"
Unix, not exclusively that. Look at the way he behaves, his actions...study him for awhile. Read his books. It's just not in his personality to be all that partisan.
Sometimes I wonder if the real issue with an Obama presidency would be the inevitable end (gasp!) of the childishness of conservative pundits and followers. You can almost see this in their criticisms of him. They are restrained and sort of forced, like the really don't know what to do. I think Obama scares the hell out of the right and I love it. What ever will they do?
"Want to see bipartisanship? See President Bush."
Um, Unix, you can't be serious. This statement, if you seriously believe it, shows that you quite literally have not been paying attention to what has been going on in DC for the last 8 years.
"The Word.
I want to see you provide proof as to anything. Proof. You're going to have a hard time with that. Proof."
Alright, then I suggest that if we are to have this discussion, a few things should be set up. First, I want an OK from Kevin to turn this into a JFK conspiracy thread. Or to set up another one. Second, an agreed upon definition of proof. I define proof, in regards to the JFK assassination as evidence, eyewitnesses, ear witnesses, the suspect (Oswald) and the dead body itself. CSI type stuff. Agreed?
"What it is that I'm apparently not understanding about the death-cult Islamists who are very much running the show in the Mid-East."
B, The fact that you ask this question means that you don't really have a clear idea of what is going on over there. If you are interested, research start with the history of US-Saudi relations, paying particular attention to the deal Nixon made with them in the 70s. I would also suggest that you get to know some people who come from the region. Ask their perspective. Be reflective. Remember, learning is a relatively permanent change in an organism due to EXPERIENCE.
"If you're right, then you don't need bullshit..."
Well, we agree there. But I don't think what I am saying is bullshit. You do.
And you might want to look under the hood at your deployed bullshit detector. It seems that one of the filters on it is defective...forgiving many things from one side and absolutely nothing from the other.
First, I want an OK from Kevin to turn this into a JFK conspiracy thread.
Nope. You've got your own blog. Do it there, or set up another blog. Not in my comments!
"DJ-Clearly, that is a major difference between the two of us-we think differently. Our perception of events and how we interpret them are at opposite poles."
No shit? Really?
Now, read these two quotes carefully, Mark:
Me: "If you're right, then you don't need bullshit ..."
You: "Well, we agree there. But I don't think what I am saying is bullshit. You do."
Apparently, what you don't understand is what I mean by "Bullshit", and this:
"And you might want to look under the hood at your deployed bullshit detector. It seems that one of the filters on it is defective...forgiving many things from one side and absolutely nothing from the other."
makes that (ahem!) obvious. In fairness to you, it's possible that you've not understood my use of this term in this context for a long time, and that could be my fault for not explaining it.
So, I'll try to 'splain it.
By the term "bullshit", in this context, I do not mean what it is that you would have us believe, rather I mean the manner and method by which you try to convince us to believe it. It applies to the process, not the content.
Now, if you don't understand that, if the distinction therein is just lost on you, then just say so and don't bother reading further.
I won't bother explaining again in detail what I mean by "the manner and method by which you try to convince us to believe it". I've done that already, many times. If you've forgotten, then go read the summary thereof again. You'll find it at http://www.haloscan.com/comments/khbaker/4504295673427610819/#584483
As I've stated before, many times, you're entitled to your own opinion. Like assholes, everybody has one, and they seldom withstand close scrutiny. But you are not entitled to your own facts. When you shovel out words by the hundredweight that you would have us believe are facts, but you don't support them, won't support them, and won't cooperate with us to verify them, and when you would have us believe that you know what other people think, what they want, and what motivates them, when you can't possibly know such things, and, finally, when all you offer in support is more such words, more blather, that process is what "bullshit" is. It's just spouting opinion, and the output is not worth examining closely any more than is the orifice whence it came.
You're right, Mark. Our perception of events and of reality are different from yours. Our evaluations are fact-based and logic-based and so are our methods of discussing them. Your methods are not, and we can't seem to convince you that this is the gulf that separates us. I stated to you many moons ago that what you think might merit scrutiny, but it's not worth wading through your "bullshit" to find out.
Get the facts, Mark. Show 'em to us. Don't just blather onward, show us how we can verify 'em. If you're right, that oughta be easy, but if you can't do it, then perhaps you're not right.
That's our method, Mark. Why isn't it yours, too?
U-J: why are you supporting a candidate who's called for/sponsored legislation/stumped on the need to make people behave in a way that the consensus doesn't agree with?"
Mark: Unix-Well, I guess I just don't see that at all. Obama is not about MAKING people believe anything. And I'm not sure I understand what you mean by consensus.
This is very simple, Mark. If, as you say, Obama was about consensus, then there would be very little need to force people to give pizzas away. Outlaw guns. Any of his current, stated, policy platform.
Since Obama's stated platform is to force DJ, and LabRat, and Kevin, and you and I, because we don't agree, and thus aren't in consensus, this means your platitude is shown to be illusory in nature.
It's that simple. You can't claim he's out for "bipartisanship consensus", when his plans are extremely biased toward government control, oversight and new programs for said same. You could claim that you prefer the control, make arguments for that, but that's not what you're claiming.
U-J: You say that based upon WHAT, other than his own STATEMENTS?
Mark: Unix, not exclusively that. Look at the way he behaves, his actions...study him for awhile. Read his books. It's just not in his personality to be all that partisan.
According to who? I said, give me something other than what he's said to demonstrate that. Your reply is to cite his books? That's exactly what I asked you not to give me, and it's the first thing you came up with.
Along with "proof" from your depth of "Knowing the questions to ask yourself (Mark)". It's just not in his personality to be all that partisan.
Mark, you can like the guy fine. But that doesn't make him "Bipartisan". What proof would you demonstrate to me that he's bipartisan?
Sometimes I wonder if the real issue with an Obama presidency would be the inevitable end (gasp!) of the childishness of conservative pundits and followers.
You didn't read those AVI links, did you? Childishness? (much less that it would be "inevitably ended").
How, Mark? For the sake of this point and this point alone, let's (erroneously in fact, but for the sake of argument) assume you're right. Everybody who disagrees with you is "childish".
How will Obama inevitably cause this to end?
Explain to me, please, how, other than your hero-worship (that you project to us for Bush, a man most of us here aren't that fond of, nor support that much), that Obama could inevitably cause this to end?
I think Obama scares the hell out of the right and I love it. What ever will they do?
He doesn't "scare the hell" out of me. I believe you think that, but you've been utterly incapable of learning that your ability to analyze is woefully inadequate. I just feel he's totally out of his league for President, running for the wrong reasons, and unlikely to be successful for those reasons. He's running on a platform that's very liberal, very anti-liberty. (And that's even aside from what shouldn't matter to us, but you're the one telling us we don't understand the rest of the world: In the eyes of the Islamics, he's a apostate. One who was raised in the faith and who rejected it. To us, meaningless. To the countries you're presuming he'll magically cause the US to "regain stature", mayhap nowhere near as much as you'd think. But then, I don't know anything about Islam, do I?)
U-J: Want to see bipartisanship? See President Bush.
Mark: Um, Unix, you can't be serious. This statement, if you seriously believe it, shows that you quite literally have not been paying attention to what has been going on in DC for the last 8 years.
No, Mark, it does. Bush (both of them) extended just about every olive branch possible, and were demonized for it. "No Child Left Behind?" "McCain-Feingold"? Hell, Bush has allowed the Federal Judiciary to be backlogged and paralyzed rather than forcing the issue with the malpracticing Senate Democrats. Iraq War? 77-23.. Kyoto? 95-0 in the Senate. Against.
No, Mark, the "division" of the country didn't come from Bush. There are very few items you could legitimately point to that in any real way were decisively "divisive", nowhere near as many as should have been seen with a divided Executive/Judiciary. In almost all cases, Bush did not start, and tried to minimize the division.
If you'd like to argue that, then start bringing up examples. I've given you several to support my way of thinking. Demonstrate to me how Bush deliberately divided the country. I think you'll run from this, because of the constant drumbeat of division that's come from the Democrats since 2000.
I would also suggest that you get to know some people who come from the region. Ask their perspective. Be reflective. Remember, learning is a relatively permanent change in an organism due to EXPERIENCE.
Easy for you to say, but you've yet to demonstrate learning. Ah kin it'all be strange and all to yew, but I rightly shore reckon that Ah've knewn quite a few of dem-dare A-rabs and Turkmen, Persians, and hells-fire boy, but I've even been known to know some of them there "Palestintians".
Shucks. Even chatted with 'em a few times. Traded recipes with 'em. Even related to some of them Persian-sorts. Rightly nough good folk, if a might tiched in the 'ead.
But at the end Mark, despite your insults, what I asked of you - and DJ pleaded with you to consider - you ignored. You witnessed that Obama has said what you said that he said, when I asked you for proof that it was more than mere words. You've failed to note the reality of more than this situation, and failed to accurately predict, well, just about everything. But you continue with your prediction based upon what is essentially Messiah-hood and charismatic words. And it's I who "quite literally haven't been paying attention".
Sorry, Kev. Shouldn't have challenged him to the JFK nonsense here. My bad.
Mark:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/khbaker/1679833497815732710/?a=40113#585660
Click on that. Read it. Try and understand what it says. Try and restate it. Research it if you want.
LabRat's dead on here, I hate to tell you. You've built your bamboo "control tower", and you've got your headset on, and you're clearing planes to land to bring you goodies...
But you're talking to no-one, because you don't understand what made those towers work. The Radios. The Headsets.
Let me just reiterate one thing to you: I asked you to demonstrate to me some proof that your oft-stated belief that Obama would be "bipartisan", other than what he's said.
You referred me to his books.
It's not that your tower is made of Bamboo, it's that you don't know how to contact the planes, you don't understand how to think logically, and for all your insults to us about "education" and "learning from others", you've steadfastly kept building more and more bamboo and rock planes.
Even when we tried to show you flight tracking, and explain trade, and tell you the war's over, and that you'll need to do something different to get the cargo planes in now. "Nonsense! They'll be back! We just have to DO THIS RIGHT!" We tried to build you model airplanes to demonstrate lift and thrust, how jet engines work. You instead tried to make a more realistic DC-3.
Seriously, Mark. I asked you for something other than Obama's words, and you referred me to the books he wrote.
If you weren't in a "Cargo Cult" of logic, that would be immediately apparent to you.
Hey, Kevin, no problem. And sorry as well. Anytime, Unix, my blog or yours, just let me know. Although if we do mine, it would have to be after Iowa and New Hampshire as I have some things planned for the next week.
DJ-
"But you are not entitled to your own facts."
Nor are you, sir.
"Our evaluations are fact-based and logic-based and so are our methods of discussing them"
"Your methods are not"
I couldn't disagree more. You begin with the belief that nothing good can every come from liberalism and you go from there. Because you (and Unix) suffer from confirmation bias, you seek out information that supports your belief. Yes, some of it is true. Some of it is not. Some of it is only half the picture. And some of the links, like Unix's above (yes I did read them) are conservative blogs. I can't link to liberal blogs, can I, lest I be accused of not sticking to the facts? Hmm...seems unfair.
I understand the process, DJ. The problem occurs when I introduce a fact into the process that doesn't jibe with your belief system. Thus, it is deemed not a fact, bullshit, and the vilification begins.
Unix, we each of a perception of Obama that is vastly different. Oh well. Since the chief issue on this blog is gun control, I think you would all find it interesting that he has no link for gun control on his web site in his issues section. I don't think it is all that important to him. I think I could safely say that not much would change were he president in this area.
As far as the bipartisan thing goes, how about his work with Richard Lugar? I forgot about that one. Or his views on abortion? I know this might be a difficult concept for you to grasp but the man isn't built to be a divider. It's just not in him.
"He's running on a platform that's very liberal, very anti-liberty"
Wow. Clearly not listening at all. Such a shame....
"No, Mark, the "division" of the country didn't come from Bush."
Yes, Unix, it fucking well did. It started with him and Rove and the whole divide and conquer mentality. They used conservative pundits as lap dogs, swift boating anyone who disagreed with them, and employing appeal to fear as a way to maintain the support they did have. And the Democrats let them because, for the most part, they are a bunch of spineless turds.
Our current president has little regard for the legislative branch of our government. He doesn't have to worry about the courts as he has his friends on there or has bought the votes he needs. He and Cheney have pretty much done whatever they have wanted to do with no oversight.
And they put people in place in the executive branch...many of whom oddly seem to come from Pat Robertson's university...who are good "Bushies" ...who will do anything he says.
"because of the constant drumbeat of division that's come from the Democrats since 2000."
Oh, God my stomach still hurts from laughter on this one. Democrats, in their typical naivete, stuck to the issues and look what happened? Ten Years of the Republican slime and fear machine. The only reason why groups like MoveON.org are around is because conservatives had groups like that first. Please...
"I understand the process, DJ. The problem occurs when I introduce a fact into the process that doesn't jibe with your belief system. Thus, it is deemed not a fact, bullshit, and the vilification begins."
NO, MARK, A MILLION TIMES, NO.
Damnit, man, try to understand plain English.
The problem occurs: 1) when you state what you would have us believe is a fact but you won't support it by showing us where and/or how we can verify it; or, 2) when you state what you would have us believe is a fact when you can't possibly know it to be true or false.
You provide a gorgeous example just above:
"You begin with the belief that nothing good can every (sic) come from liberalism and you go from there."
You attributed a belief to me which only I can know the truth or falseness of, and you have never once asked me whether or not I believe it. For the record, I don't believe the statement you have attributed to me.
Goddamn, man, are you really this dense? Do you really not understand what I've been stating to you?
"Since the chief issue on this blog is gun control, I think you would all find it interesting that he has no link for gun control on his web site in his issues section. I don't think it is all that important to him. I think I could safely say that not much would change were he president in this area."
Perhaps the reason there is no "link for gun control" on his web site is that he doesn't want voters to think of him and gun control in the same thought. Why not? Perhaps because his record is unabashadly anti-gun, and perhaps because he wants to win.
Try googling "Obama gun control" and spend five minutes digging and verifying.
"Our current president has little regard for the legislative branch of our government. He doesn't have to worry about the courts as he has his friends on there or has bought the votes he needs. He and Cheney have pretty much done whatever they have wanted to do with no oversight."
Count 'em, Mark:
1) How do you know what our President has "regard for"? Can you read his mind?
2) How do you know that he has bought votes? Got any proof, meaning facts that we can verify?
3) George W. Bush is the President, Mark. Dick Cheney is the Vice-President. Bush is the head of one branch of the Federal Gubmint. NOBODY has oversight over the President except the voters.
You are unreachable, dude. You just won't get it.
Might I add, because this is a point that I think has gone wanting and is a big part of the reason why I don't do anything but drive-bys with these little go-rounds anymore: Telling someone else what they think and what motivates them in lieu of asking them is incredibly, profoundly, insulting and disrespectful.
I don't give a damn whether anybody has warm feelings about my general existence or thinks I'm the second coming of the Wicked Witch of the West. Not the slightest jitter on the needle of my temper appears when my positions, personality, or ancestry are attacked. You could call me a cock-swizzling hellcunt and I'd congratulate you on your skill with advanced profanity.
But when someone tells me I only think or believe something because of some retarded reason like "automatically filtering out anything 'liberal'", that is a direct personal assault on my integrity, my intelligence, and my honesty. It may mean nothing to a person who places no great value on their own intellectual integrity, but it's a profound insult to anyone who does- especially if they've done absolutely nothing to merit the charge and it's being hurled by some punk who can't construct an argument even if you give him annotated blueprints.
That is why your reception is increasingly caustic and dismissive. It's not because you're a liberal. It's not even because you couldn't make a credible argument to save your own life. It's because you constantly serve up a stream of deep insult along with the puffball politics- maybe you're not aware of it, which is why I suspect you get the tolerance you do, but it's why you also get absolutely zero respect even though you CLAIM to "respect" us: because constantly going around telling people what they really think and why isn't only telling them things that they have every reason to know are completely untrue, but it's treating them like children- SMALL children- in the process.
(C)onstantly going around telling people what they really think and why isn't only telling them things that they have every reason to know are completely untrue, but it's treating them like children- SMALL children- in the process.
Not to hijack the commentary, but this is a hallmark of liberal Democrat politics. It is, unfortunately, also an increasing hallmark of Republican politics. One's always been parental, the other is growing ever moreso. I can't remember who said it, but the Democrats are the "mommy" party, and the Republicans are the "daddy" party.
Fuck that, because in what family do the children get to choose who is in charge? Mommy and Daddy tell you what's best for you.
And that's the very direction we've been going since at least the New Deal.
True enough, Kevin, and God alone knows there's plenty of "this is the REAL liberal/conservative agenda" commentary out there, and worse- pieces that purport to psychoanalyze "liberals" or "conservatives" and diagnose them with various mental deficiencies.
I have different rules for one-on-one interactions, individual to individual, and campaigning, or demagoguing.
"Perhaps because his record is unabashadly anti-gun, and perhaps because he wants to win."
Well, here's what I found to be his record.
http://www.issues2000.org/Domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm
Doesn't seem unabashedly anti gun to me. But there's that perception thing again...
And, did he actually say:
"we need to acknowledge that there's a hole in his heart, one that government programs alone may not be able to repair."
Hmm...
"1. How do you know what our President has "regard for"? Can you read his mind?"
I don't have to. I just listen to what he has to say. Unlike yourself, DJ, (re: Michael Moore) I actually listen to what people are saying and follow what they do before I call them a liar. Hey, that's what is so great about Fahrenheit 9-11. The best lines in the film are the ones by Bush, not Moore. He does a pretty good job of showing us where he stands.
"2) How do you know that he has bought votes? Got any proof, meaning facts that we can verify?"
Well, let's see. Janet Rehnquist was appointed the inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services, and Eugene Scalia was given a job as solicitor general at the Labor Department. It's common knowledge that the conservative judges that voted for Bush were rewarded for their votes. Oh and Eugene Scalia? He was one of Bush's attorneys when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the then-Republican presidential candidate in the Florida election case.
Services given, payment received.
"3) George W. Bush is the President, Mark. Dick Cheney is the Vice-President. Bush is the head of one branch of the Federal Gubmint. NOBODY has oversight over the President except the voters."
So, I guess you missed the part about the checks and balances. For your review:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers#United_States:_three_branches
Make sure you read items 4 and 5 in the first column.
Oh, and the voters are represented by the Legislative Branch so technically we are both right.
Lab, I respectfully submit that you re-read some of my posts and then re-read DJ's and Unix's. Invariably, they resort to name calling and insults. I do not. Who's the child again?
I think Obama scares the hell out of the right and I love it. What ever will they do?
Ehem, Markadelphia, were you saying something about being "childish"? Oh, wait, that was directed at them, wasn't it?
"Want to see bipartisanship? See President Bush."
Um, Unix, you can't be serious.
Oh, ah, Mark - you do recall that many, many Democrats supported the invasion of Iraq, don't you? That's called "bipartisan".
The problem occurs when I introduce a fact into the process that doesn't jibe with your belief system.
No Markadelphia, the problem is you don't know what a fact is.
Let's take an example. The top 10% of income earners pay a bit over 50% of all federal tax (income, SS, etc.). That is a fact (see Table 2).
Whether you believe that to be too much or too little is opinion/belief/whatever. What is bullshit is claiming that that isn't really how much the rich pay. Does that make sense?
I couldn't disagree more. You begin with the belief
And you're not name-calling?
DJ, I, LabRat, Kevin. Russell all have repeatedly tried to get you to begin at the same point. To get on the same page. To have a factual discussion of some worth. Not just praying to a messiah figure, or presuming that the person you like will behave in a perfect condition.
You just invent more BS and keep wandering around.
that nothing good can every come from liberalism and you go from there.
Utterly false. As I've told you before.
You keep projecting strawmen onto us - just as you did when you called us Nazi's. (Forget that?)
Because you (and Unix) suffer from confirmation bias,
Demonstrate this. Simple enough, if true.
I can't link to liberal blogs, can I, lest I be accused of not sticking to the facts? Hmm...seems unfair.
You say this at least once a week, and once a week it's debunked. The links I had above were opinion. They were relating observations. Damn good ones in my opinion. They didn't "prove" anything other than they described your behavior to a "T". They don't describe my behavior, or DJ's or LabRat's, nor Kevin's.
Because we don't base our argument on why you, Obama, Hillary, Bush do things. Your arguments always devolve back to "your questions you know to ask" to "get to the key internal thoughts of someone else". Even though every time you've done it here you've been shown to be wrong.. 100% Failure Rate. (Well, I guess you're "Perfect", but not in a way that bolsters your methodology.)
The problem occurs when I introduce a fact into the process that doesn't jibe with your belief system.
No, Mark, it comes when you introduce a "fact" that we demand some proof of. It's not a fact, it's a "Fact" - and when we ask for some backing of it, you turn to circular logic. Michael Moore's claims are justified by you using ... Michael Moore. (When he's proved to be lying out of his ass, you refuse to admit that damages his credibility.) Your "fact" that "Obama" would "inevitably cause this to end" is unsubstantiated. I asked you for some proof outside of Obama's words (he doesn't have a long track record), and you... referred me back to Obama. You didn't explain, how he'd "inevitably cause this to end" I note. That was your claim, it's for you to defend that you were right and not just making up "facts" out of whole cloth.. I know systems. I know that even if Obama was the second best president to George Washington, that there's no possible way that he could inevitably stop "childishness".
Apparently, you do as well, but you don't have the decency to retract your statement.
Now, where have I appealed to emotion here? Where have I demonized Obama? I've stated that what you're saying is silly and wishful thinking, because it's never happened in the past, it's not a possibility - but you've gone on the record as it being a 100% certainty.
Yes, Unix, it fucking well did.
I noted a small list (of what's possible) of where it didn't.
I'm waiting on your proof of where you disagree.
The rest of your spew is factually devoid - but I'll let it pass - for now. Becuase I'm waiting on the specifics of where Bush "divided".
There has been a huge divide, Mark, as the media elite (essentially a division of the Democrat party) have been repeating - just as you are - that it's all Bush's fault for not doing as the Democrats "want" for him to do. Of course, when it comes to voting on the record, apparently he's not so divisive.
But, you tell me where Bush has been divisive. We'll compare that to the historical record, and see how you do.
If you're right, you'll be right, Mark. All you have to do is not give generalities, (or slander the Swift Vets), and just give me concrete examples.
I think you would all find it interesting that he has no link for gun control on his web site in his issues section. I don't think it is all that important to him.
I don't. Gun Control is a losing proposition. (In my opinion. Notably because almost all politicians are either embracing gun rights, or being "Vewy, Vewy qwiet" about them.) Obama's record and beliefs are as DJ pointed out, easily Googleable. For most people who would vote for Obama (so far, almost all of whom are "gungrabbers") they understand that he's not going to give Kevin and me the "easy ammo" - but he's on the "right side".
So you project upon Obama a belief (at odds with his statements and actions), and then you insist you know what his beliefs are, what his mind is.
Then you presume to inform me of what goes on in my mind. When I tell you're you're wrong - even showing evidence that you're yet again wrong - and you undeterred insist that you - you! - know the "questions to ask" to understand me.
Let's start the discussion on childishness with the fact that despite subtle hints, despite good natured attempts to point it out, despite blatantly being told how insulting that your arrogant, ignorant presumption, you still can't understand how insulting you are.
LabRat: "Telling someone else what they think and what motivates them in lieu of asking them is incredibly, profoundly, insulting and disrespectful."
Mark: "Lab, I respectfully submit that you re-read some of my posts and then re-read DJ's and Unix's. Invariably, they resort to name calling and insults. I do not. Who's the child again?"
Unix: "Let's start the discussion on childishness with the fact that despite subtle hints, despite good natured attempts to point it out, despite blatantly being told how insulting that your arrogant, ignorant presumption, you still can't understand how insulting you are."
Enough, Mark.
I diagnosed you, correctly in my opinion (and that is what it is, my opinion), as suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Since then, you have confirmed it mightily. If an engineer can do it that easily and score a bullseye, then it's pretty solid, methinks. A psychologist could write a textbook on the subject with you as the case study.
I do not for one microsecond believe that you are not intelligent enough to understand what Kevin, Labrat, Unix, I, and others have been labored to help you understand, and so there has to be a reason why you refuse to exhibit any such understanding. There is. Your inflated, childish ego just won't let you. The metaphor which describes it is that you continue to dig the hole you are in ever deeper, all the while refusing to admit that the hole exists. With Monty Python, it is funny. With you, it is sad and pathetic.
We see the hole, Mark, and the ultimate insult you deliver on us is that you treat us as if we don't. Courtesy is the default, but respect must be earned. You haven't earned it, you will never earn it with the behavior you routinely exhibit, and our frustration with trying to help you earn it bleeds through.
And so, LabRat's observation:
"It may mean nothing to a person who places no great value on their own intellectual integrity, but it's a profound insult to anyone who does- especially if they've done absolutely nothing to merit the charge and it's being hurled by some punk who can't construct an argument even if you give him annotated blueprints."
is a work of art. I concur completely.
Enough.
I diagnosed you, correctly in my opinion (and that is what it is, my opinion), as suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
(*cough*cough*cough*)
C'mon, Anon. Keep it above the belt.
The only people who find a name more upsetting than non-stop demeaning of their intelligence and honesty are children.
"you do recall that many, many Democrats supported the invasion of Iraq, don't you?"
Yes, but wasn't that bipartisan on their part and not Bush's?
"What is bullshit is claiming that that isn't really how much the rich pay. Does that make sense?"
Go back and check my research in the thread where DJ and I debated this. There are plenty of facts in there that were conveniently ignored.
"And you're not name-calling?"
No, I don't think so. And if I did, I was wrong and I apologize. Still haven't gotten an apology yet for being called: an idiot, a fool, pond scum etc etc..
"Michael Moore's claims are justified by you using..."
Really?
http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/checkup/
Factual backup for Sicko, F911 and Bowling for Columbine..all from sources other than Moore. Have fun refuting them. You won't.
"as the media elite (essentially a division of the Democrat party)"
You mean the ones at Fox News? Or how about Rush Limbaugh? Laura Ingraham? Hugh Hewitt? Dennis Praeger? Or how about General Electric, owner of NBC? Or Viacom, owner of CBS?
"But, you tell me where Bush has been divisive. "
I don't think I can. If you can't see something as obvious as this, it is definitely beyond my capability, that's for sure.
Mark:
We're really at the endgame now. You've been trounced through the opening, midgame, and I bet you can't see we're at the endgame.
Yes, but wasn't that bipartisan on their part and not Bush's?
No.
You don't know what bipartisan means. Don't tell me that you do, you just declared (proved, even!), right there, that you do not.
"Michael Moore's claims are justified by you using..."
Really?
http://www.michaelmoore.com/sick.../sicko/checkup/
What? Surely you didn't just answer me by citing MICHAEL MOORE to argue that you cite Michael Moore to prove Michael Moore?
You have to be trolling. Because I have a hard time believing anyone literate could be that utterly clueless. Well, I did have a hard time.
You mean the ones at Fox News?
I love the FNC talisman. "You know, there's a lot of liberal bias..." "FOX NEWS! FOX NEWS! FOX NEWS! Look, a FOX NEWS! FOX NEWS!"
FNC isn't even that right-wing, they measure pretty much middle of the road, overall. They have some commentators who might not (and O'Reilly isn't "conservative").
But their reporting is almost entirely the same as CNN's. Notice how many of the journalists bebop back and forth around between stations?
EVEN IF you were able to use that as a counter, there's a slight problem.
Fox News isn't the "Media elite". They've been (just as Bush has) slandered (just as you are now), vilified, used as whipping boys. After all of that, they're kicking CNN's ass in ratings - and have less than a 1/4 of the total eyeballs of the "Big Three".
That's right, Mark. As Jonah Goldberg has offered many a time, if FNC is that powerful, let's "Swap" the FNC people with the ABC/CBS/NBC lineup and evening news. Fair is fair, right?
There's almost no "conservative" thought in papers - they have "token conservatives". Or on the major networks. Or on PBS. NPR.
Or how about Rush Limbaugh?
What about him? He's on AM talk radio. (Hell, he made AM talk radio. Because there was no other place for him.)
Laura Ingraham?
You mean, the talk radio again? Never heard her show. Gee, she must be really big.
Hugh Hewitt? Dennis Praeger?
Who weren't heard of prior to the internet, and their continual good coverage of events. I've listened to Hewitt's show over the internet (since it's not broadcast anywhere near me), and never heard Praeger, but I've read some of his columns. On a small web site.
You yet again, prove my point. The "conservative" commentators may be influential, but they're hardly "mainstream".
Or how about General Electric, owner of NBC? Or Viacom, owner of CBS?
So what? You throw disjointed accusations out. How about the forged documents CBS tried to throw the last Presidential election with? What did Viacom's ownership matter with that? What matters is what they do.
Which you cannot, no matter how many times we point out to you, understand.
I don't think I can. If you can't see something as obvious as this, it is definitely beyond my capability, that's for sure.
I don't see why it would be hard, Mark. If, you were right, and Bush has spent the last 7 years dividing America.
Don't try and show me them. Show the others, not as blind as I.
Or admit that "something as obvious as this" is so non-obvious you can't demonstrate it.
Come on. You've told us you know how to formulate the "right questions" to ask. So demonstrate that you do.
"What? Surely you didn't just answer me by citing MICHAEL MOORE to argue that you cite Michael Moore to prove Michael Moore?"
Surely, Unix, you didn't actually go to "he who shall not be named"'s web site and follow the links to other sites that he has provided. Links that are all most assuredly not Michael Moore.
"Because I have a hard time believing anyone literate could be that utterly clueless."
Did you read this part of what I wrote?
"all from sources other than Moore."
Apparently not. But, go ahead, by all means. Ignore the factual backup listed on his site. It simply proves my point about the fact selection process that occurs in our debates.
Unix, do a little research and find out who runs GE, Viacom, and Disney (ABC owner). They are all hard core Republicans.
Unix:
What? Surely you didn't just answer me by citing MICHAEL MOORE to argue that you cite Michael Moore to prove Michael Moore?
You have to be trolling. Because I have a hard time believing anyone literate could be that utterly clueless.
Click on the link before you insert your foot in your mouth. Yes, the link is to Michael Moore's site. The links within it are not. That was Mark's point - you won't even look. I did, and organizations like the CDC and the Institute of Medicine require actual consideration and rebuttal.
So I suggest you might want to whoa for a moment and at least reconsider that point.
Kevin:
I loaded the link. I was aware of what was there.
But my point still stands. I've challenged Mark to substantiate his claims, which he's failed to do.
Pointing to Moore's "Bibliography", as it were, does not do that. But it does show that that's the extent of his research - what Moore says he presents. (I'd really rather talk about the Obama claims he's made, which I note he's trying to obfuscate and bury now. You know, the "he is NOT about entitlement at all" ... "I wonder if the real issue with an Obama presidency would be the inevitable end (gasp!) of the childishness of conservative pundits and followers."
Now, if I were to counter, by citing a Moore page, and showing that his sources do not show what he says they do - that would be evidence of a far stronger sort.
(But as we know, Moore rarely makes claims that aren't (arguably), if not reasonably backed - at least in some measure.)
I looked at it. My claim that Mark will only (and possibly that's a "can only") point to his original source (and the sources the OS claims) stands without modification. Not to be too snarky, but I of course went and looked to see what it was (I've read through it before, back when I felt like arguing MM's stuff way back when.)
Sorry if I wasn't clear that I i check Mark's cite - but his cite proves that he's (at best) capable of "citing" circularly - and merely pointing at a "bibliography" doesn't, IMO, count as a "cite".
Unix, do a little research and find out who runs GE, Viacom, and Disney (ABC owner). They are all hard core Republicans.
Which matters very little as the overwhelming majority of people in journalism are leftists, Mark, and admittedly so.
I just finished reading a fascinating book, Professor Brian Anse Patrick's The National Rifle Association and the Media: The Motivating Force of Negative Coverage. In this book, Patrick studied what he called "elite press," differentiated from the "mainstream media" and the "local media," defined as "the serious papers and/or magazines of political-social reporting and analysis that enjoy national (or at least regional) and sometimes international status, reputations, and circulations." These include the New York Times, LA Times, Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News and World Report.
He studied the coverage of five groups: the NRA, NAACP, ACLU, AARP, and HCI (Handgun Control at the time, now The Brady Campaign.)
You want to know what I found most fascinating about it? He found a consistent, statistically significant case of bias, but not just against the NRA. No, there was bias against two groups, and for two others. The order, from most negative to most positive, was as follows:
NRA
ACLU
NAACP
AARP
HCI
He thought long and hard about why that might be. Here's his conclusion, that I think even you might grasp:
The larger concept that lies behind the consistent ranking is a broad cultural level phenomenon that I will label an administrative control bias. It has profound implications. Administrative control in this usage means rational, scientific, objective social management by elite, symbol-manipulating classes, and subclasses, i.e., professionalized administrators or bureaucratic functionaries. The thing administered is often democracy itself, or a version of it at least. Here and throughout this chapter terms such as "rational," "objective," "professional," and "scientific" should be read in the sense of the belief systems that they represent, i.e. rationalism, objectivism, professionalism, and scientism. Scientism is not the same as being scientific; the first is a matter of faith and ritualistic observance, the other is difficult creative work. William James made a similar distinction between institutional religion and being religious, the first being a smug and thoughtless undertaking on the part of most people, the second, a difficult undertaking affecting every aspect of a life. The term scientistic administration would pertain here. Note that we move here well beyond the notion of mere gun control and into the realm of general social control, management and regulation.
In other words, "central planning" - aka socialism.
Here are some quotes concerning journalists and journalism that you might also want to consider:
The opinion of the press corps tends toward consensus because of an astonishing uniformity of viewpoint. Certain types of people want to become journalists, and they carry certain political and cultural opinions. This self-selection is hardened by peer group pressure. No conspiracy is necessary; journalists quite spontaneously think alike. The problem comes because this group-think is by now divorced from the thoughts and attitudes of readers. Robert L. Bartley
--
Those convinced that liberals make up a disproportionate share of newsroom workers have long relied on Pew Research Center surveys to confirm this view, and they will not be disappointed by the results of Pew's latest study released today. . . .
At national organizations (which includes print, TV and radio), the numbers break down like this: 34% liberal, 7% conservative. At local outlets: 23% liberal, 12% conservative. At Web sites: 27% call themselves liberals, 13% conservatives.
This contrasts with the self-assessment of the general public: 20% liberal, 33% conservative. . . .
While it's important to remember that most journalists in this survey continue to call themselves moderate, the ranks of self-described liberals have grown in recent years, according to Pew. For example, since 1995, Pew found at national outlets that the liberal segment has climbed from 22% to 34% while conservatives have only inched up from 5% to 7%. Editor and Publisher, 5/04
--
One point that can't be overstressed is that the Pew findings are based on self-assessment. I worked in the newsroom at three large newspapers for 22 years, and many of the journalists who rate themselves as politically moderate are well to the left of center, especially on social issues. They are moderate by newsroom standards, not by the general public's standards.
Perhaps the most pervasive way in which journalists are different from normal people is that journalists live in a world dominated by government, and they reflexively see government action as the default way to approach any problem. Mike Gordon, quoted by Instapundit in his piece on that Editor and Publisher piece.
I intend to get a post out of this book, but this seemed a remarkably appropriate place to bring it up.
Mark:
Unix, do a little research and find out who runs GE, Viacom, and Disney (ABC owner). They are all hard core Republicans.
Which does not answer my question. (DJ, your turn to repeat to him about logic.)
I asked, if what you're saying is true, to explain the Forged CBS "Air National Guard" Memos.
You reply that the owners are "Hard Core Republicans." That's a non-answer. Again.
Who the "owners" are is irrelevant if the media's actions demonstrate that it doesn't matter. (Furthermore, all of those are corporations.
GE.
Viacom.
Disney.
Meaning that you're completely, totally wrong about the "Owner".)
Links that are all most assuredly not Michael Moore.
So why did you not link to those that are particularly telling?
But my point was when we challenged your use of Moore, you cited Moore. Which you just re-cited.
When I asked you about Obama, you told me to read his books. But I'd asked for something besides his words.
I think my case has been well made, and don't feel the need to argue it with you any longer.
The more I've asked you, the less specific you've gotten.
You claimed to know many things. Including that Obama would be bipartisan (Then you proved you don't know what bipartisan is). That he would inevitably change the actions of opposing pundits.
Let's work on those, shall we? Explain to me those things. (If you get time, I'd still like you to answer the other questions, like particular examples of Bush's "divisiveness".
You tried to score a cheap shot (failed again, just as you failed when you insisted I didn't know anybody from "those cultures"). But notice you've not engaged a single point I've made, shown the proof asked for in at least 10 posts here. You've tried to change the subject instead - and DJ and LabRat have called you on that, and in an attempt to explain it to you, done so brilliantly. But you're still refusing to engage - but insisting it's somehow our fault.
Markadelphia, here is what I found under the link to BfC on Moore's site:
How to Deal with the Lies and the Lying Liars When They Lie about "Bowling for Columbine"
by Michael Moore
You are a tool, a whore, a fool, a waste of time; I will bother with you no more.
Kevin, I can't believe you fell for this...
Click on the link before you insert your foot in your mouth. Yes, the link is to Michael Moore's site. The links within it are not. That was Mark's point - you won't even look. I did, and organizations like the CDC and the Institute of Medicine require actual consideration and rebuttal.
No, Moore is once again selectively citing factoids which he finds and then uses in completely inappropriate context. This is part of his technique - to take something that is truthful (at least in part) and then use it in a way completely twisted from it's original context. He then pounds his chest over his "honesty" and clings to the misused fact life a piece of toilet paper on your heel.
That's when he isn't just flat out lying as in his "quoting" the transcript of BfC as his 'source' (see link for the bank clerk).
Markadelphia may be suckered by such, but you sure as hell shouldn't be.
"(DJ, your turn to repeat to him about logic.)"
Lessee now ...
I stated to Mark that Obama's record is unabashedly anti-gun, and I suggested that he google "Obama gun control" and investigate. Google turned up about 1,050,000 hits. He cherry-picked one web site, posted its URL, and stated,
"Doesn't seem unabashedly anti gun to me. But there's that perception thing again..."
Apparently, this constituted "analysis" on his part.
Now, note that he did this in comments on a site that is about guns, gun laws, and the Constitution, a site where his host and his "opponents" (I suppose that is the correct term) are experts on the subject and he is not. Can you imagine getting a more clear or a more unmistakable picture of just what constitutes "thinking" and "analysis" in his mind? Have you ever seen such shallowness in your whole life?
No, this little gem pushed me over the edge. He is unreachable, I see no reason to try further, and I am done with him.
Juris, the links or sources for Sicko are after each fact in the film such as...
"The U. S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds." "World Health Organization Assesses The World's Health Systems," Press Release, WHO/44, June 21, 2000. http://www.who.int/inf-pr-2000/en/pr2000-44.html
And for F911
“John Ellis, a first cousin of George W. Bush, ran the network's ‘decision desk’ during the 2000 election, and Fox was the first to name Bush the winner. Earlier, Ellis had made six phone calls to Cousin Bush during the vote-counting.” William O’Rourke, “Talk Radio Key to GOP Victory,” Chicago Sun-Times, December 3, 2002
With Bowling for Columbine, the sources are on Moore's site but they are the original sources.
Go here:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/
scroll down to the paragraph starting with The Truth and read how Moore did in fact get the gun the same day. What's interesting about this is that I actually thought he did bend the time frame. Oh my god, DJ, you're right! I am gulliable. I believed the Moore truth watchers were telling the truth. Could it be they were lying? Say it ain't so, Virginia!
Kevin, nice comments and I will definitely look into them more. Some great stuff to digest. I look forward to your post about this book.
scroll down to the paragraph starting with The Truth and read how Moore did in fact get the gun the same day.
Mark, I understand you're really too self-absorped (per anon's ref to your own blog) and too damn stupid to get it - but Moore's site references Moore's transcript of Moore's movie as *proof* of what Moore's movie claims. That's what I mentioned to Kevin. Maybe if you ask him REAL nice he'll have the patience of Job and explain it to you.
See here for an even more complete deconstruction. Or buy Dave Hardy's book.
Very amusing link. Whatever David Kopel was trying to say, it came out to me as this:
Hi, I am a conservative. We don't take kindly to any sort of critical thinking whatsoever regarding our set-in-rock granite belief system. We quite literally can't stand it.
So, rather than being reflective about what some people like Michael Moore are saying about us and possibly improve ourselves, we like to put all of our efforts into finding every single possible fault we can with anything that liberals like Moore do and say. We know that they are reflective (a weakness, to be sure) and we can exploit that.
If there aren't any faults, let's make some up! We have a large group of people that will believe anything we say. That way, we are always assured of being right. And fully in control of not only what people think but how they think.
Whatever David Kopel was trying to say, it came out to me as this
That you would say precisely that doesn't surprise me in the least. Jacques Derrida would have loved you.
You and Moore believe in the same kind of "facts" (not objective, agreed upon things, but ANYTHING that can be said in defense of your beliefs). That is a characteristic you also share with Bush and the neo-cons. It is what makes intelligent discussion impossible with you (as it is with Bush). No wonder you people suffer from BDS - you share the same damn disease.
No, actually I don't. Check this out.
http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2007/11/proving-me-wrong.html
It's not the man, it's his actions. If you actually took the time to watch Moore's films, you would see that is the actions of Bush and some conservatives that he criticizes. To think that BFC was anti-gun is to completely miss the point of what he was trying to say.
And there will never be "facts" or "objective, agree upon things" as long as many people on the right willingly remain ignorant.
Juris:
Best just to let it go. There's just no point. And I think I've given it enough of a fair shot to be the ranking expert here on trying.
(Though if DJ or Russ or Kevin or LabRat or ... wanted to lay claim, I'd gladly defer.
Because at this point, I think it shows ill of *my* good sense to keep throwing good time after bad.)
Whoops.
He must have turned off hotlinking since I last linked pictures.
1st link:
http://www.attackcartoons.com/article.php?story=20080102155802312
2nd link, the one Mark will like:
http://www.attackcartoons.com/article.php?story=20071214075559663
Sorry 'bout that.
So true, and I like the Ron Paul one as well.
And there will never be "facts" or "objective, agree upon things" as long as many people on the right willingly remain ignorant.
Asshole. I just pointed out the people on the 'right', Bush and the neo-cons, who are as willfully ignorant as you insist on remaining. You and they believe only in facts either made up or twisted out of context (and rendered meaningless). I don't care if you praise Bush or condemn him - it's that your mind works the same goddam way as his.
To think that BFC was anti-gun is to completely miss the point of what he was trying to say.
LMAO, that's what Kopel was SAYING - but your pathetic little mind couldn't grasp that. Now, go measure your girth and talk to "bobo" - I'm sure you two will come to agreement eventually.
U-J: Yeah, it's like a moth to a flame, isn't it? Nothing good is possibly going to come from it, but you just fly right in anyway.
U-J: I think you and DJ are both contenders for that title. For better or worse!
I think you and DJ are both contenders for that title. For better or worse!
I'm guessing the "winner" is determined by whomever's forehead has developed the most impressive scar tissue (from slamming it against the granite monolith of ignorance).
Hey juris, you may have answered this already but have you seen any of Moore's films? I know DJ hasn't. Unix, I don't know about. Kevin has seen BFC for sure.
I'm just curious where you stand.
I've seen Roger and Me and BfC, and that was enough, particularly given Moore's penchant for being less than honest in both. Oh, I know, it's all in a good cause, right? Lies are okay if told for a noble purpose (like making people become more liberal)? But, as you note, Moore didn't even really make an anti-gun movie; he made a movie that fit Glassner's thesis to a tee - scare people about something (school violence) that is very, VERY unlikely to actually impact them. I think Kopel hit the X - the ultimate joke is that Moore is putting one over on his audience. An audience that fancies themselves sophisticated but are just as easily led around by the nose as the most dirt-ignorant red-stater you can imagine. You are part of Moore's audience - congratulations.
"scare people about something (school violence)"
That was not the point of the film, at least in my opinion. The point of the film was that our culture, especially the people that run it, want us to remain afraid because that way we are better consumers. We're also easier to control because a society that is as insecure as we are will never recognize the true power that each of us has to change the world.
That is the message that Moore gave to me and basically I feel like I am a better person because of it.
The point of the film was that our culture, especially the people that run it, want us to remain afraid because that way we are better consumers.
Well, that would probably be because you are an idiot leftie that doesn't even pay attention to the NAME and DEFINING EVENT of the film. You might notice Mark that I'm simply not taking you seriously any more; you want to assert that you have the intellect of a not particularly bright 7 year old, that's how I'll treat you.
That is the message that Moore gave to me and basically I feel like I am a better person because of it.
Substitute 'Pat Robertson and Jesus' for Moore and you'd fit right in anywhere in the Bible Belt.
"That was not the point of the film, at least in my opinion. The point of the film was that our culture, especially the people that run it, want us to remain afraid because that way we are better consumers. We're also easier to control because a society that is as insecure as we are will never recognize the true power that each of us has to change the world."
ROFL!
Kinda redefines the meaning of "DENSE", doesn't he?
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>