Obama can indeed change the world. His policies are in fact are already doing just that, by turning control over a large part of it over to Jihadist.
With Iran soon to have nukes (all that will take is them waiting until the DPRKs can build them some or ship them the plans, those two are working together closely and the DPRKs have demonstrated to be able to construct them) that means Hezbollah and Hamas will soon have them as well.
Not quite Al Qaeda (in fact, quite the opposite as AQ are Sunni and Iran is Shiite, those are mortal enemies whose animosity is worse than the bloodfeud they share with the Jews and Christians) but bad enough.
It was my understanding that the nork nukes are implosion type plutonium devices, while the mad mullahs are going for uranium bombs. Is that incorrect?
Along similar lines F.A. Hayek states in Road to Serfdom: “But it would make the very men who are most anxious to plan society the most dangerous if they are allowed to do so – and the most intolerant of the planning of others. From the saintly and single-minded idealist to the fanatic is often but a step.”
Sowell's predictions of apocalypse seem much like predictions of the takeover of communism decades ago. India, Israel and Pakistan all have nuclear weapons. None of those three has used them against anybody. North Korea and Iran would not be a worry of the US if the US government would cease involving itself in those regions.
India, and Pakistan haven't sworn to see Israel destroyed. India and Pakistan don't consider the U.S. to be the Great Satan (some in Pakistan do, but their fingers are not - yet - on the trigger.)
North Korea possessing nuclear weapons is less worrying to me than Iran having them, though I can certainly see Kim selling the technology to whoever wants it. Remember that recent Israeli air raid on the Syrian facility? Amazing how little protest the Syrians made over that.
No, there's a tipping point. That's the problem I have with Ron Paul's foreign policy (or lack thereof) and why I cannot take him seriously as a contender for the Presidency.
I don't swallow the line that Iran has sworn to see Israel destroyed. I partially give North Korea and Iran a pass when it comes to having a beef with the US when we maintain tens of thousands of troops in an adjoining country. Calling the US the Great Satan might make for good approval ratings at home but what does it hurt me here in the continental US.
The tipping point analogy just doesn't fly in my book. Russia and China are much closer to both these countries and I don't hear a peep out of either of them. Why? Perhaps because they stick to defending their own borders (eh, exempting Tibet for the moment) and the US Army/US Navy/US Air Force doesn't.
I don't swallow the line that Iran has sworn to see Israel destroyed.
Right. Iran hasn't. The guys who will have the "button" have. It's a meaningless distinction without a real difference.
I partially give North Korea ... a pass when it comes to having a beef with the US when we maintain tens of thousands of troops in an adjoining country.
In NorK's case, in a purely defensive posture - due to merely a cease-fire in a war NorK started almost 60 years ago and refuses to concede defeat.
Yeah, they've got a "beef" with us daring to stand in the way of their plundering.
I don't for one second believe that any of these countries would sell their nukes to the highest bidder. It would be determined in quick order that they did that if they were used, and in quick order they would be destroyed by the US.
"No, there's a tipping point. That's the problem I have with Ron Paul's foreign policy (or lack thereof) and why I cannot take him seriously as a contender for the Presidency."
What? You can't take him seriously because he argues that interfering in other country's affairs only makes it worse for us? That by interfering, we are giving them a reason to hate us, to attack us? If we would just stay out of world affairs (like the Founders wanted us to) we would be much better off, and a lot less Americans would die.
There is NO reason to believe we would be attacked because "they hate use since we are free". They attack us because we KILL them. Stop killing them and we will be fine.
So they get nukes! Who cares? The precedent has already been set that if you have nukes, you won't be attacked. So, DUH they are going to want them.
What? You can't take him seriously because he argues that interfering in other country's affairs only makes it worse for us? That by interfering, we are giving them a reason to hate us, to attack us?
You are familiar with the concept of entropy? That all the king's horses and all the king's men can't put Humpty-Dumpty together again?
We've BTDT. Saying "Oops! Sorry!" isn't going to fix anything.
You assume that our opponents are rational. Bad bet.
You assume that our opponents are rational. Bad bet.
Kevin:
That's not what he's assuming.
He's assuming he understands their motivations, and they're in the same value system and meaning that he uses.
That's the really bad bet.
It's the same sort of conceit that can't understand using the atomic bombs on Japan, and that it actually saved Japan as a country and a culture. Because they try and project their purported motivation onto the culture, without understanding how alien it was to the culture.
Matt: I don't for one second believe that any of these countries would sell their nukes to the highest bidder.
That's a 3 part statement.
* You don't believe:
Possible. But that's your problem.
* Sell the nukes:
Possible. But you're arguing against history. NorK and Pakistan were *selling nuclear tech and renting out nuclear scientists*. Plus, your verb "sell" means "Trade for money." That statement could be true if the weapons were given away. "Well, they didn't *sell* them!"
* To the highest bidder:
You're projecting here. That it would be a sale merely for money's sake. The issue isn't merely money here, but power, control, and opportunity. The dynamics are such that you cannot model this with a small classroom exercise.
It would be determined in quick order that they did that if they were used, and in quick order they would be destroyed by the US.
That's the point of "plausible deniability". Look at the morass of intelligence that occurred with the run up to the Invasion of Iraq. Look at the screaming about innocent civilians being slaughtered by US troops (Nevermind this was by far the least-bloody invasion ever.)
No. It's by no means a foregone conclusion that the US would "destroy" a nation that - according to the CIA - supplied nuclear components used against the US.
Arrogantly presuming that is the most demonstrable example that you've failed to understand what you're talking about and what the stakes here are.
Kevin Baker, I might not be in the top 10% of those who keep current on Iran but I believe that I am in the upper 25%. I've seen claims that Iran has "sworn to see Israel destroyed" but upon reading further on those claims I find them to be weak. I would think if you sincerely believed in your assertion that you would provide a reference supporting that claim.
Unix-Jedi, Your assertion is also weak. You refer to "the guys" who have the button but you don't mention an actual name. As for plunder, the US government plunder of the US taxpayer is my concern. If South Korea wants to maintain armed forces sufficient to defend their country let them hire them locally (or abroad) - but the US taxpayer should not be paying for South Korea's defense 55 years after the war ended.
After the reeducation camp, when my brain has been scrubbed clean of all this negativity, I will be happy riding my unicorn across fields of golden popcorn beneath a rainbow colored sky...
You refer to "the guys" who have the button but you don't mention an actual name.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. What do I win?
But for the real world, you might merely observe Hezbollah (Army of God). Which is an extention of the Iranian government. You might want to compare your hypothesis to their actions. I wouldn't stand in missile range in Israel while you dithered, however.
As for plunder, the US government plunder of the US taxpayer is my concern.
That it may well be, but it does not explain why you justified North Korea's pursuit of weaponry by insinuating that the US was "threatening" it with troops on the border.
If that was your case, you should have made it as such, rather than making it clear that your thinking is muddled. You were justifying the North Korean weapons program, not bemoaning the supposed cost of the US troops.
But, since he insists, the latest I heard from him, (Don't forget, he was one of the kidnappers of the Americans in Iran in '79)
"I must announce that the Zionist regime (Israel), with a 60-year record of genocide, plunder, invasion and betrayal is about to die and will soon be erased from the geographical scene"
"Israel will disappear from the map"? Or, alternately "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." Which is a difference only in translation, not intent.
I'm glad this topic has come up because I have come to several conclusions of late.
There is little difference between Al Qaeda and a substantial portion of the conservative base in this country. That includes some people who post here. I would also add in extremists in Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Hamas, Venezuella, and North Korea. President Obama is indeed a threat...to all of these groups' way of life. How can they possibly function without someone to fight and hate? All of these groups central tenets are fear, hate, ignorance, and violence. All justify these tenets and their actions in the name of whatever idiocy they believe in by saying that it will keep people "safe." As was written in comments on my blog recently:
"The real problem is not Muslims or Christians. It's the demagogues and extremists like Osama bin Laden and Bill O'Reilly who brain-wash susceptible people into becoming their minions by inflaming them with hatred and the idea that they are somehow enabled by God to do His will. And somehow that will always involves killing people, when both religions firmly say that killing is just plain wrong."
It's not surprising to me that Sowell, desperately in search of a Goldberg fan boy base, says stuff like this. It's the political porn that I have been talking about recently and there are plenty of people around to pop it into their DVD players to have a wank.
My real question is this...when did those on the right (some here) suddenly become so afraid of...well...everything...that they have lost all reason? Suddenly, Iran and North Korea are bigger threats than...Hitler? Really? (side note: and Pakistan is NOT a problem? Huh?)
We prevailed in conflicts in the past because we clearly understood our enemies and defeated them because of our reason, our intellect, and the fact that our values are based on freedom and liberty. So why do we still have a group of people in this country that say that we must act in direct contradiction to this in order to "win?" Or not be "weak?" What a load of shit.
There's no doubt that the countries listed above are threats but if one listens to the Sowells, Becks and Limbaughs of the world, we will surely fail for not knowing our enemy at all. Calling them "jihadists," for example, is just flat out moronic. They are hirabis. Look it up. It just shows how little we know about their culture and how we continue to shoot ourselves in the foot on a daily basis. Kevin, the fact that you interpret President Obama's speech as an "apology tour" is also ridiculous. I didn't hear any "I'm sorry" in regards to our country and BP overthrowing the Iranian government in the 1950s.
Sowell, and others here I'm certain, see our country as Manifest Destiny (see: everything we do is right and if call it wrong, time for the gallows, boy!)...moving through the world in the most honest and innocent way imaginable...constantly needing to be as belligerent as possible to the All Powerful evil doers. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Take a look at the desperation on the face of Hugo Chavez, for example, as he sucked up to Obama when the president was down there...bringing him a book like 14 year old girl. Or how about Ahmandinejad (Iran's Dick Cheney) who might very well be out of a job on Friday. It's a pretty tough sell to call America "The Great Satan" with a president that has lived in Muslim countries and understands that part of their culture better than any previous president. Or Kim Jong Il in NK, currently on his death bed, vainly trying to show the world his "power" as a 10 year old proves his penis is bigger than his buddy's.
All of these countries are acting in a way that smacks of desperately trying to be relevant in the world and clearly see that their days are numbered. I say it's time to exploit that as much as we can. Of course, we are also going to have to calm down the 98 year old grandmas in this country that want to shoot first and ask questions later. If it's not OUR way, it's weak!
I'm back to thinking President Obama might not make it out of his first term alive...both sides have a common enemy now.
All of these groups central tenets are fear, hate, ignorance, and violence.
You forgot our nice red uniforms.
when did those on the right (some here) suddenly become so afraid of...well...everything...that they have lost all reason?
"All reason"? Just for grins and giggles, what argument recently have you - in your mind at least - won? Using "reason"?
desperation on the face of Hugo Chavez, for example, as he sucked up to Obama when the president was down there...bringing him a book like 14 year old girl.
Obviously it flew over your head what I said above.
I said: He's assuming he understands their motivations, and they're in the same value system and meaning that he uses.
That's the really bad bet.
This has been explained to no avail to you in the past, and you still don't understand. You don't want to, you want to just rage and try and make us fit your script, your template, your preconceived notions, because you can't synthesize information.
clearly see that their [countries that Obama is attempting to emulate] days are numbered.
This might. Possibly. It's still arguable. But I think it's got a very good chance of being the absolute stupidest, most illogical, wrong-headed thing you've ever said (On this site, anyway.)
I'm back to thinking President Obama might not make it out of his first term alive...both sides have a common enemy now.
You've not made it yet to "Gee, government control of the economy by taking over and dictating terms in bankruptcy, financial dealings and employment is ___________ ." So I'm not too concerned where you've gotten "back to thinking". (I won't even get into how obtuse that statement is.
There is little difference between Al Qaeda and a substantial portion of the conservative base in this country. That includes some people who post here. I would also add in extremists in Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Hamas, Venezuella, and North Korea.
If this were true, you'd be afraid for your life.
1) Most who post here aren't in the "conservative base". You're so obtuse you can't see that.
2) The "conservative base" isn't in the business of wholesale killing. Those others are. Yes, abortion doctor, wave the bloody flag. Horrible. They're going to put his killer on death row, and they should. If we were the same, as you say, we'd object to that. (Or at least his trial and almost-certain-imprisonment. the DP is hardly a lockstep issue.)
3) And finally, that sort of vastly-over-the-top slander demonstrates how desperate you're getting. You can't in any serious manner correlated the base, much less a raucous bunch such as us, who hardly see eye-to-eye about much.
The true similarity there is power. You've been told this many times. Those countries are about power. Control. Dictating to people how they will be allowed to live their life in the service of the higher-ups.
No, there's no correlation there with the vast number of regulars here, who insist on self-determination. That's where you are the regular who insists on that sort of control. Your preferred political party has only one controlling principal - POWER. Getting, and maintaining power.
The republicans were distracted, and they've lost their focus, their voice - and notice the disarray they're in, when they tried to emulate the Democrat methods. The way that the Democrats of today hold power doesn't work with Republican voters.
Meaning that there's no similarity, except in the fevered imagination of people who can't parse an argument.
There is little difference between Al Qaeda and a substantial portion of the conservative base in this country.
Really? And when was the last time one of us sawed someone's head off (literally) for the crime of being an infidel? Slipped into Semtex Underoos and blew ourselves up for the Greater Glory of Allah?
U-J covered the rest of it.
Sometimes, Markadelphia, I'm amazed you are able to remind yourself to breathe.
"[...]And somehow that will always involves killing people, when both religions firmly say that killing is just plain wrong."
Just plain wrong, I see. Here are a few quick quotes from the Qu'ran:
Mohammed said, “Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him.” (Hadith Al Buhkari vol. 9:57)
Mohammed said, “I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, none has the right to be worshipped but Allah” (Al Bukhari vol. 4:196).
(Abu Hurayah) reported the messenger of Allah as saying: The last hour will not come before the Muslims fight the Jews and the Muslims kill them, so that Jews will hide behind stones and trees and the Stone and the tree will say, O Muslim, O servant of God! There is a Jew behind me; come and kill him. The only exception will be the box-thorn for it is one of the trees of the Jews. (Sahih of Muslim, quoted by Israel and the Prophecies of Al Quran by Ali Akbar, Bismi Publishers 1992, p.44)
Of the Unbelievers: Sura 4:89 “seize them and slay them wherever you find them: and in any case take no friends or helpers from their ranks.”
Slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush. (Sura 9:5)
4:101 “When ye travel through the earth, there is no blame on you if ye shorten your prayers, for fear the Unbelievers May attack you: For the Unbelievers are unto you open enemies.”
9.123 “O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you”
“War is prescribed to you: but from this ye are averse.” (Sura 2:212).
Sura 2:187-189 “And kill them wherever ye shall find them, and eject them from whatever place they have ejected you; for civil discord is worse than carnage: yet attack them not at the sacred Mosque, unless they attack you therein; but if they attack you, slay them. Such the reward of the infidels...Fight therefore against them until there be no more civil discord, and the only worship be that of God: but if they desist, then let there be no hostility, save against the wicked.”
“During the last days there will appear some young foolish people, who will say the best words, but their faith will not go beyond their throats (i.e. they will leave the faith) and will go out from their religion as an arrow goes out of the game. So, wherever you find them, kill them, for whoever kills them shall have reward on the Day of Resurrection.” (Bukhari volume 9, no.64)
It goes on and on like this. I'm not sure that these words mean "killing is just plain wrong".
"He's assuming he understands their motivations, and they're in the same value system and meaning that he uses.
That's the really bad bet."
I know there's been a great LIE circulating (with many all too willing people believing)that Barack Obama is Jimmy Carter. It's a bunch of horse shit. President Obama kept Gates and currently has a 40 year Marine veteran serving as his national security advisor. This administration is made up of people who are far more pragmatic than Carter. President Obama's speech in Cairo was anything but naive. Some quotes:
"I'm aware that there's still some who would question or even justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: Al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with."
"...if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and now Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case."
"Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths --"
"Six million Jews were killed -- more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, it is ignorant, and it is hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction -- or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews -- is deeply wrong"
Hmmm...pretty much the same thing said on here. So, help me out, Unix, where is he naive, again?
"who insist on self-determination."
If that were true, then why the foreign policy view you have? Don't other countries have the same right?
"when was the last time one of us sawed someone's head off (literally) for the crime of being an infidel? Slipped into Semtex Underoos and blew ourselves up for the Greater Glory of Allah?"
Yet you supported the slaughter that went on Iraq. In fact, you said it was necessary to keep us safe which is exactly what they say when they slaughter us. In addition, you and others have said that "the time is past for reasoned discourse." You have gone on to say that it might be time for the pitch forks and torches. Granted, that might be a joke (I hope it is) but it is the same type of mentality that our enemies have in regards to their country's "liberals."
Ninja, you bring up an interesting point, one which kind of blew me away when I was talking with my friend Eric who is an evangelical minister. He told me that only "true Muslims" follow Osama bin Laden. If they don't believe the passages you listed above, then they aren't really Muslims. And yet, there are many Muslims who don't follow the Suras because they claim that they are representative of a different time in Mohammed's life.
So, take these suras and compare them to the Old Testament. And then think about what my friend Eric said (and what he says about "true Christians") in juxtaposition to my contention that there is very little difference between Al Qaeda and "the base." (which, in fact, is the English translation of Al Qaeda)
Yep...well...time to be reflective. Start with the definition of what Al Qaeda defines as "weak" and what some in our country call "weak." Compare what Dick Cheney says to what bin Laden says.
Do you want to beat these guys, Eric? Or do you want to help them out?
There is little difference between Al Qaeda and a substantial portion of the conservative base in this country.
You've said some stupid things before M, but I think you will have a difficult time topping this. Yet I remain confident that you will try, really, really hard to do so.
I know there's been a great LIE circulating (with many all too willing people believing)that Barack Obama is Jimmy Carter. It's a bunch of horse shit.
Emote much?
Actually, most of the joke is that he's going to rehabilitate Carter's reputation!
Nobody believes that Obama *is* Carter. But lots of us see lots of similarities in their backgrounds and approaches to problems. We know what happened when Carter did these things - and it didn't work out well. Obama is already following in his path in several key areas.
And let's look at the complete morass Carter left us in the Middle East - which we're still dealing with. It's very directly tied to the entanglement with Iraq for the last 15 years.
You can pull selective quotes - and you're good at that. You're bad at reading the whole thing.
President Obama's speech in Cairo was anything but naive.
You don't have the authority to make that determination. But more importantly, you keep citing Obama when he says something you like, and refusing to even discuss when he says something that counters your promises and predictions.
What might be very instructive to you, is if you were to go look up Neville Chamberlain's speeches prior to the outbreak of World War Two. Not that I am saying that Obama is Chamberlain. But even you should be able to trace the words, threats, and intent that he outlined, and the actual outcome.
So, help me out, Unix, where is he naive, again?
You've left dozens of arguments where we illustrate this, from economics to statistics to history. Hey, I'll give him credit for following the Bush policies he and you frothed about for the last 2 years - because amazingly it's not as easy as he (and you) claimed it was. Has he yet apologized to Bush for his rhetoric?
If that were true, then why the foreign policy view you have? Don't other countries have the same right?
Specifically where are you talking about? Where are you pointing to to refute me? Specifically.
Yet you supported the slaughter that went on Iraq.
... Iraq was the least bloody - by an order of magnitude - of any conflict of it's size.
If you call it a "slaughter", what level of conflict are you willing to engage up to, and don't you realize how naive it is to set that level for your enemies to know?
But you just cannot give Bush and his people the respect and recognition they deserve.
No, now you call them "slaughterers".
Tell me, what atrocities can you cite? (Of course, we want ones where we didn't punish the offenders.)
You've equated the US fighting military with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his ilk.
I suppose that since you have no credibility, you don't care, but I strongly protest your base libel.
As usual, I can't do a better job of discrediting you than you do.
Do you want to beat these guys, Eric? Or do you want to help them out?
Compare 2002 with 2009.
Gee, seems like they got beat pretty damn well to me. Doing what you swore would never work.
And you call them a bunch of "slaughterers".
And object when we describe you and your Chosen One for being naive.
So, take these suras and compare them to the Old Testament. And then think about what my friend Eric said (and what he says about "true Christians")
I'd like to see what your friend Eric says about that.
I notice you juxtaposed him in (in an appeal to authority), yet didn't quote him where he's an authority.
Adding to that the minor problem that a large percent (Ed or Sarah might can chime in) believe that the Old Testament is completely irrelevant to a Christian. When Jesus was sent to take men's sins, it was a wholly new covenant.
How about you tell us what Eric thinks about that, or does it ruin your argument (Again?)
"I know there's been a great LIE circulating (with many all too willing people believing)that Barack Obama is Jimmy Carter."
No, teacher boy, there is an expectation circulating that he will be as damaging to our economy as Ol' Jimmy was, if not more so. That is what we have been saying, explicitly so.
Still dense as (Hah!) depleted uranium, ain'tcha?
And you still can't admit what a lie is, can you, liar boy?
"You are either an attention whoring troll or the most oblivious idiot I have ever come across."
Well let's see..it's already been established that I am not a troll so let's handle the idiot part...
Both the base and hirabis are vehemently anti intellectual
Both the base and hirabis want to inject religion into education.
Both the base and hirabis use the media to disseminate propaganda (Fox News/Right Wing Radio/Blogs---Al Jazeera, hirabis web sites) specifically designed to spread hate, ignorance and fear.
Both the base and hirabis are vehemently against liberalism.
Both the base and hirabis are vehemently ideological to the point of extreme ego centrism and hyper jingoism.
Both the base and hirabis are vehemently religious (or at least their own distorted view of their respective religions)
Both the base and hirabis vehemently justify violence as a means to achieve utopia.
Both the base and hirabis vehemently justify violence as a means to achieve "safety."
Both the base and hirabis are vehemently anti homosexual.
Both the base and hirabis are vehemently against "the other" in this case the infidel or the jihadist.
Both the base and hirabis are against a wide variety of rights for women and use their religion as justification for it.
Both the base and hirabis seek to destroy, in whatever way possible, anyone who questions them as the ultimate authority on everything. They are not interested in compromise. Compromise is for the weak. Anyone who detracts from their ideology is an enemy. And they make sure that their followers know this through their propaganda outlets mentioned above.
Now, I know there will be cries of mis-characterizations and blaspheme (another shared trait) but I'm not the one who defines the base...they do a pretty good job of that themselves. All one has to do is turn on the TV, radio, or spend some time on the web.
Hrm... two Mark-involved threads prior to this one, and he still hasn't even bothered to account for his B.S. here. I don't know what's sadder - that someone can somehow function thinking like that, or that we can practically place bets on the remainder of his time in this thread.
Well, pdb. Show me how my comparisons are wrong. I'll be waiting.
"place bets on the remainder of his time in this thread."
Being the sole voice of dissent on this blog, it would require a 40 hour work week to respond, in the rules reserved only for myself, to every thread in perpetuity. And isn't this a blog built on the concept of individual freedom and liberty?
Well, on one hand, that's one of the best ATTEMPTS I've seen you make to make an argument, Mark.
It's too bad it's laughable, emotionally driven, and you're using words without clear definitions and shifting them during your comparisons.
For example: Both the base and hirabis are vehemently anti intellectual
Is laughable.
It's even more laughable when you consider that you're grouping commenters here into the "base". Several of whom are "intellectual".
But let me give you credit where credit is due. This needs to have a lot more work shown, and a lot more explanations.
So instead of your usual F, this is a good, solid D as it stands right now. D+, even.
You've repeatedly demonstrated a complete and total imperiousness to facts, and now you're just hurling ad hominem insults. So why waste more effort on you?
You're an idiot and picked the wrong hill to die on (metaphorically speaking).
I don't have the patience for this, but I'm glad others do. I'm going to enjoy this.
Markadelphia said: All justify these tenets and their actions in the name of whatever idiocy they believe in by saying that it will keep people "safe."
You're kidding, right? You come to this place and claim that the people who comment here believe that doing this or doing that will keep people safe?
There's a fundamental idea rolling around on this blog and comment threads that could be verbalised something like this: Complete safety is an illusion, all we can hope to achieve is to manage risk.
It's more or less the basic idea behind this blog, as I understand it. Trying to achieve perfect safety with rules, regulations, tenets or actions will always backfire in depressingly predictable ways. Have you even read this blog at all?
P.s. I would love to see a partial or complete list of commenters here who are Al-Qaeda analogues.
Please, demonstrate how we think and act in step. It doesn't take me but ten seconds to find Unix and DJ arguing over something or discussing ideas (and note that their arguments somehow entirely fail to be vehement and hateful - they are, in fact, composed of _arguments_).
"It would require a 40 hour work week to respond, in the rules reserved only for myself, to every thread in perpetuity."
Yet you find time to write lengthy new posts in other comment sections, such as this one. You do this time after time - you start a discussion (and you really do, because rarely are you contributing or evaluating points, but rather coming in here and ranting something about us "right-wingers"), you're engaged for what you said, you're defeated, and you just disappear.
If these intellectual beat-downs were just jousts of emotion, I'd see Unix ending a post with "and that's that" or some other campy, "I won" argument. But I don't. What I see are questions posed back to you to rationalize your original or new statements which are left open and ignored by you.
You're a pissant for calling yourself a thinker.
"And isn't this a blog built on the concept of individual freedom and liberty?"
What the fucking hell point are trying to make? Is there a jury you're waving to?
"And isn't this a blog built on the concept of individual freedom and liberty?"
Yup.
You are free to make as big a jackass of yourself as you please, and it apparently pleases you mightily. You are not prevented from posting anything you care to.
So, do you seek by such a question to escape criticism for what you write?
Ya know gang, despite all the projection and faulty reasoning, M. Delphia's usually been a pretty reliable bellwether of where the opposition's troops are in the processing of their master's scripts.
I for one, am disquieted by the fact that they've gotten to binding the whole "conservatives as ignoranti" meme together with the "..and dangerous enemies of progress" meme, which is garnished with the "desperation to remain relevant in a world that has passed them by" meme, and peppered with the "brain washed subhuman" meme to paint the mental picture of a dangerous, feral and desperate enemy ready, willing and able to lash out.
Such a group of people are clearly a latent public menace, a problem in need of solution, a solution that will, at the right time, be offered by the Big Man.
It's a delicious act of irony that this is offered in the context of a critique of those who need to create enemies...I wonder if M. delphia can really appreciate the depth of subtle irony he sometimes displays?
All this bears a more than a passing resemblance to a pattern students of history know well.
If this script holds to historical precedents, the preparation of the mental battle space will continue until an event that can be exploited as a catalyst occurs, a la Reichstag fire.
Let us hope that cooler heads prevail, and that it does not go much further in that direction.
"Being the sole voice of dissent on this blog ..."
No, you are by no means the only voice of dissent who comments here. You do, however, exhibit the lowest level of reading comprehension, and this statement of yours illustrates that nicely.
"... in the rules reserved only for myself ..."
No, the rules are the same for everyone, and so are the expectations.
You can post most anything you please. Kevin is extraordinarily tolerant, even of you. I have stated repeatedly that you do a great service for our side of the fence by doing such a piss poor job of representing your side.
Posting something that is wrong in any significant way is likely to result in criticism by any number of people, including showing you by documentary evidence that you are wrong. Not admitting the truth of the evidence is likely to result in you getting hammered therefore. This means that making shit up, not corroborating it, and lying are damned nearly guaranteed to get you hammered.
Well, guess what, Sparky? The same applies to all of us. We hammer each other when we write something egregiously wrong or stupid, and there's not one of us who hasn't been on the receiving end of such, deservedly so.
The great difference between you and the rest of us is that you appear to revel in being shown to be wrong and we don't. The pathology of your personality is that, while you revel in it, you cannot admit it. You are like a masochist who cannot admit that it hurts.
You have nothing to complain about regarding the treatment that you receive here. What you get is the result of the decisions you make, and you simply refuse to do it any better. What you cannot understand is that the hammering you get is not because of what you believe, it is because of how you attempt to defend what you believe. You have no one to blame for that but yourself.
Mark, here's somebody (An intellectual, no less!) who totally disagrees with you on the speech today:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M2NiZDc0N2VkN2I5ZmQwNzcyYjk4MzJjMGQ4YWJiYWM=
President Obama’s Cairo speech was nothing short of an earthquake — a distortion of history, an insult to the Jewish people, and an abandonment of very real human-rights victims in the Arab and Muslim worlds. It is not surprising that Arabs and Muslims in a position to speak were enthusiastic. It is more surprising that American commentators are praising the speech for its political craftiness, rather than decrying its treachery of historic proportions.
Obama equated the Holocaust to Palestinian “dislocation.” In his words: “The Jewish people were persecuted. . . . anti-Semitism . . . culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. . . . Six million Jews were killed. . . . On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people — Muslims and Christians — have suffered in pursuit of a homeland.” This parallelism amounts to the fictitious Arab narrative that the deliberate mass murder of six million Jews for the crime of being Jewish is analogous to a Jewish-driven violation of Palestinian rights.
Speaking in an Arab country to Arabs and Muslims, Obama pointedly singled out European responsibility for the Holocaust — “anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust.” In other contexts, the European emphasis would be a curiosity. In Egypt, it was no accident. The Arab storyline has always been that Arabs have been forced to suffer the creation of Israel for a European crime.
...
After expressing his belief in a moral equivalence between the claims of Palestinians and the claims of the victims of slavery and apartheid, Obama juxtaposed his admission of Israel’s “right to exist” with his assertion that “the United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.” Every word of this speech was carefully weighed. It was therefore no mishap that for the first time a U.S. president has denied the legitimacy of Israeli settlements, period. Such an assertion abrogates every agreement between Arabs and Israelis, which have always left the ultimate determination of which settlements will stay or go to a bilateral peace process and final status negotiations.
...
But judging by Obama’s speech, only one “dislocation” counts. After placing the Holocaust side-by-side with the Palestinian “pain of dislocation,” he ignored the dislocation of 800,000 Jewish refugees from all over the Arab Middle East in response to the creation of Israel.
Jewish refugees from Arab intolerance were not the only human-rights casualties the president chose to dismiss. Three different times Obama defended the right of Muslim women to cover up their bodies. Never once did he mention the right of Muslim women to refuse to cover up their bodies — a right denied on pain of arrest and death by many of the very communities he was addressing.
Read. The. Whole. Thing. (Emphasis mine. I also didn't quote several other paragraphs that Mark is unlikely to refute.)
And then tell me. Who's got it more correct? You who claimed "President Obama's speech in Cairo was anything but naive.", or Anne Bayefsky, who is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and at Touro College who says "This manufactured human-rights fantasy has done a tremendous disservice to the oppressed across the Arab and Muslim world." and "President Obama’s meticulously planned and executed Egyptian speech marks the lowest point in the U.S. presidency’s understanding and appreciation of the Jewish state, its history, and its people’s future.
I wonder if M. delphia can really appreciate the depth of subtle irony he sometimes displays?
The evidence would say "No."
In a discussion of Kevin's observation that the Left never will admit error, always blame the implementation on Utopia, "We'll do it AGAIN, only this time HARDER!" Mark objected, and in the ensuing thread, insisted that Obama was "smarter" and would "do [communal programs] correctly. And then got very upset when we pointed out that was exactly Kevin's point, and that that the road to hell was paved with Great Intentions.
Just the other day, he ran into the thread where the student had "learned to yell racism" to "win" an argument in school....
... and called us all racists and ran off.
Many, many, many times I have told him to call Alanis, take his arguments to the steel recycling center, that he couldn't use his argument to get wrinkles out of shirts...
All to no obvious avail. So no, I don't think he's capable.
Oh, but you are. Both parties refer to their respective bases, but you choose to ONLY refer to the Republican base with respect to the Arabic word for base.
The scariest thing about our resident socio-fascist is that he is the absolute stereo-typical propogandist in the (re)-education system, shaping young minds.
Both the base and hirabis are vehemently anti intellectual
I don't know if I'd go that far, but I'll agree the conservative base has little patience for the "shut up, I'm smarter than you so I know best" attitude typical of big government supporters on both the right and the left.
Both the base and hirabis want to inject religion into education.
Marginally true. Some do. Of course, there's a distinction between something being offered and something being required, a distinction you seem to often fail to see.
Then again, the other half of the conservative base is fighting directly against that, which you unaccountably fail to mention. Read Little Green Footballs sometime, it's that guy's hobbyhorse.
I'm sorry that Christianity apparently terrifies you, but it doesn't seem to scare most of us. You were saying something about acting out of fear rather than reason?
Both the base and hirabis use the media to disseminate propaganda (Fox News/Right Wing Radio/Blogs---Al Jazeera, hirabis web sites) specifically designed to spread hate, ignorance and fear.
Thst's priceless, it really is. Anytime you want to compare Fox News to MSNBC for bias, propaganda, fear/hatemongering, and playing fast and loose with the facts, you be my guest.
Same goes for comparing mainstream right wing political blogs to HuffPo and Daily Kos, too.
Both the base and hirabis are vehemently against liberalism.
True, by the current definition. But then, neo-socialists of various stripes have redefined "liberalism" until it bears little resemblance to "libertarianism". The similarity of the words should clue you in as to how similar the meanings were once.
Both the base and hirabis are vehemently ideological to the point of extreme ego centrism and hyper jingoism.
Are you seriously gonna try to claim that the American political left is not "vehemently ideological"?
Two words: Madame Speaker.
Both the base and hirabis are vehemently religious (or at least their own distorted view of their respective religions)
...he says, in the comments section of a blog run by a conservative atheist. Once again, I think you're conflating "not scared of Christians" with "vehemently religious".
Both the base and hirabis vehemently justify violence as a means to achieve utopia.
Have you forgotten respected liberal intellectual Bill Ayers' plans to kill 25 million people? Or Jeremiah Wright's "Chickens coming home to roost"? Or the violent backlash from the losers in Prop. 8?
Both the base and hirabis are vehemently anti homosexual.
Miss California underwent a thorough character assassination for having the same opinion of gay marriage as President Obama. Dick Cheney's opinion is to the left of President Obama's.
Both the base and hirabis are vehemently against "the other" in this case the infidel or the jihadist.
See above. Also see Joe the Plumber, Sarah Palin, John McCain and others. Any lie, any character assassination, any fraud, any intimidation tactic... nothing is too dirty a trick as long as it's used by a "liberal" against a "conservative".
Both the base and hirabis are against a wide variety of rights for women and use their religion as justification for it.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you're talking abortion, since I can't think of any other "rights for women" conservatives oppose. Since a) conservatives are by no mean monolithic on the issue, and b), I know more pagan or atheist pro-lifers than I do Christians, I'd call that accusation rather thin.
I'd call it especially thin since the political right is forever taking fundamentalist Islam to task for their abuse of women, while the political left has been strangely silent on the subject for decades.
Both the base and hirabis seek to destroy, in whatever way possible, anyone who questions them as the ultimate authority on everything.
See "the other", above. Also, two words: Global Warming.
Kevin Baker and Unix-Jedi, thank you for the references I asked for. I will make two points.
1) Both your quotes are in English and in contrast to what is implied by quote marks are _not_ a quote it is a translation.
2) Your claims are based on translations and I do not agree that your translation is accurate as to meaning what a reasonable person would characterize as "sworn to destroy Israel".
Again thanks for you followup. I do appreciate it even if I do not agree with it.
Such a group of people are clearly a latent public menace, a problem in need of solution, a solution that will, at the right time, be offered by the Big Man.
If I didn't know better geek I might think you were describing Ernst Rohm and his followers there.
This is of course what makes Markadelphia's obsession with Rush all the more ridiculous. Rush is a pantywaist, opportunist entertainer - almost literally another Face in the Crowd whereas the much less popular G. Gordon Liddy is someone that any sane person should be at least a little frightened of.
Thane Eichenauer, you appear to be intimately familiar with either Farsi or the quotes/translations in question. I would be very interested in seeing a correct word-for-word translation, if you can supply one, since people have been arguing a lot about his words. Proving Kevin wrong should be especially easy for you since he didn't merely copy a translation, he provided links to videos of Mr. Ahmadinejad's speeches. Surely that's at least as good, and vastly more useful, than providing quotes in Farsi?
NinjaViking, I am afraid I am not Farsi literate. Kevin Baker referenced:
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/norouzi.php?articleid=11025
which is a good analysis (in my opinion) of the false claim of "wiped off the map" and related exaggerated claims.
I am all in favor of translations but I do object to taking a translation and putting quote marks around it. Should Mahmoud Ahmadinejad makes an inflammatory statement in Farsi, I hope that an accurate translation is made and that it is identified as such.
Define the "is" in Istanbul, is it a translation or a quotation?
After the translation camp my brain will be cleansed of such negativity and I will ride my unicorn across golden fields of popcorn beneath a rainbow colored sky.
Egads, Marky has us mouthbreathers on the ropes! I can't run away fast enough from his blistering insight, so I am going into hyper jingoism mode! (Cue reverb effect)
Or is hyper jingoism just normal jingoism after eating too much sugar?
Wait, didn't Hubert France's Foreign Minister Vedrine call the US a hyper power? Are those related?
"You've repeatedly demonstrated a complete and total imperiousness to facts"
Not really. This is what the right says all the time. They are the ones who define themselves not I.
"We are not the base. You do understand that, don't you, teacher boy?"
Then why tow the party line about Al Qaeda? Iraq? Iran? Goldberg and Sowell are quoted often here. The things they write and say are used extensively in the current form of the GOP. Some here support Sarah Palin vigorously. She is not part of the base now?
"What the fucking hell point are trying to make? Is there a jury you're waving to?"
My point is that individual rights and liberty don't apply to me when it comes to how I respond on this blog. I do have a life outside of posting here. Much as I would like to spend my days writing several long paragraphs, sadly, I can only write a few. But that's not good enough and we all know why :)
"until an event that can be exploited as a catalyst occurs, a la Reichstag fire."
I agree completely with this. And one already happened on Sept 11, 2001.
"Read. The. Whole. Thing."
I have and I respectfully disagree. Read or watch Obama's whole speech, Unix, and judge for yourself. There was nothing anti Israeli at all. I really doubt that he would tread even close to that path with a former member of the Israeli Defense Force on his staff. And, hey, everyone's entitled to their opinion...
"I'm sorry that Christianity apparently terrifies you"
Actually, it doesn't. I am Christian...well...actually not according to the right because I don't subscribe to their warped version of it. They warp in the same way Al Qaeda warps their religion.
"compare Fox News to MSNBC for bias"
I agree that MSNBC has leaned left in the last couple of years but please be so kind as to show me the Fox liberal equivalent of Joe Scarborough, whose new book is wonderful btw. More than likely will be an assignment next year. Hmmm...yeah...really am the "tereo-typical propogandist in the (re)-education system" (see: load of shit)
"Bill Ayers..."
Talk about a dog that won't hunt. Ayers and his shabby mal contents were never anywhere near as organized or numerous as the right's wingnuts.
Grumpy, although I don't agree with some of your points, I do appreciate you taking the time to comment on them in a thoughtful and reflective way. And you certainly have given me some things to think about.
"Much as I would like to spend my days writing several long paragraphs, sadly, I can only write a few."
Funny how those never seem to take into account any of the things you've been taken to task for. Hell, let's take my post. Maybe three main points there, and they're more vitriol than statement.
Yet you ignore all of those except that one. You ignore the ones that point out - as it has been pointed out repeatedly - your utter refusal to engage any conversation past the refutation of your bullshit points.
n't and still haven't.
It's "funny" how you conveniently have enough time to post several paragraphs worth of new bullshit every few posts and, once facts enter the equation of other ones, you disappear there.
Oh, yes, you'll argue subjective, nonsensical bullshit, but the minute a chart, a date, or a statistical evaluation from practically any source comes up, you're gone.
I have met people who could not think, could not disseminate information, could not understand.
You are exceptional in that you seem capable of writing English in decent grammar, almost making logical connections in your arguments, and yet are utterly and completely incapable of understanding information. You cannot absorb and compare data. I am amazed that someone can be so godamned dysfunctional - it calls for Freudian explanations, because conventional, logical ones simply don't apply to your stupendous fucking ignorance.
"but the minute a chart, a date, or a statistical evaluation from practically any source comes up, you're gone."
Exactly. For example, he claimed that schools are still teaching the classics, but he refuses (or can't) name the classic books students at his school are required to read. (No Marky, I don't forget the pointed questions you run away from. Yes, you did once try to answer some of them months later, but your answers were nonsense—generally non sequiturs—and didn't apply at all to the discussions which prompted the questions.)
I see a lot of ranting and raving about conservatives like Sowell & Goldberg and long diatribes about how they are racist and just horrible people, but completely lacking are any factual arguments that attack their positions.
Can Marky even explain a conservative position without resorting to ad-hominem?
Does he even have a clue what conservatives believe?
Does he even know what a conservative is? Clue, there are many kinds of conservatives. Many of the type you rant about the most absolutely loathed Bush. Pat Buchanan for example. I know this has been explained to Mark before but I guess it dropped down the memory hole.
"I'm sorry that Christianity apparently terrifies you"
Actually, it doesn't. I am Christian...well...actually not according to the right because I don't subscribe to their warped version of it. They warp in the same way Al Qaeda warps their religion.
I have a hard time buyin this one, Mark. You've made it plain that you consider protesting against abortion on religious grounds equal to (or worse than) genital mutilation or forced marriage by fundamentalist Muslims. You've made it plain you consider that five total murders of abortion doctors by fundamentalist Christians since Roe v. Wade to be at least as horrific and scary as the hundreds or thousands of fundamentalist Muslims who have screamed praise to Allah as they blew themselves up in the middle of a crowd of civilians during the last few years, and the hundreds of thousands who danced in the streets when they heard how many infidels were killed and wounded.
If you aren't terrified of Christianity, why are five murders at the hands of Christian fundamentalists more worrisome to you than hundreds of thousands at hands of some other kind of fundamentalists?
I agree that MSNBC has leaned left in the last couple of years but please be so kind as to show me the Fox liberal equivalent of Joe Scarborough,
I don't watch enough TV to know who that is. Will you seriously suggest that there is anyone on any major news network more nakedly propagandist than Keith Olbermann?
Keep in mind that MSNBC does not bill KO as opinion, he is billed as news, is he not? Even Rush Limbaugh, who openly proclaims his show to be opinion and is quite proudly partisan, is less willing to manufacture facts that don't exist and ignore ones that do than Keith Olbermann.
"Bill Ayers..."
Talk about a dog that won't hunt. Ayers and his shabby mal contents were never anywhere near as organized or numerous as the right's wingnuts.
So what's your point? That was a response to
Both the base and hirabis vehemently justify violence as a means to achieve utopia.
So...organized or not, Bill Ayers, who the left considers "a respected intellectual", justified in his ideology the deliberate murder of twenty-five million peopleas the price of achieving utopia.
I've seen a few conservative whack-jobs do the "that sumbitch is gonna DIE" thing. Usually one guy dies, besides the shooter. I've heard any number of conservatives say a variation on the theme of "if they come after us, we'll defend ourselves, and the price will be high."
I've heard a number of people who have experienced war themselves say "F*ck it, kill em all and let God sort em out", a phrase as tired and hackneyed, and with as little relation to reality, as the automatic, formulaic cry of "Racism!" from the left to anything any conservative ever says.
I've never heard of anyone on the right seriously claim "we'll have to kill ______ million people to achieve X political goal, but I'm cool with that." The closest I've seen was some politicians' justifications for war, on both sides of the political spectrum.
But on the left, there's "respected", "intellectual" Bill Ayers, who has indeed decided he's cool with that.
President Obama recently has reaffirmed that the stimulus plan is working and we need to stay the course(couldn't help myself).
Conservatives point out that it isn't working and that the unemployment figures are off what the administration predicted before passage of the stimulus. They also argue that the huge rise in deficit spending will harm the U.S. economy for a long time to come.
Now Marky, without resorting to ad-hominem or attacks, explain why Obama is right and the Conservatives are wrong.
"The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 45% now trust the GOP more to handle economic issues, while 39% trust Democrats more."
Yes, the Republicans are slightly more trustworthy on economics. But that's kind of like saying that the drunk wearing a seatbelt is a better driver than the drunk without one.
There are more individual Republican representatives who actually are economically reliable than there are Democrats, but overall, the Republican party as a whole has proven to be untrustworthy.
'Course, by Marky's standards, that means I'm a brain slave of the Republican party. :: rolls eyes ::
"Will you seriously suggest that there is anyone on any major news network more nakedly propagandist than Keith Olbermann?"
Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck...that's just three off the top of my head.
And while we are on this subject, I had a thought the other night when flipping around the channels regarding Keith Olberman. Watch or listen to conservative media and you will find them against a whole host of people, ideas, and events. They pretty much are contrary to...well...everything that does not meet with their stringent standards. And what is Olberman against?
People who think, talk and act like that.
"name the classic books students at his school are required to read."
If you recall, I have repeatedly discussed Huckleberry Finn, perhaps the greatest American novel, as being taught at my school despite attempts to ban it. You can throw in Catcher in the Rye, Jane Eyre (snooze), and the Republic as well. There are whole host of others. I challenge you, Ed, to visit your local high school and see if your bitching is warranted. Make a list of what is taught and what is not and report back.
For that matter, will all of you please spend some time observing at a school and discover with your own eyes what is actually going on? Whenever the subject of education comes up, it's like segment two of Glenn Beck or Bill O'Reilly.
"Clue, there are many kinds of conservatives."
Sure, I know this. That's why I use "some" as a prefix. And I happen to agree with Pat Buchanan on some things. I am curious if anyone here thinks that there are many kinds of liberals because it sure doesn't sound that way.
"that five total murders of abortion doctors"
Actually it's 8 now. And, if you live by the rules as to how"terrorism" is defined , then why the gripe about the DHS report? Everyone agrees that the recruiters being killed was an act of terrorism. Still not quite in agreement about Roeder, though, are we? I wonder...since Roeder has promised more killings, does that mean you support water boarding him for information on these attacks?
"explain why Obama is right and the Conservatives are wrong."
First of all, Ed and DJ, if you think those poll numbers are accurate in and of themselves...wow. Compare them to other reports at
http://www.pollingreport.com/budget.htm
Obama is right because he stated quite plainly that it is going to get worse before it gets better and that it is going to take time. This is the "getting worse" part as well as the taking time part. It took years to make this mess and it will take at least a year...maybe more...to get out of it.
And it's not as black and white as him being right or the Republicans being wrong. Both parties got us into this mess and Republicans make fair points about the ability to handle the deficit. To call them "wrong" about everything is simply not accurate. What they lack is any new ideas when it comes to taxes, for example. We cut taxes on the wealthy in this country during Bush 43 and look at how well that worked out. The greatest wealth transfer in the history of the world.
My economic adviser, Last in Line, even admits now that "trickle down" does not work. I'm not certain that President Obama will be "right" about what he says will happen other than the fact that he has predicted he will make mistakes. I think he will. At least he is weighing several options and adapting to each area of industry as needed. Banks are now starting to buy back government owned shares.
In the end, I guess I just I don't see many viable options at this point coming from Republicans. Letting everything fail and having the free market sort it all out has some pretty dangerous possibilities. Cutting taxes for the top 1 percent is absolutely moronic. Continuing to ignore health care and alternative energy is just silly. These are hard issues that need change in order to help this country financially.
Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck...that's just three off the top of my head.
None of whom are news anchors.
This will go over your head as all the other times.
Does 22 million exceed 15 million yet in your math?
Or do you only figure in billions?
Watch or listen to conservative media and you will find them against a whole host of people, ideas, and events.
If you can find the conservative media, anyway.
And, really? You've avoided Estrada, Bork, J.C. Watts, Condi Rice and the treatment they received as a result of their skin color from your liberal friends.
But you avoid everything. We need to stop letting you get away with it, because that is your MO. You wriggle away and refuse to engage on substance. You try and attack us and open up tangents, because you've learned you cannot argue on the facts. I've asked you - where would you link me, that you've thoroughly disproven any of us here?
What I just quoted you saying is the concept of "Wet streets cause rain." You can't even conceptualize what principled opposition means because you've never learned what principals are. (Hint: Read some classic books for a clue.)
will all of you please spend some time observing at a school and discover with your own eyes what is actually going on?
Why? I've told you that we've done that! We've got experience in the schools. Bloody hell, I work at a college and have to instruct Freshmen - and you ignore that. Not even in the schools, but the supposed SUCCESSFUL PRODUCT of them!
And even if we let you specify how we had to observe and reported it (I've got no less than 5 relatives who teach in middle-and-high schools, in schools around the country, and yet they report the same things.) We now spend 8x more per student nationwide than we did in 1970. And student achivement is 70% of 1970. The SAT's have been graded down - twice - since Carter created the Education Department.
But for all of that: YOU'LL STILL IGNORE WHAT WE SAY. Want to talk about FEMA and hurricane response pre-Katrina? Oh, right. I was actually on Hurricane Task Forces. Where'd Mark go? No matter what we say, you'll ignore our opinions and slander us with ad hominium arguments.
Above, I gave you an opposing view of your gushing report on the speech Obama gave. From someone with massively more intellectual papers than you. And you say? I have and I respectfully disagree. But you don't say WHY. You don't explain where she's wrong. What she's wrong about. Just... Read or watch Obama's whole speech
Why? What would that change? And why do you presume I haven't? It was a staggeringly bad speech from my viewpoint, and one that despots and true slaughterers of the innocent are cheering!
There was nothing anti Israeli at all.
Bayefsky specifically noted many places it was. I quoted and emphasized some of them.
But you call me anti-intellectual.
So you dismiss Ayers, and facts, and statistics, just as you have for the past 2 years, the past year of which you've been insisting, promising, pleading with us, that Obama was not going to take over the economy. He was going to improve our standing in the world. He was going to fix all these things, because he was a thoughtful man and would have thoughtful staffers. He wasn't going to ban our guns, even thought he spent a ton of political capitol promising to do just that. That he'd somehow fix health care in a manner that no other nation organization, or entity has yet managed.
...
Well, here we are. You and he won. And your predictions are off. Ours aren't.
So you slander Bush and our fighting men and women - and don't even notice. You excuse Obama's mentor Ayers, because he was merely incompetent and blew up his girlfriend, rather than the soldiers he meant to. Nor the fact that he zealously guards his property and refuses to share it communally.
You've minimized the horrors and depravity of slavery by calling people who lent you the money to have a house and who pay your salary so you can eat the exact same as slaveowners.
Quite often I'm asked if you can possibly be for real, if anybody can actually be that utterly, totally, intentionally clueless and self-absorbed. And I say, there's no way he can't be. Nobody could fake it, not for this long.
We cut taxes on the wealthy in this country during Bush 43 and look at how well that worked out. The greatest wealth transfer in the history of the world.
I didn't think you'd surpass yourself that quickly, but let me admit, I was wrong.
I was wrong.
That's the most gobsmackingly ignorant, idiotic, proof of how bad the educational system is that you can say it with a straight face and not laugh, thing you've ever said And let's recap! This includes being schooled REPEATEDLY in the meanings and definitions of words (that you insisted you knew), not being able to figure out which was greater, 22 or 15, not being able to do basic research, and possibly best of all, screeching that we were unfair for calling you a banner for advocating - wait for it - a ban. That is the mark that you have now surpassed.
Taking less from you is not giving you anything from anybody else!
AND TAX REVENUES ON THE RICH WENT UP! How many times has DJ tried to pound that fact into your head? The government took in MORE MONEY despite cutting tax RATES.
(And besides, the biggest "wealth transfer is dwarfed by the Spanish conquest of the New World, but that would make you know some history, now, wouldn't it?.
You've raised your high water bar of ignorance three times in this one thread. And then told us we - we!!! - aren't capable of figuring out what the malpractice currently conducted in public schools is.
"First of all, Ed and DJ, if you think those poll numbers are accurate in and of themselves...wow."
I don't claim they are accurate, and yes, you did use "if" rather than jump to the conclusion that I do. I haven't kept score, but that might be a first.
What the numbers show is large and increasing disaffection with your wonder boy. When the miracles don't happen and the shine wears off, the crowd disperses. Thus it has ever been with hucksters, and it is no different with this one.
"My economic adviser, Last in Line, even admits now that "trickle down" does not work."
Your "economic advisor"? You have a staff?
He tells us that has corrected you on this assertion before, and he has done so here in Kevin's parlor. Apparently, you are ignoring your "advisor". Betcha he'll correct you again.
"I'm not certain that President Obama will be "right" about what he says will happen other than the fact that he has predicted he will make mistakes. I think he will."
Amazing. He already has made mistakes, but you can't admit it, can you?
You know, it's actually refreshing to see Mark just be normally stupid after that.
Letting everything fail
Why would it "fail?" Why is more government always "Better" to you, and why can't you ever admit to it's failures? Why do you call the mortgage market "unregulated", and are you ever going to admit that it's not?
and having the free market sort it all out has some pretty dangerous possibilities.
How would you know? Where have you ever been, or seen, a free market?
Cutting taxes for the top 1 percent is absolutely moronic.
Even if - as every major tax cut as demonstrated, tax revenues go up? Isn't it more moronic, if your goal is more money for the government to spend, to maximize that?
Continuing to ignore health care
Ignore? Or fail to make the same mistakes that others are - observing their failures?
Why is it "ignoring" if the government doesn't take it over in totality? And why then do you claim not to be some variant of facist/socialist/communist?
and alternative energy
It's not being ignored. And I promise you, as soon as you can get the same amount of power for 1/2 the cost, you'll make a *killing*. Or do you mean, taking that tax money and wasting it and giving it to politically-connected people is good?
is just silly.
Ought to be careful with your adjectives.
These are hard issues that need change in order to help this country financially.
And the single. best. thing. we can do is get the government out of them.
Why do you want to do screw them up more and more, since you can't point to successes where the government has dealt with them?
Had Obama been elected 100 years ago, he'd be propping up the whalers for whale-oil, outlawing petroleum, and subsidizing the horse buggy makers.
I just finished reading this whole thread after looking at it once when the number of comments was 3.
UJ and others are doing quite all right at the quote-fisk game. They have that covered.
So far as I can determine from having read Round XIV of Markadelphia versus everyone else including, apparently, Fox News and an imaginary army of slavering violent right-wing neojihadists who will begin mutilating the genitals of women, blowing up school buses, introducing compulsory Christianity on pain of death, and outlawing nonBiblical education just as soon as, um, they finish their beers or something, the following is the grounds for argument. I provide so we can understand each other better, and as we all know all conflict stems from a lack of understanding.
Furthermore, any and all dishonest or incompetent thing that any liberal does- especially Mark himself- is just fine because unidentified conservatives do it all the time only more betterer and Dick Cheney said something about it just last week and by the time you finish watching the obvious violent enemy of all that is good in the world by watching Fox News we'll have entirely forgotten whatever thing Mark the liberal did because LOOK A PONY
Conservatives are bad, terrible people that hate freedom and anyone different from them and education and intelligence and success and the beautiful flower of human reasoning and hope and we will all be better off just as soon as we've gotten rid of them. Oh, and the worst thing about them is they try to fool you into seeing your normal fellow Americans with different opinions as stupid and evil.
If you have ever agreed with a Republican about anything you obviously LOVED it when Bush spent like a drunken trophy wife with no plan for debt and you're a HUGE HYPOCRITE for disapproving of Obama spending like a drunken Imelda Marcos with no plan for debt. Also you hate doing ANYTHING about ANY problem and you just want problems to continue because you hate change. Any sputtering about how you actually want to overhaul most of American government, just not the same way Obama does, IS VICIOUS LIES. So stop lying, dammit! It gets us nowhere.
Obama has proved forever he's nonpartisan because he's kept basically the entirety of Bush's evil antihuman terror policies also Republicans never have useful plans except when they do only it's evil but not after Obama redeems it SO DO YOU THINK WE SHOULD WATERBOARD DEMOCRATS OR WHAT? HUH, YOU LIBERTY-HATING SECURITY FREAK oh hey pony
We will spend our way out of this recession even though I said that was lies and foolishness when it was the Bush administration and we should believe Obama utterly on this because he's said he'll make mistakes. The economy will turn around under his policies because the Republican policies I will now make up wouldn't work.
And now I'll make a prediction. One week from now, in a distant other thread of the FUTURE:
"Taxes? Economy? Torture? Libel? Stop waving all those links to sourced information. What the hell do you people want from me, I have a life, I don't have time to feed your goddamn pony."
"So far as I can determine from having read Round XIV of Markadelphia versus everyone else including, apparently, Fox News and an imaginary army of slavering violent right-wing neojihadists ..."
DAMN! I got that far and had to go get some popcorn, and I don't even like popcorn!
You know, the thing that gets me is that when I was younger - say, just on the edge of teenagery-ness and before I did that whole college thing - I'd argue on forums and usenet groups. Quite often I was wrong.
However...
If I found myself in Mark's situation, I'd have hidden my head from here a year ago out of sheer fucking embarrassment for making such an ass of myself.
Let's play a game. It's called "back up at least ONE of your arguments with data." So far, the round is probably something like 300-0, definitely not your favor.
Go on. Pick an argument in just this thread (never mind just the last two I've been waiting for your intellectually defective ass to return to) and argue it rationally with data and evidence.
The philosophy cannot be wrong. Do it again, harder.
It's funny, because I hear leftwingers spewing vitriol toward Christianity and arguing against the existence of God, but they have an all consuming faith in government that far surpasses the faith most Christians have in God.
Leftists expect government to fix everything, right now, and do it cheaper then it is being done at this moment. They want it better, cheaper, and faster. Never mind that it's impossible to have all three simultaneously, fill another building with bureaucrats.
When does the colony ship board? My bags are packed.
What are the odds of more than 8 forced marriages at the hands of extremist Muslims today? What are the odds of more than 8 accused (but not proven guilty) 'adulteresses' or gay men stoned to death by extremist Muslims this week?
I don't know either, but they're higher than the odds of another abortion doctor being murdered by an extremist Christian this year, and you know it. Yet it's the unlikely one that has you hiding under the bed, while the likely one gets a big yawn from you and the entire American political left.
Whether or not it is true, it shows the mood in Israel. They feel cornered. The reactions out of Israel reflect that feeling.
Netanyahu is making a speech Sunday, in part as a response to Mr. Obama's address to the Arab world last week in Cairo.
Israel's Channel One TV reported that Netanyahu was told Tuesday by an "American official" in Jerusalem that, "We are going to change the world. Please, don't interfere." The report said Netanyahu's aides interpreted this as a "threat."
See what putting the Right Man in charge can do? He'll cut through thousands of years of strife, fighting, history and myth, and change the world.
"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."
Markadelphia: "There is little difference between Al Qaeda and a substantial portion of the conservative base in this country. That includes some people who post here."
Kevin, isn't it past time for a ban? Personally, I won't ever read anything he writes again.
Also, there must be some way to get his comments in front of his employers and the parents of the students he "teaches".
This person should not be allowed anywhere near impressionable young minds.
Kevin Baker,
I don't expect the translation to meet my preconceptions. My primary objection is that too many people are taking a translation and often erroneously put it in quotes. I say that putting a translation in quotes is an act akin to lying as the "quote" was never a quote and was and will always be a translation. On this issue if I really want to know what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad meant I would find a exact recording of what he said and find someone who understands Farsi and ask them what it means. The news and those who don't read Farsi cannot be relied upon to use quote marks properly and often fail to note that the claims being made about "sworn to destroy Israel" are based upon suspect translations.
That being said I would much rather rely on the actions of the country of Iran rather than the statements of its President. Words can be lies, actions are less subject to dispute.
My primary objection is that too many people are taking a translation and often erroneously put it in quotes.
How would you prefer that we denote a translated quote? I actually can't fault you for pointing that out, this has been an issue - for instance, Arafat was famous for providing English Translations of his speeches wildly at odds with what he actually said.
But I don't know of any convention to denote that.
I would much rather rely on the actions of the country of Iran
Which is fine - notice the military actions funded against Israel and the US in Iraq for starters.
What actions can you point to that are at odds with Ahmadinejad's speeches?
Rewinding the thread (and filtering all the M'Delphia related noise), you voiced the position that
"I don't swallow the line that Iran has sworn to see Israel destroyed. "
Readers responded to that by citing numerous references to translations of statements coming from Iran that reflected the sentiment of dedication to Israel's destruction.
In response to that, you object based on the generalized, potential mistranslation of the statements.
Essentially, it seems that you're taking the position that that the translations are suspect.
We're reasonable folks, and that's a possibility we can entertain.
If you can demonstrate to us that the various quotes are mistranslated to the point that their meaning is substantially affected, that's evidence we're willing to consider and evaluate.
In the absence of such evidence to the contrary, however, it is not unreasonable for us accept the translations as offered.
Why is it hard to believe that Iran or its President would want to destroy Israel or see Israel destroyed? This has been the stated objective of most of the Arab world ever since the Israeli state was formed.
A better argument would be that it is none of our business what Iran intends to do. Israel should take care of itself and the U.S. should do likewise. I don't agree with this line of argument, but it makes more sense than trying to believe that Iran has no desire to destroy Israel. There is too much of a mountain of evidence to the contrary.
"Your "economic advisor"? You have a staff? He tells us that has corrected you on this assertion before, and he has done so here in Kevin's parlor."
Yep DJ, I'm on the staff. My official title is economic advisor/director of entertainment/jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none.
I know I've mentioned my views about trickle down on here, can't remember when though...was a few months ago. My opinion is that trickle down does exist, but the money doesn't trickle down to the extent that many of its supporters claim it does. Sure there are plenty of folks out there hiring people with their wealth but there are plenty more people who plop their millions down into a hedge fund and leave it set. That ain't what I call hiring people. Unix correctly stated that the money does stay in circulation. That is true, but it isn't trickling down very much.
All that being said, I completely reject any redistributive action the government takes because the guy hiring folks is also penalized when taxes are raised on the rich. I'm all about freedom and if the rich guy wants to put his dollars in the headge fund...more power to him.
I have my money in the stock market just like everyone else as I think our capitalist system is a cold-hearted yet highly effective way to allocate resources. While I would be overjoyed with a 12% annual return on my money every year, I also think that our stock market is set up to make those folks up there on wall street a shitload of money off of people like me. Not even saying that that's a bad thing - it is what it is (they certainly aren't going to work for free on wall street and I don't expect them to). There probably hasn't been a time in recorded history where that hasn't been the case in one form or another.
but there are plenty more people who plop their millions down into a hedge fund and leave it set.
And the hedge fund.... buries it under the hedge?
No, they take it and invest it in things. Give companies money to expand, make drugs to grow hair, build new machinery... That's what they're doing.
I'm appreciate you explaining what you've said to Mark, because it reflects on him more than you, that he takes your - sorry, but it is - misconception of how money operates and uses it to defend his ignorant notions. (Which could easily be corrected, if he read
Neither is Olberman. Where does it say he is? That is Brian Williams or David Gregory.
"If you can find the conservative media, anyway."
To quote you Unix..."Wow. Just wow."
"He already has made mistakes, but you can't admit it, can you?"
I have plenty of times, DJ, you are just blind by your obsession with me (see: truth hurts) that you don't remember. I think he is making the same mistake Bush made in Pakistan. Wow, you really want him to fail don't you? What will it mean to you if he doesn't?
"It's called "back up at least ONE of your arguments with data." "
I've done that a hundred times or more. All of my data is summarily dismissed as being biased, lies, or my own "idiocy." But I'll tell you what...you pick an argument and when I get back from vacation, I'll back it up.
"The philosophy cannot be wrong. Do it again, harder. "
Isn't saying this phrase over and over...um...the same thing as the phrase itself?
"This person should not be allowed anywhere near impressionable young minds."
"there must be some way to get his comments in front of his employers and the parents of the students he "teaches".
"isn't it past time for a ban?"
Well, that's up to Kevin at the end of the day. As I have always said, I will abide by his wishes since I have an enormous amount of respect for him.
Funny you mention my school, rocinante. The comment about Al Qaeda and some of the base being similar came from them, not me. Students have asked me over the last few years similar questions. I tell them, if the topic is relevant in class, to give a presentation on it. I think if you heard some of them, your head would probably explode.
Parents are well aware of what we talk about in class and I receive few complaints. In fact, the few I do get come from the left recently who are upset about the fact that I teach Clarence Carson and have my friend Eric (evangelical minister) come in to speak on a regular basis.
I laid out the similarities above, rocinante. Rather than blow a gasket about it, why not reflect and see if there is any merit to it?
"No, they take it and invest it in things. Give companies money to expand, make drugs to grow hair, build new machinery... That's what they're doing."
Talk about gullible...do honestly think that is what they do with their money? How can someone have such a massive distrust of government but think that the corporation and the wealthy individuals of this nation are the equivalent of an innocent girl in the woods?
Last's assessment is dead on accurate. While I don't agree entirely with his view on government, it is a valid argument and one that I am happy to see that at least he carries his mistrust over to the private sector.
No. You're lying. Sorry, but you are. You've not done this thing. You might be exaggerating, but it's still not an honest assessment.
You've posted something and declared "point proven". You've misused "theory" "hypothesis", and "evidence" in order to come up with some Olbermannish Ad Hom. (And then declared that you don't use logical fallacies.)
You've ignored all the refutation tossed your way, and then claimed it was "point proven" and anyway..
All of my data is summarily dismissed as being biased, lies, or my own "idiocy."
Oh, no, we don't summarily dismiss it.
We shred the everlasting hell out of them (usually) or occasionally note a point they might have - but then point out they don't support you like you'd like - and you run away.
You said Obama's speech was great, and "not naive" and then claimed we're anti-intellectual (hah), and then waved away one of the best experts on the area - and the reactions of the Israelis.
That's par for you, and why you don't know how to support yourself with citations. We've established - using your own words - that you don't actually understand critical thinking.
Care to go back and deal with your slanders of the US fighting men and women?
How about the fact that everybody who talks about the educational system knows more than you're willing to concede? Not only have most of us been through it, we've seen it continually decline despite huge increases in funding.
-----
However, while I agree with: "This person should not be allowed anywhere near impressionable young minds."
There's absolutely no call for: "there must be some way to get his comments in front of his employers and the parents of the students he "teaches".
That's beyond the pale, and isn't within the realm of discourse here.
I post with a pseudonym, largely because I work at a college. And my opinions would not be tolerated if they were exposed to the administration. (Mark won't notice the obvious truth there- I'm in the education system too.)
Mark should be thrown out of teaching for incompetence, there's no way he can do a good job.
But it's not our job, duty, in fact it's absolutely wrong for us to organize a witch-hunt and try and punish him.
That's for his supervisors and fellows to deal with, not us.
----
Mark: Now, how about go deal with LabRat's comment?
Or at least explain how tax cuts transfer wealth. I'd like to hear THAT one.
Unix-Jedi: "No, they take it and invest it in things. Give companies money to expand, make drugs to grow hair, build new machinery... That's what they're doing."
Talk about gullible...do honestly think that is what they do with their money? How can someone have such a massive distrust of government but think that the corporation and the wealthy individuals of this nation are the equivalent of an innocent girl in the woods?
Because I've studied basic fucking economics, advanced economics, and money theory?
(And I'm being lectured to by someone who can't be bothered to look up "Verbatim"?)
Talk about gullible...do honestly think that is what they do with their money?
What else are they doing with it?
I think you just nudged the bar up again!
Kevin! Bronze this comment thread!
Last's assessment is dead on accurate.
It's totally *inaccurate*, as I explained.
While I don't agree entirely with his view on government, it is a valid argument and one that I am happy to see that at least he carries his mistrust over to the private sector.
You really don't have a clue how anything works, do you?
You really don't. And you're telling us to shut up and listen to you that the "classics" are being taught and public education isn't a disgrace?
Hey M, as someone with an undergrad degree in econ, trust me, neither you nor last_in_line have anything more than a populist distrust and ignorance of economics. I really think you're smart enough to know better, but you'd rather fight for what you believe than bother to learn more and have to alter some core vision - and THAT is what Kevin is talking about with the "do it again harder" line.
Last, money does not "flow" differently if you spend (or invest) it then if anyone else does. Buying a yacht isn't fundamentally different from buying a bass boat. Harping on what the rich do is just cheap populist rhetoric (which can split left or right).
Juris, I'm not harping on the rich. I said that it's their money and they can do what they want. Funny thing is...I don't even care if it trickles down or not because I don't view our economy as a zero-sum game where if one guy has a bigger slice of the pie, that means I must have a smaller piece of the pie. That is B as in B, S as in S.
Unix, I know that I don't know all there is to know about economics so we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't trust wall street but my distrust of government runs deeper than my distrust of wall street. I'd certainly be open to any readings or links you may suggest to me. The theories you spoke of...given what we know today...would you say they are being practiced in the way your textbook described? Not trying to play "gotcha" or anything, I'm genuinely curious.
Last in line, I won't presume to speak for Unix-Jedi, but I recommend mises.org (the Ludwig von Mises Institute). Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson is available online, and I believe you can get to it via mises.org. If not, leave a note here and I'll find it for you.
And no (still speaking for myself and not Unix), the practice bears no resemblance to Austrian economic theory...but if you read Hazlitt, you'll see it for yourself.
Another good short book is William Smart's An Introduction to the Theory of Value (on the Lines of Menger, Wieser, and Böhm-Bawerk). There's a nice capsule discussion there of marginal utility and subjective value. You may need an affordable mid-sized university library to track it down (I have it from Cleveland State University), but it's pretty good.
I think you can now also find Murray Rothbard's The Case Against the Fed reproduced online -- if not, a university library should be able to get a copy for you, or there's always bookfinder.com. I know for sure his The Panic of 1819 is available as a free PDF. I started it, but haven't finished it yet.
The big kahuna of the field is probably von Mises' Human Action. It's long, and I'm holding off on it until I get my dissertation sorted out (no, not economics -- marketing).
"I know I've mentioned my views about trickle down on here, can't remember when though...was a few months ago. My opinion is that trickle down does exist, but the money doesn't trickle down to the extent that many of its supporters claim it does."
Some months ago, Doofus made the same accusation, to wit:
"... Last in Line, even admits now that "trickle down" does not work."
That's what he said this time. I can't quote what he said last time because I don't have a link to it.
Last time, you explicitly told us that such is not what you told him. You then expanded your comment much as you did here.
The point is that, once again, he didn't learn, he ignored the correction, and he has no respect for the truth.
Me:""He already has made mistakes, but you can't admit it, can you?"
Doofus:"I have plenty of times, DJ, you are just blind by your obsession with me (see: truth hurts) that you don't remember.
Show me. I keep looking for any admission by you that Obamamateur has made a significant mistake of any kind. Show me, liar boy.
"I think he is making the same mistake Bush made in Pakistan."
Whis is what, exactly?
"Wow, you really want him to fail don't you?"
Damn, but you are a child, aren't you?
What I want is for him to fail at doing what he is and has been doing, in that, if he won't stop, then I want the goddamned Congress to oppose him. In any case, I want the goddamned sheeple to grow up and oppose him.
"What will it mean to you if he doesn't?"
Personally, it will mean, at a minimum: more kinds of taxes, higher tax rates, inflation of the currency (meaning my investments, on which I live, will be of much less value and so less able to support me), higher energy prices way over and above inflation (electricity, gas, and gasoline), higher costs for damned nearly everything way over and above inflation due to higher costs for energy, less access to medical care, higher cost of medical care, and gubmint sticking its goddamned nose between me and my doctors, where it has absolutely no fucking business whatever.
If his success is great, it could also mean: abrogation of my constitutional rights, such as the right to keep and bear arms, the right to criticize the gummint in general and him personally, and outright theft of a significant portion of my investments for redistribution to others.
And, to anticipate, we have explained these fears to you, in detail, over many weary months, and we have thoroughly documented our reasons why. Your reading comprehension is no better than your honesty, is it?
Unix, I know that I don't know all there is to know about economics so we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Hold on up there. It's obvious that you're missing a huge part of the picture, and if you talk to Mark regularly, I can see where you'd be confused.
I don't trust wall street but my distrust of government runs deeper than my distrust of wall street.
Wall street is looking to make money. :) Government is looking to take - and keep - control. That doesn't mean you have to trust everything anybody says about investing, but try and junk all that you've heard from Mark and let's start over.
This also, by the way, torpedoes Mark's assertions about public education - this used to be a base lesson.
OK. Let's postulate a small economy.
You come to my bank, with $200, and you want to "save" $100 and "invest" $100. I take your $200, make some bookkeeping entries. Now what? If that's all that happens, you get no money back, you don't increase your wealth at all.
So what I as the banker do, is reserve $50 of that (the actual number depends) and loan out the other $150.
Now, this is where a lot of people trip up. So how much money is now in circulation?
$50? $200? $350?
$350. For your money's been loaned out. Say... Mark comes in and wants a loan to build a school to teach the classics. So I loan him $80 from your "investment" fund and charge him 8% interest. As he pays that back, I credit your account with 5% interest, and 3% is my gross from which I have to pay my overhead and make my profit.
Because running a private school when you're a lousy teacher is a risky business, right? So that's a riskier investment, you charge more to cover the risks that he'll not pay it back.
Now, your "savings" account might go to a really good credit risk with a proven track record... Say a 2nd loan for a expansion of a pharmacy. The Pharmacist has always paid us back and he's doing a lot of business, so we charge him 3%, and you get 1% in savings.
So after a year, you've got, on paper, $101 in savings and $105 in investments. $206 total.
I've actually got $55 in the bank vault (yeah, horrible oversimplification, but that's a whole nother story) and Mark has his school, and the pharmacist has his expansion, and we've increased wealth.
Now, that's horribly oversimplified. In the real world, all of this gets mushed up and computer-planned and averaged to a fare-the-well, and "bank reserves" are a theory and...
Yeah. But that's the basics.
If you invest, if you hand your money for investment, in order for you to make more money, it's got to be loaned to someone, who's paying more in interest.
So they've got to go do something that profits them, in order to pay back the loan.
With me?
So if the "fatcats" are putting their money in "hedge funds", they're actually putting their money into the whole investing machine, increasing the amount available across the board, and making it easier to get credit and create wealth. Hedge funds do a lot with all the non-simple things that don't fit our model well.. but that money is *still out there, still being invested*.
That's good. What's bad is when it starts getting stuffed into mattresses. Or if the taxation is such it's not worth investing. What happens every time we stop taxing capital gains - taxes on wealth creation, mind you, is that more people invest, more wealth is created, and from that total pool, more actual tax revenue is seen.
Mark still talks of this as if it's a zero-sum game. His utterly idiotic statement (and watch, it's so stupid he'll ignore it and deny it soonish) that tax cuts were the biggest transfer of wealth is staggering in the ignorance he reveals, and his moral and practical equivalence between taxes, spending, and investment. Staggering even for Mark's demonstrated level ignorance.
But let's leave the theoretical examples alone, and ask you, what do you see in America? Do you see a super-rich set with things that the middle and lower classes are utterly forbidden to have?
Mark will froth over the site, but it was the first in the google search, plus has another couple of good photos.
In America, we've obsoleted the term "poverty". We've had to come up with a new definition for it. Because our "impoverished" are now facing what's being called a health crisis - obesity. That's right. Our poor have too much to eat. The definition of "impoverished" used to be, didn't have, or barely had enough FOOD for sustained survival!
Now we have people with "no income" with luxuries. Almost everyone lives - or has the ability to - live in a luxury home (compared to 150 years ago, especially.) Think of the difference between the rich and poor 150 years ago.
Now tell me that if you offered a huge landowner with a huge mansion from 150 years ago a modern doublewide trailer with A/C and heat, you think he'd rather stay in his drafty in the winter and stifling in the summer mansion?
The "gap" that Mark likes to talk about that basically is the total worth is damn near meaningless.
What distinguishes you, LiL, from a "Rich man"? Do you have a car? House? dishwasher, washing machine, dryer?
You just don't employ a servant to do that work for you. Cloth seats in your car, rather than leather? Right? But barring really stupid decisions or horrible bad luck, you've got all the same options as the "Rich", just perhaps not as ostentatious. You've only got a 60" HDTV, instead of a JumboTron. Right?
Sorry I haven’t replied till now. Thanks for typing up the basics for me Unix.
That is is certainly one of the ways that money is made in hedge funds but it isn’t the only way, and I know you know that. It would be nice if that was the only way money was made...an average Joe hiring folks to build his addition to his store. Even my most recent business law textbook devoted several pages to "friendly takeovers" where it claimed both sides benefited. The reality is that when there is a takeover like the one they described, there is always 1 winner and 1 loser. I’m not calling you naïve because your scenario certainly exists, I’m clarifying that the reason I don’t entirely trust wall street is not due to the basics, it is the fine print that exists nowadays such as short selling, FTD’s aka Failure to Deliver where phanton shares of stock are created that are indistinguishable from actual company issued shares, naked short selling, broker-level netting, pre-netting, Stock Borrow Programs, ex-clearing and off-shore failures, unsettled trades, desked trades, CNS netting, wall street firms marketing a new hedging product that would allow them to short stocks (even stocks on the banned short sale list), short sellers circulating false market rumors to drive down the price of stocks, the large market of credit-default swaps (insurance contracts to debt instruments that trade outside of established exchanges and are unregulated), hedge-fund managers purposefully avoiding reporting losses by marking up the value of their portfolios, painting the tape, wall street firms converting subprime loans into investments for sale to financial institutions around the world (without bothering to look a little more closely at whether the borrowers of these subprime loans really actually could repay them) while actually relying on a “guarantee” from the federal government, speculation in oil commodity markets (where a large percentage of the oil contracts in the futures markets can be held by speculative entities, not by companies that actually need oil...nothing illegal about it, just a little shady to me), etc.
I always leave the possibility open that there are some markets that can and sometimes are manipulated up or down buy big fish tipping the scales. Just my opinion and just a hunch.
I see America as the most upwardly mobile society on the planet today. I agree with you about how the left loves to define down terms like poor, poverty, racism, etc. Indeed our poor are obese for a number of reasons, too much cheap, fatty foods is more like it. I’ve traveled to Colombia so I’ve seen poor and our poor here seem pretty rich compared to the poor down there. There is zero upward mobility there, zip, zero, nada.
I do see a super rich set that has lots of things. I don’t call that unfair, I call that Life. I may not have those things but I know I am not utterly forbidden to have them. I know that free societies naturally gravitate toward a system where some people have a lot, some people have nothing, with a whole slew of intermediate levels inbetween. It’s a consequence of human nature, plain and simple. The thing is, I’m not looking to tear down wall street in order to narrow some gap, I just don’t entirely trust them.
To answer a few more of your questions, I own a Toyota Corrola that I simply wrote a check for, I own a home and rent out the spare bedroom for $500 a month, I haven’t done the dishes in 2 years because I have a gay roommate who does them every night, I do own a washer and a dryer and my TV is very basic 35 incher. In terms of consumerism, I do have all the same options that a rich person has but I choose to spend my money on experiences and not things. I’d much rather go to Europe for 2 weeks than spend a grand on that gigantic new gas-burner grill with the pancake griddle on the side. Who the hell sits on their deathbed, looks back at their life and says "Boy, that was such a great backsplash I installed in my kitchen back in 2008!". I surround myself with friends who don’t care what kind of a car I drive, what kind of clothes I wear and how big my home is. If one of my friends wants to get a BMW, that is their decision and I am happy for them. I wouldn't because vehicles do not go up in value. I don’t spend tons of money on updates to my house because I’m usually not in it. I’m always out doing something like salsa dancing, lifting weights, hanging out at the girlfriends place, doing hot yoga, bass fishing, playing softball, furthering my education, etc.
That is is certainly one of the ways that money is made in hedge funds but it isn’t the only way, and I know you know that.
Wait, you're off in Markland again. :)
The reality is that when there is a takeover like the one they described, there is always 1 winner and 1 loser.
Now you're getting into moral equivalence and judging by the results. Now, it's true that there can be a loser. But the overall point is for the market overall to be stronger.
That's a basic I think you're missing. In fact, most of what you list as examples are results of attempting to legislate and regulate in order to push "fairness" and make a results fit a predetermined goal.
such as short selling, FTD’s aka Failure to Deliver where phantom shares of stock are created that are indistinguishable from actual company issued shares,
That's not legal, ethical or allowed. It might be happening - but it's doing so in violation of the rules.
But more importantly, none of that matters. What matters is that money is in the investment pile. From that flows credit, in accordance with risk. That's what you're missing when you say "trickle-down doesn't work".
But in your ending paragraph, you reinforce what I was trying to say to you. When you complain (or listen to Mark bitch) about the "gap" between the "rich and the poor", the "disparity of wealth"...
Are you a rich man? What does the rich man do that you cannot?
Do you not have leisure time - a huge surfeit of it, compared to someone who is poor historically? Do you not have fun?
What's the difference between you and the "rich"? These days, almost nothing of substance. The Rich Man gets to vacation in Hawaii. You go to Florida. He rides First Class, you ride coach. He hires a maid, you scrub your own toilet.
But you've both got the same luxuries.
I don't mean to insult you, but I see why Mark calls you his "economic advisor". You're missing the big picture in the mishmash of little grievances. Which Mark has many of.
By the way, no, Wall Street isn't always ethical, and lots of things go on that aren't according to the rules. That's true. A number of your examples are examples of people breaking the law outright or covering up breaking the law.
But all of that aside: Show me a society aside from those where capitalism has been embraced, where the "poor" have almost identical living conditions to the rich.
That's what demonstrates that "Trickle-down" works more than anything. The Real World example.
For FUCK's SAKE, Kevin, why do you let this fundamentally unserious assclown continue to contaminate your comments section?
Because the replies he elicits are often GOLD. Some of the finest stuff that's ever been written in the comments has been inspired by Markadelphia's douchebaggery.
Seriously. I have some of the most intelligent, erudite commenters on the web, and sometimes they write some damned fine stuff when provoked.
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/2009/06/prophecy.html (119 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
Sowell is a lot smarter than you or me, or DJ. I'm not sure if he's a Christian or not, but he sure does defend them a lot. Just FYI.
Obama can indeed change the world. His policies are in fact are already doing just that, by turning control over a large part of it over to Jihadist.
With Iran soon to have nukes (all that will take is them waiting until the DPRKs can build them some or ship them the plans, those two are working together closely and the DPRKs have demonstrated to be able to construct them) that means Hezbollah and Hamas will soon have them as well.
Not quite Al Qaeda (in fact, quite the opposite as AQ are Sunni and Iran is Shiite, those are mortal enemies whose animosity is worse than the bloodfeud they share with the Jews and Christians) but bad enough.
It was my understanding that the nork nukes are implosion type plutonium devices, while the mad mullahs are going for uranium bombs. Is that incorrect?
Why would a rational person deliberately destabilize both the global economy and global security?
a) Foolish naivete.
b) Lust for absolute power.
Judge the actions to judge the man. Is he a fool?
Along similar lines F.A. Hayek states in Road to Serfdom: “But it would make the very men who are most anxious to plan society the most dangerous if they are allowed to do so – and the most intolerant of the planning of others. From the saintly and single-minded idealist to the fanatic is often but a step.”
Sowell's predictions of apocalypse seem much like predictions of the takeover of communism decades ago. India, Israel and Pakistan all have nuclear weapons. None of those three has used them against anybody. North Korea and Iran would not be a worry of the US if the US government would cease involving itself in those regions.
http://www.amazon.com/Educating-Rudy-Paul-reading-list/lm/RJML1CA9L0NCZ
Could this list apply to educating Thomas?
India, and Pakistan haven't sworn to see Israel destroyed. India and Pakistan don't consider the U.S. to be the Great Satan (some in Pakistan do, but their fingers are not - yet - on the trigger.)
North Korea possessing nuclear weapons is less worrying to me than Iran having them, though I can certainly see Kim selling the technology to whoever wants it. Remember that recent Israeli air raid on the Syrian facility? Amazing how little protest the Syrians made over that.
No, there's a tipping point. That's the problem I have with Ron Paul's foreign policy (or lack thereof) and why I cannot take him seriously as a contender for the Presidency.
I don't swallow the line that Iran has sworn to see Israel destroyed. I partially give North Korea and Iran a pass when it comes to having a beef with the US when we maintain tens of thousands of troops in an adjoining country. Calling the US the Great Satan might make for good approval ratings at home but what does it hurt me here in the continental US.
The tipping point analogy just doesn't fly in my book. Russia and China are much closer to both these countries and I don't hear a peep out of either of them. Why? Perhaps because they stick to defending their own borders (eh, exempting Tibet for the moment) and the US Army/US Navy/US Air Force doesn't.
I'm sorry to read the comments that see Iran's and North Korea's right to have nuke weapons.
It's not that they will directly attack, but that they will sell to the highest bidder, smuggle out this or that, etc.
You will have a nation blown to smithereens, and instant denial regarless of the telemitry.
Then what? Nothing, that's what. Watch as great cities of the west and nations get blown up and irradiated. That's the tipping point.
And Russia sticks to it's borders? What? Tell that to Georgia...
I don't swallow the line that Iran has sworn to see Israel destroyed.
Which tells us all we need to know about you.
I don't swallow the line that Iran has sworn to see Israel destroyed.
Right. Iran hasn't. The guys who will have the "button" have. It's a meaningless distinction without a real difference.
I partially give North Korea ... a pass when it comes to having a beef with the US when we maintain tens of thousands of troops in an adjoining country.
In NorK's case, in a purely defensive posture - due to merely a cease-fire in a war NorK started almost 60 years ago and refuses to concede defeat.
Yeah, they've got a "beef" with us daring to stand in the way of their plundering.
I don't for one second believe that any of these countries would sell their nukes to the highest bidder. It would be determined in quick order that they did that if they were used, and in quick order they would be destroyed by the US.
"No, there's a tipping point. That's the problem I have with Ron Paul's foreign policy (or lack thereof) and why I cannot take him seriously as a contender for the Presidency."
What? You can't take him seriously because he argues that interfering in other country's affairs only makes it worse for us? That by interfering, we are giving them a reason to hate us, to attack us? If we would just stay out of world affairs (like the Founders wanted us to) we would be much better off, and a lot less Americans would die.
There is NO reason to believe we would be attacked because "they hate use since we are free". They attack us because we KILL them. Stop killing them and we will be fine.
So they get nukes! Who cares? The precedent has already been set that if you have nukes, you won't be attacked. So, DUH they are going to want them.
What? You can't take him seriously because he argues that interfering in other country's affairs only makes it worse for us? That by interfering, we are giving them a reason to hate us, to attack us?
You are familiar with the concept of entropy? That all the king's horses and all the king's men can't put Humpty-Dumpty together again?
We've BTDT. Saying "Oops! Sorry!" isn't going to fix anything.
You assume that our opponents are rational. Bad bet.
You assume that our opponents are rational. Bad bet.
Kevin:
That's not what he's assuming.
He's assuming he understands their motivations, and they're in the same value system and meaning that he uses.
That's the really bad bet.
It's the same sort of conceit that can't understand using the atomic bombs on Japan, and that it actually saved Japan as a country and a culture. Because they try and project their purported motivation onto the culture, without understanding how alien it was to the culture.
Matt:
I don't for one second believe that any of these countries would sell their nukes to the highest bidder.
That's a 3 part statement.
* You don't believe:
Possible. But that's your problem.
* Sell the nukes:
Possible. But you're arguing against history. NorK and Pakistan were *selling nuclear tech and renting out nuclear scientists*. Plus, your verb "sell" means "Trade for money." That statement could be true if the weapons were given away. "Well, they didn't *sell* them!"
* To the highest bidder:
You're projecting here. That it would be a sale merely for money's sake. The issue isn't merely money here, but power, control, and opportunity. The dynamics are such that you cannot model this with a small classroom exercise.
It would be determined in quick order that they did that if they were used, and in quick order they would be destroyed by the US.
That's the point of "plausible deniability". Look at the morass of intelligence that occurred with the run up to the Invasion of Iraq. Look at the screaming about innocent civilians being slaughtered by US troops (Nevermind this was by far the least-bloody invasion ever.)
No. It's by no means a foregone conclusion that the US would "destroy" a nation that - according to the CIA - supplied nuclear components used against the US.
Arrogantly presuming that is the most demonstrable example that you've failed to understand what you're talking about and what the stakes here are.
Kevin Baker, I might not be in the top 10% of those who keep current on Iran but I believe that I am in the upper 25%. I've seen claims that Iran has "sworn to see Israel destroyed" but upon reading further on those claims I find them to be weak. I would think if you sincerely believed in your assertion that you would provide a reference supporting that claim.
Unix-Jedi, Your assertion is also weak. You refer to "the guys" who have the button but you don't mention an actual name. As for plunder, the US government plunder of the US taxpayer is my concern. If South Korea wants to maintain armed forces sufficient to defend their country let them hire them locally (or abroad) - but the US taxpayer should not be paying for South Korea's defense 55 years after the war ended.
After the reeducation camp, when my brain has been scrubbed clean of all this negativity, I will be happy riding my unicorn across fields of golden popcorn beneath a rainbow colored sky...
You refer to "the guys" who have the button but you don't mention an actual name.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. What do I win?
But for the real world, you might merely observe Hezbollah (Army of God). Which is an extention of the Iranian government. You might want to compare your hypothesis to their actions. I wouldn't stand in missile range in Israel while you dithered, however.
As for plunder, the US government plunder of the US taxpayer is my concern.
That it may well be, but it does not explain why you justified North Korea's pursuit of weaponry by insinuating that the US was "threatening" it with troops on the border.
If that was your case, you should have made it as such, rather than making it clear that your thinking is muddled. You were justifying the North Korean weapons program, not bemoaning the supposed cost of the US troops.
Those are two very separate issues.
Unix-Jedi, can you give me a quote of what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said?
Hmmm ...
Note that
"... I might not be in the top 10% of those who keep current on Iran but I believe that I am in the upper 25%."
and
"... can you give me a quote of what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said?"
are more than just a bit contradictory.
DJ:
Nah, he's just trying to catch me out.
Because he doesn't know.
But, since he insists, the latest I heard from him, (Don't forget, he was one of the kidnappers of the Americans in Iran in '79)
"I must announce that the Zionist regime (Israel), with a 60-year record of genocide, plunder, invasion and betrayal is about to die and will soon be erased from the geographical scene"
"Death to Israel" ring any bells?
"Israel will disappear from the map"? Or, alternately "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." Which is a difference only in translation, not intent.
More here.
I'm glad this topic has come up because I have come to several conclusions of late.
There is little difference between Al Qaeda and a substantial portion of the conservative base in this country. That includes some people who post here. I would also add in extremists in Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Hamas, Venezuella, and North Korea. President Obama is indeed a threat...to all of these groups' way of life. How can they possibly function without someone to fight and hate? All of these groups central tenets are fear, hate, ignorance, and violence. All justify these tenets and their actions in the name of whatever idiocy they believe in by saying that it will keep people "safe." As was written in comments on my blog recently:
"The real problem is not Muslims or Christians. It's the demagogues and extremists like Osama bin Laden and Bill O'Reilly who brain-wash susceptible people into becoming their minions by inflaming them with hatred and the idea that they are somehow enabled by God to do His will. And somehow that will always involves killing people, when both religions firmly say that killing is just plain wrong."
It's not surprising to me that Sowell, desperately in search of a Goldberg fan boy base, says stuff like this. It's the political porn that I have been talking about recently and there are plenty of people around to pop it into their DVD players to have a wank.
My real question is this...when did those on the right (some here) suddenly become so afraid of...well...everything...that they have lost all reason? Suddenly, Iran and North Korea are bigger threats than...Hitler? Really? (side note: and Pakistan is NOT a problem? Huh?)
We prevailed in conflicts in the past because we clearly understood our enemies and defeated them because of our reason, our intellect, and the fact that our values are based on freedom and liberty. So why do we still have a group of people in this country that say that we must act in direct contradiction to this in order to "win?" Or not be "weak?" What a load of shit.
There's no doubt that the countries listed above are threats but if one listens to the Sowells, Becks and Limbaughs of the world, we will surely fail for not knowing our enemy at all. Calling them "jihadists," for example, is just flat out moronic. They are hirabis. Look it up. It just shows how little we know about their culture and how we continue to shoot ourselves in the foot on a daily basis. Kevin, the fact that you interpret President Obama's speech as an "apology tour" is also ridiculous. I didn't hear any "I'm sorry" in regards to our country and BP overthrowing the Iranian government in the 1950s.
Sowell, and others here I'm certain, see our country as Manifest Destiny (see: everything we do is right and if call it wrong, time for the gallows, boy!)...moving through the world in the most honest and innocent way imaginable...constantly needing to be as belligerent as possible to the All Powerful evil doers. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Take a look at the desperation on the face of Hugo Chavez, for example, as he sucked up to Obama when the president was down there...bringing him a book like 14 year old girl. Or how about Ahmandinejad (Iran's Dick Cheney) who might very well be out of a job on Friday. It's a pretty tough sell to call America "The Great Satan" with a president that has lived in Muslim countries and understands that part of their culture better than any previous president. Or Kim Jong Il in NK, currently on his death bed, vainly trying to show the world his "power" as a 10 year old proves his penis is bigger than his buddy's.
All of these countries are acting in a way that smacks of desperately trying to be relevant in the world and clearly see that their days are numbered. I say it's time to exploit that as much as we can. Of course, we are also going to have to calm down the 98 year old grandmas in this country that want to shoot first and ask questions later. If it's not OUR way, it's weak!
I'm back to thinking President Obama might not make it out of his first term alive...both sides have a common enemy now.
All of these groups central tenets are fear, hate, ignorance, and violence.
You forgot our nice red uniforms.
when did those on the right (some here) suddenly become so afraid of...well...everything...that they have lost all reason?
"All reason"? Just for grins and giggles, what argument recently have you - in your mind at least - won? Using "reason"?
desperation on the face of Hugo Chavez, for example, as he sucked up to Obama when the president was down there...bringing him a book like 14 year old girl.
Obviously it flew over your head what I said above.
I said:
He's assuming he understands their motivations, and they're in the same value system and meaning that he uses.
That's the really bad bet.
This has been explained to no avail to you in the past, and you still don't understand. You don't want to, you want to just rage and try and make us fit your script, your template, your preconceived notions, because you can't synthesize information.
clearly see that their [countries that Obama is attempting to emulate] days are numbered.
This might. Possibly. It's still arguable. But I think it's got a very good chance of being the absolute stupidest, most illogical, wrong-headed thing you've ever said (On this site, anyway.)
I'm back to thinking President Obama might not make it out of his first term alive...both sides have a common enemy now.
You've not made it yet to "Gee, government control of the economy by taking over and dictating terms in bankruptcy, financial dealings and employment is ___________ ." So I'm not too concerned where you've gotten "back to thinking". (I won't even get into how obtuse that statement is.
There is little difference between Al Qaeda and a substantial portion of the conservative base in this country. That includes some people who post here. I would also add in extremists in Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Hamas, Venezuella, and North Korea.
If this were true, you'd be afraid for your life.
1) Most who post here aren't in the "conservative base". You're so obtuse you can't see that.
2) The "conservative base" isn't in the business of wholesale killing. Those others are. Yes, abortion doctor, wave the bloody flag. Horrible. They're going to put his killer on death row, and they should. If we were the same, as you say, we'd object to that. (Or at least his trial and almost-certain-imprisonment. the DP is hardly a lockstep issue.)
3) And finally, that sort of vastly-over-the-top slander demonstrates how desperate you're getting. You can't in any serious manner correlated the base, much less a raucous bunch such as us, who hardly see eye-to-eye about much.
The true similarity there is power. You've been told this many times. Those countries are about power. Control. Dictating to people how they will be allowed to live their life in the service of the higher-ups.
No, there's no correlation there with the vast number of regulars here, who insist on self-determination. That's where you are the regular who insists on that sort of control. Your preferred political party has only one controlling principal - POWER. Getting, and maintaining power.
The republicans were distracted, and they've lost their focus, their voice - and notice the disarray they're in, when they tried to emulate the Democrat methods. The way that the Democrats of today hold power doesn't work with Republican voters.
Meaning that there's no similarity, except in the fevered imagination of people who can't parse an argument.
There is little difference between Al Qaeda and a substantial portion of the conservative base in this country.
Really? And when was the last time one of us sawed someone's head off (literally) for the crime of being an infidel? Slipped into Semtex Underoos and blew ourselves up for the Greater Glory of Allah?
U-J covered the rest of it.
Sometimes, Markadelphia, I'm amazed you are able to remind yourself to breathe.
Markadelphia,
"[...]And somehow that will always involves killing people, when both religions firmly say that killing is just plain wrong."
Just plain wrong, I see. Here are a few quick quotes from the Qu'ran:
Mohammed said, “Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him.” (Hadith Al Buhkari vol. 9:57)
Mohammed said, “I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, none has the right to be worshipped but Allah” (Al Bukhari vol. 4:196).
(Abu Hurayah) reported the messenger of Allah as saying: The last hour will not come before the Muslims fight the Jews and the Muslims kill them, so that Jews will hide behind stones and trees and the Stone and the tree will say, O Muslim, O servant of God! There is a Jew behind me; come and kill him. The only exception will be the box-thorn for it is one of the trees of the Jews. (Sahih of Muslim, quoted by Israel and the Prophecies of Al Quran by Ali Akbar, Bismi Publishers 1992, p.44)
Of the Unbelievers: Sura 4:89 “seize them and slay them wherever you find them: and in any case take no friends or helpers from their ranks.”
Slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush. (Sura 9:5)
4:101 “When ye travel through the earth, there is no blame on you if ye shorten your prayers, for fear the Unbelievers May attack you: For the Unbelievers are unto you open enemies.”
9.123 “O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you”
“War is prescribed to you: but from this ye are averse.” (Sura 2:212).
Sura 2:187-189 “And kill them wherever ye shall find them, and eject them from whatever place they have ejected you; for civil discord is worse than carnage: yet attack them not at the sacred Mosque, unless they attack you therein; but if they attack you, slay them. Such the reward of the infidels...Fight therefore against them until there be no more civil discord, and the only worship be that of God: but if they desist, then let there be no hostility, save against the wicked.”
“During the last days there will appear some young foolish people, who will say the best words, but their faith will not go beyond their throats (i.e. they will leave the faith) and will go out from their religion as an arrow goes out of the game. So, wherever you find them, kill them, for whoever kills them shall have reward on the Day of Resurrection.” (Bukhari volume 9, no.64)
It goes on and on like this. I'm not sure that these words mean "killing is just plain wrong".
"He's assuming he understands their motivations, and they're in the same value system and meaning that he uses.
That's the really bad bet."
I know there's been a great LIE circulating (with many all too willing people believing)that Barack Obama is Jimmy Carter. It's a bunch of horse shit. President Obama kept Gates and currently has a 40 year Marine veteran serving as his national security advisor. This administration is made up of people who are far more pragmatic than Carter. President Obama's speech in Cairo was anything but naive. Some quotes:
"I'm aware that there's still some who would question or even justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: Al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with."
"...if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and now Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case."
"Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths --"
"Six million Jews were killed -- more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, it is ignorant, and it is hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction -- or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews -- is deeply wrong"
Hmmm...pretty much the same thing said on here. So, help me out, Unix, where is he naive, again?
"who insist on self-determination."
If that were true, then why the foreign policy view you have? Don't other countries have the same right?
"when was the last time one of us sawed someone's head off (literally) for the crime of being an infidel? Slipped into Semtex Underoos and blew ourselves up for the Greater Glory of Allah?"
Yet you supported the slaughter that went on Iraq. In fact, you said it was necessary to keep us safe which is exactly what they say when they slaughter us. In addition, you and others have said that "the time is past for reasoned discourse." You have gone on to say that it might be time for the pitch forks and torches. Granted, that might be a joke (I hope it is) but it is the same type of mentality that our enemies have in regards to their country's "liberals."
"There is little difference between Al Qaeda and a substantial portion of the conservative base in this country."
Just wow.
Ninja, you bring up an interesting point, one which kind of blew me away when I was talking with my friend Eric who is an evangelical minister. He told me that only "true Muslims" follow Osama bin Laden. If they don't believe the passages you listed above, then they aren't really Muslims. And yet, there are many Muslims who don't follow the Suras because they claim that they are representative of a different time in Mohammed's life.
So, take these suras and compare them to the Old Testament. And then think about what my friend Eric said (and what he says about "true Christians") in juxtaposition to my contention that there is very little difference between Al Qaeda and "the base." (which, in fact, is the English translation of Al Qaeda)
"Just wow."
Yep...well...time to be reflective. Start with the definition of what Al Qaeda defines as "weak" and what some in our country call "weak." Compare what Dick Cheney says to what bin Laden says.
Do you want to beat these guys, Eric? Or do you want to help them out?
There is little difference between Al Qaeda and a substantial portion of the conservative base in this country.
You've said some stupid things before M, but I think you will have a difficult time topping this. Yet I remain confident that you will try, really, really hard to do so.
Let's stone the adulteress without habaeus corpus!
There is little difference between Al Qaeda and a substantial portion of the conservative base in this country.
This is the single most stupid, ignorant and hateful thing I have ever read on this blog.
You are either an attention whoring troll or the most oblivious idiot I have ever come across.
I know there's been a great LIE circulating (with many all too willing people believing)that Barack Obama is Jimmy Carter. It's a bunch of horse shit.
Emote much?
Actually, most of the joke is that he's going to rehabilitate Carter's reputation!
Nobody believes that Obama *is* Carter. But lots of us see lots of similarities in their backgrounds and approaches to problems. We know what happened when Carter did these things - and it didn't work out well. Obama is already following in his path in several key areas.
And let's look at the complete morass Carter left us in the Middle East - which we're still dealing with. It's very directly tied to the entanglement with Iraq for the last 15 years.
You can pull selective quotes - and you're good at that. You're bad at reading the whole thing.
President Obama's speech in Cairo was anything but naive.
You don't have the authority to make that determination. But more importantly, you keep citing Obama when he says something you like, and refusing to even discuss when he says something that counters your promises and predictions.
What might be very instructive to you, is if you were to go look up Neville Chamberlain's speeches prior to the outbreak of World War Two. Not that I am saying that Obama is Chamberlain. But even you should be able to trace the words, threats, and intent that he outlined, and the actual outcome.
So, help me out, Unix, where is he naive, again?
You've left dozens of arguments where we illustrate this, from economics to statistics to history. Hey, I'll give him credit for following the Bush policies he and you frothed about for the last 2 years - because amazingly it's not as easy as he (and you) claimed it was. Has he yet apologized to Bush for his rhetoric?
If that were true, then why the foreign policy view you have? Don't other countries have the same right?
Specifically where are you talking about? Where are you pointing to to refute me? Specifically.
Yet you supported the slaughter that went on Iraq.
... Iraq was the least bloody - by an order of magnitude - of any conflict of it's size.
If you call it a "slaughter", what level of conflict are you willing to engage up to, and don't you realize how naive it is to set that level for your enemies to know?
But you just cannot give Bush and his people the respect and recognition they deserve.
No, now you call them "slaughterers".
Tell me, what atrocities can you cite? (Of course, we want ones where we didn't punish the offenders.)
You've equated the US fighting military with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his ilk.
I suppose that since you have no credibility, you don't care, but I strongly protest your base libel.
As usual, I can't do a better job of discrediting you than you do.
Do you want to beat these guys, Eric? Or do you want to help them out?
Compare 2002 with 2009.
Gee, seems like they got beat pretty damn well to me. Doing what you swore would never work.
And you call them a bunch of "slaughterers".
And object when we describe you and your Chosen One for being naive.
Markadelphia, the Old Testament is completely irrelevant to the claim that under Islam, "killing is just plain wrong."
Are you perhaps suggesting that the words of prophet Mohammed have nothing to do with Islam?
You have refuted nothing.
So, take these suras and compare them to the Old Testament. And then think about what my friend Eric said (and what he says about "true Christians")
I'd like to see what your friend Eric says about that.
I notice you juxtaposed him in (in an appeal to authority), yet didn't quote him where he's an authority.
Adding to that the minor problem that a large percent (Ed or Sarah might can chime in) believe that the Old Testament is completely irrelevant to a Christian. When Jesus was sent to take men's sins, it was a wholly new covenant.
How about you tell us what Eric thinks about that, or does it ruin your argument (Again?)
[Markadelphia is] either an attention whoring troll or the most oblivious idiot I have ever come across.
You are assuming a logical distinction between those alternatives. M doesn't do well with logic, so it might be possible for him to be both.
"I know there's been a great LIE circulating (with many all too willing people believing)that Barack Obama is Jimmy Carter."
No, teacher boy, there is an expectation circulating that he will be as damaging to our economy as Ol' Jimmy was, if not more so. That is what we have been saying, explicitly so.
Still dense as (Hah!) depleted uranium, ain'tcha?
And you still can't admit what a lie is, can you, liar boy?
"You are either an attention whoring troll or the most oblivious idiot I have ever come across."
Well let's see..it's already been established that I am not a troll so let's handle the idiot part...
Both the base and hirabis are vehemently anti intellectual
Both the base and hirabis want to inject religion into education.
Both the base and hirabis use the media to disseminate propaganda (Fox News/Right Wing Radio/Blogs---Al Jazeera, hirabis web sites) specifically designed to spread hate, ignorance and fear.
Both the base and hirabis are vehemently against liberalism.
Both the base and hirabis are vehemently ideological to the point of extreme ego centrism and hyper jingoism.
Both the base and hirabis are vehemently religious (or at least their own distorted view of their respective religions)
Both the base and hirabis vehemently justify violence as a means to achieve utopia.
Both the base and hirabis vehemently justify violence as a means to achieve "safety."
Both the base and hirabis are vehemently anti homosexual.
Both the base and hirabis are vehemently against "the other" in this case the infidel or the jihadist.
Both the base and hirabis are against a wide variety of rights for women and use their religion as justification for it.
Both the base and hirabis seek to destroy, in whatever way possible, anyone who questions them as the ultimate authority on everything. They are not interested in compromise. Compromise is for the weak. Anyone who detracts from their ideology is an enemy. And they make sure that their followers know this through their propaganda outlets mentioned above.
Now, I know there will be cries of mis-characterizations and blaspheme (another shared trait) but I'm not the one who defines the base...they do a pretty good job of that themselves. All one has to do is turn on the TV, radio, or spend some time on the web.
Hrm... two Mark-involved threads prior to this one, and he still hasn't even bothered to account for his B.S. here. I don't know what's sadder - that someone can somehow function thinking like that, or that we can practically place bets on the remainder of his time in this thread.
Ah, so the answer is: "oblivious idiot".
Well, pdb. Show me how my comparisons are wrong. I'll be waiting.
"place bets on the remainder of his time in this thread."
Being the sole voice of dissent on this blog, it would require a 40 hour work week to respond, in the rules reserved only for myself, to every thread in perpetuity. And isn't this a blog built on the concept of individual freedom and liberty?
Oh, my.
Well, on one hand, that's one of the best ATTEMPTS I've seen you make to make an argument, Mark.
It's too bad it's laughable, emotionally driven, and you're using words without clear definitions and shifting them during your comparisons.
For example:
Both the base and hirabis are vehemently anti intellectual
Is laughable.
It's even more laughable when you consider that you're grouping commenters here into the "base". Several of whom are "intellectual".
But let me give you credit where credit is due. This needs to have a lot more work shown, and a lot more explanations.
So instead of your usual F, this is a good, solid D as it stands right now. D+, even.
(But you still haven't either confirmed your libel or retracted it. Remember, this will go on your Permanent Record.)
You've repeatedly demonstrated a complete and total imperiousness to facts, and now you're just hurling ad hominem insults. So why waste more effort on you?
You're an idiot and picked the wrong hill to die on (metaphorically speaking).
I don't have the patience for this, but I'm glad others do. I'm going to enjoy this.
Markadelphia said: All justify these tenets and their actions in the name of whatever idiocy they believe in by saying that it will keep people "safe."
You're kidding, right? You come to this place and claim that the people who comment here believe that doing this or doing that will keep people safe?
There's a fundamental idea rolling around on this blog and comment threads that could be verbalised something like this: Complete safety is an illusion, all we can hope to achieve is to manage risk.
It's more or less the basic idea behind this blog, as I understand it. Trying to achieve perfect safety with rules, regulations, tenets or actions will always backfire in depressingly predictable ways. Have you even read this blog at all?
P.s. I would love to see a partial or complete list of commenters here who are Al-Qaeda analogues.
"Show me how my comparisons are wrong."
We are not the base. You do understand that, don't you, teacher boy?
"Being the sole voice of dissent on this blog,"
Please, demonstrate how we think and act in step. It doesn't take me but ten seconds to find Unix and DJ arguing over something or discussing ideas (and note that their arguments somehow entirely fail to be vehement and hateful - they are, in fact, composed of _arguments_).
"It would require a 40 hour work week to respond, in the rules reserved only for myself, to every thread in perpetuity."
Yet you find time to write lengthy new posts in other comment sections, such as this one. You do this time after time - you start a discussion (and you really do, because rarely are you contributing or evaluating points, but rather coming in here and ranting something about us "right-wingers"), you're engaged for what you said, you're defeated, and you just disappear.
If these intellectual beat-downs were just jousts of emotion, I'd see Unix ending a post with "and that's that" or some other campy, "I won" argument. But I don't. What I see are questions posed back to you to rationalize your original or new statements which are left open and ignored by you.
You're a pissant for calling yourself a thinker.
"And isn't this a blog built on the concept of individual freedom and liberty?"
What the fucking hell point are trying to make? Is there a jury you're waving to?
"And isn't this a blog built on the concept of individual freedom and liberty?"
Yup.
You are free to make as big a jackass of yourself as you please, and it apparently pleases you mightily. You are not prevented from posting anything you care to.
So, do you seek by such a question to escape criticism for what you write?
Ya know gang, despite all the projection and faulty reasoning, M. Delphia's usually been a pretty reliable bellwether of where the opposition's troops are in the processing of their master's scripts.
I for one, am disquieted by the fact that they've gotten to binding the whole "conservatives as ignoranti" meme together with the "..and dangerous enemies of progress" meme, which is garnished with the "desperation to remain relevant in a world that has passed them by" meme, and peppered with the "brain washed subhuman" meme to paint the mental picture of a dangerous, feral and desperate enemy ready, willing and able to lash out.
Such a group of people are clearly a latent public menace, a problem in need of solution, a solution that will, at the right time, be offered by the Big Man.
It's a delicious act of irony that this is offered in the context of a critique of those who need to create enemies...I wonder if M. delphia can really appreciate the depth of subtle irony he sometimes displays?
All this bears a more than a passing resemblance to a pattern students of history know well.
If this script holds to historical precedents, the preparation of the mental battle space will continue until an event that can be exploited as a catalyst occurs, a la Reichstag fire.
Let us hope that cooler heads prevail, and that it does not go much further in that direction.
Yes. Let us hope for peace.
This deserves a comment all its own:
"Being the sole voice of dissent on this blog ..."
No, you are by no means the only voice of dissent who comments here. You do, however, exhibit the lowest level of reading comprehension, and this statement of yours illustrates that nicely.
"... in the rules reserved only for myself ..."
No, the rules are the same for everyone, and so are the expectations.
You can post most anything you please. Kevin is extraordinarily tolerant, even of you. I have stated repeatedly that you do a great service for our side of the fence by doing such a piss poor job of representing your side.
Posting something that is wrong in any significant way is likely to result in criticism by any number of people, including showing you by documentary evidence that you are wrong. Not admitting the truth of the evidence is likely to result in you getting hammered therefore. This means that making shit up, not corroborating it, and lying are damned nearly guaranteed to get you hammered.
Well, guess what, Sparky? The same applies to all of us. We hammer each other when we write something egregiously wrong or stupid, and there's not one of us who hasn't been on the receiving end of such, deservedly so.
The great difference between you and the rest of us is that you appear to revel in being shown to be wrong and we don't. The pathology of your personality is that, while you revel in it, you cannot admit it. You are like a masochist who cannot admit that it hurts.
You have nothing to complain about regarding the treatment that you receive here. What you get is the result of the decisions you make, and you simply refuse to do it any better. What you cannot understand is that the hammering you get is not because of what you believe, it is because of how you attempt to defend what you believe. You have no one to blame for that but yourself.
Hey. This is interesting.
Mark, here's somebody (An intellectual, no less!) who totally disagrees with you on the speech today:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M2NiZDc0N2VkN2I5ZmQwNzcyYjk4MzJjMGQ4YWJiYWM=
President Obama’s Cairo speech was nothing short of an earthquake — a distortion of history, an insult to the Jewish people, and an abandonment of very real human-rights victims in the Arab and Muslim worlds. It is not surprising that Arabs and Muslims in a position to speak were enthusiastic. It is more surprising that American commentators are praising the speech for its political craftiness, rather than decrying its treachery of historic proportions.
Obama equated the Holocaust to Palestinian “dislocation.” In his words: “The Jewish people were persecuted. . . . anti-Semitism . . . culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. . . . Six million Jews were killed. . . . On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people — Muslims and Christians — have suffered in pursuit of a homeland.” This parallelism amounts to the fictitious Arab narrative that the deliberate mass murder of six million Jews for the crime of being Jewish is analogous to a Jewish-driven violation of Palestinian rights.
Speaking in an Arab country to Arabs and Muslims, Obama pointedly singled out European responsibility for the Holocaust — “anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust.” In other contexts, the European emphasis would be a curiosity. In Egypt, it was no accident. The Arab storyline has always been that Arabs have been forced to suffer the creation of Israel for a European crime.
...
After expressing his belief in a moral equivalence between the claims of Palestinians and the claims of the victims of slavery and apartheid, Obama juxtaposed his admission of Israel’s “right to exist” with his assertion that “the United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.” Every word of this speech was carefully weighed. It was therefore no mishap that for the first time a U.S. president has denied the legitimacy of Israeli settlements, period. Such an assertion abrogates every agreement between Arabs and Israelis, which have always left the ultimate determination of which settlements will stay or go to a bilateral peace process and final status negotiations.
...
But judging by Obama’s speech, only one “dislocation” counts. After placing the Holocaust side-by-side with the Palestinian “pain of dislocation,” he ignored the dislocation of 800,000 Jewish refugees from all over the Arab Middle East in response to the creation of Israel.
Jewish refugees from Arab intolerance were not the only human-rights casualties the president chose to dismiss. Three different times Obama defended the right of Muslim women to cover up their bodies. Never once did he mention the right of Muslim women to refuse to cover up their bodies — a right denied on pain of arrest and death by many of the very communities he was addressing.
Read. The. Whole. Thing. (Emphasis mine. I also didn't quote several other paragraphs that Mark is unlikely to refute.)
And then tell me. Who's got it more correct? You who claimed "President Obama's speech in Cairo was anything but naive.", or Anne Bayefsky, who is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and at Touro College who says "This manufactured human-rights fantasy has done a tremendous disservice to the oppressed across the Arab and Muslim world." and "President Obama’s meticulously planned and executed Egyptian speech marks the lowest point in the U.S. presidency’s understanding and appreciation of the Jewish state, its history, and its people’s future.
Don't forget your reverence for the academy.
geek:
I wonder if M. delphia can really appreciate the depth of subtle irony he sometimes displays?
The evidence would say "No."
In a discussion of Kevin's observation that the Left never will admit error, always blame the implementation on Utopia, "We'll do it AGAIN, only this time HARDER!" Mark objected, and in the ensuing thread, insisted that Obama was "smarter" and would "do [communal programs] correctly. And then got very upset when we pointed out that was exactly Kevin's point, and that that the road to hell was paved with Great Intentions.
Just the other day, he ran into the thread where the student had "learned to yell racism" to "win" an argument in school....
... and called us all racists and ran off.
Many, many, many times I have told him to call Alanis, take his arguments to the steel recycling center, that he couldn't use his argument to get wrinkles out of shirts...
All to no obvious avail. So no, I don't think he's capable.
but I'm not the one who defines the base...
Oh, but you are. Both parties refer to their respective bases, but you choose to ONLY refer to the Republican base with respect to the Arabic word for base.
That is rather intellectually debased IMO.
The scariest thing about our resident socio-fascist is that he is the absolute stereo-typical propogandist in the (re)-education system, shaping young minds.
Both the base and hirabis are vehemently anti intellectual
I don't know if I'd go that far, but I'll agree the conservative base has little patience for the "shut up, I'm smarter than you so I know best" attitude typical of big government supporters on both the right and the left.
Both the base and hirabis want to inject religion into education.
Marginally true. Some do. Of course, there's a distinction between something being offered and something being required, a distinction you seem to often fail to see.
Then again, the other half of the conservative base is fighting directly against that, which you unaccountably fail to mention. Read Little Green Footballs sometime, it's that guy's hobbyhorse.
I'm sorry that Christianity apparently terrifies you, but it doesn't seem to scare most of us. You were saying something about acting out of fear rather than reason?
Both the base and hirabis use the media to disseminate propaganda (Fox News/Right Wing Radio/Blogs---Al Jazeera, hirabis web sites) specifically designed to spread hate, ignorance and fear.
Thst's priceless, it really is. Anytime you want to compare Fox News to MSNBC for bias, propaganda, fear/hatemongering, and playing fast and loose with the facts, you be my guest.
Same goes for comparing mainstream right wing political blogs to HuffPo and Daily Kos, too.
Both the base and hirabis are vehemently against liberalism.
True, by the current definition. But then, neo-socialists of various stripes have redefined "liberalism" until it bears little resemblance to "libertarianism". The similarity of the words should clue you in as to how similar the meanings were once.
Both the base and hirabis are vehemently ideological to the point of extreme ego centrism and hyper jingoism.
Are you seriously gonna try to claim that the American political left is not "vehemently ideological"?
Two words: Madame Speaker.
Both the base and hirabis are vehemently religious (or at least their own distorted view of their respective religions)
...he says, in the comments section of a blog run by a conservative atheist. Once again, I think you're conflating "not scared of Christians" with "vehemently religious".
Both the base and hirabis vehemently justify violence as a means to achieve utopia.
Have you forgotten respected liberal intellectual Bill Ayers' plans to kill 25 million people? Or Jeremiah Wright's "Chickens coming home to roost"? Or the violent backlash from the losers in Prop. 8?
Both the base and hirabis are vehemently anti homosexual.
Miss California underwent a thorough character assassination for having the same opinion of gay marriage as President Obama. Dick Cheney's opinion is to the left of President Obama's.
Both the base and hirabis are vehemently against "the other" in this case the infidel or the jihadist.
See above. Also see Joe the Plumber, Sarah Palin, John McCain and others. Any lie, any character assassination, any fraud, any intimidation tactic... nothing is too dirty a trick as long as it's used by a "liberal" against a "conservative".
Both the base and hirabis are against a wide variety of rights for women and use their religion as justification for it.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you're talking abortion, since I can't think of any other "rights for women" conservatives oppose. Since a) conservatives are by no mean monolithic on the issue, and b), I know more pagan or atheist pro-lifers than I do Christians, I'd call that accusation rather thin.
I'd call it especially thin since the political right is forever taking fundamentalist Islam to task for their abuse of women, while the political left has been strangely silent on the subject for decades.
Both the base and hirabis seek to destroy, in whatever way possible, anyone who questions them as the ultimate authority on everything.
See "the other", above. Also, two words: Global Warming.
Two more: "I won."
Four more: "He's sort of God."
Gimme a freakin break.
Kevin Baker and Unix-Jedi, thank you for the references I asked for. I will make two points.
1) Both your quotes are in English and in contrast to what is implied by quote marks are _not_ a quote it is a translation.
2) Your claims are based on translations and I do not agree that your translation is accurate as to meaning what a reasonable person would characterize as "sworn to destroy Israel".
Again thanks for you followup. I do appreciate it even if I do not agree with it.
Such a group of people are clearly a latent public menace, a problem in need of solution, a solution that will, at the right time, be offered by the Big Man.
If I didn't know better geek I might think you were describing Ernst Rohm and his followers there.
This is of course what makes Markadelphia's obsession with Rush all the more ridiculous. Rush is a pantywaist, opportunist entertainer - almost literally another Face in the Crowd whereas the much less popular G. Gordon Liddy is someone that any sane person should be at least a little frightened of.
Thane Eichenauer, you appear to be intimately familiar with either Farsi or the quotes/translations in question. I would be very interested in seeing a correct word-for-word translation, if you can supply one, since people have been arguing a lot about his words. Proving Kevin wrong should be especially easy for you since he didn't merely copy a translation, he provided links to videos of Mr. Ahmadinejad's speeches. Surely that's at least as good, and vastly more useful, than providing quotes in Farsi?
NinjaViking, I am afraid I am not Farsi literate. Kevin Baker referenced:
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/norouzi.php?articleid=11025
which is a good analysis (in my opinion) of the false claim of "wiped off the map" and related exaggerated claims.
I am all in favor of translations but I do object to taking a translation and putting quote marks around it. Should Mahmoud Ahmadinejad makes an inflammatory statement in Farsi, I hope that an accurate translation is made and that it is identified as such.
So . . . if a translation doesn't match your personal beliefs, then that translation is in error?
Who do you trust? Upon what criteria do you decide?
Define the "is" in Istanbul, is it a translation or a quotation?
After the translation camp my brain will be cleansed of such negativity and I will ride my unicorn across golden fields of popcorn beneath a rainbow colored sky.
Egads, Marky has us mouthbreathers on the ropes! I can't run away fast enough from his blistering insight, so I am going into hyper jingoism mode! (Cue reverb effect)
Or is hyper jingoism just normal jingoism after eating too much sugar?
Wait, didn't Hubert France's Foreign Minister Vedrine call the US a hyper power? Are those related?
"You've repeatedly demonstrated a complete and total imperiousness to facts"
Not really. This is what the right says all the time. They are the ones who define themselves not I.
"We are not the base. You do understand that, don't you, teacher boy?"
Then why tow the party line about Al Qaeda? Iraq? Iran? Goldberg and Sowell are quoted often here. The things they write and say are used extensively in the current form of the GOP. Some here support Sarah Palin vigorously. She is not part of the base now?
"What the fucking hell point are trying to make? Is there a jury you're waving to?"
My point is that individual rights and liberty don't apply to me when it comes to how I respond on this blog. I do have a life outside of posting here. Much as I would like to spend my days writing several long paragraphs, sadly, I can only write a few. But that's not good enough and we all know why :)
"until an event that can be exploited as a catalyst occurs, a la Reichstag fire."
I agree completely with this. And one already happened on Sept 11, 2001.
"Read. The. Whole. Thing."
I have and I respectfully disagree. Read or watch Obama's whole speech, Unix, and judge for yourself. There was nothing anti Israeli at all. I really doubt that he would tread even close to that path with a former member of the Israeli Defense Force on his staff. And, hey, everyone's entitled to their opinion...
"I'm sorry that Christianity apparently terrifies you"
Actually, it doesn't. I am Christian...well...actually not according to the right because I don't subscribe to their warped version of it. They warp in the same way Al Qaeda warps their religion.
"compare Fox News to MSNBC for bias"
I agree that MSNBC has leaned left in the last couple of years but please be so kind as to show me the Fox liberal equivalent of Joe Scarborough, whose new book is wonderful btw. More than likely will be an assignment next year. Hmmm...yeah...really am the "tereo-typical propogandist in the (re)-education system" (see: load of shit)
"Bill Ayers..."
Talk about a dog that won't hunt. Ayers and his shabby mal contents were never anywhere near as organized or numerous as the right's wingnuts.
Grumpy, although I don't agree with some of your points, I do appreciate you taking the time to comment on them in a thoughtful and reflective way. And you certainly have given me some things to think about.
My point is that individual rights and liberty don't apply to me when it comes to how I respond on this blog.
Then you have no point at all. For you are so egregiously wrong as to be unarmed in a battle of wits.
Me: ""We are not the base. You do understand that, don't you, teacher boy?"
Doofus: "Then why tow the party line about ..."
No, you don't understand it.
"Much as I would like to spend my days writing several long paragraphs, sadly, I can only write a few."
Funny how those never seem to take into account any of the things you've been taken to task for. Hell, let's take my post. Maybe three main points there, and they're more vitriol than statement.
Yet you ignore all of those except that one. You ignore the ones that point out - as it has been pointed out repeatedly - your utter refusal to engage any conversation past the refutation of your bullshit points.
n't and still haven't.
It's "funny" how you conveniently have enough time to post several paragraphs worth of new bullshit every few posts and, once facts enter the equation of other ones, you disappear there.
Oh, yes, you'll argue subjective, nonsensical bullshit, but the minute a chart, a date, or a statistical evaluation from practically any source comes up, you're gone.
I have met people who could not think, could not disseminate information, could not understand.
You are exceptional in that you seem capable of writing English in decent grammar, almost making logical connections in your arguments, and yet are utterly and completely incapable of understanding information. You cannot absorb and compare data. I am amazed that someone can be so godamned dysfunctional - it calls for Freudian explanations, because conventional, logical ones simply don't apply to your stupendous fucking ignorance.
"but the minute a chart, a date, or a statistical evaluation from practically any source comes up, you're gone."
Exactly. For example, he claimed that schools are still teaching the classics, but he refuses (or can't) name the classic books students at his school are required to read. (No Marky, I don't forget the pointed questions you run away from. Yes, you did once try to answer some of them months later, but your answers were nonsense—generally non sequiturs—and didn't apply at all to the discussions which prompted the questions.)
I see a lot of ranting and raving about conservatives like Sowell & Goldberg and long diatribes about how they are racist and just horrible people, but completely lacking are any factual arguments that attack their positions.
Can Marky even explain a conservative position without resorting to ad-hominem?
Does he even have a clue what conservatives believe?
Does he even know what a conservative is? Clue, there are many kinds of conservatives. Many of the type you rant about the most absolutely loathed Bush. Pat Buchanan for example. I know this has been explained to Mark before but I guess it dropped down the memory hole.
"I'm sorry that Christianity apparently terrifies you"
Actually, it doesn't. I am Christian...well...actually not according to the right because I don't subscribe to their warped version of it. They warp in the same way Al Qaeda warps their religion.
I have a hard time buyin this one, Mark. You've made it plain that you consider protesting against abortion on religious grounds equal to (or worse than) genital mutilation or forced marriage by fundamentalist Muslims. You've made it plain you consider that five total murders of abortion doctors by fundamentalist Christians since Roe v. Wade to be at least as horrific and scary as the hundreds or thousands of fundamentalist Muslims who have screamed praise to Allah as they blew themselves up in the middle of a crowd of civilians during the last few years, and the hundreds of thousands who danced in the streets when they heard how many infidels were killed and wounded.
If you aren't terrified of Christianity, why are five murders at the hands of Christian fundamentalists more worrisome to you than hundreds of thousands at hands of some other kind of fundamentalists?
I agree that MSNBC has leaned left in the last couple of years but please be so kind as to show me the Fox liberal equivalent of Joe Scarborough,
I don't watch enough TV to know who that is. Will you seriously suggest that there is anyone on any major news network more nakedly propagandist than Keith Olbermann?
Keep in mind that MSNBC does not bill KO as opinion, he is billed as news, is he not? Even Rush Limbaugh, who openly proclaims his show to be opinion and is quite proudly partisan, is less willing to manufacture facts that don't exist and ignore ones that do than Keith Olbermann.
"Bill Ayers..."
Talk about a dog that won't hunt. Ayers and his shabby mal contents were never anywhere near as organized or numerous as the right's wingnuts.
So what's your point? That was a response to
Both the base and hirabis vehemently justify violence as a means to achieve utopia.
So...organized or not, Bill Ayers, who the left considers "a respected intellectual", justified in his ideology the deliberate murder of twenty-five million people as the price of achieving utopia.
I've seen a few conservative whack-jobs do the "that sumbitch is gonna DIE" thing. Usually one guy dies, besides the shooter. I've heard any number of conservatives say a variation on the theme of "if they come after us, we'll defend ourselves, and the price will be high."
I've heard a number of people who have experienced war themselves say "F*ck it, kill em all and let God sort em out", a phrase as tired and hackneyed, and with as little relation to reality, as the automatic, formulaic cry of "Racism!" from the left to anything any conservative ever says.
I've never heard of anyone on the right seriously claim "we'll have to kill ______ million people to achieve X political goal, but I'm cool with that." The closest I've seen was some politicians' justifications for war, on both sides of the political spectrum.
But on the left, there's "respected", "intellectual" Bill Ayers, who has indeed decided he's cool with that.
I can even get Marky started.
President Obama recently has reaffirmed that the stimulus plan is working and we need to stay the course(couldn't help myself).
Conservatives point out that it isn't working and that the unemployment figures are off what the administration predicted before passage of the stimulus. They also argue that the huge rise in deficit spending will harm the U.S. economy for a long time to come.
Now Marky, without resorting to ad-hominem or attacks, explain why Obama is right and the Conservatives are wrong.
Sam, are you supplying free popcorn with this? I hear it's stimulating ...
Ah, but sometimesjsid-1244584476-607164
Ed "What the" Heckman at Tue, 09 Jun 2009 21:54:36 +0000
DJ,
From the article:
"The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 45% now trust the GOP more to handle economic issues, while 39% trust Democrats more."
Yes, the Republicans are slightly more trustworthy on economics. But that's kind of like saying that the drunk wearing a seatbelt is a better driver than the drunk without one.
There are more individual Republican representatives who actually are economically reliable than there are Democrats, but overall, the Republican party as a whole has proven to be untrustworthy.
'Course, by Marky's standards, that means I'm a brain slave of the Republican party. :: rolls eyes ::
I agree, Ed. What is (ahem) remarkable is how many people now realize the turd doesn't have a clean end, and that is why I noted it.
"Will you seriously suggest that there is anyone on any major news network more nakedly propagandist than Keith Olbermann?"
Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck...that's just three off the top of my head.
And while we are on this subject, I had a thought the other night when flipping around the channels regarding Keith Olberman. Watch or listen to conservative media and you will find them against a whole host of people, ideas, and events. They pretty much are contrary to...well...everything that does not meet with their stringent standards. And what is Olberman against?
People who think, talk and act like that.
"name the classic books students at his school are required to read."
If you recall, I have repeatedly discussed Huckleberry Finn, perhaps the greatest American novel, as being taught at my school despite attempts to ban it. You can throw in Catcher in the Rye, Jane Eyre (snooze), and the Republic as well. There are whole host of others. I challenge you, Ed, to visit your local high school and see if your bitching is warranted. Make a list of what is taught and what is not and report back.
For that matter, will all of you please spend some time observing at a school and discover with your own eyes what is actually going on? Whenever the subject of education comes up, it's like segment two of Glenn Beck or Bill O'Reilly.
"Clue, there are many kinds of conservatives."
Sure, I know this. That's why I use "some" as a prefix. And I happen to agree with Pat Buchanan on some things. I am curious if anyone here thinks that there are many kinds of liberals because it sure doesn't sound that way.
"that five total murders of abortion doctors"
Actually it's 8 now. And, if you live by the rules as to how"terrorism" is defined , then why the gripe about the DHS report? Everyone agrees that the recruiters being killed was an act of terrorism. Still not quite in agreement about Roeder, though, are we? I wonder...since Roeder has promised more killings, does that mean you support water boarding him for information on these attacks?
"explain why Obama is right and the Conservatives are wrong."
First of all, Ed and DJ, if you think those poll numbers are accurate in and of themselves...wow. Compare them to other reports at
http://www.pollingreport.com/budget.htm
Obama is right because he stated quite plainly that it is going to get worse before it gets better and that it is going to take time. This is the "getting worse" part as well as the taking time part. It took years to make this mess and it will take at least a year...maybe more...to get out of it.
And it's not as black and white as him being right or the Republicans being wrong. Both parties got us into this mess and Republicans make fair points about the ability to handle the deficit. To call them "wrong" about everything is simply not accurate. What they lack is any new ideas when it comes to taxes, for example. We cut taxes on the wealthy in this country during Bush 43 and look at how well that worked out. The greatest wealth transfer in the history of the world.
My economic adviser, Last in Line, even admits now that "trickle down" does not work. I'm not certain that President Obama will be "right" about what he says will happen other than the fact that he has predicted he will make mistakes. I think he will. At least he is weighing several options and adapting to each area of industry as needed. Banks are now starting to buy back government owned shares.
In the end, I guess I just I don't see many viable options at this point coming from Republicans. Letting everything fail and having the free market sort it all out has some pretty dangerous possibilities. Cutting taxes for the top 1 percent is absolutely moronic. Continuing to ignore health care and alternative energy is just silly. These are hard issues that need change in order to help this country financially.
Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck...that's just three off the top of my head.
None of whom are news anchors.
This will go over your head as all the other times.
Does 22 million exceed 15 million yet in your math?
Or do you only figure in billions?
Watch or listen to conservative media and you will find them against a whole host of people, ideas, and events.
If you can find the conservative media, anyway.
And, really? You've avoided Estrada, Bork, J.C. Watts, Condi Rice and the treatment they received as a result of their skin color from your liberal friends.
But you avoid everything. We need to stop letting you get away with it, because that is your MO. You wriggle away and refuse to engage on substance. You try and attack us and open up tangents, because you've learned you cannot argue on the facts. I've asked you - where would you link me, that you've thoroughly disproven any of us here?
What I just quoted you saying is the concept of "Wet streets cause rain." You can't even conceptualize what principled opposition means because you've never learned what principals are. (Hint: Read some classic books for a clue.)
will all of you please spend some time observing at a school and discover with your own eyes what is actually going on?
Why? I've told you that we've done that! We've got experience in the schools. Bloody hell, I work at a college and have to instruct Freshmen - and you ignore that. Not even in the schools, but the supposed SUCCESSFUL PRODUCT of them!
And even if we let you specify how we had to observe and reported it (I've got no less than 5 relatives who teach in middle-and-high schools, in schools around the country, and yet they report the same things.) We now spend 8x more per student nationwide than we did in 1970. And student achivement is 70% of 1970. The SAT's have been graded down - twice - since Carter created the Education Department.
But for all of that: YOU'LL STILL IGNORE WHAT WE SAY. Want to talk about FEMA and hurricane response pre-Katrina? Oh, right. I was actually on Hurricane Task Forces. Where'd Mark go? No matter what we say, you'll ignore our opinions and slander us with ad hominium arguments.
Above, I gave you an opposing view of your gushing report on the speech Obama gave. From someone with massively more intellectual papers than you. And you say? I have and I respectfully disagree. But you don't say WHY. You don't explain where she's wrong. What she's wrong about. Just... Read or watch Obama's whole speech
Why? What would that change? And why do you presume I haven't? It was a staggeringly bad speech from my viewpoint, and one that despots and true slaughterers of the innocent are cheering!
There was nothing anti Israeli at all.
Bayefsky specifically noted many places it was. I quoted and emphasized some of them.
But you call me anti-intellectual.
So you dismiss Ayers, and facts, and statistics, just as you have for the past 2 years, the past year of which you've been insisting, promising, pleading with us, that Obama was not going to take over the economy. He was going to improve our standing in the world. He was going to fix all these things, because he was a thoughtful man and would have thoughtful staffers. He wasn't going to ban our guns, even thought he spent a ton of political capitol promising to do just that. That he'd somehow fix health care in a manner that no other nation organization, or entity has yet managed.
...
Well, here we are. You and he won. And your predictions are off. Ours aren't.
So you slander Bush and our fighting men and women - and don't even notice. You excuse Obama's mentor Ayers, because he was merely incompetent and blew up his girlfriend, rather than the soldiers he meant to. Nor the fact that he zealously guards his property and refuses to share it communally.
You've minimized the horrors and depravity of slavery by calling people who lent you the money to have a house and who pay your salary so you can eat the exact same as slaveowners.
Quite often I'm asked if you can possibly be for real, if anybody can actually be that utterly, totally, intentionally clueless and self-absorbed. And I say, there's no way he can't be. Nobody could fake it, not for this long.
We cut taxes on the wealthy in this country during Bush 43 and look at how well that worked out. The greatest wealth transfer in the history of the world.
I didn't think you'd surpass yourself that quickly, but let me admit, I was wrong.
I was wrong.
That's the most gobsmackingly ignorant, idiotic, proof of how bad the educational system is that you can say it with a straight face and not laugh, thing you've ever said And let's recap! This includes being schooled REPEATEDLY in the meanings and definitions of words (that you insisted you knew), not being able to figure out which was greater, 22 or 15, not being able to do basic research, and possibly best of all, screeching that we were unfair for calling you a banner for advocating - wait for it - a ban.
That is the mark that you have now surpassed.
Tax. Cuts. Don't. Trans. Fer. Wealth. You. Ignorant. Fool.
Taking less from you is not giving you anything from anybody else!
AND TAX REVENUES ON THE RICH WENT UP! How many times has DJ tried to pound that fact into your head? The government took in MORE MONEY despite cutting tax RATES.
(And besides, the biggest "wealth transfer is dwarfed by the Spanish conquest of the New World, but that would make you know some history, now, wouldn't it?.
You've raised your high water bar of ignorance three times in this one thread. And then told us we - we!!! - aren't capable of figuring out what the malpractice currently conducted in public schools is.
"First of all, Ed and DJ, if you think those poll numbers are accurate in and of themselves...wow."
I don't claim they are accurate, and yes, you did use "if" rather than jump to the conclusion that I do. I haven't kept score, but that might be a first.
What the numbers show is large and increasing disaffection with your wonder boy. When the miracles don't happen and the shine wears off, the crowd disperses. Thus it has ever been with hucksters, and it is no different with this one.
"My economic adviser, Last in Line, even admits now that "trickle down" does not work."
Your "economic advisor"? You have a staff?
He tells us that has corrected you on this assertion before, and he has done so here in Kevin's parlor. Apparently, you are ignoring your "advisor". Betcha he'll correct you again.
"I'm not certain that President Obama will be "right" about what he says will happen other than the fact that he has predicted he will make mistakes. I think he will."
Amazing. He already has made mistakes, but you can't admit it, can you?
You know, it's actually refreshing to see Mark just be normally stupid after that.
Letting everything fail
Why would it "fail?" Why is more government always "Better" to you, and why can't you ever admit to it's failures? Why do you call the mortgage market "unregulated", and are you ever going to admit that it's not?
and having the free market sort it all out has some pretty dangerous possibilities.
How would you know? Where have you ever been, or seen, a free market?
Cutting taxes for the top 1 percent is absolutely moronic.
Even if - as every major tax cut as demonstrated, tax revenues go up? Isn't it more moronic, if your goal is more money for the government to spend, to maximize that?
Continuing to ignore health care
Ignore? Or fail to make the same mistakes that others are - observing their failures?
Why is it "ignoring" if the government doesn't take it over in totality? And why then do you claim not to be some variant of facist/socialist/communist?
and alternative energy
It's not being ignored. And I promise you, as soon as you can get the same amount of power for 1/2 the cost, you'll make a *killing*. Or do you mean, taking that tax money and wasting it and giving it to politically-connected people is good?
is just silly.
Ought to be careful with your adjectives.
These are hard issues that need change in order to help this country financially.
And the single. best. thing. we can do is get the government out of them.
Why do you want to do screw them up more and more, since you can't point to successes where the government has dealt with them?
Had Obama been elected 100 years ago, he'd be propping up the whalers for whale-oil, outlawing petroleum, and subsidizing the horse buggy makers.
And you think that's good?
Hey - I loaded that comment *in another browser* .. oh, I had the key in the URL. Crappit. Sorry, Kevin.
I just finished reading this whole thread after looking at it once when the number of comments was 3.
UJ and others are doing quite all right at the quote-fisk game. They have that covered.
So far as I can determine from having read Round XIV of Markadelphia versus everyone else including, apparently, Fox News and an imaginary army of slavering violent right-wing neojihadists who will begin mutilating the genitals of women, blowing up school buses, introducing compulsory Christianity on pain of death, and outlawing nonBiblical education just as soon as, um, they finish their beers or something, the following is the grounds for argument. I provide so we can understand each other better, and as we all know all conflict stems from a lack of understanding.
Furthermore, any and all dishonest or incompetent thing that any liberal does- especially Mark himself- is just fine because unidentified conservatives do it all the time only more betterer and Dick Cheney said something about it just last week and by the time you finish watching the obvious violent enemy of all that is good in the world by watching Fox News we'll have entirely forgotten whatever thing Mark the liberal did because LOOK A PONY
Conservatives are bad, terrible people that hate freedom and anyone different from them and education and intelligence and success and the beautiful flower of human reasoning and hope and we will all be better off just as soon as we've gotten rid of them. Oh, and the worst thing about them is they try to fool you into seeing your normal fellow Americans with different opinions as stupid and evil.
If you have ever agreed with a Republican about anything you obviously LOVED it when Bush spent like a drunken trophy wife with no plan for debt and you're a HUGE HYPOCRITE for disapproving of Obama spending like a drunken Imelda Marcos with no plan for debt. Also you hate doing ANYTHING about ANY problem and you just want problems to continue because you hate change. Any sputtering about how you actually want to overhaul most of American government, just not the same way Obama does, IS VICIOUS LIES. So stop lying, dammit! It gets us nowhere.
Obama has proved forever he's nonpartisan because he's kept basically the entirety of Bush's evil antihuman terror policies also Republicans never have useful plans except when they do only it's evil but not after Obama redeems it SO DO YOU THINK WE SHOULD WATERBOARD DEMOCRATS OR WHAT? HUH, YOU LIBERTY-HATING SECURITY FREAK oh hey pony
We will spend our way out of this recession even though I said that was lies and foolishness when it was the Bush administration and we should believe Obama utterly on this because he's said he'll make mistakes. The economy will turn around under his policies because the Republican policies I will now make up wouldn't work.
And now I'll make a prediction. One week from now, in a distant other thread of the FUTURE:
"Taxes? Economy? Torture? Libel? Stop waving all those links to sourced information. What the hell do you people want from me, I have a life, I don't have time to feed your goddamn pony."
"So far as I can determine from having read Round XIV of Markadelphia versus everyone else including, apparently, Fox News and an imaginary army of slavering violent right-wing neojihadists ..."
DAMN! I got that far and had to go get some popcorn, and I don't even like popcorn!
...
BRAVISSIMO!
Hey look! A kitten ...
You know, the thing that gets me is that when I was younger - say, just on the edge of teenagery-ness and before I did that whole college thing - I'd argue on forums and usenet groups. Quite often I was wrong.
However...
If I found myself in Mark's situation, I'd have hidden my head from here a year ago out of sheer fucking embarrassment for making such an ass of myself.
Let's play a game. It's called "back up at least ONE of your arguments with data." So far, the round is probably something like 300-0, definitely not your favor.
Go on. Pick an argument in just this thread (never mind just the last two I've been waiting for your intellectually defective ass to return to) and argue it rationally with data and evidence.
Thanks LabRat. I enjoyed that summary of Marky's… SQUIRREL!
He doesn't need facts damn it, because
*all recite together the words of our host*
The philosophy cannot be wrong. Do it again, harder.
It's funny, because I hear leftwingers spewing vitriol toward Christianity and arguing against the existence of God, but they have an all consuming faith in government that far surpasses the faith most Christians have in God.
Leftists expect government to fix everything, right now, and do it cheaper then it is being done at this moment. They want it better, cheaper, and faster. Never mind that it's impossible to have all three simultaneously, fill another building with bureaucrats.
When does the colony ship board? My bags are packed.
Even though the federal government couldn't run a whorehouse in Nevada at a profit. That's gotta be a first.
Actually it's 8 now.
What are the odds of more than 8 forced marriages at the hands of extremist Muslims today? What are the odds of more than 8 accused (but not proven guilty) 'adulteresses' or gay men stoned to death by extremist Muslims this week?
I don't know either, but they're higher than the odds of another abortion doctor being murdered by an extremist Christian this year, and you know it. Yet it's the unlikely one that has you hiding under the bed, while the likely one gets a big yawn from you and the entire American political left.
Why is that, ya think?
Why is that, ya think?
What is moral degeneracy, Alex?
Ed: … SQUIRREL!
Great, now all of Marky's posts will be read in Alpha's voice in my head!
Read or watch Obama's whole speech, Unix, and judge for yourself. There was nothing anti Israeli at all.
You don't need to convince me. But the Israelis seem to think you're full of it, too.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/09/world/worldwatch/entry5076128.shtml
Whether or not it is true, it shows the mood in Israel. They feel cornered. The reactions out of Israel reflect that feeling.
Netanyahu is making a speech Sunday, in part as a response to Mr. Obama's address to the Arab world last week in Cairo.
Israel's Channel One TV reported that Netanyahu was told Tuesday by an "American official" in Jerusalem that, "We are going to change the world. Please, don't interfere." The report said Netanyahu's aides interpreted this as a "threat."
See what putting the Right Man in charge can do? He'll cut through thousands of years of strife, fighting, history and myth, and change the world.
My. If only we'd seen this coming.
"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."
"Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star", May 7, 1918
My, how far we have fallen as a Republic.
Markadelphia: "There is little difference between Al Qaeda and a substantial portion of the conservative base in this country. That includes some people who post here."
Kevin, isn't it past time for a ban? Personally, I won't ever read anything he writes again.
Also, there must be some way to get his comments in front of his employers and the parents of the students he "teaches".
This person should not be allowed anywhere near impressionable young minds.
He ought either name names, or withdraw the statement and apologize to all hands.
Kevin Baker,
I don't expect the translation to meet my preconceptions. My primary objection is that too many people are taking a translation and often erroneously put it in quotes. I say that putting a translation in quotes is an act akin to lying as the "quote" was never a quote and was and will always be a translation. On this issue if I really want to know what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad meant I would find a exact recording of what he said and find someone who understands Farsi and ask them what it means. The news and those who don't read Farsi cannot be relied upon to use quote marks properly and often fail to note that the claims being made about "sworn to destroy Israel" are based upon suspect translations.
That being said I would much rather rely on the actions of the country of Iran rather than the statements of its President. Words can be lies, actions are less subject to dispute.
My primary objection is that too many people are taking a translation and often erroneously put it in quotes.
How would you prefer that we denote a translated quote? I actually can't fault you for pointing that out, this has been an issue - for instance, Arafat was famous for providing English Translations of his speeches wildly at odds with what he actually said.
But I don't know of any convention to denote that.
I would much rather rely on the actions of the country of Iran
Which is fine - notice the military actions funded against Israel and the US in Iraq for starters.
What actions can you point to that are at odds with Ahmadinejad's speeches?
"Words can be lies, actions are less subject to dispute."
I'd has financial support of Hamas and other, er, less-reputable organizations is a pretty good battle-flag.
..I'd say... *eyeroll*
Thane,
Rewinding the thread (and filtering all the M'Delphia related noise), you voiced the position that
"I don't swallow the line that Iran has sworn to see Israel destroyed. "
Readers responded to that by citing numerous references to translations of statements coming from Iran that reflected the sentiment of dedication to Israel's destruction.
In response to that, you object based on the generalized, potential mistranslation of the statements.
Essentially, it seems that you're taking the position that that the translations are suspect.
We're reasonable folks, and that's a possibility we can entertain.
If you can demonstrate to us that the various quotes are mistranslated to the point that their meaning is substantially affected, that's evidence we're willing to consider and evaluate.
In the absence of such evidence to the contrary, however, it is not unreasonable for us accept the translations as offered.
Why is it hard to believe that Iran or its President would want to destroy Israel or see Israel destroyed? This has been the stated objective of most of the Arab world ever since the Israeli state was formed.
A better argument would be that it is none of our business what Iran intends to do. Israel should take care of itself and the U.S. should do likewise. I don't agree with this line of argument, but it makes more sense than trying to believe that Iran has no desire to destroy Israel. There is too much of a mountain of evidence to the contrary.
"Your "economic advisor"? You have a staff? He tells us that has corrected you on this assertion before, and he has done so here in Kevin's parlor."
Yep DJ, I'm on the staff. My official title is economic advisor/director of entertainment/jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none.
I know I've mentioned my views about trickle down on here, can't remember when though...was a few months ago. My opinion is that trickle down does exist, but the money doesn't trickle down to the extent that many of its supporters claim it does. Sure there are plenty of folks out there hiring people with their wealth but there are plenty more people who plop their millions down into a hedge fund and leave it set. That ain't what I call hiring people. Unix correctly stated that the money does stay in circulation. That is true, but it isn't trickling down very much.
All that being said, I completely reject any redistributive action the government takes because the guy hiring folks is also penalized when taxes are raised on the rich. I'm all about freedom and if the rich guy wants to put his dollars in the headge fund...more power to him.
I have my money in the stock market just like everyone else as I think our capitalist system is a cold-hearted yet highly effective way to allocate resources. While I would be overjoyed with a 12% annual return on my money every year, I also think that our stock market is set up to make those folks up there on wall street a shitload of money off of people like me. Not even saying that that's a bad thing - it is what it is (they certainly aren't going to work for free on wall street and I don't expect them to). There probably hasn't been a time in recorded history where that hasn't been the case in one form or another.
but there are plenty more people who plop their millions down into a hedge fund and leave it set.
And the hedge fund.... buries it under the hedge?
No, they take it and invest it in things. Give companies money to expand, make drugs to grow hair, build new machinery... That's what they're doing.
I'm appreciate you explaining what you've said to Mark, because it reflects on him more than you, that he takes your - sorry, but it is - misconception of how money operates and uses it to defend his ignorant notions. (Which could easily be corrected, if he read
*headdesk*
*facepalm*.
Sorry, Kevin. I clicked on the window to bring it to the front - and hit "ok". If you'd close that 2nd
Everything looks OK to me.
Except I'd recommend this instead. Much easier, lighter read with all of the crunchy goodness of the original.
"None of whom are news anchors."
Neither is Olberman. Where does it say he is? That is Brian Williams or David Gregory.
"If you can find the conservative media, anyway."
To quote you Unix..."Wow. Just wow."
"He already has made mistakes, but you can't admit it, can you?"
I have plenty of times, DJ, you are just blind by your obsession with me (see: truth hurts) that you don't remember. I think he is making the same mistake Bush made in Pakistan. Wow, you really want him to fail don't you? What will it mean to you if he doesn't?
"It's called "back up at least ONE of your arguments with data." "
I've done that a hundred times or more. All of my data is summarily dismissed as being biased, lies, or my own "idiocy." But I'll tell you what...you pick an argument and when I get back from vacation, I'll back it up.
"The philosophy cannot be wrong. Do it again, harder. "
Isn't saying this phrase over and over...um...the same thing as the phrase itself?
"This person should not be allowed anywhere near impressionable young minds."
"there must be some way to get his comments in front of his employers and the parents of the students he "teaches".
"isn't it past time for a ban?"
Well, that's up to Kevin at the end of the day. As I have always said, I will abide by his wishes since I have an enormous amount of respect for him.
Funny you mention my school, rocinante. The comment about Al Qaeda and some of the base being similar came from them, not me. Students have asked me over the last few years similar questions. I tell them, if the topic is relevant in class, to give a presentation on it. I think if you heard some of them, your head would probably explode.
Parents are well aware of what we talk about in class and I receive few complaints. In fact, the few I do get come from the left recently who are upset about the fact that I teach Clarence Carson and have my friend Eric (evangelical minister) come in to speak on a regular basis.
I laid out the similarities above, rocinante. Rather than blow a gasket about it, why not reflect and see if there is any merit to it?
"No, they take it and invest it in things. Give companies money to expand, make drugs to grow hair, build new machinery... That's what they're doing."
Talk about gullible...do honestly think that is what they do with their money? How can someone have such a massive distrust of government but think that the corporation and the wealthy individuals of this nation are the equivalent of an innocent girl in the woods?
Last's assessment is dead on accurate. While I don't agree entirely with his view on government, it is a valid argument and one that I am happy to see that at least he carries his mistrust over to the private sector.
"do honestly think that is what they do with their money?"
So what do they do with the money? Put it in Fibber McGee's closet or Scrooge McDuck's money vault?
Of course they invest it because they want to make more money. Unless you want to assert that these rich geezers love money baths.
I've done that a hundred times or more.
No. You're lying. Sorry, but you are. You've not done this thing. You might be exaggerating, but it's still not an honest assessment.
You've posted something and declared "point proven". You've misused "theory" "hypothesis", and "evidence" in order to come up with some Olbermannish Ad Hom. (And then declared that you don't use logical fallacies.)
You've ignored all the refutation tossed your way, and then claimed it was "point proven" and anyway..
All of my data is summarily dismissed as being biased, lies, or my own "idiocy."
Oh, no, we don't summarily dismiss it.
We shred the everlasting hell out of them (usually) or occasionally note a point they might have - but then point out they don't support you like you'd like - and you run away.
You said Obama's speech was great, and "not naive" and then claimed we're anti-intellectual (hah), and then waved away one of the best experts on the area - and the reactions of the Israelis.
That's par for you, and why you don't know how to support yourself with citations. We've established - using your own words - that you don't actually understand critical thinking.
Care to go back and deal with your slanders of the US fighting men and women?
How about the fact that everybody who talks about the educational system knows more than you're willing to concede? Not only have most of us been through it, we've seen it continually decline despite huge increases in funding.
-----
However, while I agree with:
"This person should not be allowed anywhere near impressionable young minds."
There's absolutely no call for:
"there must be some way to get his comments in front of his employers and the parents of the students he "teaches".
That's beyond the pale, and isn't within the realm of discourse here.
I post with a pseudonym, largely because I work at a college. And my opinions would not be tolerated if they were exposed to the administration. (Mark won't notice the obvious truth there- I'm in the education system too.)
Mark should be thrown out of teaching for incompetence, there's no way he can do a good job.
But it's not our job, duty, in fact it's absolutely wrong for us to organize a witch-hunt and try and punish him.
That's for his supervisors and fellows to deal with, not us.
----
Mark: Now, how about go deal with LabRat's comment?
Or at least explain how tax cuts transfer wealth. I'd like to hear THAT one.
Unix-Jedi: "No, they take it and invest it in things. Give companies money to expand, make drugs to grow hair, build new machinery... That's what they're doing."
Talk about gullible...do honestly think that is what they do with their money? How can someone have such a massive distrust of government but think that the corporation and the wealthy individuals of this nation are the equivalent of an innocent girl in the woods?
Because I've studied basic fucking economics, advanced economics, and money theory?
(And I'm being lectured to by someone who can't be bothered to look up "Verbatim"?)
Talk about gullible...do honestly think that is what they do with their money?
What else are they doing with it?
I think you just nudged the bar up again!
Kevin! Bronze this comment thread!
Last's assessment is dead on accurate.
It's totally *inaccurate*, as I explained.
While I don't agree entirely with his view on government, it is a valid argument and one that I am happy to see that at least he carries his mistrust over to the private sector.
You really don't have a clue how anything works, do you?
You really don't. And you're telling us to shut up and listen to you that the "classics" are being taught and public education isn't a disgrace?
Hey M, as someone with an undergrad degree in econ, trust me, neither you nor last_in_line have anything more than a populist distrust and ignorance of economics. I really think you're smart enough to know better, but you'd rather fight for what you believe than bother to learn more and have to alter some core vision - and THAT is what Kevin is talking about with the "do it again harder" line.
Last, money does not "flow" differently if you spend (or invest) it then if anyone else does. Buying a yacht isn't fundamentally different from buying a bass boat. Harping on what the rich do is just cheap populist rhetoric (which can split left or right).
While you're at it, Mark, my statement stands:
Name names of the commenters here who are little different from al Qaeda, or apologize and withdraw the statement.
Juris, I'm not harping on the rich. I said that it's their money and they can do what they want. Funny thing is...I don't even care if it trickles down or not because I don't view our economy as a zero-sum game where if one guy has a bigger slice of the pie, that means I must have a smaller piece of the pie. That is B as in B, S as in S.
Unix, I know that I don't know all there is to know about economics so we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't trust wall street but my distrust of government runs deeper than my distrust of wall street. I'd certainly be open to any readings or links you may suggest to me. The theories you spoke of...given what we know today...would you say they are being practiced in the way your textbook described? Not trying to play "gotcha" or anything, I'm genuinely curious.
Last in line, I won't presume to speak for Unix-Jedi, but I recommend mises.org (the Ludwig von Mises Institute). Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson is available online, and I believe you can get to it via mises.org. If not, leave a note here and I'll find it for you.
And no (still speaking for myself and not Unix), the practice bears no resemblance to Austrian economic theory...but if you read Hazlitt, you'll see it for yourself.
Another good short book is William Smart's An Introduction to the Theory of Value (on the Lines of Menger, Wieser, and Böhm-Bawerk). There's a nice capsule discussion there of marginal utility and subjective value. You may need an affordable mid-sized university library to track it down (I have it from Cleveland State University), but it's pretty good.
I think you can now also find Murray Rothbard's The Case Against the Fed reproduced online -- if not, a university library should be able to get a copy for you, or there's always bookfinder.com. I know for sure his The Panic of 1819 is available as a free PDF. I started it, but haven't finished it yet.
The big kahuna of the field is probably von Mises' Human Action. It's long, and I'm holding off on it until I get my dissertation sorted out (no, not economics -- marketing).
"I know I've mentioned my views about trickle down on here, can't remember when though...was a few months ago. My opinion is that trickle down does exist, but the money doesn't trickle down to the extent that many of its supporters claim it does."
Some months ago, Doofus made the same accusation, to wit:
"... Last in Line, even admits now that "trickle down" does not work."
That's what he said this time. I can't quote what he said last time because I don't have a link to it.
Last time, you explicitly told us that such is not what you told him. You then expanded your comment much as you did here.
The point is that, once again, he didn't learn, he ignored the correction, and he has no respect for the truth.
Me: ""He already has made mistakes, but you can't admit it, can you?"
Doofus: "I have plenty of times, DJ, you are just blind by your obsession with me (see: truth hurts) that you don't remember.
Show me. I keep looking for any admission by you that Obamamateur has made a significant mistake of any kind. Show me, liar boy.
"I think he is making the same mistake Bush made in Pakistan."
Whis is what, exactly?
"Wow, you really want him to fail don't you?"
Damn, but you are a child, aren't you?
What I want is for him to fail at doing what he is and has been doing, in that, if he won't stop, then I want the goddamned Congress to oppose him. In any case, I want the goddamned sheeple to grow up and oppose him.
"What will it mean to you if he doesn't?"
Personally, it will mean, at a minimum: more kinds of taxes, higher tax rates, inflation of the currency (meaning my investments, on which I live, will be of much less value and so less able to support me), higher energy prices way over and above inflation (electricity, gas, and gasoline), higher costs for damned nearly everything way over and above inflation due to higher costs for energy, less access to medical care, higher cost of medical care, and gubmint sticking its goddamned nose between me and my doctors, where it has absolutely no fucking business whatever.
If his success is great, it could also mean: abrogation of my constitutional rights, such as the right to keep and bear arms, the right to criticize the gummint in general and him personally, and outright theft of a significant portion of my investments for redistribution to others.
And, to anticipate, we have explained these fears to you, in detail, over many weary months, and we have thoroughly documented our reasons why. Your reading comprehension is no better than your honesty, is it?
Unix, I know that I don't know all there is to know about economics so we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Hold on up there. It's obvious that you're missing a huge part of the picture, and if you talk to Mark regularly, I can see where you'd be confused.
I don't trust wall street but my distrust of government runs deeper than my distrust of wall street.
Wall street is looking to make money. :) Government is looking to take - and keep - control. That doesn't mean you have to trust everything anybody says about investing, but try and junk all that you've heard from Mark and let's start over.
This also, by the way, torpedoes Mark's assertions about public education - this used to be a base lesson.
OK. Let's postulate a small economy.
You come to my bank, with $200, and you want to "save" $100 and "invest" $100. I take your $200, make some bookkeeping entries. Now what? If that's all that happens, you get no money back, you don't increase your wealth at all.
So what I as the banker do, is reserve $50 of that (the actual number depends) and loan out the other $150.
Now, this is where a lot of people trip up. So how much money is now in circulation?
$50? $200? $350?
$350. For your money's been loaned out. Say... Mark comes in and wants a loan to build a school to teach the classics. So I loan him $80 from your "investment" fund and charge him 8% interest. As he pays that back, I credit your account with 5% interest, and 3% is my gross from which I have to pay my overhead and make my profit.
Because running a private school when you're a lousy teacher is a risky business, right? So that's a riskier investment, you charge more to cover the risks that he'll not pay it back.
Now, your "savings" account might go to a really good credit risk with a proven track record... Say a 2nd loan for a expansion of a pharmacy. The Pharmacist has always paid us back and he's doing a lot of business, so we charge him 3%, and you get 1% in savings.
So after a year, you've got, on paper, $101 in savings and $105 in investments. $206 total.
I've actually got $55 in the bank vault (yeah, horrible oversimplification, but that's a whole nother story) and Mark has his school, and the pharmacist has his expansion, and we've increased wealth.
Now, that's horribly oversimplified. In the real world, all of this gets mushed up and computer-planned and averaged to a fare-the-well, and "bank reserves" are a theory and...
Yeah. But that's the basics.
If you invest, if you hand your money for investment, in order for you to make more money, it's got to be loaned to someone, who's paying more in interest.
So they've got to go do something that profits them, in order to pay back the loan.
With me?
So if the "fatcats" are putting their money in "hedge funds", they're actually putting their money into the whole investing machine, increasing the amount available across the board, and making it easier to get credit and create wealth. Hedge funds do a lot with all the non-simple things that don't fit our model well.. but that money is *still out there, still being invested*.
That's good. What's bad is when it starts getting stuffed into mattresses. Or if the taxation is such it's not worth investing. What happens every time we stop taxing capital gains - taxes on wealth creation, mind you, is that more people invest, more wealth is created, and from that total pool, more actual tax revenue is seen.
Mark still talks of this as if it's a zero-sum game. His utterly idiotic statement (and watch, it's so stupid he'll ignore it and deny it soonish) that tax cuts were the biggest transfer of wealth is staggering in the ignorance he reveals, and his moral and practical equivalence between taxes, spending, and investment. Staggering even for Mark's demonstrated level ignorance.
But let's leave the theoretical examples alone, and ask you, what do you see in America? Do you see a super-rich set with things that the middle and lower classes are utterly forbidden to have?
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/03/06/priceless-photo-of-the-day-homelesswith-a-cellphone/
Mark will froth over the site, but it was the first in the google search, plus has another couple of good photos.
In America, we've obsoleted the term "poverty". We've had to come up with a new definition for it. Because our "impoverished" are now facing what's being called a health crisis - obesity. That's right. Our poor have too much to eat. The definition of "impoverished" used to be, didn't have, or barely had enough FOOD for sustained survival!
Now we have people with "no income" with luxuries. Almost everyone lives - or has the ability to - live in a luxury home (compared to 150 years ago, especially.) Think of the difference between the rich and poor 150 years ago.
Now tell me that if you offered a huge landowner with a huge mansion from 150 years ago a modern doublewide trailer with A/C and heat, you think he'd rather stay in his drafty in the winter and stifling in the summer mansion?
The "gap" that Mark likes to talk about that basically is the total worth is damn near meaningless.
What distinguishes you, LiL, from a "Rich man"? Do you have a car? House? dishwasher, washing machine, dryer?
You just don't employ a servant to do that work for you. Cloth seats in your car, rather than leather? Right? But barring really stupid decisions or horrible bad luck, you've got all the same options as the "Rich", just perhaps not as ostentatious. You've only got a 60" HDTV, instead of a JumboTron. Right?
Sorry I haven’t replied till now. Thanks for typing up the basics for me Unix.
That is is certainly one of the ways that money is made in hedge funds but it isn’t the only way, and I know you know that. It would be nice if that was the only way money was made...an average Joe hiring folks to build his addition to his store. Even my most recent business law textbook devoted several pages to "friendly takeovers" where it claimed both sides benefited. The reality is that when there is a takeover like the one they described, there is always 1 winner and 1 loser. I’m not calling you naïve because your scenario certainly exists, I’m clarifying that the reason I don’t entirely trust wall street is not due to the basics, it is the fine print that exists nowadays such as short selling, FTD’s aka Failure to Deliver where phanton shares of stock are created that are indistinguishable from actual company issued shares, naked short selling, broker-level netting, pre-netting, Stock Borrow Programs, ex-clearing and off-shore failures, unsettled trades, desked trades, CNS netting, wall street firms marketing a new hedging product that would allow them to short stocks (even stocks on the banned short sale list), short sellers circulating false market rumors to drive down the price of stocks, the large market of credit-default swaps (insurance contracts to debt instruments that trade outside of established exchanges and are unregulated), hedge-fund managers purposefully avoiding reporting losses by marking up the value of their portfolios, painting the tape, wall street firms converting subprime loans into investments for sale to financial institutions around the world (without bothering to look a little more closely at whether the borrowers of these subprime loans really actually could repay them) while actually relying on a “guarantee” from the federal government, speculation in oil commodity markets (where a large percentage of the oil contracts in the futures markets can be held by speculative entities, not by companies that actually need oil...nothing illegal about it, just a little shady to me), etc.
I always leave the possibility open that there are some markets that can and sometimes are manipulated up or down buy big fish tipping the scales. Just my opinion and just a hunch.
I see America as the most upwardly mobile society on the planet today. I agree with you about how the left loves to define down terms like poor, poverty, racism, etc. Indeed our poor are obese for a number of reasons, too much cheap, fatty foods is more like it. I’ve traveled to Colombia so I’ve seen poor and our poor here seem pretty rich compared to the poor down there. There is zero upward mobility there, zip, zero, nada.
I do see a super rich set that has lots of things. I don’t call that unfair, I call that Life. I may not have those things but I know I am not utterly forbidden to have them. I know that free societies naturally gravitate toward a system where some people have a lot, some people have nothing, with a whole slew of intermediate levels inbetween. It’s a consequence of human nature, plain and simple. The thing is, I’m not looking to tear down wall street in order to narrow some gap, I just don’t entirely trust them.
To answer a few more of your questions, I own a Toyota Corrola that I simply wrote a check for, I own a home and rent out the spare bedroom for $500 a month, I haven’t done the dishes in 2 years because I have a gay roommate who does them every night, I do own a washer and a dryer and my TV is very basic 35 incher. In terms of consumerism, I do have all the same options that a rich person has but I choose to spend my money on experiences and not things. I’d much rather go to Europe for 2 weeks than spend a grand on that gigantic new gas-burner grill with the pancake griddle on the side. Who the hell sits on their deathbed, looks back at their life and says "Boy, that was such a great backsplash I installed in my kitchen back in 2008!". I surround myself with friends who don’t care what kind of a car I drive, what kind of clothes I wear and how big my home is. If one of my friends wants to get a BMW, that is their decision and I am happy for them. I wouldn't because vehicles do not go up in value. I don’t spend tons of money on updates to my house because I’m usually not in it. I’m always out doing something like salsa dancing, lifting weights, hanging out at the girlfriends place, doing hot yoga, bass fishing, playing softball, furthering my education, etc.
That is is certainly one of the ways that money is made in hedge funds but it isn’t the only way, and I know you know that.
Wait, you're off in Markland again. :)
The reality is that when there is a takeover like the one they described, there is always 1 winner and 1 loser.
Now you're getting into moral equivalence and judging by the results. Now, it's true that there can be a loser. But the overall point is for the market overall to be stronger.
That's a basic I think you're missing. In fact, most of what you list as examples are results of attempting to legislate and regulate in order to push "fairness" and make a results fit a predetermined goal.
such as short selling, FTD’s aka Failure to Deliver where phantom shares of stock are created that are indistinguishable from actual company issued shares,
That's not legal, ethical or allowed. It might be happening - but it's doing so in violation of the rules.
But more importantly, none of that matters. What matters is that money is in the investment pile. From that flows credit, in accordance with risk. That's what you're missing when you say "trickle-down doesn't work".
But in your ending paragraph, you reinforce what I was trying to say to you. When you complain (or listen to Mark bitch) about the "gap" between the "rich and the poor", the "disparity of wealth"...
Are you a rich man? What does the rich man do that you cannot?
Do you not have leisure time - a huge surfeit of it, compared to someone who is poor historically? Do you not have fun?
What's the difference between you and the "rich"? These days, almost nothing of substance. The Rich Man gets to vacation in Hawaii. You go to Florida. He rides First Class, you ride coach. He hires a maid, you scrub your own toilet.
But you've both got the same luxuries.
I don't mean to insult you, but I see why Mark calls you his "economic advisor". You're missing the big picture in the mishmash of little grievances. Which Mark has many of.
By the way, no, Wall Street isn't always ethical, and lots of things go on that aren't according to the rules. That's true. A number of your examples are examples of people breaking the law outright or covering up breaking the law.
But all of that aside: Show me a society aside from those where capitalism has been embraced, where the "poor" have almost identical living conditions to the rich.
That's what demonstrates that "Trickle-down" works more than anything. The Real World example.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Anybody who can type that with a straight face shouldn't be allowed in the room when grownups are talking...
Fuck you, "Markadelphia".
"...Osama bin Laden and Bill O'Reilly..."
For FUCK's SAKE, Kevin, why do you let this fundamentally unserious assclown continue to contaminate your comments section?
Is his douchebag-esque trollery worth the extra fifty hits a day you get from the diehards that live to spar with him?
Have you run an IP check on him? Are we sure he isn't Patterico posting under a false flag to rile the base?
For FUCK's SAKE, Kevin, why do you let this fundamentally unserious assclown continue to contaminate your comments section?
Because the replies he elicits are often GOLD. Some of the finest stuff that's ever been written in the comments has been inspired by Markadelphia's douchebaggery.
Seriously. I have some of the most intelligent, erudite commenters on the web, and sometimes they write some damned fine stuff when provoked.
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>