It is airing this month on HBO. I just watched it last night and the whole "useful idiot" thing? Yeah, I think that theory is now done.
Oh, and so is Goldberg's moronic comparison of the left to fascists. The left certainly has its nutters but they aren't as abundant, strong, or as well organized as they are on the right. In watching this documentary, it's clear to anyone--that is anyone not blinded by rigid belief--that the future goose steppers of the world are the base of the Republican Party.
I think
You? Think? That's the funniest thing I've read all day. Thanks for that.
future goose steppers of the world are the base of the Republican Party
One would think if that were actually the case, the Democrats would have melted the phone lines to Washington telling their reps to lay off the talk about infringing any more on the Second Amendment. As it is, though, it's much more often than not the Dems proposing these things. Just like the left, I guess, all talk and no action. I suppose more than a few lefties have been buying guns'n'ammo in addition to der HopenChange, but I really think it'd be interesting to know which side is better-armed. For some strange and unknown reason I don't think it's the side that calls the Republican base "the future goose steppers of the world." I'm sure that reason will come to me sooner or later.
"...Where do you go from here? What are you gonna do about it?
"I'll tell you what you're going to do about it: you're not going to do one damned thing but continue with your whining, that's what, and it's not because deep down you're all cowards either. It's because deep down, you know you're full of shit. You don't even believe half the stuff you’re currently crying about yourselves.
"Because if you did, you wouldn't be talking about it. You wouldn't be writing whiny letters to the editor; you wouldn't be fearfully mincing down to the Canadian Consulate to half-seriously inquire about moving; you wouldn't be sitting in coffee houses denouncing the moronic inhabitants of Jesusland with your fellow smug, self-satisfied pseudo-hip doofuses. You'd be gearing up and arming yourselves for the fight of your lives. And much to your surprise, you’d have a lot of us over here on the right offering to help load mags."...
I know you don't believe that last part, but that's just going to have to be your problem. I sure as hell won't make it mine.
"the talk about infringing any more on the Second Amendment."
Talk means fascism? And that's all it is...just talk....so take a chill pill dude. We have much bigger things to worry about than taking away guns.
Hey, DJ...in keeping with your willful ignorance...I think there are some poor people in your home state, working three jobs to barely avoid foreclosure, that need to be told to "just pull themselves up by their boot straps."
Another comment thread strafed by Markadelphia's comment shit. Well, his logic seems on par with a seagull....
Apparently he's abandoned discourse, and has decided that since he's been found out with his dishonesty, so he might as well see how far he can go.
Goldberg's moronic comparison of the left to fascists.
.. Despite Mark's inability to prove this point.
The left certainly has its nutters but they aren't as abundant, strong, or as well organized as they are on the right.
Who's organized on the Right, Mark? Show me a group as organized as ACORN. Or hell, NPR. Unions? Hard-left.
So show us where these abundant [yet he can't point any out] strongly organized groups are.
Then explain how they were unable to prevent Obama's election, if they're stronger AND more abundant. Do you even stop to consider for a second how stupid you're about to make yourself sound when you make easily debunked pronouncements?
I won't be holding my breath. (You've done your comment-shitting, you're running off now. (The Phantom Shitter does it anonymously, but it's redundant to call you a dumbass when you miss the obvious.))
In watching this documentary, it's clear to anyone--that is anyone not blinded by rigid belief
Which DQ's you right out. So who's seen it who's not blinded by blind belief? (Have you learned what "verbatim" means yet, by the way?)
--that the future goose steppers of the world are the base of the Republican Party.
Right. They're holding up one strongman as the messiah. Oh, wait.
Well, they're taking people's possessions by force. Oh, wait.
Well, surely they're forcing a single ideology based on wild promises and demonizing the opposition? Oh, wait.
Barnabus, how did I MISS THIS? Hey, Marky? There's a fat farking lot MORE to infringement of the Second Amendment than just "taking away guns," just in case you were unaware.
You want a strong government, led by a charismatic leader with a clear mandate to reshape America according to his will, and you want to disarm the people. And we're the fascists? I'm sure Mussolini and his followers didn't think of themselves as evil.
Let's assume that Obama is as benevolent and wise as you think he is. Do you really want all that power in the hands of whoever comes after him?
When it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, then it's mostly likely a duck.
Your insistence that it's a "Jurassic Park" Velociraptor, because that would just be, like, SO FUCKING COOL, is your problem with reality, not ours.
And when the AG repeats massively discredited talking points, it's certainly worth noting.
And that's all it is...just talk
So was the 1 trillion dollar "stimulus" with the promise of "no pork"... Which turns out to be redistribution of money to pretty much nothing BUT pork.
It was "just talk". Then it wasn't. Whoops.
....so take a chill pill dude. We have much bigger things to worry about than taking away guns.
You might want to tell that to your Messiah and AG. They disagree. You're so bound up in Obama's perfection that you can't even admit that your talking point "bigger things than guns" was wrong. Plus it proves he's not talking to Pelosi (Who was quick to shoot that idea down.)
You said it, and it turns out you were wrong. Again.
Instead of admitting it, you doubledown on stupid.
Yet again, Marky graces us with his fragrant presence and drops a load, err, bald assertion on us without even a hint of an argument, let alone evidence to back it up.
"the future goose steppers of the world are the base of the Republican Party"
Okay Marky, here's how you can put together an argument which supports your position: List out the major beliefs of the fascists (either the Italian version or the National Socialists version) and show how they match up in every important respect with what conservatives believe. (In math terms, all the major variables are the same.)
Or you could start with just one.
C'mon Marky, you claim to be part of the "reality based community", surely your claim can hold to up a comparison with reality!
Troll: An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.
*looks at Markadelphia's first post*
*looks back at the definition*
Ladies and gentlepeople, we have a match!
In an effort to not feed him the attention he so desperately craves, I, too, have been growing tired of the number of magazines and books all featuring our new President on their covers... hell, even tabloids had him there before his inauguration.
Van Der Leun might want to be careful though - someone might call the USSS on him for a perceived threat against the President! (I jest, but only barely.)
Well, it's a fine Sunday morning in Oklahoma. It's 25 degrees outside, clear and calm, with a bright sun shining. Considering the high next Thursday is forecast to be 80 degrees, today is a fine day to stay indoors and dissect an idiot again. Not to worry; it won't take long. We've had a lot a practice, y'see.
"Hey, DJ...in keeping with your willful ignorance ..."
willful adj. 1. Said or done on purpose; deliberate. 2. Obstinately bent on having one's own way.
ignorance n. The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed.
I do indeed say and do things on purpose. I've been accused by my colleagues on many occasions, quite correcly so, of never doing anything without a reason. We engineers tend to be like that, much to our, and the world's, benefit.
As to having my own way, no, I can be easily convinced to change my mind. Just show me what reality is and give me solid evidence that you're right. In other words, you'll have to provide more than bullshit, and you don't know how.
I am educated, aware, and informed, so demonstrated. You need only read the comments I have written here since you began shitting in Kevin's parlor (what's it been, almost two years now?) to see that. Consider further that I worked as a salaried engineer for 26 years before retiring at age 48 (do you save your money, teacher boy?) as the inventor so named on 24 patents, and that uneducated, unaware, and uninformed people don't accomplish that, rather they generally just keep on flipping burgers. But you never let reality stand in the way of blathering yet another cliché, do you?
"... I think ..."
No, you don't think. You have demonstrated for almost two years now that you don't know how to think. You cannot reason from facts to conclusions. You cannot use or understand logical reasoning. You cannot modify what passes for thought among your three functioning neurons as a result of assimilating (look it up, teacher boy) new information.
What you do is feel. You reach into your gut, with sphincter firmly clamped about your bicep, clench you hand, pull firmly, and then note, "This is what I feel today." Given what you find in your hand and the method by which it gets there, it's not surprising that what you feel never changes.
In short, you need a cranial enema, teacher boy. Your head and your ass have become inseparable.
"... there are some poor people in your home state, ..."
Yup. There are in every state.
It's interesting how politicians who feel as you do define "poverty". Look here for the feddle gubmint's definition. Note that it measures only one thing: income.
Let's think, shall we? If a person owned bank accounts worth one hundred million dollars, owned million dollar houses in Palm Springs, Miami, and Oklahoma City, owned ten automobiles, and had no debt, he would be a wealthy person, now wouldn't he? But if he had no income, the feddle gubmint would list him as being "in poverty" because, in its own words, the feddle gubmint "... uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine who is in poverty. If a family’s total income is less than the family’s threshold, then that family and every individual in it is considered in poverty." That's not thinking, teacher boy, that's feeling.
"... working three jobs to barely avoid foreclosure, ..."
And you know this how? Or do you just feel it, like you do that odorous muck in your hand? Just making shit up again, aren't you?
"... that need to be told to "just pull themselves up by their boot straps.""
The latest figures for the unemployment rate are for December, 2008. Golly. I wonder what they show. Let's look, shall we?
The national rate is 7.2%. The Oklahoma rate is 4.6%. The Minnesota rate is 6.6%. It appears people are working here, more so than in your state, teacher boy.
Oklahoma is like that. This is a red state, indeed the only one in which every county voted red in 2004 and 2008. People work here, teacher boy. They don't need to be told to "pull themselves up by their boot straps." They are already up. Having a work ethic does that.
You, teacher boy, are a proven liar. I have never met a student who is less able to think, less able to assimilate knowledge, less influenced by demonstrable reality, or more intellectually dishonest, than you are, and you're a teacher of students. I can't help but wonder what your students say about you that you never hear or hear about.
Day after day, for nearly two years, you have made an ass of yourself in Kevin's parlor. You apparently revel in it, as if it were a good thing for you. You apparaently don't notice or don't care that it is not a good thing for those who read these comments and feel as you do.
He did get the memo about leaving people alone who want to grow and smoke pot for medicinal purposes which is a decidedly libertarian thing to do.
"has decided that since he's been found out with his dishonesty.."
More of the Richard Nixon school of debate..not enough to debate your opponents points but one must attack them personally calling them a liar etc...
"Despite Mark's inability to prove this point"
Proved to people that don't follow belief first and facts second. So, not you, Unix. Oh, and please feel free to start typing yet another personal attack right now because I can feel your blood boiling.
"Who's organized on the Right, Mark?"
OK, now my stomach hurts from laughing. Let's see...um...of the top of my head...Jerry Falwell, Rush Limbaugh, Grover Norquist, Rupert Murdoch, Sean Hannity, Mac Hammond, the NRA, conservative bloggers, CPAC, The Heritage Foundation, James Dobson, Tony Perkins, Ralph Reed...need I go on?
ACORN-ah yes, the latest right wing code word for EVIL!! EVIL!!! GET ANGRY, EVERYONE, BASED ON HALF TRUTHS AND LIES! Pathetic...
"how they were unable to prevent Obama's election?"
They were unable to prevent it because the people that you call "useful idiots" saw the actual fact of failure of less oversight and incompetence. See, Unix, there are people in this country that can smell bullshit from a mile away. But please, continue to live in the fantasy world that they (or me, I guess) are all just stupid or liars and there is nothing flawed whatsoever with your ideology.
"one strongman as the messiah"
And this is why you will lose more elections...he's not the messiah...that is your warped view of what people think about him. He is going to make mistakes by his own admission. And only individuals in this country can save themselves.
"You want a strong government"
Yes, but not in the way you think..
"led by a charismatic leader"
Actually, I'd like one that is highly competent, which President Obama is...it happens to be nice that he is charismatic.
"With a clear mandate to reshape America according to his will"
He has a mandate for change, that's true...but his will? Nope. He has stated repeatedly that if anyone has a better idea, he'd like to hear it. He has also said that he will make mistakes and some of his ideas won't work. Wow...hold me back at the stunning awesomeness of his force and will.
"and you want to disarm the people."
Do you still have all of your guns? Can you protect yourself and your family? I will be asking this question on a regular basis now, I guess, and if I keep seeing a lot of yes answers, will you chill the fuck out?
I don't really care if I do or not. The fact that you say this, though, betrays a bit of your insecurity and makes me think that, perhaps, you are starting to see some truth in what I have said on here.
"List out the major beliefs of the fascists."
Already did it, dude, a long time ago. I explained how fascism is actually closer to capitalism than socialism or communism. The result was the usual combination of hilarious denial and personal attacks (see: Nixon).
But I'll tell you what...I will start with one. As I watched Rush Limbaugh address the CPAC conference yesterday and he spoke of "freedom," it was terribly obvious that he very much sees himself as "a charismatic leader with a clear mandate to reshape America according to his will." What did you think?
"An Internet troll..."
This argument was settled a long time ago but I guess I have to repeat myself again. I am here because someone on my blog--a conservative--challenged me to be the sole voice in the wilderness on a right wing blog to see how I would hold up. He was taking a lot of flack from folks on my blog and thought it would be a good thing for me. That would be conservative friend, Last in Line, who, btw, recently admitted to me that trickle down economics doesn't work. Hallelujah, a reflective conservative. The first battle is won..
Being the reflective person I am (to a fault most of the time), I think (and still do) that you learn a lot about yourself when you debate people who have different views than you do. I also found this blog because Kevin posted on mine first. I don't post here with the purpose of provoking an emotional response...that's Unix and DJ btw. I post here because I have learned quite a bit and not in the way you think, more than likely.
An example of this is that I have learned that when some folks on the right rip the left for something, it usually means that THEY (the right) are actually defining themselves more than their opponents. So when the right talks about liberal fascism...I'm like, "Yep, talking about themselves again."
Another illustration of this point...
"What you do is feel."
"You, teacher boy, are a proven liar."
This has to be the biggest load of shit in the history of manure. The lie that liberals only "feel" and don't "think" is yet another example of a Nixonian debate tactic (along with the liar thing) that is astutely used by the right to tap into the emotions and fear of their base and denigrate their opponents. Watch the documentary and you will see what I am talking about. Anyone who doesn't "think" or "feel" the way they do is a traitor and wants to destroy America.
It worked up until the last election when this country saw what happens with zero oversight and welfare for the rich. What do you get? An economy that is completely fucked with 58 million people believing that it was all the government's fault. Wow.
And, DJ, honestly, much of the bile and emotion that I see on a daily basis (and oddly have even when conservatives ran the show) comes from the right, not the left. Look at your and Unix's past posts directed at me and tell me who has more of the emotion.
What makes me really sad is that I agreed with you on a point you made in the last thread regarding Sharpton and Jackson. Instead of acknowledging that, you went off, yet again, on a personal attack. So, while I will continue to endeavor to not attack you personally (hope to, not perfect though, but really don't want to stoop to your level), you are going to have to excuse me if I continue to call you (and a few others here) on the warped version of reality that has been created by the finest example of both ingroup and outgroup bias in the history the world.
"I am here because someone on my blog--a conservative--challenged me to be the sole voice in the wilderness on a right wing blog to see how I would hold up."
You have failed miserably but your tender, hyperinflated ego won't let you admit it, even to yourself.
Me:""What you do is feel."
"You, teacher boy, are a proven liar.""
You: "This has to be the biggest load of shit in the history of manure."
You're lying again, little boy. You stated something that you knew was not true when you stated it, which is the definition of a lie, and I proved that you did. You don't fool anyone.
"... you are going to have to excuse me if I continue to call you (and a few others here) on the warped version of reality that has been created by the finest example of both ingroup and outgroup bias in the history the world."
You still can't express yourself in anything other than cliché and hyperbole, can you?
"One cannot have a profitable discussion with someone who does not care about the truth, nor with someone who believes himself to be in such secure possession of it as to render further investigation unnecessary ."
-- The Maverick Philosopher : http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2009/02/debate-neither-sophists-nor-dogmatists.html
There seems to be a pattern here.
When somebody raises an issue about a democrat politician(with actual executive power) you attempt to deflect it by saying that so-and-so radio personality(without the power of government) on the right wing sounds just the same.
Is this legit reasoning in your view?
Do you really believe that this settles the issue in your favour?
He did get the memo about leaving people alone who want to grow and smoke pot for medicinal purposes which is a decidedly libertarian thing to do.
You're trying (and failing) to move the goalposts again.
No it's not. The laws are still the same. The libertarian thing to do would be to repeal the laws or at the very least condemn them for the loss of liberty.
Which has exactly what to do with the "Assault Weapons BAN" (remember your argument about banning?) Rather than admit that gee, your entire promises to us, your entire analysis was totally off, you try and move (and fail) the goalposts rather than admit error?
More of the Richard Nixon school of debate..not enough to debate your opponents points but one must attack them personally calling them a liar etc...
You claim you've never lied to us here? Is the charge "liar" levied against you false or true?
Do you think I cannot prove (as I've done with many links and quotes) that you're dishonest?
I 'attack you personally' because you lie, and then you run away from that thread and try and pretend that it never occurred. You're a liar. You're dishonest. You make up everything from facts to quotes to words and definitions.
That's not just a personal attack, Mark. It's an analysis, and unlike your spew, is factually backed.
OK, now my stomach hurts from laughing. Let's see...um...of the top of my head...Jerry Falwell, Rush Limbaugh, Grover Norquist, Rupert Murdoch, Sean Hannity, Mac Hammond, the NRA, conservative bloggers, CPAC, The Heritage Foundation, James Dobson, Tony Perkins, Ralph Reed...need I go on?
Yes.
Because it means nothing.
Not only are you a liar, but you're an idiot and a fool.
Jerry Falwell? An Organization? With influence?
Rush Limbaugh?
9 of your 13 are individuals, dumbass. By definition, not an organization. Most of those may be loud, but they're not organizations, which was your argument.
You know, it's bad enough that I have to remind you what your argument was.
The NRA is an organization! Huzzah! But they're not "on the right". They happily endorse pro-gun Democrats.
So of your list of 13.. You manage 1 actual "Organization" on the right - CPAC.. And how big is it and how much does it affect?
This is what I was talking about with your emotion - DJ nailed you dead to rights, and rather than think critically and admit it, you came out and proved him right. You spewed names, with no analysis of how they compared to the question at hand.
ACORN-ah yes, the latest right wing code word for EVIL!! EVIL!!! GET ANGRY, EVERYONE, BASED ON HALF TRUTHS AND LIES! Pathetic...
ACORN is a corrupt organization. Dale Rathke embezzled over a million dollars - without penalty so far. They're under investigation for voting and registration irregularities in over 1/2 the states (and they don't have offices in most of the ones they're not being investigated in.) By any reasonable standard, ACORN is a corrupt organization.
Facts. See how they castrate your emotion driven drivel? Who here is using half truths and lies?
Actually, gauntlet time.
I want a quote from me that at least is ARGUABLY a lie. I'm saying something that I do, or should, know is dishonest. You keep calling me a liar, so it's put up or shut up time.
Kevin: I'm going to ask a favor here. I'd been thinking of asking you to warn Mark of the seagull-spamming (flies in, shits, flies away). He's failed to deal with his lies (For example, off the top of my head: "Of course I know what 'verbatim' means", without retraction when he was disproven.) (See, Mark? I haven't even dug out your gold standard of DJ's quiz and your claims of "having answered it".)
Either he proves I'm a liar (at least debatably), or he apologizes for it and is sanctioned the next time he calls me one. (Or DJ, or anybody else he can't point to a definite comment that's _at least_ arguably dishonest.)
I think it's time his actions had consequences. Your site, your rules, but I've been thinking of asking you to open a comment thread for a discussion on that.
They were unable to prevent it because the people
Either they're in power, they're powerful, or they're not. You can't claim they're all-powerful if they're easily ignored, Mark. That was my point, and your spew continues to demonstrate that you don't understand how to critically think. Are they powerful and organized? If they are, how were they weak and disassociated?
Unix ... because I can feel your blood boiling.
Trust me. The Force is very weak in you. There are younglings who can Force Drop an X-Wing on your head before you notice. What you feel is called "indigestion" and you should consider a Alka-Seltzer. (First you might want to try pulling your head out of your ass, that might actually be the problem.)
My blood does not "boil" - except when it comes to liars - and then it goes rise some.
But most of your arguments are the stuff of 5th grade recess taunts, and they do not rile me in the slightest. Just your flagrant, gauche dishonesty and your arrogant attitude that you should be allowed to be dishonest without repercussions or penalty, and that it's our problem, that we should be penalized when you lie.
The fact that you say this, though, betrays a bit of your insecurity and makes me think that, perhaps, you are starting to see some truth in what I have said on here.
Whoo. You really ought to see a doctor about that. They've got a lot of new drugs that might can help.
TRUTH? From you?
Mark, you don't post truth. You post feelings, and get butthurt when it's pointed out how they differ from reality. You lie to back up your arguments, and I have yet to see you stay on track in any lengthy discussion without attempting to move the argument.
For example:
You claimed that Obama and crew would be "too busy" to enact new gun control, that he was "pro gun", and that there was "no danger".
Holder then shows up and proves that he didn't get your memo, he wants to ban guns, he's going to [try to] do it based on blatant falsehoods and myths.
When it's pointed out that Holder disagrees with you, you could say:
"Gee, I was wrong"
"What an asshole!" (About Holder, not DJ or I.)
"He's fucking insane" (Again, about Holder.)
What did you say?. Oh. That his (unverified) claim to stop federal involvement with "medical marihuana" was decidedly libertarian.
See what you did there? You DEFENDED Holder as he discredited you, AND you made a statement that's both laughable and demonstrates that you don't understand "Libertarian" thought.
So you've moved the goalposts, failed at that, been discredited on your original statement, doubly by moving the goalposts and then triply by making another claim that's absurdly easy to demonstrate it's total laughability.
I did not do this to you.
You did this to you. I didn't make you move the goalposts, or defend Holder or make a claim that Holder is a bastion of "Libertarianism".
I don't post here with the purpose of provoking an emotional response
And you don't. You post with an argument solely backed by emotion, occasionally with some appeal to authority.
We respond quite un-emotionally, and you get upset and call us names. And lie. Let's not forget that, it's important.
The lie that liberals only "feel" and don't "think" is yet another example of a Nixonian debate tactic
Despite the fact that you're a walking demonstration of it, that is. That you make claims, hey, wait let me point out:
saw what happens with zero oversight and welfare for the rich.
Zero oversight. Hrm.
Ok, Mark. Where was "zero oversight"? We've been through this many times before, but I'm just going to put you on the spot again.
Name where there was zero oversight of the economy. Be prepared to be very factually devastated, whatever your answer.
Look at your and Unix's past posts directed at me and tell me who has more of the emotion.
I really don't think you want us to put the posts over the last 2 years into a single place. I've been thinking about it.
Emotion? Well, let's see what you answer for where the "Zero oversight" was, and where I've lied. We'll continue from there.
As to the claim and dismissal that calling you a liar is "Nixonian"... Well, that's what Nixon himself said, wasn't it? So who's really more like Nixon here? You, who lied and refused accountability, admission, apology, and who point the fingers and those who pointed out your transgressions? Or us, who pointed them out.
We respond quite un-emotionally, and you get upset and call us names. And lie. Let's not forget that, it's important.
I didn't mean un-emotionally. I meant to say that if you strip everything non-factual out of our replies, they're still substantial. The gist is factual, and based on supportable and definable facts, ideas, and substance.
We do toss in lots of emotion for humor.
But the substance of our replies is not based on emotion, as is Markadelphia's.
Strip out the emotion of Mark's, run it through that filter.. and suddenly all his posts are masked.
Markadelphia:"I explained how fascism is actually closer to capitalism than socialism or communism."
Really?!? I've been following the comments here for several years now, and I don't recall you doing anything more than claiming fascism is right-wing because the Nazi's (National Socialists) fought the Communists during WWII. (BTW… America allied herself with Communists to fight the Fascists during WWII, and America as a whole thought far more like us then than they do now. What's yer point?)
Knowing how my memory is, I could be wrong. So how 'bout backing it up with a link? (Hint: If you right click the pound sign (#) at the bottom of each message, you can copy the link directly to the appropriate message.)
I think you're lying again, but I'm willing to be proven wrong. I would even be willing to accept that old argument as answering my request for a point by point ideological comparison between conservatives and fascism; that is, if your old post actually does anything like that.
Think about it Mark. Here's a chance to prove that you're not a complete liar. And all it takes is one simple link.
Ed:
Sorry, but that still wouldn't prove he wasn't a liar.
falsis in unum, falsis in omnibus
At best he'd be able to point to something and say "here, HERE I was honest."
He's been scathingly dishonest so often and for so long that a single bit of honesty can't prove anything, but I know what rhetorical device you meant.
It worked up until the last election when this country saw what happens with zero oversight and welfare for the rich. What do you get? An economy that is completely fucked with 58 million people believing that it was all the government's fault. Wow.
What?!
Really?!
REALLY?
You are de-fucking-ranged.
Have you not heard of Sarbanes Oxley? Please name a corporation where their compliance budget went DOWN over the last eight years.
If you actually had any marketable skills and worked in an industry that valued results over process, you would understand.
He did get the memo about leaving people alone who want to grow and smoke pot for medicinal purposes which is a decidedly libertarian thing to do.
Yes, and we all know this one thing makes up for his decidedly more authoritarian record. Just like Urkel's vote for the Vitter Amendment makes up for all the other gun-related votes in which he came down on the side of the criminals.
Actually, what it takes is hours and hours of looking through old threads. I'll tell you what I will do, Ed. I will put up a post on my blog regarding fascism and the left or right. Give me few days. I've been thinking about something along those lines anyway and when I get it done, I will post the link here.
IMHO, the most important thing is Marky's claim that conservatism = fascism. It's such an outlandish claim that he simply MUST back it up with an actual comparison of ideas between the two. I'm willing to accept honest efforts on his part if they actually are honest. And if he actually does act honestly in this issue, I'm willing to call him honest in this issue, especially since it's so easy for him to prove his honesty, if there is any.
On the other hand, if he acts dishonestly, I'm equally willing to call him out as a liar on this.
Either way, I refuse to accept another non-response on something so outrageous.
Yes, and it was the finest example of the "tap into your inner rage and pass if off as fact" meme that sadly defines conservatism in its modern form.
A side note...I already had a great deal of respect for Laura Ingraham before she ripped the moronic Glenn Beck for his Goldberg loving ass but after the interview on FOX she did with him, my respect went up even more. And Laura is someone with whom I vehemently disagree.
Markadelphia:"tap into your inner rage and pass if off as fact"
So I suppose all those endnotes covering 53 pages in the back of the book is all refers to nonexistent sources?
Lessee. The first 4 entries refer to Bill Maher, 2 entries referencing a total of 6 publications on the definition of fascism including the Journal of Political ideologies, and finally George Orwell.
Just flipping through I'm noticing other "imaginary" sources such as Alexis de Tocqueville, Mussolini's My Rise and Fall, Jean-Jacques Roussea, Robespierre, Adolf Hitler himself in Mein Kampf, William Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Woodrow Wilson, H. G. Wells, Upton Sinclair, Saul Alinsky, Adlai Stevenson, John Dewey, Lyndon B. Johnson, Maureen Dowd, Peter Singer, Gene Edward Veith Jr.'s Modern Fascism: The Threat to the Judeo-Christian Worldview (a book I highly recommend), Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Hillary Clinton, Howard Fineman, Gloria Steinem, Molly Ivins, and many, many others you probably haven't heard of.
Are you saying this is all stuff he simply made up? Or even most of it?
"Fascism is a religion of the state. It assumes the organic unity of the body politic and longs for a national leader attuned to the will of the people. It is totalitarian in that it views everything as political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve that common good. It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action, whether by force or through regulation and social pressure. Everything, including the economy and religion, must be aligned with its objectives. Any rival identity is part of the "problem" and therefore defined as the enemy."
Honestly, this is clearly is geared towards the tap into your rage...and I mean YOUR rage. There is no "or" when it comes to fascists. They put forth their will through violence, not social pressure and its violence towards leftists and liberalism not the right. I'll get into this more in my post.
"Fascism is a religion of the state. It assumes the organic unity of the body politic and longs for a national leader attuned to the will of the people. It is totalitarian in that it views everything as political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve that common good. It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action, whether by force or through regulation and social pressure. Everything, including the economy and religion, must be aligned with its objectives. Any rival identity is part of the "problem" and therefore defined as the enemy."
*Blinks*
*Reads Mark's posts above*
*re-reads the quote*
*!!!*
Mark, I'm sure you're hard at work answering those questions and trying to find somewhere I've lied (Funny, it's really easy for me to show places where you have....)
But I really think you need to call 911 right now and get some medical treatment.
I'm afraid, based on what you just said and what you've said earlier, you've got irony poisoning. (Screaming "It's not a LIE when I say it!" and then calling us Nixonian should have clued me in, but I missed that!)
This could very dangerous and you might be losing brain cells as we waste time. Quickly, get some treatment! You don't have that many to lose! Please! Seek treatment! For pity's sake, man, at least go read Garfield minus Garfield! Wait! No, that has irony... Wait! Go read Garfield! Irony free! No humor! No hard concepts or analysis needed! Please! We're begging you! Irony poisoning is the leading cause of bad "poetry", Democratic votes and donations and Prius purchases!!!!!
"The corporate State considers that private enterprise in the sphere of production is the most effective and usefu [sic] instrument in the interest of the nation. In view of the fact that private organisation of production is a function of national concern, the organiser of the enterprise is responsible to the State for the direction given to production.
"State intervention in economic production arises only when private initiative is lacking or insufficient, or when the political interests of the State are involved. This intervention may take the form of control, assistance or direct management." (pp. 135-136)
Does this sound like anyone we know?
And a few other interesting quotes:
"The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State—a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values—interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people." (p. 14)
"The Fascist State lays claim to rule in the economic field no less than in others; it makes its action felt throughout the length and breadth of the country by means of its corporate, social, and educational institutions, and all the political, economic, and spiritual forces of the nation, organised in their respective associations, circulate within the State." (p. 41)
Dude, I did when we had this whole discussion forever ago. I defined communism (its various offshoots), socialism and fascism. I specifically cited the Doctrine of Fascism of 1932 and put up several quotes which was either written by Gentile or Mussolini.
"do you honestly believe that paragraph is about talk radio hosts?"
Not just them but the base of the Republican Party. Remember that a key tenet of fascism is nationalism and reject all forms of class conflict. There is no oppression of the lower class by the upper class, as we hear all the time from Sharpton and Jackson, but one class--one idea--the national identity and if you don't believe in it, you are a traitor. Listen to what Rush said yesterday and tell me there isn't any haunting similarities....the collectivist nature of the whole conference was pretty scary.
"Granted that the 19th century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 20th century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the "right", a Fascist century. If the 19th century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the "collective" century, and therefore the century of the State."
Markadelphia: (quoting Gentile) "If the 19th century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism)"
Today that is called "conservatism". Libertarianism is an extreme version of this view.
Markadelphia: (quoting Gentile) "we are free to believe that this is the "collective" century, and therefore the century of the State."
Obama:"…and recognizing that my fate remains tied up with their fates, that my individual salvation is not going to come about without a collective salvation for the country."
Kevin, here's a concept for an überpost: How does Markadelphia define "definition"? Is it static? Is it tautological? Is it conventional? And, finally, is it gibberish?
Ed, another thing to consider...The Fascist Manifesto did contain ideas of nationalization of several key private industries but those were moderated or removed in practice. Private competition for favor of the state was found to be of more pragmatic use than state controlled entities.
In addition, this approach was more in line ideologically with the core tenets of fascism--the chief one of which was to distance themselves as far away as possible from any sort of inkling of communism.
I think you are misunderstanding what he is saying. It means that, as we did in the Great Depression and WWII, we have to pull together and help each other through this. That doesn't mean that the government is the mechanism by which that goal will be accomplished.
Remember his days as a community organizer and the first thing he would say when he would show up and speak to people. "The government is not going to help us. We have to do this ourselves. Now how are we going to do it?" I watched in amazement as Governor Palin and other conservatives chided him for being a community organizer. Isn't this a cornerstone of conservatism? The government can't help?
I think you are misunderstanding what he is saying.
(But luckily you have the insight to understand. Except when you don't, see above. But it's not fair to count that against you.)
It means that, as we did in the Great Depression and WWII,
There were no socialistic experiments during the "Great Depression" and World War Two? People helped each other, without new government bureaucracies and wealth redistribution?
That doesn't mean that the government is the mechanism by which that goal will be accomplished.
What else is he proposing? He's not using government as the mechanism?
I watched in amazement as Governor Palin and other conservatives chided him for being a community organizer. Isn't this a cornerstone of conservatism? The government can't help?
Nope. You've (quelle surprise) Missed The Point. Given this thread, hardly surprising.
They talked about his failure as a "community organizer" - where he can show no successes. He also spent most of his time trying to get money from, oh, yes. The government.
Heck, he said he wasn't getting anything done, that's why he went to law school.
You're unable to distinguish between the script and the acting.
I take it you didn't follow my advice and call the doctor. Well, I tried. Shouldn't wait until we have Universal Health Care to get that looked at. It might be too late then.
"I am not a crook!" - Nixon.
"I am not a liar!" - Markadelphia
"It's not criminal if the president does it!" - Nixon
"It's not a lie if I do it and mean really really really really well!" - Markadelphia
"That would be conservative friend, Last in Line, who, btw, recently admitted to me that trickle down economics doesn't work."
Trust me - me admitting something does not make it fact. A warm bucket of hamster vomit probably holds more weight than my admission of something.
What I have concluded is that the money doesn't trickle down as fast or as much as some suggest it does. Reading up on the Madoff stuff in the news and reading up on hedge fund investors, it just seems to me that for every rich person out there creating jobs in his business, there are 3 rich people who just cut a $100 million check to some hedge fund manager. Now I'm not one to tell anyone what they should do with their money, that is their choice...I just don't think money trickles down as much as people think. I could be wrong, hell I probably am.
Related to that, I also reminded markadelphia of 2 things.
1. The restrictions and taxes you advocate levying against those people do not discriminate between the hedge fund investor and the small businessman who would potentially hire a couple dozen people, thus keeping the economy moving. Everyone is punished. When you want less of something you tax it. Capital gains taxes are going to be raised, meaning less investment will happen. I'm sure some people out there think that is exactly what we need right now. Morons.
2. Throwing money at the poor has never worked either and the evidence is quite clear on that. Not one lefty I know has ever admitted that and when I say "In the war on poverty, poverty won" I get called "insensitive" (as if that passes for an actual argument from them).
This thread is a prime example of the pernicious effects of semantic warfare.
"Nationalism" in 1932 does not equal "nationalism" today.
"Conservatism" in the regime of the Prussian Jünkers does not equal "conservatism" in modern America.
"Liberalism" in 19th-century England does not equal "liberalism" today.
Yet because the symbols remain the same, certain people unthinkingly draw direct parallels between them.
Mark, you desperately need to read S.I. Hayakawa's Language in Thought and Action. He's actually someone whose political views you would agree with; that might just make you more susceptible to what he's saying about semantics.
I suspected that wasn't quite the "confession/admission" that Mark had claimed you made.
You're welcome into our company of mangled sources. :)
I would counter to you that unless the "rich" are burying their money in the backyard, it's staying in circulation and encouraging growth. The current contraction as people essentially do that - hanging onto cash assets and refusing to release/loan/invest is a tip of the iceberg what would happen if the economy ran like Mark thinks it does.
for every rich person out there creating jobs in his business,
What Mark fails to understand is that his huge government means that investing and expecting capital gains is risky. Better to take your profits through cutouts and with degrees of separation (Early beneficiaries of Madoff are now being sued from the later scamees.)
Risk means less investment. What Mark just cannot get through his head is to understand how heavily regulated these things already are. How much return is eaten up by the tax burden. Any problem (according to Mark) should have been prevented by regulation. If the regulation created the problem, then there should be more. Better. HARDER THIS TIME.
(After all, Mark keeps claiming that the mortgage market was unregulated.)
Adding to that problem with his auto-filter is his complete lack of understanding how to arrive at a decision via facts and logic. Since he got to wherever he is based on emotion and wishful thinking, he's unable to understand how to defend them, other than insults and projection.
We understand. :)
"What makes me really sad is that I agreed with you on a point you made in the last thread regarding Sharpton and Jackson. Instead of acknowledging that, you went off, yet again, on a personal attack."
"It has always astounded me that the World Champeens of Race Don't Matter spend whole lifetimes making goddamned sure that Race Does Matter. The very last thing that the Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons of the world want is for race to not matter, because then they wouldn't matter."
Y'see (who am I kidding; you don't see, do you?), Al and Jesse want to talk and talk and talk about race. To them, race matters in every goddamned thing. That perpetuates racism.
"I agree with you DJ regarding Sharpton and Jackson. They might already be on their way to being out of a job now that we have my guy at 1600..."
You think, and stated explicitly, that we need to keep on talking about race. Thus, you do not agree with me about Al and Jesse, and you stated that you did because you did not understand what I meant. You and I apparently don't LIKE the bastards, but that is remarkably superficial, methinks.
So, I immediately and explicitly outlined the difference between us (emphasis added):
"Sharpton and Jackson are not "on their way to being out of a job" no matter who is in the White House. They FOSTER racism because they BENEFIT from it. They and others like them are why racism continues to make headlines. For them, and for Obama and his minions, having a black in the White House is an opportunity not to be squandered. If race doesn't matter, then Obama's race doesn't matter and the opportunity would be lost.
"Racism will go away not because people continue to yammer about it, rather it will be gone when people no longer talk about it, i.e. when race doesn't matter and nobody notices any more that it doesn't matter."
In summary: 1) your statement that "We do need to talk about race ..." is in agreement with Al and Jesse, not with me; 2) your statement that "[Al and Jesse] might already be on their way to being out of a job ..." is not in agreement with me; and thus, 3) you and I do not agree about Al and Jesse.
Finally, we have this:
jackass n.
1. a fool
2. a foolish or stupid person; a blockhead
Yup, that's you. It's not a personal attack, rather it's a statement of fact that you have demonstrated the truth of for nearly two years.
Goddamn, teacher boy, are you ever going to understand that words have meaning and that you can look them up in a dictionary?
Thank you, Last in Line, for a breath of fresh air. I think it wasn't quite what Kevin's resident troll was expecting. His statement about you was:
"That would be conservative friend, Last in Line, who, btw, recently admitted to me that trickle down economics doesn't work. Hallelujah, a reflective conservative. The first battle is won."
It makes one wonder just what he really knows about anything, doesn't it?
"What I have concluded is that the money doesn't trickle down as fast or as much as some suggest it does."
That's right, it doesn't. But it is also true that it does trickle down faster than some others suggest it does. So much for relative terminology, right?
But, I digress. I simply found the play on words interesting.
Consider the people who work, who get paid for performing services for others, who get paid for producing products to be bought by others, and who employ people who work to provide services and produce products to be sold to others. These are the people who create wealth. The standard of living that is found in this country is produced and provided by them, not by those who enjoy and comsume without working to produce what is enjoyed and consumed. These people are the engine of the economy of this country. If they didn't do what they do, then what services and products would there be?
Obama and the Dumbocrat party vilify these people, attempting to generate hatred of them through envy of their success, and for what purpose? Will it make the engine of the economy perform better, so to produce more for everyone at less cost? Or will it just convince voters to give them more power over their lives?
"When you want less of something you tax it."
To complete the thought:
"When you tax something you get less of it, and when you reward something you get more of it." -- Jack Kemp
"If you want more of something, subsidize it; if you want less of something, tax it." -- Ronald Reagan
The feddle gubmint subidizes, rewards, and champions sloth, laziness, unemployment, and parasitism in general. It taxes work, investment, production, incentive, and efficiency.
"In the war on poverty, poverty won"
Of course it did, partly because the game is rigged by those who keep the score. As more and more people have a better and better standard of living, the gubmint simple raises the standard by which they declare them to be "living in poverty." As I showed (and documented) earlier today, the threshold of poverty has nothing to do with what anyone's standard of living is, instead it measures only their income. It is quite easy for the gubmint to juggle such a standard, thereby justifying a need for the income it provides those below the standard.
DJ: "What makes me really sad is that I agreed with you on a point ... Instead of acknowledging that, you went off, yet again, on a personal attack."
I know you and I have pointed this out to him before, but it's worth mentioning on this thread, which is a textbook case of Markadelphiaisms. (Dishonest claims, moving goalposts, ignored clarifications, invented definitions, running away from proof, argument from (alleged and disproven) authority... among those in a quick count.)
He's sad. Because he agreed (yeah, he didn't, but that's beside the point at describing his malfunction.) And you didn't give him credit/acknowledgement/reward him.
So if he doesn't lie this time, he deserves to be rewarded with respect. (And even if he did, actually.)
That is the perfect epitome of what we're facing with the Obama expectations. All of the reward, none of the risk, none of the discipline, none of the punishment. If it works, great, if not, then do-over, it doesn't count.
He's sad you didn't reward him for agreeing with you, without understanding that you didn't agree with him, at best, in anything more than a superficial manner.
... But he insists and admonishes us, that we are the "conservatives" who are (apparently without our knowledge) organized in lockstep in an emotional, logicless hegemony. Who dismiss him as a liar because he's breaking through our emotional facade with his truth. (Just never mind all those times he lied, that's unfair to mention!)
"State intervention in economic production arises only when private initiative is lacking or insufficient, or when the political interests of the State are involved. This intervention may take the form of control, assistance or direct management."
Ed, another thing to consider...The Fascist Manifesto did contain ideas of nationalization of several key private industries but those were moderated or removed in practice. Private competition for favor of the state was found to be of more pragmatic use than state controlled entities.
In addition, this approach was more in line ideologically with the core tenets of fascism...
Okay, all you folks (including you Mark) check me on this. The short version of what is being said above, in both cases, is that the private sector keeps the responsibility, but the State gets the authority, correct?
And that differs from partial nationalisation of the banks how, exactly? That differs from partial nationalisation of the healthcare industry how, exactly?
That differs from GM being controlled partially by their government creditors, and the rest by the UAW, how exactly?
Note that the divergence of authority and responsibility outlined above is precisely the same model already used by CPS and the Department of Education.
Addendum: It is also the standard that caused the "sub prime crisis", is it not? Chris Dodd, Barney Frank and others (including, if memory serves, Sen. Barack Obama) demanded that banks give racial and low income preferences in lending, regardless of whether or not they were good risks for loans. When that blew up in everyone's faces, it became the banks and/or the taxpayers who are held responsible, to the tune of billions of dollars, no?
Once again, the government takes the authority, but wants no part of the consequences. Frank, Dodd and Obama get to pass out pork to their friends just the same as they always have.
Yup, U-J, you're right again. It's really bizarre, isn't it? He wants credit for agreeing when what appears to be agreement is superficial at one end and complete disagreement at the other, yet he refuses to agree when what he disagrees with is proven to be correct.
"And that differs from partial nationalisation of the banks how, exactly? That differs from partial nationalisation of the healthcare industry how, exactly?"
It differs because there is competition for favor of the state by the various private entities which is what happened in the Germany in the 30s and 40s. There is no re-distribution of wealth to make everyone equal, as you would have in socialism or communism. There is no effort to make people equal because, in the eyes of a fascist, people aren't. Women, gays, and non whites are "less than." Now which party is more like that?
It is dog eat dog and those who don't make enough are SOL. And that's how it is similar to capitalism.
And just when you think he CAN'T get any zanier, any NUTTIER, any CRAAAZZEEEIER...
It differs because there is competition for favor of the state[for now] by the various private entities which is what happened in the Germany in the 30s and 40s.
Oh, but it's OK, we're not talking about the Government running everything! No, only those the Government favors shall be allowed to, and this is a totally different concept and NEIN COMMENT, SCHUT-OOP!
There is no re-distribution of wealth to make everyone equal, as you would have in socialism or communism.
No?
What?
What country and time are you saying that? The US? Now? No redistribution?
I... got nuthin. I mean, I can't even make fun of that. It's just too easy. It's like going to the elementary school and dunking on the 7' baskets against the 10 year olds. I just don't have the meanness in me to hold that up to more ridicule than it engenders by itself.
There is no effort to make people equal because, in the eyes of a fascist, people aren't. Women, gays, and non whites are "less than."
According to ... you? Verbatim, I'd suppose.
"People aren't." Thus fascists. So there are no women fascists? No gay fascists? (Ever, including in Germany in the mid-1930s?)
Now which party is more like that?
The Democrats. (Per their party belief.)
People aren't in their party. There are no individuals. There are just groups. Black. Gay. White. Overprivileged. Underprivileged. Those not "Doing their share".
You're either "lucky" or "unlucky". Your choices, your work or lack of it, irrelevant.
This has been explained to you time and time again, but that is not freedom, nor is it respecting people. Your main yardstick for someone is what group they belong to.
Those groups are "defined" (you have trouble defining things) by superficial characteristics. Skin color. Age. Gun ownership. What radio shows they "listen" to and repeat "verbatim".
People aren't groups. People, individuals, make up groups. And they come and leave them as they will.
OF course, we define people in groups, too. By their actions, by their choices, by their beliefs (as we can know them).
This is a pretty weird thread. So if I get this straight, Facism is more or less the same as free market capitialism, according to Markadelphia. Wow just wow.
It's not like there isn't plenty of original source material like a copy of Mein Kampf or Hitler's speeches that spell out exactly what facism is. (Hint, they had a great disdain for free market capitalism.)
But that would take effort instead of regurgitating memorized talking points.
"I can't even make fun of that" - BWAHAHAHAHAHAAAA, thanks Unix.
...and I suppose markadelphia will be the one who will define what "enough" is for each and every one of us.
I think the trickle down theory is correct, I just don’t think that it is practiced as much as it once was. Abstinence is also a theory that works 100% of the time but the reality is that people aren’t abstinent. Also Mark, stop talking about what Obama has said in the past. Try talking about what he is currently doing. He is governing now.
I am a proud capitalist; however, I now believe capitalism only really works where you have an enlightened society, and I’m wondering if we have that anymore. I know that capitalism will always have flaws due to the prejudices inherent in all people but these prejudices and attitudes change over time. Laws, on the other hand, are immovable. Small businesses are usually S-Corps or LLCs. One of the characteristics of LLC’s is that what they cannot deduct as business expenses is taxed as personal income. That puts most small business in a higher tax bracket than the one they would qualify for if only their real earnings were taxed. Small business owners who are part of an LLC are "wealthy" by FAFSA standards even though they live on a modest percentage of what appears "wealthy" to class-envy types.
Remember the window and door company, Republic, that closed down in Chicago and the workers refused to leave? Look no further than the local democratic politicians to see who caused Republic to go out of business when Cook County raised its sales tax to 10.25%. Many people wrote into local papers like the Daily Herald and said that they started doing their shopping outside of Cook County and saving thousands of dollars on large purchases and purchasing windows and doors is a large purchase. I believe Cook County already posted a 13% drop in monthly revenue since this all broke and they still don't get it. They actually "think" (that's using term loosely) that the primary responsibility of management was to run the company for the purposes of providing jobs. No company exists to provide jobs. A company exists to produce profit for the owners. The business owners didn't get together one day and say, "Let's create jobs for workers". They got together and said "Let's create a business to produce profit for ourselves. In the process, we'll need to hire some people".
I’m choosing not to get worked up over the happenings in DC these days. Reagan came to power at a time when America had been carrying out, for sixteen years, an experiment with liberalism that by 1980 had brought the country to the brink of catastrophe. Americans did not adopt conservative principles because they sounded good on first hearing. They adopted conservative principles because of bitter experience with the alternative. Today, the benefit of that experience has largely been lost. A generation of American voters has not experienced the failures of the Great Society, gas lines, double-digit inflation and unemployment, seventy percent tax brackets, and their only frame of reference as far as the economy goes is to compare Great with less Great. In the absence of historical memory, liberalism is once again emerging as the philosophy that sounds good to the American Idol generation who came out to vote. The fact that it doesn't work is a lesson that has to be learned the hard way.
All this talk of "build schools, not bombs" sure sounds good but one of the reasons we have the freedom to go to school is because of guns and bombs. Aushwitz wasn’t liberated by peace activists, it was liberated by men with guns. Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot and Mao Tse Tung were not motivated by profits either.
I think the trickle down theory is correct, I just don’t think that it is practiced as much as it once was.
You might want to consider the (negative) effect on "trickle down" of the loss of 30-50% of the result of your toil. (Taxes, you know.)
Money that used to be spent, or invested is now handed to the bureaucracy to distribute. And pay their overhead. And there's a lot of overhead. (There's so much overhead (for example) that the Federal Government can't run a whorehouse in Nevada profitably. (Sure, let's hand them total control, whatcouldgowrong? We'll do it RIGHT this time. HARDER!)
"That government overregulation caused the current economic crisis?"
Ed, this is sheer lunacy. It was a lack of oversight on the part of the government that caused this problem combined with the repeal of Glass Stegall. How else could these companies lie and hide as much as they did? Please cease and desist with the "Barney Frank and liberals are evil/Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac/CRA" meme that is just another example of right wing fervency and propaganda.
The vast majority of the sub prime loans in the last 8 years did not originate from banks or thrifts. Half of them came from places beyond the reach of CRA. Another quarter came from subsidiaries. The final quarter of sub prime loans came from CRA and that kind of debt is just not enough to drive our economy off the cliff.
And...
A substantial portion of Fannie's and Freddie's credit losses comes from $337 billion and $237 billion, respectively, of Alt-A mortgages that the agencies imprudently bought or guaranteed in recent years to boost their market share. These are mortgages for which little or no attempt was made to verify the borrowers' income or net worth. The principal balances were much higher than those of mortgages typically made to low-income borrowers. In short, Alt-A mortgages were a hallmark of real-estate speculation in the ex-urbs of Las Vegas or Los Angeles, not predatory lending to low-income folks in the inner cities.
To put it simply, the people that ran these companies were at best overzealous and at worst greedy. No one was watching them and with the barriers of Glass Stegall released with Graham-Leach-Bliley, the domino effect easily played out.
"Facism is more or less the same as free market capitialism"
No, it has more in common with it than socialism or communism obviously. Fascism espouses a survival of the fittest and the weak are dregs mentality. Not the case with socialism or communism (leftist views) in which everyone is equal. There is nothing collective about fascism.
See, one could make a case for liberals being socialists or communists obviously...maybe even totalitarian. To say that our government is going to be that way...well...that whole argument is shot to shit, though, when the fact that the top 5 percent of wealthy people in this country own over 80 percent of the wealth.
Under Obama's plan, this fact won't shift all that much. Democrats love their money and power too.
"Reagan came to power at a time when America had been carrying out, for sixteen years, an experiment with liberalism that by 1980 had brought the country to the brink of catastrophe."
Umm...what? Nixon and Ford were in there for 8 years, dude, and that's when HMOs were formed.
"Reagan came to power at a time when America had been carrying out, for sixteen years, an experiment with liberalism that by 1980 had brought the country to the brink of catastrophe. Americans did not adopt conservative principles because they sounded good on first hearing. They adopted conservative principles because of bitter experience with the alternative."
Ol' Doofus was, what, seven years old when Jimmy Carter took the oath as President? He was barely out of diapers when, under Ol' Jimmy, the inflation rate rose to more than 12% and the interest rate rose to 21%.
Did you ever try to buy a house with a mortgage at an APR of 21%?
Well, today the markets dropped another four percent. It appears that those who know something about making money, producing goods, providing services, and investing in business don't expect investing in business to be very profitable, on the whole, any time soon. Y'see, they remember what got us out of the last depression, but the Obamacrats don't like to mention it. It was a significant cut in tax rates that did it.
We're not gonna see that repeated any time soon, are we?
Damn, but it's gonna be a long four years.
Shall we start a betting pool for just how strongly Ol' Barry will be compared to Ol' Jimmy before it's over?
The only "lunacy" is that you still think you're competing with ideas here.
. It was a lack of oversight
Stop right there.
How much oversight would it have taken?
Not "more". I want a hard figure on how much more. (You'll be hampered here, since you don't actually know how much oversight there is currently.) But how much. And how would it be done? How much would it have cost to have enough oversight?
combined with the repeal of Glass Stegall.
Another of your discredited talking points. What was "traded" for GS? I've told you before. I think DJ has too. What was massively expanded in return?
How else could these companies lie and hide as much as they did?
Because they had very, very smart people running the show. Who thought they understood more than they did, who made really bad assumptions and were driven ideologically more than factually.
They're the same folks you just handed the keys and title of the country to.
Please cease and desist with the "Barney Frank and liberals are evil/Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac/CRA" meme that is just another example of right wing fervency and propaganda.
If you want him, or me, or DJ to stop, disprove it. At least give it a shot, rather than repeating the same thing over and over without understanding what you're saying.
Like Glass Stengall. It's so painfully obvious that you don't know what you're saying. You're repeating things verbatim that someone else said, without thought or analysis. As NinjaViking has said, you fail the Turing test.
Go re-read DJ's critique of you. Then just tell me where in this thread alone you've not proven beyond all reasonable doubt that he's correct with his assessment.
Would me like to recap your "points", such as they are?
Nixon may have been a republican but he wasn't that conservative and Ted Kennedy was an early champion for HMO's. I don't know if he formed them or not but you can read plenty by googling Ted Kennedy HMO.
I missed this post. Thanks, NinjaViking for pointing it out.
Holy Hopping Horsefeathers.
Mark, in order for you to say that seriously requires you to not understand the meanings of the following words:
* there
* is
* nothing
* collective
* about
* fascism
U-J, I spent a grand total of four mouse clicks to find this, where I found the following as the lead in:
"Fascism is a radical, authoritarian nationalist ideology focused on solving economic, political, and social problems that its supporters see as causing national decline. ... Fascists aim to create a single-party state in which the government is led by a dictator who seeks unity by requiring individuals to subordinate self-interest to the collective interest of the nation or a race."
I freely admit, it is Wikipedia, but, well, damn ...
Tell us, teacher boy, why any of us should believe you are able to think at all. Show us why anything you have written in this thread supports that notion. Go ahead. Try.
Does Kevin need that computer? Isn't he a member that's historically overrepresented in the high-tech field? Don't high-tech jobs pay more? Does that allow him more of an unfair advantage over someone forced to use an older computer?
Markadelphia:"There is nothing collective about fascism."
Wait just a friggin' minute! YOU were the one who quoted Gentile describing fascism.
Gentile:"If the 19th century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the "collective" century, and therefore the century of the State."
Are you saying that Adolph Hitler's coauthor in promoting fascism didn't know anything about fascism?
You know what I like about you Mark? You keep on proving that the book of Proverbs is true:
"A fool does not delight in understanding, But only in revealing his own mind."
(Proverbs 18:2 NAS95S)
Let's take yet another look at something I wrote about you last September (emphasis added):
"... He is a stereotype, a classical example of a person with a particular personality disorder. He wants desperately to be "one of the guys," to join in on intellectual discussions and be accepted as a deep thinker, a person who really has a handle on the truth.
"His problem is that he runs head first into two brick walls: 1) he is not an intellectual deep thinker, rather he is an intellectual cripple who not only does not understand logic and rational thought, he does not understand the need for or benefits of logic and rational thought; and, 2) his ego cannot withstand the trauma of admitting error. So, he commits error after error as he dances his way around admitting error. The cliche is that he digs the hole he is in ever deeper, piling the dirt back upon his own head, all the while never admitting that the hole exists. He is a caricature right out of Monty Python. The abyss that yawns before him, which he dare not look into, is that he cannot ever admit or correct any significant error or the whole edifice of his self-esteem will come crashing down upon him."
Yup, that's you.
You cannot hold an intellectual discussion on a level above sixth grade. Mostly, you simply slather on cliché after cliché, surround them with hyperbole, the result often being unintelligible gibberish.
You also commit plagiarism, which is an unpardonable offense for a teacher, considering that students risk expulsion for committing it. Here is it's definition:
v.tr.
1. To use and pass off (the ideas or writings of another) as one's own.
2. To appropriate for use as one's own passages or ideas from (another).
v.intr.
To put forth as original to oneself the ideas or words of another.
You did that here by copying (ahem) verbatim text from here and putting your own moniker below it, with no acknowledgment whatever that you did not write it.
And please, don't insult us further by claiming that you actually understand what you copied.
You're a phoney, teacher boy. You pose as being other than what you are. You fool no one.
Now, Ed has shown the Ouroboros factor. I'll explain.
With each comment in turn that you write, you concern yourself with the flames-of-the-minute, the ones that you feel lapping at your toes, and you endeavor to make something up or find someone else to copy and paste, the intent being to brush back those flames a mite. You either ignore or cannot see the wall of flames behind them, the towering mass of heat that bears down on you.
And so, you commit the error that dooms many a defendant. In the legal trade, it's known by a cliché: You Cannot Remember Your Lies. You write one thing to put out the flame at your right pinkie toe, then later you contradict yourself to put out the flame at your left pinkie toe. Thus, as I noted last September, you dig the hole you are in ever deeper, piling the dirt back upon your own head, all he whle never admitting that the hole exists.
And the only possible cause of this behavior is that you cannot admit error, so you commit error after error after error, compounding the behavior over and over and over.
Dude, it doesn't work. You fool no one. You gain the respect of no one. You insult everyone you deal with in this manner by treating them as if they don't notice. Be advised, THEY NOTICE.
You cannot fix this problem yourself. You do not have the will power. Get professional help, before you find yourself all alone amongst six billion people.
"It differs because there is competition for favor of the state by the various private entities which is what happened in the Germany in the 30s and 40s."
You mean like AIG, Citibank and GM?
"There is no re-distribution of wealth to make everyone equal, as you would have in socialism or communism."
You mean like when I personally was denied food stamps because I was a white male? And yes, I was told in so many words, and shown in the rules, where if I'd been black or female I would have qualified.
"There is no effort to make people equal because, in the eyes of a fascist, people aren't. Women, gays, and non whites are "less than." Now which party is more like that?"
Sounds to me like you have it precisely backwards. Big surprise.
Affirmative Action is inarguably predicated on the premise that non-whites and women are deserving of assistance, but white males are not. What were you saying about "less than"?
Find me the National Association for the Advancement of White People.
Find me the National Organization for Men.
Find me the Heterosexual Alliance Against Defamation.
Show me any tiniest chance that such groups would even be ALLOWED to exist, or whether they would be trashed in the media as "racist" and "sexist", while vandals destroyed their property and assaulted their members, much as the Prop. 8 protesters have done with everyone who has disagreed with them.
Show me the owner of a gay bar who has been sued for having "100% gay owned and operated" on his ads. Yes, I have seen that very ad, and I don't have any problem with it. But find me a bar owner who would NOT get sued (if not murdered and his bar torched) if he dared advertise "100% straight owned and operated".
Yeah, I understand it real well. Do you? Obviously not because it's belief first and facts second you, DJ. It has to be the liberals, Barney Frank, and the government...it just has to! It couldn't possibly be that people were greedy in the free market and left to their own devices.
And it couldn't be wealthy people...because they are all to be worshiped. It had to be poor people because they are weak and useful idiots, right? Sheesh...
"please explain to us how fascism is a celebration of individuality."
Because there is no redistribution of wealth as there is with socialism or communism. The wealthy, private industries in a fascist state have more favor than do the ones that fail. There was a hierarchy in Hitler's Germany...the stronger were rewarded and the weaker were not or punished.
Clearly, there is less individuality in a fascist state than our own, for example. But there is far more in a fascist state than in a socialist or communist one. Individual achievement was always encouraged in Germany and Italy. It helped to foster the goal of the Master Race.
And what better goal of individuality than to be the dictator of said state?
To put it simply, if you are the runt that can't keep up, you are shot. Weed out the undesirables and that is not what the Jacksons/Sharptons of the world are all about. They set up themselves as being champions of the weak. Now I have read things on here that fall all along the lines of "only the strong shall survive." So who is closer to fascism?
What confuses me is Mark's determination to return to these discussions time and again, subjecting himself to ever more humiliation. Your average person, realizing he's out-classed and out-gunned, would've hightailed it out of here long ago on some pretense of "boredom" or whatever. But Mark's stuck it out for, what? two years now? And he persists in heaping the abuse on himself. I don't believe this stems from any reasonable desire to be accepted/included. It seems pathological.
I'm hesitant to agree on this point -- there is a human tendency to diagnose anyone who disagrees as suffering from a form of political insanity -- but I think you're right that Mark would benefit from some help.
I'll let the others dismantle your fascism claim, Mark, but this deserves special comment...
They set up themselves as being champions of the weak.
Ostensibly. But it's not so noble as that: it's simply another means to power. Sharpton and Jackson are hustlers and exploiters. You should be leery of any self-appointed champions of the poor and weak, because they have a vested interest in keeping people that way.
If a student turns in a paper, an essay, or the like, wherein he has plagiarized someone else's work, but does not therein attribute the work to the auther, he is guilty of plagiarism. It does not mitigate that he notes the source on his a web page elsewhere.
It is indeed pathological, obviously so, i.e. "of, relating to, or manifesting behavior that is habitual, maladaptive, and compulsive", but that does not mean that it cannot be treated or cured.
Even a six-year-old child gets tired of suffering humiliation sooner or later. What is fascinating is that you'd think a teacher could learn.
Markadelphia:"Because there is no redistribution of wealth as there is with socialism or communism."
Markadelphia:"It differs because there is competition for favor of the state by the various private entities…"
Let me see if I've got this right. So the government taking money from everyone and giving it to their favorite cronies is not "redistribution of wealth"?
Oooooookay…
::: Holds hands up and starts backing away slowly :::
"Is the new all-powerful Statezilla vulnerable to anything? Unfortunately, yes. He loses all his superpowers when he comes into contact with something called Reality.
"But happily Reality is nowhere in sight. There are believed to be some small surviving shards somewhere on the planet - maybe on an uninhabited atoll somewhere in the Pacific - but that's just a rumor, and Barack Obama doesn't plan on running into Reality any time soon. "
"I don't think the term "lies" is appropriate because I think he actually believes this stuff to be true."
I think it is dead on.
His problem is ego. He grasps at straws regardless of their truth because he needs to avoid admission of error. What he believes about the straw is irrelevant; only its utility to him matters.
"It might be fun to send him this and watch his head explode as he tries to put it together."
What is fascinating is that you'd think a teacher could learn.
I've had a horrible track record teaching teachers. (Many of whom were in my own family. Including, I hate to admit it, my mother.)
My mother told me I needed to come help her, so I went home, she thrust a disk at me and said "This is supposed to be really good". So I installed this "grading" software. It was a colossal pile of shit. You had to set up grading, and once you did, you couldn't edit it without reentering all the grades. (This was DOS-based). Menus had different keys. M to go back in one menu, R to go back in another, and a period in another. I fooled with it for an hour and said "This is a pile of steaming shit, stop this." "BUT IT'S VERY EASY TO USE!" insisted my mother. I handed her her laptop and said "Fine, then, use it." "But I can't figure it out!"
"Look, use a bloody spreadsheet already." "That's too hard and takes too long!"
So I had her sit there, tell me her weighting, and read me grades as I punched them in for the students. As she read me their last grade, I read her back their final calculated grade.
By the 3rd class where we were done almost immediately, she was getting angry that I'd been right. (Why ask me if I'm supposedly the expert and then disregard my input?)
Then we got to a student who had transferred in. "Oh, I'll have to do this by hand" "Why? Tell me what you're changing, instead." So she told me, 5 seconds later I had the cells re-set up, and grade finalized.
Afterward, I asked her if she believed me NOW about the relative ease of the two solutions.
"Well, this program is supposed to be very easy, I don't know why you'd say it's hard."
They've been trained by the system to take an outline of something, and repeat it verbatim. If anybody they decide is authoritative makes a comment, it's believed. Anything contrary is not only wrong, but attempting to judge anyone who says otherwise harshly.
Disagreement is personal, not only do you say "you're wrong", the unsaid and implied insult is "And you're an idiot, you stink, and your momma dresses you funny".
And we can see that with Mark here. Not only does he not admit he was wrong initially, he doubles down and makes an absurd declaration supposedly in support, which is also laughable. Rather than stay on any sort of a track of thought, he wanders all over, insulting, insulting our thought process, while never proving anything, or admitting his initial, or followup error. (Or any of the errors that perpetuate this conversation.)
To do so would prove us right, after all, and he'd be forced to confront the possibility that not only were we right this time, we were right all the others, too.
Which would leave him with how much authority? How much of an analysis? No, far better to keep doubling the bet, so to speak.
"Double or nothing" with no downside. If he ever does manage to be right (and for a logical reason), he gets to declare victory and the game over. He's never going to have to pay up, or even admit how much he's in the hole.
He has no reason to admit defeat, or learn from his mistakes and errors. He doesn't need to apologize to us for lying to us deliberately and baldly, we should apologize to HIM for not allowing him to "respectfully" present his opinions and conclusions, reward him for his effort, and consider him intelligent and one of the gang.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pe9PVaFGl3o
If he wanted to understand us, he could watch that. But he won't understand why the Boeing engineers are ecstatic.
I'll spell it out for him: They didn't "guess" at their math. They had a stated load requirement. They decided to be able to exceed it 30%. Specifically, they built it to handle a load to 54% above.
Both wings broke within milliseconds. 154%. Both of them. +- .001%.
They don't get to talk about how strong they made the landing gear, or how pretty the paint is. None of those things matter. There's one issue at stake. Pass/Fail test. They passed.
Mark: Do you think your ideas can manage a pass/fail test?
"No, far better to keep doubling the bet, so to speak."
You said it, U-J; he does that because he never has to pay the bet, and he knows it.
Now watch that video, teacher boy. It illustrates the difference between you and us.Our bets get called. We don't get to keep on betting forever. If we lose, we pay.
When designing an airplane wing, bluffing doesn't work. When designing a bridge, quoting something irrelevant doesn't work. When asked to prove a design is safe, changing the subject doesn't work. When asked, "How do you know this is right", answering, "Well, someone else agrees with me" means nothing.
We deal with reality, and reality is a cast iron bitch.
We keep on telling you that you don't fool anyone. This video shows why.
So, why do we keep on hammering you? Because we know that if your bet was called, your pockets ran dry, and you couldn't raise, you'd lose.
". . . we should apologize to HIM for not allowing him to 'respectfully' present his opinions and conclusions, reward him for his effort, and consider him intelligent and one of the gang."
This is known in in Democrat politics as "bipartisanship." When Republicans do the apologizing, allowing, rewarding, and considering.
Humiliation is in the eye of the beholder. I don't feel humiliated at all. Sorry if that disappoints you.
"realizing he's out-classed and out-gunned"
OK...that's just plain funny. DJ and Unix have outgunned me? Yeah, not so much.
"It seems pathological."
To me it seems determined. I view myself as Hank Fonda in 12 Angry Men if you need a visual. Any of you post on liberal blogs at all like I do here? Oh, that's right...they're all morons and useful idiots. I'd like to see how well you would do in a situation like that. Might I suggest that Unix and DJ, for example, post on Paul Kruggman's blog for the next six months. What do you say guys?
"but I think you're right that Mark would benefit from some help."
...said the person sorely needs it more than I do.
"Sharpton and Jackson are hustlers and exploiters."
Agreed. Sad that they let Dr. King's dream turn into their own maniacal sense of hubris.
"I don't think the term "lies" is appropriate because I think he actually believes this stuff to be true."
Well, at least someone says that I am not a "liar." And it's not a matter of belief, Ed. I'm not the one who has been brainwashed by propaganda.
"I've had a horrible track record teaching teachers."
Well, it's hard to teach when you have the attitude that you do Unix. You start with "I'm right and my belief system and ideology are based on facts. You are an idiot and a liar." Hmm...I wonder why a person wouldn't respond well to that.
Also, you're view of how teachers are trained is bizarre and, quite frankly, flat out wrong. To begin with, every teacher is different. And different subjects demand different personalities. To homogenize as you have done here is..well...quite typical of the right.
Unix-Jedi: "If he wanted to understand us, he could watch that. But he won't understand why the Boeing engineers are ecstatic."
DJ: "Now watch that video, teacher boy. It illustrates the difference between you and us"
Markadelphia: Wait a minute. I want to be clear about something.
As I was saying, you wouldn't understand. (Then I explained it, since you wouldn't.)
And you still don't get it.
I'm absolutely boggled by what it would actually apparently take to get a concept across to you.
"Are you equating this video with your political views--saying that they are both factually based?"
My political views are fact-based, demonstrably so. I, and others, have so demonstrated this to you for damned nearly two years.
This video demonstrates the kind of world that we live in, we who cannot ignore demonstrable reality. When the wing breaks, we don't get to yell "Nuh-uh!", as if that made it un-break.
I have stated before, several times, that you are still, mentally, a little boy who hasn't yet learned that "Nuh-uh!" is not an affirmative defense against accusations of denying demonstrable reality.
I don't feel humiliated at all. Sorry if that disappoints you.
No, nor does it surprise me.
It's again, reflective of you. You started off the thread making a statement disproven by facts, moving the goalposts and making a ludicrous argument displaying no understanding of the subject or context, and continuing down to declare even that "fascism has nothing to do with collectivism".
And you're not humiliated.
You've been wrong, demonstrated you were wrong, lied about being wrong, lied about lying about being wrong, ... And you're not humiliated. Anybody reasonable would be by now.
Not that it surprises me. But it should demonstrate even to you how ludicrously wrong, dishonest and idiotic your stances and policy descriptions are.
DJ and Unix have outgunned me? Yeah, not so much.
You know that scene in 7 Samurai when Kyuzo is dueling? (Or the same scene in Magnificent Seven, when Britt is called out?)
For some reason, I'm reminded of that right now.
I view myself as
But does anyone else? Can you explain why with facts? Can you point to factual reasons why that would be a correct description? You've failed to correctly describe anything else. Why should how you think you look matter? How do you actually look? That's the question. That's what you can't understand. It doesn't matter what you think you want to look like or what you'd like to, what do you look like in actuality.
Any of you post on liberal blogs at all
I post all over. I don't pick the blogs based on their politics. But the self-described "liberal" ones have a habit of being dishonest, calling people out, and editing/twisting posts or deleting them. Ask Kevin about what happened when he tried to post to Democratic Underground. I'm not going to waste my time to get it mangled/edited and lied to or my posts be modified.
I'd like to see how well you would do in a situation like that.
I'd do just as well there as here. That's the point. I'm arguing facts.
As a result, how well do depends only on my facts and my analysis. You still think that "voting" matters and emotion is important. (But we're brainwashed and following a herd mindlessly)
Might I suggest that Unix and DJ, for example, post on Paul Kruggman's
That's Krugman. The columnist who raised holy hell about Cheney being a paid tool of Enron, and deleted any mention on his blog that prior to the collapse, he'd been a highly-paid consultant to Enron, and been quite proud to tout that? That Krugman? The one who refuse to give the money back after demanding that the Enron execs should?
A banner that used to be around, now almost 4 years old (and still unanswered):
http://members.cox.net/~hoystory/krugmanwide.gif
I post all over, Mark. If you ever learn to use Google, you'd notice that.
"I don't think the term "lies" is appropriate because ...
Well, at least someone says that I am not a "liar."
You really don't understand words, do you? You're happy that he said you're not dishonest, you're mentally deranged?
And it's not a matter of belief, Ed. I'm not the one who has been brainwashed by propaganda.
Unfiskable in it's audacity and (as easily seen above) falsity.
Me: "I've had a horrible track record teaching teachers." Well, it's hard to teach when you have the attitude that you do Unix. You start with "I'm right and my belief system and ideology are based on facts. You are an idiot and a liar." Hmm...I wonder why a person wouldn't respond well to that.
Nothing to do with installing software or training teachers in technology, Mark. My politics are irrelevant. Now I *am* the one being *asked* for information and to *instruct* so yes, I believe that I do have some reasonable ability to presume that I'm right.
I also trained thousands of people in myriads of job functions. Only 3 (to my current recollection) have very distinct "fingerprints" where I can tell what their background is just by how they respond. I don't assume people are liars and idiots. Until they lie to me and behave idiotically. Then I expect going forward they'll be dishonest and stupid. Works well, don't you think?
Also, you're view of how teachers are trained is bizarre and, quite frankly, flat out wrong. To begin with, every teacher is different.
Which means my description of the system is wrong how?
And different subjects demand different personalities. To homogenize as you have done here is..well...quite typical of the right.
Your lack of factual rebuttal, having only insult and "NUH-HUH!" is, well, exactly what we're talking about here.
Long time reader, first time commentator. Wow, I feel like I'm on talk radio...but I digress.
Greatly appreciate the work you do here...your blog is a daily read.
DJ-Unix-Ed,
It's almost painful to watch the beat-down....similar to a bad accident you can't help but watch.
Mark,
I have been on the fence about homeschooling for some time now, but if my boys will taught to think critically in the same fashion as your posts here....I'll think we'll pass on the compulsory education offer.
If you really think so highly about the "Nobel Prize winning" Paul Krugman, check out this simple critique of a recent article of his:
"My political views are fact-based, demonstrably so. I, and others, have so demonstrated this to you for damned nearly two years."
No, DJ, sadly they are not. The fact that your own vanity allows you to believe that your political views are rooted in science and fact is absolutely tragic. But it does help me to understand why you think they way you do...and the way others here do...
Or, to quote Ed...
"Quick! Someone call 911. I think this laugh attack just might kill me!"
"That Krugman?"
Once again, my point proven about Nixonian politics.
sadly they are not. The fact that your own vanity allows you to believe that your political views are rooted in science and fact is absolutely tragic.
They're not? Then why do you never manage to prove us wrong. If we're not based in science and fact, it should be easy.
But it does help me to understand
Mark, in this thread alone, you've proven beyond all doubt that you do not understand prediction, honesty, humility, mental illness, fascism, communism, science, logic, debating, critical thinking...
Understanding.
You keep using that word. IT DOES NOT MEAN WHAT YOU THINK IT MEANS.
Once again, my point proven about Nixonian politics.
You named an example. I pointed out why I consider him not an honest person, and cited examples of why he is a hypocrite, liar, and has edited/deleted comments to hide his duplicity and hypocrisy.
In other words, I "proved your point" (Which doesn't mean what you think it means, again) by citing why I call him dishonest.
You've yet to deal with your prior dishonesty, or the fact that of the people here, you're the one most resembling Nixon.
You asked "How about Krugman". I said "he's dishonest and this is why." Did you manage to demonstrate why he'd be a good choice? Offer a better one?
Or just reject it out of hand without any facts? What facts that I said do you argue with?
And are you going to back up your slander of DJ and myself? Ever? Or just pretend that you did?
"It has to be the liberals, Barney Frank, and the government...it just has to! It couldn't possibly be that people were greedy in the free market and left to their own devices."
I keep seeing you say variations on that same theme. You've said it at least twice just in this comment thread, and I think 3 or 4 times (I'm not gonna go back and wade through 131 comments to count them).
What's more, every time you've said it you've used it as the supportive centerpiece for your argument that you are the only one here who can deal with the truth, that everyone else repeats that same mantra because they can't face the possibility of it being untrue, but that it isn't supported by facts.
So okay, let's see what a mere 5 minutes with Google turns up...
Now I'll grant you, the Wall Street Journal tends to be rather harsh on liberal Democrats, so I suppose you could claim they are biased, although I suspect you'd have trouble proving it. OpenSecrets.org, to be honest I have no foggiest idea one way or the other, nor do I know about US News & World Report. But you must at least concede that WSJ and USNWR are run by responsible journalists who tend to be scrupulous about their fact checking. You really don't have any choice but to concede that, since they provide links and direct quotes of the parties involved.
And even if you don't like them.... CNN? The Washington Post? Will you really try to convince me that CNN and the Washington Post are twisting the facts because they are biased against liberals?
It occurs to me that I should save a way to get back to that last comment, since I know that sometime later in another comment thread Mark is going to make the same claim, and act like I never posted the links above. It's not as if he hasn't done it before.
Note the permalink next to the time, the "#" link?
That's what you'll want to save.
It won't do a lot of good mind you, since Mark will filter it out of existance and ignore any questions based on it, but that's how you'd save/bookmark that post. Like this:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/khbaker/210815039759079353/#602653
"The fact that your own vanity allows you to believe that your political views are rooted in science and fact is absolutely tragic. But it does help me to understand why you think they way you do...and the way others here do..."
You're right in part, my statements should help you to understand why I think the way I do, and I've spent nearly two years trying to help you understand just that. But you exhibit scant evidence whatever that you have actually achieved that understanding, and you exhibit no evidence that it's affected yours.
Almost two years we've been at it, little boy, almost two years. You just keep upping the bet.
There is a fascinating dynamic at work here. So you'll at least have some probability of understanding why it's fascinating, I'll provide you the appropriate definition of "dynamic", thereby saving you the effort you wouldn't go to anyway:
dynamnic: n.
An interactive system or process, especially one involving competing or conflicting forces
You have shown for many long, dreary months that you place great store in showing that other people share your opinions. You point out that they share the result, but you avoid showing how, by reasoning from facts to conclusions, they arrive at the result. To summarize, if other people's opinions match yours, then, by golly, you must be right, and so you show their opinions as validation of yours.
We are interested in the process by which they reason to arrive at their opinion, while you simply show the opinion itself as if the fact that they have the opinion validates yours. U-J has pointed this out with the regularity of a metronome and the soundness of an anvil.
Now, contrast that with what you find in this thread. After nearly two years of what amounts to a texbook case, I've presented an analysis of what gives rise to your behavior. Those here who have expressed an opinion are in complete agreement with it. No one except you has dissented.
I find it fascinating that, to you, their opinions matching mine don't validate mine, but other people's opinions matching yours validates yours. Why the double standard, teacher boy?
their opinions matching mine don't validate mine, but other people's opinions matching yours validates yours.
And this is why your "thought process" breaks down so horribly, Mark.
I've pointed out to you repeatedly your double-standards, your illogic, and your rampant problems, be they rooted in dishonesty or derangement.
But eventually you always end up in a double standard situation, and try and run away. This is why our analysis comes in handy. It's not just that we think something, it's that we think so and here is why. We can use it to look at your thought process as well. And almost every person here has come to the same conclusion via different means.
You do the same in reverse, to be certain.
And you end up with ironclad projections that turn out to be laughable. Rush, Verbatim, etc. You can't explain why we thought Bush not a good President, and yet would and could defend him. But the simple fact that your method results in incorrect conclusions doesn't break through your conscious mind. But it does appear to bother your unconscious mind.
You say Krugman, I said bad choice and this is why, with demonstrable bad faith and dishonesty on the record, and you say "NIXON! NIXON! NIXON".
I've called you Vizzini many times, because it's very fitting. Vizzini thought he was smarter than everybody else. He thought he was thinking rings around everybody else, built hugely complex plans.
But he was all bluff and bluster. He never considered that there were people as smart, or smarter than he, that they could and would be far more devious. He failed to understand why they acted, and as a result, he was doomed to failure.
Remember, in the story, he was a failure. He recruited Inego and Fezzik because they were all he could afford, and they were cheap.
(And had his plot succeeded, without the intervention of Westley - the Prince would have killed him. I'm sure, in the story universe, he had some plot, some plan to prevent that, but in the "real world" of the fantasy universe? The prince would have killed him, trusting his ruthlessness would keep the plan at bay.)
Go back and read this thread from the beginning. Take notes on every question asked of you that you've ignored.
Then answer me this: Did you ignore them because you couldn't answer them without forcing yourself to confront your double standard, your hypocrisy?
Please note how many times I've pointed out that you started off denying you were wrong, and trying to change the subject to another matter where you were wrong, laughably. You've ignored these utterly, neither refuting them or denying them.
Either you are, as DJ postulates, unable to admit error, and are willing to utterly destroy your own logic and self-esteem to do so, or you simply cannot understand how changing the subject (to something else wrong, even) means you weren't wrong.
I just found an excellent video contrasting Nancy Pelosi's "unregulated" claims (which Markadelphia has bought hook, line and sinker) to actual statements made in 2004 by both Republicans and Democrats when Republicans saw the crisis coming and were attempting to bring Fannie Mae and Fannie Mac back under control by regulating them.
"He never considered that there were people as smart, or smarter than he, that they could and would be far more devious. He failed to understand why they acted, and as a result, he was doomed to failure."
I've made the same comparison in my mind. It's especially fitting that Vizzini was laughing at Wesley's "stupidity" right up to the moment he died.
You've finally gotten your wish, Mark. You're relevant. Because we can add "Markadelphia's hyperinflated ego" to the list, along with abortion, evolution, and religion, as topics that are guaranteed to inspire 100+ comments.
OK...that's just plain funny. DJ and Unix have outgunned me? Yeah, not so much.
Yes, Mark. You are massively out-gunned. The fact that you don't realize it is the worst part.
To me it seems determined.
So is the guy who keeps banging his head against the wall. But there you have it. In the Age of Obama, pathological is the new determined.
You know, it would be determined (in the now-classical sense of the word) if you showed any evolution in your thinking whatsoever, any capacity for self-reflection, any demonstration that you've actually considered the argumentation of DJ and Unix, any learning, any adaptation, any change in your strategy at all.
...said the person sorely needs it more than I do.
Who, me? What sort of behavior have I exhibited here that makes you think I'm in need of any kind of help?
What sort of behavior have I exhibited here that makes you think I'm in need of any kind of help?
Well, I would say that it's because you're a Born-Again Lutheran, but Mark professes to be some kind of Christian himself, so that can't be it . . . ;)
Consider who we're talking about. What you're implying, Kevin, is that there's some level of consistency in his rationale along with the application of a single standard. So that most definitely could be it. On the other hand, he's from Minnesota, so the probability that he's Lutheran is significantly non-zero...
"Being the reflective person I am (to a fault most of the time), I think (and still do) that you learn a lot about yourself when you debate people who have different views than you do. I also found this blog because Kevin posted on mine first." - Markadelphia
Having perused your site I can see that we're not at all on the same plane philosophically or politically, so I'm going to disagree with you on a lot of things. This is good, because you learn much more arguing your case with someone who disagrees with you than you do preaching to the choir. Just bear in mind one thing: I've been studying this one topic for about the last twelve years. What I've learned during that study colors my political and philosophical worldview.
If you want a discussion, I'll be more than happy to provide it. I don't throw ad hominems, and I provide research and citations to support my positions. It's a lot of work. I expect the same in return. "I feel" or "I believe" isn't enough. "This is what I believe, and here is why I believe it" constitutes a valid argument.
So far what I've learned is that the stereotype of the "Typical Leftist" is indeed built on a very real foundation.
I've also learned that a lot of the other people who comment here are scary smart!
Like Markadelphia's other claims, I have a hard time accepting his claim that he's a christian when he clearly doesn't believe the Bible to be true.
What was the story where people had to wear various handicapping devices so that everyone would be equal? That must be the kind of "help" Marky is thinking of.
How can I when anything or anyone that I bring up is rooted in bias, lies, and treason, Mr. Nixon? Truly, an impossible task.
"You asked "How about Krugman". I said "he's dishonest and this is why.""
Point proven.
Just out of curiosity, Unix, is there anyone on the left that is NOT a liar?
And you'll have to excuse me if I take the word of him, an actual economist, over the word of you-an engineer. Now if Krugman came to me and started to discuss airplane design than I would have to say that he was completely full of shit.
"The ball is in your court, Mark."
No, Grumpy. The ball is in yours. I have no problem admitting that House Democrats, including Barney Frank, share in the responsibility of our economic issues. I actually think that Frank is a buffoon and dislike him personally. I am, however, not foolish enough to blame everything on him.Where we begin to have problems is when any part of Friedman is criticized. As with anything else in the "belief system" to question is to admit weakness.
"What sort of behavior have I exhibited here that makes you think I'm in need of any kind of help?"
Because you actually believe the stuff that is being peddled right now by your side of the aisle, included stuff here by the "non-feeling and logical" ones. There is no information allowed that does not fit the paradigm and any information that does not fit is labeled as lies, idiocy, beliefs, or treason which is pretty much what Goebbels used to do:)
What's interesting to me is how much trouble President Obama goes to..saying he is not perfect, saying the stimulus is not perfect, saying that he makes mistakes, saying that if someone has a better idea-he wants to hear it. Guess what?
We tried your ideas and look at the result. They failed. Be a fucking man about it and admit it. Show the country that you actually ARE about taking individual responsibility as opposed to blaming others (liberals). But sadly no...look at your reaction. It's still the fault of liberals and government. How does that make any sense when taxes have been cut for the last eight years? When there has been virtually no oversight in the same time frame?
"I have a hard time accepting his claim that he's a christian when he clearly doesn't believe the Bible to be true."
Well, of course you do, Ed, because as with many right wing Christians, they think they actually know what God thinks. And how can it possibly be that someone else interprets the Bible differently than I do? There is only one way...my way...which, funnily enough, is God's way! How convenient...
How can I when anything or anyone that I bring up is rooted in bias, lies, and treason, Mr. Nixon? Truly, an impossible task.
And yet you fail to see the problem here.
You're the one being dishonest here. You've moved every goalpost, every discussion you didn't outright ignore.
"You asked "How about Krugman". I said "he's dishonest and this is why."" Point proven.
But not the one you're trying to make.
I demonstrated, factually, why I said he was dishonest. You are unable to distinguish that from your preferred "NUH-HUH". More specifically, you suggested posting in his forum, which has a track record of being edited or deleted.
You refuse to discuss these facts.
And you'll have to excuse me if I take the word of him,an actual economist, over the word of you-an engineer.
So his training and his diploma outweigh his actions?
I never said he was a bad economist. I said he was a dishonest debater.
Notice you can't separate the two? (I don't think he's a good economist, but that's a wholly different story.)
Your example was someone I can point to that, like you, is dishonest and uses that to try and win debates and insult others. It's fully on point for me to say "that's a waste of my time and this is why." I didn't use his lies to debunk his economics reputation, just his rhetorical history - or what would be important if I was going to comment there.
The point you just "proved" wasn't detrimental to me, my reputation, or my worldview. In fact, it wasn't about me at all.
We tried your ideas and look at the result. They failed. Be a fucking man about it and admit it.
No, we didn't.
So no, they didn't.
Your governmental intrusions failed - and you're not fucking man enough to admit it. "No regulation in the mortgage market."
"No oversight" "No government involvement" "That law surely couldn't have had THAT much of an effect!"
... You've never tried my ideas, Mark. Don't you dare even try and tell me you have. You've never advocated personal responsibility - unless you can try and embarrass someone you dislike.
Oh, and I did forget to mention something in my above comment.
And you'll have to excuse me if I take the word of him,an actual economist, over the word of you-an engineer.
You won't take my word on FEMA or Hurricane assistance, despite the fact I've been on 3 Hurricane Disaster Teams.
You won't take my word on the regulation in the Mortgage Market despite the fact I was a senior engineer for the fastest growing mortgage company.
You won't take my word for being honest, yet you can't demonstrate anywhere where I've told you a deliberate lie, or even a careless one due to lack of research.
In short: You only listen to people who say what you'd like to hear in the first place, regardless of their qualifications, vocations, and experience.
As someone once said: Be a fucking man and admit it.
Because you actually believe the stuff that is being peddled right now by your side of the aisle, included stuff here by the "non-feeling and logical" ones.
You completely missed the point, Mark. I don't think you need help because you're liberal. Almost all of my friends are liberal, and I respect them. I don't respect you, because, as you have demonstrated over and over for the last two years, you are everything Unix and DJ have described. You have a pathological need to be right no matter what the reality is. The rest of us come across as devoid of feelings (which we are not), because we accept reality and conform our beliefs to it. You do it the other way around.
My side of the aisle consists of people like Kevin, Unix, DJ, and Ed -- not the GOP. The fact is, I am extremely disappointed with the GOP right now, because, like Isildur and the Ring, it has been seduced by the idea of big government, which is a power that no one on Earth is capable of wielding without corruption. But it's ironic that you loathe the GOP so much -- as it stands right now, the GOP is a reasonable facsimile of the Democratic Party about 50 years ago.
"I demonstrated, factually, why I said he was dishonest."
C'mon Unix, really? Maybe what you say about him is true so that makes his economic theories all lies too? I don't think you separate the two. Please...
"Your governmental intrusions failed"
But that's only a part of the story. I have no problem laying some of the blame at them. Now, can the same be said of yourself when it is so bloody obvious how much Wall Street was ignored. And that started with Greenspan and Clinton btw. I've proven that the CRA thing is hogwash and Fannie/Freddy had issues with high income borrowers as well. Throw in GLB and you have fault on the right as well.
"You have a pathological need to be right no matter what the reality is."
Really not true. One of the things I have learned (sadly) when debating someone on the right in the last eight years is when they make a statement like this, oddly, they are describing themselves.
And your beliefs create your reality, not the other way around. You choose to look at only the mistakes that were made by the Democrats and the ones made by Republicans? Well, they acted like Democrats so that was there mistake.
And I don't mind being wrong at all. A while back I asked everyone here to critique their ideology...seriously look at its flaws...and I got one response (Kevin). So, I guess I will try again. What are the inherent flaws in a truly conservative ideology?
"I demonstrated, factually, why I said he was dishonest."
C'mon Unix, really?
Yes.
Maybe what you say about him is true so that makes his economic theories all lies too? I don't think you separate the two. Please...
I. Didn't. Address. His. Economic. Theories. You've claimed I did something I never did. The subject was fora for posting.
You suggested his forum as a place to post. I rejected it because of dishonesty. You've (tried to) change the subject twice now, and move the goalposts.
This is your failure, not mine. This has proven you cannot analyze information without conflating.
"Your governmental intrusions failed"
But that's only a part of the story.
No. You're changing the subject again. You refuse to admit that there was ANY governmental intrusion. You've been disabused of that notion three times here. You've lied about that in the past. But you've not delt with your lies in this thread, but if you insist, I'll link to those, again.
I have no problem laying some of the blame at them. Now, can the same be said of yourself when it is so bloody obvious how much Wall Street was ignored.
Nothing you say is obvious. Nothing you say is even trustworthy, liar who calls other people Nixonian. You don't understand the system. Your attempts to AGAIN, change the subject, move the goalposts, without dealing with ANY of the prior errors and lies of yours do not entitle you to a place at a discussion on such. The failures were directly and indirectly a result of government meddling and intervention. Without which, there would have been other issues.
But those are of no import, since that wasn't the case in any. way. shape. or. form. Guess who were the most instrumental in intruding and meddling in the market? Wait, no, don't guess. Forget I asked.
I've proven that the CRA thing is hogwash
A lie. You have claimed this without proof. You have repeated what other people said.
The expansion of CRA was the price for repealing Glass-Stegall (Which allowed the banks to get into a market that other people were in - it wasn't that nobody was doing it before that.) You've never dealt with ANY second-level argument after your initial CLAIM.
and Fannie/Freddy had issues with high income borrowers
I quote this merely to make a point: This statement of yours totally refutes your CRA claim. I won't explain why, and you won't be able to figure it out.
(Sarah, I think): "You have a pathological need to be right no matter what the reality is."
Really not true. One of the things I have learned (sadly) when debating someone on the right in the last eight years is when they make a statement like this, oddly, they are describing themselves.
Which is why it's pathological. Again, you're proving Sarah right. Not disproving her. Look in this thread alone for how many obviously dishonest and untrue statements you've made. How many time you've moved the goalposts rather than admit error. How many unanswered questions that you refuse to touch, because they point out errors in your argument and worldview.
You choose to look at only the mistakes that were made by the Democrats and the ones made by Republicans? Well, they acted like Democrats so that was there mistake.
Self-refutation. Either we don't look at Republican mistakes or we do. You can't say we don't consider anything the Republicans do a mistake and then immediately explain that we consider a lot that they do mistaken. I need do nothing more than quote you to refute you!
So, I guess I will try again. What are the inherent flaws in a truly conservative ideology?
No.
There are more than 20 questions left unanswered by you in this thread. You do not demand a single thing from anybody here.
And you wouldn't understand my answer anyway.
You've lost any and all authority to DEMAND that we answer you anything, especially something as stupidly thought out as that.
When are you going to man up already and admit your errors?
Their just ain't nothin' sadder than watchin' someone double-down on a bankrupt hand.
Markadelphia:"Well, of course you do, Ed, because as with many right wing Christians, they think they actually know what God thinks."
For some things it's downright easy! It's called putting it into writing.
We've already had this argument. You claimed that the Bible does not condemn premarital sex, when it does condemn it in. crystal. clear. language. And even then, I had to rub your nose in it so forcefully to get to you accept it, that if I did that to my dogs when they did the dirty on the floor, they would never be able to smell anything but their own crap for the rest of their lives. That's not the sign of someone trying to accurately understand what the Bible says. That's someone deciding what they want to believe, then twisting the Bible to try to justify that belief.
"Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth." 2 Timothy 2:15
That's exactly what Jeremiah Wright does. That's what Fred Phelps does. That's what Jim Jones did. That's what the KKK does. Are you sure you want to be lumped into that crowd?
Heck, even the hard core atheists here understood that it is unequivocal on that point. At least they're honest about why they don't think it applies.
"And your beliefs create your reality, not the other way around."
No, doofus, that's you, not us.
THAT is the gulf that separates you from us, and you cannot see it for what it is. We have tried and tried and tried to show you, but there is none so blind as he who will not see.
Jeez, but this is beyond imagining. You can't make this stuff up.
I just re-read most of the thread. Look here, teacher boy, where I wrote:
"When designing an airplane wing, bluffing doesn't work. When designing a bridge, quoting something irrelevant doesn't work. When asked to prove a design is safe, changing the subject doesn't work. When asked, "How do you know this is right", answering, "Well, someone else agrees with me" means nothing."
"We deal with reality, and reality is a cast iron bitch."
Now look here, which I posted last October. I've pointed you to it many times before, even in this thread. I quoted part of a comment by Kevin and then commented on his comment, to wit:
Kevin: "It seems to me that the objective criteria is: is your version of "truth" consistent with observable reality? If not, it doesn't matter if you're Liberal or Conservative, you're wrong."
Me: "How many times have I stated this, in my own words, in your parlor? Reality is what it is regardless of what you think about it, and regardless of whether or not you like it. Understanding that, and admitting its truth, is the beginning of rational thought."
You wrote "And your beliefs create your reality, not the other way around."about engineers and scientists?
DJ, Vince McMahon is the owner of the WWE, the wrestling promotion. He had a habit of grabbing himself and referring to his balls as The Grapefruits. All this talk of "man up" made me think of that.
The really scary thing is that the hard left looks more and more like that whole movie every year.
Some of the things they said about the Terry Schiavo case in Florida seemed almost like a direct rip off of the "Bring out yer dead" sketch. When outrageous satire becomes reality it is truly a terrifying sight to behold.
"I have no problem admitting that House Democrats, including Barney Frank, share in the responsibility of our economic issues.
Wasn't it you who said the economic issues were a direct result of a lack of regulation and oversight? Wasn't it you who laid that at the feet of the Republican Party?
Did you even glance at the links I posted? If you had, you would have noticed that the Bush Administration was asking for tighter regulation in 2002, and again in 2003, and again in 2004, and yet again in 2005. And why did it not happen? Because EVERY Democrat on the House and Senate banking Committees blocked it, and went on the news saying "Fannie and Freddie are financially sound", "There is no crisis", etc.
Let me quote one of our favorite commentors here, a guy who calls himself Markadelphia:
"up until the last election when this country saw what happens with zero oversight and welfare for the rich."
So, let's see.... zero oversight... according to those links I gave you, which you evidently did not read, Chris Dodd and Barney Frank did not "share in the responsibility of our economic issues", they were at the core of it. "Zero oversight" was a direct result of their efforts, in the face of opposition from the Bush Administration (sheesh, I can't believe I'm defending Chimpy. *shudder*)
"Welfare for the rich"... you mean like Jamie Gorelick, who got paid $26 million to commit a $10 million accounting fraud? Or Frank Raines, who got paid $90 million to cook Fannie Mae's books? Or Timothy Geithner, multimillionaire tax cheat? Or Tom Daschle, multimillionaire tax cheat? Or Dale Rathke, who embezzled over a million bucks and is not being held accountable at all?
Right, Mark. You "have no problem admitting" that those at the very heart of the problem may have had some tiny bit to do with it... but only after being repeatedly bludgeoned with documentable facts that say they were in the driver's seat. It took over a hundred and fifty comments for you to "have no problem" with it. Go look at the beginning of this thread, and read your own words. And still somehow, in your mind, it's somehow more the fault of the eeevil rich Republicans, even thought they tried to put a stop to it for five solid years and were slapped down and demonized in the media for it. And by who? Dodd, Frank, Obama, Maxine Waters.
Oh, waitaminit, my bad. It was the fault of "greedy people in the private sector". Almost a direct quote from Barney Frank, I notice. The only problem with it is, Raines and Gorelick weren't in the private sector, nor were the people who demanded that banks loan to higher risk clients without getting any higher security to offset that rick.
You wrote "And your beliefs create your reality, not the other way around." about engineers and scientists?
Remember, his reality need only be true for each sentence.
See:
Markadelphia: You choose to look at only the mistakes that were made by the Democrats and the ones made by Republicans? Well, they acted like Democrats so that was there mistake.
So in one sentence we only look at mistakes made by Democrats so we're wrong. Then in the next, we do look at mistakes made by Republicans, but we're wrong.
See? We're wrong in BOTH sentences, so we're DOUBLY wrong.
You really shouldn't challenge such a self-introspective thinker. I don't know what you were thinking.
So when he's told us we're wrong for being "too black and white" and too focused on impersonal facts and truth, we're wrong. Then when we ignore facts to create our own reality, we're wrong.
So see, we're wrong on both counts!. Thus, he's right for everything!
"DJ, Vince McMahon is the owner of the WWE, the wrestling promotion. He had a habit of grabbing himself and referring to his balls as The Grapefruits. All this talk of "man up" made me think of that."
Remember, his reality need only be true for each sentence."
Yup, you're right, U-J, and I addressed that in a different way. I wrote, about him (emphasis added):
"And so, you commit the error that dooms many a defendant. In the legal trade, it's known by a cliché: You Cannot Remember Your Lies. You write one thing to put out the flame at your right pinkie toe, then later you contradict yourself to put out the flame at your left pinkie toe. "
What you have shown is that "later" can be as soon as the next sentence.
So, in the words of one of our favorite commenters here, one GrumpyOldFart:
"Let me quote one of our favorite commentors here, a guy who calls himself Markadelphia:"
Six weeks in, the Obamacon dominoes — David Brooks, Christopher Buckley — are stunned to discover that, in the words of Mr. Brooks, "Barack Obama is not who we thought he was".
You don't say. Instead, he seems to be pretty much what the firebreathing knuckledragging morons thought he was: a Big Government leftie with the most liberal voting record in the Senate.
So the smart guys got suckered, and the bozos were more or less on the money.
Which may be worth keeping in mind during the apparently endless "reinventions" of American conservatism now underway.
Markadelphia:"any information that does not fit is labeled as lies, idiocy, beliefs, or treason which is pretty much what Goebbels used to do"
And if Goebbels used to brush his teeth, would that be a good reason for you refuse to brush yours? No.
Words like "lies", "idiocy" and "treason" all exist in the english language for one reason: they all describe things which are very real.
So we have false accusations of these things, which is what Goebbels used to do—and he is far from alone in using that tactic—and we have legitimate applications of these terms to things people have actually done. The key question is, how do we tell the difference between a false accusation and an accurate accusation?
Seriously, Mark. You know the answer to this one by now. How de we tell the difference between a false accusation of lies, idiocy and treason, and an accurate accusation?
Kevin:"Over five years worth of archived comments says it stays."
What if I could collect your comment history and make it available for something else? Databases are my specialty and this kind of stuff is easy for me. After all, the comments are actually stored in SQL database.
DJ:"You're happy that he said you're not dishonest, you're mentally deranged?"
Very rhetorically powerful. But I can't agree that it's completely accurate. It is possible for someone to be deluded without actually being mentally defective. So he's happy that I think he might not be dishonest, but that he's either a deluded fool or mentally defective.
Ed: I've been trying to find a comment I made, and Haloscan's kicking *my* ass. :) (It's goofed up, is reporting 0 comments for a lot of older posts, so Google's dropped them out of the index.)
(Not to say you might not do better.)
But, BTW, I was the one to comment that he was happy that you called him deranged, not dishonest.
I ran across this and personally I think it deserves QOTD status. A quick google isn't finding attribution, though.
“If you want to infuriate a conservative, tell him a lie.
If you want to infuriate a liberal, tell him the truth.”
Seen here. Mark, you're not "Gillie", are you? The argument style is identical.
From that thread:
Compare and contrast: Conservative truth: Obama’s projected budget deficits will increase the national debt more than all previous presidents combined. His socialist policies of redistribution and government spending have failed wherever they have been tried. Less than 20% of the “Stimulus” package is actual stimulus. Leftist Lies: Bush knew there were no WMD’s in Iraq, but he invaded to enrich Cheney’s friends. `Bush’s deregulation of the mortgage industry caused the economic disaster in. (Although no one can point to any regulations that were repealed under Bush that deregulated the mortgage industry. And Bush’s attempts to impose regulation on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were fought by congressional Democrats.)
Conservative truth: The Mainstream Media (the NY Times, NPR, ABC, CNN, NBC, CBS, Time, Newsweek, Hollywood) has a demonstrable, pronounced, and consistent left-wing bias. Liberal Lie: The media can’t be left-wing because they are owned by corporation. (Note to idiots: Content, not ownership, determines bias.). Rush Limbaugh is a drug-addict who spews hate speech every day. (Only true if all opposition to the left wing agenda is defined as “Hate Speech” ) .
That thread (and the responses to "gillie" sound stunningly familiar to the ones I've been perusing of late for the last almost 2 years here.
Likely not. When reality is what you imagine it to be, how would it matter?
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/2009/02/quote-of-day_28.html (188 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
Damn. I blew hot tea on the keyboard again.
Has anyone seen this yet?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPUl-eNDzUE
It is airing this month on HBO. I just watched it last night and the whole "useful idiot" thing? Yeah, I think that theory is now done.
Oh, and so is Goldberg's moronic comparison of the left to fascists. The left certainly has its nutters but they aren't as abundant, strong, or as well organized as they are on the right. In watching this documentary, it's clear to anyone--that is anyone not blinded by rigid belief--that the future goose steppers of the world are the base of the Republican Party.
I think
You? Think? That's the funniest thing I've read all day. Thanks for that.
future goose steppers of the world are the base of the Republican Party
One would think if that were actually the case, the Democrats would have melted the phone lines to Washington telling their reps to lay off the talk about infringing any more on the Second Amendment. As it is, though, it's much more often than not the Dems proposing these things. Just like the left, I guess, all talk and no action. I suppose more than a few lefties have been buying guns'n'ammo in addition to der HopenChange, but I really think it'd be interesting to know which side is better-armed. For some strange and unknown reason I don't think it's the side that calls the Republican base "the future goose steppers of the world." I'm sure that reason will come to me sooner or later.
Or, as Mike Hendrix at Cold Fury so eloquently put it after the '04 elections:
"...Where do you go from here? What are you gonna do about it?
"I'll tell you what you're going to do about it: you're not going to do one damned thing but continue with your whining, that's what, and it's not because deep down you're all cowards either. It's because deep down, you know you're full of shit. You don't even believe half the stuff you’re currently crying about yourselves.
"Because if you did, you wouldn't be talking about it. You wouldn't be writing whiny letters to the editor; you wouldn't be fearfully mincing down to the Canadian Consulate to half-seriously inquire about moving; you wouldn't be sitting in coffee houses denouncing the moronic inhabitants of Jesusland with your fellow smug, self-satisfied pseudo-hip doofuses. You'd be gearing up and arming yourselves for the fight of your lives. And much to your surprise, you’d have a lot of us over here on the right offering to help load mags."...
I know you don't believe that last part, but that's just going to have to be your problem. I sure as hell won't make it mine.
Yup. Same old shit, different day.
"the talk about infringing any more on the Second Amendment."
Talk means fascism? And that's all it is...just talk....so take a chill pill dude. We have much bigger things to worry about than taking away guns.
Hey, DJ...in keeping with your willful ignorance...I think there are some poor people in your home state, working three jobs to barely avoid foreclosure, that need to be told to "just pull themselves up by their boot straps."
We have much bigger things to worry about than taking away guns
I'm guessing Eric Holder must not have gotten that memo.
Yep.
Another comment thread strafed by Markadelphia's comment shit. Well, his logic seems on par with a seagull....
Apparently he's abandoned discourse, and has decided that since he's been found out with his dishonesty, so he might as well see how far he can go.
Goldberg's moronic comparison of the left to fascists.
.. Despite Mark's inability to prove this point.
The left certainly has its nutters but they aren't as abundant, strong, or as well organized as they are on the right.
Who's organized on the Right, Mark? Show me a group as organized as ACORN. Or hell, NPR. Unions? Hard-left.
So show us where these abundant [yet he can't point any out] strongly organized groups are.
Then explain how they were unable to prevent Obama's election, if they're stronger AND more abundant. Do you even stop to consider for a second how stupid you're about to make yourself sound when you make easily debunked pronouncements?
I won't be holding my breath. (You've done your comment-shitting, you're running off now. (The Phantom Shitter does it anonymously, but it's redundant to call you a dumbass when you miss the obvious.))
In watching this documentary, it's clear to anyone--that is anyone not blinded by rigid belief
Which DQ's you right out. So who's seen it who's not blinded by blind belief? (Have you learned what "verbatim" means yet, by the way?)
--that the future goose steppers of the world are the base of the Republican Party.
Right. They're holding up one strongman as the messiah. Oh, wait.
Well, they're taking people's possessions by force. Oh, wait.
Well, surely they're forcing a single ideology based on wild promises and demonizing the opposition? Oh, wait.
taking away guns.
Barnabus, how did I MISS THIS? Hey, Marky? There's a fat farking lot MORE to infringement of the Second Amendment than just "taking away guns," just in case you were unaware.
Oh, Mark, Mark, Mark...
You want a strong government, led by a charismatic leader with a clear mandate to reshape America according to his will, and you want to disarm the people. And we're the fascists? I'm sure Mussolini and his followers didn't think of themselves as evil.
Let's assume that Obama is as benevolent and wise as you think he is. Do you really want all that power in the hands of whoever comes after him?
Talk means fascism?
When it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, then it's mostly likely a duck.
Your insistence that it's a "Jurassic Park" Velociraptor, because that would just be, like, SO FUCKING COOL, is your problem with reality, not ours.
And when the AG repeats massively discredited talking points, it's certainly worth noting.
And that's all it is...just talk
So was the 1 trillion dollar "stimulus" with the promise of "no pork"... Which turns out to be redistribution of money to pretty much nothing BUT pork.
It was "just talk". Then it wasn't. Whoops.
....so take a chill pill dude. We have much bigger things to worry about than taking away guns.
You might want to tell that to your Messiah and AG. They disagree. You're so bound up in Obama's perfection that you can't even admit that your talking point "bigger things than guns" was wrong. Plus it proves he's not talking to Pelosi (Who was quick to shoot that idea down.)
You said it, and it turns out you were wrong. Again.
Instead of admitting it, you doubledown on stupid.
Hey, DJ...in keeping with your willful ignorance
DJ? Willful ignorance? From you?
...'.....
..
.dsf..sd.fd.sfasd.
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHHAAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA
BWBWHBAHHBHABBABAABABAAA
Look, I know you've yet to win an argument with me, but you won't win by trying to asphyxiate me with laughter. Wooo.
But thanks! :) It beats your usual dishonesty, in at least it's funny as hell. Forget teaching and politics, you need to get that act on the road.
Yet again, Marky graces us with his fragrant presence and drops a load, err, bald assertion on us without even a hint of an argument, let alone evidence to back it up.
"the future goose steppers of the world are the base of the Republican Party"
Okay Marky, here's how you can put together an argument which supports your position: List out the major beliefs of the fascists (either the Italian version or the National Socialists version) and show how they match up in every important respect with what conservatives believe. (In math terms, all the major variables are the same.)
Or you could start with just one.
C'mon Marky, you claim to be part of the "reality based community", surely your claim can hold to up a comparison with reality!
BTW Marky,
The one guy was right. Obama did take the oath using his full name, not that it means much.
Video here.
Troll
... the deuce? Lemme try that again...
Troll: An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.
*looks at Markadelphia's first post*
*looks back at the definition*
Ladies and gentlepeople, we have a match!
In an effort to not feed him the attention he so desperately craves, I, too, have been growing tired of the number of magazines and books all featuring our new President on their covers... hell, even tabloids had him there before his inauguration.
Van Der Leun might want to be careful though - someone might call the USSS on him for a perceived threat against the President! (I jest, but only barely.)
Darn it, Linoge, that was the second thing I thought of when I read Marky's latest load: Here be a troll.
The script is yanking our chains. No one can be that stupid.
Well, it's a fine Sunday morning in Oklahoma. It's 25 degrees outside, clear and calm, with a bright sun shining. Considering the high next Thursday is forecast to be 80 degrees, today is a fine day to stay indoors and dissect an idiot again. Not to worry; it won't take long. We've had a lot a practice, y'see.
"Hey, DJ...in keeping with your willful ignorance ..."
willful adj.
1. Said or done on purpose; deliberate.
2. Obstinately bent on having one's own way.
ignorance n.
The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed.
I do indeed say and do things on purpose. I've been accused by my colleagues on many occasions, quite correcly so, of never doing anything without a reason. We engineers tend to be like that, much to our, and the world's, benefit.
As to having my own way, no, I can be easily convinced to change my mind. Just show me what reality is and give me solid evidence that you're right. In other words, you'll have to provide more than bullshit, and you don't know how.
I am educated, aware, and informed, so demonstrated. You need only read the comments I have written here since you began shitting in Kevin's parlor (what's it been, almost two years now?) to see that. Consider further that I worked as a salaried engineer for 26 years before retiring at age 48 (do you save your money, teacher boy?) as the inventor so named on 24 patents, and that uneducated, unaware, and uninformed people don't accomplish that, rather they generally just keep on flipping burgers. But you never let reality stand in the way of blathering yet another cliché, do you?
"... I think ..."
No, you don't think. You have demonstrated for almost two years now that you don't know how to think. You cannot reason from facts to conclusions. You cannot use or understand logical reasoning. You cannot modify what passes for thought among your three functioning neurons as a result of assimilating (look it up, teacher boy) new information.
What you do is feel. You reach into your gut, with sphincter firmly clamped about your bicep, clench you hand, pull firmly, and then note, "This is what I feel today." Given what you find in your hand and the method by which it gets there, it's not surprising that what you feel never changes.
In short, you need a cranial enema, teacher boy. Your head and your ass have become inseparable.
"... there are some poor people in your home state, ..."
Yup. There are in every state.
It's interesting how politicians who feel as you do define "poverty". Look here for the feddle gubmint's definition. Note that it measures only one thing: income.
Let's think, shall we? If a person owned bank accounts worth one hundred million dollars, owned million dollar houses in Palm Springs, Miami, and Oklahoma City, owned ten automobiles, and had no debt, he would be a wealthy person, now wouldn't he? But if he had no income, the feddle gubmint would list him as being "in poverty" because, in its own words, the feddle gubmint "... uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine who is in poverty. If a family’s total income is less than the family’s threshold, then that family and every individual in it is considered in poverty." That's not thinking, teacher boy, that's feeling.
"... working three jobs to barely avoid foreclosure, ..."
And you know this how? Or do you just feel it, like you do that odorous muck in your hand? Just making shit up again, aren't you?
"... that need to be told to "just pull themselves up by their boot straps.""
The latest figures for the unemployment rate are for December, 2008. Golly. I wonder what they show. Let's look, shall we?
The national rate is 7.2%. The Oklahoma rate is 4.6%. The Minnesota rate is 6.6%. It appears people are working here, more so than in your state, teacher boy.
Oklahoma is like that. This is a red state, indeed the only one in which every county voted red in 2004 and 2008. People work here, teacher boy. They don't need to be told to "pull themselves up by their boot straps." They are already up. Having a work ethic does that.
You, teacher boy, are a proven liar. I have never met a student who is less able to think, less able to assimilate knowledge, less influenced by demonstrable reality, or more intellectually dishonest, than you are, and you're a teacher of students. I can't help but wonder what your students say about you that you never hear or hear about.
Day after day, for nearly two years, you have made an ass of yourself in Kevin's parlor. You apparently revel in it, as if it were a good thing for you. You apparaently don't notice or don't care that it is not a good thing for those who read these comments and feel as you do.
Why are you here?
"Eric Holder must not have gotten that memo"
He did get the memo about leaving people alone who want to grow and smoke pot for medicinal purposes which is a decidedly libertarian thing to do.
"has decided that since he's been found out with his dishonesty.."
More of the Richard Nixon school of debate..not enough to debate your opponents points but one must attack them personally calling them a liar etc...
"Despite Mark's inability to prove this point"
Proved to people that don't follow belief first and facts second. So, not you, Unix. Oh, and please feel free to start typing yet another personal attack right now because I can feel your blood boiling.
"Who's organized on the Right, Mark?"
OK, now my stomach hurts from laughing. Let's see...um...of the top of my head...Jerry Falwell, Rush Limbaugh, Grover Norquist, Rupert Murdoch, Sean Hannity, Mac Hammond, the NRA, conservative bloggers, CPAC, The Heritage Foundation, James Dobson, Tony Perkins, Ralph Reed...need I go on?
ACORN-ah yes, the latest right wing code word for EVIL!! EVIL!!! GET ANGRY, EVERYONE, BASED ON HALF TRUTHS AND LIES! Pathetic...
"how they were unable to prevent Obama's election?"
They were unable to prevent it because the people that you call "useful idiots" saw the actual fact of failure of less oversight and incompetence. See, Unix, there are people in this country that can smell bullshit from a mile away. But please, continue to live in the fantasy world that they (or me, I guess) are all just stupid or liars and there is nothing flawed whatsoever with your ideology.
"one strongman as the messiah"
And this is why you will lose more elections...he's not the messiah...that is your warped view of what people think about him. He is going to make mistakes by his own admission. And only individuals in this country can save themselves.
"You want a strong government"
Yes, but not in the way you think..
"led by a charismatic leader"
Actually, I'd like one that is highly competent, which President Obama is...it happens to be nice that he is charismatic.
"With a clear mandate to reshape America according to his will"
He has a mandate for change, that's true...but his will? Nope. He has stated repeatedly that if anyone has a better idea, he'd like to hear it. He has also said that he will make mistakes and some of his ideas won't work. Wow...hold me back at the stunning awesomeness of his force and will.
"and you want to disarm the people."
Do you still have all of your guns? Can you protect yourself and your family? I will be asking this question on a regular basis now, I guess, and if I keep seeing a lot of yes answers, will you chill the fuck out?
"I know you've yet to win an argument with me"
I don't really care if I do or not. The fact that you say this, though, betrays a bit of your insecurity and makes me think that, perhaps, you are starting to see some truth in what I have said on here.
"List out the major beliefs of the fascists."
Already did it, dude, a long time ago. I explained how fascism is actually closer to capitalism than socialism or communism. The result was the usual combination of hilarious denial and personal attacks (see: Nixon).
But I'll tell you what...I will start with one. As I watched Rush Limbaugh address the CPAC conference yesterday and he spoke of "freedom," it was terribly obvious that he very much sees himself as "a charismatic leader with a clear mandate to reshape America according to his will." What did you think?
"An Internet troll..."
This argument was settled a long time ago but I guess I have to repeat myself again. I am here because someone on my blog--a conservative--challenged me to be the sole voice in the wilderness on a right wing blog to see how I would hold up. He was taking a lot of flack from folks on my blog and thought it would be a good thing for me. That would be conservative friend, Last in Line, who, btw, recently admitted to me that trickle down economics doesn't work. Hallelujah, a reflective conservative. The first battle is won..
Being the reflective person I am (to a fault most of the time), I think (and still do) that you learn a lot about yourself when you debate people who have different views than you do. I also found this blog because Kevin posted on mine first. I don't post here with the purpose of provoking an emotional response...that's Unix and DJ btw. I post here because I have learned quite a bit and not in the way you think, more than likely.
An example of this is that I have learned that when some folks on the right rip the left for something, it usually means that THEY (the right) are actually defining themselves more than their opponents. So when the right talks about liberal fascism...I'm like, "Yep, talking about themselves again."
Another illustration of this point...
"What you do is feel."
"You, teacher boy, are a proven liar."
This has to be the biggest load of shit in the history of manure. The lie that liberals only "feel" and don't "think" is yet another example of a Nixonian debate tactic (along with the liar thing) that is astutely used by the right to tap into the emotions and fear of their base and denigrate their opponents. Watch the documentary and you will see what I am talking about. Anyone who doesn't "think" or "feel" the way they do is a traitor and wants to destroy America.
It worked up until the last election when this country saw what happens with zero oversight and welfare for the rich. What do you get? An economy that is completely fucked with 58 million people believing that it was all the government's fault. Wow.
And, DJ, honestly, much of the bile and emotion that I see on a daily basis (and oddly have even when conservatives ran the show) comes from the right, not the left. Look at your and Unix's past posts directed at me and tell me who has more of the emotion.
What makes me really sad is that I agreed with you on a point you made in the last thread regarding Sharpton and Jackson. Instead of acknowledging that, you went off, yet again, on a personal attack. So, while I will continue to endeavor to not attack you personally (hope to, not perfect though, but really don't want to stoop to your level), you are going to have to excuse me if I continue to call you (and a few others here) on the warped version of reality that has been created by the finest example of both ingroup and outgroup bias in the history the world.
"I am here because someone on my blog--a conservative--challenged me to be the sole voice in the wilderness on a right wing blog to see how I would hold up."
You have failed miserably but your tender, hyperinflated ego won't let you admit it, even to yourself.
Me: ""What you do is feel."
"You, teacher boy, are a proven liar.""
You: "This has to be the biggest load of shit in the history of manure."
You're lying again, little boy. You stated something that you knew was not true when you stated it, which is the definition of a lie, and I proved that you did. You don't fool anyone.
"... you are going to have to excuse me if I continue to call you (and a few others here) on the warped version of reality that has been created by the finest example of both ingroup and outgroup bias in the history the world."
You still can't express yourself in anything other than cliché and hyperbole, can you?
"One cannot have a profitable discussion with someone who does not care about the truth, nor with someone who believes himself to be in such secure possession of it as to render further investigation unnecessary ."
-- The Maverick Philosopher : http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2009/02/debate-neither-sophists-nor-dogmatists.html
P.S. Marky, you're so vain you think the previously comment wasn't about you.
Markadelphia,
There seems to be a pattern here.
When somebody raises an issue about a democrat politician(with actual executive power) you attempt to deflect it by saying that so-and-so radio personality(without the power of government) on the right wing sounds just the same.
Is this legit reasoning in your view?
Do you really believe that this settles the issue in your favour?
He did get the memo about leaving people alone who want to grow and smoke pot for medicinal purposes which is a decidedly libertarian thing to do.
You're trying (and failing) to move the goalposts again.
No it's not. The laws are still the same. The libertarian thing to do would be to repeal the laws or at the very least condemn them for the loss of liberty.
Which has exactly what to do with the "Assault Weapons BAN" (remember your argument about banning?) Rather than admit that gee, your entire promises to us, your entire analysis was totally off, you try and move (and fail) the goalposts rather than admit error?
More of the Richard Nixon school of debate..not enough to debate your opponents points but one must attack them personally calling them a liar etc...
You claim you've never lied to us here? Is the charge "liar" levied against you false or true?
Do you think I cannot prove (as I've done with many links and quotes) that you're dishonest?
I 'attack you personally' because you lie, and then you run away from that thread and try and pretend that it never occurred. You're a liar. You're dishonest. You make up everything from facts to quotes to words and definitions.
That's not just a personal attack, Mark. It's an analysis, and unlike your spew, is factually backed.
OK, now my stomach hurts from laughing. Let's see...um...of the top of my head...Jerry Falwell, Rush Limbaugh, Grover Norquist, Rupert Murdoch, Sean Hannity, Mac Hammond, the NRA, conservative bloggers, CPAC, The Heritage Foundation, James Dobson, Tony Perkins, Ralph Reed...need I go on?
Yes.
Because it means nothing.
Not only are you a liar, but you're an idiot and a fool.
Jerry Falwell? An Organization? With influence?
Rush Limbaugh?
9 of your 13 are individuals, dumbass. By definition, not an organization. Most of those may be loud, but they're not organizations, which was your argument.
You know, it's bad enough that I have to remind you what your argument was.
The NRA is an organization! Huzzah! But they're not "on the right". They happily endorse pro-gun Democrats.
So of your list of 13.. You manage 1 actual "Organization" on the right - CPAC.. And how big is it and how much does it affect?
This is what I was talking about with your emotion - DJ nailed you dead to rights, and rather than think critically and admit it, you came out and proved him right. You spewed names, with no analysis of how they compared to the question at hand.
ACORN-ah yes, the latest right wing code word for EVIL!! EVIL!!! GET ANGRY, EVERYONE, BASED ON HALF TRUTHS AND LIES! Pathetic...
ACORN is a corrupt organization. Dale Rathke embezzled over a million dollars - without penalty so far. They're under investigation for voting and registration irregularities in over 1/2 the states (and they don't have offices in most of the ones they're not being investigated in.) By any reasonable standard, ACORN is a corrupt organization.
Facts. See how they castrate your emotion driven drivel? Who here is using half truths and lies?
Actually, gauntlet time.
I want a quote from me that at least is ARGUABLY a lie. I'm saying something that I do, or should, know is dishonest. You keep calling me a liar, so it's put up or shut up time.
Kevin: I'm going to ask a favor here. I'd been thinking of asking you to warn Mark of the seagull-spamming (flies in, shits, flies away). He's failed to deal with his lies (For example, off the top of my head: "Of course I know what 'verbatim' means", without retraction when he was disproven.) (See, Mark? I haven't even dug out your gold standard of DJ's quiz and your claims of "having answered it".)
Either he proves I'm a liar (at least debatably), or he apologizes for it and is sanctioned the next time he calls me one. (Or DJ, or anybody else he can't point to a definite comment that's _at least_ arguably dishonest.)
I think it's time his actions had consequences. Your site, your rules, but I've been thinking of asking you to open a comment thread for a discussion on that.
They were unable to prevent it because the people
Either they're in power, they're powerful, or they're not. You can't claim they're all-powerful if they're easily ignored, Mark. That was my point, and your spew continues to demonstrate that you don't understand how to critically think. Are they powerful and organized? If they are, how were they weak and disassociated?
Unix ... because I can feel your blood boiling.
Trust me. The Force is very weak in you. There are younglings who can Force Drop an X-Wing on your head before you notice. What you feel is called "indigestion" and you should consider a Alka-Seltzer. (First you might want to try pulling your head out of your ass, that might actually be the problem.)
My blood does not "boil" - except when it comes to liars - and then it goes rise some.
But most of your arguments are the stuff of 5th grade recess taunts, and they do not rile me in the slightest. Just your flagrant, gauche dishonesty and your arrogant attitude that you should be allowed to be dishonest without repercussions or penalty, and that it's our problem, that we should be penalized when you lie.
The fact that you say this, though, betrays a bit of your insecurity and makes me think that, perhaps, you are starting to see some truth in what I have said on here.
Whoo. You really ought to see a doctor about that. They've got a lot of new drugs that might can help.
TRUTH? From you?
Mark, you don't post truth. You post feelings, and get butthurt when it's pointed out how they differ from reality. You lie to back up your arguments, and I have yet to see you stay on track in any lengthy discussion without attempting to move the argument.
For example:
You claimed that Obama and crew would be "too busy" to enact new gun control, that he was "pro gun", and that there was "no danger".
Holder then shows up and proves that he didn't get your memo, he wants to ban guns, he's going to [try to] do it based on blatant falsehoods and myths.
When it's pointed out that Holder disagrees with you, you could say:
"Gee, I was wrong"
"What an asshole!" (About Holder, not DJ or I.)
"He's fucking insane" (Again, about Holder.)
What did you say?. Oh. That his (unverified) claim to stop federal involvement with "medical marihuana" was decidedly libertarian.
See what you did there? You DEFENDED Holder as he discredited you, AND you made a statement that's both laughable and demonstrates that you don't understand "Libertarian" thought.
So you've moved the goalposts, failed at that, been discredited on your original statement, doubly by moving the goalposts and then triply by making another claim that's absurdly easy to demonstrate it's total laughability.
I did not do this to you.
You did this to you. I didn't make you move the goalposts, or defend Holder or make a claim that Holder is a bastion of "Libertarianism".
I don't post here with the purpose of provoking an emotional response
And you don't. You post with an argument solely backed by emotion, occasionally with some appeal to authority.
We respond quite un-emotionally, and you get upset and call us names. And lie. Let's not forget that, it's important.
The lie that liberals only "feel" and don't "think" is yet another example of a Nixonian debate tactic
Despite the fact that you're a walking demonstration of it, that is. That you make claims, hey, wait let me point out:
saw what happens with zero oversight and welfare for the rich.
Zero oversight. Hrm.
Ok, Mark. Where was "zero oversight"? We've been through this many times before, but I'm just going to put you on the spot again.
Name where there was zero oversight of the economy. Be prepared to be very factually devastated, whatever your answer.
Look at your and Unix's past posts directed at me and tell me who has more of the emotion.
I really don't think you want us to put the posts over the last 2 years into a single place. I've been thinking about it.
Emotion? Well, let's see what you answer for where the "Zero oversight" was, and where I've lied. We'll continue from there.
As to the claim and dismissal that calling you a liar is "Nixonian"... Well, that's what Nixon himself said, wasn't it? So who's really more like Nixon here? You, who lied and refused accountability, admission, apology, and who point the fingers and those who pointed out your transgressions? Or us, who pointed them out.
Let me edit/clarify something that I just said:
We respond quite un-emotionally, and you get upset and call us names. And lie. Let's not forget that, it's important.
I didn't mean un-emotionally. I meant to say that if you strip everything non-factual out of our replies, they're still substantial. The gist is factual, and based on supportable and definable facts, ideas, and substance.
We do toss in lots of emotion for humor.
But the substance of our replies is not based on emotion, as is Markadelphia's.
Strip out the emotion of Mark's, run it through that filter.. and suddenly all his posts are masked.
Markadelphia: "I explained how fascism is actually closer to capitalism than socialism or communism."
Really?!? I've been following the comments here for several years now, and I don't recall you doing anything more than claiming fascism is right-wing because the Nazi's (National Socialists) fought the Communists during WWII. (BTW… America allied herself with Communists to fight the Fascists during WWII, and America as a whole thought far more like us then than they do now. What's yer point?)
Knowing how my memory is, I could be wrong. So how 'bout backing it up with a link? (Hint: If you right click the pound sign (#) at the bottom of each message, you can copy the link directly to the appropriate message.)
I think you're lying again, but I'm willing to be proven wrong. I would even be willing to accept that old argument as answering my request for a point by point ideological comparison between conservatives and fascism; that is, if your old post actually does anything like that.
Think about it Mark. Here's a chance to prove that you're not a complete liar. And all it takes is one simple link.
Mark, I'd agree that Rush would be relevant in this debate if we were screaming about that Markos guy from DailyKos.
We're not.
We're discussing a farking President, you need to bring something a bit more substantial to the table.
Ed:
Sorry, but that still wouldn't prove he wasn't a liar.
falsis in unum, falsis in omnibus
At best he'd be able to point to something and say "here, HERE I was honest."
He's been scathingly dishonest so often and for so long that a single bit of honesty can't prove anything, but I know what rhetorical device you meant.
It worked up until the last election when this country saw what happens with zero oversight and welfare for the rich. What do you get? An economy that is completely fucked with 58 million people believing that it was all the government's fault. Wow.
What?!
Really?!
REALLY?
You are de-fucking-ranged.
Have you not heard of Sarbanes Oxley? Please name a corporation where their compliance budget went DOWN over the last eight years.
If you actually had any marketable skills and worked in an industry that valued results over process, you would understand.
Oh, and so is Goldberg's moronic comparison of the left to fascists.
Have you read this book? Cover to cover?
Be honest.
pdb:
Be honest.
TELL me you DIDN'T just say that.
TELL me you didn't just say that to Mark. Please.
I'ma begging you. No you did-nah!
Have you learned nothing here?
I gots this bridge to sell you.. comes bundled with a tower in Paris..
What can I say, I'm an optimist.
He did get the memo about leaving people alone who want to grow and smoke pot for medicinal purposes which is a decidedly libertarian thing to do.
Yes, and we all know this one thing makes up for his decidedly more authoritarian record. Just like Urkel's vote for the Vitter Amendment makes up for all the other gun-related votes in which he came down on the side of the criminals.
"And all it takes is one simple link."
Actually, what it takes is hours and hours of looking through old threads. I'll tell you what I will do, Ed. I will put up a post on my blog regarding fascism and the left or right. Give me few days. I've been thinking about something along those lines anyway and when I get it done, I will post the link here.
UJ,
IMHO, the most important thing is Marky's claim that conservatism = fascism. It's such an outlandish claim that he simply MUST back it up with an actual comparison of ideas between the two. I'm willing to accept honest efforts on his part if they actually are honest. And if he actually does act honestly in this issue, I'm willing to call him honest in this issue, especially since it's so easy for him to prove his honesty, if there is any.
On the other hand, if he acts dishonestly, I'm equally willing to call him out as a liar on this.
Either way, I refuse to accept another non-response on something so outrageous.
"Have you read this book? Cover to cover?"
Yes, and it was the finest example of the "tap into your inner rage and pass if off as fact" meme that sadly defines conservatism in its modern form.
A side note...I already had a great deal of respect for Laura Ingraham before she ripped the moronic Glenn Beck for his Goldberg loving ass but after the interview on FOX she did with him, my respect went up even more. And Laura is someone with whom I vehemently disagree.
that sadly defines
...
Yes, Mark, when you define something, it's a sad effort.
Wait! We agree!
Speaking of which, ever figure out what "verbatim" means?
Or look up the meaning of "Ban?"
Markadelphia: "tap into your inner rage and pass if off as fact"
So I suppose all those endnotes covering 53 pages in the back of the book is all refers to nonexistent sources?
Lessee. The first 4 entries refer to Bill Maher, 2 entries referencing a total of 6 publications on the definition of fascism including the Journal of Political ideologies, and finally George Orwell.
Just flipping through I'm noticing other "imaginary" sources such as Alexis de Tocqueville, Mussolini's My Rise and Fall, Jean-Jacques Roussea, Robespierre, Adolf Hitler himself in Mein Kampf, William Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Woodrow Wilson, H. G. Wells, Upton Sinclair, Saul Alinsky, Adlai Stevenson, John Dewey, Lyndon B. Johnson, Maureen Dowd, Peter Singer, Gene Edward Veith Jr.'s Modern Fascism: The Threat to the Judeo-Christian Worldview (a book I highly recommend), Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Hillary Clinton, Howard Fineman, Gloria Steinem, Molly Ivins, and many, many others you probably haven't heard of.
Are you saying this is all stuff he simply made up? Or even most of it?
If so, you should have no trouble proving that.
"the definition of fascism"
Except that he doesn't really define it.
"Fascism is a religion of the state. It assumes the organic unity of the body politic and longs for a national leader attuned to the will of the people. It is totalitarian in that it views everything as political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve that common good. It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action, whether by force or through regulation and social pressure. Everything, including the economy and religion, must be aligned with its objectives. Any rival identity is part of the "problem" and therefore defined as the enemy."
Honestly, this is clearly is geared towards the tap into your rage...and I mean YOUR rage. There is no "or" when it comes to fascists. They put forth their will through violence, not social pressure and its violence towards leftists and liberalism not the right. I'll get into this more in my post.
Yes, and it was the finest example of the "tap into your inner rage and pass if off as fact" meme that sadly defines conservatism in its modern form.
Ah, so you haven't read it. You could have just said so.
"Fascism is a religion of the state. It assumes the organic unity of the body politic and longs for a national leader attuned to the will of the people. It is totalitarian in that it views everything as political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve that common good. It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action, whether by force or through regulation and social pressure. Everything, including the economy and religion, must be aligned with its objectives. Any rival identity is part of the "problem" and therefore defined as the enemy."
*Blinks*
*Reads Mark's posts above*
*re-reads the quote*
*!!!*
Mark, I'm sure you're hard at work answering those questions and trying to find somewhere I've lied (Funny, it's really easy for me to show places where you have....)
But I really think you need to call 911 right now and get some medical treatment.
I'm afraid, based on what you just said and what you've said earlier, you've got irony poisoning. (Screaming "It's not a LIE when I say it!" and then calling us Nixonian should have clued me in, but I missed that!)
This could very dangerous and you might be losing brain cells as we waste time. Quickly, get some treatment! You don't have that many to lose! Please! Seek treatment! For pity's sake, man, at least go read Garfield minus Garfield! Wait! No, that has irony... Wait! Go read Garfield! Irony free! No humor! No hard concepts or analysis needed! Please! We're begging you! Irony poisoning is the leading cause of bad "poetry", Democratic votes and donations and Prius purchases!!!!!
Markadelphia, do you honestly believe that paragraph is about talk radio hosts?
Mussolini's motto: "Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State."
Mussolini pretty much created fascism, and even coined the word.
Markadelphia, why didn't you just use Mussolini's motto? It's much more succinct than what Goldberg wrote.
Here's an interesting quote from Mussolini and Gentile's The Doctrine of Fascism:
"The corporate State considers that private enterprise in the sphere of production is the most effective and usefu [sic] instrument in the interest of the nation. In view of the fact that private organisation of production is a function of national concern, the organiser of the enterprise is responsible to the State for the direction given to production.
"State intervention in economic production arises only when private initiative is lacking or insufficient, or when the political interests of the State are involved. This intervention may take the form of control, assistance or direct management." (pp. 135-136)
Does this sound like anyone we know?
And a few other interesting quotes:
"The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State—a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values—interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people." (p. 14)
"The Fascist State lays claim to rule in the economic field no less than in others; it makes its action felt throughout the length and breadth of the country by means of its corporate, social, and educational institutions, and all the political, economic, and spiritual forces of the nation, organised in their respective associations, circulate within the State." (p. 41)
Dude, I did when we had this whole discussion forever ago. I defined communism (its various offshoots), socialism and fascism. I specifically cited the Doctrine of Fascism of 1932 and put up several quotes which was either written by Gentile or Mussolini.
"do you honestly believe that paragraph is about talk radio hosts?"
Not just them but the base of the Republican Party. Remember that a key tenet of fascism is nationalism and reject all forms of class conflict. There is no oppression of the lower class by the upper class, as we hear all the time from Sharpton and Jackson, but one class--one idea--the national identity and if you don't believe in it, you are a traitor. Listen to what Rush said yesterday and tell me there isn't any haunting similarities....the collectivist nature of the whole conference was pretty scary.
Hey, we think alike...I put up the post above while you must have been working on yours....now why do we see things so differently?
Because how you think conservatives define nationalism and how conservatives actually define nationalism are two entirely different things.
Maybe this might help...Gentile
"Granted that the 19th century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 20th century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the "right", a Fascist century. If the 19th century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the "collective" century, and therefore the century of the State."
Because how you think conservatives define nationalism and how conservatives actually define nationalism are two entirely different things.
Heck, the meaning of the word "Definition" and what Mark means by it are two entirely different things.
Markadelphia: (quoting Gentile) "If the 19th century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism)"
Today that is called "conservatism". Libertarianism is an extreme version of this view.
Markadelphia: (quoting Gentile) "we are free to believe that this is the "collective" century, and therefore the century of the State."
Obama: "…and recognizing that my fate remains tied up with their fates, that my individual salvation is not going to come about without a collective salvation for the country."
Kevin, here's a concept for an überpost: How does Markadelphia define "definition"? Is it static? Is it tautological? Is it conventional? And, finally, is it gibberish?
Ed, by now it seems clear that "Conservative" means "Evil and/or Stupid" in Mark's book.
Ed, another thing to consider...The Fascist Manifesto did contain ideas of nationalization of several key private industries but those were moderated or removed in practice. Private competition for favor of the state was found to be of more pragmatic use than state controlled entities.
In addition, this approach was more in line ideologically with the core tenets of fascism--the chief one of which was to distance themselves as far away as possible from any sort of inkling of communism.
So what? We're not the ones trying to follow the fascist model.
Again from Obama: (at about 9:27 in the video.)
"Because our individual salvation depends on collective salvation."
I think you are misunderstanding what he is saying. It means that, as we did in the Great Depression and WWII, we have to pull together and help each other through this. That doesn't mean that the government is the mechanism by which that goal will be accomplished.
Remember his days as a community organizer and the first thing he would say when he would show up and speak to people. "The government is not going to help us. We have to do this ourselves. Now how are we going to do it?" I watched in amazement as Governor Palin and other conservatives chided him for being a community organizer. Isn't this a cornerstone of conservatism? The government can't help?
I think you are misunderstanding what he is saying.
(But luckily you have the insight to understand. Except when you don't, see above. But it's not fair to count that against you.)
It means that, as we did in the Great Depression and WWII,
There were no socialistic experiments during the "Great Depression" and World War Two? People helped each other, without new government bureaucracies and wealth redistribution?
That doesn't mean that the government is the mechanism by which that goal will be accomplished.
What else is he proposing? He's not using government as the mechanism?
I watched in amazement as Governor Palin and other conservatives chided him for being a community organizer. Isn't this a cornerstone of conservatism? The government can't help?
Nope. You've (quelle surprise) Missed The Point. Given this thread, hardly surprising.
They talked about his failure as a "community organizer" - where he can show no successes. He also spent most of his time trying to get money from, oh, yes. The government.
Heck, he said he wasn't getting anything done, that's why he went to law school.
You're unable to distinguish between the script and the acting.
I take it you didn't follow my advice and call the doctor. Well, I tried. Shouldn't wait until we have Universal Health Care to get that looked at. It might be too late then.
"I am not a crook!" - Nixon.
"I am not a liar!" - Markadelphia
"It's not criminal if the president does it!" - Nixon
"It's not a lie if I do it and mean really really really really well!" - Markadelphia
"That would be conservative friend, Last in Line, who, btw, recently admitted to me that trickle down economics doesn't work."
Trust me - me admitting something does not make it fact. A warm bucket of hamster vomit probably holds more weight than my admission of something.
What I have concluded is that the money doesn't trickle down as fast or as much as some suggest it does. Reading up on the Madoff stuff in the news and reading up on hedge fund investors, it just seems to me that for every rich person out there creating jobs in his business, there are 3 rich people who just cut a $100 million check to some hedge fund manager. Now I'm not one to tell anyone what they should do with their money, that is their choice...I just don't think money trickles down as much as people think. I could be wrong, hell I probably am.
Related to that, I also reminded markadelphia of 2 things.
1. The restrictions and taxes you advocate levying against those people do not discriminate between the hedge fund investor and the small businessman who would potentially hire a couple dozen people, thus keeping the economy moving. Everyone is punished. When you want less of something you tax it. Capital gains taxes are going to be raised, meaning less investment will happen. I'm sure some people out there think that is exactly what we need right now. Morons.
2. Throwing money at the poor has never worked either and the evidence is quite clear on that. Not one lefty I know has ever admitted that and when I say "In the war on poverty, poverty won" I get called "insensitive" (as if that passes for an actual argument from them).
This thread is a prime example of the pernicious effects of semantic warfare.
"Nationalism" in 1932 does not equal "nationalism" today.
"Conservatism" in the regime of the Prussian Jünkers does not equal "conservatism" in modern America.
"Liberalism" in 19th-century England does not equal "liberalism" today.
Yet because the symbols remain the same, certain people unthinkingly draw direct parallels between them.
Mark, you desperately need to read S.I. Hayakawa's Language in Thought and Action. He's actually someone whose political views you would agree with; that might just make you more susceptible to what he's saying about semantics.
God, I hope so, anyway.
Thanks, LiL.
I suspected that wasn't quite the "confession/admission" that Mark had claimed you made.
You're welcome into our company of mangled sources. :)
I would counter to you that unless the "rich" are burying their money in the backyard, it's staying in circulation and encouraging growth. The current contraction as people essentially do that - hanging onto cash assets and refusing to release/loan/invest is a tip of the iceberg what would happen if the economy ran like Mark thinks it does.
for every rich person out there creating jobs in his business,
What Mark fails to understand is that his huge government means that investing and expecting capital gains is risky. Better to take your profits through cutouts and with degrees of separation (Early beneficiaries of Madoff are now being sued from the later scamees.)
Risk means less investment. What Mark just cannot get through his head is to understand how heavily regulated these things already are. How much return is eaten up by the tax burden. Any problem (according to Mark) should have been prevented by regulation. If the regulation created the problem, then there should be more. Better. HARDER THIS TIME.
(After all, Mark keeps claiming that the mortgage market was unregulated.)
Adding to that problem with his auto-filter is his complete lack of understanding how to arrive at a decision via facts and logic. Since he got to wherever he is based on emotion and wishful thinking, he's unable to understand how to defend them, other than insults and projection.
We understand. :)
"That doesn't mean that the government is the mechanism by which that goal will be accomplished."
It doesn't?!
It sure seems to me like he thinks government is the solution to all that ails us. He's all but shouting it from the rooftops Mark.
I also find it funny that inner city Chicago is basically still a shithole. What exactly did he DO as a community organizer?
"What makes me really sad is that I agreed with you on a point you made in the last thread regarding Sharpton and Jackson. Instead of acknowledging that, you went off, yet again, on a personal attack."
I forgot to respond to this yesterday. Mea culpa.
Well, lessee now ...
We begin with a statement by you:
"We do need to talk about race and do it in a way that is uncomfortable for pretty much everyone."
No, we don't. That doesn't solve the problem of racism in this country, it perpetuates it. That is precisely what Al and Jesse do.
So, my response to you was (emphasis added):
"It has always astounded me that the World Champeens of Race Don't Matter spend whole lifetimes making goddamned sure that Race Does Matter. The very last thing that the Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons of the world want is for race to not matter, because then they wouldn't matter."
Y'see (who am I kidding; you don't see, do you?), Al and Jesse want to talk and talk and talk about race. To them, race matters in every goddamned thing. That perpetuates racism.
Your response was:
"I agree with you DJ regarding Sharpton and Jackson. They might already be on their way to being out of a job now that we have my guy at 1600..."
You think, and stated explicitly, that we need to keep on talking about race. Thus, you do not agree with me about Al and Jesse, and you stated that you did because you did not understand what I meant. You and I apparently don't LIKE the bastards, but that is remarkably superficial, methinks.
So, I immediately and explicitly outlined the difference between us (emphasis added):
"Sharpton and Jackson are not "on their way to being out of a job" no matter who is in the White House. They FOSTER racism because they BENEFIT from it. They and others like them are why racism continues to make headlines. For them, and for Obama and his minions, having a black in the White House is an opportunity not to be squandered. If race doesn't matter, then Obama's race doesn't matter and the opportunity would be lost.
"Racism will go away not because people continue to yammer about it, rather it will be gone when people no longer talk about it, i.e. when race doesn't matter and nobody notices any more that it doesn't matter."
In summary: 1) your statement that "We do need to talk about race ..." is in agreement with Al and Jesse, not with me; 2) your statement that "[Al and Jesse] might already be on their way to being out of a job ..." is not in agreement with me; and thus, 3) you and I do not agree about Al and Jesse.
Finally, we have this:
jackass n.
1. a fool
2. a foolish or stupid person; a blockhead
Yup, that's you. It's not a personal attack, rather it's a statement of fact that you have demonstrated the truth of for nearly two years.
Goddamn, teacher boy, are you ever going to understand that words have meaning and that you can look them up in a dictionary?
Thank you, Last in Line, for a breath of fresh air. I think it wasn't quite what Kevin's resident troll was expecting. His statement about you was:
"That would be conservative friend, Last in Line, who, btw, recently admitted to me that trickle down economics doesn't work. Hallelujah, a reflective conservative. The first battle is won."
It makes one wonder just what he really knows about anything, doesn't it?
"What I have concluded is that the money doesn't trickle down as fast or as much as some suggest it does."
That's right, it doesn't. But it is also true that it does trickle down faster than some others suggest it does. So much for relative terminology, right?
But, I digress. I simply found the play on words interesting.
Consider the people who work, who get paid for performing services for others, who get paid for producing products to be bought by others, and who employ people who work to provide services and produce products to be sold to others. These are the people who create wealth. The standard of living that is found in this country is produced and provided by them, not by those who enjoy and comsume without working to produce what is enjoyed and consumed. These people are the engine of the economy of this country. If they didn't do what they do, then what services and products would there be?
Obama and the Dumbocrat party vilify these people, attempting to generate hatred of them through envy of their success, and for what purpose? Will it make the engine of the economy perform better, so to produce more for everyone at less cost? Or will it just convince voters to give them more power over their lives?
"When you want less of something you tax it."
To complete the thought:
"When you tax something you get less of it, and when you reward something you get more of it." -- Jack Kemp
"If you want more of something, subsidize it; if you want less of something, tax it." -- Ronald Reagan
The feddle gubmint subidizes, rewards, and champions sloth, laziness, unemployment, and parasitism in general. It taxes work, investment, production, incentive, and efficiency.
"In the war on poverty, poverty won"
Of course it did, partly because the game is rigged by those who keep the score. As more and more people have a better and better standard of living, the gubmint simple raises the standard by which they declare them to be "living in poverty." As I showed (and documented) earlier today, the threshold of poverty has nothing to do with what anyone's standard of living is, instead it measures only their income. It is quite easy for the gubmint to juggle such a standard, thereby justifying a need for the income it provides those below the standard.
And the sheeple just eat it up, don't they?
DJ:
"What makes me really sad is that I agreed with you on a point ... Instead of acknowledging that, you went off, yet again, on a personal attack."
I know you and I have pointed this out to him before, but it's worth mentioning on this thread, which is a textbook case of Markadelphiaisms. (Dishonest claims, moving goalposts, ignored clarifications, invented definitions, running away from proof, argument from (alleged and disproven) authority... among those in a quick count.)
He's sad. Because he agreed (yeah, he didn't, but that's beside the point at describing his malfunction.) And you didn't give him credit/acknowledgement/reward him.
So if he doesn't lie this time, he deserves to be rewarded with respect. (And even if he did, actually.)
That is the perfect epitome of what we're facing with the Obama expectations. All of the reward, none of the risk, none of the discipline, none of the punishment. If it works, great, if not, then do-over, it doesn't count.
He's sad you didn't reward him for agreeing with you, without understanding that you didn't agree with him, at best, in anything more than a superficial manner.
... But he insists and admonishes us, that we are the "conservatives" who are (apparently without our knowledge) organized in lockstep in an emotional, logicless hegemony. Who dismiss him as a liar because he's breaking through our emotional facade with his truth. (Just never mind all those times he lied, that's unfair to mention!)
"State intervention in economic production arises only when private initiative is lacking or insufficient, or when the political interests of the State are involved. This intervention may take the form of control, assistance or direct management."
Ed, another thing to consider...The Fascist Manifesto did contain ideas of nationalization of several key private industries but those were moderated or removed in practice. Private competition for favor of the state was found to be of more pragmatic use than state controlled entities.
In addition, this approach was more in line ideologically with the core tenets of fascism...
Okay, all you folks (including you Mark) check me on this. The short version of what is being said above, in both cases, is that the private sector keeps the responsibility, but the State gets the authority, correct?
And that differs from partial nationalisation of the banks how, exactly? That differs from partial nationalisation of the healthcare industry how, exactly?
That differs from GM being controlled partially by their government creditors, and the rest by the UAW, how exactly?
Note that the divergence of authority and responsibility outlined above is precisely the same model already used by CPS and the Department of Education.
Addendum: It is also the standard that caused the "sub prime crisis", is it not? Chris Dodd, Barney Frank and others (including, if memory serves, Sen. Barack Obama) demanded that banks give racial and low income preferences in lending, regardless of whether or not they were good risks for loans. When that blew up in everyone's faces, it became the banks and/or the taxpayers who are held responsible, to the tune of billions of dollars, no?
Once again, the government takes the authority, but wants no part of the consequences. Frank, Dodd and Obama get to pass out pork to their friends just the same as they always have.
Yup, U-J, you're right again. It's really bizarre, isn't it? He wants credit for agreeing when what appears to be agreement is superficial at one end and complete disagreement at the other, yet he refuses to agree when what he disagrees with is proven to be correct.
Now, tell me that my analysis of what drives him is wrong.
"And that differs from partial nationalisation of the banks how, exactly? That differs from partial nationalisation of the healthcare industry how, exactly?"
It differs because there is competition for favor of the state by the various private entities which is what happened in the Germany in the 30s and 40s. There is no re-distribution of wealth to make everyone equal, as you would have in socialism or communism. There is no effort to make people equal because, in the eyes of a fascist, people aren't. Women, gays, and non whites are "less than." Now which party is more like that?
It is dog eat dog and those who don't make enough are SOL. And that's how it is similar to capitalism.
"demanded that banks give racial and low income preferences in lending"
Thanks for proving my point above.
"Thanks for proving my point above."
What point is that? That government overregulation caused the current economic crisis?
Or maybe that when government regulations go head to head with natural laws, the regulations always lose?
DJ: I'd never argue with you on that.
...
And just when you think he CAN'T get any zanier, any NUTTIER, any CRAAAZZEEEIER...
It differs because there is competition for favor of the state [for now] by the various private entities which is what happened in the Germany in the 30s and 40s.
Oh, but it's OK, we're not talking about the Government running everything! No, only those the Government favors shall be allowed to, and this is a totally different concept and NEIN COMMENT, SCHUT-OOP!
There is no re-distribution of wealth to make everyone equal, as you would have in socialism or communism.
No?
What?
What country and time are you saying that? The US? Now? No redistribution?
I... got nuthin. I mean, I can't even make fun of that. It's just too easy. It's like going to the elementary school and dunking on the 7' baskets against the 10 year olds. I just don't have the meanness in me to hold that up to more ridicule than it engenders by itself.
There is no effort to make people equal because, in the eyes of a fascist, people aren't. Women, gays, and non whites are "less than."
According to ... you? Verbatim, I'd suppose.
"People aren't." Thus fascists. So there are no women fascists? No gay fascists? (Ever, including in Germany in the mid-1930s?)
Now which party is more like that?
The Democrats. (Per their party belief.)
People aren't in their party. There are no individuals. There are just groups. Black. Gay. White. Overprivileged. Underprivileged. Those not "Doing their share".
You're either "lucky" or "unlucky". Your choices, your work or lack of it, irrelevant.
This has been explained to you time and time again, but that is not freedom, nor is it respecting people. Your main yardstick for someone is what group they belong to.
Those groups are "defined" (you have trouble defining things) by superficial characteristics. Skin color. Age. Gun ownership. What radio shows they "listen" to and repeat "verbatim".
People aren't groups. People, individuals, make up groups. And they come and leave them as they will.
OF course, we define people in groups, too. By their actions, by their choices, by their beliefs (as we can know them).
Not on what their skin color is.
This is a pretty weird thread. So if I get this straight, Facism is more or less the same as free market capitialism, according to Markadelphia. Wow just wow.
It's not like there isn't plenty of original source material like a copy of Mein Kampf or Hitler's speeches that spell out exactly what facism is. (Hint, they had a great disdain for free market capitalism.)
But that would take effort instead of regurgitating memorized talking points.
Ooops
facism should be Fascism
"I can't even make fun of that" - BWAHAHAHAHAHAAAA, thanks Unix.
...and I suppose markadelphia will be the one who will define what "enough" is for each and every one of us.
I think the trickle down theory is correct, I just don’t think that it is practiced as much as it once was. Abstinence is also a theory that works 100% of the time but the reality is that people aren’t abstinent. Also Mark, stop talking about what Obama has said in the past. Try talking about what he is currently doing. He is governing now.
I am a proud capitalist; however, I now believe capitalism only really works where you have an enlightened society, and I’m wondering if we have that anymore. I know that capitalism will always have flaws due to the prejudices inherent in all people but these prejudices and attitudes change over time. Laws, on the other hand, are immovable. Small businesses are usually S-Corps or LLCs. One of the characteristics of LLC’s is that what they cannot deduct as business expenses is taxed as personal income. That puts most small business in a higher tax bracket than the one they would qualify for if only their real earnings were taxed. Small business owners who are part of an LLC are "wealthy" by FAFSA standards even though they live on a modest percentage of what appears "wealthy" to class-envy types.
Remember the window and door company, Republic, that closed down in Chicago and the workers refused to leave? Look no further than the local democratic politicians to see who caused Republic to go out of business when Cook County raised its sales tax to 10.25%. Many people wrote into local papers like the Daily Herald and said that they started doing their shopping outside of Cook County and saving thousands of dollars on large purchases and purchasing windows and doors is a large purchase. I believe Cook County already posted a 13% drop in monthly revenue since this all broke and they still don't get it. They actually "think" (that's using term loosely) that the primary responsibility of management was to run the company for the purposes of providing jobs. No company exists to provide jobs. A company exists to produce profit for the owners. The business owners didn't get together one day and say, "Let's create jobs for workers". They got together and said "Let's create a business to produce profit for ourselves. In the process, we'll need to hire some people".
I’m choosing not to get worked up over the happenings in DC these days. Reagan came to power at a time when America had been carrying out, for sixteen years, an experiment with liberalism that by 1980 had brought the country to the brink of catastrophe. Americans did not adopt conservative principles because they sounded good on first hearing. They adopted conservative principles because of bitter experience with the alternative. Today, the benefit of that experience has largely been lost. A generation of American voters has not experienced the failures of the Great Society, gas lines, double-digit inflation and unemployment, seventy percent tax brackets, and their only frame of reference as far as the economy goes is to compare Great with less Great. In the absence of historical memory, liberalism is once again emerging as the philosophy that sounds good to the American Idol generation who came out to vote. The fact that it doesn't work is a lesson that has to be learned the hard way.
All this talk of "build schools, not bombs" sure sounds good but one of the reasons we have the freedom to go to school is because of guns and bombs. Aushwitz wasn’t liberated by peace activists, it was liberated by men with guns. Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot and Mao Tse Tung were not motivated by profits either.
LiL:
I think the trickle down theory is correct, I just don’t think that it is practiced as much as it once was.
You might want to consider the (negative) effect on "trickle down" of the loss of 30-50% of the result of your toil. (Taxes, you know.)
Money that used to be spent, or invested is now handed to the bureaucracy to distribute. And pay their overhead. And there's a lot of overhead. (There's so much overhead (for example) that the Federal Government can't run a whorehouse in Nevada profitably. (Sure, let's hand them total control, whatcouldgowrong? We'll do it RIGHT this time. HARDER!)
I just booked a one-way ticket to Nevada.
"That government overregulation caused the current economic crisis?"
Ed, this is sheer lunacy. It was a lack of oversight on the part of the government that caused this problem combined with the repeal of Glass Stegall. How else could these companies lie and hide as much as they did? Please cease and desist with the "Barney Frank and liberals are evil/Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac/CRA" meme that is just another example of right wing fervency and propaganda.
The vast majority of the sub prime loans in the last 8 years did not originate from banks or thrifts. Half of them came from places beyond the reach of CRA. Another quarter came from subsidiaries. The final quarter of sub prime loans came from CRA and that kind of debt is just not enough to drive our economy off the cliff.
And...
A substantial portion of Fannie's and Freddie's credit losses comes from $337 billion and $237 billion, respectively, of Alt-A mortgages that the agencies imprudently bought or guaranteed in recent years to boost their market share. These are mortgages for which little or no attempt was made to verify the borrowers' income or net worth. The principal balances were much higher than those of mortgages typically made to low-income borrowers. In short, Alt-A mortgages were a hallmark of real-estate speculation in the ex-urbs of Las Vegas or Los Angeles, not predatory lending to low-income folks in the inner cities.
To put it simply, the people that ran these companies were at best overzealous and at worst greedy. No one was watching them and with the barriers of Glass Stegall released with Graham-Leach-Bliley, the domino effect easily played out.
"Facism is more or less the same as free market capitialism"
No, it has more in common with it than socialism or communism obviously. Fascism espouses a survival of the fittest and the weak are dregs mentality. Not the case with socialism or communism (leftist views) in which everyone is equal. There is nothing collective about fascism.
See, one could make a case for liberals being socialists or communists obviously...maybe even totalitarian. To say that our government is going to be that way...well...that whole argument is shot to shit, though, when the fact that the top 5 percent of wealthy people in this country own over 80 percent of the wealth.
http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/03may/may03interviewswolff.html
Under Obama's plan, this fact won't shift all that much. Democrats love their money and power too.
"Reagan came to power at a time when America had been carrying out, for sixteen years, an experiment with liberalism that by 1980 had brought the country to the brink of catastrophe."
Umm...what? Nixon and Ford were in there for 8 years, dude, and that's when HMOs were formed.
"Reagan came to power at a time when America had been carrying out, for sixteen years, an experiment with liberalism that by 1980 had brought the country to the brink of catastrophe. Americans did not adopt conservative principles because they sounded good on first hearing. They adopted conservative principles because of bitter experience with the alternative."
Ol' Doofus was, what, seven years old when Jimmy Carter took the oath as President? He was barely out of diapers when, under Ol' Jimmy, the inflation rate rose to more than 12% and the interest rate rose to 21%.
Did you ever try to buy a house with a mortgage at an APR of 21%?
Well, today the markets dropped another four percent. It appears that those who know something about making money, producing goods, providing services, and investing in business don't expect investing in business to be very profitable, on the whole, any time soon. Y'see, they remember what got us out of the last depression, but the Obamacrats don't like to mention it. It was a significant cut in tax rates that did it.
We're not gonna see that repeated any time soon, are we?
Damn, but it's gonna be a long four years.
Shall we start a betting pool for just how strongly Ol' Barry will be compared to Ol' Jimmy before it's over?
"Ed, ... out."
So, teacher boy, just where the hell did you cut and paste that from?
Go ahead. Convince us that you actually wrote and understand it. Just try.
Ah, hell. Never mind. Just look here. It took me all of 30 seconds.
Damn, but you are a poseur.
DJ:
Shall we start a betting pool for just how strongly Ol' Barry will be compared to Ol' Jimmy before it's over?
Welcome Back, Carter
Mark:
The only "lunacy" is that you still think you're competing with ideas here.
. It was a lack of oversight
Stop right there.
How much oversight would it have taken?
Not "more". I want a hard figure on how much more. (You'll be hampered here, since you don't actually know how much oversight there is currently.) But how much. And how would it be done? How much would it have cost to have enough oversight?
combined with the repeal of Glass Stegall.
Another of your discredited talking points. What was "traded" for GS? I've told you before. I think DJ has too. What was massively expanded in return?
How else could these companies lie and hide as much as they did?
Because they had very, very smart people running the show. Who thought they understood more than they did, who made really bad assumptions and were driven ideologically more than factually.
They're the same folks you just handed the keys and title of the country to.
Please cease and desist with the "Barney Frank and liberals are evil/Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac/CRA" meme that is just another example of right wing fervency and propaganda.
If you want him, or me, or DJ to stop, disprove it. At least give it a shot, rather than repeating the same thing over and over without understanding what you're saying.
Like Glass Stengall. It's so painfully obvious that you don't know what you're saying. You're repeating things verbatim that someone else said, without thought or analysis. As NinjaViking has said, you fail the Turing test.
Go re-read DJ's critique of you. Then just tell me where in this thread alone you've not proven beyond all reasonable doubt that he's correct with his assessment.
Would me like to recap your "points", such as they are?
U-J, I'm not a T-shirt wearer, but I'd buy that if I were!
"There is nothing collective about fascism."
Mark, you have got to be kidding! Hint: Fascists & snazzy uniforms. Do uniforms represent individuality?
Nixon may have been a republican but he wasn't that conservative and Ted Kennedy was an early champion for HMO's. I don't know if he formed them or not but you can read plenty by googling Ted Kennedy HMO.
. There is nothing collective about fascism.
I missed this post. Thanks, NinjaViking for pointing it out.
Holy Hopping Horsefeathers.
Mark, in order for you to say that seriously requires you to not understand the meanings of the following words:
* there
* is
* nothing
* collective
* about
* fascism
U-J, I spent a grand total of four mouse clicks to find this, where I found the following as the lead in:
"Fascism is a radical, authoritarian nationalist ideology focused on solving economic, political, and social problems that its supporters see as causing national decline. ... Fascists aim to create a single-party state in which the government is led by a dictator who seeks unity by requiring individuals to subordinate self-interest to the collective interest of the nation or a race."
I freely admit, it is Wikipedia, but, well, damn ...
Tell us, teacher boy, why any of us should believe you are able to think at all. Show us why anything you have written in this thread supports that notion. Go ahead. Try.
Kevin, you've been quiet here. Are you enjoying this yet?
Immensely. :)
Hah! Lurker ...
No, just busy. Setting up a new PC to replace the one I'm currently using.
It's only money, but that's OK 'cause this is America, where you can go [snark]earn[/snark] some more.
DJ:
For now. For now.
Does Kevin need that computer? Isn't he a member that's historically overrepresented in the high-tech field? Don't high-tech jobs pay more? Does that allow him more of an unfair advantage over someone forced to use an older computer?
Obviously, this unregulation cannot stand.
Markadelphia: "There is nothing collective about fascism."
Wait just a friggin' minute! YOU were the one who quoted Gentile describing fascism.
Gentile: "If the 19th century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the "collective" century, and therefore the century of the State."
Are you saying that Adolph Hitler's coauthor in promoting fascism didn't know anything about fascism?
You know what I like about you Mark? You keep on proving that the book of Proverbs is true:
"A fool does not delight in understanding, But only in revealing his own mind."
(Proverbs 18:2 NAS95S)
OK, teacher boy, it's crunch time.
Let's take yet another look at something I wrote about you last September (emphasis added):
"... He is a stereotype, a classical example of a person with a particular personality disorder. He wants desperately to be "one of the guys," to join in on intellectual discussions and be accepted as a deep thinker, a person who really has a handle on the truth.
"His problem is that he runs head first into two brick walls: 1) he is not an intellectual deep thinker, rather he is an intellectual cripple who not only does not understand logic and rational thought, he does not understand the need for or benefits of logic and rational thought; and, 2) his ego cannot withstand the trauma of admitting error. So, he commits error after error as he dances his way around admitting error. The cliche is that he digs the hole he is in ever deeper, piling the dirt back upon his own head, all the while never admitting that the hole exists. He is a caricature right out of Monty Python. The abyss that yawns before him, which he dare not look into, is that he cannot ever admit or correct any significant error or the whole edifice of his self-esteem will come crashing down upon him."
Yup, that's you.
You cannot hold an intellectual discussion on a level above sixth grade. Mostly, you simply slather on cliché after cliché, surround them with hyperbole, the result often being unintelligible gibberish.
You also commit plagiarism, which is an unpardonable offense for a teacher, considering that students risk expulsion for committing it. Here is it's definition:
v.tr.
1. To use and pass off (the ideas or writings of another) as one's own.
2. To appropriate for use as one's own passages or ideas from (another).
v.intr.
To put forth as original to oneself the ideas or words of another.
You did that here by copying (ahem) verbatim text from here and putting your own moniker below it, with no acknowledgment whatever that you did not write it.
And please, don't insult us further by claiming that you actually understand what you copied.
You're a phoney, teacher boy. You pose as being other than what you are. You fool no one.
Now, Ed has shown the Ouroboros factor. I'll explain.
With each comment in turn that you write, you concern yourself with the flames-of-the-minute, the ones that you feel lapping at your toes, and you endeavor to make something up or find someone else to copy and paste, the intent being to brush back those flames a mite. You either ignore or cannot see the wall of flames behind them, the towering mass of heat that bears down on you.
And so, you commit the error that dooms many a defendant. In the legal trade, it's known by a cliché: You Cannot Remember Your Lies. You write one thing to put out the flame at your right pinkie toe, then later you contradict yourself to put out the flame at your left pinkie toe. Thus, as I noted last September, you dig the hole you are in ever deeper, piling the dirt back upon your own head, all he whle never admitting that the hole exists.
And the only possible cause of this behavior is that you cannot admit error, so you commit error after error after error, compounding the behavior over and over and over.
Dude, it doesn't work. You fool no one. You gain the respect of no one. You insult everyone you deal with in this manner by treating them as if they don't notice. Be advised, THEY NOTICE.
You cannot fix this problem yourself. You do not have the will power. Get professional help, before you find yourself all alone amongst six billion people.
"It differs because there is competition for favor of the state by the various private entities which is what happened in the Germany in the 30s and 40s."
You mean like AIG, Citibank and GM?
"There is no re-distribution of wealth to make everyone equal, as you would have in socialism or communism."
You mean like when I personally was denied food stamps because I was a white male? And yes, I was told in so many words, and shown in the rules, where if I'd been black or female I would have qualified.
"There is no effort to make people equal because, in the eyes of a fascist, people aren't. Women, gays, and non whites are "less than." Now which party is more like that?"
Sounds to me like you have it precisely backwards. Big surprise.
Affirmative Action is inarguably predicated on the premise that non-whites and women are deserving of assistance, but white males are not. What were you saying about "less than"?
Find me the National Association for the Advancement of White People.
Find me the National Organization for Men.
Find me the Heterosexual Alliance Against Defamation.
Show me any tiniest chance that such groups would even be ALLOWED to exist, or whether they would be trashed in the media as "racist" and "sexist", while vandals destroyed their property and assaulted their members, much as the Prop. 8 protesters have done with everyone who has disagreed with them.
Show me the owner of a gay bar who has been sued for having "100% gay owned and operated" on his ads. Yes, I have seen that very ad, and I don't have any problem with it. But find me a bar owner who would NOT get sued (if not murdered and his bar torched) if he dared advertise "100% straight owned and operated".
You know better, Mark.
Mark, please explain to us how fascism is a celebration of individuality.
"So, teacher boy, just where the hell did you cut and paste that from?"
From my own blog, one of which was the quote from Baron's.
http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2008/10/usual-crap.html
Yeah, I understand it real well. Do you? Obviously not because it's belief first and facts second you, DJ. It has to be the liberals, Barney Frank, and the government...it just has to! It couldn't possibly be that people were greedy in the free market and left to their own devices.
And it couldn't be wealthy people...because they are all to be worshiped. It had to be poor people because they are weak and useful idiots, right? Sheesh...
Deeper and deeper, little boy. You pasted it here and didn't show where it came from. That's plagiarism.
You are incurable, aren't you?
"please explain to us how fascism is a celebration of individuality."
Because there is no redistribution of wealth as there is with socialism or communism. The wealthy, private industries in a fascist state have more favor than do the ones that fail. There was a hierarchy in Hitler's Germany...the stronger were rewarded and the weaker were not or punished.
Clearly, there is less individuality in a fascist state than our own, for example. But there is far more in a fascist state than in a socialist or communist one. Individual achievement was always encouraged in Germany and Italy. It helped to foster the goal of the Master Race.
And what better goal of individuality than to be the dictator of said state?
To put it simply, if you are the runt that can't keep up, you are shot. Weed out the undesirables and that is not what the Jacksons/Sharptons of the world are all about. They set up themselves as being champions of the weak. Now I have read things on here that fall all along the lines of "only the strong shall survive." So who is closer to fascism?
Actually, I did DJ, when I put the same quote up months ago to show how ridiculous your argument was...the citation is on my page.
And I also learned that putting up links here is a waste of time when they are all ridicule as being biased.
DJ,
That was a spot-on analysis.
What confuses me is Mark's determination to return to these discussions time and again, subjecting himself to ever more humiliation. Your average person, realizing he's out-classed and out-gunned, would've hightailed it out of here long ago on some pretense of "boredom" or whatever. But Mark's stuck it out for, what? two years now? And he persists in heaping the abuse on himself. I don't believe this stems from any reasonable desire to be accepted/included. It seems pathological.
I'm hesitant to agree on this point -- there is a human tendency to diagnose anyone who disagrees as suffering from a form of political insanity -- but I think you're right that Mark would benefit from some help.
I'll let the others dismantle your fascism claim, Mark, but this deserves special comment...
They set up themselves as being champions of the weak.
Ostensibly. But it's not so noble as that: it's simply another means to power. Sharpton and Jackson are hustlers and exploiters. You should be leery of any self-appointed champions of the poor and weak, because they have a vested interest in keeping people that way.
"... the citation is on my page."
The citation is not here, where you posted it.
If a student turns in a paper, an essay, or the like, wherein he has plagiarized someone else's work, but does not therein attribute the work to the auther, he is guilty of plagiarism. It does not mitigate that he notes the source on his a web page elsewhere.
Sigh. And you're a teacher ...
Just can't admit it, can you?
Thanks, Sarah.
It is indeed pathological, obviously so, i.e. "of, relating to, or manifesting behavior that is habitual, maladaptive, and compulsive", but that does not mean that it cannot be treated or cured.
Even a six-year-old child gets tired of suffering humiliation sooner or later. What is fascinating is that you'd think a teacher could learn.
Markadelphia: "Because there is no redistribution of wealth as there is with socialism or communism."
Markadelphia: "It differs because there is competition for favor of the state by the various private entities…"
Let me see if I've got this right. So the government taking money from everyone and giving it to their favorite cronies is not "redistribution of wealth"?
Oooooookay…
::: Holds hands up and starts backing away slowly :::
BTW… Mark Steyn laid down some really excellent snark in the Washington Times yesterday:
Evolution of Statezilla
Ed, this is yet another example of Not Remembering His Lies, of using contradictory statements to put out the fires at opposing feet.
As Radar O'Reilly would say, "Wait for it." He'll do it again.
DJ,
I don't think the term "lies" is appropriate because I think he actually believes this stuff to be true.
A total inability to put the pieces together and recognize when other pieces simply don't fit seems more likely.
Oh, and good cite, Ed. I like the summary:
"Is the new all-powerful Statezilla vulnerable to anything? Unfortunately, yes. He loses all his superpowers when he comes into contact with something called Reality.
"But happily Reality is nowhere in sight. There are believed to be some small surviving shards somewhere on the planet - maybe on an uninhabited atoll somewhere in the Pacific - but that's just a rumor, and Barack Obama doesn't plan on running into Reality any time soon. "
DJ,
I don't think the term "lies" is appropriate because I think he actually believes this stuff to be true.
A total inability to put the pieces together and recognize when other pieces simply don't fit seems more likely.
It might be fun to send him this and watch his head explode as he tries to put it together.
"I don't think the term "lies" is appropriate because I think he actually believes this stuff to be true."
I think it is dead on.
His problem is ego. He grasps at straws regardless of their truth because he needs to avoid admission of error. What he believes about the straw is irrelevant; only its utility to him matters.
"It might be fun to send him this and watch his head explode as he tries to put it together."
Golly, dude, have you no mercy?
What is fascinating is that you'd think a teacher could learn.
I've had a horrible track record teaching teachers. (Many of whom were in my own family. Including, I hate to admit it, my mother.)
My mother told me I needed to come help her, so I went home, she thrust a disk at me and said "This is supposed to be really good". So I installed this "grading" software. It was a colossal pile of shit. You had to set up grading, and once you did, you couldn't edit it without reentering all the grades. (This was DOS-based). Menus had different keys. M to go back in one menu, R to go back in another, and a period in another. I fooled with it for an hour and said "This is a pile of steaming shit, stop this." "BUT IT'S VERY EASY TO USE!" insisted my mother. I handed her her laptop and said "Fine, then, use it." "But I can't figure it out!"
"Look, use a bloody spreadsheet already." "That's too hard and takes too long!"
So I had her sit there, tell me her weighting, and read me grades as I punched them in for the students. As she read me their last grade, I read her back their final calculated grade.
By the 3rd class where we were done almost immediately, she was getting angry that I'd been right. (Why ask me if I'm supposedly the expert and then disregard my input?)
Then we got to a student who had transferred in. "Oh, I'll have to do this by hand" "Why? Tell me what you're changing, instead." So she told me, 5 seconds later I had the cells re-set up, and grade finalized.
Afterward, I asked her if she believed me NOW about the relative ease of the two solutions.
"Well, this program is supposed to be very easy, I don't know why you'd say it's hard."
They've been trained by the system to take an outline of something, and repeat it verbatim. If anybody they decide is authoritative makes a comment, it's believed. Anything contrary is not only wrong, but attempting to judge anyone who says otherwise harshly.
Disagreement is personal, not only do you say "you're wrong", the unsaid and implied insult is "And you're an idiot, you stink, and your momma dresses you funny".
And we can see that with Mark here. Not only does he not admit he was wrong initially, he doubles down and makes an absurd declaration supposedly in support, which is also laughable. Rather than stay on any sort of a track of thought, he wanders all over, insulting, insulting our thought process, while never proving anything, or admitting his initial, or followup error. (Or any of the errors that perpetuate this conversation.)
To do so would prove us right, after all, and he'd be forced to confront the possibility that not only were we right this time, we were right all the others, too.
Which would leave him with how much authority? How much of an analysis? No, far better to keep doubling the bet, so to speak.
"Double or nothing" with no downside. If he ever does manage to be right (and for a logical reason), he gets to declare victory and the game over. He's never going to have to pay up, or even admit how much he's in the hole.
He has no reason to admit defeat, or learn from his mistakes and errors. He doesn't need to apologize to us for lying to us deliberately and baldly, we should apologize to HIM for not allowing him to "respectfully" present his opinions and conclusions, reward him for his effort, and consider him intelligent and one of the gang.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pe9PVaFGl3o
If he wanted to understand us, he could watch that. But he won't understand why the Boeing engineers are ecstatic.
I'll spell it out for him: They didn't "guess" at their math. They had a stated load requirement. They decided to be able to exceed it 30%. Specifically, they built it to handle a load to 54% above.
Both wings broke within milliseconds. 154%. Both of them. +- .001%.
They don't get to talk about how strong they made the landing gear, or how pretty the paint is. None of those things matter. There's one issue at stake. Pass/Fail test. They passed.
Mark: Do you think your ideas can manage a pass/fail test?
"No, far better to keep doubling the bet, so to speak."
You said it, U-J; he does that because he never has to pay the bet, and he knows it.
Now watch that video, teacher boy. It illustrates the difference between you and us. Our bets get called. We don't get to keep on betting forever. If we lose, we pay.
When designing an airplane wing, bluffing doesn't work. When designing a bridge, quoting something irrelevant doesn't work. When asked to prove a design is safe, changing the subject doesn't work. When asked, "How do you know this is right", answering, "Well, someone else agrees with me" means nothing.
We deal with reality, and reality is a cast iron bitch.
We keep on telling you that you don't fool anyone. This video shows why.
So, why do we keep on hammering you? Because we know that if your bet was called, your pockets ran dry, and you couldn't raise, you'd lose.
Well done, U-J. Well done indeed.
". . . we should apologize to HIM for not allowing him to 'respectfully' present his opinions and conclusions, reward him for his effort, and consider him intelligent and one of the gang."
This is known in in Democrat politics as "bipartisanship." When Republicans do the apologizing, allowing, rewarding, and considering.
"subjecting himself to ever more humiliation."
Humiliation is in the eye of the beholder. I don't feel humiliated at all. Sorry if that disappoints you.
"realizing he's out-classed and out-gunned"
OK...that's just plain funny. DJ and Unix have outgunned me? Yeah, not so much.
"It seems pathological."
To me it seems determined. I view myself as Hank Fonda in 12 Angry Men if you need a visual. Any of you post on liberal blogs at all like I do here? Oh, that's right...they're all morons and useful idiots. I'd like to see how well you would do in a situation like that. Might I suggest that Unix and DJ, for example, post on Paul Kruggman's blog for the next six months. What do you say guys?
"but I think you're right that Mark would benefit from some help."
...said the person sorely needs it more than I do.
"Sharpton and Jackson are hustlers and exploiters."
Agreed. Sad that they let Dr. King's dream turn into their own maniacal sense of hubris.
"I don't think the term "lies" is appropriate because I think he actually believes this stuff to be true."
Well, at least someone says that I am not a "liar." And it's not a matter of belief, Ed. I'm not the one who has been brainwashed by propaganda.
"I've had a horrible track record teaching teachers."
Well, it's hard to teach when you have the attitude that you do Unix. You start with "I'm right and my belief system and ideology are based on facts. You are an idiot and a liar." Hmm...I wonder why a person wouldn't respond well to that.
Also, you're view of how teachers are trained is bizarre and, quite frankly, flat out wrong. To begin with, every teacher is different. And different subjects demand different personalities. To homogenize as you have done here is..well...quite typical of the right.
"If he wanted to understand us, he could watch that. But he won't understand why the Boeing engineers are ecstatic."
"Now watch that video, teacher boy. It illustrates the difference between you and us"
Wait a minute. I want to be clear about something. Are you equating this video with your political views--saying that they are both factually based?
"I'm not the one who has been brainwashed by propaganda."
Quick! Someone call 911. I think this laugh attack just might kill me!
Unix-Jedi: "If he wanted to understand us, he could watch that. But he won't understand why the Boeing engineers are ecstatic."
DJ: "Now watch that video, teacher boy. It illustrates the difference between you and us"
Markadelphia: Wait a minute. I want to be clear about something.
As I was saying, you wouldn't understand. (Then I explained it, since you wouldn't.)
And you still don't get it.
I'm absolutely boggled by what it would actually apparently take to get a concept across to you.
"Are you equating this video with your political views--saying that they are both factually based?"
My political views are fact-based, demonstrably so. I, and others, have so demonstrated this to you for damned nearly two years.
This video demonstrates the kind of world that we live in, we who cannot ignore demonstrable reality. When the wing breaks, we don't get to yell "Nuh-uh!", as if that made it un-break.
I have stated before, several times, that you are still, mentally, a little boy who hasn't yet learned that "Nuh-uh!" is not an affirmative defense against accusations of denying demonstrable reality.
I don't feel humiliated at all. Sorry if that disappoints you.
No, nor does it surprise me.
It's again, reflective of you. You started off the thread making a statement disproven by facts, moving the goalposts and making a ludicrous argument displaying no understanding of the subject or context, and continuing down to declare even that "fascism has nothing to do with collectivism".
And you're not humiliated.
You've been wrong, demonstrated you were wrong, lied about being wrong, lied about lying about being wrong, ... And you're not humiliated. Anybody reasonable would be by now.
Not that it surprises me. But it should demonstrate even to you how ludicrously wrong, dishonest and idiotic your stances and policy descriptions are.
DJ and Unix have outgunned me? Yeah, not so much.
You know that scene in 7 Samurai when Kyuzo is dueling? (Or the same scene in Magnificent Seven, when Britt is called out?)
For some reason, I'm reminded of that right now.
I view myself as
But does anyone else? Can you explain why with facts? Can you point to factual reasons why that would be a correct description? You've failed to correctly describe anything else. Why should how you think you look matter?
How do you actually look? That's the question. That's what you can't understand. It doesn't matter what you think you want to look like or what you'd like to, what do you look like in actuality.
Any of you post on liberal blogs at all
I post all over. I don't pick the blogs based on their politics. But the self-described "liberal" ones have a habit of being dishonest, calling people out, and editing/twisting posts or deleting them. Ask Kevin about what happened when he tried to post to Democratic Underground. I'm not going to waste my time to get it mangled/edited and lied to or my posts be modified.
I'd like to see how well you would do in a situation like that.
I'd do just as well there as here. That's the point. I'm arguing facts.
As a result, how well do depends only on my facts and my analysis. You still think that "voting" matters and emotion is important. (But we're brainwashed and following a herd mindlessly)
Might I suggest that Unix and DJ, for example, post on Paul Kruggman's
That's Krugman. The columnist who raised holy hell about Cheney being a paid tool of Enron, and deleted any mention on his blog that prior to the collapse, he'd been a highly-paid consultant to Enron, and been quite proud to tout that? That Krugman? The one who refuse to give the money back after demanding that the Enron execs should?
A banner that used to be around, now almost 4 years old (and still unanswered):
http://members.cox.net/~hoystory/krugmanwide.gif
I post all over, Mark. If you ever learn to use Google, you'd notice that.
"I don't think the term "lies" is appropriate because ...
Well, at least someone says that I am not a "liar."
You really don't understand words, do you? You're happy that he said you're not dishonest, you're mentally deranged?
And it's not a matter of belief, Ed. I'm not the one who has been brainwashed by propaganda.
Unfiskable in it's audacity and (as easily seen above) falsity.
Me: "I've had a horrible track record teaching teachers."
Well, it's hard to teach when you have the attitude that you do Unix. You start with "I'm right and my belief system and ideology are based on facts. You are an idiot and a liar." Hmm...I wonder why a person wouldn't respond well to that.
Nothing to do with installing software or training teachers in technology, Mark. My politics are irrelevant. Now I *am* the one being *asked* for information and to *instruct* so yes, I believe that I do have some reasonable ability to presume that I'm right.
I also trained thousands of people in myriads of job functions. Only 3 (to my current recollection) have very distinct "fingerprints" where I can tell what their background is just by how they respond. I don't assume people are liars and idiots. Until they lie to me and behave idiotically. Then I expect going forward they'll be dishonest and stupid. Works well, don't you think?
Also, you're view of how teachers are trained is bizarre and, quite frankly, flat out wrong. To begin with, every teacher is different.
Which means my description of the system is wrong how?
And different subjects demand different personalities. To homogenize as you have done here is..well...quite typical of the right.
Your lack of factual rebuttal, having only insult and "NUH-HUH!" is, well, exactly what we're talking about here.
Crap. Sorry about that Kevin. I was previewing, but haloscan's acting up and timing out. I got frustrated and punched the wrong button. :)
Which, of course, per Murphy, worked perfectly. :)
(That's OK, I fixed it - Ed.)
…and Haloscan bit you again, just like it did to me earlier.
You just gotta love that HaloScan is never actually fixed, it just works a little less badly at times. ;)
Kevin, how's it coming at giving HS the Fickle Finger of Fate award, or at least the boot?
Nope. Over five years worth of archived comments says it stays.
Any of you post on liberal blogs at all like I do here?
Why yes, many of us (including me) have.
We get Reasoned Discourse™ (aka: erased and banned.) It happens so often we've trademarked it!;)
Where here, you just get dead-horse beating.
Kevin,
Long time reader, first time commentator. Wow, I feel like I'm on talk radio...but I digress.
Greatly appreciate the work you do here...your blog is a daily read.
DJ-Unix-Ed,
It's almost painful to watch the beat-down....similar to a bad accident you can't help but watch.
Mark,
I have been on the fence about homeschooling for some time now, but if my boys will taught to think critically in the same fashion as your posts here....I'll think we'll pass on the compulsory education offer.
If you really think so highly about the "Nobel Prize winning" Paul Krugman, check out this simple critique of a recent article of his:
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009/02/irrational-economist.html
Of course, you're probably a worshiper at the cult of John Maynard Keynes as well....
Thanks again, Kevin.
"My political views are fact-based, demonstrably so. I, and others, have so demonstrated this to you for damned nearly two years."
No, DJ, sadly they are not. The fact that your own vanity allows you to believe that your political views are rooted in science and fact is absolutely tragic. But it does help me to understand why you think they way you do...and the way others here do...
Or, to quote Ed...
"Quick! Someone call 911. I think this laugh attack just might kill me!"
"That Krugman?"
Once again, my point proven about Nixonian politics.
sadly they are not. The fact that your own vanity allows you to believe that your political views are rooted in science and fact is absolutely tragic.
They're not? Then why do you never manage to prove us wrong. If we're not based in science and fact, it should be easy.
But it does help me to understand
Mark, in this thread alone, you've proven beyond all doubt that you do not understand prediction, honesty, humility, mental illness, fascism, communism, science, logic, debating, critical thinking...
Understanding.
You keep using that word.
IT DOES NOT MEAN WHAT YOU THINK IT MEANS.
Once again, my point proven about Nixonian politics.
You named an example. I pointed out why I consider him not an honest person, and cited examples of why he is a hypocrite, liar, and has edited/deleted comments to hide his duplicity and hypocrisy.
In other words, I "proved your point" (Which doesn't mean what you think it means, again) by citing why I call him dishonest.
You've yet to deal with your prior dishonesty, or the fact that of the people here, you're the one most resembling Nixon.
You asked "How about Krugman". I said "he's dishonest and this is why." Did you manage to demonstrate why he'd be a good choice? Offer a better one?
Or just reject it out of hand without any facts? What facts that I said do you argue with?
And are you going to back up your slander of DJ and myself? Ever? Or just pretend that you did?
I am reminded of this quote:
"It's not denial... I'm just very selective about the reality I accept." - Calvin, "Calvin & Hobbes"
Oh, and:
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
I've got an image in my head of Mark figuratively doing a Wile E. Coyote with logic one day...
Looking down, and realizing he ran off the cliff... And now there's nothing under him.
Or, he could be continue to be like the Road Runner, who's not smart enough to realize that he's bound by the law of gravity...
"It has to be the liberals, Barney Frank, and the government...it just has to! It couldn't possibly be that people were greedy in the free market and left to their own devices."
I keep seeing you say variations on that same theme. You've said it at least twice just in this comment thread, and I think 3 or 4 times (I'm not gonna go back and wade through 131 comments to count them).
What's more, every time you've said it you've used it as the supportive centerpiece for your argument that you are the only one here who can deal with the truth, that everyone else repeats that same mantra because they can't face the possibility of it being untrue, but that it isn't supported by facts.
So okay, let's see what a mere 5 minutes with Google turns up...
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/sam-dealey/2008/9/10/barney-franks-fannie-and-freddie-muddle.html
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/07/top-senate-recipients-of-fanni.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/11/AR2008091102841.html
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2008/09/barack-obama-caught-in-bed-with-fannie.html
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/13/dodd-on-fannie-freddie-they-are-sound/
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008/10/06/democrats-were-wrong-on-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac.html
There ya go. 6 links in 5 minutes.
Now I'll grant you, the Wall Street Journal tends to be rather harsh on liberal Democrats, so I suppose you could claim they are biased, although I suspect you'd have trouble proving it. OpenSecrets.org, to be honest I have no foggiest idea one way or the other, nor do I know about US News & World Report. But you must at least concede that WSJ and USNWR are run by responsible journalists who tend to be scrupulous about their fact checking. You really don't have any choice but to concede that, since they provide links and direct quotes of the parties involved.
And even if you don't like them.... CNN? The Washington Post? Will you really try to convince me that CNN and the Washington Post are twisting the facts because they are biased against liberals?
The ball is in your court, Mark.
It occurs to me that I should save a way to get back to that last comment, since I know that sometime later in another comment thread Mark is going to make the same claim, and act like I never posted the links above. It's not as if he hasn't done it before.
GoF:
Note the permalink next to the time, the "#" link?
That's what you'll want to save.
It won't do a lot of good mind you, since Mark will filter it out of existance and ignore any questions based on it, but that's how you'd save/bookmark that post. Like this:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/khbaker/210815039759079353/#602653
Is that last comment of yours.
Thanks.
I gotta post this link as well:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/09/28/franks_fingerprints_are_all_over_the_financial_fiasco/
I can't resist the prospective snortfest at Mark claiming The Boston Globe is biased against liberals.
"The fact that your own vanity allows you to believe that your political views are rooted in science and fact is absolutely tragic. But it does help me to understand why you think they way you do...and the way others here do..."
You're right in part, my statements should help you to understand why I think the way I do, and I've spent nearly two years trying to help you understand just that. But you exhibit scant evidence whatever that you have actually achieved that understanding, and you exhibit no evidence that it's affected yours.
Almost two years we've been at it, little boy, almost two years. You just keep upping the bet.
There is a fascinating dynamic at work here. So you'll at least have some probability of understanding why it's fascinating, I'll provide you the appropriate definition of "dynamic", thereby saving you the effort you wouldn't go to anyway:
dynamnic: n.
An interactive system or process, especially one involving competing or conflicting forces
You have shown for many long, dreary months that you place great store in showing that other people share your opinions. You point out that they share the result, but you avoid showing how, by reasoning from facts to conclusions, they arrive at the result. To summarize, if other people's opinions match yours, then, by golly, you must be right, and so you show their opinions as validation of yours.
We are interested in the process by which they reason to arrive at their opinion, while you simply show the opinion itself as if the fact that they have the opinion validates yours. U-J has pointed this out with the regularity of a metronome and the soundness of an anvil.
Now, contrast that with what you find in this thread. After nearly two years of what amounts to a texbook case, I've presented an analysis of what gives rise to your behavior. Those here who have expressed an opinion are in complete agreement with it. No one except you has dissented.
I find it fascinating that, to you, their opinions matching mine don't validate mine, but other people's opinions matching yours validates yours. Why the double standard, teacher boy?
And now for a slight change of pace.
This interactive map showing the current unemployment rate, county by county, is beautifully done. It appeared yesterday at the NYT.
Recall a certain dipshit statement and my response to it, and compare the unemployment rates across Oklahoma to those of Minnesota.
their opinions matching mine don't validate mine, but other people's opinions matching yours validates yours.
And this is why your "thought process" breaks down so horribly, Mark.
I've pointed out to you repeatedly your double-standards, your illogic, and your rampant problems, be they rooted in dishonesty or derangement.
But eventually you always end up in a double standard situation, and try and run away. This is why our analysis comes in handy. It's not just that we think something, it's that we think so and here is why. We can use it to look at your thought process as well. And almost every person here has come to the same conclusion via different means.
You do the same in reverse, to be certain.
And you end up with ironclad projections that turn out to be laughable. Rush, Verbatim, etc. You can't explain why we thought Bush not a good President, and yet would and could defend him. But the simple fact that your method results in incorrect conclusions doesn't break through your conscious mind. But it does appear to bother your unconscious mind.
You say Krugman, I said bad choice and this is why, with demonstrable bad faith and dishonesty on the record, and you say "NIXON! NIXON! NIXON".
I've called you Vizzini many times, because it's very fitting. Vizzini thought he was smarter than everybody else. He thought he was thinking rings around everybody else, built hugely complex plans.
But he was all bluff and bluster. He never considered that there were people as smart, or smarter than he, that they could and would be far more devious. He failed to understand why they acted, and as a result, he was doomed to failure.
Remember, in the story, he was a failure. He recruited Inego and Fezzik because they were all he could afford, and they were cheap.
(And had his plot succeeded, without the intervention of Westley - the Prince would have killed him. I'm sure, in the story universe, he had some plot, some plan to prevent that, but in the "real world" of the fantasy universe? The prince would have killed him, trusting his ruthlessness would keep the plan at bay.)
Go back and read this thread from the beginning. Take notes on every question asked of you that you've ignored.
Then answer me this: Did you ignore them because you couldn't answer them without forcing yourself to confront your double standard, your hypocrisy?
Please note how many times I've pointed out that you started off denying you were wrong, and trying to change the subject to another matter where you were wrong, laughably. You've ignored these utterly, neither refuting them or denying them.
Either you are, as DJ postulates, unable to admit error, and are willing to utterly destroy your own logic and self-esteem to do so, or you simply cannot understand how changing the subject (to something else wrong, even) means you weren't wrong.
I just found an excellent video contrasting Nancy Pelosi's "unregulated" claims (which Markadelphia has bought hook, line and sinker) to actual statements made in 2004 by both Republicans and Democrats when Republicans saw the crisis coming and were attempting to bring Fannie Mae and Fannie Mac back under control by regulating them.
Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, and Democrats are Clueless on Freddie Mac Fannie Mae and the financial credit crisis
Fact: Republicans were the ones calling for financial discipline and regulating the GSEs in 2004.
Fact: Democrats were the ones opposing the regulators and financial discipline.
Fact: We have these statements on video.
"He never considered that there were people as smart, or smarter than he, that they could and would be far more devious. He failed to understand why they acted, and as a result, he was doomed to failure."
I've made the same comparison in my mind. It's especially fitting that Vizzini was laughing at Wesley's "stupidity" right up to the moment he died.
You've finally gotten your wish, Mark. You're relevant. Because we can add "Markadelphia's hyperinflated ego" to the list, along with abortion, evolution, and religion, as topics that are guaranteed to inspire 100+ comments.
OK...that's just plain funny. DJ and Unix have outgunned me? Yeah, not so much.
Yes, Mark. You are massively out-gunned. The fact that you don't realize it is the worst part.
To me it seems determined.
So is the guy who keeps banging his head against the wall. But there you have it. In the Age of Obama, pathological is the new determined.
You know, it would be determined (in the now-classical sense of the word) if you showed any evolution in your thinking whatsoever, any capacity for self-reflection, any demonstration that you've actually considered the argumentation of DJ and Unix, any learning, any adaptation, any change in your strategy at all.
...said the person sorely needs it more than I do.
Who, me? What sort of behavior have I exhibited here that makes you think I'm in need of any kind of help?
What sort of behavior have I exhibited here that makes you think I'm in need of any kind of help?
Well, I would say that it's because you're a Born-Again Lutheran, but Mark professes to be some kind of Christian himself, so that can't be it . . . ;)
Consider who we're talking about. What you're implying, Kevin, is that there's some level of consistency in his rationale along with the application of a single standard. So that most definitely could be it. On the other hand, he's from Minnesota, so the probability that he's Lutheran is significantly non-zero...
"Being the reflective person I am (to a fault most of the time), I think (and still do) that you learn a lot about yourself when you debate people who have different views than you do. I also found this blog because Kevin posted on mine first." - Markadelphia
The original invitation:
Having perused your site I can see that we're not at all on the same plane philosophically or politically, so I'm going to disagree with you on a lot of things. This is good, because you learn much more arguing your case with someone who disagrees with you than you do preaching to the choir. Just bear in mind one thing: I've been studying this one topic for about the last twelve years. What I've learned during that study colors my political and philosophical worldview.
If you want a discussion, I'll be more than happy to provide it. I don't throw ad hominems, and I provide research and citations to support my positions. It's a lot of work. I expect the same in return. "I feel" or "I believe" isn't enough. "This is what I believe, and here is why I believe it" constitutes a valid argument.
So far what I've learned is that the stereotype of the "Typical Leftist" is indeed built on a very real foundation.
I've also learned that a lot of the other people who comment here are scary smart!
Kevin,
Like Markadelphia's other claims, I have a hard time accepting his claim that he's a christian when he clearly doesn't believe the Bible to be true.
What was the story where people had to wear various handicapping devices so that everyone would be equal? That must be the kind of "help" Marky is thinking of.
"Harrison Bergeron."
"Then why do you never manage to prove us wrong."
How can I when anything or anyone that I bring up is rooted in bias, lies, and treason, Mr. Nixon? Truly, an impossible task.
"You asked "How about Krugman". I said "he's dishonest and this is why.""
Point proven.
Just out of curiosity, Unix, is there anyone on the left that is NOT a liar?
And you'll have to excuse me if I take the word of him, an actual economist, over the word of you-an engineer. Now if Krugman came to me and started to discuss airplane design than I would have to say that he was completely full of shit.
"The ball is in your court, Mark."
No, Grumpy. The ball is in yours. I have no problem admitting that House Democrats, including Barney Frank, share in the responsibility of our economic issues. I actually think that Frank is a buffoon and dislike him personally. I am, however, not foolish enough to blame everything on him.Where we begin to have problems is when any part of Friedman is criticized. As with anything else in the "belief system" to question is to admit weakness.
"What sort of behavior have I exhibited here that makes you think I'm in need of any kind of help?"
Because you actually believe the stuff that is being peddled right now by your side of the aisle, included stuff here by the "non-feeling and logical" ones. There is no information allowed that does not fit the paradigm and any information that does not fit is labeled as lies, idiocy, beliefs, or treason which is pretty much what Goebbels used to do:)
What's interesting to me is how much trouble President Obama goes to..saying he is not perfect, saying the stimulus is not perfect, saying that he makes mistakes, saying that if someone has a better idea-he wants to hear it. Guess what?
We tried your ideas and look at the result. They failed. Be a fucking man about it and admit it. Show the country that you actually ARE about taking individual responsibility as opposed to blaming others (liberals). But sadly no...look at your reaction. It's still the fault of liberals and government. How does that make any sense when taxes have been cut for the last eight years? When there has been virtually no oversight in the same time frame?
"I have a hard time accepting his claim that he's a christian when he clearly doesn't believe the Bible to be true."
Well, of course you do, Ed, because as with many right wing Christians, they think they actually know what God thinks. And how can it possibly be that someone else interprets the Bible differently than I do? There is only one way...my way...which, funnily enough, is God's way! How convenient...
It's still the fault of liberals and government.
It's at least still the fault of government, and your solution?
MORE government!
How can I when anything or anyone that I bring up is rooted in bias, lies, and treason, Mr. Nixon? Truly, an impossible task.
And yet you fail to see the problem here.
You're the one being dishonest here. You've moved every goalpost, every discussion you didn't outright ignore.
"You asked "How about Krugman". I said "he's dishonest and this is why.""
Point proven.
But not the one you're trying to make.
I demonstrated, factually, why I said he was dishonest. You are unable to distinguish that from your preferred "NUH-HUH". More specifically, you suggested posting in his forum, which has a track record of being edited or deleted.
You refuse to discuss these facts.
And you'll have to excuse me if I take the word of him,an actual economist, over the word of you-an engineer.
So his training and his diploma outweigh his actions?
I never said he was a bad economist. I said he was a dishonest debater.
Notice you can't separate the two? (I don't think he's a good economist, but that's a wholly different story.)
Your example was someone I can point to that, like you, is dishonest and uses that to try and win debates and insult others. It's fully on point for me to say "that's a waste of my time and this is why." I didn't use his lies to debunk his economics reputation, just his rhetorical history - or what would be important if I was going to comment there.
The point you just "proved" wasn't detrimental to me, my reputation, or my worldview. In fact, it wasn't about me at all.
We tried your ideas and look at the result. They failed. Be a fucking man about it and admit it.
No, we didn't.
So no, they didn't.
Your governmental intrusions failed - and you're not fucking man enough to admit it. "No regulation in the mortgage market."
"No oversight" "No government involvement" "That law surely couldn't have had THAT much of an effect!"
... You've never tried my ideas, Mark. Don't you dare even try and tell me you have. You've never advocated personal responsibility - unless you can try and embarrass someone you dislike.
Oh, and I did forget to mention something in my above comment.
And you'll have to excuse me if I take the word of him,an actual economist, over the word of you-an engineer.
You won't take my word on FEMA or Hurricane assistance, despite the fact I've been on 3 Hurricane Disaster Teams.
You won't take my word on the regulation in the Mortgage Market despite the fact I was a senior engineer for the fastest growing mortgage company.
You won't take my word for being honest, yet you can't demonstrate anywhere where I've told you a deliberate lie, or even a careless one due to lack of research.
In short: You only listen to people who say what you'd like to hear in the first place, regardless of their qualifications, vocations, and experience.
As someone once said: Be a fucking man and admit it.
*grabs crotch like Vince McMahon
GRAPEFRUITS!!!
What was the story where people had to wear various handicapping devices so that everyone would be equal?
I think that was Vonnegut's Sirens of Titan.
Thanks, Sarah. I've been wracking my brain trying to remember it without using Google. Helps the mind, y'know.
"Be a fucking man about it and admit it."
Goddamn, but you are a fucking hypocrite.
"*grabs crotch like Vince McMahon
GRAPEFRUITS!!!"
OK, I confess to being a fuddy-duddy. Please to explain what this means?
Because you actually believe the stuff that is being peddled right now by your side of the aisle, included stuff here by the "non-feeling and logical" ones.
You completely missed the point, Mark. I don't think you need help because you're liberal. Almost all of my friends are liberal, and I respect them. I don't respect you, because, as you have demonstrated over and over for the last two years, you are everything Unix and DJ have described. You have a pathological need to be right no matter what the reality is. The rest of us come across as devoid of feelings (which we are not), because we accept reality and conform our beliefs to it. You do it the other way around.
My side of the aisle consists of people like Kevin, Unix, DJ, and Ed -- not the GOP. The fact is, I am extremely disappointed with the GOP right now, because, like Isildur and the Ring, it has been seduced by the idea of big government, which is a power that no one on Earth is capable of wielding without corruption. But it's ironic that you loathe the GOP so much -- as it stands right now, the GOP is a reasonable facsimile of the Democratic Party about 50 years ago.
"I demonstrated, factually, why I said he was dishonest."
C'mon Unix, really? Maybe what you say about him is true so that makes his economic theories all lies too? I don't think you separate the two. Please...
"Your governmental intrusions failed"
But that's only a part of the story. I have no problem laying some of the blame at them. Now, can the same be said of yourself when it is so bloody obvious how much Wall Street was ignored. And that started with Greenspan and Clinton btw. I've proven that the CRA thing is hogwash and Fannie/Freddy had issues with high income borrowers as well. Throw in GLB and you have fault on the right as well.
"You have a pathological need to be right no matter what the reality is."
Really not true. One of the things I have learned (sadly) when debating someone on the right in the last eight years is when they make a statement like this, oddly, they are describing themselves.
And your beliefs create your reality, not the other way around. You choose to look at only the mistakes that were made by the Democrats and the ones made by Republicans? Well, they acted like Democrats so that was there mistake.
And I don't mind being wrong at all. A while back I asked everyone here to critique their ideology...seriously look at its flaws...and I got one response (Kevin). So, I guess I will try again. What are the inherent flaws in a truly conservative ideology?
"I demonstrated, factually, why I said he was dishonest."
C'mon Unix, really?
Yes.
Maybe what you say about him is true so that makes his economic theories all lies too? I don't think you separate the two. Please...
I. Didn't. Address. His. Economic. Theories. You've claimed I did something I never did. The subject was fora for posting.
You suggested his forum as a place to post. I rejected it because of dishonesty. You've (tried to) change the subject twice now, and move the goalposts.
This is your failure, not mine. This has proven you cannot analyze information without conflating.
"Your governmental intrusions failed"
But that's only a part of the story.
No. You're changing the subject again. You refuse to admit that there was ANY governmental intrusion. You've been disabused of that notion three times here. You've lied about that in the past. But you've not delt with your lies in this thread, but if you insist, I'll link to those, again.
I have no problem laying some of the blame at them. Now, can the same be said of yourself when it is so bloody obvious how much Wall Street was ignored.
Nothing you say is obvious. Nothing you say is even trustworthy, liar who calls other people Nixonian. You don't understand the system. Your attempts to AGAIN, change the subject, move the goalposts, without dealing with ANY of the prior errors and lies of yours do not entitle you to a place at a discussion on such. The failures were directly and indirectly a result of government meddling and intervention. Without which, there would have been other issues.
But those are of no import, since that wasn't the case in any. way. shape. or. form. Guess who were the most instrumental in intruding and meddling in the market? Wait, no, don't guess. Forget I asked.
I've proven that the CRA thing is hogwash
A lie. You have claimed this without proof. You have repeated what other people said.
The expansion of CRA was the price for repealing Glass-Stegall (Which allowed the banks to get into a market that other people were in - it wasn't that nobody was doing it before that.) You've never dealt with ANY second-level argument after your initial CLAIM.
and Fannie/Freddy had issues with high income borrowers
I quote this merely to make a point: This statement of yours totally refutes your CRA claim. I won't explain why, and you won't be able to figure it out.
(Sarah, I think): "You have a pathological need to be right no matter what the reality is."
Really not true. One of the things I have learned (sadly) when debating someone on the right in the last eight years is when they make a statement like this, oddly, they are describing themselves.
Which is why it's pathological. Again, you're proving Sarah right. Not disproving her. Look in this thread alone for how many obviously dishonest and untrue statements you've made. How many time you've moved the goalposts rather than admit error. How many unanswered questions that you refuse to touch, because they point out errors in your argument and worldview.
You choose to look at only the mistakes that were made by the Democrats and the ones made by Republicans? Well, they acted like Democrats so that was there mistake.
Self-refutation. Either we don't look at Republican mistakes or we do. You can't say we don't consider anything the Republicans do a mistake and then immediately explain that we consider a lot that they do mistaken. I need do nothing more than quote you to refute you!
So, I guess I will try again. What are the inherent flaws in a truly conservative ideology?
No.
There are more than 20 questions left unanswered by you in this thread. You do not demand a single thing from anybody here.
And you wouldn't understand my answer anyway.
You've lost any and all authority to DEMAND that we answer you anything, especially something as stupidly thought out as that.
When are you going to man up already and admit your errors?
"I've proven that the CRA thing is hogwash"
Thank you for proving our point.
Their just ain't nothin' sadder than watchin' someone double-down on a bankrupt hand.
Markadelphia: "Well, of course you do, Ed, because as with many right wing Christians, they think they actually know what God thinks."
For some things it's downright easy! It's called putting it into writing.
We've already had this argument. You claimed that the Bible does not condemn premarital sex, when it does condemn it in. crystal. clear. language. And even then, I had to rub your nose in it so forcefully to get to you accept it, that if I did that to my dogs when they did the dirty on the floor, they would never be able to smell anything but their own crap for the rest of their lives. That's not the sign of someone trying to accurately understand what the Bible says. That's someone deciding what they want to believe, then twisting the Bible to try to justify that belief.
"Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth." 2 Timothy 2:15
That's exactly what Jeremiah Wright does. That's what Fred Phelps does. That's what Jim Jones did. That's what the KKK does. Are you sure you want to be lumped into that crowd?
Heck, even the hard core atheists here understood that it is unequivocal on that point. At least they're honest about why they don't think it applies.
Kevin, Harrison Bergeron is the one I was thinking of. Thanks.
"And your beliefs create your reality, not the other way around."
No, doofus, that's you, not us.
THAT is the gulf that separates you from us, and you cannot see it for what it is. We have tried and tried and tried to show you, but there is none so blind as he who will not see.
Jeez, but this is beyond imagining. You can't make this stuff up.
I just re-read most of the thread. Look here, teacher boy, where I wrote:
"When designing an airplane wing, bluffing doesn't work. When designing a bridge, quoting something irrelevant doesn't work. When asked to prove a design is safe, changing the subject doesn't work. When asked, "How do you know this is right", answering, "Well, someone else agrees with me" means nothing."
"We deal with reality, and reality is a cast iron bitch."
Now look here, which I posted last October. I've pointed you to it many times before, even in this thread. I quoted part of a comment by Kevin and then commented on his comment, to wit:
Kevin: "It seems to me that the objective criteria is: is your version of "truth" consistent with observable reality? If not, it doesn't matter if you're Liberal or Conservative, you're wrong."
Me: "How many times have I stated this, in my own words, in your parlor? Reality is what it is regardless of what you think about it, and regardless of whether or not you like it. Understanding that, and admitting its truth, is the beginning of rational thought."
You wrote "And your beliefs create your reality, not the other way around." about engineers and scientists?
And you're a teacher?
DJ, Vince McMahon is the owner of the WWE, the wrestling promotion. He had a habit of grabbing himself and referring to his balls as The Grapefruits. All this talk of "man up" made me think of that.
M sez OK...that's just plain funny. DJ and Unix have outgunned me?
Damn, this just made me think of the Black Knight in Monty Python's Holy Grail.
"It's just a scratch!"
juris,
The really scary thing is that the hard left looks more and more like that whole movie every year.
Some of the things they said about the Terry Schiavo case in Florida seemed almost like a direct rip off of the "Bring out yer dead" sketch. When outrageous satire becomes reality it is truly a terrifying sight to behold.
"I have no problem admitting that House Democrats, including Barney Frank, share in the responsibility of our economic issues.
Wasn't it you who said the economic issues were a direct result of a lack of regulation and oversight? Wasn't it you who laid that at the feet of the Republican Party?
Did you even glance at the links I posted? If you had, you would have noticed that the Bush Administration was asking for tighter regulation in 2002, and again in 2003, and again in 2004, and yet again in 2005. And why did it not happen? Because EVERY Democrat on the House and Senate banking Committees blocked it, and went on the news saying "Fannie and Freddie are financially sound", "There is no crisis", etc.
Let me quote one of our favorite commentors here, a guy who calls himself Markadelphia:
"up until the last election when this country saw what happens with zero oversight and welfare for the rich."
So, let's see.... zero oversight... according to those links I gave you, which you evidently did not read, Chris Dodd and Barney Frank did not "share in the responsibility of our economic issues", they were at the core of it. "Zero oversight" was a direct result of their efforts, in the face of opposition from the Bush Administration (sheesh, I can't believe I'm defending Chimpy. *shudder*)
"Welfare for the rich"... you mean like Jamie Gorelick, who got paid $26 million to commit a $10 million accounting fraud? Or Frank Raines, who got paid $90 million to cook Fannie Mae's books? Or Timothy Geithner, multimillionaire tax cheat? Or Tom Daschle, multimillionaire tax cheat? Or Dale Rathke, who embezzled over a million bucks and is not being held accountable at all?
Right, Mark. You "have no problem admitting" that those at the very heart of the problem may have had some tiny bit to do with it... but only after being repeatedly bludgeoned with documentable facts that say they were in the driver's seat. It took over a hundred and fifty comments for you to "have no problem" with it. Go look at the beginning of this thread, and read your own words. And still somehow, in your mind, it's somehow more the fault of the eeevil rich Republicans, even thought they tried to put a stop to it for five solid years and were slapped down and demonized in the media for it. And by who? Dodd, Frank, Obama, Maxine Waters.
Oh, waitaminit, my bad. It was the fault of "greedy people in the private sector". Almost a direct quote from Barney Frank, I notice. The only problem with it is, Raines and Gorelick weren't in the private sector, nor were the people who demanded that banks loan to higher risk clients without getting any higher security to offset that rick.
Oh, and on the subject of 'willful ignorance'...
The claim: "He has stated repeatedly that if anyone has a better idea, he'd like to hear it."
The actual reality, the first time it looked like he even might get a suggestion that disagreed with him: "I won."
DJ:
You wrote "And your beliefs create your reality, not the other way around." about engineers and scientists?
Remember, his reality need only be true for each sentence.
See:
Markadelphia: You choose to look at only the mistakes that were made by the Democrats and the ones made by Republicans? Well, they acted like Democrats so that was there mistake.
So in one sentence we only look at mistakes made by Democrats so we're wrong. Then in the next, we do look at mistakes made by Republicans, but we're wrong.
See? We're wrong in BOTH sentences, so we're DOUBLY wrong.
You really shouldn't challenge such a self-introspective thinker. I don't know what you were thinking.
So when he's told us we're wrong for being "too black and white" and too focused on impersonal facts and truth, we're wrong. Then when we ignore facts to create our own reality, we're wrong.
So see, we're wrong on both counts!. Thus, he's right for everything!
Truly, a dizzying intellect.
"DJ, Vince McMahon is the owner of the WWE, the wrestling promotion. He had a habit of grabbing himself and referring to his balls as The Grapefruits. All this talk of "man up" made me think of that."
Never heard of him, but that explains it. Thanks!
Remember, his reality need only be true for each sentence."
Yup, you're right, U-J, and I addressed that in a different way. I wrote, about him (emphasis added):
"And so, you commit the error that dooms many a defendant. In the legal trade, it's known by a cliché: You Cannot Remember Your Lies. You write one thing to put out the flame at your right pinkie toe, then later you contradict yourself to put out the flame at your left pinkie toe. "
What you have shown is that "later" can be as soon as the next sentence.
So, in the words of one of our favorite commenters here, one GrumpyOldFart:
"Let me quote one of our favorite commentors here, a guy who calls himself Markadelphia:"
"Be a fucking man about it and admit it."
Any bets he will?
Hah. Sometimes I crack me up.
The Black Knight... "It's just a scratch!"
Karl Rove....
I dunno guys, I think he's the guy who played Popeye's dad. You can tell by the dialogue:
"What squinky eye?"
"No resemblinks."
Charles Krauthammer lays the hammer down.
No punch lines to quote here, as I'd have to quote the whole thing. Damn, what a mind.
Six weeks in, the Obamacon dominoes — David Brooks, Christopher Buckley — are stunned to discover that, in the words of Mr. Brooks, "Barack Obama is not who we thought he was".
You don't say. Instead, he seems to be pretty much what the firebreathing knuckledragging morons thought he was: a Big Government leftie with the most liberal voting record in the Senate.
So the smart guys got suckered, and the bozos were more or less on the money.
Which may be worth keeping in mind during the apparently endless "reinventions" of American conservatism now underway.
-- Mark Steyn
Markadelphia: "any information that does not fit is labeled as lies, idiocy, beliefs, or treason which is pretty much what Goebbels used to do"
And if Goebbels used to brush his teeth, would that be a good reason for you refuse to brush yours? No.
Words like "lies", "idiocy" and "treason" all exist in the english language for one reason: they all describe things which are very real.
So we have false accusations of these things, which is what Goebbels used to do—and he is far from alone in using that tactic—and we have legitimate applications of these terms to things people have actually done. The key question is, how do we tell the difference between a false accusation and an accurate accusation?
Seriously, Mark. You know the answer to this one by now. How de we tell the difference between a false accusation of lies, idiocy and treason, and an accurate accusation?
By feelings, Ed, nothing more than feeeeelings!
Kevin: "Over five years worth of archived comments says it stays."
What if I could collect your comment history and make it available for something else? Databases are my specialty and this kind of stuff is easy for me. After all, the comments are actually stored in SQL database.
DJ: "You're happy that he said you're not dishonest, you're mentally deranged?"
Very rhetorically powerful. But I can't agree that it's completely accurate. It is possible for someone to be deluded without actually being mentally defective. So he's happy that I think he might not be dishonest, but that he's either a deluded fool or mentally defective.
There. I feel better now.
Ed: I've been trying to find a comment I made, and Haloscan's kicking *my* ass. :) (It's goofed up, is reporting 0 comments for a lot of older posts, so Google's dropped them out of the index.)
(Not to say you might not do better.)
But, BTW, I was the one to comment that he was happy that you called him deranged, not dishonest.
"Very rhetorically powerful."
Indeed it is, Ed. Those were U-J's words, and he is often like that.
DJ:
Not often enough, which is why I gotta take the credit when I can. :)
(Nothing personal!)
Oops. Sorry guys. :-}
BTW Marky,
That's how simple it is to admit when you're wrong. No fuss. No muss. No hard feelings. No pain.
Not to worry, Ed. I did it once here, too, and got smacked right smartly for it, as mine was much more egregious.
See, teacher boy, reality bites, doesn't it?
I ran across this and personally I think it deserves QOTD status. A quick google isn't finding attribution, though.
“If you want to infuriate a conservative, tell him a lie.
If you want to infuriate a liberal, tell him the truth.”
Seen here. Mark, you're not "Gillie", are you? The argument style is identical.
From that thread:
Compare and contrast:
Conservative truth: Obama’s projected budget deficits will increase the national debt more than all previous presidents combined. His socialist policies of redistribution and government spending have failed wherever they have been tried. Less than 20% of the “Stimulus” package is actual stimulus.
Leftist Lies: Bush knew there were no WMD’s in Iraq, but he invaded to enrich Cheney’s friends. `Bush’s deregulation of the mortgage industry caused the economic disaster in. (Although no one can point to any regulations that were repealed under Bush that deregulated the mortgage industry. And Bush’s attempts to impose regulation on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were fought by congressional Democrats.)
Conservative truth: The Mainstream Media (the NY Times, NPR, ABC, CNN, NBC, CBS, Time, Newsweek, Hollywood) has a demonstrable, pronounced, and consistent left-wing bias.
Liberal Lie: The media can’t be left-wing because they are owned by corporation. (Note to idiots: Content, not ownership, determines bias.). Rush Limbaugh is a drug-addict who spews hate speech every day. (Only true if all opposition to the left wing agenda is defined as “Hate Speech” ) .
That thread (and the responses to "gillie" sound stunningly familiar to the ones I've been perusing of late for the last almost 2 years here.
U-J, here is the tale of the meltdown.
Enjoy.
(hack, cough, ...)
DJ:
Yep, that was a good post. Damn good.
But I think this (an update since I saw Ross's post) is even better:
http://rebootcongress.blogspot.com/2009/03/unsupervised.html
I wonder if "greedy in the free market and left to their own devices" Mark knows that banks used to print their own money.
Likely not. When reality is what you imagine it to be, how would it matter?
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>