Why should I even try? Belief is more important than reality.
I did notice the direct talks with Iran thing was brought up. For those of you that would actually like to put the screws to Iran, as opposed to the eight year old temper tantrum policy Bush and McCain would like to have with them, give this a read.
"Barack Hussein Obama would present another challenge for Iran’s mullahs. Their whole rationale for being is that they are resisting a hegemonic American power that wants to keep everyone down. Suddenly, next week, Iranians may look up and see that the country their leaders call “The Great Satan” has just elected “a guy whose middle name is the central figure in Shiite Islam — Hussein — and whose last name — Obama — when transliterated into Farsi, means ‘He is with us,’ ” said Sadjadpour."
Iran is ripe for deflating. Its power was inflated by the price of oil and the popularity of its leader, who was cheered simply because he was willing to poke America with a stick. But as a real nation-building enterprise, the Islamic Revolution in Iran has been an abject failure."
We may have a real chance to run the table on them in the Middle East, eliminating a lot of the power that Bush gave them. So, are we going to do it? Or we sticking to the "our way is the only way-THE RIGHT WAY-" mentality?
Kevin:
I was involved with this same letter on another thread, and some much more intelligent liberals tossed themselves in and were toasted. Obama PWNED
I reference this to you not for my post, but more importantly for "rightc0ast"'s.
Referenced, researched, and on point.
Back in 1977, they forced banks to make more risky mortgages by governemtn decree. In order to mitigate risk, mortgage backed securities were invented at this time. Soon after in order to move risk from risk-averse firms to less risk averse firms, credit default swaps were contrived. Psuedo-government GSE's(1) then bought mortgages and pushed these mortgage backed securities. Now rife with cronyism[2] and spending big on lobbying to the top recipients, in order of total career amounts: Dodd of CT, Obama of Illinois, Kerry of Massachusetts, Clinton of New York.[3]
So now we get to where there were extensive calls for greater regulation and better oversight, starting around 2001. The danger was laughed off, largely by people who were receiving big contributions from the lobbyists. Obama led the fight against "regulating" Fannie and Freddie, in perhaps the best example of regulations never being in effect to protect *you and your money*[4]
...
In summary, I think we can point to several events that facilitated the bubble. The CRA revision ... the dot-com bust, the Fed slashing rates to unnatural levels, interest rates and money freed up to lend unnaturally; and "new operating procedure" that made financials view subprime/Alt-A and mortgage securitization as a normal and customary thing. It isn't. It has existed for 30 years in all of humanity's history.
Why should you even try, Mark? Because the truth is important.
I'll freely admit that I did not specifically fact check each individual point made by the original writer of the letter. I'll freely admit that I am not a gifted thinker. I consider myself to bear the same relationship to gifted thinkers that really good compost bears to prize roses. That's one of the major reasons why I post comments *here*. And it is absolutely why I made a specific point to draw Kevin's attention to that letter, because HERE is where I can most count on a team of people who will quickly and thoroughly poke holes in flawed arguments, EVEN WHEN THEY WISH THEY COULD AGREE WITH THEM.
So please Mark, if you can demonstrate with *documentable facts* where any of the points made in that letter are in error, PLEASE do so.
Um, you bit, Grumpy. Y'see, "Why should I even try?" is just one of his standard responses. Not demonstrating with "documentable facts" is another.
His is a Highly Defective Personality, being mercifully untroubled by the ravages of embarrassment, shame, mortification, or any of the usual emotions that act as checks and balances against antisocial and/or blitheringly stupid behavior in ordinary people.
There is no cure, and he responds to no treatment.
No, it's because you have been repeatedly shown in gruesome, documented detail that you are a liar and you apparently don't care. You do not have the integrity to admit it, to apologize for it, and to move on. You just move on and treat us as if we don't care.
Now, go away, little boy. There are grownups talking here.
Truth is narrow minded. There is only ONE correct answer to any question of fact.
"The Law of non-Contradiction" is narrow minded. It does not allow two (or more) answers to questions of fact to be correct.
You consider your own beliefs to be true and ours false, therefore you are at least as narrow minded as we are.
The only way to determine which beliefs are true and which are false is to examine all the evidence and apply valid logic to reach conclusions.
We continually point out, and sometimes debate among ourselves, evidence that can be used to determine what the truth actually is so we can adjust our own beliefs to get closer to the truth. You routinely reject evidence and provide none of your own. You also routinely resort to well known logical fallacies (invalid logic), especially the genetic fallacy, the ad hominem fallacy, the tu quoque fallacy, a faulty appeal to authority and especially the appeal to motive fallacy instead of making actual logical arguments based on reliable evidence. Therefore, not only are you as narrow minded as are, you are more narrow minded than us, and closed minded to boot!
BTW…Your "willful ignorance" crack is especially ironic coming from a guy who routinely has his face rubbed in the evidence, yet fails to produce anything more compelling than opinion pieces written by people known to not be on speaking terms with facts.
I've produced evidence direct from the Chicago Democratic Socialists of America web site showing that Obama directly allied himself politically with the most extreme and open socialists in Chicago, but I have yet to see you retract your claim that Obama is not a socialist. Your failure to do so eloquently demonstrates that you have gone past "willfully ignorant" to belligerently ignorant.
"You consider your own beliefs to be true and ours false"
Actually, I don't have any beliefs, only a bunch of ideas that can be easily changed. In other words, I am dynamic as opposed to static.
"You routinely reject evidence and provide none of your own."
That is more apt description of some here. If the evidence I provide does not fit into the belief system or fervent ideology, then its
"you are a liar and you apparently don't care."
Michael Moore...liar
Markadelphia...liar
Barack Obama...liar
Joe Biden....liar
(Insert liberal or Democrat that caused my brain to go EEP-BLUR-SPLAT)....LIAR!!
DJ, Ed, Unix et al...you do realize that I am extremely aware of this tactic, first started by Richard Nixon in 1946, and how terribly it is failing this time around. This country requires some actual solutions as opposed to what the Republican Party platform has evolved into...mindless robots stuck in a feedback loop.
"I've produced evidence direct from the Chicago Democratic Socialists of America web site showing that Obama directly allied himself politically"
Based on the requirements set here on what does and what does not constitute evidence, it doesn't past muster, which proves that what's good for the goose isn't necessarily good for the gander.
I have shown you who Barack Obama's chief economic advisers are. These are facts. Austen Goolsbee is a UOC economics professor. Is he a socialist?
Right there, Mark. That thread. You claimed to have done something you never did. You lied. You happily and quite deliberately lied, Mark.
Much as your other heroes have made a habit and career of lying.
Mark, Michael Moore's career was build on "Roger and Me". Which was about the fact he couldn't get Roger Smith to allow an interview.
But he did. Twice. During the filming of that movie.
The rest of his career has been with sloppy regard to the facts, and just making stuff up when it suits him. Which you then recite as fact. Despite the truth being against you.
Yes, some of his points are arguable. Some of them. Some are flat lies.
Barack Obama. Mark, again, we've demonstrated where he lied. We understand nobody's perfect. But I for one have far less regard for anyone who deliberately lies. Obama has had to backtrack from many of his claims and stories.
Far from you being any paragon of open-mindedness, you deny any of it could be true.. even after your hero has admitted it.
Joe Biden... Shall we start with him being the son of a Welsh Coal Miner? His multiple accounts of plagiarism? Which is a form of lying. And then there's his "being forced down under fire in Afghanistan".
You're missing the big picture Mark: You and your sources are admitted, proven, dishonest, liars.
you do realize that I am extremely aware of this tactic
There's no Tactic, Mark, other than you openly, deliberately, and obviously lying about thing we know, and citing without question other people we know are utterly dishonest and easily proven to be.
This country requires some actual solutions
Solutions. Mark. But you have to be honest with us about them. Obama has not been. Most of the time. When he has been - with Joe the Plumber! look at how panicked you get.
Plus you have to understand the problem. You blame "The Republicans" and "Bush" (nevermind the lack of influence Bush had until 2000) for the economic crisis, despite all the proof pointing squarely at the Democrats. (And some "bipartisan" cooperation with the Republicans, true.)
You've also been proven to not understand systems, human nature, and history. Which means your "solutions" will fail. You miss that all the current ills didn't happen out of whole cloth, that there are good natured attempts to help people at the root of the current problems. IOW: solutions. Bad ones. You refuse to admit that a bad solution is worse than letting the situation handle itself. And, yes, you're dishonest as hell, and deliberately lie. It matters, Mark. I don't agree with Kevin, or DJ, or Russ, or LabRat or Stingray on everything. But they're honest. We can disagree and still respect each other. CREDIBILITY MATTERS.
Based on the requirements set here on what does and what does not constitute evidence, it doesn't past muster,
Yes it does, Mark. This is you just mindlessly "countering" by saying as in the Monty Python sketch "No! Yes! No!" It's evidence. It's far more than you've ever produced. You don't like it, because it interrupts your story. It's pesky, it's nice if you just forget it. Why won't we? Why can't we just understand that it's not true?
We call them liars because they've - and you - been lying to us on a fairly continual basis. Far beyond the pale of "political little white lies".
We didn't make you lie, you decided to lie. You decided to deliberately lie right there in that thread, Mark. There are lots of others you've tossed our way, but that's a good example.
Who lied in that thread? Me? DJ? Anybody else?
No.
Just Markadelphia. Markadelphia lied in that thread. Markadelphia is responsible for his own lie.
Nobody made you do it, it's not a "tactic" other than the truth. You're not an honest debater.
We've told you before: The truth is a harsh taskmaster. You don't like it because it's easier to believe in "loose" ideas, not fix "strong" meaning on words. It's not honest to do that.
And right there, when you're cornered, you'll lie. Make up falsehoods. That makes you a liar. Not my fault. Not DJ's. Not Kevin's.
One person, and one person alone. All the Hope and Change won't fix it.
"And so, we all can demonstrate to him interminably that he is incorrect in any number of ways on any number of subjects, we can prove to him by verifiable facts that his version of "truth" is inconsistent with observable reality, and we will never convince him of anything of any significance. Each attempt will simply endanger his self-esteem even more, such that the risk to him of admitting reality will be even greater. Each time, he will not be able to avoid the challenge, and so his blitherings will become ever more convoluted, ever more twisted and self-contradictory, and ever more in denial of reality."
He made truth claims in his documentaries which where significantly different than the actual facts. (We've pointed this out to you numerous times.)
Truth = A
Moore said B.
A ≠ B
Therefore Moore lied.
Michael Moore is not a liar because we claimed that he is, rather he is a liar because he told lies which can be demonstrated to be both untrue, and known by Moore to be untrue.
"Barack Obama...liar"
He claims to want abortion reduced. Yet he has voted in favor of abortion 100% of the time, even on bills the National Abortion Rights Action League has not opposed. He has sworn to sign the virulently pro abortion "Freedom of Choice Act" as his first action as President. There's actions he has taken which show that he is not only pro-choice, but one of the few actually pro-abortion people in the country.
Lie.
It was discovered that he argued and voted against the "Baby Born Alive" act as a state senator, even when the wording was identical to the unanimously passed federal version. When this was pointed out, Obama claimed it was a lie. It's amply documented to be true.
Barack claimed that he was unaware of Jeremiah Wright's views. Yet even his allies admit that Obama spent time carefully interviewing pastors before choosing his church. Plus, in an interview given in 2004, he admitted that "he attends the 11 a.m. Sunday service at Trinity in the Brainerd neighborhood every week -- or at least as many weeks as he is able."
Given even his own admission of regular attendance, there is no possible way that he could not know about Wright's views.
Lie.
He also claims to be a Christian, but "Obama doesn't believe he, or anyone else, will go to hell.
"But he's not sure if he'll be going to heaven, either.
"'I don't presume to have knowledge of what happens after I die,' he says." (See the same article linked above.)
He also said, "I believe that there are many paths to the same place."
The existence of heaven (being with God) and hell (being separated from God due to sin) and that Jesus Christ is the only way of salvation are central tenants of Christianity. You cannot be a Christian without them.
Lie.
Around here we have a very simple of "liar." It's a person who tells lies. We also recognize that people can be mistaken and that people commonly shade the truth. However, we feel especially free to apply the label "liar" to someone who lies repeatedly about important things.
Moore and Obama both fit even the "higher standard" definition of "liar", so why shouldn't we apply the label? After all, if the shoe fits…
"Based on the requirements set here on what does and what does not constitute evidence, it doesn't past muster,"
Really? What rule(s) does it violate? Be specific.
I was under the impression that we pretty much stuck to both legal rules of evidence, scientific rules of evidence and the historical method. We also are well aware of logical fallacies and why they are invalid arguments. Does anyone here think we are not or should not be following these principles?
(Yeah, I know Markadelphia disagrees, but his constant use of common fallacies shows that he doesn't understand what they are or why they're invalid.)
Lie: To make an untrue statement with intent to deceive. To create a false or misleading impression.
The comments above made by Ed make it clear that many, MANY things said by Sen. Hussein are untrue. And that was just scratching the surface. If you actually pay attention to the news you can find nearly any position Sen. Hussein claims to hold that, at some point when it was politically inconvenient, he claimed something very different. Different enough that both positions simply cannot be reconciled as "true". His relationships with various questionable (or outright unacceptable) people, his "preconditions" statements, his ever-evolving position on the surge, his remarks about the "infanticide" bill he voted on, are all good cases in point. Therefore the first part of Webster's definition, "To make an untrue statement", can be considered proven.
That leaves the last half of the definition, "with intent to deceive".
Well unless you can read minds, you cannot conclusively prove or disprove someone's intent, as intent takes place solely within the mind. When things that are irreconcilable with the truth become common, as they are with Sen. Hussein, you can *infer* intent, but that's as far as you can go. However, you only have a choice of two. Either there is intent to deceive or there is not.
Given half a dozen obvious untruths in his associations, half a dozen more in his record, and yet half a dozen more in his statements of position on various issues, the "false or misleading impression" is indisputably there. Indeed, it is the rule rather than the exception. For Mark to claim Sen. Hussein is not a consistent liar, then, must rest on the contention that there is no intent to deceive.
But when the obvious untruth and the false and misleading impressions are consistent over months or years, the only way one can contend that there is no intent to deceive is to assert that Sen. Hussein has no foggiest clue as to the meaning or consequences of his actions, statements or beliefs. It is to assert that his understanding of HIS OWN POSITIONS is not only less than Sarah Palin's, but barely superior to TRIG Palin's.
Is that what you're saying, Mark? You're voting for Obama rather than McCain because he is a Constitutional scholar whose understanding is comparable to that of a Downs baby not out of diapers yet?
Hmm...must really be hitting a nerve. And also proves my point regarding Dick Nixon like tactics.
"He claims to want abortion reduced. Yet he has voted in favor of abortion 100% of the time,"
Ed brings up a good point here. Barack Obama is, in fact, THE pro life candidate. The sex ed programs he supports have reduced abortions in this country. This is a fact. The Pro-Life crowd sees only way to reduce abortions is to overturn Roe V Wade. Ok, let's say that happens. Then what? It's up to the states. Most will vote to continue abortion, thus accomplishing nothing.
This issue is a great example of how narrow minded some on the right are. Their solutions are half or not even one quarter baked. They don't solve problems because they are wrapped up in fervent belief and ideology. They do not have width of vision.
Anyone one know who Francis Schaeffer was? He wrote a book called Whatever Happened to the Human Race, considered by many to be the beginning of the pro life movement. His son, Frank, is an evangelical leader who recently had this to say.
"The Republicans have also been hypocrites while talking big, for instance about their pro-life ethic. But what have they achieved? First, through their puritanical war on sex education they've hindered our country from actually preventing unwanted pregnancy. Second, through the Republican Party's marriage to the greediest and most polluting earth-destroying corporations they've created a climate (both moral and physical) that has scorched the earth for-profit, with no regard to future generations whatsoever. The Republicans are to the pro-life movement what the Clintons are to selfless public service."
Today when I listen to Obama speak (and to his remarkable wife, Michelle) what I hear is a world view that actually nurtures life. Obama is trying to lead this country to a place where the intrinsic worth of each individual is celebrated. A leader who believes in hope, the future, trying to save our planet and providing a just and good life for everyone is someone who is actually pro-life.
The real solution to abortion is to change the heart of America, not the law. We need to stop seeing ourselves as consumers. We need to stop seeing ourselves as me and begin to think of we. Our country needs someone to show us a better way, a president who is what he seems, someone with actual moral authority that our diverse population can believe in who has the qualities that make us want to follow him. Obama is that person."
Yes, Mark, because you're a lying son-of-bitch who revels in being an irritant.
And also proves my point regarding Dick Nixon like tactics.
No, it doesn't.
You said that we were painting you and your heros as liars because of our direction from Tricky Dick. That was your "point".
We, instead, pointed out why you and your heroes are considered liars, because they repeatedly lie.
The fact you didn't address any of the factual issues (that they lie, repeatedly, and have made a career of it), favoring ad homs and vague handwaving cements the fact that your point was dishonest (duh).
You're a liar because of things like that, Mark. Not because we disagree with you on policy directives. But because you attempt to deceive people. Our irritation is because it's blatantly obvious that you can't deceive us, since we don't trust you (because we've seen you blatantly lie many times), know more than you do about the facts of the cases, and are better at reasoning and critical thinking than you.
Yet you think you have something to teach us. You demand respect and courtesy, even directly after lying to us. You act like someone who knows more than us, despite the proof that it's not true.
That's irritating, Mark. It does hit nerves.
It, however, does not mean that you're right, or in fact have anything to teach us. It just means you're an asshole. A particularly stupid asshole. But an asshole. Not a tutor, not an expert, not a teacher.
"Barack Obama is, in fact, THE pro life candidate."
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha ::big inhale::
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha ::big inhale::
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha ::big inhale::
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha ::big inhale::
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha ::big inhale::
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha ::big inhale::
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha… :: Oh this hurts! ::
That's the biggest whopper I have EVER heard! You have things so upside down I'm surprised you don't walk on your hands! You didn't even glance at the link I posted, did you?
Think of a Peanuts comic strip where you see Charlie Brown looking embarrassed and all you see in the background is laughter because EVERYONE is laughing at him.
Welcome to the big leagues of liars Markadelphia! You've earned it!
When the only tool in your tool kit is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
And when you can't convince people to your side and ideas honestly, you lie to them with the rationalization that you know better than they do what's best for them.
And then you say, We'll do it RIGHT THIS TIME, WE'll DO IT HARDER THAN LAST TIME! WE'LL MAKE IT WORK FOR SURE THIS TIME!
"Barack Obama is, in fact, THE pro life candidate. The sex ed programs he supports have reduced abortions in this country. This is a fact."
If it's a fact, then you can document it, right? Please do so.
On the other hand, it can most certainly be documented that Barack Obama voted to allow babies who SURVIVED their abortions to die of neglect.
Given that, in order for him to qualify as "pro-life" as opposed to "pro-death" documenting the sex ed programs he supports *as a direct cause* of reduced abortions is the very least a prospective supporter should expect, is it not?
And in order for him to qualify as THE pro-life candidate, rather than merely *A* pro-life candidate, would you not only have to show that reduction as being caused by programs that he supports *and his opponents do not*?
And on the other hand, anyone who wants to pass laws outlawing abortion and teaching that the choice occurs before a woman spreads her legs, really just wants abortions to increase????
I guess when Nikita Kruschev said "We will crush you!", he really meant that he loved America! I guess war really is peace, freedom really is slavery, ignorance really is strength*, bitter really is sweet, darkness really is light, and evil really is good**!
(* from 1984 by George Orwell, ** Isaiah 5:20)
You can shovel your turds all you like, but we still aren't buying that they're prime steak.
If you were actually ignorant, you would be an object of pity. As it is, not only have you drunk the Kool-Aid, you've finished off the pitcher, rushed off to the kitchen to clean it out, and gone looking for a well!
You shall have your reward, fool.
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/2008/10/link-othe-day.html (31 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
I can hardly wait to see how Mark is going to "prove" that none of this is true.
Why should I even try? Belief is more important than reality.
I did notice the direct talks with Iran thing was brought up. For those of you that would actually like to put the screws to Iran, as opposed to the eight year old temper tantrum policy Bush and McCain would like to have with them, give this a read.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/29/opinion/29friedman.html
The best lines?
"Barack Hussein Obama would present another challenge for Iran’s mullahs. Their whole rationale for being is that they are resisting a hegemonic American power that wants to keep everyone down. Suddenly, next week, Iranians may look up and see that the country their leaders call “The Great Satan” has just elected “a guy whose middle name is the central figure in Shiite Islam — Hussein — and whose last name — Obama — when transliterated into Farsi, means ‘He is with us,’ ” said Sadjadpour."
Iran is ripe for deflating. Its power was inflated by the price of oil and the popularity of its leader, who was cheered simply because he was willing to poke America with a stick. But as a real nation-building enterprise, the Islamic Revolution in Iran has been an abject failure."
We may have a real chance to run the table on them in the Middle East, eliminating a lot of the power that Bush gave them. So, are we going to do it? Or we sticking to the "our way is the only way-THE RIGHT WAY-" mentality?
>>Why should I even try?
..because you know you'll be shellaced if you do, and throwing in a topic switch seems a better plan?
>>Belief is more important than reality.
...We know. You demonstrate this to us several times a day.
Why should I even try? Belief is more important than reality.
As you've demonstrated many times over.
Subjugating reality to your own backstory, your own set of "facts".
Again, one case of you making up stories out of whole cloth.
Kevin:
I was involved with this same letter on another thread, and some much more intelligent liberals tossed themselves in and were toasted.
Obama PWNED
I reference this to you not for my post, but more importantly for "rightc0ast"'s.
Referenced, researched, and on point.
Back in 1977, they forced banks to make more risky mortgages by governemtn decree. In order to mitigate risk, mortgage backed securities were invented at this time. Soon after in order to move risk from risk-averse firms to less risk averse firms, credit default swaps were contrived. Psuedo-government GSE's(1) then bought mortgages and pushed these mortgage backed securities. Now rife with cronyism[2] and spending big on lobbying to the top recipients, in order of total career amounts: Dodd of CT, Obama of Illinois, Kerry of Massachusetts, Clinton of New York.[3]
So now we get to where there were extensive calls for greater regulation and better oversight, starting around 2001. The danger was laughed off, largely by people who were receiving big contributions from the lobbyists. Obama led the fight against "regulating" Fannie and Freddie, in perhaps the best example of regulations never being in effect to protect *you and your money*[4]
...
In summary, I think we can point to several events that facilitated the bubble. The CRA revision ... the dot-com bust, the Fed slashing rates to unnatural levels, interest rates and money freed up to lend unnaturally; and "new operating procedure" that made financials view subprime/Alt-A and mortgage securitization as a normal and customary thing. It isn't. It has existed for 30 years in all of humanity's history.
Oh, and Mark, we've pointed this out to you many times:
We may have a real chance to run the table on them in the Middle East, eliminating a lot of the power that Bush gave them.
That was Carter. Not Bush. I or II.
Whoops, sorry, that's *not* the same open letter!
So, Kevin, there's a whole new Open Letter to Obama - from "Cory the Well Driller!"
Why should you even try, Mark? Because the truth is important.
I'll freely admit that I did not specifically fact check each individual point made by the original writer of the letter. I'll freely admit that I am not a gifted thinker. I consider myself to bear the same relationship to gifted thinkers that really good compost bears to prize roses. That's one of the major reasons why I post comments *here*. And it is absolutely why I made a specific point to draw Kevin's attention to that letter, because HERE is where I can most count on a team of people who will quickly and thoroughly poke holes in flawed arguments, EVEN WHEN THEY WISH THEY COULD AGREE WITH THEM.
So please Mark, if you can demonstrate with *documentable facts* where any of the points made in that letter are in error, PLEASE do so.
Um, you bit, Grumpy. Y'see, "Why should I even try?" is just one of his standard responses. Not demonstrating with "documentable facts" is another.
His is a Highly Defective Personality, being mercifully untroubled by the ravages of embarrassment, shame, mortification, or any of the usual emotions that act as checks and balances against antisocial and/or blitheringly stupid behavior in ordinary people.
There is no cure, and he responds to no treatment.
That's because the treatment involves willful ignorance and being brainwashed by a narrow minded ideology.
No, it's because you have been repeatedly shown in gruesome, documented detail that you are a liar and you apparently don't care. You do not have the integrity to admit it, to apologize for it, and to move on. You just move on and treat us as if we don't care.
Now, go away, little boy. There are grownups talking here.
"being brainwashed by a narrow minded ideology"
Truth is narrow minded. There is only ONE correct answer to any question of fact.
"The Law of non-Contradiction" is narrow minded. It does not allow two (or more) answers to questions of fact to be correct.
You consider your own beliefs to be true and ours false, therefore you are at least as narrow minded as we are.
The only way to determine which beliefs are true and which are false is to examine all the evidence and apply valid logic to reach conclusions.
We continually point out, and sometimes debate among ourselves, evidence that can be used to determine what the truth actually is so we can adjust our own beliefs to get closer to the truth. You routinely reject evidence and provide none of your own. You also routinely resort to well known logical fallacies (invalid logic), especially the genetic fallacy, the ad hominem fallacy, the tu quoque fallacy, a faulty appeal to authority and especially the appeal to motive fallacy instead of making actual logical arguments based on reliable evidence. Therefore, not only are you as narrow minded as are, you are more narrow minded than us, and closed minded to boot!
BTW…Your "willful ignorance" crack is especially ironic coming from a guy who routinely has his face rubbed in the evidence, yet fails to produce anything more compelling than opinion pieces written by people known to not be on speaking terms with facts.
I've produced evidence direct from the Chicago Democratic Socialists of America web site showing that Obama directly allied himself politically with the most extreme and open socialists in Chicago, but I have yet to see you retract your claim that Obama is not a socialist. Your failure to do so eloquently demonstrates that you have gone past "willfully ignorant" to belligerently ignorant.
And the worse it gets for him, the more belligerent he gets. It fits my analysis, doesn't it?
"You consider your own beliefs to be true and ours false"
Actually, I don't have any beliefs, only a bunch of ideas that can be easily changed. In other words, I am dynamic as opposed to static.
"You routinely reject evidence and provide none of your own."
That is more apt description of some here. If the evidence I provide does not fit into the belief system or fervent ideology, then its
"you are a liar and you apparently don't care."
Michael Moore...liar
Markadelphia...liar
Barack Obama...liar
Joe Biden....liar
(Insert liberal or Democrat that caused my brain to go EEP-BLUR-SPLAT)....LIAR!!
DJ, Ed, Unix et al...you do realize that I am extremely aware of this tactic, first started by Richard Nixon in 1946, and how terribly it is failing this time around. This country requires some actual solutions as opposed to what the Republican Party platform has evolved into...mindless robots stuck in a feedback loop.
"I've produced evidence direct from the Chicago Democratic Socialists of America web site showing that Obama directly allied himself politically"
Based on the requirements set here on what does and what does not constitute evidence, it doesn't past muster, which proves that what's good for the goose isn't necessarily good for the gander.
I have shown you who Barack Obama's chief economic advisers are. These are facts. Austen Goolsbee is a UOC economics professor. Is he a socialist?
"DJ, Ed, Unix et al...you do realize that I am extremely aware of this tactic, ..."
Park it up your ass, you miserable cheezedick.
I have shown you using your own words that you stated what was not true and knew it was not true when you stated it. You are a proven liar.
Your integrity and credibility are ZERO, teacher. Why are you still here?
Markadelphia...liar
Because you LIED.
Right there, Mark. That thread. You claimed to have done something you never did. You lied. You happily and quite deliberately lied, Mark.
Much as your other heroes have made a habit and career of lying.
Mark, Michael Moore's career was build on "Roger and Me". Which was about the fact he couldn't get Roger Smith to allow an interview.
But he did. Twice. During the filming of that movie.
The rest of his career has been with sloppy regard to the facts, and just making stuff up when it suits him. Which you then recite as fact. Despite the truth being against you.
Yes, some of his points are arguable. Some of them. Some are flat lies.
Barack Obama. Mark, again, we've demonstrated where he lied. We understand nobody's perfect. But I for one have far less regard for anyone who deliberately lies. Obama has had to backtrack from many of his claims and stories.
Far from you being any paragon of open-mindedness, you deny any of it could be true.. even after your hero has admitted it.
Joe Biden... Shall we start with him being the son of a Welsh Coal Miner? His multiple accounts of plagiarism? Which is a form of lying. And then there's his "being forced down under fire in Afghanistan".
You're missing the big picture Mark: You and your sources are admitted, proven, dishonest, liars.
you do realize that I am extremely aware of this tactic
There's no Tactic, Mark, other than you openly, deliberately, and obviously lying about thing we know, and citing without question other people we know are utterly dishonest and easily proven to be.
This country requires some actual solutions
Solutions. Mark. But you have to be honest with us about them. Obama has not been. Most of the time. When he has been - with Joe the Plumber! look at how panicked you get.
Plus you have to understand the problem. You blame "The Republicans" and "Bush" (nevermind the lack of influence Bush had until 2000) for the economic crisis, despite all the proof pointing squarely at the Democrats. (And some "bipartisan" cooperation with the Republicans, true.)
You've also been proven to not understand systems, human nature, and history. Which means your "solutions" will fail. You miss that all the current ills didn't happen out of whole cloth, that there are good natured attempts to help people at the root of the current problems. IOW: solutions. Bad ones. You refuse to admit that a bad solution is worse than letting the situation handle itself. And, yes, you're dishonest as hell, and deliberately lie. It matters, Mark. I don't agree with Kevin, or DJ, or Russ, or LabRat or Stingray on everything. But they're honest. We can disagree and still respect each other. CREDIBILITY MATTERS.
Based on the requirements set here on what does and what does not constitute evidence, it doesn't past muster,
Yes it does, Mark. This is you just mindlessly "countering" by saying as in the Monty Python sketch "No! Yes! No!" It's evidence. It's far more than you've ever produced. You don't like it, because it interrupts your story. It's pesky, it's nice if you just forget it. Why won't we? Why can't we just understand that it's not true?
We call them liars because they've - and you - been lying to us on a fairly continual basis. Far beyond the pale of "political little white lies".
We didn't make you lie, you decided to lie. You decided to deliberately lie right there in that thread, Mark. There are lots of others you've tossed our way, but that's a good example.
Who lied in that thread? Me? DJ? Anybody else?
No.
Just Markadelphia. Markadelphia lied in that thread. Markadelphia is responsible for his own lie.
Nobody made you do it, it's not a "tactic" other than the truth. You're not an honest debater.
We've told you before: The truth is a harsh taskmaster. You don't like it because it's easier to believe in "loose" ideas, not fix "strong" meaning on words. It's not honest to do that.
And right there, when you're cornered, you'll lie. Make up falsehoods. That makes you a liar. Not my fault. Not DJ's. Not Kevin's.
One person, and one person alone. All the Hope and Change won't fix it.
Yup, U-J, it validates what I said earlier:
"And so, we all can demonstrate to him interminably that he is incorrect in any number of ways on any number of subjects, we can prove to him by verifiable facts that his version of "truth" is inconsistent with observable reality, and we will never convince him of anything of any significance. Each attempt will simply endanger his self-esteem even more, such that the risk to him of admitting reality will be even greater. Each time, he will not be able to avoid the challenge, and so his blitherings will become ever more convoluted, ever more twisted and self-contradictory, and ever more in denial of reality."
You've just seen it happen yet again.
"Michael Moore...liar"
Because?
He made truth claims in his documentaries which where significantly different than the actual facts. (We've pointed this out to you numerous times.)
Truth = A
Moore said B.
A ≠ B
Therefore Moore lied.
Michael Moore is not a liar because we claimed that he is, rather he is a liar because he told lies which can be demonstrated to be both untrue, and known by Moore to be untrue.
"Barack Obama...liar"
He claims to want abortion reduced. Yet he has voted in favor of abortion 100% of the time, even on bills the National Abortion Rights Action League has not opposed. He has sworn to sign the virulently pro abortion "Freedom of Choice Act" as his first action as President. There's actions he has taken which show that he is not only pro-choice, but one of the few actually pro-abortion people in the country.
Lie.
It was discovered that he argued and voted against the "Baby Born Alive" act as a state senator, even when the wording was identical to the unanimously passed federal version. When this was pointed out, Obama claimed it was a lie. It's amply documented to be true.
Lie.
Obama claims that he has "no intention of taking away folks' guns." His actions say otherwise. (Note that even Hillary Clinton, no friend of conservatives, made this point.)
Lie.
(to be continued due to too many links)
(continued from above)
Barack claimed that he was unaware of Jeremiah Wright's views. Yet even his allies admit that Obama spent time carefully interviewing pastors before choosing his church. Plus, in an interview given in 2004, he admitted that "he attends the 11 a.m. Sunday service at Trinity in the Brainerd neighborhood every week -- or at least as many weeks as he is able."
Given even his own admission of regular attendance, there is no possible way that he could not know about Wright's views.
Lie.
He also claims to be a Christian, but "Obama doesn't believe he, or anyone else, will go to hell.
"But he's not sure if he'll be going to heaven, either.
"'I don't presume to have knowledge of what happens after I die,' he says." (See the same article linked above.)
He also said, "I believe that there are many paths to the same place."
The existence of heaven (being with God) and hell (being separated from God due to sin) and that Jesus Christ is the only way of salvation are central tenants of Christianity. You cannot be a Christian without them.
Lie.
Around here we have a very simple of "liar." It's a person who tells lies. We also recognize that people can be mistaken and that people commonly shade the truth. However, we feel especially free to apply the label "liar" to someone who lies repeatedly about important things.
Moore and Obama both fit even the "higher standard" definition of "liar", so why shouldn't we apply the label? After all, if the shoe fits…
"Based on the requirements set here on what does and what does not constitute evidence, it doesn't past muster,"
Really? What rule(s) does it violate? Be specific.
I was under the impression that we pretty much stuck to both legal rules of evidence, scientific rules of evidence and the historical method. We also are well aware of logical fallacies and why they are invalid arguments. Does anyone here think we are not or should not be following these principles?
(Yeah, I know Markadelphia disagrees, but his constant use of common fallacies shows that he doesn't understand what they are or why they're invalid.)
Link to Logical Fallacies page
(Stoopid HaloScan is way too tight on link counts.)
From Webster's online dictionary:
Lie: To make an untrue statement with intent to deceive. To create a false or misleading impression.
The comments above made by Ed make it clear that many, MANY things said by Sen. Hussein are untrue. And that was just scratching the surface. If you actually pay attention to the news you can find nearly any position Sen. Hussein claims to hold that, at some point when it was politically inconvenient, he claimed something very different. Different enough that both positions simply cannot be reconciled as "true". His relationships with various questionable (or outright unacceptable) people, his "preconditions" statements, his ever-evolving position on the surge, his remarks about the "infanticide" bill he voted on, are all good cases in point. Therefore the first part of Webster's definition, "To make an untrue statement", can be considered proven.
That leaves the last half of the definition, "with intent to deceive".
Well unless you can read minds, you cannot conclusively prove or disprove someone's intent, as intent takes place solely within the mind. When things that are irreconcilable with the truth become common, as they are with Sen. Hussein, you can *infer* intent, but that's as far as you can go. However, you only have a choice of two. Either there is intent to deceive or there is not.
Given half a dozen obvious untruths in his associations, half a dozen more in his record, and yet half a dozen more in his statements of position on various issues, the "false or misleading impression" is indisputably there. Indeed, it is the rule rather than the exception. For Mark to claim Sen. Hussein is not a consistent liar, then, must rest on the contention that there is no intent to deceive.
But when the obvious untruth and the false and misleading impressions are consistent over months or years, the only way one can contend that there is no intent to deceive is to assert that Sen. Hussein has no foggiest clue as to the meaning or consequences of his actions, statements or beliefs. It is to assert that his understanding of HIS OWN POSITIONS is not only less than Sarah Palin's, but barely superior to TRIG Palin's.
Is that what you're saying, Mark? You're voting for Obama rather than McCain because he is a Constitutional scholar whose understanding is comparable to that of a Downs baby not out of diapers yet?
Careful, Grumpy. You're reasoning way beyond his abilities.
"Park it up your ass, you miserable cheezedick."
Hmm...must really be hitting a nerve. And also proves my point regarding Dick Nixon like tactics.
"He claims to want abortion reduced. Yet he has voted in favor of abortion 100% of the time,"
Ed brings up a good point here. Barack Obama is, in fact, THE pro life candidate. The sex ed programs he supports have reduced abortions in this country. This is a fact. The Pro-Life crowd sees only way to reduce abortions is to overturn Roe V Wade. Ok, let's say that happens. Then what? It's up to the states. Most will vote to continue abortion, thus accomplishing nothing.
This issue is a great example of how narrow minded some on the right are. Their solutions are half or not even one quarter baked. They don't solve problems because they are wrapped up in fervent belief and ideology. They do not have width of vision.
Anyone one know who Francis Schaeffer was? He wrote a book called Whatever Happened to the Human Race, considered by many to be the beginning of the pro life movement. His son, Frank, is an evangelical leader who recently had this to say.
"The Republicans have also been hypocrites while talking big, for instance about their pro-life ethic. But what have they achieved? First, through their puritanical war on sex education they've hindered our country from actually preventing unwanted pregnancy. Second, through the Republican Party's marriage to the greediest and most polluting earth-destroying corporations they've created a climate (both moral and physical) that has scorched the earth for-profit, with no regard to future generations whatsoever. The Republicans are to the pro-life movement what the Clintons are to selfless public service."
Today when I listen to Obama speak (and to his remarkable wife, Michelle) what I hear is a world view that actually nurtures life. Obama is trying to lead this country to a place where the intrinsic worth of each individual is celebrated. A leader who believes in hope, the future, trying to save our planet and providing a just and good life for everyone is someone who is actually pro-life.
The real solution to abortion is to change the heart of America, not the law. We need to stop seeing ourselves as consumers. We need to stop seeing ourselves as me and begin to think of we. Our country needs someone to show us a better way, a president who is what he seems, someone with actual moral authority that our diverse population can believe in who has the qualities that make us want to follow him. Obama is that person."
Oops...the above was me. Just switched to Firefox. Netscape was giving me static.
Hmm...must really be hitting a nerve.
Yes, Mark, because you're a lying son-of-bitch who revels in being an irritant.
And also proves my point regarding Dick Nixon like tactics.
No, it doesn't.
You said that we were painting you and your heros as liars because of our direction from Tricky Dick. That was your "point".
We, instead, pointed out why you and your heroes are considered liars, because they repeatedly lie.
The fact you didn't address any of the factual issues (that they lie, repeatedly, and have made a career of it), favoring ad homs and vague handwaving cements the fact that your point was dishonest (duh).
You're a liar because of things like that, Mark. Not because we disagree with you on policy directives. But because you attempt to deceive people. Our irritation is because it's blatantly obvious that you can't deceive us, since we don't trust you (because we've seen you blatantly lie many times), know more than you do about the facts of the cases, and are better at reasoning and critical thinking than you.
Yet you think you have something to teach us. You demand respect and courtesy, even directly after lying to us. You act like someone who knows more than us, despite the proof that it's not true.
That's irritating, Mark. It does hit nerves.
It, however, does not mean that you're right, or in fact have anything to teach us. It just means you're an asshole. A particularly stupid asshole. But an asshole. Not a tutor, not an expert, not a teacher.
"Barack Obama is, in fact, THE pro life candidate."
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha ::big inhale::
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha ::big inhale::
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha ::big inhale::
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha ::big inhale::
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha ::big inhale::
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha ::big inhale::
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha… :: Oh this hurts! ::
That's the biggest whopper I have EVER heard! You have things so upside down I'm surprised you don't walk on your hands! You didn't even glance at the link I posted, did you?
Think of a Peanuts comic strip where you see Charlie Brown looking embarrassed and all you see in the background is laughter because EVERYONE is laughing at him.
Welcome to the big leagues of liars Markadelphia! You've earned it!
"Hmm...must really be hitting a nerve. "
You have been hitting nerves since you began posting here, you blithering idiot. It is all you have to offer, so it is all you do.
"And also proves my point regarding Dick Nixon like tactics."
No, it simply shows that sometimes you are more irritating than other times.
Well, Ed, I guess you don't want to reduce the number of abortions in this country.
When the only tool in your tool kit is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
When the only tool in your tool kit is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
And when you can't convince people to your side and ideas honestly, you lie to them with the rationalization that you know better than they do what's best for them.
And then you say, We'll do it RIGHT THIS TIME, WE'll DO IT HARDER THAN LAST TIME! WE'LL MAKE IT WORK FOR SURE THIS TIME!
"Barack Obama is, in fact, THE pro life candidate. The sex ed programs he supports have reduced abortions in this country. This is a fact."
If it's a fact, then you can document it, right? Please do so.
On the other hand, it can most certainly be documented that Barack Obama voted to allow babies who SURVIVED their abortions to die of neglect.
Given that, in order for him to qualify as "pro-life" as opposed to "pro-death" documenting the sex ed programs he supports *as a direct cause* of reduced abortions is the very least a prospective supporter should expect, is it not?
And in order for him to qualify as THE pro-life candidate, rather than merely *A* pro-life candidate, would you not only have to show that reduction as being caused by programs that he supports *and his opponents do not*?
"I guess you don't want to reduce the number of abortions in this country."
What a tangled mishmash of logical fallacies! This one looks like it's part Appeal to Motive, part Strawman, and part Ad Hominem.
Let's see if I've got this straight. Barak Obama has pledged that "the first thing [he] would do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act" which would override every single restriction on abortion, both at the federal and state levels. He also has an unbroken 100% Pro Abortion voting record as trumpeted by NARAL. He has even argued (page 32) that abortionists should be able to allow babies to die even after they've been born!
That's "pro life"?
And on the other hand, anyone who wants to pass laws outlawing abortion and teaching that the choice occurs before a woman spreads her legs, really just wants abortions to increase????
I guess when Nikita Kruschev said "We will crush you!", he really meant that he loved America! I guess war really is peace, freedom really is slavery, ignorance really is strength*, bitter really is sweet, darkness really is light, and evil really is good**!
(* from 1984 by George Orwell, ** Isaiah 5:20)
You can shovel your turds all you like, but we still aren't buying that they're prime steak.
If you were actually ignorant, you would be an object of pity. As it is, not only have you drunk the Kool-Aid, you've finished off the pitcher, rushed off to the kitchen to clean it out, and gone looking for a well!
You shall have your reward, fool.
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>