"Lap dogs"? Goodness, the Marxist cant is oozing out today. Or is it running dogs, I can never keep those straight.
Anyhoo, I emphatically disagree that the middle class "drives" the economy. The middle class is important solely as a consumer of the products of entrepreneurs, and therefore serves to provide rewards to the entrepreneurs.
If you have a middle class without entrepreneurs, the economy stagnates and we eventually get overtaken by the more entrepreneurial. If we have entrepreneurs with no middle class, we end up with either:
1. Entrepreneurial talent devoted solely to the problems of the rich, large companies, or government, or
I guess what it comes down to is whether or not you think the middle class is what drives our nation's economy. I do.
Yes. Well.
You also thought you knew the meaning of the word "Verbatim".
And you think you know our political leanings.
And that you understand "Critical thought". And that we're unqualified to judge the result of the gobs of money thrown to the public educational system.
And that proposing a ban on guns doesn't mean you're in any way proposing to ban guns.
And let's not forget that you also think that a mortgage is "slavery" , and a job enslaves you.
Based on all of that, then, the best way to bet on anything that you "think" is whatever the opposite is.
Oh, but wait. Remember, there is no middle class anymore? Did you forget you've defined that there is no middle class anymore?
Where's your sack now, nut-boy?
You, just the other day, said there was no middle class. Now you claim to believe that they're the driving force behind the economy?
And so did Bill Clinton. The economy did just fine when he was in office. How did things look after he left office?
Pretty good until the attacks on Sept 11th. Certainly nowhere near as badly as the worst times under Bush at any point compared to when Obama stepped in.
That aside, that is at best a 5th-grade understanding of the economy. The "projected surplus" was on paper, with certain presumptions. It wasn't a in-the-bank money situation - which anyone above the 5th grade should understand. As well as the perils of planning on that.
Furthermore, the "economy that was doing so great" was in large portion due to the wholesale scrapping of large and costly portions of the military - the logistics side. Clinton called that the "Peace Dividend".
Oh, bet you forgot that. Surely you didn't want to factor that into your equations? What was that, "squeek, ook, bong beep?" Surely Mark didn't just elide over huge issues. Surely not!
Continue to be the lap dogs of those who "invest" in our economy and continue to contribute to the downfall of our financial system.
Barney Frank? Obama? Geithener?
I think you're the only one here invested in them, Mark.
"I guess what it comes down to is whether or not you think the middle class is what drives our nation's economy. I do."
Hey, liar boy, you declared that there is no middle class. Remember?
Yet again, you give crystal clear evidence that you just make shit up in the vein of, "Hot damn! I sound so totally like, suffistikated, and stuff, by golly!"
And, yet again, you ain't foolin' anyone, sack boy.
Socialism thrives on confusion, it's what allows them to make up all that crap! Confusion begets more confusion!
Lets make slogans that rhyme, that'll clarify everything!
Mastiff, you make some excellent points. But consider this...
"The middle class is important solely as a consumer of the products of entrepreneurs"
and this...
"Now, what a strong middle class does do is prevent socialist revolutions, which is worthwhile in itself."
Right now, the middle class of this country (if you can find it or call it that) are not consuming products because their cost of living has gone up while wages have remained mostly the same. Thus, it is decidedly NOT strong and so, by your statement, there is in fact a danger of a socialist revolution. This would mean that President Obama, in his efforts to give breaks to the middle class (what many here erroneously call "spreading the wealth"), is actually trying to save capitalism. And you guys shit all over him. That's very helpful...not.
Markadelphia: do you not understand that you are doing exactly what you are accusing other people of doing, in the exact opposite direction? You accuse all of the readers of this particular weblog, regardless of politicial affiliation, party, or leaning, of tearing President Barack Hussein Obama a new one no matter what he does, no matter how he does it, and no matter why he does it. On the other hand, no matter what the President does, no matter how he does it, and no matter why he does it, you are constantly on the sidelines with your pompoms, cheering him on.
Do you simply not understand the inherent hypocrisy of that position? Or is it more a matter of you not caring, and carrying on anywise? If you are nothing more than a mindless sycophant of our President, then that simplifies the situation greatly. If you are a willful hypocrite, that likewise simplifies the situation (and given the amount of projection you have shown in the past, this part would not surprise me). If you are unaware of the disconnect between accusing everyone of doing what you are doing, we might be able to correct that.
Right now, the middle class of this country (if you can find it or call it that)
You fail. Again.
Either there's a middle class (which you deny), or it's the driving force behind the economy.
are not consuming products because their cost of living has gone up while wages have remained mostly the same.
Completely incorrect.
Thus,
Right there you made an incorrect finding, any conclusion you draw from it is unable to not be flawed.
This would mean that President Obama, in his efforts to give breaks to the middle class (what many here erroneously call "spreading the wealth")
Wrong, again.
First his "efforts to give breaks" have resulted in higher taxes already, and he's attempting to raise them even more.
The only person who would call anything erroneously is you. "Spreading the wealth" isn't what "we" call it. We call it "redistribution of wealth". And you don't understand any of what we talk about. Verbatim. Slavery.
The middle class is always the ones who's wealth is redistributed, and Obama's "stimulus" is no different.
is actually trying to save capitalism. And you guys shit all over him. That's very helpful...not.
You. Wouldn't. Know.
Obama has demonized profit, "greed", nationalized whole banks (without which the entire system of capitalism is almost impossible....
You don't have any clue about the words that are passing your virtual lips. Even the ones that contradict each other.
So, sack boy, are you going to nut up and admit you were wrong about one of your two contradictory statements about the middle class?
Yet again, ol' Markaphasia has demonstrated an affliction common to pathological liars, to wit, he can't remember his lies.
And when he wass repeatedly shown, yet again, that he has committed a significant error, to wit, severely contradicting himself, he responded with, yet again, his Standard Response #1, the "I can't hear you" response. Yet again, he behaved as if no one pointed out his contradiction, or that he never read it. This appears to be his favorite behavior, given how often we see it.
Y'see, if he ignores the monsters, then, by golly, they aren't there, until they get too close, at which point we'll see his Standard Response #10, the "Brave Sir Robin" response. I expect that, yet again, when the monsters get too close, he'll disappear for a few days, only to reappear and treat everyone as if they didn't see the monsters.
That is what happened in the comments here, where he disappeared after 12/09/09. He's as predictable as clockwork.
Oh, and sack boy, the monsters are still about. You be careful now, y'hear?
This would mean that President Obama, in his efforts to give breaks to the middle class (what many here erroneously call "spreading the wealth"), is actually trying to save capitalism. And you guys shit all over him. That's very helpful...not.
Marky......you REEEEEALLLY think he's trying to "spread the weath to the middle class? Huh.
Oh,and you forgot it's not "lap dogs", it's "Imperialist Running Dogs, Tools of the Establishment" There.....fixed it for you. You're Welcome! Merry Christmas!
Unix-Jedi: Well, as long as they keep me up to date. I'd hate to accidentally order nuclear strikes on our stout, eternal ally, EastAsia, who has always fought bravely at our side.
Keep slurping up that Clinton goo, as he just loves doling it out to his minions, like you, and you just keep believing it's all good, and that it's because of Billy being SUCH a genius!
Whatever dude. You are in the fuckin' Kool-Aid, up passed your ears.
"Most minds stall dead when faced with facts which conflict with basic beliefs; 'I-just-can't-believe-it' is all one word to highbrows and dimwits alike." -- Robert Heinlien
I think I see part of the problem. Mark, and many other liberals of his stripe, see a direct equivalence between unions and the middle class. Therefore, any policy that benefits unions, by definition benefits the middle class.
Somewhere, the ghost of Schumpeter is laughing. The economy is shifting in ways that make the union model less applicable to the modern American workforce. Most unions today, aside from public unions, are essentially fighting a rearguard action against the relentless tide of automation. In that sense, they are pure parasites on the bodies of their employers.
Consider the glorious failure of Saturn's vaunted model of collaboration with unions. Modern unions are not interested in collaboration, they want to extract rents.
"On the other hand, no matter what the President does, no matter how he does it, and no matter why he does it, you are constantly on the sidelines with your pompoms, cheering him on. "
Completely untrue. Read my blog. Until recently, I have not been happy with his AFPak policy and am still wary of how much he will (both Johnson and Nixon like) allow the Pakistanis to fight a proxy war. Less would be better imho. There are plenty of other criticism I have of him and a veritable deluge for those on the left in general (censorship, suddenly anti-Semitic, anti nuclear energy, hypocritical about women's rights).
So, you assessment of me is in inaccurate.
"Therefore, any policy that benefits unions, by definition benefits the middle class."
No, I don't think that. I have a number of problems with unions including my own. The original intent of them is long gone and has been replaced by nearly as much corruption as at the corporate executive level.
I also agree with the rest of your points. I have to say that out of everyone here (sorry Kevin :( ) I truly have a tremendous amount of respect for your opinions. It is quite clear that you are extremely intelligent and are well organized in your writing. This is why I always add the caveats "most of" or "many of" here because I think you get the central challenges we face on many core issues in this country. Here is another example of something with which I wholeheartedly agree:
"Now, what a strong middle class does do is prevent socialist revolutions, which is worthwhile in itself."
Would you say that we have a strong middle class now? I don't think we do if it all. In essence, what I see is President Obama fully realizing that we could be heading for a socialist revolution if we don't strengthen our middle class. So, while many here jeer him as a socialist, he is in fact trying to avoid it.
Because what many of you and most of the right are defending is a plutonomy.
Marky. He IS a socialist. Anyone who wants to the government to take over the healthcare system IS a socialist! Anyone who wants the government to take over major banks and then threatens them if they don't bend to his will IS a socialist. Anyone who supports the union/ government ownership of major corporations IS a socialist by any definition. Except yours which you seem to be able to pull out of some parallel universe which has no bearing on reality.
The taxes he wants to impose to support his "spreading the wealth" will DESTROY the middle class which has until recently been doing not too badly.
My assessment of you as a completely mindless drone is spot-on Marky boy. Go spout your drivel elsewhere.
Linoge: On the other hand, no matter what the President does, no matter how he does it, and no matter why he does it, you are constantly on the sidelines with your pompoms, cheering him on.
Ralph: Completely untrue. Read my blog.
Completely true. And there's a limit to how much of your lying, smarmy partisan hackery I can take. But I have looked at it from time to time, and seen utter inanity posted there.
Like your "proof" of "Corporate Power" with the gas line inspection. Your moronic insulting of LabRat.
But all of that aside, your inanity here is quite enough to condemn you. Most of the commenters know you rabidly supported Obama, and swore he wasn't a banner even as he called for a ban on semi-automatic rifles.
Just above, you make a big deal over his increased airstrikes inside - but that's actually not positive! Whoops!
You've repeated verbatim even the most obviously intellectually nulled comments Obama has made to support his desired efforts, and then refused to admit that he, and you, were wrong.
You've lied repeatedly, and if you've managed to kind of, almost criticizes Obama, that's surprising. But as you talked about him transcending politics, and partisanship? Remember that? We do. We also told you you were wrong, and he was a Chicago pol.
....
Lip reading. Who's got the better track record there?
Oh, right. You don't want to believe in Occam's Razor. ....
Steal my thunder, why do you not, U-J? ;) Not that I am complaining - in fact, if you are going to do it like that in the future, I can just keep lobbing up slow pitches for you...
Also, Markadelphia, I am not going to waste copious quantities of my spare time trying to sift through the weblog of a raging bipartisan hack who writes in an more meandering, disjointed, and disconnected manner than even I do. If you want to provide specific, to-a-single-post links supporting your assertion that my estimate of you was erroneous (which should not be that difficult, given this is your weblog we are talking about), then knock yourself out. But what you did was akin to saying someone spelled something wrong by simply pointing at an encylopedia, rather than showing them chapter and verse.
Then again, you have rarely bothered to substantiate your pom-pom-laden talking-points in the past, so why should you start now? Simply put, Markadelphia, my assessment of you stands until it has been disproven, and you have not even come close to disproving it yet. Specific, substantiated examples are all it takes, and yet you are unwilling or unable to put forth even that iota of effort - that certainly does narrow down which of the three categories you fall under.
"Specific, substantiated examples are all it takes, and yet you are unwilling or unable to put forth even that iota of effort - that certainly does narrow down which of the three categories you fall under."
Complete fucking bullshit. In fact, this is a more accurate description of yourself. I put forth deeply substantiated points on here constantly and I get personal attacks right back that are lacking in just about everything you demand of me. Our above exchange is a classic example. You tell me that I have nothing critical to say about Obama. I list one point. I go on to list several I have about the left. You ignore it, make up your own reality, and attack me.
I'll tell you what linoge (and Eagle 1). Refute the Citigroup plutonomy document using facts and logic. Here are the links again.
I could load up with more links to comments from Unix-Jedi, Ed "what the" Heckman, Russell, and others equally good, but I don't know what Haloscan would do with that many links in one comment. Just go read the whole thing when you get a chance.
Markadelphia, in the time it took you to write that ever-so-cute bleeding-martyr oh-woe-is-me expletive-laden screed, you could have very easily pulled out the post to which you are supposedly referring, and posted its link. Instead, you resorted to base language, evasion, misdirection, and further obfuscation.
I do not care what you have done in the past (though I know what you have done in the past - while I do not comment often, I read a bit - and I know you are lying through your teeth, as Ken easily points out with the links to back himself up), but I do care about what you are continuing to do now - support anything the President does, regardless of why or how he does it. No, I did not provide links - doing so would require linking to every single comment you have ever made at this particular webpage, and every post you have made at your own. However, if you think I am in error, a single, solitary link (that you are, as yet, unwilling to provide) will prove me wrong.
So how about you get over your "engraged giant-ness" and back up your words for once?
Make up my own reality? Hmmmmmm. Nah. Look up the definition of socialist Marky boy. Or fascist for that matter. STATE OWNERSHIP OR COMMAND OF THE PRIVATE ECONOMY. There's reality. Drone on Marky boy....blahblahblah, I'm so picked on. To use an Uncleism, call the Waaaahmbulance. And grow the fuck up.
"I put forth deeply substantiated points on here constantly and I get personal attacks right back that are lacking in just about everything you demand of me."
There you go again, with your Standard Response #9, the "Nuh-uh! Am not! You are!" response. You simply assert that the other side is what you don't like yourself being accused of.
Refute the Citigroup plutonomy document using facts and logic.
Mark, you've never dealt with what I've said about those documents.
It's hilarious for you to throw around that they must be "refuted".
You. Don't. Under. Stand.
I put forth deeply substantiated points on here constantly
Hah. Yeah, right. Pull the other one. It's got bells on.
Mark, you run in here, dump comment spam, and run out. You copy and paste arguments you don't understand. You claim "Point proven" on things you can't explain. You misuse words constantly, claim knowledge that your demonstrate that you do not have. Your entire "argument" is usually based on misunderstanding, misdefinition, emotion, and at best, a complete copy/paste (without attribution) to someone else without comprehension.
and I get personal attacks right back that are lacking in just about everything you demand of me.
That's because when someone takes the time to eviscerate your posts, you just ignore them, and run away to come back in and dump in the comments later.
You've earned those personal attacks, and usually, they're handing you back a personal attack you launched, and then ran away from, Sack Boy. Going to Nut Up and admit you're wrong yet? Or just be just like Al-Queda?
Just like my comments on your vaunted Citigroup documents. Where I'm a primary source - I've written such. I've also re-written such by co-workers who did a bad job. I'm a primary source on hurricane relief efforts - which you ignore.
In fact, to detail exactly how much you've ignored what I, alone have said, often running in excess of what Haloscan allows, would take literally hundreds of posts due to Haloscan limits. It would be more than Kevin's entire front page.
And that's before we add in Sarah. Or LabRat. Or DJ. Or Russell. Or Kevin himself. Or Ken. Or....
Mark, Occam's Razor - which you don't understand - is useful here.
Either you're totally incompetent, and overconfident, and have a completely incorrect view of what you've posted, what you've actually done, or a dozen or so other people are. The Dozen or so people who have been proven correct about so much other stuff. Occam's Razor doesn't mean the dozen are right. But it means that it's sure as hell likely.
Explain to me how our country is anywhere near socialism given the complete fucking obvious truth of where we actually stand.
Says the man who says there's no middle class anymore.
Fucking obvious? You have proven, repeatedly, that you can't observe and analyze.
Re-peat-ed-ly.
You've yet to even deal with your own refutation of the description of the middle class.
Or how Bill Clinton's "peace dividend" and it's effect on the economy, versus how Bush had to prosecute the war on terror. No, no, run away! run away!
Perhaps your posts are nowhere near as thoughtful as you'd like to think...
(checking other thread, and finding Brave Sir Ralph has run away, run away, run away again)
I put forth deeply substantiated points on here constantly
You mean like " I have a little research project for you. It shouldn't take too long. How many drone missions did George Bush run inside of Pakistan in his last three in office? How many has President Obama run in his 11 months in office?" over here: http://www.haloscan.com/comments/khbaker/2498021811047286960/#617784
But you won't address the NYT article which directly attacks that your "point proven" is a good thing...
I quoted it here: http://www.haloscan.com/comments/khbaker/2498021811047286960/#617888
You mean deeply substantiated points like "Take my friend Javier, who was crying the other day..."
Us: "What about him?"
You: "It proves my point! He's almost a slave! They spit in his face! He's suing!"
Us: "Uh, some more context and detail please, and slaves can't sue..."
You: [silence]
Us: "Javier? Still crying?"
You:
That's what you consider deeply substantiated. You say "take my friend Javier" - and then don't tell us what we need to take from his story. Other than it completely and 100% backs up your point. Trust you.
Or your laughable "point proven" on the "corporate power"... You know, where the gas company (granted a monopoly by the government, is required by law by the government to conduct a safety inspection (to protect you from dangerous equipment that doesn't meet requirements set by the government, and informs you of this, and intimating that if you don't allow them access, they'll ask the government to force you...
"Deeply substantiated" doesn't mean what you think it means. (At some point, even you should realize that your vocabulary is deficient. Even you.)
So far as I can tell, the only reason Brave Sir Robin comes here is to get his nostrils raped and his bowels unplugged...
As the old joke goes, I don't think he does this for the sport.
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/2009/12/quote-of-day-recession-edition.html (46 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
After only 11 months of Barack Obama, nearly half the country polls that it would prefer instead the old bogeyman George Bush.
When Hollywood nitwits start pining for the Bushes, you know things are bad.
I guess what it comes down to is whether or not you think the middle class is what drives our nation's economy. I do.
And so did Bill Clinton. The economy did just fine when he was in office. How did things look after he left office?
Continue to be the lap dogs of those who "invest" in our economy and continue to contribute to the downfall of our financial system.
Mark, who isn't hiring right now because of uncertainties concerning future health care costs and taxation? Who ISN'T "Too big to fail"?
And just who is Obama's administration bailing out?
"Lap dogs"? Goodness, the Marxist cant is oozing out today. Or is it running dogs, I can never keep those straight.
Anyhoo, I emphatically disagree that the middle class "drives" the economy. The middle class is important solely as a consumer of the products of entrepreneurs, and therefore serves to provide rewards to the entrepreneurs.
If you have a middle class without entrepreneurs, the economy stagnates and we eventually get overtaken by the more entrepreneurial. If we have entrepreneurs with no middle class, we end up with either:
1. Entrepreneurial talent devoted solely to the problems of the rich, large companies, or government, or
2. Entrepreneurs figuring out how to serve the poor, as argued, for example, in the book, The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid, or
3. Entrepreneurs jumping ship and moving to where the markets are.
The point is that the middle class does not drive anything. It is, at best, an incentive structure for those who do.
Now, what a strong middle class does do is prevent socialist revolutions, which is worthwhile in itself.
I guess what it comes down to is whether or not you think the middle class is what drives our nation's economy. I do.
Yes. Well.
You also thought you knew the meaning of the word "Verbatim".
And you think you know our political leanings.
And that you understand "Critical thought". And that we're unqualified to judge the result of the gobs of money thrown to the public educational system.
And that proposing a ban on guns doesn't mean you're in any way proposing to ban guns.
And let's not forget that you also think that a mortgage is "slavery" , and a job enslaves you.
Based on all of that, then, the best way to bet on anything that you "think" is whatever the opposite is.
Oh, but wait. Remember, there is no middle class anymore? Did you forget you've defined that there is no middle class anymore?
Where's your sack now, nut-boy?
You, just the other day, said there was no middle class. Now you claim to believe that they're the driving force behind the economy?
And so did Bill Clinton. The economy did just fine when he was in office. How did things look after he left office?
Pretty good until the attacks on Sept 11th. Certainly nowhere near as badly as the worst times under Bush at any point compared to when Obama stepped in.
That aside, that is at best a 5th-grade understanding of the economy. The "projected surplus" was on paper, with certain presumptions. It wasn't a in-the-bank money situation - which anyone above the 5th grade should understand. As well as the perils of planning on that.
Furthermore, the "economy that was doing so great" was in large portion due to the wholesale scrapping of large and costly portions of the military - the logistics side. Clinton called that the "Peace Dividend".
Oh, bet you forgot that. Surely you didn't want to factor that into your equations? What was that, "squeek, ook, bong beep?" Surely Mark didn't just elide over huge issues. Surely not!
Continue to be the lap dogs of those who "invest" in our economy and continue to contribute to the downfall of our financial system.
Barney Frank? Obama? Geithener?
I think you're the only one here invested in them, Mark.
I also remember reading that there was no middle class anymore. Now I read that they drive the economy. It's all so confusing!
You think it's confusing? Imagine the mind that comes up with this stuff!
Oh, but wait. Remember, there is no middle class anymore? Did you forget you've defined that there is no middle class anymore?
ROFL!
That's it. Mark's a Turing machine with the optional Forrest Gump package.
"I guess what it comes down to is whether or not you think the middle class is what drives our nation's economy. I do."
Hey, liar boy, you declared that there is no middle class. Remember?
Yet again, you give crystal clear evidence that you just make shit up in the vein of, "Hot damn! I sound so totally like, suffistikated, and stuff, by golly!"
And, yet again, you ain't foolin' anyone, sack boy.
Socialism thrives on confusion, it's what allows them to make up all that crap! Confusion begets more confusion!
Lets make slogans that rhyme, that'll clarify everything!
The midget walks!
Mastiff, you make some excellent points. But consider this...
"The middle class is important solely as a consumer of the products of entrepreneurs"
and this...
"Now, what a strong middle class does do is prevent socialist revolutions, which is worthwhile in itself."
Right now, the middle class of this country (if you can find it or call it that) are not consuming products because their cost of living has gone up while wages have remained mostly the same. Thus, it is decidedly NOT strong and so, by your statement, there is in fact a danger of a socialist revolution. This would mean that President Obama, in his efforts to give breaks to the middle class (what many here erroneously call "spreading the wealth"), is actually trying to save capitalism. And you guys shit all over him. That's very helpful...not.
Alright, I am curious:
Markadelphia: do you not understand that you are doing exactly what you are accusing other people of doing, in the exact opposite direction? You accuse all of the readers of this particular weblog, regardless of politicial affiliation, party, or leaning, of tearing President Barack Hussein Obama a new one no matter what he does, no matter how he does it, and no matter why he does it. On the other hand, no matter what the President does, no matter how he does it, and no matter why he does it, you are constantly on the sidelines with your pompoms, cheering him on.
Do you simply not understand the inherent hypocrisy of that position? Or is it more a matter of you not caring, and carrying on anywise? If you are nothing more than a mindless sycophant of our President, then that simplifies the situation greatly. If you are a willful hypocrite, that likewise simplifies the situation (and given the amount of projection you have shown in the past, this part would not surprise me). If you are unaware of the disconnect between accusing everyone of doing what you are doing, we might be able to correct that.
So... which is it?
Right now, the middle class of this country (if you can find it or call it that)
You fail. Again.
Either there's a middle class (which you deny), or it's the driving force behind the economy.
are not consuming products because their cost of living has gone up while wages have remained mostly the same.
Completely incorrect.
Thus,
Right there you made an incorrect finding, any conclusion you draw from it is unable to not be flawed.
This would mean that President Obama, in his efforts to give breaks to the middle class (what many here erroneously call "spreading the wealth")
Wrong, again.
First his "efforts to give breaks" have resulted in higher taxes already, and he's attempting to raise them even more.
The only person who would call anything erroneously is you. "Spreading the wealth" isn't what "we" call it. We call it "redistribution of wealth". And you don't understand any of what we talk about. Verbatim. Slavery.
The middle class is always the ones who's wealth is redistributed, and Obama's "stimulus" is no different.
is actually trying to save capitalism. And you guys shit all over him. That's very helpful...not.
You. Wouldn't. Know.
Obama has demonized profit, "greed", nationalized whole banks (without which the entire system of capitalism is almost impossible....
You don't have any clue about the words that are passing your virtual lips. Even the ones that contradict each other.
So, sack boy, are you going to nut up and admit you were wrong about one of your two contradictory statements about the middle class?
Or will you keep on failing?
This would mean that President Obama is actually trying to save capitalism
Because I'm a masochist...
HOW Mark?
Explain. Show your work.
Yet again, ol' Markaphasia has demonstrated an affliction common to pathological liars, to wit, he can't remember his lies.
And when he wass repeatedly shown, yet again, that he has committed a significant error, to wit, severely contradicting himself, he responded with, yet again, his Standard Response #1, the "I can't hear you" response. Yet again, he behaved as if no one pointed out his contradiction, or that he never read it. This appears to be his favorite behavior, given how often we see it.
Y'see, if he ignores the monsters, then, by golly, they aren't there, until they get too close, at which point we'll see his Standard Response #10, the "Brave Sir Robin" response. I expect that, yet again, when the monsters get too close, he'll disappear for a few days, only to reappear and treat everyone as if they didn't see the monsters.
That is what happened in the comments here, where he disappeared after 12/09/09. He's as predictable as clockwork.
Oh, and sack boy, the monsters are still about. You be careful now, y'hear?
This would mean that President Obama, in his efforts to give breaks to the middle class (what many here erroneously call "spreading the wealth"), is actually trying to save capitalism. And you guys shit all over him. That's very helpful...not.
Shorter version: "Leeeaave Baaaaarrrry ALOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNE!!!!!1!!!111!12!"
Marxy is just practicing doublethink, like any good subject of Ingsoc. Or is that now Amsoc?
We have ALWAYS been at war with Eastasia!
I thought we'd always been at war with SouthMonrovia? No?
Damn.
No one ever sends me the memos.
Geek:
As you know our war with Eurasia has been going on for some time, and it has formed the cornerstone of our fiscal policy.
Marky......you REEEEEALLLY think he's trying to "spread the weath to the middle class? Huh.
Oh,and you forgot it's not "lap dogs", it's "Imperialist Running Dogs, Tools of the Establishment" There.....fixed it for you. You're Welcome! Merry Christmas!
Eagle 1
Unix-Jedi: Well, as long as they keep me up to date. I'd hate to accidentally order nuclear strikes on our stout, eternal ally, EastAsia, who has always fought bravely at our side.
And as for SouthMonrovia, er..uh...
oops.
Well, if you define SEIU as the middle class....
Geek: AS I HAVE POINT PROVEN REPEATEDLY, WE ARE AT *WAR* WITH EASTASIA.
Only through war can we secure peace! B says so! He's working to end the war via conflict.
Marky,
Keep slurping up that Clinton goo, as he just loves doling it out to his minions, like you, and you just keep believing it's all good, and that it's because of Billy being SUCH a genius!
Whatever dude. You are in the fuckin' Kool-Aid, up passed your ears.
How does anyone take that shit seriously?
"How does anyone take that shit seriously?"
"Most minds stall dead when faced with facts which conflict with basic beliefs; 'I-just-can't-believe-it' is all one word to highbrows and dimwits alike." -- Robert Heinlien
That's how.
I think I see part of the problem. Mark, and many other liberals of his stripe, see a direct equivalence between unions and the middle class. Therefore, any policy that benefits unions, by definition benefits the middle class.
Somewhere, the ghost of Schumpeter is laughing. The economy is shifting in ways that make the union model less applicable to the modern American workforce. Most unions today, aside from public unions, are essentially fighting a rearguard action against the relentless tide of automation. In that sense, they are pure parasites on the bodies of their employers.
Consider the glorious failure of Saturn's vaunted model of collaboration with unions. Modern unions are not interested in collaboration, they want to extract rents.
U-J:
Right then. Getting on with the final smiting, with righteous fury, of {caugh}Asia.
That's right, all of our {aaaCHOO!}Asia problems will disappear in a column of nuclear fire.
Prepare for final victory, over our enemy, {squeeeeeefarrrtttt}Asia.
"On the other hand, no matter what the President does, no matter how he does it, and no matter why he does it, you are constantly on the sidelines with your pompoms, cheering him on. "
Completely untrue. Read my blog. Until recently, I have not been happy with his AFPak policy and am still wary of how much he will (both Johnson and Nixon like) allow the Pakistanis to fight a proxy war. Less would be better imho. There are plenty of other criticism I have of him and a veritable deluge for those on the left in general (censorship, suddenly anti-Semitic, anti nuclear energy, hypocritical about women's rights).
So, you assessment of me is in inaccurate.
"Therefore, any policy that benefits unions, by definition benefits the middle class."
No, I don't think that. I have a number of problems with unions including my own. The original intent of them is long gone and has been replaced by nearly as much corruption as at the corporate executive level.
I also agree with the rest of your points. I have to say that out of everyone here (sorry Kevin :( ) I truly have a tremendous amount of respect for your opinions. It is quite clear that you are extremely intelligent and are well organized in your writing. This is why I always add the caveats "most of" or "many of" here because I think you get the central challenges we face on many core issues in this country. Here is another example of something with which I wholeheartedly agree:
"Now, what a strong middle class does do is prevent socialist revolutions, which is worthwhile in itself."
Would you say that we have a strong middle class now? I don't think we do if it all. In essence, what I see is President Obama fully realizing that we could be heading for a socialist revolution if we don't strengthen our middle class. So, while many here jeer him as a socialist, he is in fact trying to avoid it.
Because what many of you and most of the right are defending is a plutonomy.
"Would you say that we have a strong middle class now? I don't think we do if it [sic] all."
That's "at" all, teacher boy, and even then, it's damned nearly gibberish.
But, I digress. You still can't agree with yourself about the presence or absense of a middle class, can you?
Marky. He IS a socialist. Anyone who wants to the government to take over the healthcare system IS a socialist! Anyone who wants the government to take over major banks and then threatens them if they don't bend to his will IS a socialist. Anyone who supports the union/ government ownership of major corporations IS a socialist by any definition. Except yours which you seem to be able to pull out of some parallel universe which has no bearing on reality.
The taxes he wants to impose to support his "spreading the wealth" will DESTROY the middle class which has until recently been doing not too badly.
My assessment of you as a completely mindless drone is spot-on Marky boy. Go spout your drivel elsewhere.
Eagle 1
"So, you assessment of me is in inaccurate."
My assessment of you is that you are a barely literate, blithering liar.
Linoge: On the other hand, no matter what the President does, no matter how he does it, and no matter why he does it, you are constantly on the sidelines with your pompoms, cheering him on.
Ralph: Completely untrue. Read my blog.
Completely true. And there's a limit to how much of your lying, smarmy partisan hackery I can take. But I have looked at it from time to time, and seen utter inanity posted there.
Like your "proof" of "Corporate Power" with the gas line inspection. Your moronic insulting of LabRat.
But all of that aside, your inanity here is quite enough to condemn you. Most of the commenters know you rabidly supported Obama, and swore he wasn't a banner even as he called for a ban on semi-automatic rifles.
Just above, you make a big deal over his increased airstrikes inside - but that's actually not positive! Whoops!
You've repeated verbatim even the most obviously intellectually nulled comments Obama has made to support his desired efforts, and then refused to admit that he, and you, were wrong.
You've lied repeatedly, and if you've managed to kind of, almost criticizes Obama, that's surprising. But as you talked about him transcending politics, and partisanship? Remember that? We do. We also told you you were wrong, and he was a Chicago pol.
....
Lip reading. Who's got the better track record there?
Oh, right. You don't want to believe in Occam's Razor. ....
*blink*
Steal my thunder, why do you not, U-J? ;) Not that I am complaining - in fact, if you are going to do it like that in the future, I can just keep lobbing up slow pitches for you...
Also, Markadelphia, I am not going to waste copious quantities of my spare time trying to sift through the weblog of a raging bipartisan hack who writes in an more meandering, disjointed, and disconnected manner than even I do. If you want to provide specific, to-a-single-post links supporting your assertion that my estimate of you was erroneous (which should not be that difficult, given this is your weblog we are talking about), then knock yourself out. But what you did was akin to saying someone spelled something wrong by simply pointing at an encylopedia, rather than showing them chapter and verse.
Then again, you have rarely bothered to substantiate your pom-pom-laden talking-points in the past, so why should you start now? Simply put, Markadelphia, my assessment of you stands until it has been disproven, and you have not even come close to disproving it yet. Specific, substantiated examples are all it takes, and yet you are unwilling or unable to put forth even that iota of effort - that certainly does narrow down which of the three categories you fall under.
Golly gee, guys, what the hell do you expect? For him to actually admit serious error?
Hey, look! A pony!
"Specific, substantiated examples are all it takes, and yet you are unwilling or unable to put forth even that iota of effort - that certainly does narrow down which of the three categories you fall under."
Complete fucking bullshit. In fact, this is a more accurate description of yourself. I put forth deeply substantiated points on here constantly and I get personal attacks right back that are lacking in just about everything you demand of me. Our above exchange is a classic example. You tell me that I have nothing critical to say about Obama. I list one point. I go on to list several I have about the left. You ignore it, make up your own reality, and attack me.
I'll tell you what linoge (and Eagle 1). Refute the Citigroup plutonomy document using facts and logic. Here are the links again.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/6674234/Citigroup-Oct-16-2005-Plutonomy-Report-Part-1
http://www.scribd.com/doc/6674229/Citigroup-Mar-5-2006-Plutonomy-Report-Part-2
Explain to me how our country is anywhere near socialism given the complete fucking obvious truth of where we actually stand.
Linoge and/or Eagle1, do not dance to the tune the Minnesota Thimblewit thinks he has standing to call.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/khbaker/1503790346953031557/#614764
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/khbaker/1503790346953031557/#614815
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/khbaker/1503790346953031557/#614895
I could load up with more links to comments from Unix-Jedi, Ed "what the" Heckman, Russell, and others equally good, but I don't know what Haloscan would do with that many links in one comment. Just go read the whole thing when you get a chance.
Nice try on the memory hole, though, Thimblewit.
Markadelphia, in the time it took you to write that ever-so-cute bleeding-martyr oh-woe-is-me expletive-laden screed, you could have very easily pulled out the post to which you are supposedly referring, and posted its link. Instead, you resorted to base language, evasion, misdirection, and further obfuscation.
I do not care what you have done in the past (though I know what you have done in the past - while I do not comment often, I read a bit - and I know you are lying through your teeth, as Ken easily points out with the links to back himself up), but I do care about what you are continuing to do now - support anything the President does, regardless of why or how he does it. No, I did not provide links - doing so would require linking to every single comment you have ever made at this particular webpage, and every post you have made at your own. However, if you think I am in error, a single, solitary link (that you are, as yet, unwilling to provide) will prove me wrong.
So how about you get over your "engraged giant-ness" and back up your words for once?
Make up my own reality? Hmmmmmm. Nah. Look up the definition of socialist Marky boy. Or fascist for that matter. STATE OWNERSHIP OR COMMAND OF THE PRIVATE ECONOMY. There's reality. Drone on Marky boy....blahblahblah, I'm so picked on. To use an Uncleism, call the Waaaahmbulance. And grow the fuck up.
Eagle 1
"I put forth deeply substantiated points on here constantly and I get personal attacks right back that are lacking in just about everything you demand of me."
There you go again, with your Standard Response #9, the "Nuh-uh! Am not! You are!" response. You simply assert that the other side is what you don't like yourself being accused of.
So, how was recess today, teacher boy?
Refute the Citigroup plutonomy document using facts and logic.
Mark, you've never dealt with what I've said about those documents.
It's hilarious for you to throw around that they must be "refuted".
You. Don't. Under. Stand.
I put forth deeply substantiated points on here constantly
Hah. Yeah, right. Pull the other one. It's got bells on.
Mark, you run in here, dump comment spam, and run out. You copy and paste arguments you don't understand. You claim "Point proven" on things you can't explain. You misuse words constantly, claim knowledge that your demonstrate that you do not have. Your entire "argument" is usually based on misunderstanding, misdefinition, emotion, and at best, a complete copy/paste (without attribution) to someone else without comprehension.
and I get personal attacks right back that are lacking in just about everything you demand of me.
That's because when someone takes the time to eviscerate your posts, you just ignore them, and run away to come back in and dump in the comments later.
You've earned those personal attacks, and usually, they're handing you back a personal attack you launched, and then ran away from, Sack Boy. Going to Nut Up and admit you're wrong yet? Or just be just like Al-Queda?
Just like my comments on your vaunted Citigroup documents. Where I'm a primary source - I've written such. I've also re-written such by co-workers who did a bad job. I'm a primary source on hurricane relief efforts - which you ignore.
In fact, to detail exactly how much you've ignored what I, alone have said, often running in excess of what Haloscan allows, would take literally hundreds of posts due to Haloscan limits. It would be more than Kevin's entire front page.
And that's before we add in Sarah. Or LabRat. Or DJ. Or Russell. Or Kevin himself. Or Ken. Or....
Mark, Occam's Razor - which you don't understand - is useful here.
Either you're totally incompetent, and overconfident, and have a completely incorrect view of what you've posted, what you've actually done, or a dozen or so other people are. The Dozen or so people who have been proven correct about so much other stuff. Occam's Razor doesn't mean the dozen are right. But it means that it's sure as hell likely.
Explain to me how our country is anywhere near socialism given the complete fucking obvious truth of where we actually stand.
Says the man who says there's no middle class anymore.
Fucking obvious? You have proven, repeatedly, that you can't observe and analyze.
Re-peat-ed-ly.
You've yet to even deal with your own refutation of the description of the middle class.
Or how Bill Clinton's "peace dividend" and it's effect on the economy, versus how Bush had to prosecute the war on terror. No, no, run away! run away!
Perhaps your posts are nowhere near as thoughtful as you'd like to think...
(checking other thread, and finding Brave Sir Ralph has run away, run away, run away again)
I put forth deeply substantiated points on here constantly
You mean like " I have a little research project for you. It shouldn't take too long. How many drone missions did George Bush run inside of Pakistan in his last three in office? How many has President Obama run in his 11 months in office?" over here: http://www.haloscan.com/comments/khbaker/2498021811047286960/#617784
But you won't address the NYT article which directly attacks that your "point proven" is a good thing...
I quoted it here: http://www.haloscan.com/comments/khbaker/2498021811047286960/#617888
You mean deeply substantiated points like "Take my friend Javier, who was crying the other day..."
Us: "What about him?"
You: "It proves my point! He's almost a slave! They spit in his face! He's suing!"
Us: "Uh, some more context and detail please, and slaves can't sue..."
You: [silence]
Us: "Javier? Still crying?"
You:
That's what you consider deeply substantiated. You say "take my friend Javier" - and then don't tell us what we need to take from his story. Other than it completely and 100% backs up your point. Trust you.
Or your laughable "point proven" on the "corporate power"... You know, where the gas company (granted a monopoly by the government, is required by law by the government to conduct a safety inspection (to protect you from dangerous equipment that doesn't meet requirements set by the government, and informs you of this, and intimating that if you don't allow them access, they'll ask the government to force you...
"Deeply substantiated" doesn't mean what you think it means. (At some point, even you should realize that your vocabulary is deficient. Even you.)
And I see that brave Sir Markaphasia has once again ridden valiantly off into the sunset...
I never would have guessed that getting him to link to his own weblog would be impossible.
Shhh ...
The monsters are awake.
So far as I can tell, the only reason Brave Sir Robin comes here is to get his nostrils raped and his bowels unplugged...
As the old joke goes, I don't think he does this for the sport.
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>