Have any of you seen "The Pacific" yet? As it was made by "known liberal traitors" Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks, this quote is in obvious error. So is this quote from the same article.
American movies will not be great again until they’re made by artists who comprehend America’s unique greatness.
America's greatness is exactly what "The Pacific" is all about. I wonder if Mr. Klavan has seen it. Granted it was a television series but it did have a 250 million dollar budget. What about "The Hurt Locker?" Or "The Blind Side?" Even "Inglourius Bastards" (a complete farce) does show "American's Unique Greatness. And these three are just films from 2009. We can look back at "Benjamin Button", "Milk", "Juno" (a pro life film), Eastwood's Iwo Jima films...heck, Eastwood's "Gran Torino" is another. "Munich" wasn't about the greatness of our country but it was about necessary evils in life made by an American (Spielberg).
It's funny that you put this quote up here, Kevin, considering I asked a few posts back about how Capra's Jeff Smith would fare in your political ideology. Not too well, I would imagine. More than likely he would have been labeled a "pewling, self-hating, apologizing, and appeasing leftist."
Even more amusing is the fact that the films of which Klavan speaks were made when FDR was president. Hmmm... *DONT_KNOW*
Hasbro called. They wanted me to tell you that the point you're missing has been discovered at their mansion. It was apparently involved in a fatal collision with your forehead.
And Brave Sir Robin, having already bravely retreate... er... retire... er... "advanced to the rear" on a previous thread, found yet another thread from which he can retrea... retir... er.. ah, hell with it.
Well, first of all, they are Democrats which means liberal traitors. Second, they are part of the "Hollywood Elite" which also means pinko faggots, right?
The quote from Klavan can easily be filed under the "War On Christmas" heading as yet another attempt to define "Real America."
I thought of another one..."Generation Kill"...the HBO mini series that was based on a Rolling Stone reporters experiences with the Marines in the early days of the Iraq invasion. Most assuredly, it illustrates "American's unique greatness." I would also add to the mention above of the film "The Blind Side" that it puts forth a decidedly conservative ideology on how to help the poor. Have any of you seen it? If not, I think you would appreciate the ideas put forth in the film...which is a fine and contradictory statement to Mr. Klavan.
"Well, first of all, they are Democrats which means liberal traitors. Second, they are part of the "Hollywood Elite" which also means pinko faggots, right?"
You are what, in my neck of the woods, we call a "shit disturber". You post this trash as if to say, "What can I fuck up, or fuck with, today?"
Those insipid thoughts which you posted are YOUR thoughts, little boy, not ours. They came from YOUR keyboard, not ours. This is, yet again, yet another instance of your Standard Response #12, the "I'm a deliberate fuckwit!" response, in which you mischaracterize the writings of one or more of us, and then argue against that mischaracterization as if it were real.
I never imagined (and I have quite a vivid imagination) that you would descend this low. Do you understand the concept of shame at all? Is nothing beyond you?
Well, first of all, they are Democrats which means liberal traitors. Second, they are part of the "Hollywood Elite" which also means pinko faggots, right?
Mark, I know you invested a lot of your "self" in the Obama campaign, and it's crashing down around you.
But this is a ugly, ugly turn, and indicative of a big problem.
"Liberal traitors" is bad enough - that at least isn't quite hateful.
But "pinko faggots" - apparently all that "diversity" training didn't work. Or you need some serious help.
I for one, protest your words and hate against both democrats, those in entertainment, and most especially, those of alternative sexualities. Your abhorrent attitude is not appropriate in this day and age.
Lately, I've found it jarring to see values depicted by Hollywood. Whenever I have the time to see a Hollywood movie, I usually enjoy it (if it's an enjoyable movie), but if the movie displays support for any sort of values, I've come to think: "Yeah, right. Do you really expect me to believe that the writers, actors, and directors really believe in this stuff?" That they typically don't can be demonstrated by looking at the lives of the actors, writers and directors.
I first noticed this disconnect when watching "Cars"; perhaps it isn't as bad as I think it is, but it's there, and in the background, it bothers me...enought that I'm not as interested in watching movies as I used to be!
I understand what you're saying. I was shocked not once but twice last year when I watched The Book of Eli and The Blind Side. I thought "Who in Hollywood gave these films a green light?!?!"
I guess as an atheist I was supposed to be offended or something, but I enjoyed both of them. :-D
"Who in Hollywood gave these films a green light?!?!"
Maybe the question you should be asking yourself is this: Is the caricature of Hollywood in which I blindly believe accurate?
The answer is no. In fact, I agree that The Blind Side was a wonderful film for many of the same reasons I suspect that you did. Sadly, this also means that your caricature of me is also inaccurate. ;)
So that Hasbro toy didn't dent your skull, eh? Not much can.
Markadelphia, when words like "jarring" and "shocked" are used in conjunction with "movies," it tends to indicate that the film was remarkable or unusual for some reason, not the "standard fare."
Klavan's point is that Hollyweird makes movies for the WORLD market now, not American audiences. For example, according to this site, The Book of Eli took in $94.6 million domestically, and only $51.6 million internationally. The Blind Side took in $256 million domestically and $42.9 million internationally. Avatar, on the other hand, took in $749.8 million domestically and $1,997 million internationally. 2012 took in $166.1 million domestically and $600.7 million internationally.
Klavan's point holds. And continues to try to penetrate your forehead.
I really should take Thomas Sowell's advice to heart. Fundamental premises and all.
Maybe the question you should be asking yourself is this: Is the caricature of Hollywood in which I blindly believe accurate?
The answer is no.
What do you base that 'no' answer on? Is it only that it disagrees with the caricature you believe in, or is there something substantive behind that statement?
Kevin, the domestic take on films matters much more to the execs than the foreign take. Hollywood films are very much made for American audiences and it's obvious why. We have more money.
Klavan's point is a just another example of the "War on Christmas." If you'd like a longer list of films than the one above, I'd be happy to continue. How about The Kingdom? Or Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Cyrstal Skull?
If you'd like a longer list of films than the one above, I'd be happy to continue.
Sure, sure, you're good at lists.
Explaining what the lists mean, or their context? Nazzomuch.
But Mark, I'm getting tired of being called names by you.
Not when you demonstrate blatant bigotries on a regular basis.
I was hesitant to point out your misogyny previously, but now I think with the above, that it's symptomatic . And yes, you're horribly misogynistic. One need only google for your handle, and "Sarah Palin", "Ann Coulter" or "Michelle Malkin" to get an eyeful of it. Like I said, before, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Your similar auto-bias against Christians, similarly.
But now that you're raging on alternative sexualities, I don't think you deserve that anymore. You really need to step back and identify your core problem with those of non-heterosexual orientations. Maybe you need to go to those Diversity classes and pay attention this time.
I don't think you got this from being an Obama disciple - but he certainly demonstrates a lot of it - I think you've been showing us your bigotry before he came on the scene. But I can see why you gravitated to him.
And his collapsing efforts, poll numbers, and proof that he's not who you thought he was (but exactly who we described him as) are affecting you, and it's getting very nasty.
But I think you need to really step back, and reassess your bigotry and hatred. I'm not being sarcastic, or hateful, Mark, I'm serious. You're getting worse.
Mark, this is one issue you will be completely unable to grasp. You see no difference in the values these movies demonstrate and the values most Americans share; you see nothing wrong with the values in question. Our problem is that far to many people who know better bought the Dem line of BS. Well, your guys got to call the shots and the result is the lowest approval ratings in history and the near elimination of the Dem party. Don't believe that last bit yet? Your party leaders do, and so will you after November. You have sown the wind, you are unprepared to reap the whirlwind.
Jeb, yes but why do they have low approval ratings? Is it because people are unhappy that they have compromised? Polls can be tricky things.
Reap the whirlwind...hmmm...who got their asses kicked ten different ways from Sunday in 2006 and 2008? That's a pretty bold prediction two and a half months out. No doubt, there will be losses by the Dems but what if the GOP fails to take back either house? People might be mad at the Dems but they certainly haven't lost their anger towards the GOP either. It's going to be a very interesting election.
You don't need a clue to be a murder suspect in 'Clue', just a suitable murder weapon, which in Marxy's case is a blunt object. He just can't be a player. ;)
"DJ, that's fantastic...a quote from an ultra biased right wing web site."
Well, lessee now ...
How 'bout we examine that quote? Here it is:
"The country has taken a long, hard look at that Democratic agenda, and has seen it for what it is."
Ready?
Here we go ...
"The country ..."
That's US, teacher boy. You, me, and 300+ million other people.
"... has taken a long, hard look at that Democratic agenda, ..."
We have examined the agenda of the Dimocrat Party for almost nineteen months now, during which time the Dimocrat Party has done its goddamnedest to implement it. Through that wonderful tool known as the internet, we have been able to see it on the surface (i.e. what Congress appears to do on TV), and behind the scenes (i.e. what Congresscritters do when they don't know the microphones and cameras are on). In this age of omnipresent cameras and microphones, it's nearly impossible for anything to stay hidden.
"... and has seen it for what it is."
We don't have to speculate, we have only to watch Congress and the President in action, and then both see and read the results.
So, the statement I quoted is a statement of fact. Its truth is self-evident.
But you, teacher boy, didn't read it for content, didja? You made no attempt to understand it, didja? Instead, you simply committed yet another logical error by directing an ad hominem at the site I quoted the statement from and at me for quoting it.
"Good thing you rely on logic, facts, and reasoning."
I can't quite determine which is funnier, teacher boy. Is it the stupidity of your comment, or the fact that it is completely off topic?
Of course, I'll explain it. We can't expect you do understand it otherwise, right?
You commented:
"It's going to be a very interesting election."
I responded:
"Yup, it's gonna be interesting, by golly ..."
My response was AGREEMENT, teacher boy. Words have meaning, remember?
I then cited a web page which was directly on topic. I quoted a statement from it that is directly on topic. The web page and the quote went right over your head, didn't it?
Now, try again. Examine that web page in the context in which I cited it.
It's gonna be an interesting election, ain't it?
It's just chock full of quotable statements. Again, for example:
"Barack Obama’s striking absence of natural leadership ability (and blatant lack of experience) has played a big part in undermining his credibility with the US public, ..."
Golly. Who knew?
How about this:
"And as for the War on Terror, his administration has not even acknowledged it is fighting one."
Inconceivable!
Now, go read the whole thing, teacher boy. It is about the election and it is (ahem) interesting, by golly!
DJ, that's fantastic...a quote from an ultra biased right wing web site. Good thing you rely on logic, facts, and reasoning.
Your bigotry is rank, Mark. Utterly, totally rank.
Demonstrate, if you can, the faulty logic, the incorrect facts, and the faults in reasoning from DJ's link.
I don't think you can, you automatically discounted it because of your bigotry. "Hotair! Biased!"
I especially don't think you can, because of what that description says about your previous arguments. The ones where there the MSM isn't horribly tilted left, despite all the facts and logic.
The very fact you consider Hotair.com to be "ultra biased right wing web site" (because of your say-so, which has been proven to be correct so many.. wait, when was it ever proven?) versus the MSM undermines your worldview. Not ours.
Nor did you in any way refute it, other than dismissing it.
"A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 57% of Likely U.S. Voters think the agenda of Democrats in Congress is extreme. Thirty-four percent (34%) say it is more accurate to describe the Democratic agenda as mainstream."
That's not Hotair. They're quoting the pollsters.
Funny how when Hotair.com (founded by one of your hated women, no less) reports something, it automatically becomes untrue in your mind.
..a quote from an ultra biased right wing web site.
I can't swear to it, but I think since the last time anyone linked to HotAir or Townhall or whatever to support a point, Mark has linked to HuffPo, DailyKos and Rolling Stone. And in addition, dismissed Rasmussen as right wing and horribly biased, despite the fact that their results strongly tend to be the most accurately predictive.
Good thing you rely on logic, facts, and reasoning.
Rasmussen isn't biased...they have wrongly assumed that more people in the electorate are Republican and so they weight their polls (as they should) to lean more right. The fact is that more people identify themselves as Democrat than Republican.
Rolling Stone is left wing biased? Hmmm...I guess...they say things that many of you don't like so that means they are liberal. I'll give you HuffPo or Daily Kos, though. I don't remember the last time I linked them but I'm sure I did. So what? Those would be opinion and perspective pieces, not factually based. I link fact based sites on here all the time like factcheck or snopes. Of course, they have things on there that you don't like so they must be liberal as well.
DJ, four whole posts to "prove me wrong?" Must be having a bad day today. No biggie if you want to live life in a giant echo chamber, dude, but I don't...which is why I called your link to hotair into question.
There is no doubt that President Obama has made mistakes--a couple of big ones certainly. I've always maintained that he is not perfect...as he has as well on several occasions...if you are willing to listen. Of course, to admit this is completel anathema to you as your poltiical ideology views such reflection as weakness. And that's just where Mr. Gardiner's analysis comes into play here.
His column is tailor made for members of the Cult Tribe who thrive on gathering in a collective of hate based unreality. Nowhere in any of his points did I see anything resembling real solutions. Just more Cult derangement and the complete misunderstanding of why his poll numbers are lower (see: jobs and economy) as well as people who are unhappy that he has not gone far enough. DJ, did you ever stop to think that many of those who disapprove of President Obama think that way because he is not progressive enough?
It's going to be an interesting few months until November 2nd. I'm wondering what's going to happen when you realize two things. 1. President Obama is not up for re-election until 2012. 2. People aren't any more happy with the GOP which may translate into less victories in the fall.
"DJ, four whole posts to "prove me wrong?" Must be having a bad day today. No biggie if you want to live life in a giant echo chamber, dude, but I don't...which is why I called your link to hotair into question."
Ah, yes, we see your Standard Response #6, the "How 'bout a little fire, Scarecrow?" response. Yet again, you deliberately miss the point. How surprising.
"His column is tailor made for members of the Cult Tribe who thrive on gathering in a collective of hate based unreality."
Ah, yes, your hypocrisy rears its ugly head again, as does your Standard Response #9, the "Nuh-uh! Am not! You are!" response. How was recess today, little boy?
"DJ, did you ever stop to think that many of those who disapprove of President Obama think that way because he is not progressive enough?"
Of course I did. There are left wing nut jobs who are even more Marxist than he is, and I've said so repeatedly. You weren't paying attention, were you?
"It's going to be an interesting few months until November 2nd. I'm wondering what's going to happen when you realize two things. 1. President Obama is not up for re-election until 2012. ..."
No shit? Golly. Who knew?
"... 2. People aren't any more happy with the GOP which may translate into less victories in the fall."
We've been telling you that, you pathetic little fool.
Damn, teacher boy, you really don't pay attention, do you? Or is it all about yet another Quick Retort of the Moment?
I think I can guess how Markadelphia "reads" TSM, he scans the words until he hits on a pre-programmed stimulus word and then the conditioned response kicks in.
Hence his seeming lack of any knowledge of prior conversations, his standard list of responses, his retort of the moment nonsense, and his non-sequiturs. He doesn't think, but he's been fitted quite well to conditioned response training and we lucky, lucky ones get to see that play out. Repeatedly.
I'm going to laugh out loud when he tries to turn this around on us.
Rasmussen isn't biased...they have wrongly assumed that more people in the electorate are Republican and so they weight their polls (as they should) to lean more right. The fact is that more people identify themselves as Democrat than Republican.
This is why we've often wondered if he could pass a Turing test.
The old college t-shirt of "Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script" loses a lot of its humor after bein presented with Marxaphasia.
were more widely known, how much more interesting would the mid-term elections be?
"The Socialist Party of America announced in their October 2009 newsletter that 70 Congressional democrats currently belong to their caucus."
And, here they are:
Hon. Neil Abercrombie (HI-01)
Hon. Tammy Baldwin (WI-02)
Hon. Xavier Becerra (CA-31)
Hon. Madeleine Bordallo (GU-AL)
Hon. Robert Brady (PA-01)
Hon. Corrine Brown (FL-03)
Hon. Michael Capuano (MA-08)
Hon. André Carson (IN-07)
Hon. Donna Christensen (VI-AL)
Hon. Yvette Clarke (NY-11)
Hon. William “Lacy” Clay (MO-01)
Hon. Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05)
Hon. Steve Cohen (TN-09)
Hon. John Conyers (MI-14)
Hon. Elijah Cummings (MD-07)
Hon. Danny Davis (IL-07)
Hon. Peter DeFazio (OR-04)
Hon. Rosa DeLauro (CT-03)
Rep. Donna F. Edwards (MD-04)
Hon. Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Hon. Sam Farr (CA-17)
Hon. Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
Hon. Bob Filner (CA-51)
Hon. Barney Frank (MA-04)
Hon. Marcia L. Fudge (OH-11)
Hon. Alan Grayson (FL-08)
Hon. Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)
Hon. John Hall (NY-19)
Hon. Phil Hare (IL-17)
Hon. Maurice Hinchey (NY-22)
Hon. Michael Honda (CA-15)
Hon. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-02)
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30)
Hon. Hank Johnson (GA-04)
Hon. Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Hon. Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13)
Hon. Barbara Lee (CA-09)
Hon. John Lewis (GA-05)
Hon. David Loebsack (IA-02)
Hon. Ben R. Lujan (NM-3)
Hon. Carolyn Maloney (NY-14)
Hon. Ed Markey (MA-07)
Hon. Jim McDermott (WA-07)
Hon. James McGovern (MA-03)
Hon. George Miller (CA-07)
Hon. Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Hon. Jerrold Nadler (NY-08)
Hon. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (DC-AL)
Hon. John Olver (MA-01)
Hon. Ed Pastor (AZ-04)
Hon. Donald Payne (NJ-10)
Hon. Chellie Pingree (ME-01)
Hon. Charles Rangel (NY-15)
Hon. Laura Richardson (CA-37)
Hon. Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34)
Hon. Bobby Rush (IL-01)
Hon. Linda Sánchez (CA-47)
Hon. Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
Hon. José Serrano (NY-16)
Hon. Louise Slaughter (NY-28)
Hon. Pete Stark (CA-13)
Hon. Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
Hon. John Tierney (MA-06)
Hon. Nydia Velazquez (NY-12)
Hon. Maxine Waters (CA-35)
Hon. Mel Watt (NC-12)
Hon. Henry Waxman (CA-30)
Hon. Peter Welch (VT-AL)
Hon. Robert Wexler (FL-19)
Okay, ladies and gents, all together now, "SURPRISE!"
So what, DJ. Michelle Bachmann started a Tea Party Caucus but that doesn't mean they all belong to the Tea Party. Like the members listed here, I'm sure they just want the votes. Bernie Sanders is obviously a socialist...democratic socialist that is but the rest are probably pissing off the SPA with their daily sucking of the coporate teat.
What's amusing about your "The Reds Are Coming" vibe here is that you completely fail to realize the problem which was eloquently summed up on my blog the other day by a commenter. He was discussing the recent successes of Germany's social market economy.
The totalitarian business model, in which the government is a tiny appendage of giant corporations, there only to pass favorable regulations for business, build roads and bridges and organize a military that contracts everything back to big business. This is the ideal of Grover Norquist. Though it is not what libertarians say they want, it is the ultimate outcome of their laissez-faire philosophy. This is what the United States had in the 1890s -- when private companies could literally put a price on a man's head -- and it is what we are slowly plodding toward again.
That list was published by the Socialist Party of America in October of 2009. The page that I linked to linked further to the site from which the list was published, which is
On that site, the Socialist Party of America published lots of words explaining such things as "The Political Perspective of the Democratic Socialists of America", "Democracy, Liberty and Solidarity", "Democratic Control of Production and Social Life", "The Global Economy, Global Politics and the State", "A Strategy for the Next Left", "The Role of Electoral Politics", and "The Role of Democratic Socialists".
Now, if you would have me believe that the members of Congress in that published list do NOT subscribe to this, then show me where, in the past ten months since it was published, they have denied being members of the Democratic Socialists of America and have repudiated the list.
YOU have denied the list with your comment:
"So what, DJ. Michelle Bachmann started a Tea Party Caucus but that doesn't mean they all belong to the Tea Party."
You would have me believe YOU and not ALL OF THEM?
Y'see, teacher boy, their lack of denial, en masse over ten months, has credibility. You have no credibility, as we have explained to you ad nauseam for over three years.
You want to start earning credibility? Then stop making shit up.
"The foundation of morality is to have done, once and for all, with lying." -- T. H. Huxley
You know what's most pathetic about this comment of yours, teacher boy? Two days ago, you wrote:
"It's going to be a very interesting election."
I have agreed with that statement FIVE TIMES, and each time, you have complained about it. Indeed, this comment of yours complains about the last such time I agreed.
Yeah, that's funny. It's also pathetic.
As I stated much earlier in this thread,
"You are what, in my neck of the woods, we call a "shit disturber". You post this trash as if to say, "What can I fuck up, or fuck with, today?""
Does someone agreeing with you really give you that much anguish?
A friend of mine tried a home tanning experiment with rabbit skins, in a 5 gallon bucket that had a secondary use as a doorstop. It wasn't a problem if the mixture with the skins in it stayed still and stagnant... but one day, for some reason someone decided they wanted to close that door. Let's just say the smell was so bad that, several years later, nearly everyone they knew had "stirring the bunnies" as short-form slang for "making a complete ass of yourself, to the utter disgust of those around you."
And yes, I think you've hit on it. He's obviously not here for the hunting. I think the only reason he bothers at all is because he enjoys stirring the bunnies.
The totalitarian business model, in which the government is a tiny appendage of giant corporations, there only to pass favorable regulations for business, build roads and bridges and organize a military that contracts everything back to big business. This is the ideal of Grover Norquist. Though it is not what libertarians say they want, it is the ultimate outcome of their laissez-faire philosophy. This is what the United States had in the 1890s -- when private companies could literally put a price on a man's head -- and it is what we are slowly plodding toward again.
Though I shouldn't answer you seriously...
So, since 1890, our government has gotten more libertarian?
That's your claim? (it's what you just claimed with that quote)
The Member from Minnesota's commenter must have been one of the Member's students, or that of some equivalent educational malpractitioner. The ultimate outcome of laissez-faire libertarian philosophy is a gigantic state-run military, oh yah youbetcha.
The Right Honorable Member will now kindly demonstrate his no-doubt voluminous and comprehensive understanding of the role of central banking, inflationary monetary policy, and aggressive force (to wit, "literally putting a price on a man's head") in libertarian political philosophy. Cite sources. If the Member does not understand what the question has to do with a gigantic state-run military, the Member probably can neither pour pee out of a boot without instructions on the heel.
He's not one of my students, Ken. Actually, he's a retired engineer and software specialist! Hee hee.
I'm not too inclined to respond to your demands since you didn't respond to my post with any sources at all....just more BS. Do so and I will be more than happy to discuss our plutonomy.
I'm not too inclined to respond to your demands since you didn't respond to my post with any sources at all
So sayeth the frakwit who cannot look past his own pathetically narrow bigotry when it comes to certain polling houses and certain results that lie outside of his own particular, equall-pathetic, belief structures.
I will ask again: who the fuck do you think you are fooling?
It was the Right Honorable Member who characterized the comment, howlers and all, as eloquent, and a man of character would recognize that it is for him to defend it as such.
Well, we have had our answer on the character of the Right Honorable Member, time after time after time, have we not?
Be that as it may...not that there is a hope of curing the Right Honorable Member of his moral retardation, but...here are some examples of libertarian views of the issues raised by his apparently equally benighted retired friend.
Central banks and monetary inflation. (Pay close attention to the Austrian definition of monetary inflation. The Austrians are right, as they nearly always have been.)
Why does this matter? For the State to obtain as much power, it must first obtain wealth. The functionaries who carry out policy expect to get paid, and so do the eeevil capitalists who sell goods and services to the State.
There are two ways for the State to obtain enough wealth from its citizens to get big enough to be able to oppress its citizens. One is via taxation, often at confiscatory levels (and remember that armed robbery is a felony for just us folks). The other is via inflationary monetary policy (they print more of their fiat currency, and remember that counterfeiting is also a felony for just us folks).
Monetary inflation provokes less immediate and overt resistance than confiscatory taxation, but a fiat currency and a central bank are needed to implement it. If the central bank is "independent," so much the better: it gives the State plausible deniability.
Frankly, the Member has had so much of the stuffing knocked out of him he is scarce of any further use even as a tackling dummy.
I'm not too inclined to respond to your demands since
... You proved me wrong with 15 seconds of Google
... You proved I didn't know what a basic English word or concept meant, and have been misusing it repeatedly
... You have given a concrete example that completely undermines my worldview
... LOOK A PONY!!!!!!!!!!!!!! PONY!!!!! OVER THERE!
... You've demonstrated that I've contradicted myself in the last month/week/same paragraph
... You've cited a fundamental historical figure that was at the core of a major science and I've never heard of them
... You actually paid attention in history and can cite multiple influences where the most I really know is that Hitler was bad and a Republican, and Abraham Lincoln was a Democrat
... I'm insisting on doing it again, only HARDER, but DON'T YOU DARE POINT THAT OUT
...
...
...
...you didn't respond to my post with any sources at all...
This is how you respond much more often than not. If it's so unacceptable when Ken does it, why do you allow it to be the rule, rather than the exception, in your own responses?
"At least you (unlike many others here) have manners"
What goes around, comes around.
In other words, you get back what you send out.
You probably don't remember ('cause you seem to be like that), but I initially chewed out DJ for being so nasty to you when we first ran into each other. That attitude lasted 6 months, at best. But now I have to say that you have earned every bit of the abuse you get here.
Don’t answer a fool according to his foolishness or you’ll be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his foolishness or he’ll become wise in his own eyes.
(Proverbs 26:4–5 HCSB)
The other thing about it is that "you, your, and yours" are historically formal forms of address in English, whereas "thee, thou, thy" are familiar forms. Accordingly, I would prefer the Right Honorable Member from Minnesota refrain from using the familiar form in addressing me.
However, as it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg, I suppose I don't care either way.
Thine is used in front of words that start with a vowel. E.g. "The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light." -- Matt 6:22
Pedantry is more than being annoying, it's a calling!
Manners? Well, karma is a real kick in the pants, no?
This is the sort of arrant pedantry up with which I will not put.
Alternatively, "It's people like you what cause unrest."
Sorry, Russell, I couldn't resist. ;)
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/2010/08/quote-of-day-damned-straight-edition.html (69 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
Good point... VERY good point...
I'm sure this qualifies as "nationalistic chest thumping."
Yes. And your point? ;)
WHAT? You mean Hollywood isn't real?
Nope! But at its best it reminds us to be at ours.
Have any of you seen "The Pacific" yet? As it was made by "known liberal traitors" Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks, this quote is in obvious error. So is this quote from the same article.
American movies will not be great again until they’re made by artists who comprehend America’s unique greatness.
America's greatness is exactly what "The Pacific" is all about. I wonder if Mr. Klavan has seen it. Granted it was a television series but it did have a 250 million dollar budget. What about "The Hurt Locker?" Or "The Blind Side?" Even "Inglourius Bastards" (a complete farce) does show "American's Unique Greatness. And these three are just films from 2009. We can look back at "Benjamin Button", "Milk", "Juno" (a pro life film), Eastwood's Iwo Jima films...heck, Eastwood's "Gran Torino" is another. "Munich" wasn't about the greatness of our country but it was about necessary evils in life made by an American (Spielberg).
It's funny that you put this quote up here, Kevin, considering I asked a few posts back about how Capra's Jeff Smith would fare in your political ideology. Not too well, I would imagine. More than likely he would have been labeled a "pewling, self-hating, apologizing, and appeasing leftist."
Even more amusing is the fact that the films of which Klavan speaks were made when FDR was president. Hmmm... *DONT_KNOW*
Hasbro called. They wanted me to tell you that the point you're missing has been discovered at their mansion. It was apparently involved in a fatal collision with your forehead.
And Brave Sir Robin, having already bravely retreate... er... retire... er... "advanced to the rear" on a previous thread, found yet another thread from which he can retrea... retir... er.. ah, hell with it.
As it was made by "known liberal traitors" Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks, this quote is in obvious error.
So in reality, it's completely correct?
By the by, why do you call Spielberg and Hanks known liberal traitors? What do you base that on?
Well, first of all, they are Democrats which means liberal traitors. Second, they are part of the "Hollywood Elite" which also means pinko faggots, right?
The quote from Klavan can easily be filed under the "War On Christmas" heading as yet another attempt to define "Real America."
I thought of another one..."Generation Kill"...the HBO mini series that was based on a Rolling Stone reporters experiences with the Marines in the early days of the Iraq invasion. Most assuredly, it illustrates "American's unique greatness." I would also add to the mention above of the film "The Blind Side" that it puts forth a decidedly conservative ideology on how to help the poor. Have any of you seen it? If not, I think you would appreciate the ideas put forth in the film...which is a fine and contradictory statement to Mr. Klavan.
"Well, first of all, they are Democrats which means liberal traitors. Second, they are part of the "Hollywood Elite" which also means pinko faggots, right?"
You are what, in my neck of the woods, we call a "shit disturber". You post this trash as if to say, "What can I fuck up, or fuck with, today?"
Those insipid thoughts which you posted are YOUR thoughts, little boy, not ours. They came from YOUR keyboard, not ours. This is, yet again, yet another instance of your Standard Response #12, the "I'm a deliberate fuckwit!" response, in which you mischaracterize the writings of one or more of us, and then argue against that mischaracterization as if it were real.
I never imagined (and I have quite a vivid imagination) that you would descend this low. Do you understand the concept of shame at all? Is nothing beyond you?
Well, first of all, they are Democrats which means liberal traitors. Second, they are part of the "Hollywood Elite" which also means pinko faggots, right?
Mark, I know you invested a lot of your "self" in the Obama campaign, and it's crashing down around you.
But this is a ugly, ugly turn, and indicative of a big problem.
"Liberal traitors" is bad enough - that at least isn't quite hateful.
But "pinko faggots" - apparently all that "diversity" training didn't work. Or you need some serious help.
I for one, protest your words and hate against both democrats, those in entertainment, and most especially, those of alternative sexualities. Your abhorrent attitude is not appropriate in this day and age.
Lately, I've found it jarring to see values depicted by Hollywood. Whenever I have the time to see a Hollywood movie, I usually enjoy it (if it's an enjoyable movie), but if the movie displays support for any sort of values, I've come to think: "Yeah, right. Do you really expect me to believe that the writers, actors, and directors really believe in this stuff?" That they typically don't can be demonstrated by looking at the lives of the actors, writers and directors.
I first noticed this disconnect when watching "Cars"; perhaps it isn't as bad as I think it is, but it's there, and in the background, it bothers me...enought that I'm not as interested in watching movies as I used to be!
I understand what you're saying. I was shocked not once but twice last year when I watched The Book of Eli and The Blind Side. I thought "Who in Hollywood gave these films a green light?!?!"
I guess as an atheist I was supposed to be offended or something, but I enjoyed both of them. :-D
"Who in Hollywood gave these films a green light?!?!"
Maybe the question you should be asking yourself is this: Is the caricature of Hollywood in which I blindly believe accurate?
The answer is no. In fact, I agree that The Blind Side was a wonderful film for many of the same reasons I suspect that you did. Sadly, this also means that your caricature of me is also inaccurate. ;)
So that Hasbro toy didn't dent your skull, eh? Not much can.
Markadelphia, when words like "jarring" and "shocked" are used in conjunction with "movies," it tends to indicate that the film was remarkable or unusual for some reason, not the "standard fare."
Klavan's point is that Hollyweird makes movies for the WORLD market now, not American audiences. For example, according to this site, The Book of Eli took in $94.6 million domestically, and only $51.6 million internationally. The Blind Side took in $256 million domestically and $42.9 million internationally. Avatar, on the other hand, took in $749.8 million domestically and $1,997 million internationally. 2012 took in $166.1 million domestically and $600.7 million internationally.
Klavan's point holds. And continues to try to penetrate your forehead.
I really should take Thomas Sowell's advice to heart. Fundamental premises and all.
Maybe the question you should be asking yourself is this: Is the caricature of Hollywood in which I blindly believe accurate?
Let me guess, your medical record has a warning to not allow you in the MRI room, right?
Maybe the question you should be asking yourself is this: Is the caricature of Hollywood in which I blindly believe accurate?
The answer is no.
What do you base that 'no' answer on? Is it only that it disagrees with the caricature you believe in, or is there something substantive behind that statement?
Kevin, the domestic take on films matters much more to the execs than the foreign take. Hollywood films are very much made for American audiences and it's obvious why. We have more money.
Klavan's point is a just another example of the "War on Christmas." If you'd like a longer list of films than the one above, I'd be happy to continue. How about The Kingdom? Or Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Cyrstal Skull?
If you'd like a longer list of films than the one above, I'd be happy to continue.
Sure, sure, you're good at lists.
Explaining what the lists mean, or their context? Nazzomuch.
But Mark, I'm getting tired of being called names by you.
Not when you demonstrate blatant bigotries on a regular basis.
I was hesitant to point out your misogyny previously, but now I think with the above, that it's symptomatic . And yes, you're horribly misogynistic. One need only google for your handle, and "Sarah Palin", "Ann Coulter" or "Michelle Malkin" to get an eyeful of it. Like I said, before, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Your similar auto-bias against Christians, similarly.
But now that you're raging on alternative sexualities, I don't think you deserve that anymore. You really need to step back and identify your core problem with those of non-heterosexual orientations. Maybe you need to go to those Diversity classes and pay attention this time.
I don't think you got this from being an Obama disciple - but he certainly demonstrates a lot of it - I think you've been showing us your bigotry before he came on the scene. But I can see why you gravitated to him.
And his collapsing efforts, poll numbers, and proof that he's not who you thought he was (but exactly who we described him as) are affecting you, and it's getting very nasty.
But I think you need to really step back, and reassess your bigotry and hatred. I'm not being sarcastic, or hateful, Mark, I'm serious. You're getting worse.
Hollywood films are very much made for American audiences and it's obvious why. We have more money.
Oh, right. That's why Avatar grossed nearly $2 billion internationally and "only" $750 million domestically. We have more money.
I'm amazed that you aren't chiding us on the evils of capitalism, since all Hollyweird is doing is pursuing the almighty dollar.
But that doesn't fit your paradigm. The U.S. has all the money. It's full of the greedy rich.
Mark, this is one issue you will be completely unable to grasp. You see no difference in the values these movies demonstrate and the values most Americans share; you see nothing wrong with the values in question. Our problem is that far to many people who know better bought the Dem line of BS. Well, your guys got to call the shots and the result is the lowest approval ratings in history and the near elimination of the Dem party. Don't believe that last bit yet? Your party leaders do, and so will you after November. You have sown the wind, you are unprepared to reap the whirlwind.
Jeb, yes but why do they have low approval ratings? Is it because people are unhappy that they have compromised? Polls can be tricky things.
Reap the whirlwind...hmmm...who got their asses kicked ten different ways from Sunday in 2006 and 2008? That's a pretty bold prediction two and a half months out. No doubt, there will be losses by the Dems but what if the GOP fails to take back either house? People might be mad at the Dems but they certainly haven't lost their anger towards the GOP either. It's going to be a very interesting election.
Oh Look! A PONY!
Or is it Mr. Marxaphasia with a candlestick?
Yup, it's gonna be interesting, by golly:
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/11/majority-of-voters-consider-democratic-agenda-extreme/
The money quote:
"The country has taken a long, hard look at that Democratic agenda, and has seen it for what it is."
I think it was Marxaphasia in the Library with the Candlestick.
;)
No, wait, that can't be right.
Mark? A character in 'Clue'?
Naah.
You don't need a clue to be a murder suspect in 'Clue', just a suitable murder weapon, which in Marxy's case is a blunt object. He just can't be a player. ;)
Oh, okay, I get it... blunt instrument, blunt instrument.... okay, I think it was Marky in the Library with Hyperbole!
DJ, that's fantastic...a quote from an ultra biased right wing web site. Good thing you rely on logic, facts, and reasoning.
Meanwhile, President Obama continues to govern with much of the same ideology as Dwight Eisenhower....
"DJ, that's fantastic...a quote from an ultra biased right wing web site."
Well, lessee now ...
How 'bout we examine that quote? Here it is:
"The country has taken a long, hard look at that Democratic agenda, and has seen it for what it is."
Ready?
Here we go ...
"The country ..."
That's US, teacher boy. You, me, and 300+ million other people.
"... has taken a long, hard look at that Democratic agenda, ..."
We have examined the agenda of the Dimocrat Party for almost nineteen months now, during which time the Dimocrat Party has done its goddamnedest to implement it. Through that wonderful tool known as the internet, we have been able to see it on the surface (i.e. what Congress appears to do on TV), and behind the scenes (i.e. what Congresscritters do when they don't know the microphones and cameras are on). In this age of omnipresent cameras and microphones, it's nearly impossible for anything to stay hidden.
"... and has seen it for what it is."
We don't have to speculate, we have only to watch Congress and the President in action, and then both see and read the results.
So, the statement I quoted is a statement of fact. Its truth is self-evident.
But you, teacher boy, didn't read it for content, didja? You made no attempt to understand it, didja? Instead, you simply committed yet another logical error by directing an ad hominem at the site I quoted the statement from and at me for quoting it.
"Good thing you rely on logic, facts, and reasoning."
Yes, it is.
"Meanwhile, President Obama continues to govern with much of the same ideology as Dwight Eisenhower...."
President Present exhibits two primary behaviors:
1) His solution to any problem is to throw money at it.
2) He takes vacations.
He is in WAY over his head, but you can't admit it.
I can't quite determine which is funnier, teacher boy. Is it the stupidity of your comment, or the fact that it is completely off topic?
Of course, I'll explain it. We can't expect you do understand it otherwise, right?
You commented:
"It's going to be a very interesting election."
I responded:
"Yup, it's gonna be interesting, by golly ..."
My response was AGREEMENT, teacher boy. Words have meaning, remember?
I then cited a web page which was directly on topic. I quoted a statement from it that is directly on topic. The web page and the quote went right over your head, didn't it?
Now, try again. Examine that web page in the context in which I cited it.
It's gonna be an interesting election, ain't it?
Sheesh. Some people's kids ...
Ah, but there's more interesting stuff about the upcoming election!
For example:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100050412/the-stunning-decline-of-barack-obama-10-key-reasons-why-the-obama-presidency-is-in-meltdown/
It's just chock full of quotable statements. Again, for example:
"Barack Obama’s striking absence of natural leadership ability (and blatant lack of experience) has played a big part in undermining his credibility with the US public, ..."
Golly. Who knew?
How about this:
"And as for the War on Terror, his administration has not even acknowledged it is fighting one."
Inconceivable!
Now, go read the whole thing, teacher boy. It is about the election and it is (ahem) interesting, by golly!
DJ, that's fantastic...a quote from an ultra biased right wing web site. Good thing you rely on logic, facts, and reasoning.
Your bigotry is rank, Mark. Utterly, totally rank.
Demonstrate, if you can, the faulty logic, the incorrect facts, and the faults in reasoning from DJ's link.
I don't think you can, you automatically discounted it because of your bigotry. "Hotair! Biased!"
I especially don't think you can, because of what that description says about your previous arguments. The ones where there the MSM isn't horribly tilted left, despite all the facts and logic.
The very fact you consider Hotair.com to be "ultra biased right wing web site" (because of your say-so, which has been proven to be correct so many.. wait, when was it ever proven?) versus the MSM undermines your worldview. Not ours.
Nor did you in any way refute it, other than dismissing it.
"A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 57% of Likely U.S. Voters think the agenda of Democrats in Congress is extreme. Thirty-four percent (34%) say it is more accurate to describe the Democratic agenda as mainstream."
That's not Hotair. They're quoting the pollsters.
Funny how when Hotair.com (founded by one of your hated women, no less) reports something, it automatically becomes untrue in your mind.
Eastasia or Eurasia?
..a quote from an ultra biased right wing web site.
I can't swear to it, but I think since the last time anyone linked to HotAir or Townhall or whatever to support a point, Mark has linked to HuffPo, DailyKos and Rolling Stone. And in addition, dismissed Rasmussen as right wing and horribly biased, despite the fact that their results strongly tend to be the most accurately predictive.
Good thing you rely on logic, facts, and reasoning.
Ain't it though, Mark?
My only complaint about this pinata is that candy doesn't come out after beating it to pieces :(
Rasmussen isn't biased...they have wrongly assumed that more people in the electorate are Republican and so they weight their polls (as they should) to lean more right. The fact is that more people identify themselves as Democrat than Republican.
Rolling Stone is left wing biased? Hmmm...I guess...they say things that many of you don't like so that means they are liberal. I'll give you HuffPo or Daily Kos, though. I don't remember the last time I linked them but I'm sure I did. So what? Those would be opinion and perspective pieces, not factually based. I link fact based sites on here all the time like factcheck or snopes. Of course, they have things on there that you don't like so they must be liberal as well.
DJ, four whole posts to "prove me wrong?" Must be having a bad day today. No biggie if you want to live life in a giant echo chamber, dude, but I don't...which is why I called your link to hotair into question.
There is no doubt that President Obama has made mistakes--a couple of big ones certainly. I've always maintained that he is not perfect...as he has as well on several occasions...if you are willing to listen. Of course, to admit this is completel anathema to you as your poltiical ideology views such reflection as weakness. And that's just where Mr. Gardiner's analysis comes into play here.
His column is tailor made for members of the Cult Tribe who thrive on gathering in a collective of hate based unreality. Nowhere in any of his points did I see anything resembling real solutions. Just more Cult derangement and the complete misunderstanding of why his poll numbers are lower (see: jobs and economy) as well as people who are unhappy that he has not gone far enough. DJ, did you ever stop to think that many of those who disapprove of President Obama think that way because he is not progressive enough?
It's going to be an interesting few months until November 2nd. I'm wondering what's going to happen when you realize two things. 1. President Obama is not up for re-election until 2012. 2. People aren't any more happy with the GOP which may translate into less victories in the fall.
"DJ, four whole posts to "prove me wrong?" Must be having a bad day today. No biggie if you want to live life in a giant echo chamber, dude, but I don't...which is why I called your link to hotair into question."
Ah, yes, we see your Standard Response #6, the "How 'bout a little fire, Scarecrow?" response. Yet again, you deliberately miss the point. How surprising.
"His column is tailor made for members of the Cult Tribe who thrive on gathering in a collective of hate based unreality."
Ah, yes, your hypocrisy rears its ugly head again, as does your Standard Response #9, the "Nuh-uh! Am not! You are!" response. How was recess today, little boy?
"DJ, did you ever stop to think that many of those who disapprove of President Obama think that way because he is not progressive enough?"
Of course I did. There are left wing nut jobs who are even more Marxist than he is, and I've said so repeatedly. You weren't paying attention, were you?
"It's going to be an interesting few months until November 2nd. I'm wondering what's going to happen when you realize two things. 1. President Obama is not up for re-election until 2012. ..."
No shit? Golly. Who knew?
"... 2. People aren't any more happy with the GOP which may translate into less victories in the fall."
We've been telling you that, you pathetic little fool.
Damn, teacher boy, you really don't pay attention, do you? Or is it all about yet another Quick Retort of the Moment?
Once again, you fool no one, little boy.
I think I can guess how Markadelphia "reads" TSM, he scans the words until he hits on a pre-programmed stimulus word and then the conditioned response kicks in.
Hence his seeming lack of any knowledge of prior conversations, his standard list of responses, his retort of the moment nonsense, and his non-sequiturs. He doesn't think, but he's been fitted quite well to conditioned response training and we lucky, lucky ones get to see that play out. Repeatedly.
I'm going to laugh out loud when he tries to turn this around on us.
"I'm going to laugh out loud when he tries to turn this around on us."
Well, what else can he do? After all, it's a conditioned response!
In short, GIGO. This is why we've often wondered if he could pass a Turing test.
Rasmussen isn't biased...they have wrongly assumed that more people in the electorate are Republican and so they weight their polls (as they should) to lean more right. The fact is that more people identify themselves as Democrat than Republican.
That must be why Rasmussen, historically speaking, has turned out to be the most accurate polling house in America, at least when it comes to Presidential elections. Repeatedly.
Oh. Wait.
This is why we've often wondered if he could pass a Turing test.
The old college t-shirt of "Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script" loses a lot of its humor after bein presented with Marxaphasia.
Do. You. Want. To. Play. A. Game?
I wonder, if this
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/08/american-socialists-release-names-of-70-congressional-democrats-in-their-caucus/
were more widely known, how much more interesting would the mid-term elections be?
"The Socialist Party of America announced in their October 2009 newsletter that 70 Congressional democrats currently belong to their caucus."
And, here they are:
Hon. Neil Abercrombie (HI-01)
Hon. Tammy Baldwin (WI-02)
Hon. Xavier Becerra (CA-31)
Hon. Madeleine Bordallo (GU-AL)
Hon. Robert Brady (PA-01)
Hon. Corrine Brown (FL-03)
Hon. Michael Capuano (MA-08)
Hon. André Carson (IN-07)
Hon. Donna Christensen (VI-AL)
Hon. Yvette Clarke (NY-11)
Hon. William “Lacy” Clay (MO-01)
Hon. Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05)
Hon. Steve Cohen (TN-09)
Hon. John Conyers (MI-14)
Hon. Elijah Cummings (MD-07)
Hon. Danny Davis (IL-07)
Hon. Peter DeFazio (OR-04)
Hon. Rosa DeLauro (CT-03)
Rep. Donna F. Edwards (MD-04)
Hon. Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Hon. Sam Farr (CA-17)
Hon. Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
Hon. Bob Filner (CA-51)
Hon. Barney Frank (MA-04)
Hon. Marcia L. Fudge (OH-11)
Hon. Alan Grayson (FL-08)
Hon. Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)
Hon. John Hall (NY-19)
Hon. Phil Hare (IL-17)
Hon. Maurice Hinchey (NY-22)
Hon. Michael Honda (CA-15)
Hon. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-02)
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30)
Hon. Hank Johnson (GA-04)
Hon. Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Hon. Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13)
Hon. Barbara Lee (CA-09)
Hon. John Lewis (GA-05)
Hon. David Loebsack (IA-02)
Hon. Ben R. Lujan (NM-3)
Hon. Carolyn Maloney (NY-14)
Hon. Ed Markey (MA-07)
Hon. Jim McDermott (WA-07)
Hon. James McGovern (MA-03)
Hon. George Miller (CA-07)
Hon. Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Hon. Jerrold Nadler (NY-08)
Hon. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (DC-AL)
Hon. John Olver (MA-01)
Hon. Ed Pastor (AZ-04)
Hon. Donald Payne (NJ-10)
Hon. Chellie Pingree (ME-01)
Hon. Charles Rangel (NY-15)
Hon. Laura Richardson (CA-37)
Hon. Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34)
Hon. Bobby Rush (IL-01)
Hon. Linda Sánchez (CA-47)
Hon. Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
Hon. José Serrano (NY-16)
Hon. Louise Slaughter (NY-28)
Hon. Pete Stark (CA-13)
Hon. Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
Hon. John Tierney (MA-06)
Hon. Nydia Velazquez (NY-12)
Hon. Maxine Waters (CA-35)
Hon. Mel Watt (NC-12)
Hon. Henry Waxman (CA-30)
Hon. Peter Welch (VT-AL)
Hon. Robert Wexler (FL-19)
Okay, ladies and gents, all together now, "SURPRISE!"
So what, DJ. Michelle Bachmann started a Tea Party Caucus but that doesn't mean they all belong to the Tea Party. Like the members listed here, I'm sure they just want the votes. Bernie Sanders is obviously a socialist...democratic socialist that is but the rest are probably pissing off the SPA with their daily sucking of the coporate teat.
What's amusing about your "The Reds Are Coming" vibe here is that you completely fail to realize the problem which was eloquently summed up on my blog the other day by a commenter. He was discussing the recent successes of Germany's social market economy.
The totalitarian business model, in which the government is a tiny appendage of giant corporations, there only to pass favorable regulations for business, build roads and bridges and organize a military that contracts everything back to big business. This is the ideal of Grover Norquist. Though it is not what libertarians say they want, it is the ultimate outcome of their laissez-faire philosophy. This is what the United States had in the 1890s -- when private companies could literally put a price on a man's head -- and it is what we are slowly plodding toward again.
I'd say we're pretty much there.
"... I'm sure they just want the votes."
I'm sure you are, yet again, just making shit up.
That list was published by the Socialist Party of America in October of 2009. The page that I linked to linked further to the site from which the list was published, which is
http://www.americansocialistvoter.com/demsocofamerica.htm
Didn't go there, didja?
On that site, the Socialist Party of America published lots of words explaining such things as "The Political Perspective of the Democratic Socialists of America", "Democracy, Liberty and Solidarity", "Democratic Control of Production and Social Life", "The Global Economy, Global Politics and the State", "A Strategy for the Next Left", "The Role of Electoral Politics", and "The Role of Democratic Socialists".
Now, if you would have me believe that the members of Congress in that published list do NOT subscribe to this, then show me where, in the past ten months since it was published, they have denied being members of the Democratic Socialists of America and have repudiated the list.
YOU have denied the list with your comment:
"So what, DJ. Michelle Bachmann started a Tea Party Caucus but that doesn't mean they all belong to the Tea Party."
You would have me believe YOU and not ALL OF THEM?
Y'see, teacher boy, their lack of denial, en masse over ten months, has credibility. You have no credibility, as we have explained to you ad nauseam for over three years.
You want to start earning credibility? Then stop making shit up.
"The foundation of morality is to have done, once and for all, with lying." -- T. H. Huxley
You know what's most pathetic about this comment of yours, teacher boy? Two days ago, you wrote:
"It's going to be a very interesting election."
I have agreed with that statement FIVE TIMES, and each time, you have complained about it. Indeed, this comment of yours complains about the last such time I agreed.
Yeah, that's funny. It's also pathetic.
As I stated much earlier in this thread,
"You are what, in my neck of the woods, we call a "shit disturber". You post this trash as if to say, "What can I fuck up, or fuck with, today?""
Does someone agreeing with you really give you that much anguish?
A friend of mine tried a home tanning experiment with rabbit skins, in a 5 gallon bucket that had a secondary use as a doorstop. It wasn't a problem if the mixture with the skins in it stayed still and stagnant... but one day, for some reason someone decided they wanted to close that door. Let's just say the smell was so bad that, several years later, nearly everyone they knew had "stirring the bunnies" as short-form slang for "making a complete ass of yourself, to the utter disgust of those around you."
And yes, I think you've hit on it. He's obviously not here for the hunting. I think the only reason he bothers at all is because he enjoys stirring the bunnies.
The totalitarian business model, in which the government is a tiny appendage of giant corporations, there only to pass favorable regulations for business, build roads and bridges and organize a military that contracts everything back to big business. This is the ideal of Grover Norquist. Though it is not what libertarians say they want, it is the ultimate outcome of their laissez-faire philosophy. This is what the United States had in the 1890s -- when private companies could literally put a price on a man's head -- and it is what we are slowly plodding toward again.
Though I shouldn't answer you seriously...
So, since 1890, our government has gotten more libertarian?
That's your claim? (it's what you just claimed with that quote)
I think he and his buddy are claiming that libertarianism leads to Hitler, which is morally depraved (aka, par for Markadelphia).
The Member from Minnesota's commenter must have been one of the Member's students, or that of some equivalent educational malpractitioner. The ultimate outcome of laissez-faire libertarian philosophy is a gigantic state-run military, oh yah youbetcha.
The Right Honorable Member will now kindly demonstrate his no-doubt voluminous and comprehensive understanding of the role of central banking, inflationary monetary policy, and aggressive force (to wit, "literally putting a price on a man's head") in libertarian political philosophy. Cite sources. If the Member does not understand what the question has to do with a gigantic state-run military, the Member probably can neither pour pee out of a boot without instructions on the heel.
He's not one of my students, Ken. Actually, he's a retired engineer and software specialist! Hee hee.
I'm not too inclined to respond to your demands since you didn't respond to my post with any sources at all....just more BS. Do so and I will be more than happy to discuss our plutonomy.
"... since you didn't respond to my post with any sources at all ..."
You pathetic little hypocrite.
You don't have the least idea what I asked or why, do you? Not the least little inkling of a cluelet.
I'm not too inclined to respond to your demands since you didn't respond to my post with any sources at all
So sayeth the frakwit who cannot look past his own pathetically narrow bigotry when it comes to certain polling houses and certain results that lie outside of his own particular, equall-pathetic, belief structures.
I will ask again: who the fuck do you think you are fooling?
It was the Right Honorable Member who characterized the comment, howlers and all, as eloquent, and a man of character would recognize that it is for him to defend it as such.
Well, we have had our answer on the character of the Right Honorable Member, time after time after time, have we not?
Be that as it may...not that there is a hope of curing the Right Honorable Member of his moral retardation, but...here are some examples of libertarian views of the issues raised by his apparently equally benighted retired friend.
Zero-aggression principle.
Central banks and monetary inflation. (Pay close attention to the Austrian definition of monetary inflation. The Austrians are right, as they nearly always have been.)
Why does this matter? For the State to obtain as much power, it must first obtain wealth. The functionaries who carry out policy expect to get paid, and so do the eeevil capitalists who sell goods and services to the State.
There are two ways for the State to obtain enough wealth from its citizens to get big enough to be able to oppress its citizens. One is via taxation, often at confiscatory levels (and remember that armed robbery is a felony for just us folks). The other is via inflationary monetary policy (they print more of their fiat currency, and remember that counterfeiting is also a felony for just us folks).
Monetary inflation provokes less immediate and overt resistance than confiscatory taxation, but a fiat currency and a central bank are needed to implement it. If the central bank is "independent," so much the better: it gives the State plausible deniability.
Frankly, the Member has had so much of the stuffing knocked out of him he is scarce of any further use even as a tackling dummy.
I'm not too inclined to respond to your demands since
... You proved me wrong with 15 seconds of Google
... You proved I didn't know what a basic English word or concept meant, and have been misusing it repeatedly
... You have given a concrete example that completely undermines my worldview
... LOOK A PONY!!!!!!!!!!!!!! PONY!!!!! OVER THERE!
... You've demonstrated that I've contradicted myself in the last month/week/same paragraph
... You've cited a fundamental historical figure that was at the core of a major science and I've never heard of them
... You actually paid attention in history and can cite multiple influences where the most I really know is that Hitler was bad and a Republican, and Abraham Lincoln was a Democrat
... I'm insisting on doing it again, only HARDER, but DON'T YOU DARE POINT THAT OUT
...
...
...
...you didn't respond to my post with any sources at all...
This is how you respond much more often than not. If it's so unacceptable when Ken does it, why do you allow it to be the rule, rather than the exception, in your own responses?
Frankly, the Member has had so much of the stuffing knocked out of him he is scarce of any further use even as a tackling dummy.
If that's the case, then why so many words devoted to me? Methinks thine faith is weak....
I have to say though, Ken, that your method of addressing me is pretty darn cool. At least you (unlike many others here) have manners :-D
"Methinks thine faith is weak...."
The word is "thy", not "thine".
Such a pretentious little boy, aren't you?
More proof that you're "not here for the hunting"
Seriously, what are you trying to accomplish?
, that your method of addressing me is pretty darn cool. At least you (unlike many others here) have manners
Such as shown by your lack of said same, with your pronouncements, claims, broken promises, hypocrisy...
"At least you (unlike many others here) have manners"
What goes around, comes around.
In other words, you get back what you send out.
You probably don't remember ('cause you seem to be like that), but I initially chewed out DJ for being so nasty to you when we first ran into each other. That attitude lasted 6 months, at best. But now I have to say that you have earned every bit of the abuse you get here.
Don’t answer a fool according to his foolishness
or you’ll be like him yourself.
Answer a fool according to his foolishness
or he’ll become wise in his own eyes.
(Proverbs 26:4–5 HCSB)
The other thing about it is that "you, your, and yours" are historically formal forms of address in English, whereas "thee, thou, thy" are familiar forms. Accordingly, I would prefer the Right Honorable Member from Minnesota refrain from using the familiar form in addressing me.
However, as it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg, I suppose I don't care either way.
Thine is used in front of words that start with a vowel. E.g. "The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light." -- Matt 6:22
Pedantry is more than being annoying, it's a calling!
Manners? Well, karma is a real kick in the pants, no?
" Well, karma is a real kick in the pants, no?"
"Karma" is Japanese for, "Damn. I really fucked up, didn't I?"
This is the sort of arrant pedantry up with which I will not put.
Alternatively, "It's people like you what cause unrest."
Sorry, Russell, I couldn't resist. ;)
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>