Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails

[Back]

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011609/content/01125113.guest.html


RUSH: I got a request here from a major American print publication. "Dear Rush: For the Obama [Immaculate] Inauguration we are asking a handful of very prominent politicians, statesmen, scholars, businessmen, commentators, and economists to write 400 words on their hope for the Obama presidency. We would love to include you. If you could send us 400 words on your hope for the Obama presidency, we need it by Monday night, that would be ideal." Now, we're caught in this trap again. The premise is, what is your "hope." My hope, and please understand me when I say this. I disagree fervently with the people on our side of the aisle who have caved and who say, "Well, I hope he succeeds. We've got to give him a chance." Why? They didn't give Bush a chance in 2000. Before he was inaugurated the search-and-destroy mission had begun. I'm not talking about search-and-destroy, but I've been listening to Barack Obama for a year-and-a-half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don't want them to succeed.

If I wanted Obama to succeed, I'd be happy the Republicans have laid down. And I would be encouraging Republicans to lay down and support him. Look, what he's talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don't want this to work. So I'm thinking of replying to the guy, "Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails." (interruption) What are you laughing at? See, here's the point. Everybody thinks it's outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, "Oh, you can't do that." Why not? Why is it any different, what's new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what's gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don't care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: "Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails." Somebody's gotta say it.

Were the liberals out there hoping Bush succeeded or were they out there trying to destroy him before he was even inaugurated? Why do we have to play the game by their rules? Why do we have to accept the premise here that because of the historical nature of his presidency, that we want him to succeed? This is affirmative action, if we do that. We want to promote failure, we want to promote incompetence, we want to stand by and not object to what he's doing simply because of the color of his skin? Sorry. I got past the historical nature of this months ago. He is the president of the United States, he's my president, he's a human being, and his ideas and policies are what count for me, not his skin color, not his past, not whatever ties he doesn't have to being down with the struggle, all of that's irrelevant to me. We're talking about my country, the United States of America, my nieces, my nephews, your kids, your grandkids. Why in the world do we want to saddle them with more liberalism and socialism? Why would I want to do that? So I can answer it, four words, "I hope he fails." And that would be the most outrageous thing anybody in this climate could say. Shows you just how far gone we are. Well, I know, I know. I am the last man standing.

I'm happy to be the last man standing. I'm honored to be the last man standing. Yeah, I'm the true maverick. I can do more than four words. I could say I hope he fails and I could do a brief explanation of why. You know, I want to win. If my party doesn't, I do. If my party has sacrificed the whole concept of victory, sorry, I'm now the Republican in name only, and they are the sellouts. I'm serious about this. Why in the world, it's what Ann Coulter was talking about, the tyranny of the majority, all these victims here, we gotta make sure the victims are finally assuaged. Well, the dirty little secret is this isn't going to assuage anybody's victim status, and the race industry isn't going to go away, and the fact that America's original sin of slavery is going to be absolved, it's not going to happen. Just isn't, folks. It's too big a business for the left to keep all those things alive that divide the people of this country into groups that are against each other. Yes, I'm fired up about this.


-----------------------------------------

Is Rush really the kind of person republicans and conservatives want to prop up? Does he really speak for them (you)?

[Gan]

He does not speak for me. Rush has never 'spoken' for me. Nobody has except for me. I speak for me, and I alone.

I sincerely hope Obama has an outstanding term. America needs it in so many ways. I could be so pompus and say that the world needs it, because in many ways America drives progress and prosperity on a global scale.

The last thing we need right now (moving forward) is someone sitting in the White House that is a failure.

[thefarmer]

Did you recently hear the phrase 'prop up' on TV or something?

You've used it repeatedly in the past day or so. You're just like a 5yr old who learns a new phrase and goes around saying it constantly...

[Back]

Did you recently hear the phrase 'prop up' on TV or something?

You've used it repeatedly in the past day or so. You're just like a 5yr old who learns a new phrase and goes around saying it constantly...

I think the phrase “prop up” is older than you are.

Admittedly I carry certain themes over certain periods of time. Whatever subject is relevant for me, or anyone else here, can and are made into threads to discuss those themes.

If you were really paying that much attention to my themes you would have noticed a reference to Anne Coulter in Rush’s transcript. And I am guessing you did because prior to my post about Anne Coulter, in which I called her a butterface, someone pointed out that I had used that term in another thread recent to that one. And that someone else had used that term before I had.

But take a look at this awesome thread. And when I say awesome I do not mean because I have participated but because I find it much more stimulating than any thread you have ever created.

http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=39226&highlight=rasher


Now, do you have an opinion on what Rush said? Or are you trolling me?

[Belnia]

He's a bitter, fat old drug addict. Why do people listen to him?

[Drew]

I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don't want them to succeed.


I fully agree with this. Why would I want someone to succeed with plans that I think will continue America's downward spiral?

In a general sense I hope for his success and that of America because I root for the home team.

[Warriorbird]

Do you have an opinion on what Rush said, Back, are you trolling the PC, or are you just a masochist?

[Mtenda]

"Were the liberals out there hoping Bush succeeded or were they out there trying to destroy him before he was even inaugurated?"



That part is just too fucking funny. Bush said "you're either with us or against us" in regards to how to handle the war on terror. That sounds like a guy looking to compromise and build strong alliances to me. Hardly the attitude of Obama. Not even comparable. But seriously though...he hasn't even stepped into office yet and people are either ready to call him the greatest ever or get off on tangents like this.

[phantasm]

He's a bitter, fat old drug addict. Why do people listen to him?


Its not really that rare to find a bitter, fat, ex drug addict that people listen too.

[Methais]

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011609/content/01125113.guest.html




-----------------------------------------

Is Rush really the kind of person republicans and conservatives want to prop up? Does he really speak for them (you)?

I don't want the government to control all that shit either.

[thefarmer]

RACIST!!!11!!!!!!

[Keller]

If control (and not equity) was the federal govts goal in private markets than I, too, would hope he fails. But that is just another bold faced lie.

[Daniel]

I fully agree with this. Why would I want someone to succeed with plans that I think will continue America's downward spiral?

In a general sense I hope for his success and that of America because I root for the home team.

Rofl.

I'm on my way to the swearing in.

Eat it bitches.

[Sean of the Thread]

I'm just hoping things will turn out alright. I got faith the man has the balls to do it right.

Oh and happy Robert E Lee's belated birthday. Evidently it's a popular day down here and I had no idea. And not because of the SOUTH! or anything.. was because supposedly his actions saved hundreds of thousands of lives which in effect added millions more down the line if you think about it.

Still was a fun time. wow totally unrelated sorta but a good time none the less.


Johnny Cash.

When Robert E Lee surrended the Confederacy Jefferson Davis was upset about it
He said how dare that man resent an order
Form the president of the Confederate States of America
Then somebody told him that General Lee had made the decision himself
In order to save lives because he felt that the battle comin' up
Would cost about 20 000 lives on both sides
And he said 240 000 dead already is enough
So this song is not about the North or the South but about the bloody brother war
Brother against brother father against son the war that nobody won
And for all those lives that were saved I gotta say Dod bless Robert E Lee
Well the mansion where the General used to live is burning down
Cottonfields are blue with Sherman's troups
I overheard a yankee say yesterday Nashville fell
So I'm on my way to join the fight General Lee might need my help
But look away look away Dixie I don't want them to see
What they're doing to my Dixie God bless Robert E Lee
Sherman's troups burned Atlanta and the flames lit up the sky
And those of us who survived it are watchin' my Dixie die
But today at Appamattox General Lee sat down
And surrended to the yankees and Ulysees S Grant
So look away look away Dixie...
I won't ever stop loving you my Dixie till they put me in the ground
And the last words they probably hear from me are God bless Robert E Lee

[Stanley Burrell]

I ... voted for him. And I'm going to watch the inauguration on television. No one can question my patriotism now.

That being said, Obama would have to preemptively nuke Japan to do a worse job than Bush II.


He's a bitter, fat old drug addict. Why do people listen to him?

Because he couldn't have repeated his monotonous one-sided drone this many times unless there were listeners who agreed with him, which has very little to do with how old, fat or addicted to painkillers he is. Probably.

[Mabus]

No one can question my patriotism now.
Did you volunteer yesterday, comrade?
;)

[Lyonis]

I sincerely hope Obama has an outstanding term. America needs it in so many ways. I could be so pompus and say that the world needs it, because in many ways America drives progress and prosperity on a global scale.

The last thing we need right now (moving forward) is someone sitting in the White House that is a failure.

Ditto, I didn't vote for the guy and there were other candidates going back from the primaries that I would have liked to see in the White House over Obama. I'd much rather eat my words because he helps the country than to be able to say, "I told you so!!!", because we go deeper in the shit.



Were the liberals out there hoping Bush succeeded or were they out there trying to destroy him before he was even inaugurated?

They did it to us so we should do it to them is a great policy and certainly the way we should run the country. It works in the playground afterall!

[Stanley Burrell]

Did you volunteer yesterday, comrade?
;)

Yeah. And I'm volunteering again. I haven't found any attractive ladies who swallow for free to better the socialist agenda. Godammit.

[Lyonis]

But seriously though...he hasn't even stepped into office yet and people are either ready to call him the greatest ever or get off on tangents like this.


QFT

The commercial for selling the Obama coins is a bit much. So are the Obama is the antichrist crowd. I'm of the opinion that we should reserve judgement on him until after he's done something.

[Stanley Burrell]

Were the liberals out there hoping Bush succeeded or were they out there trying to destroy him before he was even inaugurated?
They did it to us so we should do it to them is a great policy and certainly the way we should run the country. It works in the playground afterall!

Hmmm.

This is like saying that since polls on left wing news sources showed a ~92% approval rating for Bush II shortly after 9-11-01, that only 8% of this country has the genetic authority to be liberal. And then someone quotes these numbers I made up and validates them by making a somewhat-related postulation. I wish I could use quote button in real life.

Edited to Add: When you spontaneously agree with any biased this-is-so rhetoric, and then make a validation statement with a holier-than-thou conjecture, you ... are an excellent debater. So good job. :thumbup:.

[Sean of the Thread]

I'll most certainly give the man a chance.

Besides I think he could kick my ass after seeing him with his shirt off the other day on the news. WTF he's ripped.

OBAMA VS PUTIN cage match.

[Parkbandit]

He's a bitter, fat old drug addict. Why do people listen to him?


Backlash or Rush Limbaugh? I don't listen to either.

[Kuyuk]

I'm just watching to see Ms. Obama's dress...

because I'm sure she'll be wearing a dress in this weather...

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Limbaugh is just the Howard Stern version of political radio. Scream look at me enough and eventually idiots tune in. Every now and again he'll say something intelligent, but I'd guess that's just like the monkeys on typewriters scenario...

Why people listen at all to him (especially those who think he's the antichrist) is a mystery to me. If you dislike him, ignore him, and he'll go away eventually. Give him attention, and he'll be around longer.

[Kuyuk]

Gold dress..

She's gonna be cold..

[Parkbandit]

Limbaugh is just the Howard Stern version of political radio. Scream look at me enough and eventually idiots tune in. Every now and again he'll say something intelligent, but I'd guess that's just like the monkeys on typewriters scenario...

Why people listen at all to him (especially those who think he's the antichrist) is a mystery to me. If you dislike him, ignore him, and he'll go away eventually. Give him attention, and he'll be around longer.


You can't argue his track record though.. #1 show on radio for how many years? Personally, I don't listen to him.. I mostly listen to Beck on my way to work and then music on my way home.

[Sean of the Thread]

When I did drive I personally listened to sports radio on the AM.


BUT Rush does have a track record of success.

Oh and I liked that coast to coast show listening to nutjobs talking about motherships hovering over their house or bigfoot eating their dogs.

[Stanley Burrell]

When I did drive I personally listened to sports radio on the AM.


BUT Rush does have a track record of success.

Oh and I liked that coast to coast show listening to nutjobs talking about motherships hovering over their house or bigfoot eating their dogs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RUSMuQFaFA

[Sean of the Thread]

fucking perfect bump made laugh hard. Long time since I've seen that.


AND IT WAS SHAKING DAMNIT IT WASSSS SHAKKKKING!~

[droit]

Yeah. And I'm volunteering again. I haven't found any attractive ladies who swallow for free to better the socialist agenda. Godammit.

http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/nyc/903864836.html

[Clove]

Apparently, even commies like Backlash listen to Rush.

[Back]

Do you have an opinion on what Rush said, Back, are you trolling the PC, or are you just a masochist?

Indeed I do have an opinion.

He’s an idiot. His wishing Obama will fail is the same as wishing America will fail. He thinks he is clever by throwing in the line “I disagree with his policies” and “the liberals did it to Bush why can’t we” as a way to absolve him of straight up hate-speak. That is bullshit.

I don’t know anyone who WANTED Bush to fail. I can’t imagine anyone WANTING Bush to have had to deal with 9-11, Katrina, or the recession. I certainly did not and people like Rush want you to believe that some sinister group of people who hate America did.

Rush is the real hater. People like Rush are the problem, not the solution.

[nub]

I don’t know anyone who WANTED Bush to fail. I can’t imagine anyone WANTING Bush to have had to deal with 9-11, Katrina, or the recession. I certainly did not and people like Rush want you to believe that some sinister group of people who hate America did.




You might not know anyone who wanted that, but you don't think there were people out there like that?

People do blame everything on Bush that goes wrong. It was pretty funny, my gf is not politically smart but she definetly hates Bush. She was 17 when he became president. She clearly said to me that her income changed overnight when bush became president that she had less clients etc. She blamed him for the economy. (to be clear, she was not working when she was 17).

People get things in there head when they are repeated.

Anyway I don't know where I am going with this.

<--- a Republican, I hope Obama does a great job.

[Back]

You might not know anyone who wanted that, but you don't think there were people out there like that?

People do blame everything on Bush that goes wrong. It was pretty funny, my gf is not politically smart but she definetly hates Bush. She was 17 when he became president. She clearly said to me that her income changed overnight when bush became president that she had less clients etc. She blamed him for the economy. (to be clear, she was not working when she was 17).

People get things in there head when they are repeated.

Anyway I don't know where I am going with this.

<--- a Republican, I hope Obama does a great job.

I don’t think I really need to clarify but I will. I do not think any American wished hardships on Bush and by association America and Americans. I don’t think any American wished the events and results of the past 8 years just to spite Bush.

I don’t think Americans wished to see our towers knocked down. And I don’t think any American blamed Bush for that.

[Parkbandit]

There are plenty of things I hope Obama fails at.. most of which are the reasons I voted against him on. I don't believe in big government and that government is the only vehicle to get us out of this economic mess... something Obama strongly believes in. I hope he fails at throwing TRILLIONS of dollars down the toilet in an effort to 'fix' the economy.

[Back]

I hope he fails at throwing TRILLIONS of dollars down the toilet in an effort to 'fix' the economy.

So basically you hope our economy goes further down the drain?

[nub]

There was something in his speech that troubled me. It was something like "we should not focus on whether we need bigger government or not, but if we need it we should not rule it out" something like that.

In other words I believe he is trying to prepare us for more government intervention.

[Warriorbird]

No. He hopes the Republican and Democrat backed stimulus package fails. I actually agree with him on that account. Our financial industry and auto industries sure don't need bailouts for being fuckups.

[radamanthys]

Because the best thing to do when you're in serious debt is to spend more money.


I agree that auto and others have to go. I understand that some wouldn't consider themselves capitalists here. However, that's the system our country has ascribed. And it's worked pretty damned well so far. For capitalism to succeed, businesses have to be able to fail, otherwise there can not exist competitive advantage; the foundation of free market thought.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Because the best thing to do when you're in serious debt is to spend more money.


I agree that auto and others have to go. I understand that some wouldn't consider themselves capitalists here. However, that's the system our country has ascribed. And it's worked pretty damned well so far. For capitalism to succeed, businesses have to be able to fail, otherwise there can not exist competitive advantage; the foundation of free market thought.

I agree with this.

Also agree with previous posters that not agreeing with the bailout, etc is not the same as wanting Obama to fail.. especially given it was a bipartisan effort with people on both sides really not liking it.

[Euler]

hasn't the federal government grown more in the last 8 years than the previous 30?

[Gan]

So basically you hope our economy goes further down the drain?
Throwing trillions at the economy does not guarantee a draino prevention. At this point nobody's definite on whats required to fix it other than time.

[Parkbandit]

No. He hopes the Republican and Democrat backed stimulus package fails. I actually agree with him on that account. Our financial industry and auto industries sure don't need bailouts for being fuckups.

Actually, I hope that Obama fails to even get the package approved.. although that looks extremely unlikely.

[Parkbandit]

hasn't the federal government grown more in the last 8 years than the previous 30?

Yup.. which is just another item I disagree with Bush on.

[Daniel]

Did you volunteer yesterday, comrade?
;)

Honest question here: What the fuck is so wrong with volunteering?

Asking people to contribute to the well being of the country and its people is not some ridiculous communist ideal. It's what this country was founded upon. How does service to this nation go hand in hand with communism? I honestly don't get it.

[TheWitch]

There's nothing wrong with volunteering at all.
(I'm gonna answer this, just cuz)

I've volunteered for various things related to my kids, leukemia fund raising, elderly assistance, etc. I felt good about doing all of it, and will do it again when the opportunity arises.

I feel less good about it when it's put in a context of "if you don't volunteer, you're a pile of steaming shit, because there are NEEDY PEOPLE!:?!!(@#!"

If one half of the "needy people" in this country would get off their needy (read lazy) asses, and do for THEMSELVES instead of inspecting a handout from the goverment/volunteer corps, whatever, I would be more inclined to help the "needy" because they would more likely be in fact needy, and not lazy.

I'm not talking about people with horrendous circumstances, ie Katrina.
I'm not talking about the elderly, or the very sick.

I'm talking about able bodied Americans, and illegal immigrants who should GTFO, who sit back and let the government pay, the volunteers feed them, etc., while they .... do nothing.

[Daniel]

I feel less good about it when it's put in a context of "if you don't volunteer, you're a pile of steaming shit, because there are NEEDY PEOPLE!:?!!(@#!"



You do realize that the context of the service day was to support the country, not because there are NEEDY PEOPLE!:?!!(@#!" right?

I can only imagine what your argument would look like if it were made during WWII.

[Stanley Burrell]

You do realize that the context of the service day was to support the country, not because there are NEEDY PEOPLE!:?!!(@#!" right?

I can only imagine what your argument would look like if it were made during WWII.

You totally missed the point where Obama was all,

"YOU AIN'T VOLUNTEERING? NIGGA FUCK YOU!"

Oh and the part where he started talking about "kill whitey" at the Capitol was pretty boss.

[Parkbandit]

Honest question here: What the fuck is so wrong with volunteering?

Asking people to contribute to the well being of the country and its people is not some ridiculous communist ideal. It's what this country was founded upon. How does service to this nation go hand in hand with communism? I honestly don't get it.

While I'm not a religious man.. I believe the "God helps those who help themselves" seems pretty dead on to me. Granted, there are PLENTY of needy people that should be our civic duty to help.. the elderly, the disabled, the neighbor down on his luck... but there are FAR FAR FAR too many "needy" people in this country that are simply needy because it's easier than actually working. My work takes me to Section 8 and HUD and THA places where there are very able people sitting around watching TV all day waiting to pick up their weekly handout.

One of the quotes that best fits my opinion came from Benjamin Franklin:


I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.

[TheWitch]

Good job, you brought race into it.

Which has nothing to do with it.

So back to the other aspect, the "communist" feel.

It's pretty well known that that was part of the Communists approach, that the comrades serve on various committees, attend meetings, etc., if they wanted to maintain their card-carrying Communist privledges, which included the better jobs, more food and better places to live. Which they stripped from the people that had actually earned them through hard work, in the name of the "greater good".

I don't necessarily agree with this particular aspect of it in this application however. Since from where I sit, if you have a job that needs to get done and you can get it done via a volunteer group, ie a small one I help out around my town that runs errands for elderly and shut in people, you don't have to pay a bloated government agency to do the same thing. That to me seems logical, and valuable.

Go ahead, make that about race. It should be interesting.

[radamanthys]

To combat the Great Depression, part of the solution involved creating an able bodied workforce for the public good in two ways: giving people jobs and creating infrastructure, all in one swoop.

Today's idea of free money came later.

Volunteering is nice, and it can do a bit of good for people in the short term. But people are not going to volunteer to repair a crumbling bridge. They're not going to toil to build a more expansive public transportation system. They're not going to take a weekend to pour the concrete to build a new nuclear power plant.

My biggest fear is the expansion of ineffective bureaucracy. In effect, a bureaucracy creates red tape in order to prevent the aforementioned forward progress we so desperately need.

Serving the country's mutual good (i.e. volunteering, etc) should (and does) come with reward, intrinsic or extrinsic. However, there should be no reward without service. Just as a small example, In some schools, they have work-study programs. Students serve the school in some minor function, and will get financial aid for doing so. Why can't the government work in the same way? Why can't the benefits and rewards be tangible?

If they're not in a private industry making money, and they're not serving a purpose of benefit to the country, why in god's name are we giving away our money? Fuck, it isn't even our money anymore- it's your children's money.

Your parent's/grandparent's generation built highways, bridges, monuments, schools, libraries, laid comm lines, railroads. Each is now crumbling. What do you, personally, have to show for that FICA, the Income Tax, the Capital Gains, the Luxury tax, the state taxes... the roughly 1/3 of your total income that you spend each year?

Fuck-all is what.

[Parkbandit]

Trying to make sense with Stanley is a futile waste of effort.. don't bother.

[Parkbandit]

To combat the Great Depression, part of the solution involved creating an able bodied workforce for the public good in two ways: giving people jobs and creating infrastructure, all in one swoop.


Most economists agree that this strategy actually extended the Depression. It's not called the "Great Depression" except in the US... where it was extended by Roosevelt's "New Deal" by years.

[Stanley Burrell]

There's nothing wrong with volunteering at all.
(I'm gonna answer this, just cuz)

I've volunteered for various things related to my kids, leukemia fund raising, elderly assistance, etc. I felt good about doing all of it, and will do it again when the opportunity arises.

I feel less good about it when it's put in a context of "if you don't volunteer, you're a pile of steaming shit, because there are NEEDY PEOPLE!:?!!(@#!"

You know what you should do before you talk about how selfless you are and the way Obama uses words like steaming shit and leukemia and !:?!!(@#!"?

...

...

...

Talk more about "needy people":


If one half of the "needy people" in this country would get off their needy (read lazy) asses, and do for THEMSELVES instead of inspecting a handout from the goverment/volunteer corps, whatever, I would be more inclined to help the "needy" because they would more likely be in fact needy, and not lazy.

You're right. We need more hardworking Americans. Who can talk shit on the Players' Corner Forum. So that they aren't lazy.


I'm not talking about people with horrendous circumstances, ie Katrina.
I'm not talking about the elderly, or the very sick.

Fuck you, I know sick people who are old and lazy.


I'm talking about able bodied Americans, and illegal immigrants who should GTFO, who sit back and let the government pay, the volunteers feed them, etc., while they .... do nothing.

If we stop hiring Pedro at a lucrative 5 cents an hour to package your Chex Mix, clean your toilets, pick your crops and wipe your ass, then the tarr'rists have won.

I've volunteered at various health clinics that receive social services from the taxpayers' wealth. There were never any foreign accents. There might've been one, but I think it was the janitor asking a crowd of suffering Internet Addicts at the local beauty salon whether or not it was O.K. to scrub the urinal so that it didn't reflect other people's HPV onto many-a-gonads.

Seriously though, I'm so not lazy and a decent judge of character and who is able-bodied, that I capped my GemStone IV Warrior by spontaneously having this opinion.

[radamanthys]

Most economists agree that this strategy actually extended the Depression. It's not called the "Great Depression" except in the US... where it was extended by Roosevelt's "New Deal" by years.

I'm not saying the new deal (and in turn the even worse Great Society) are worthy of great praise. I'm saying that at least back in the day, we ALL were given a tangible benefit for taxing to provide for the common welfare of the country.

Now, the taxes are higher and the benefits are intangible, and even arguable, even nonexistent for the greater majority.

[radamanthys]

I've volunteered at various health clinics that receive social services from the taxpayers' wealth. There were never any foreign accents. There might've been one, but I think it was the janitor asking a crowd of suffering Internet Addicts at the local beauty salon whether or not it was O.K. to scrub the urinal so that it didn't reflect other people's HPV onto many-a-gonads.



Sorry, I'll sit down next time. My dick has +2 splash damage.

[Daniel]

Good job, you brought race into it.

Which has nothing to do with it.



Stop.

I did what? where?

Re-read what I said and try again. No where is a word associated with "race" in my response.

[CrystalTears]

I believe she's referring to Stanley. Why she's even acknowledging him seriously is beyond me.

[Daniel]

While I'm not a religious man.. I believe the "God helps those who help themselves" seems pretty dead on to me. Granted, there are PLENTY of needy people that should be our civic duty to help.. the elderly, the disabled, the neighbor down on his luck... but there are FAR FAR FAR too many "needy" people in this country that are simply needy because it's easier than actually working. My work takes me to Section 8 and HUD and THA places where there are very able people sitting around watching TV all day waiting to pick up their weekly handout.

One of the quotes that best fits my opinion came from Benjamin Franklin:


You once again miss the point where he is not asking people to serve "for needy people" but for the betterment of the nation. The examples he gives are not just helping out poor needy people but helping out those who need the help, like say..volunteering to help wounded veterans.

You are choosing to limit the scope of the effort that he is asking people to undertake so that it fits neatly into a box that you can easily brush aside.

[Daniel]

Most economists agree that this strategy actually extended the Depression. It's not called the "Great Depression" except in the US... where it was extended by Roosevelt's "New Deal" by years.

*most*?

Are you high? You mean ultra conservative idiots? That != most economists.

[Daniel]

To combat the Great Depression, part of the solution involved creating an able bodied workforce for the public good in two ways: giving people jobs and creating infrastructure, all in one swoop.

Today's idea of free money came later.

Volunteering is nice, and it can do a bit of good for people in the short term. But people are not going to volunteer to repair a crumbling bridge. They're not going to toil to build a more expansive public transportation system. They're not going to take a weekend to pour the concrete to build a new nuclear power plant.

My biggest fear is the expansion of ineffective bureaucracy. In effect, a bureaucracy creates red tape in order to prevent the aforementioned forward progress we so desperately need.

Serving the country's mutual good (i.e. volunteering, etc) should (and does) come with reward, intrinsic or extrinsic. However, there should be no reward without service. Just as a small example, In some schools, they have work-study programs. Students serve the school in some minor function, and will get financial aid for doing so. Why can't the government work in the same way? Why can't the benefits and rewards be tangible?

If they're not in a private industry making money, and they're not serving a purpose of benefit to the country, why in god's name are we giving away our money? Fuck, it isn't even our money anymore- it's your children's money.

Your parent's/grandparent's generation built highways, bridges, monuments, schools, libraries, laid comm lines, railroads. Each is now crumbling. What do you, personally, have to show for that FICA, the Income Tax, the Capital Gains, the Luxury tax, the state taxes... the roughly 1/3 of your total income that you spend each year?

Fuck-all is what.

You're falling into the same trap as before. He's not asking you to give your time for the betterment of other people. He's asking you to do things that enhance the nation. Some of that *may* be helping "poor" people but that's only a part of it.

During the great depression and WWII most americans made significant sacrifices in their day to day lives to support the war effort overseas. They rationed gasoline, they saved scrap metal and they put their life on hold for the betterment of the nation and thus themselves.

Second of all, I don't believe Obama has ever said that people should be rewarded without service. So, how about arguing against what has actually been proposed instead of some straw man to prove your point?

[Daniel]

I believe she's referring to Stanley. Why she's even acknowledging him seriously is beyond me.

Oh.

My bad then.

[Parkbandit]

You once again miss the point where he is not asking people to serve "for needy people" but for the betterment of the nation. The examples he gives are not just helping out poor needy people but helping out those who need the help, like say..volunteering to help wounded veterans.

You are choosing to limit the scope of the effort that he is asking people to undertake so that it fits neatly into a box that you can easily brush aside.

So wounded veterans are not considered disabled now? I'm pretty sure I included those that I believe we have a civic duty to help.. and wounded veterans clearly fit into that list.

Why would I help someone that doesn't need or want my help? You do realize that the term "Needy" derives from "Need" right?

I didn't limit the scope of anything.. the scope needs to be focused on those that NEED our help and taken away from those who are lazy and bilking the system.

[Parkbandit]

*most*?

Are you high? You mean ultra conservative idiots? That != most economists.

My bad.. I meant to say most intelligent economists.

sorry :(

[Clove]

"We are spending more money than we have ever spent before and it does not work. … I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started … and an enormous debt to boot.”
- Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau testifying before the House Ways & Means Committee in May of 1939

And he was right From 1934 to 1940, the median average annual unemployment rate was 17.2 percent.

[Parkbandit]

"Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem." - Ronald Reagan

[Daniel]

So wounded veterans are not considered disabled now? I'm pretty sure I included those that I believe we have a civic duty to help.. and wounded veterans clearly fit into that list.

Why would I help someone that doesn't need or want my help? You do realize that the term "Needy" derives from "Need" right?

I didn't limit the scope of anything.. the scope needs to be focused on those that NEED our help and taken away from those who are lazy and bilking the system.

Then do that. Obama is not saying anything different. I don't know where you get that the focus of his efforts to get people to "Serve" this country is on lazy people bilking the system.

[TheWitch]

Honestly, I don't read these boards often enough to have a full picture of whose worth debating with and who I should probably just pretend doesn't exist.

My bad for even reading Stanley's nonsense, and yes, Daniel, I was referring to him in that post.

So answer me this, Daniel. If the Obama call to volunteerism isn't necessarily about helping the "needy", but the country, what exactly would you have the average person in Peducah do? How do you apply that to the average day of the average American? They're not, as was pointed out, in a position to go out and build a bridge or string 400 miles of comm lines.

They are, however, in a position to volunteer in some capacity in their local communities whether it be at schools, clinics, elder care, etc. etc.

So really, is there that great a distiction - like you're trying to make - between what Obama is asking people to do and helping the needy, in practical application?

Then you bring up rationing, and the things people were willing to do to help the country during WWII. Which isn't really volunteering, but valid nevertheless. And people are cutting back, and its serving to exacerbate the economic problems.

[DeV]

Honestly, I don't read these boards often enough to have a full picture of whose worth debating with and who I should probably just pretend doesn't exist.

Reading the actual thread should give you a fairly decent idea.

For example...

Yeah. And I'm volunteering again. I haven't found any attractive ladies who swallow for free to better the socialist agenda. Godammit.


If the Obama call to volunteerism isn't necessarily about helping the "needy", but the country, what exactly would you have the average person in Peducah do?Additionally, Obama didn't ask the average American to go out and build a bridge, he asked that we volunteer our time to improve our nation or help a fellow American. Hell, something as miniscule as shoveling snow for an elderly neighbor would have sufficed. Guess what, you volunteered your time and asked nothing in return. People need to seriously stop making this out to be more than it was.

[Keller]

Most economists agree that this strategy actually extended the Depression. It's not called the "Great Depression" except in the US... where it was extended by Roosevelt's "New Deal" by years.


Question:

How do these two opinions of yours co-exist?

(1) Most economists believe the New Deal extended the Great Depression, therefore it is correct.

and

(2) Some scientists believe that man has neglible impact on global warming, therefore it has neglible impact.

[Keller]

"Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem." - Ronald Reagan


"What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them — that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_government) or too small (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_government), but whether it works" - Barack Obama.

[Clove]

Question:

How do these two opinions of yours co-exist?

(1) Most economists believe the New Deal extended the Great Depression, therefore it is correct.

and

(2) Some scientists believe that man has neglible impact on global warming, therefore it has neglible impact.Oh! Oh! Oh! Because scientists usually have more support than economists for their theories?!

[Keller]

Oh! Oh! Oh! Because scientists usually have more support than economists for their theories?!

I was listening to a libertarian podcast the other day on the Great Depression. The economist being interviewed was arguing that the entire model used by people who study the Great Depression is wrong because no one ever accurately captured GDP. It was actually an interesting argument. When I get to my home computer I'll tell you who it was, if you're interested.

[Clove]

Yeah. That would be interesting and probably not off-key.

[Rocktar]

Damn, and here I was just reading the GS section of the boards and thinking some of you were flaming fucking idiots, now I come down here and predictably, I find that I was right, some of you ARE flaming fucking idiots.

And no, I won't give Obama a chance to take even more of my money and piss it away on more useless feel good spending programs.

[radamanthys]

I was listening to a libertarian podcast the other day on the Great Depression. The economist being interviewed was arguing that the entire model used by people who study the Great Depression is wrong because no one ever accurately captured GDP. It was actually an interesting argument. When I get to my home computer I'll tell you who it was, if you're interested.

Sounds fascinating. Please do.

[Mtenda]

Damn, and here I was just reading the GS section of the boards and thinking some of you were flaming fucking idiots, now I come down here and predictably, I find that I was right, some of you ARE flaming fucking idiots.

And no, I won't give Obama a chance to take even more of my money and piss it away on more useless feel good spending programs.

And the pot calls the kettle black. Good argument.

[Clove]

Damn, and here I was just reading the GS section of the boards and thinking some of you were flaming fucking idiots, now I come down here and predictably, I find that I was right, some of you ARE flaming fucking idiots.

And no, I won't give Obama a chance to take even more of my money and piss it away on more useless feel good spending programs.Thanks for contributing!

[Gan]

Damn, and here I was just reading the GS section of the boards and thinking some of you were flaming fucking idiots, now I come down here and predictably, I find that I was right, some of you ARE flaming fucking idiots.

LOL Thought you knew.

[Rocktar]

"What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them — that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_government) or too small (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_government), but whether it works" - Barack Obama.

And what Barack doesn't seem to understand is that it doesn't, hasn't and making it bigger won't change that. More of what has caused the problem won't fix the problem.

Oh, and yeah, I king of knew it, just sometimes it takes idiocy running through the neighborhood naked with a loud speaker to really make it sink in. I tend to be "idiot adverse". And just to clear the air, wasn't making a debate or argument, only a statment of fact.

[Parkbandit]

And what Barack doesn't seem to understand is that it doesn't, hasn't and making it bigger won't change that. More of what has caused the problem won't fix the problem.

Oh, and yeah, I king of knew it, just sometimes it takes idiocy running through the neighborhood naked with a loud speaker to really make it sink in. I tend to be "idiot adverse". And just to clear the air, wasn't making a debate or argument, only a statment of fact.

So you thought you would run through here being an idiot on a loud speaker?

Seriously... you are too dumb to be a conservative.

[Jorddyn]

Seriously... you are too dumb to breathe.

FTFY.

/random quote fixing

I really hate you for making me agree with PB.

[Clove]

I tend to be "idiot adverse".How'd you end up here?

[Stanley Burrell]

LoL:


I feel less good about it when it's put in a context of "if you don't volunteer, you're a pile of steaming shit, because there are NEEDY PEOPLE!:?!!(@#!"
You do realize that the context of the service day was to support the country, not because there are NEEDY PEOPLE!:?!!(@#!" right?

I can only imagine what your argument would look like if it were made during WWII.
You totally missed the point where Obama was all,

"YOU AIN'T VOLUNTEERING? NIGGA FUCK YOU!"

Oh and the part where he started talking about "kill whitey" at the Capitol was pretty boss.


Good job, you brought race into it.
Go ahead, make that about race. It should be interesting.

Okay:

BLACK PEOPLE, WHITE PEOPLE, YELLOW PEOPLE, BROWN PEOPLE, RED PEOPLE, PURPLE PEOPLE EATERS, PEOPLE PEOPLE...

And people of any and all races who can't get a joke through their retarded skull. Holy touchy-feely shit. I couldn't read into a post that much.

Also what DeV quoted, since you seem to think everything posted by someone who disagrees with your horsecrap, TheWitch, is mysteriously adding race to the table :forehead:



Oh. And this just in:

Barack Obama will make it rain gold nuggets and cure HIV while flying around on a Pegasus summoning magical rainbows over dead people to resurrect them just like every conservative's realistic expectations of him dictate. And then when he fails at achieving this goal, said conservatives can all point the finger because of what a horrible leader he is.

Because, you know, if he doesn't do this, he's obviously failed to do his job as the president. Morons.

That is all.

[Jorddyn]

You're just mad because you're beige.

[Stanley Burrell]

You're just mad because you're beige.

True.

But I'm in a berserker's rage fo' rizzle because Barack Obama has forced every beige person to use dangerous amounts of Banana Boat tanning lotion in order to fit in with the new half-Caucasian-half-African-American crowd, which is obviously the new majority of the population within the 50 states...

And I really hate using Banana Boat tanning lotion so I can fit in: You know, to avoid the pangs of forced slave labor (totally synonymous with any and all tangents about volunteer work.)

Bah.

[g++]

Its great that Obama was able to infect even the hardest line republicans with hope. His campaign truly succeeded.

[CrystalTears]

I think you forgot the italics. ;)

[Stanley Burrell]

Its great that Obama was able to infect even the hardest line republicans with hope. His campaign truly succeeded.

You can tell it's true because of all those public forums where Obama, George Bush II and McCain were always saying endearing things about each other and totally weren't secretly thinking:

"You son of a bitch."

[Parkbandit]

Its great that Obama was able to infect even the hardest line republicans with hope. His campaign truly succeeded.

Eh.. I'm trying to have hope. I liked the part where he was visibly irritated by Biden's bullshit... gives me a sense that he is going to try and take the higher road when it comes to partisan politics.. but time will tell. I imagine he will just slip back into his campaign rhetoric and blame Bush for everything soon enough.

I think the bullshit executive orders have been nothing more than trying to secure re-election with his base. Was Gitmo the most pressing issue this country faces currently? Was it really necessary to give new employees a wage freeze for a big whopping 1 year time? What managerial positions get a raise before being in the job for under a year? And the "no lobbyist" policy has already had a couple of exceptions to the new rule.

[Warriorbird]

Closing Gitmo is a good image move.

[g++]

Eh.. I'm trying to have hope. I liked the part where he was visibly irritated by Biden's bullshit... gives me a sense that he is going to try and take the higher road when it comes to partisan politics.. but time will tell. I imagine he will just slip back into his campaign rhetoric and blame Bush for everything soon enough.

I think the bullshit executive orders have been nothing more than trying to secure re-election with his base. Was Gitmo the most pressing issue this country faces currently? Was it really necessary to give new employees a wage freeze for a big whopping 1 year time? What managerial positions get a raise before being in the job for under a year? And the "no lobbyist" policy has already had a couple of exceptions to the new rule.

Sure I feel the same, I have high hopes and tempered expectations. I like Obama but unless he knows magic were still in the middle of a shit storm. Come on though Rush is basically a junkie who will say anything to get himself quoted on CNN. The guys been in office less than a week and saying you hope he fails is basically saying you put the republican parties agenda ahead of the american peoples well being, no matter what your political agenda thats just stupid.

[radamanthys]

Rush hopes he fails in implementation, rather than in execution. He may not know it, but that's what his argument seems to lean toward.

Obama is a politician. And he's really good at it.

Is it possible, nay probable, that he'll succeed in his goals? Yes. He's competent and strong. The big question is whether his goals are right for the nation, at this point. Assuming you understand his goals (which includes a fair amount of nationalization, social programs and other such spending).

As it stands, (And has stood) I foresee the end of the Pax Americana will almost certainly be within my lifetime. Obama's plans will just catalyze it. Fuck, maybe the Mayans had something about that 2012 thing...


Each of you is currently in debt somewhere around $34,789.49, (National debt divided per capita (http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/) [~305m]). If you were required to hold that kind of debt personally (add 2 mortgage payments to that), would you be spending money on new stuff? The interest alone would be painful, if not crippling. Spending more money will cripple us further, let alone the already forecasted SS and Medicare payments to make (the aforementioned mortgage, sorta).

It's painful to think about, so I'm done for now.

[Jorddyn]

Each of you is currently in debt somewhere around $34,789.49, (National debt divided per capita (http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/) [~305m]). If you were required to hold that kind of debt personally (add 2 mortgage payments to that), would you be spending money on new stuff? The interest alone would be painful, if not crippling. Spending more money will cripple us further, let alone the already forecasted SS and Medicare payments to make (the aforementioned mortgage, sorta).


Nope, but you can bet I'd be doing everything I could to increase my income.

[Stretch]

Each of you is currently in debt somewhere around $34,789.49, (National debt divided per capita (http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/) [~305m]). If you were required to hold that kind of debt personally (add 2 mortgage payments to that), would you be spending money on new stuff? The interest alone would be painful, if not crippling.

I have a job because people do keep spending despite crippling levels of personal debt.

The trillion dollar question for 2009 is are they going to pay for what they're borrowing.

[Liagala]

Oh, and yeah, I king of knew it, just sometimes it takes idiocy running through the neighborhood naked with a loud speaker to really make it sink in. I tend to be "idiot adverse". And just to clear the air, wasn't making a debate or argument, only a statment of fact.

The word is averse. Please put your clothes back on and put down the loudspeaker now. Thx.

As for the rest of the thread, I'll wait until he's been president for a while before I decide whether he's the antichrist or the greatest thing since sliced bread. Right now I think he's doing his best to look busy because he knows he promised a lot. We'll see how things play out as the urgency wears off.

[g++]

Rush hopes he fails in implementation, rather than in execution. He may not know it, but that's what his argument seems to lean toward.

Obama is a politician. And he's really good at it.

Is it possible, nay probable, that he'll succeed in his goals? Yes. He's competent and strong. The big question is whether his goals are right for the nation, at this point. Assuming you understand his goals (which includes a fair amount of nationalization, social programs and other such spending).

As it stands, (And has stood) I foresee the end of the Pax Americana will almost certainly be within my lifetime. Obama's plans will just catalyze it. Fuck, maybe the Mayans had something about that 2012 thing...


Each of you is currently in debt somewhere around $34,789.49, (National debt divided per capita (http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/) [~305m]). If you were required to hold that kind of debt personally (add 2 mortgage payments to that), would you be spending money on new stuff? The interest alone would be painful, if not crippling. Spending more money will cripple us further, let alone the already forecasted SS and Medicare payments to make (the aforementioned mortgage, sorta).

It's painful to think about, so I'm done for now.

The crux of this argument is that money cannot be drawn out of sources other than middle class Americans. Its not particularly true, the government spends trillions of dollars on shit it does not necessarily need every year especially right now on defense. I mean I am personally against a lot of the plans Obama is putting forward in the arena of socializing things but its not a dooms day scenario where Obamas going to personally come take your wallet and give it to a poor person, Im sure his advisors have a plan to at least try to present a balanced budget.

I mean hell I dont know if its going to work but clearly what ever the fuck the plan was the last 8 years that didnt work either. Im open to new ideas and I dont think anyone anywhere can claim they know what Obamas 4 year economic plan is because he isnt even telling Pelosi yet.

Lets not forget the last president to generate a surplus budget year was another commi if I remember correctly.

[Gan]

Nope, but you can bet I'd be doing everything I could to increase my income.

The other side of that is jumping in the bailout line and waiting for your expected handout.

I personally hate lines, so I'm following your idea. ;)

[TheEschaton]

A few points:

A) "God helps those who help themselves."
This is not in the Bible, nor even implied in the NT, but was made up by conservative politicians who wanted to seem like they were still Christian. Before you go around waving the parable of the talents in my face, keep in mind that that parable is about nurturing the goodness God gave you, not about making money.

B) Let's not pretend any more that Dems are FOR big government, and Reps against it. The last Democratic President made the federal government smaller, while the last THREE Republican Presidents have made it larger. Democrats do believe that government can solve problems, but look to do so efficiently. I don't know how Republicans live with the cognitive dissonance.

C) Ronald Reagan is a joke. He used his inaugurals to make threats about how government is the problem, and did his best to make it inept. He succeeded so well that people now DO distrust the government because in their adult lifetimes it's been unable to do shit. Intentionally making the system fail, and then pointing and screaming and saying "OMFG, the system doesn't work, cut it out!" is disingenuous. The government CAN work, if you do it right.

D) TheWitch, your nonsensical ranting about "needy" people is another Reagan myth, first perpetuated by his made up stories about the Cadillac welfare queen, who never existed. Since the 80s, the conservative movement has tried (and succeeded) to portray those who NEED government handouts as lazy and worthless, and leeches on the system, when, in truth, the majority of those on welfare need welfare.

E) Rush is an idiot, to get back to the original point of this thread. Liberals did not want Bush to fail - we merely pointed out that he had failed at everything else he had ever done in life, and that we wouldn't be surprised if he did fail again. We pointed out that the man was ignorant about foreign policy, and knew nothing. He then proceeded to fail. Spectacularly. Although, if you think of his agenda as the PNAC agenda, he did brilliantly - but he failed this country. On inauguration day 2001, we all hoped, after the mess of the election, that Bush would be a good leader, to put aside the controversy of the election. He was not. He was inept and did nothing (backing off his stem cell position was about the only thing he did pre-9/11). And Stanley made ONE (1) good point: after 9/11, this country, liberals included, were united behind the President. No one wanted him to fail. He still did.

F) Liberalism has been the only thing that has brought progress to this country - the conservative philosophy has only attempted to bring the U.S. government to its knees in an effort to go back to some mythical pristine time when the Rugged Individual (tm) bravely made his own way in life, ignoring the fact that this country was founded on a collectivist ideal.

G) Capitalism has failed. It is readily apparent. I also further agree that our socialist programs shouldn't prop up those failed capitalists in an attempt to portray the system as still working. Contrast this system to the government system. On one hand, conservatives have tried to dismantle it so many times to make it fail, yet it still succeeds when people like Clinton, who give it a chance, allow it the opportunity to succeed. The capitalist system, on the other hand, despite 30 years of deregulation (yes, even under Clinton) which supposedly made the markets more ideally capitalist, spiralled out of control and crashed, taking American jobs and livliehoods with it. I mean, come on.

-TheE-

[Clove]

F) ...fact that this country was founded on a collectivist ideal.Source plz.


G) Capitalism has failed. It is readily apparent.Oh rly? Currently over 80% of the world's countries use capitalism and a free-market economy.

[g++]

A few points:

C) Ronald Reagan is a joke. He used his inaugurals to make threats about how government is the problem, and did his best to make it inept. He succeeded so well that people now DO distrust the government because in their adult lifetimes it's been unable to do shit. Intentionally making the system fail, and then pointing and screaming and saying "OMFG, the system doesn't work, cut it out!" is disingenuous. The government CAN work, if you do it right.-

So we should not discard a system if it does not work when it is sabotaged by bad regulation.



G) Capitalism has failed. It is readily apparent. I also further agree that our socialist programs shouldn't prop up those failed capitalists in an attempt to portray the system as still working. Contrast this system to the government system. On one hand, conservatives have tried to dismantle it so many times to make it fail, yet it still succeeds when people like Clinton, who give it a chance, allow it the opportunity to succeed. The capitalist system, on the other hand, despite 30 years of deregulation (yes, even under Clinton) which supposedly made the markets more ideally capitalist, spiralled out of control and crashed, taking American jobs and livliehoods with it. I mean, come on.

-TheE-

Unless its this one obviously.

[TheEschaton]

I think you fail at reading comprehension.

The government works if you allow it to work. Capitalism, even though it was allowed to work all it wants, failed.
Edit: Furthermore, I didn't say capitalism had bad regulation, I'm saying it had no regulation, which, according to laissez-faire principles, is the desired state of capitalism. So, even in its desired state, it failed.

If you want to consider what Republicans did to the federal government as "regulation", then you might have a point. What they in fact did was try and dismantle it.

Oh, and Clove: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I bolded the collectivist language in there. The very philosophy the Constitution is founded on (Rousseau) is a philosophy which speaks to the importance of forming a Social Contract between peoples who live in society.

Now, I have to shower, cause I have a meeting in an hour.

[Daniel]

I think you fail at reading comprehension.

The government works if you allow it to work. Capitalism, even though it was allowed to work all it wants, failed.
Edit: Furthermore, I didn't say capitalism had bad regulation, I'm saying it had no regulation, which, according to laissez-faire principles, is the desired state of capitalism. So, even in its desired state, it failed.

If you want to consider what Republicans did to the federal government as "regulation", then you might have a point. What they in fact did was try and dismantle it.

Oh, and Clove: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I bolded the collectivist language in there. The very philosophy the Constitution is founded on (Rousseau) is a philosophy which speaks to the importance of forming a Social Contract between peoples who live in society.

Now, I have to shower, cause I have a meeting in an hour.

Yea, but they were only referring to rich white land owners, so it doesn't apply to our multicultural society now.

[TheWitch]

TheE, I was a teenager/college student in the 80's and paid virtually no attention to Reagan and his crap whatsoever. So, if the "myth" started with him, it's lost on me. Clinton was one of the most effective presidents this century, IMO, and if anything my thoughts on entitlements and wasteful government spending come from statements he made and actions he took, not Reagan - or Lewsinsky for that matter.

I'm not going to defend my disgust for the people that sit back and take government handouts, that in reality don't need them if they were willing to take more responsibility for themselves and accept the consequences of their actions, not rely on excuses and a victimization mentality. And that extends to include the billionare CEO's that are taking the current and largest batch of handouts, paying out six figure bonuses days before a goverment funded buyout, etc. etc. etc. and ad nauseum.

And therein lies my issue with far left liberal politics, whether you want to call it Democrat or Repulican is irrelevant to me.

At some point, the bailouts - of crack addicts, death row inmates, lazy people, CEO's, all of them I didn't mention - have to stop.

Businesses that cannot survive without government intervention need to be allowed to fail. People capable of working for a living need to be forced to do so. If we keep propping up every "needy" - and again I include Wall Street in that - group, we're are bankrupting the country. Taking it to its extreme hyperbolic end, the country doesn't just suffer through a couple year of recession and contraction. It collapses entirely, because the tax stream can simply no longer even make a dent in the spending.

I do disagree with programs that by existing, enable people to continue to depend on them, and in fact make it more attractive to depend on them than to seek other alternatives - more self sufficient alternatives - to having those needs met. And I won't support by volunteer efforts or opinion anything that I (I am still free to have opinions, right, comrade?) think perpetuates a culture of excessive dependence on government.

If that's "nonsense" to you, well, sorry. Don't assume my politics is conservative just because it doesn't agree with yours. I agree a certain level of government intervention is needed and necessary, and applaud Obama for his statements regarding goverment inefficiency - as in programs will end if they're not being run effectively. I just hope he follows his rhetoric with actions.

[Clove]

Yea, but they were only referring to rich white land owners, so it doesn't apply to our multicultural society now.Troll.

[Daniel]

Troll.

TheE was talking to you so it's okay!!

[g++]

I think you fail at reading comprehension.

The government works if you allow it to work. Capitalism, even though it was allowed to work all it wants, failed.
Edit: Furthermore, I didn't say capitalism had bad regulation, I'm saying it had no regulation, which, according to laissez-faire principles, is the desired state of capitalism. So, even in its desired state, it failed.

If you want to consider what Republicans did to the federal government as "regulation", then you might have a point. What they in fact did was try and dismantle it.

The republicans tried to limit the reach of federal government whether that was a bad idea or not is debatable. What republicans tried to do to the federal government was a form of regulation, set boundaries on the scope of what it could do. To try and paint it as republicans trying to wholesale destroy the federal government is at least disingenuous.

Capitalism and laissez-faire are not synonymous they are tenuously related. Capitalism is a system where consumer choice is the driving market force and need is met by privately held producers; most capitalist societies have market regulation. Just because our regulations led to some undesired effects does not mean its time for the government to start buying up utility companies.

[Clove]

TheE was talking to you so it's okay!!You have a problem with prepositions don't you? Obviously one child was left behind.

[Clove]

I see, so because we established a government for the common good, we're collectivists. Locke, Thoreau and Emmerson weren't influential in the development of our political thought?

[Daniel]

You have a problem with prepositions don't you? Obviously one child was left behind.

No. Not really.

Is this going to another silly semantic argument?

[Clove]

No. Not really.

Is this going to another silly semantic argument?There's no silly semantics between "about" and "to". We were talking about something. You jumped in to interject a trollish comment based on an argument we had about another topic in another thread.

CT was talking about you, I contributed.

To. About. See? They're not the same are they?

[Daniel]

There's no silly semantics between "about" and "to". We were talking about something. You jumped in to interject a trollish comment based on an argument we had about another topic in another thread.

CT was talking about you, I contributed.

To. About. See? They're not the same are they?

Hahahahaha.

Flimsy justification FTW!!!

[Clove]

Hahahahaha.

Flimsy justification FTW!!!Well I'm glad you understand your justification was flimsy now, at least. Apology accepted.

[Clove]

Back on topic, if we can agree that John Locke might have been an influence on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution this quote might explain the purpose of establishing laws for common good.


Though the Earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person. This no Body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands [his production?], we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joyned to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature placed it in, hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men...

...If man in the state of nature be so free, as has been said; If he be absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest, and subject to no Body, why will he part with his freedom? Why will he give up this empire, and subject himself to the dominion and controul of any other power? To which ’tis obvious to answer, that though in the state of nature he hath such a right, yet the enjoyment of it is very uncertain, and constantly exposed to the invasion of others. For all being kings as much as he, every man his equal, and the greater part no strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very unsecure. This makes him willing to quit a condition, which, however free, is full of fears and continual dangers: And ’tis not without reason, that he seeks out, and is willing to joyn in society with others who are already united, or have a mind to unite for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties, and estates, which I call by the general name property.

The great and chief end, therefore, of men’s uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property.

John Locke -Two Treatises of Government We are not anarchists. That doesn't make us collectivists.

[g++]

Back on topic, if we can agree that John Locke might have been an influence on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution this quote might explain the purpose of establishing laws for common good.

Yah Lockes cool but quoting Kant will get you laid by art students more often. Just saying

[Clove]

Yah Lockes cool but quoting Kant will get you laid by art students more often. Just sayingMetaphysics is boring.

[Daniel]

Well I'm glad you understand your justification was flimsy now, at least. Apology accepted.

...

Good one.

[Parkbandit]

A few points:

A) "God helps those who help themselves."
This is not in the Bible, nor even implied in the NT, but was made up by conservative politicians who wanted to seem like they were still Christian. Before you go around waving the parable of the talents in my face, keep in mind that that parable is about nurturing the goodness God gave you, not about making money.

Who said anything about making money? I simply want those individuals who COULD be taking care of themselves instead of sitting on their couch with their handout to do so. I'm not asking anyone to get rich of anything.. just fucking take care of yourself and stop relying on others to do it for you.



B) Let's not pretend any more that Dems are FOR big government, and Reps against it. The last Democratic President made the federal government smaller, while the last THREE Republican Presidents have made it larger. Democrats do believe that government can solve problems, but look to do so efficiently. I don't know how Republicans live with the cognitive dissonance.

How did Clinton make the government "smaller"? Oh that's right.. he gutted the armed forces. While there is ample pork in the Defense Department.. there is more than enough pork to be slashed from other places where our national defense isn't in jeopardy.



C) Ronald Reagan is a joke. He used his inaugurals to make threats about how government is the problem, and did his best to make it inept. He succeeded so well that people now DO distrust the government because in their adult lifetimes it's been unable to do shit. Intentionally making the system fail, and then pointing and screaming and saying "OMFG, the system doesn't work, cut it out!" is disingenuous. The government CAN work, if you do it right.


We have completely different opinions of Reagan it seems.. as do most Americans. Reagan is viewed very favorably now.. something that must irritate liberals like you who wanted him to be the worst President of all time (Well pre-Bush...)



D) TheWitch, your nonsensical ranting about "needy" people is another Reagan myth, first perpetuated by his made up stories about the Cadillac welfare queen, who never existed. Since the 80s, the conservative movement has tried (and succeeded) to portray those who NEED government handouts as lazy and worthless, and leeches on the system, when, in truth, the majority of those on welfare need welfare.

I've spent about 4 months on the properties of HUD, THA and other government assisted housing projects in the past year. I can state unequivocally that the rampant abuses that take place would make even you sick.



E) Rush is an idiot, to get back to the original point of this thread. Liberals did not want Bush to fail - we merely pointed out that he had failed at everything else he had ever done in life, and that we wouldn't be surprised if he did fail again. We pointed out that the man was ignorant about foreign policy, and knew nothing. He then proceeded to fail. Spectacularly. Although, if you think of his agenda as the PNAC agenda, he did brilliantly - but he failed this country. On inauguration day 2001, we all hoped, after the mess of the election, that Bush would be a good leader, to put aside the controversy of the election. He was not. He was inept and did nothing (backing off his stem cell position was about the only thing he did pre-9/11). And Stanley made ONE (1) good point: after 9/11, this country, liberals included, were united behind the President.


Are you serious? Maybe you can speak for yourself.. but you most certainly cannot speak for a majority of the vocal liberals. These are the people that even after the Supreme Court stated that Bush won, that he was not the legitimate President. That's uniting behind the President? Really?


F) Liberalism has been the only thing that has brought progress to this country - the conservative philosophy has only attempted to bring the U.S. government to its knees in an effort to go back to some mythical pristine time when the Rugged Individual (tm) bravely made his own way in life, ignoring the fact that this country was founded on a collectivist ideal.

I don't even know where to begin with this fairy tale. I don't deal with fiction.. only non-fiction.



G) Capitalism has failed. It is readily apparent. I also further agree that our socialist programs shouldn't prop up those failed capitalists in an attempt to portray the system as still working. Contrast this system to the government system. On one hand, conservatives have tried to dismantle it so many times to make it fail, yet it still succeeds when people like Clinton, who give it a chance, allow it the opportunity to succeed. The capitalist system, on the other hand, despite 30 years of deregulation (yes, even under Clinton) which supposedly made the markets more ideally capitalist, spiralled out of control and crashed, taking American jobs and livliehoods with it. I mean, come on.

-TheE-

More fiction.. must be story time. The Capitalist system didn't fail, it was the Government trying to push their liberal agenda onto capitalist businesses that failed. Who, in their right mind, would EVER think that giving a mortgage to people who they KNEW couldn't afford it.. would be a sound business idea. Only Washington does that make ANY sense.

[g++]

Metaphysics is boring.

The only thing sexier then deontology is a wolf sweater.

[Parkbandit]

You heard "It" here first folks.. I lead the Republican Party!

Thanks It!

PS - Welcome back! I missed you!

[Parkbandit]

You lead the Republican Party in the sense that you're a mindless neocon with the same mentality as Karl Rove, Ann Coulter and Sarah Palin. I see you're still here, PB, older than ever. Still trying to troll people half your age and yet still incapable of intellectually defeating them? :love:


It's ok.. I'll take my 'old' life over your "alternative" lifestyle anyday. I don't have to pretend I'm a girl or something I'm not over the internet.. something you've done from day one here.

Just know one thing.. I think you are a fantastic source of entertainment. Like a clown. It's why I continue to pray you never, ever leave this forum. Ever.

[Parkbandit]

Mm-hmm. I know you're pissed about looking like an idiot for putting yourself out on a limb when you made certain assumptions, but you really need to get over it and stop worrying about what people half your age on the Internet think of you. It'll do you good, lower your blood pressure and perhaps make you stop yelling at people on WoW vents. =D

You're a source of entertainment, too. The same kind of entertainment that Coulter is.. the "/facepalm, can't bear to look away at a trainwreck" fascination that happens when someone completely loses sight of reality and common sense and becomes the kind of person you are. Stooge.

:rofl: at you thinking you bring any emotion out of me other than laughter. Seriously? Come on. I've made fun of you from day #1. That doesn't raise my blood pressure 1 point Homey.. not one.

I get it.. you think I'm just like Ann Coulter. I guess if I had to pick someone who you remind me of.. it would be someone gross like Andy Dick... the self proclaimed Tri-sexual. Someone who is a complete joke to everyone in the world, yet he somehow believes he is relevant.

[CrystalTears]

There are very few teens on these boards, so I don't know why you continue to harp on the ages of the members. If someone is posting like a moron, being young shouldn't protect them from getting bitch slapped.

PB doesn't get angry just more obnoxious. :heart:

[Parkbandit]

And yet I and numerous others get you to lash out constantly. You're easy to provoke, and annoy/anger easily. Part of your personality as a reactionary.

You're pretty much exactly like Coulter. Foul-mouthed, intentionally offensive and almost universally dismissed as a kooky, irrelevant and extremist neo-con.

Edit: It's even funnier seeing how you respond to people whom are obviously in their mid-to-late teens talking casually about politics. Lashing out as a bitter, jaded old man unhappy with the world around you.

I'm sorry that your politics have been rejected this time around. You've got four glorious years to bask in the situation you and others with similar mentality cooked up. Enjoy it.

Really? YOU of all people are going to point out ANYONE that you believe is lashing out? Sweetie, I would generously say only 80% of your posts here are in response to people posting about you. You are the QUEEN of lashing out.. with all of your bolding and underlining.. and carrying on and on and on. In fact, I can't wait to read your lashout to this post here! It should be fantastic entertainment for all!

I get it.. you think I'm just like Ann Coulter. I'm fine with it. She's a very successful author and political pundit. Granted, I disagree with many of her views and have posted as much on these boards.. but you've never let a little thing like facts get in your way.

Also, I apologize for saying you remind me of Andy Dick.. that wasn't really fair of me. I've got one that is far more accurate to use: "Earl the Girl".

Earl the Girl (I don't even know his last name.. I doubt many do) was a "boy" who pretended to be a girl as often as possible. He would wear girl clothes to school (he got suspended for wearing a dress once) and constantly tried to pretend he was a girl. He even went as far as trying out for the girls cheerleading squad. Everyone made fun of this poor thing.. students and teachers alike. He often laughed at his own nickname, cherishing it like a prize or trophy. He was a substandard student, failing a couple of grades along the way.. but he always felt he was very intelligent.

30 years later, I still remember this 'guy' and laugh at his antics.. much like I laugh at you here. I wouldn't be surprised in the least to find out you are indeed the same person.

I await your return lash out response:

[Parkbandit]

Aww. :heart: Love you, too, Michael. Let it all out.

Probably the most disgusting thing I've read on these forums today.. a'head' of the beheading VT thread. Grats!

[Clove]

I was thinking It was more like Pat.

[Parkbandit]

I was thinking It was more like Pat.

I was going to go with Pat.. but:

1) Pat wasn't hideously ugly.. in girl or guy form. Earl the Girl was.

2) Pat was far too famous... and successful. Earl the Girl was only successful in being a town joke.

3) You laughed with Pat.. we laughed at Earl the Girl.

The similarities are eeerie.

[Methais]

I didn't bother reading this thread, but I hope Obama fails too.

I mean what kind of American really wants him to succeed in making us a socialist country with no backbone that plays patty cake with terrorists?

[Jorddyn]

I didn't bother reading this thread, but I hope Obama fails too.

I mean what kind of American really wants him to succeed in making us a socialist country with no backbone that plays patty cake with terrorists?

What kind of American defines succeeding as "making us a socialist country with no backbone that plays patty cake with terrorists"?

Succeeding would be improving the economy and protecting our citizens. I think those are higher on his to-do list than a playground game.

And, before you declare he wants us to be a socialist country, please define socialist. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[Methais]

What kind of American defines succeeding as "making us a socialist country with no backbone that plays patty cake with terrorists"?

Succeeding would be improving the economy and protecting our citizens. I think those are higher on his to-do list than a playground game.

And, before you declare he wants us to be a socialist country, please define socialist. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Let me rephrase. I hope Obama's stupid policies and ideas fail.

I hope his redistribution of wealth fails.

I hope his free health care for everyone fails.

I hope he takes dance lessons and succeeds.

etc.

[Jorddyn]

Let me rephrase. I hope Obama's stupid policies and ideas fail.

Which ones would those be?

[Methais]

Which ones would those be?


I hope his redistribution of wealth fails.

I hope his free health care for everyone fails.

I hope he takes dance lessons and succeeds.

Last line is the most important.

[Jorddyn]

I hope his redistribution of wealth fails.

Every tax you pay is a redistribution of wealth. It's the price you pay to live in this society. And yes, he believes high income earners should pay more. Let me know when you're making over $250k, and I'll listen to you moan about the high taxes.


I hope his free health care for everyone fails.

I don't remember a "free-care-for-all" policy. Here's a link to his stated agenda. Inform yourself.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/health_care/


I hope he takes dance lessons and succeeds.

That I'd agree with!

[Jorddyn]

Eh, I also respond to crap forwards with snopes links. I'm doing my part to build a better, more informed country. I know I'd be much happier if there weren't so many idiots out wandering around :)

[CrystalTears]

Eh, I also respond to crap forwards with snopes links. I'm doing my part to build a better, more informed country. I know I'd be much happier if there weren't so many idiots out wandering around :)Send my family those links. They're driving me nuts.

[CrystalTears]

But they're right! Obama really is a foreign-born Muslim terrorist socialist! An e-mail told me so!

But they are right.. Obama really is a foreign born Muslim terrorist socialist because an e-mail told me so.
Hey Ashliana, CrazyEyes, shut the fuck up.

Multiple handles... you're doing it wrong. Again.

[CrystalTears]

Limbaugh: I Hope Obama... (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?p=876618#post876618) 01-23-2009 04:39 PM Biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitch!
Someone's upset for getting busted again.

[Clove]

Hey Ashliana, CrazyEyes, shut the fuck up.

Multiple handles... you're doing it wrong. Again.Ashliana is full of...

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a184/digitalforest/Funny/Epic_Fail.jpg

[diethx]

LOL, pwnt again.

[CrystalTears]

Yeah, okay. Crazy ass bitch. :love:
Guess I should quote this for posterity too, since you're on a deleting spree. Don't like to get busted, I know. I'm sorry.

[Parkbandit]

I realize you must feel bad to have "the board liberals" dance circles around your poorly constructed arguments, Michael, but don't worry. You'll soon be able to retreat to your safe place between Gan or Clove's breasts and will be able to stop fuming. :love:

Cuddling up with two naked guys sounds more your style homey. Sorry, I like the real women (not internet fake ones like you)

[Parkbandit]

Hey Ashliana, CrazyEyes, shut the fuck up.

Multiple handles... you're doing it wrong. Again.

:ROFL:

God.. Earl the Girl just never learns, does It!?

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/Assliana.jpg

[Parkbandit]

Not cuddling, cowering. The world scares you. Change scares you. But don't worry. Given your age and tendency towards harsher impulses, you won't have to be around to see it for much longer!

Sorry Earl.. stop projecting. I wouldn't cuddle or cower in any man's breasts like you.

I await your next lashing out... comedy fucking gold. You never fail to produce it.

[CrystalTears]

Sprees are hilarious! You should absolutely quote everything I say, otherwise I'll make an idiot out of you again like when you called Clove (or was it Gan?) a moron. :heart:You're right. I'm not making the mistake of not quoting you anymore since you fail at forums.

[CrystalTears]

I don't think I'd :rofl:'d at your expense more than on that time. You were pissed. Hilarious.STFU

[diethx]

STFU

x100, plz.

[Barbie]

STFU
Oh my God, I know, right?

[Methais]

Oh my God, I know, right?

http://nqr.thesmallprint.org/d/4907-1/whore-mouth.jpg

[Fallen]

Looks I lost my Greatest Investigator Ever title to CT.

I hope you choke on it, bitch.

[g++]

How did you spot it? memory? What thread did the McKinney quote come from?

[CrystalTears]

How did you spot it? memory? What thread did the McKinney quote come from?
They were both made here. I was in the process of quoting the It post, but it wouldn't quote because It deleted the post, but I had cut/paste it anyway. Then I saw the McKinney one and quoted that one in as well. Then It deleted them both.

[CrystalTears]

Looks I lost my Greatest Investigator Ever title to CT.

I hope you choke on it, bitch.:lol:

Nah, you deserve that title. All yours. I got lucky. Just for finding the GM gems is reason enough. ;)

[Mabus]

They were both made here. I was in the process of quoting the It post, but it wouldn't quote because It deleted the post, but I had cut/paste it anyway. Then I saw the McKinney one and quoted that one in as well. Then It deleted them both.

This happens here ALL the time. Get used to it, because it's not a slight against anyone. This isn't the officials where edits aren't allowed.
Just saying...

[g++]

Just saying...

Theres a difference between editing a post and deleting a post on one alt and posting the same thing on another.

[Mabus]

Theres a difference between editing a post and deleting a post on one alt and posting the same thing on another.
I can agree with that.

I (personally) would never have two accounts on the same forum. Not only is it wasteful of resources, but to be honest I do not have the time or patience to log in/log out/log back in and all of that.

It was the comments lambasting the deletion that I was targeting. If people edit a post by deleting content and/or replacing content they are still editing a post.

Hence the comment.

Never mind!

[Clove]

OMG Mabus, move on.

[CrystalTears]

It was the comments lambasting the deletion that I was targeting. If people edit a post by deleting content and/or replacing content they are still editing a post.

Hence the comment.

Never mind!
What are you, fucking stupid? Obviously you can't tell the difference between editing existing content, and just deleting it outright.

[Parkbandit]

I just find it hilarious Earl needs to create other accounts JUST to find someone that agrees with It.

Such a sad life It must have.. if it wasn't so damn funny, I might actually feel bad for It.

:(

[TheEschaton]

There's so much to deal with in the few pages since this morning, that I don't particularly know where to start.

1) I don't deny that there are people who abuse any system, be it of welfare, the DMV, or homicide statutes. Living in a society where people are free will inevitably lead to this. I am arguing that the "rampantness" of the problem is a myth, and one promoted constantly by the right. And PB, I'm sure in your right-wing-leaning glasses, you saw all the pimped out rides but none of the people living in the projects who WERE poor. Believe me, the projects aren't a place you WANT to be. I also reject the notion that people WANT to be on welfare more than being independant.

2)

Businesses that cannot survive without government intervention need to be allowed to fail. People capable of working for a living need to be forced to do so. If we keep propping up every "needy" - and again I include Wall Street in that - group, we're are bankrupting the country. Taking it to its extreme hyperbolic end, the country doesn't just suffer through a couple year of recession and contraction. It collapses entirely, because the tax stream can simply no longer even make a dent in the spending.

I do disagree with programs that by existing, enable people to continue to depend on them, and in fact make it more attractive to depend on them than to seek other alternatives - more self sufficient alternatives - to having those needs met. And I won't support by volunteer efforts or opinion anything that I (I am still free to have opinions, right, comrade?) think perpetuates a culture of excessive dependence on government.

If that's "nonsense" to you, well, sorry. Don't assume my politics is conservative just because it doesn't agree with yours. I agree a certain level of government intervention is needed and necessary, and applaud Obama for his statements regarding goverment inefficiency - as in programs will end if they're not being run effectively. I just hope he follows his rhetoric with actions.

You may say you're not conservative, but you pretty much lifted this straight from Ayn Rand, who is not only crazy and wrong, but conservative. There is no rugged individual who can survive on his or her own.

3) The flaw in the capitalist system is in its end result, not in its initial cycles. I will grant that a move to capitalism has meant much for places like India and China....places where skyscrapers go up right next to slums so horrifying they make the latest piece of white guilt-trip idiocy like Slumdog Millionaire look like Disneyworld. A continuing cycle of capitalism leads to one thing: capitalism devouring itself. The system requires it, through the competition system.

4) Someone mentioned how capitalism didn't fail, the liberal agenda on capitalism failed by pushing bad mortgages as good business. However, that's not a liberal agenda at all. The very essence of the capitalist agenda is that the market determines the worth of an item - if people buy it, it's worth what it's bought for. The liberal agenda says almost the opposite: a thing's worth is intrinsic to its stability and benefit to society.

5) The main difference between capitalism and socialism isn't capitalizing on greed versus denying it (respectively). Both systems recognize human beings are greedy. Capitalism allows this to flourish by promoting self-interest as the goal of economics, whereas socialism tries to put greed in check by balancing it against the "good of society." The fatal flaw in capitalism is that it relies on Adam Smith's theory that, if I am greedy, I benefit society (the butcher analogy). The butcher sells meat not because society needs meat, but because he wants money to buy stuff with. That's all well and good if we all put tangible items iinto the market - and perhaps capitalism could survive in such a system. However, the modern economy is based on services - finanacial and otherwise. Now I, the mortgage broker, in being greedy by selling unsound investments to line my pocket, am NOT putting a tangible good into the market, but smoke and mirrors made to look like a good. The buyer, who acts greedily as well, buys it because it looks to benefit himself. In a world of intangible goods based on perception of human beings (which is what the stock market essentially is), capitalism does...not...work. My greed does not benefit you, the buyer. That is problematic.

-TheE-

[Drew]

4) Someone mentioned how capitalism didn't fail, the liberal agenda on capitalism failed by pushing bad mortgages as good business. However, that's not a liberal agenda at all. The very essence of the capitalist agenda is that the market determines the worth of an item



You're talking about government directed agencies selling to unqualified people as required by law and calling it the essence of capitalist agenda? You're way off base here The E.

[Warriorbird]

Right, right. It was also the liberal agenda that bailed out a bunch of failed financial institutions that were in some cases guilty of wanton mismanagement. Oh wait... that shit was bipartisan with a strong Republican backing...

[Drew]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v24/backwardhatclub/GoofusGallant_Oct1980_hrsm.jpg

[TheWitch]

TheE, listen to the Obama.

Stop trying to label everyone as a capitalist pig, a conservative hack, etc.

Lifted from Ayn Rand? Why, because I read "We The Living" and so did you and like six months ago we had mini-book club here about it? No, I don't take my politics from the fiction I read. I believe that discussion came up when I used that book as a metaphor for something, not because I think Ayn Rand is the 20th century Thomas Payne - or whomever.

If expecting people to be willing to work hard to provide for themselves and not depend on a government handout is "conservative" to you, then okay. I can live with that.

When did hard work become a bad thing? Is the liberal platform against hard work, is it for having everyone depend on the government? Based on our new president, I would say not. He's worked his ass off to get where he is, and has been rewarded for his efforts. A lesson should be taken from that.

[Gan]

Back on topic, if we can agree that John Locke might have been an influence on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution this quote might explain the purpose of establishing laws for common good.

We are not anarchists. That doesn't make us collectivists.
I'm reading a book (http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/715Y36JEW7L._SL500_.gif) on Jefferson now where the author postulates that the US Constitution and Jefferson was heavily influenced by Locke. As evidenced in Jefferson's earlier writings and in his writing of the Virginia Constitution.


The only thing sexier then deontology is a wolf sweater.
Awesomeness (great thread)


I realize you must feel bad to have "the board liberals" dance circles around your poorly constructed arguments, Michael, but don't worry. You'll soon be able to retreat to your safe place between Gan or Clove's breasts and will be able to stop fuming. :love:
Do you actually think that calling someone by their RL name, in a forum where we're primarily identified by the screennames/monikers/handles of our accounts, actually lends credence or authority to what you're trying to say? (PS. It makes you sound even more retarded than you usually do.)


Hey Ashliana, CrazyEyes, shut the fuck up.

Multiple handles... you're doing it wrong. Again.
And /end thread. CT has officially won it. Its stupid using two accounts to back up/participate in a thread discussion. Its retarded using two accounts to reinforce what each other is posting. Its fucking retarded to get busted for posting with the wrong account, AGAIN. And its psychotic to keep posting in that very forum where you've been busted twice, expecting more attention. You should really see someone about that (and not just one of your alternate accounts).

[Mabus]

What are you, fucking stupid?
[response to negative comment]
Since I am not "fucking" you, that answer would be "no", I am not "fucking stupid".
[/response to negative comment]

I can tell the difference between "editing by deletion, then adding new facts to bolster one's case after a post by another has already been made" and "editing by deletion to avoid detection of two accounts".

Can you tell that both are editing?

Your outrage over a poster editing their posts (by deletion) expressed earlier in the thread makes your comment about how I view editing laughable. But if "outing" this poster over editing the posts on their multiple accounts brings your life joy, then may the joy sustain you.

I was going to let the e-stoning of the poster go, but the Jack Daniels told me to post.

Why the constant attacks on other posters at this forum? Why not discuss political ideas without attacking the person? The answers to those questions point an accusing finger not at the attacked, but at the attackers.

I guess this was my "defend the underdog" week. I even defended Blago in a post.

[CrystalTears]

I can tell the difference between "editing by deletion, then adding new facts to bolster one's case after a post by another has already been made" and "editing by deletion to avoid detection of two accounts".But I'm the one who is outraged when you still have your panties in a wad over an edit seven months ago?


Can you tell that both are editing?Not really. Editing means leaving it in with changes. Deleting is...well...deleting.


Your outrage over a poster editing their posts (by deletion) expressed earlier in the thread makes your comment about how I view editing laughable. But if "outing" this poster over editing the posts on their multiple accounts brings your life joy, then may the joy sustain you.And your outrage over something that you 'claim' to have been edited, since you offered no proof of what was originally there, is far more laughable. Mine wasn't outrage, it was mockery.

Yes I find it entertaining in a way that someone who feels that they are above all of the other posters (much like yourself) can't seem to stick to one handle and uses others to either get acceptance or just to get heard. That this person gets caught twice and continues to blame this on everyone else other than themselves.


Why the constant attacks on other posters at this forum? Why not discuss political ideas without attacking the person? The answers to those questions point an accusing finger not at the attacked, but at the attackers.Hi pot, I believe you already know kettle.

[Mabus]

Not really. Editing means leaving it in with changes. Deleting is...well...deleting.

Merriam Webster - editing (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/editing)
Main Entry:
1ed·it Listen to the pronunciation of 1edit
Pronunciation:
\ˈe-dət\
Function:
transitive verb
Etymology:
back-formation from editor
Date:
1791

1 a: to prepare (as literary material) for publication or public presentation b: to assemble (as a moving picture or tape recording) by cutting and rearranging c: to alter, adapt, or refine especially to bring about conformity to a standard or to suit a particular purpose <carefully edited the speech> <edit a data file>
2: to direct the publication of <edits the daily newspaper>
3: delete —usually used with out

(bold my own)

[CrystalTears]

Again.. you have no proof that what you claimed was edited out was even there in the first place. So drop it already.

[Mabus]

Again.. you have no proof that what you claimed was edited out was even there in the first place. So drop it already.
And your proof in the current instance is...?

[Daniel]

Again.. you have no proof that what you claimed was edited out was even there in the first place. So drop it already.

He's a retard. Let it go. He had plenty of chances to back up his statements and have his say. He couldn't and he knows it. So he just decided to be butt hurt about it.

[CrystalTears]

And your proof in the current instance is...?
Uh, I quoted both posts before It deleted them. That's the type of proof I'm referring to in your case, which you never had.

[Mabus]

Uh, I quoted both posts before It deleted them. That's the type of proof I'm referring to in your case, which you never had.
In other words:

You have no proof.

Anyone could make up random quotes, toss tags around them, and attribute them to anyone else. Your "quotes" do not even lead to posts by the accused poster (one is even missing the link).

I am not saying that is what happened in this instance. I am merely pointing out that you have no proof, as you claimed I did not.

If the truth makes you angry, then self-examine.

[Mabus]

He's a retard. Let it go. He had plenty of chances to back up his statements and have his say. He couldn't and he knows it. So he just decided to be butt hurt about it.
Daniel, Daniel...

In our case you admitted to editing the post after I have posted with partial quotes from your post (if I remember). Had I known that it would be edited to bolster your position after I had stated mine I would have block quoted the whole post.

CT came in to defend you and attack me in that instance (which is the opposite in this one, eh?), yet in this thread we see her decrying post-posting editing of another poster.

I am not "butt hurt", as I do not dwell on items that cannot be changed. I do not, however, forget the lessons learned.

[Daniel]

That's not even close to accurate. We've been over this 6 times. Feel free to go back to the previous threads and re-hash the discussion with yourself.

[CrystalTears]

In other words:

You have no proof.
You know you can send a PM to Kranar asking him to verify whether those posts I quoted were made or not. The posts don't disappear when deleted until the admin clears them.


Anyone could make up random quotes, toss tags around them, and attribute them to anyone else. Your "quotes" do not even lead to posts by the accused poster (one is even missing the link).The link is broken because THE POST WAS DELETED. Holy shinola.


I am not saying that is what happened in this instance. I am merely pointing out that you have no proof, as you claimed I did not.PM Kranar then. Put your money where your mouth is.

[TheEschaton]

TheWitch, it's not your belief in hard work that makes you conservative, it's your belief that people should never rely on government that makes you conservative.

And as to Drew's point about Fannie Mae: that legislation was passed under a Republican President with a Republican Congress. It wasn't part of the liberal agenda at all, but a plank in the Republican platform. How can this be, you say? Because Republicans knew that a great deal of money could be made on said mortgages. Now, don't get me wrong: the Democrats were dumb as shit on this one. They didn't research or look into these mortgages at all, mainly because they thought the program would benefit poor people. So, in a way, yes, it was bipartisan, but, as WB mentioned, strongly backed by Republicans.

-TheE-

[g++]

Daniel, Daniel...

In our case you admitted to editing the post after I have posted with partial quotes from your post (if I remember). Had I known that it would be edited to bolster your position after I had stated mine I would have block quoted the whole post.

CT came in to defend you and attack me in that instance (which is the opposite in this one, eh?), yet in this thread we see her decrying post-posting editing of another poster.

I am not "butt hurt", as I do not dwell on items that cannot be changed. I do not, however, forget the lessons learned.

You were in an argument with Daniel and started complaining that he was editing his posts. It was not really even a change of content as I remember just an additional two lines or something. Then you come over here to try to parallel it with a person who is constantly logging on alts to interject stuff into threads the persons main handle is already in. Its different let it go. We all read our posts sometimes and say oh shit that does not sound right and fix it.

[Clove]

I just find it hilarious Earl needs to create other accounts JUST to find someone that agrees with It.

Such a sad life It must have.. if it wasn't so damn funny, I might actually feel bad for It.

:(I'm still sort of impressed that Earl got to -2 bubbles. Not even Backlash (with all the unfair rep-terrorism targeted at him) couldn't manage that.

[g++]

TheWitch, it's not your belief in hard work that makes you conservative, it's your belief that people should never rely on government that makes you conservative.

I am pretty sure TheWitch has a better idea of who they are then you do.



And as to Drew's point about Fannie Mae: that legislation was passed under a Republican President with a Republican Congress. It wasn't part of the liberal agenda at all, but a plank in the Republican platform. How can this be, you say? Because Republicans knew that a great deal of money could be made on said mortgages. Now, don't get me wrong: the Democrats were dumb as shit on this one. They didn't research or look into these mortgages at all, mainly because they thought the program would benefit poor people. So, in a way, yes, it was bipartisan, but, as WB mentioned, strongly backed by Republicans.

-TheE-

So the liberals who voted for it did it for good and the republicans did it because they are evil. Your arguments always boil down to you claiming you know the intentions of everyone involved and that the republicans intentions are always bad. Its really not that simple but i guess it makes life easier for you.

[TheEschaton]

It was done by a Republican Administration by a Republican Congress. As to the motivations behind doing it, that's my opinion, but if you can show me where Republicans traditionally care for poor people (instead of care about making money), I'd love to hear it. As for the Dems motivation, hey, maybe they were in it for the money, who knows? Most of Congress are pretty greedy fucks either side of the aisle, but I gave the justification most of them gave publicly at the time.

-TheE-

[Mabus]

It was not really even a change of content as I remember just an additional two lines or something.
How can you know what content was added or deleted, after the edit? You cannot. You took the person at their word then, and now.

The only issue came up after he then used the edited post in an attempt to bolster his argument later, not in the editing.

If we debate something and I state items (by quoting an edited post) as if we have already discussed them when you know we did not, and then I use the edited post to bolster my argument, you would have every right to call me on it.

That is what happened.

In this current instance we have someone on a witch hunt to attack a poster, and they are using quotes from non-existent, deleted or edited posts.

It was in the attacker trying to appear amused by post-editing (in this case through asserted deletions) while not finding post-editing used during a discussion as inappropriate that I found amusing.

But at least the target was changed. Glad to be of service.

[CrystalTears]

How can you know what content was added or deleted, after the edit? You cannot. You took the person at their word then, and now.You can't prove it since you didn't quote his original post.


In this current instance we have someone on a witch hunt to attack a poster, and they are using quotes from non-existent, deleted or edited posts. I already told you how you can prove me wrong by asking for confirmation of the deleted posts.

[diethx]

I wonder if Mabus created Mabus but wasn't getting enough attention, so he went and created Assliana last year in a desperate attempt for more attention on the other side of the spectrum. Why else would he be defending It so vehemently when It was obviously caught?

We already know It isn't above creating multiple personalities to agree with and defend itself, maybe It wasn't It's first personality. O.o

[TheWitch]

TheWitch, it's not your belief in hard work that makes you conservative, it's your belief that people should never rely on government that makes you conservative.-TheE-

And find where I said "never". Because I never said never. In many respects, we all rely on the government on a constant and ongoing basis, for many things, including but not limited to the maintained sovereignty of the country itself.

When government should not be relying upon to heavily, IMO, is for the provision of a persons basic needs - shelter, food, clothing, etc. There are of course exceptions to this where the government is right and good to step in and offer assistance to people: exteme acts of nature, ie Katrina, debilitating illness, old age, etc.

Where this falls apart is when those programs are designed or implemented in a way that enables people to sit back, take a victimization attitude and just let the government take over - even after the crisis has passed, if it does.

Don't forget, I'm just as disgusted with the handouts to Wall Street as I am to the handouts to the person who refuses to help themself. The US is going into international credit markets to the tune of $2 trillion dollars this year. This horrifies me, and frankly scares me. I have young children. Their grandchildren will be paying this off - at best.

[875000]

It was done by a Republican Administration by a Republican Congress.

-TheE-

A brief history of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac from Wikipedia ...

Fannie Mae was established in 1938 as a mechanism to make mortgages more available to low-income families. It was added to the Federal Home Mortgage association, a government agency in the wake of the Great Depression in 1938, as part of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal in order to facilitate liquidity within the mortgage market. In 1968, the government converted Fannie Mae into a private shareholder-owned corporation in order to remove its activity from the annual balance sheet of the federal budget. Consequently, Fannie Mae ceased to be the guarantor of government-issued mortgages, and that responsibility was transferred to the new Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae). In 1970, the government created the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC), commonly known as Freddie Mac, to compete with Fannie Mae and, thus, facilitate a more robust and efficient secondary mortgage market.

In 1999, Fannie Mae came under pressure from the Clinton administration to expand mortgage loans to low and moderate income borrowers. At the same time, institutions in the primary mortgage market pressed Fannie Mae to ease credit requirements on the mortgages it was willing to purchase, enabling them to make loans to subprime borrowers at interest rates higher than conventional loans.

In 2000, due to a re-assessment of the housing market by HUD, anti-predatory lending rules were put into place that disallowed risky, high-cost loans from being credited toward affordable housing goals. In 2004, these rules were dropped and high-risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals.

In 2003, the Bush administration recommended significant regulatory overhaul of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. However, the Democrats opposed that proposal, fearing that tighter regulation could sharply reduce financing for low-income housing, both low and high risk. Under immense lobbying pressure from Fannie Mae in association with Congressional Democrats led by Rep. Barney Frank, the Republican controlled Congress did not introduce any legislation aimed at bringing this proposal into law until 2005.

In 2006, the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 (first put forward by Sen. Chuck Hagel) where he pointed out that Fannie Mae's regulator reported that profits were "illusions deliberately and systematically created by the company's senior management". However, this legislation too met with opposition from both Democrats and Republicans. This bill was passed by the House, but was never presented to the Senate for a vote.

Please explain to me how this was all some sort of Republican legislative plot. While I do not think they should get a free pass on this, the history of this arrangement appears to be the Republicans trying to reel them in while the Democrats trying to expand their scale.

[Parkbandit]

TheWitch, it's not your belief in hard work that makes you conservative, it's your belief that people should never rely on government that makes you conservative.

No one in the right mind would ever say the term "never". No one knows what tomorrow brings, but I can tell you that it would be a very last resort for me to accept a handout from the Government.



And as to Drew's point about Fannie Mae: that legislation was passed under a Republican President with a Republican Congress. It wasn't part of the liberal agenda at all, but a plank in the Republican platform. How can this be, you say? Because Republicans knew that a great deal of money could be made on said mortgages. Now, don't get me wrong: the Democrats were dumb as shit on this one. They didn't research or look into these mortgages at all, mainly because they thought the program would benefit poor people. So, in a way, yes, it was bipartisan, but, as WB mentioned, strongly backed by Republicans.

-TheE-

I love the revisionist history here.. "It's all the Republican's fault and the Democrats were tricked into agreeing with them!"

Here's some interesting video clips you might find enlightening. Why people like Frank, Waters and Dodd are still in the positions of power they hold is beyond reasonable logic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxMInSfanqg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usvG-s_Ssb0&feature=related

[TheWitch]

Social engineering FTL.

TheE, this is one place I will state with no qualms whatsoever that IMO the government, (and liberals becuase it wasn't just Democrats but also Republicans with liberal leanings and much greed on both sides), should have stayed the hell out of. I believed that when it started happening.

Owning a home is NOT a right. Period. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness does not include guaranteed real estate ownership or 52' plasma screen ownership or ownership of a car you cannot afford.

The government and subsequently the various financial institutions had absolutely no business creating an atmosphere of entitlement that not only screwed the same people in low income brackets that they sought to "help", but in the end screwed the entire country. And I hold equally responsible the people themselves, for not being able to do basic four function math to figure out they were in way over their heads, and instead chose a path of immediate gratification. An economy built on debt cannot succeed, where there are no assets to repay it. These policy failures didn't just effect mortagages, they effected overall credit policies for credit cards and car loans, and equity lines, etc.

And while all of this was happening, various people from both Republican and Democratic sides of the fence were warning, this cannot continue. No one listened.

It wasn't Republican, it wasn't Democrat. It was stupid, and we will be paying the price for decades - including the millions of us who did not choose immediate gratification and instead chose to be prudent and frugal.

And that's where my objection to government involvement is based. Very few people benefited from this in any long term sense, and many millions more were screwed. Yet everyone will pay the price, including the millions who played by the rules.

[Parkbandit]

It was done by a Republican Administration by a Republican Congress. As to the motivations behind doing it, that's my opinion, but if you can show me where Republicans traditionally care for poor people (instead of care about making money), I'd love to hear it. As for the Dems motivation, hey, maybe they were in it for the money, who knows? Most of Congress are pretty greedy fucks either side of the aisle, but I gave the justification most of them gave publicly at the time.

-TheE-

So...

Republicans are for helping the rich.. and Democrats are for helping the poor?

Let me know if this is your opinion.. and we'll continue from there...

[CrystalTears]

So...

Republicans are for helping the rich.. and Democrats are for helping the poor?

Let me know if this is your opinion.. and we'll continue from there...
Duh, that's a Democratic fact, son.

[Gan]

Please explain to me how this was all some sort of Republican legislative plot. While I do not think they should get a free pass on this, the history of this arrangement appears to be the Republicans trying to reel them in while the Democrats trying to expand their scale.

Whenever a Democrat starts crying about the implosion of the subprime markets and the collapse of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac and how its all the Republican's fault I just tell them two words...

Barney Frank


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAuOEdttjZQ

[Carnivale]

Whenever a Democrat starts crying about the implosion of the subprime markets and the collapse of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac and how its all the Republican's fault I just tell them two words...

Barney Frank


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAuOEdttjZQ

A) Why would you vindicate such nonsense with a response, exactly? (Especially with a figure as polarizing as Bill O'Reilly. The minds you're looking to change will not respond to him.)

B) It's so painful to watch. It really is. Journalism has got to be spinning in its grave right now. The worst part is that we mimic that belligerence and call it political discourse.

[Parkbandit]

A) Why would you vindicate such nonsense with a response, exactly?

B) It's so painful to watch. It really is. Journalism has got to be spinning in its grave right now. The worst part is that we mimic that belligerence and call it political discourse.


O'Reily would be the first one to tell you he's not a journalist. He's an entertainer.

[Carnivale]

Oh? Shoot me a link, now I'm interested.

[Methais]

Oh? Shoot me a link, now I'm interested.

This is pretty entertaining.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5qU4qudJYk

[Carnivale]

This is pretty entertaining.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5qU4qudJYk

*shrug*

I don't think it is.

Call me humorless, but according to a poll 36% of participants thought that guy was a better source of news than other network news stations. Granted, some of that is simply disillusionment with those other stations, but it also denotes the notion that Americans don't want to be informed - they want to be entertained.

And that's genuinely sad.

[Gan]

A) Why would you vindicate such nonsense with a response, exactly? (Especially with a figure as polarizing as Bill O'Reilly. The minds you're looking to change will not respond to him.)

B) It's so painful to watch. It really is. Journalism has got to be spinning in its grave right now. The worst part is that we mimic that belligerence and call it political discourse.

Regardless of your opinion of O'Riley, it still does not diminish the culpability of Barney Frank and his crew in the fucknest that Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac turned out to be.

And please tell me you're not another Ashliana clone (because you're sounding just like it)

[Carnivale]

I have no idea who/what Ashliana is.

Edit: Also... my opinion on O'Reilly wasn't relevant to the point. The point was that responding to hyper-partisan liberals with a pundit that will excite that hyper-partisanship further is really kindof arbitrary. Unless it's just a trolling tactic, then I can see it being effective.

[Gan]

I have no idea who/what Ashliana is.

Edit: Also... my opinion on O'Reilly wasn't relevant to the point. The point was that responding to hyper-partisan liberals with a pundit that will excite that hyper-partisanship further is really kindof arbitrary. Unless it's just a trolling tactic, then I can see it being effective.

Sometimes one must look past the messenger to understand the message.

[Carnivale]

Sometimes one must look past the messenger to understand the message.

Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. :welcome:

[Stanley Burrell]

Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. :welcome:

A) Something about this post makes me want to murder people.

B) Wearing heels just to continue calling 95% of all women dumb bitches is not a fair sacrifice. :sorry:

[Carnivale]

Actually, my bad.

Gan, I read what you said in passing, thought it was just a mock-philosophical psuedo-reply, and responded in kind. On second reading, that wasn't the content of your post. Apologies.

[Stanley Burrell]

Actually, my bad.

Gan, I read what you said in passing, thought it was just a mock-philosophical psuedo-reply, and responded in kind. On second reading, that wasn't the content of your post. Apologies.

Are you Backlash?

Edit: Bah, nah. You use the ' apostrophe and not the ` one.

[Parkbandit]

Oh? Shoot me a link, now I'm interested.

Wait.. you need a link to tell you that Bill O'Reilly isn't a journalist? Seriously?

I suppose you also believe John Stewert is also a journalist.. unless you have a link?

Jesus...

[Parkbandit]

I have no idea who/what Ashliana is.
.


http://cnyreds.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/redflag.jpg

[Carnivale]

Wait.. you need a link to tell you that Bill O'Reilly isn't a journalist? Seriously?

That's not what you originally said, nor what I asked for.

I would like a link that supports your statement that O'Reilly readily admits that he is an entertainer. This strikes me as extraordinarily unlikely. That you are incredulous at such a simple request is... eerie.

As far as the Ashliana thing... I don't blame you for thinking so. This board is about as insular as Wasilla.

[Back]

Are you Backlash?

Edit: Bah, nah. You use the ' apostrophe and not the ` one.

Correct. A ' is a foot and isn’t a proper apostrophe.

[Gan]

Actually, my bad.

Gan, I read what you said in passing, thought it was just a mock-philosophical psuedo-reply, and responded in kind. On second reading, that wasn't the content of your post. Apologies.

Apology accepted.

You have now advanced to level 2!

[Parkbandit]

That's not what you originally said, nor what I asked for.

I would like a link that supports your statement that O'Reilly readily admits that he is an entertainer. This strikes me as extraordinarily unlikely. That you are incredulous at such a simple request is... eerie.

As far as the Ashliana thing... I don't blame you for thinking so. This board is about as insular as Wasilla.

Here's the link:

www.youareafuckingidiotbecauseyouneedsomethingspoo nfedtoyouinordertoformyourownopinion.com

As far as the Ashliana thing goes.. it will always throw up a red flag when a "new" member throws out the "I have no idea who so and so is". It's ALWAYS followed by a "Holy shit, I fucked up and posted under the wrong login ID.. you caught me.. I'm pathetic.. I'm going to go create another one to try and hide my ignorance"

[Parkbandit]

Oh? Shoot me a link, now I'm interested.

I'll actually concede the point. To me, journalism is:


The style of writing characteristic of material in newspapers and magazines, consisting of direct presentation of facts or occurrences with little attempt at analysis or interpretation.

but at the same time it can mean:


Written material of current interest or wide popular appeal.

Source: Answers.com

It wouldn't surprise me to find out that O'Reilly believes that he is indeed a journalist although I couldn't find a reference to such a quote either way. I guess I simply believe that people who report the news with an unbiased slant (or at least a slant that doesn't slap you in the face) and want you to form your own opinions based on the facts they present are considered journalists and someone who presents the story in a manner in which they want to form your opinion for you are considered entertainers. I wouldn't say O'Reilly is anymore of a journalist than Keith Olbermann.

[Clove]

I have no idea who/what Ashliana is.Neither do we. It's odd though that you don't know who/what Ashliana is, since it posted in this very thread.

[CrystalTears]

Neither do we.
Neither does It.

[Parkbandit]

So.. just a recap:

Ashliana = Keipher = Crazyeyesmckinny = Carnival?

1) Did I miss anyone?

2) Has It beaten Backlash yet?


http://forum.gsplayers.com/member.php?u=4730

http://forum.gsplayers.com/member.php?u=4828

http://forum.gsplayers.com/member.php?u=5045

http://forum.gsplayers.com/member.php?u=5077

[CrystalTears]

I'm not sure about Carnival yet. He's too subdued. It doesn't know how to control It's feelings.

[CrystalTears]

Correct. I'm not Carnivale. Endless :rofl:s that you guys have had nothing better to do than endless comment on it. Please continue.
No one is going to believe you anyway.

[CrystalTears]

So what? Get one of the mods to confirm the IP addresses.
I didn't say it was or wasn't you. I just said that you stating that it's not you doesn't prove anything since you're a liar anyway.

Besides, IP matches don't prove anything. They never have.

[Parkbandit]

So what? Get one of the mods to confirm the IP addresses. I didn't create McKinney to "agree with me." I already said during the Kierphe thing that I didn't really find it amusing and as such hadn't done it on any large scale. McKinney was for Lulz. :shrug:

Believe whatever you want.


I post from a different IP address pretty much every day. Means shit... much like most of your posts.

Now, don't lash out at me again...

[Clove]

I'm glad It did it for lulz- cuz we're laughing at It.

[Gan]

PB-in your hoodz stealin ur bandwidthz...

[Parkbandit]

I imagine so, if you're posting from work or home. But if you had access to mine, you'd be able to see that both come from No. VA. You can tell if whatever-his-name is posting from, say, Michigan.

I'm pretty tech-savvy, but spoofing an IP address (I thought you could only do that with e-mail, anyway) is a bit beyond my capabilities.

I think you're a little paranoid looking for "Ash clones," but that fits in with my labeling you a reactionary anyway. :love:


It's not really paranoid.. I look at past behavior + a similarly ignorant posting style and it screamed out your name.

"EARL!"

[Parkbandit]

PB-in your hoodz stealin ur bandwidthz...

Yea.. I love the properties which haven't put in Verizon FioS yet... they are usually unprotected. Posting/browsing from a laptop is far easier than posting from an iPhone.

[Clove]

Nothing to be paranoid about. Earl has already demonstrated an absolute inability to maintain its alter-egos. It will fuckup with this one too.

[Methais]

I'm pretty tech-savvy, but spoofing an IP address (I thought you could only do that with e-mail, anyway) is a bit beyond my capabilities.

I think you're a little paranoid looking for "Ash clones," but that fits in with my labeling you a reactionary anyway. :love:

I'm only somewhat tech savvy, and even I know spoofing an IP address is easy stuff.

1. Google PROXY SERVERS
2. Click one of the links
3. Pick an IP proxy & port number from the list
4. Firefox -> Tools -> Options -> Advanced -> Settings -> Manual Proxy Configuration -> Paste
5. ????
6. Get caught eventually anyway because you're not very good at this whole alt thing

Any tech savvy person would know this, so you're either not very tech savvy, or just playing/being dumb.

[Carnivale]

Wait.. you need a link to tell you that Bill O'Reilly isn't a journalist? Seriously?

I suppose you also believe John Stewert is also a journalist.. unless you have a link?

Jesus...


Here's the link:

http://www.youareafuckingidiotbecaus...ownopinion.com

As far as the Ashliana thing goes.. it will always throw up a red flag when a "new" member throws out the "I have no idea who so and so is". It's ALWAYS followed by a "Holy shit, I fucked up and posted under the wrong login ID.. you caught me.. I'm pathetic.. I'm going to go create another one to try and hide my ignorance"


It's not really paranoid.. I look at past behavior + a similarly ignorant posting style and it screamed out your name.

"EARL!"

One question, now that I'm 100% sure you're not interested in civil discourse...

In a face to face meeting with someone you've just met, would you be willing to vocalize any of the above? Because to any bystander you would come off as a social inept or an emotional cripple.

To take advantage of the medium's anonymity is no different than trolling - reeks of cowardice.

[Carnivale]

Oh, by the way, I'm Ashliana.

(Sorry Ashliana... I just... have a weird sense of humor.)

[Parkbandit]

No.. it's called being paranoid. I realize it really pisses you off when your outrageous stupidity and ignorance are called out, but I'm afraid you have no choice but to deal with it.

http://www.ca.uky.edu/agcollege/4H/projects_events/core/animalscience/goat/images/goat.jpg

You guys originally insisted that I was someone else when I first started posting here (That I was Tsa'ah, a few others). Now that I'm mostly inactive, you're accusing others of being me?

I'm looking at your past behavior. You're incapable of any decent level of analysis. Hence you being an idiot.


Easy does it Earl.. no need to get all worked up like a cornered kitten. Lashing out won't solve what's really the issue.. your incessant fetish to masquerade as something you are not. I can't imagine leading my life as you do.. so disgusted with myself that I have to play pretend to try and mask my pain and suffering.

Just know.. I feel bad for not feeling bad about your condition. I wish I was more empathetic to the pathetic.. it's a character flaw of mine. :(

[Clove]

Oh, by the way, I'm Ashliana.

(Sorry Ashliana... I just... have a weird sense of humor.)QFT

[Methais]

Still just doesn't make sense for a person to go so far out of their way to do it when the mods here that would actually be in a position to check are virtually non-existent here.

Yeah, unless you're like IF U DON'T BELIEVE ME THEN U CAN HAF A MOD RUN IP CHEX & COMPARE 2 MINE!!!!!!!11

There's plenty of mods around daily that would gladly take 15 seconds out of their life to check.

Btw someone make me a mod plz thx.

[Parkbandit]

One question, now that I'm 100% sure you're not interested in civil discourse...

In a face to face meeting with someone you've just met, would you be willing to vocalize any of the above? Because to any bystander you would come off as a social inept or an emotional cripple.

To take advantage of the medium's anonymity is no different than trolling - reeks of cowardice.

When you post on the Internet, in any capacity.. there is an anonymous factor associated with it. You calling me a coward just now.. and by your own definition, yourself, is a testament to this fact.

I'm pretty much the same person here as I am in the real world. If you are a fucking ignorant piece of shit, I wouldn't piss on you if I saw you burning. If you are someone who tries to do the right thing and lead a good life.. I'm your best friend and would practically do anything for you.

[Methais]

That's right, Michael. Keep telling yourself that.

Curious...what exactly is your obsession with calling people by their RL name on here anyway? Is it supposed to add intimidation and/or credibility to your posts or something?

[Khariz]

Curious...what exactly is your obsession with calling people by their RL name on here anyway? Is it supposed to add intimidation and/or credibility to your posts or something?

STFU, Matt.

[Parkbandit]

Haha! You rarely cease to amuse me.

You lash out.. all the time.. here. Whenever I point out your overwhelming stupidity, you respond with a homophobic rep post filled with swearing. I'm sorry, but that's "taking the forums seriously," no matter how many times you deny it in various other threads.

And then there's the classic reactionary delusion you love to spout out. Yes, yes, I "pretended to try," "hid my identity" (except that it was I pointing out to your dense brain, repeatedly, that I'm not female) and it wasn't actually you. That's right, Michael. Keep telling yourself that.

And if you show empathy to the pathetic.. you've been throwing yourself a pity-party for the last forty-five (fifty now?) years. Have fun arguing (and losing) with people half your age. I'll be around to occasionally poke holes in your ignorance.

:heart:

So wait.. if I always lash out.. what exactly have you just done in this thread?

[Methais]

It's just him. It has nothing to do with intimidation. It's me mocking him because he was stupid enough to give out his real personal information--everything, including phone number, real full name (and of his spouse) and address.

He's an idiot.

I could swear I saw you calling someone else by their RL name in a recent post too.

Can we get one of our detectives on that?

Btw gimme PB's number so I can have have Samuel L. Jackson call him when I'm drunk.


STFU, Matt.

NO U STFU MATT!!!!!!!!!!!!11

[CrystalTears]

Wait... swearing means you're taking something seriously?

I swear like a sailor, especially when I'm laughing about something stupid. WTF.

[Khariz]

NO U STFU MATT!!!!!!!!!!!!11

:rofl:

[Parkbandit]

Curious...what exactly is your obsession with calling people by their RL name on here anyway? Is it supposed to add intimidation and/or credibility to your posts or something?


Mostly because Earl thinks It has a gotcha moment. It generally posts my name (OMG IT'S MICHAEL!!!!!111) and a picture of a goat because I stated once that I wanted to "goat" It out. Those are the two things Earl is clutching onto. I think it's cute.. like I've really gotten under It's skin and It wants to make me PAY FOR IT!!!11oneone!

[Methais]

Mostly because Earl thinks It has a gotcha moment. It generally posts my name (OMG IT'S MICHAEL!!!!!111) and a picture of a goat because I stated once that I wanted to "goat" It out. Those are the two things Earl is clutching onto. I think it's cute.. like I've really gotten under It's skin and It wants to make me PAY FOR IT!!!11oneone!

Ah. Well in that case...

http://www.ca.uky.edu/agcollege/4H/projects_events/core/animalscience/goat/images/goat.jpgSE

Fixed.

[CrystalTears]

Or that you being so dense after being told not to assume I'm female, and having to spell it out for you somehow translates into you "catching me" "masquerading around"?You keep forgetting that MANY people assumed you were a female.

And for some you still are because you argue like a little bitch.

[Parkbandit]

Kind of like you trying to make it seem that an account I fooled around with and had something like twelve posts (some simply my character bidding on stuff) was indicative of a clear pattern of "backing up my arguments with dummy accounts" and that you've posted your screenshot of it about 15 times?

Or that you being so dense after being told not to assume I'm female, and having to spell it out for you somehow translates into you "catching me" "masquerading around"?

That's the desperation you show in virtually every argument to discredit those that disagree with and can factually disprove your feeble attempts to debate. But it's okay, Michael. I still :love: the laughable stupidity you bring to any conversation.

I'm almost certain the antics that you have mastered here in a very short time are far and beyond my name being Michael and me saying I wanted to "goat" you out. Maybe it's me.. but hey.. whatever blows your skirt up Earl. Go for it and just be you! (or yous.. in your case.)

[Parkbandit]

You keep forgetting that MANY people assumed you were a female.

And for some you still are because you argue like a little bitch.

In It's defense, I was the first one to point out It's masquerade..

[CrystalTears]

Sorry that you believe that your gender argues in an inferior, whining manner. Interesting.Nasty women are bitches, nasty men are assholes.

What the hell are you?

[Clove]

Nasty women are bitches, nasty men are assholes.

What the hell are you?A bitch-ass.

[Parkbandit]

We've been over it a million times.. nothing has changed.

If someone called me a girl, I would set the record straight right from the beginning. I wouldn't do the "Am I or Am I not" games you did. Of course, I wouldn't give myself a feminine name and use a feminine avatar either...

I don't get off on people questioning my gender.. but that's me. I guess I'm projecting my own values on someone like you.. and thus it's all my fault.

I'm sorry Earl :(

[TheEschaton]

And once again, the topic has been derailed, so we can't focus on the hypocrisy of Rush saying we should hope for the President to fail when he berated people for being traitors when they did the same to Bush.

-TheE-

[Methais]

Remember what I said--what was it--how many months ago? I don't believe gender is relevant to structuring an argument. You think I'm nasty? You're entitled to it. I think the very same of you.

This is probably because you can't figure out what gender you want to be. Kind of like Marilyn Manson, but without being successful.


Apparently, though, I'm the kind of nasty that causes the core group of trolls on the PC to keep talking about me for long periods of time despite not saying anything.

It's amusing to know that I'm so pertinent to any conversation here, and how much of an impact I've had on your perspectives to approaching controversial topics.

All that really accomplishes is the underlining of your failure.

[CrystalTears]

Translation: I'm so desperate for anything to use to discredit you when you point out the numerous logical fallacies in my arguments, I'll repeatedly accuse you of "pretending" and "masquerading" despite you actually being the one that pointed out to me that assuming female-sounding-name-on-the-Internet=female is unwise. I'm somehow justified in my "outrage."
You're such a dumb cunt.

Just saying.

[Methais]

I like how Carnivale stopped posting once the thread heated up some and demanded Ashliana's full attention.

I CAN HAS INVESTIGATOR KIT?!

[Parkbandit]

And once again, the topic has been derailed, so we can't focus on the hypocrisy of Rush saying we should hope for the President to fail when he berated people for being traitors when they did the same to Bush.

-TheE-

What about the other side of the coin.. how it was considered patriotic by liberals to question Bush at everything and to stand up against him? Now if you question Obama.. it's either racist or hating America.

It's politics... people flip their stances once their person holds the office.

[Clove]

And once again, the topic has been derailed, so we can't focus on the hypocrisy of Rush saying we should hope for the President to fail when he berated people for being traitors when they did the same to Bush.

-TheE-I get it, you'd like to give Rush more air time. STFU hippy, nobody cares what Rush says.

[CrystalTears]

Any time I hear you call anyone else stupid, I just think back to that moment with the post deletion and laaaauuuugh. Thanks for that, CT. :love:
You really are easily amused.

And a cunt.

[Parkbandit]

Translation: I'm so desperate for anything to use to discredit you when you point out the numerous logical fallacies in my arguments, I'll repeatedly accuse you of "pretending" and "masquerading" despite you actually being the one that pointed out to me that assuming female-sounding-name-on-the-Internet=female is unwise. In fact, I was (and am) so stupid that you telling me flat out that you're not female somehow equates to you being "found out" and your masquerade shattered.

I'm somehow justified in my "outrage," and as such no fallacies exist in anything I say.

:rofl:

You are the best and I'm glad I brought you back.

I didn't even realize it's already 2:30pm. Today has flown by.. thanks for the entertainment.

Promise you'll never ever leave us again!!