I’m Good Enough, I’m Smart Enough, and Doggone It, the Minnesota Supreme Court Likes Me. This election may have been a virtual tie, but Al Franken swept the Minnesota Supreme Court today. The Court ruled that Franken should be certified as the winner of the state’s Senate race — rejecting a challenge by Republican Norm Coleman. With Franken, the Democrats will have the votes to overcome any filibuster (if you include the two independents).
On election night, Coleman was ahead by a margin of 206 votes out of more than 2.9 million votes. After the recount, Franken led by 225 votes.
Coleman’s hopes were pinned on thousands of absentees votes that were rejected by election officials, but the Supreme Court found that those voters failed to satisfy the conditions set out for such voting.
On the substantive due process issue, the court ruled:
We conclude that our existing case law requires strict compliance by voters with the requirements for absentee voting. Thus, we reject Coleman’s argument that only substantial compliance by voters is required. Having rejected this argument, we also conclude that the trial court’s February 13 order requiring strict compliance with the statutory requirements for absentee voting was not a deviation from our well-established precedent.
Because strict compliance with the statutory requirements for absentee voting is, and has always been, required, there is no basis on which voters could have reasonably believed that anything less than strict compliance would suffice. Furthermore, Coleman does not cite, and after review of the record we have not found, any evidence in the record that election officials required only substantial compliance in any past election or any official pronouncements that only substantial compliance would be required in the November 4, 2008 election. Nor does Coleman point us to the testimony of any voter who neglected to comply with the statutory requirements for absentee voting in reliance on either past practice or official assurances that strict compliance was not required.
At oral argument, Coleman posited that because of the increased use of the absentee voting method, it should now be treated as a right, not a privilege. But that is a policy determination for the legislature, not this court, to make. Indeed, Coleman‟s counsel acknowledged during oral argument that Coleman cannot claim that any voters changed their behavior based on the alleged substantial compliance standard.
It is difficult to argue with the Court’s opinion, which is well-written and well-based. There is no satisfying conclusion here for everyone. Coleman’s supporters have a right to be bitter. A couple hundred votes put the result on an almost arbitrary basis. I have long believed that there should be an automatic re-vote when candidates (both presidential or congressional) fail to receive a majority of votes. With the two most popular candidates, the election is likely to produce a majority favorite and avoid most such razor-thin results. While it is possible to still have close races, it is less likely.
Coleman has conceded the race.
Here is the ruling: OPA090697-6030
For the story, click here.
Whew … almost time for a re-election campaign …
Finally another just result.
Now the head of the GOP (whoever that may be!) has to be flipping somersaults! Filibuster be damned! The stage is now set for the bold, dynamic leadership that President Obama can bring~ more especially in matters of health care, environment, and civil rights legislation!
Best of luck, Senator Franken! Welcome to the U. S. Senate. May God richly bless you as you undertake your duties!
Great news! Now Speaker Reid has to stop pussyfooting and challenge the Republicans on their obstructionist ways. The first order of business should be to move on the nomination of Dawn Johnsen to the OLC. She may be our best hope in getting the Obama administration to take a stand on making the torture enablers pay for their crimes.
rafflaw,
Obama could make a recess appointment for Dawn Johnson right now. (This idea was brought up by a poster on GG who suggested we all call/demand that Obama do so immediately.)
Hope your weekend was fun!
Hello, Mr. Professor,
I am wondering technically when does his term start because the prior ones that have been delayed have all started on January 3rd of the next year preceding their elections. I saw they did this for Mary Landrieu 1996, but does this still apply to Al Franken, which I need you or someone to weigh in on this and tell me where to go to find out his assumed office date?
Thanks,
Bradley Seely
Bradley S.,
It is my understanding that so long as he is seated before the recesses for the summer he should be able to be seated. He would still be entitled to all pay and seniority regardless when he is seated.
Jill,
The weekend was great and my grandson is growing like a weed. Thanks for asking.
As to your suggestion of a recess appointment, I hated when Bush did that and I don’t want Obama to do the same underhanded appointment. We have the votes to get her through if Reid would actually grow a spine.
I read that he could be seated as early as next week. I met Al Franken for the first time in 1976. He went to the Blake School with one my co-workers in the Carter Mondale campaign.I can’t believe that was 33 years ago.
I need the info from the professor to be able to source on wikipedia, so I need something with it to be cut and dry! Thanks From Bradley Seely to anonymously yours!
This is going to be very interesting,no more excuses,Bush got all of his legislation through,without a 60 seat majority.
Like I said No More Excuses!!
Only in America!!!
A failed comedian has become the MOST powerful man in the senate giving the Dems the super-majority they need to pass ALL their social-engineering policies.
They’ll be NO stopping “cap-n-trade”, “healthcare”, “amnesty” now.The rocks upon which the “messiah” will reshape America how he sees fit.And we’ll all have the former Saturday Night Live funny man to thank.
I’ll give Franken credit for one thing though: Fame and fortune obviously never caused him to “upgrade” to a trophy wife.From the “looks” of things it must’ve been true love because he’s still with wife #1.
(I know, I admit, it that was an insensitive comment. I’ll also admit I couldn’t help myself. I’ll also admit the hypocricy of Sanford in comparison. I admit to all these things so please do NOT use my admittedly insensitive statement as a launching pad to go off on some kind of diversionary rant)
silcian1,
I’ll take the bait and respond. You are rude, crude and not as important to other people as you are in your own mind. Get a grip, some people may not like you, some may pity you, some may even despise you. I don’t know you, so I can not give you the honor of any of the above.
Ay,
Don’t be so mad. This should be a great day for all you progressive Obama rump-swabs, lap-dogs, sychophants, etc. Please lighten up and take some time to bask in your glory. Now there is NO stopping NOT a one of your progressive policies. You are finally going to get the America you’ve been dreaming of.
But of course you had to take the bait. When is it that a progressive couldn’t help themselves but to jump on their morally superior soapbox and wag their finger at someone.
Especially when I baited you so easily. You actually ought to be giving me a “wink-wink, nudge-nudge” thank you over the “meatball” I served up for you. After all I made your day, now you can sit back and “praise” yourself for the indignation you felt over my comments and your response to them.
Sicilian1 No, we won’t get the American we have dreamed of because Bush pushed the country into a depression like recession in every way. Everything under him got so bad that just a return to normalcy would be an accomplishment. I also see you have a typical republican view of women. That’s why women won’t vote for your party.
sicilian, as soon as I saw the phrase “morally superior soapbox,” my Pavlovian progressive response mandated that I jump in. As usual, you miss the point. AY was merely noting that gratuitous cruelty concerning the physical appearance of a spouse is hardly appropriate fodder for your anger. The fact that you knew it was juvenile and said it anyway merely emphasizes your immaturity. Grow up. Ah, now I can sit back and enjoy my indignation over your comments and my response to them.
Ya, Bush pushed America into a recession/depression and Obama is doing EVERYTHING to make sure this nation stays there and things get worse. All you progressives think your “majesty” is on the level that he really is this morally superior angelic spirit who wants good for all mankind. The reality is that he wants to “spread the misery” and make people dependent on govn’t so he can empower his own crowd. B/ that is what the progressives do, they enslave everyone to the doles of govn’t then just use them as pawns as they enact all their social engineering.
But if you don’t believe that then as I said you should be happy because you now have your filli-buster proof majority in the senate so you’ll get your, “return to normalcy.”
SO PLEASE, CELEBRATE!!!
And as far as your aspersions to me being a Republican, If you’ve read my posts/blog then you’d know I am NOT one. I call things as I see them.
So do NOT try to play your progressive game of diverting attention by trying to label me.
Besides, can’t you take a little joke???
Oh ya, I forgot, progressives don’t have a sense of humor or if they do they supress it to get on their soapbox to villify those who disagree with them in order to gain points for their misguided causes
Congratulations, Al!
Here’s to continuing the good work of beloved Paul Wellstone.
MIKE A,
Glad to see you recognize the pavlovian nature of your progressivism and the need to rise up in ingdignation every time the moment presents itself no matter how slight.
As you can see and have acknowledged I too am able to recognize my faults. I feel if we all could do that then life would be easier for all of us.
But the one thing you must do as a progressive is develop a sense of humor. Or at least find a REAL basis for articulating your viwes because this fiegned moral outrage that all you progressives lean so heavily on is so tiring.
Now is the word Progressive such a bad ideal, unless you are needing Insurance?
Sir,
I think you owe Mr. Frankens’ wife an apology. You sir have no decency and I doubt very few morals. However, this is just an educated guess on my part as you have exhibited nothing more.
SWM,
That was kind of you to say it the way you did. OINKing going on around here.
See all you progressives should follow the example of “PARDON ME?”
He obviously is not going to let anything get in the way of this progressive triumph.
Most contemporary republican men are so hypocritical when it comes to “family values”. They have no understanding of how Franken has maintained a long term marriage with a woman that has not surgically turned herself into a “barbie doll” even though she could certainly afford to do so.
Though I usually don’t like to walk with a thumb tack in my shoe, sometimes it is necessary to remember that I have the option to either keep walking with the pain or to stop and remove the same. While I disagree with your approach and consider you to be inane. I think you should continue posting here as it helps me remember why I value the beliefs I hold so dear.
sicilian, I actually find all of life humorous. Indeed, I enjoy outrageous statements, particularly when they are expressed with humor or irony. My reactions to your various comments have been influenced in part by the anger and bitterness that typically accompanies them and your tendency toward accusation rather than reason. For example, your opposition to cap and trade, immigration reform and universal health care may have a rational basis, but you simply attack those concepts without more. Do you believe that climate change is a scientific myth? Do you believe that health care should not be granted the status of a right? Do you believe that we should erect a fence along the borders of this country?
AY,
Just when I thought you were getting the hang of letting your sense of humor express yourself you fall right back into your progressive playbook.
Wagging your finger at me to express your moral indignation will not work. I admitted that what I said was insensitive, though I’m sure if one of your progressive lap-dogs in the media or entertainment made the same type of off-handed comment about one of your “enemies” that would have been fine. What I said is my opinion and an expression of my LOW-BROW sense of humor. I make no apologies or excuses for that.
The least you can do is thank me for serving up such a meatball to you. C’mon, I made it so easy, you know you live for the moments to drape yourself in moral superiority to then tilt the conversation any way you feel to spew your progressive nonsense. What would’ve you done if I didn’t give you that opportunity?
Is this Hannity or Rush? I am not sure who should get the praise for such fine lip service.
He sounds more like Charlie Gasparino.
First of all I NEVER attaked “cap-n-trade”, “healthcare” or “amnesty” on this site nor gave any specifics to my opposition on this site or my reference to them on this post.
But that is the progressive trick. Label and demonize your opposition before they even open their mouths to present their specific views on a specific topic.
Like all progressives you feel you are endowed with some type of moral superiority. That only your positions are the “right” positions. That fact that you would say that I would attack those concepts without more is proof that you are a well trained progressive because I never did such a thing.
Even the way you present your questions, you have done so in a loaded manner; another classic progressive trick.
I said; “cap-n-trade”
NOT
“climate change is a scientific myth.”
I said: “Healthcare”
NOT
“Healthcare should not be granted the status of right.”
I said: “Amnesty”
NOT
“should erect a fence around the borders.”
I warn you, I am NOT an idiot. I will NOT fall into your progressive trick of answering ad hominem attacks. Nor will I fall into your progressive trick of answering loaded questions.
I am NOT an easy opponent. Do NOT try to paint me with your broad progressive brush so you can attempt to gain the immediate moral high ground to win your argument with semantics and not facts. Do NOT think you can debate me with progressive “talking-points” that I’ll let you get away with.
I find it insulting that you would throw those loaded questions out there as if you were quoting statements that I had made. You are starting your arguments with a fallacy. I never boiled such complicated topics down to such simple little soundbites and your attempts to present it as if I did will NOT work.
I am niether. I am exculsively sicilian1.
Unlike you progressives I do NOT get my talking points or marching oreders from anyone. Unlike you progressives who steal talking points from the huffington posts all day long I have my own opinions.
My blog is my testament to the fact that many of my positions were articulated before the media ever started harping on them.
Oh a smart Sicilian. What a term. Military Intelligence, Emergency Situation, Smart George, Cheap Sex. . . . .
underdog,
Thank you for exposing your ingrained bigotry, predjudice and racism. Brains and brawn is a deadly combination that which should make you feel uncomfortable so I don’t find fault with your tactics to try to gain the higher ground.
Goahead, buy into the stereotype. I LOVE it when I’m underestimated.
For some reason Republicans really hate Franken. He really gets under their collective skins. He will not be the most liberal US Senator nor will he compare to the former holder of that seat, Paul Wellstone. Nevertheless, he drives them crazy which is a good thing.
sicilian @ 9:29am
“But the one thing you must do as a progressive is develop a sense of humor.”
*****************************************************************
Why do you come to this site; you seem to be oblivious to all the spontaneous humor, silliness and fun stuff etc. here on this blog? Professor Turley really does have a great sense of humor as do most of the regulars who post here; you are missing out!
Here are few “progressives” who have demonstrated a sense of humor see if anyone of them can make you laugh:
George Carlin, Bill Hicks, Richard Pryor, Eddie Murphy, Chris Rock, Richard Belzer, Dick Gregory, Bill Cosby, John Stewart, Steven Colbert, Bill Maher,David Letterman, David Brenner, Dave Chapelle, Wanda Sykes, Tina Fey, Tracy Morgan, Ellen Degeneres, Jamie Foxx, Redd Foxx, Lily Tomlin, Whoopi Goldgerg, Joy Behar, Sarah Silverman, Steve Martin, Robin Williams, Tommy Chong, Cheech Marin, George Lopez, Margaret Cho, Rosanne, Rosie O’Donnell, Woody Allen, Jeanne Garafalo, Lewis Black, Lenny Bruce, Bob Newhart(surprised), Sandra Bernhard, Jonathan Winters
Congratulations to Al Franken a man with a sense of humor!
sicilian, as you know, I use my real name on this blog. I neither issue anonymous “warnings” to others nor listen to them. In addition, I note that you mentioned cap and trade, amnesty and health care as part of the “social engineering policies” that will now by pushed through by the followers of the “messiah.” Hence my conclusion that you are opposed to Democratic proposals in those areas. For someone who purports to abhor labels, you toss them out with alacrity. Finally, this is not about you, but about your ideas. I don’t know whether you are an idiot or not, and I don’t really care. I have asked for your positions on other issues previously, but you have elected not to share them. Instead, you launch into diabribes. What’s the point? If you simply wish to vent, just say so and I will make no further attempts to engage you.
Oops! Sorry Whoopi small typo: Goldberg!
CEJ,
I never said JT didn’t have a sense of humor and you yourself may in fact have one. However, let one of the “enemies” of the progressives even raise a hint of criticism, draped in sarcasm and it will be used as an excuse to claim the moral high ground and rant in defense on one of their pet issues
sicilian,
Mike Appleton is a most generous, intelligent and reasonable man; you should be grateful he is willing to engage you in debate I do not have the patience or fortitude that he and others have shown you here.
Look at history (both recent and long past) on almost every issue the “progressives” can “claim the moral high ground” it is the phony “conservatives” who “rant in defense of their pet issues” I am proud to be identified as a liberal “progressive”
and do not consider it to be the pejorative that you do!
Mike A,
Hence your conclusion to my statements are another one of your progressive tricks to corner my. Just b/c I may have a different view doesn’t mean my view is invalid, “wrong” or “mean.”
I am well versed in battling you progressive types. You LOVE to drop “buzz-words” and Buzz-phrases” into your arguments to sieze the high ground and resort to your ad hominem attacks.
I have show how you framed your earlier questions in a dishonest manner to try to “win” the assumption that I was against what you would then claim are positions of a higher moral defree. That weay you could “win” your argument without even addressing the objective facts of the topic.
I exposed your little trick yet like the good progressive soldier that you are you still persist.
You “conclude that I am against democratic proposals in those area’s”
There you go again, this time with the “buzz phrase” of “democratic proposals.”
You see I am not like you who just assumes that b/c you hold a certain view on a topic that you are “right” and “good” and that anyone who oppossess is “wrong” and “evil” Once again I find it insulting that you would try to paint me with a label. I find oppossing view points to also be “democratic proposals” and to not act on certain issues to also be a “democratic” position. You on the otherhand like all progressives feel only your views are “democratic” and any dissent is undemocratic.
It is nearly impossible to answer any of your questions because they are not really questions. You are only trying tp set traps to allow yorself to claim moral authority and then get on your soapbox to give a progressive rant.
Your intitial questions were not questions they were loaded so you could try to get me to defend views which you were armed and ready to unload upon when those viwes you dishonestly presented as my own are not in fact my views.
Then you try to make it seem as if I’m against democratic proposals when in fact a dissentig opinion is in fact also a democratic proposal.
You do not try to engage my you only try to use me as a tool for you to express your progressive views. I will NOT play into your game. I am experienced in wading through all the rhetorical tricks in the progressive playbook and will do so before getting trapped into getting into a mud-slinging exchange.
CEJ,
You do not have thwe patience or fortitude b/c like most progressives the depth of your knowledge is limited to MSNBC/huffington post talking points.
If you are a liberal progressive then you SHOULD wear that badge proudly.
However you are wrong if you think you can paint me as a strict conservative just b/c I don’t agree with you. And you should lose the audacity to think that just by being a liberal-progressive that you are endowed with the ownership of moral superiority.
sicilian, I used Democratic with a capital “D” for a reason. I was referring to proposals in those areas put forth by the Democratic Party. Your response indicates that you are fixated on the notion that responses to your comments are intended to reflect upon your personal integrity, intelligence or honor. For Pete’s sake, I have no interest in you personally. I just assumed that since you express your opinions about everyone else on this site with such intensity, that you actually had some ideas behind it. Believe me, no one is out to “get” you or label you. Indeed, the topic of this thread was the decision of the Minnesota Supreme Court. I seriously doubt that its ruling was influenced one way or the other by your anticipated reaction, but I could be wrong. The essential fallacy of a paranoid person is not the belief that others are interested in doing him harm, but that others are thinking about him at all.
sicilian 1,
After the interesting and highly personal dialogues we’ve engaged in on another thread, I have come to see you as intelligent, capable of thoughtfulness and growth. I say this with the understanding that neither of us changed our basic positions, but were able to gain something by understanding each other as people. For my part I don’t use a pseudonym and all I write about myself personally is provably true. Since I think you would agree that given the state of the world I am making myself to some extent vulnerable, this is a difficult choice I make, though with some confidence in my ability to protect me and mine. I make it because I believe the Internet represents the last, best hope for changing humanity from its’ path of destruction. If that is to happen,the self-reinvention and outright personal lies that some people engage in via their anonymous
personnas, needs to abate. Now with this exchange it causes me to wonder if what you seemed to disclose about yourself was true, or just your version of self promotion and claiming expertise? I state that not to call you a liar or disingenuous, but to point out that, with rare exceptions you normally don’t reveal your true political beliefs, (so as to allow flexibility of response I surmise) but instead
only hint at them:
“They’ll be NO stopping “cap-n-trade”, “healthcare”, amnesty now.The rocks upon which the “messiah” will reshape America how he sees fit.And we’ll all have the former Saturday Night Live funny man to thank.”
Therefore in later threads you can state:
“Don’t be so mad. This should be a great day for all you progressive Obama rump-swabs, lap-dogs, sychophants, etc.”
Only to then add:
“First of all I NEVER attaked “cap-n-trade”, “healthcare” or “amnesty” on this site nor gave any specifics to my opposition on this site or my reference to them on this post.”
and the the denouements:
“Unlike you progressives I do NOT get my talking points or marching oreders from anyone. Unlike you progressives who steal talking points from the huffington posts all day long I have my own opinions.”
“My blog is my testament to the fact that many of my positions were articulated before the media ever started harping on them.”
You are here not to participate but to bait people, insult them and hopefully develop some hits for your blog. This is apparent from your own words. However, your initial post here was not to your credit. You did it to bait people and to start an argument, rather than a dialogue. This was an attention getting/grabbing exercise that proved nothing except to hijack the thread into your ambit. You try to arise blog interest by making statements understood in current political discourse to have certain meanings and then disclaim them as your opinions. Do you really think I get my marching orders from anyone? Most people here don’t, but you use a faux conservative meme to characterize them as such. Is it any wonder then, that they take you to be just another Rovian clone?
Your exchange here doesn’t make me angry, nor do I find it funny, it makes me sad. Because a person who I was beginning to know and respect, albeit in a cyber sense, is acting in a way that brings him no credit.
sicilian 2 11:07,
“However, let one of the “enemies” of the progressives even raise a hint of criticism , draped in sarcasm and it will be used as an excuse to claim the moral high ground and rant in defense of one of their pet issues”
****************************************************************
For a group(“enemies” of the progressives) that thrives on phony outrage do you mean Sandford, Ensign, Vitter, Craig, McConnell, Boehner, Delay, Kern, Guliani,and the never to be forgotten Sarah Palin the Godzilla from Wasilla!
Or Limpballs, O’lielly, Beck, C**lter, Handity ?
Maybe you meant Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Yoo, Libby…?
You can’t argue with History!
JT,
While I’m thrilled by Al Franken’s victory I think your point that there should be runoffs in elections:
“I have long believed that there should be an automatic re-vote when candidates (both presidential or congressional) fail to receive a majority of votes.”
is a very important one. This election result was skewed by a third party, ensuring no simple majority. With that many votes and no majority, 315 votes is not the kind of victory that breeds confidence in a system.
A runoff system would also be a boon to third party’s because they would then have an opportunity to make a difference. My only worry there though is that it could also lead to instability, as seen in parliamentary systems. Perhaps though a little instability could be a boon to political systems.
Automatic runoffs are definitely the way to go. It would go a long way towards making sure that other voices (beyond the two major parties) are at least heard. If Bob Barr (leave aside for a moment his personal worth as a candidate) had managed to get 10-20% in a first count, Libertarian party ideas would be more covered in the msm – even though he wouldn’t have been included in the second count. The Greens would also have a larger voice.
The American winner-take-all presidential election system pretty much assures a two party system. I don’t want to be accused of seeing no difference between the parties (we saw how well that worked out in the 2000 election), but we have no real progressive or libertarian voice in the two major parties. The Dems are center-right and the Repubs are focused on social conservatism.
MIK E A,
Your continuences to cast aspirsions are in fact fallacious b/c I never said you were trying to harm or think about me. I have only pointed out how dishonest all your attacks are b/c they all involve a certain set pattern.
I commented on Franken ,congratulated you progressives on your win, gave my opinion as to the eventual outcomes this specific win would have on futiure issues then threw in a little sarcasm about Franken’s wife.
It was you and your progresive bunch who initiated all the ad hominem attacks.
CEJ,
Sorry to disappoint you but you won’t find me defending most of those you mentioned. I am an individual with individual opoinions on various topics unlike you and your progressive crowd who are slaves to certain ideologies and think that you must swallow everything your leaders jam down your throats on their adgenda without ever thinking for a second that while one position may be correct does not mean the other may in fact not agree with what’s best for you or others.
Mike S,
I do not wish to get hits to my blog although it is sometimes easier to get my point accross than posting these long dissertations.
Everything I disclose about myself is true. There is no way I could talk with such intimacy if I was fabricating. There is not a question about the things I disclosed of which I could not talk with expertise. My experiences in federal prison, with black people, with religious types, academics, fanatics, criminals, etc., are REAL and there is nothing that can be asked of me that would indict those experiences. If you notice most of the time I come from a personal angle and relate my personal experiences to my opinions. I stand by every claim I make.
As far as my anonimity, I am not getting paid for my opinions like a talk show host or a pundit. I am a private citizen who does not have opinions that are essentially politically correct therefore I reserve the right to protect my privacy. That does not make my opinion any less valid. An argument stands on the face of it’s premises and the conclusions that can be drawn from them. It does not matter who expresses the argument as long as it can stand debate. To dismiss an argument b/c a person desires their own personal privacy or to put the opinion of another as more valid just b/c they take off their “mask” is not fair. I blog mainly for the intrinsic value I get from it. My opinions are mine and I have a right to possess them and express them. When I get a syndicated radio deal (LOL) or someone hires me as a pundit (LOL) then I’ll be glad to expose myself. Untill then I choose to be like many bloggers out there and protect my privacy. If someone doesn’t like what I say then they do not have to respond nor do they have to read my comments. Just b/c my comments do not “tow-the-party-line” does not mean they shouldn’t be counted b/c many who I speak to consider their views in line with mine and themselves to be part of the “silent-majority” I just may be a little more rude than the next but that is my way and I do not apologize.
My opinion was how this “win” by Franken would effect certain legislation that is bound to come to vote in the senate.
Cap-n-Trade?
I will not get into a discussion on climate change b/c I am not a scientist. There is too much misinformation out there for anyone to ever make real sense of it. Science in fact is founded upon the ability to be a skeptic so any “consensus” on either side should in fact be looked at skeptically. For every global-warming apologist you will find a global warming nay-sayer. The conversation quickly degenerates into a tit-for-tat argument.
My position is that cap-n-trade will be the LARGEST tax increase in the history of the world. It will effect EVERYONE in America who flicks a light sdwitch off or on during the day. I do NOT agree with any tax increases and especially when these hypocritical politicians try to wrap as if it will be for the greater good of humanity.
Even if you agree with cap-n-trade many global-warming proponents are NOT even happy with the bill themselves b/c they do NOT feel the bill goes far enough to curb carbon emissions. Anyone who heralds the bill is just a political slave who has allowed themselves to be demagouged to death. If they really did care about global-warming and not just a political victory they would be outraged at the hypocrites who passed the bill.
Bottom line the bill is going to tax everyone back to the stone ages while really doing nothing significant to curb global warming.
You see, I tend not to believe in man-made global-warming but I’m willing to concede that I am not an expert in the science so for arguments sake I will concede that it exists. Well, if you’re in that camp, cap-n-trade shouldn’t make you happy b/c the bill is not going to even really make a dent in carbon emissions.
I am an expert at paying taxes and having property confiscated by the feds so any increases are not something I look forward to.
Once again the American public gets hood=winked. The only thing that was accomplished is that Obama and his progressive crowd will usurp more liberties while basking in the glow of doing what’s “right” for humanity.
I have my opinions on the other 2 topics if you interestecd but I must run some errands and take a break from tyoing or I’ll be stuck here all day answering retorts.
sicilian1,
I absolutely love how you deny everyone the right to label you or any of your beliefs while taking a caricatured picture of progressive ideas and putting loaded labels on them every chance you get. Classic Rovian technique of trying to paint your opponents with your own sins (just like Senator Ensign and Governor Sanford demonstrated so well). Leaving aside the fact that it’s nearly impossible to get just two progressives to agree, let alone all of them, which makes labeling us all the same ridiculous (it’s the other guys that are all about building homogeneous groups around black-or-white issues) you repeatedly take honest efforts to engage and decry them as ad-hominem attacks. You also misunderstand the point of skepticism in scientists in your discussion of global warming (when a bunch of skeptics all agree on something there’s a pretty good chance that it’s correct). As I understand it (and I did not research the numbers so this is just my opinion) the majority of scientists in the no-global-warming camp are on the payroll of companies with a vested interest – which doesn’t invalidate their results, but does make me skeptical about them. What matters is the consensus (or lack thereof) of the experts in the fields related to global warming and I also believe that there is a general consensus that man has an impact on the environment. But I think that the biggest problem with your posts (and political discourse in general) is best illustrated with a comment by Vice-President Biden a couple of weeks ago – after Leon Panetta said that it was almost as if Dick the war criminal wanted the US to get attacked again, Vice-President Biden was asked about the comment and said that he never questions another man’s motives (he also said that he thought that Cheney’s ideas were dead wrong). In my experience everyone is the good guy in their own head, not a megalomaniacial super- villain bent on world-domination. If you come to an argument admitting that your opponent believes that their ideas are the best way to achieve a certain end then discussion about the facts and the conclusions drawn from those facts can occur, but if you come in saying that now that the Democrats have 60 seats in the senate those socialist-communist-fascist progressives are going to enact all of their evil policies with the intent of destroying America then there’s not much point to engaging you.
Slartibartfast,
You progressives NEVER see how YOU label me first. And I’m NOT even a strict conservative. It is the progressives who open themselves up to my generalizing of them. They attack me from the SAME exact talking points. I know what they’re gonna say before they say. I’ve been dealing with there rhetorical tricksd for a long time. And it’s always a circle argument b/c they are always guilty of the same tricks.
It is the progressives who use the trick of transposing on their opponents their own inefficiencies. Their you go w/your “Rovian” branding. And I can not have a discussion nowadays with a progressive without them throwing Sanford’s name into the mix. You see it is you who generalize NOT me. You will NEVER see my use some type of blanket assertion such as “Rovian” I’m not even sure progressives eve3n know what that means b/c they too are guilty of those “Rovian” tactics. But I guess it’s a term they use when they get their progressive training manual. That is the psuedo intellectual deficient shortcut ALL [progressives use b/c they do NOT possess the vocabulary to truly verbalize what their knee-jerk emotions are making them feel. So they pull out the branding terminology and pat themselves on the back as if they’ve won some points.
Never said that when a bunch of skeptics agree that there’s a good chance it exists. My point was that most scientific research is based on skepticism. My point is that WITHOUT skepticism science would have trouble discovering any new trends. Consensus stops science in it’s tracks. Science is NOT exact! Science is NOT authoritative! If we excepted everything WITHOUT skepticism there would be NO scientific advances! There are so many factors affecting global warming that universal consensus being forced upon the massess is dangerous! My point is that a healthy debate is the only way to solve the problem. MY kids go to school so I know the part-line that gets drilled into their heads that they’re suppossed to accept without SKEPTICISM. I was raised to think critically and I want my kids to do the same. I don’t care what side of the issue someone comes on but they better be able to back it up.
I stated from the beginning that although I tend to be skeptical on global warming the jury is still out on a definitive conclusion for me.
Once again you like all progressives used my raising of a topic to go on a standard progressive rant. My issue with cap-n-trade is the taxes. If you don’t know now you’ll know when you get hit over the head like a club by your electric bills pretty soon.
I myself can’t be guilted into paying more taxes. That works with the knee-jerk progressive crowd who’s ussually sitting in their ivy-towers passing judgement anyway. (Their favorite pastime)Please do not use my statement as an excuse for some morally superior rant that we Americans owe it to the world and future generations to foot the financial bill.
Your statement begining with, “In my experience….” untill the word “occur,” I whole hearedly agree with. But if you think the senate with a fillibuster proof majority will not carry out the dictates of their master Obama then you’re living in la-la land.
The problem is that many are naive enough to believe that everything is on the level. Well I’m here to inform you that us commoners in the massess are nothing more than pawns for the global corporations and social engineers to carry out their adgenda’s.
They ALL drink from the same trough. Bush was a totalitarian globalist who believed in serving his masters by spend and borrowing and embarking on nation bnuilding. Obama is a totalitarian who believes in serving his masters by tax and spending but as oppossed to Bush Obama believes in reducing America’s influence around the globe. The Bush types believed power existed in enriching the coporation. The Obama types believe power exists reducing the powerv of the giants so that everyone is in the same pot fighting over the same pie that the totalitarian globalist himself controls.
My point is that 9 times out of 10 ANY politician will hurt you and serve you up for his own ends. I’m just looking for the guy who’s going to hurt me the least.
Go Franken, go Franken….
sicilian 1,
You replied to my post by ignoring the points I was really making and answering those ancillary to it. This I admit could be because I didn’t state things more clearly, so I will attempt to redress that now.
I brought up anonymity for two reasons. The first is that many of your posts decline to define a political viewpoint, yet make highly inflammatory accusations about others viewpoints:
“They’ll be NO stopping “cap-n-trade”, “healthcare”, “amnesty” now.The rocks upon which the “messiah” will reshape America how he sees fit.And we’ll all have the former Saturday Night Live funny man to thank.”
You knew these were “fighting” words and would get return fire, rather than discussion, since they are statements of characterization, rather than points being made. I voted for President Obama and I am so far fairly happy with his performance. Your use of “messiah” is derogatory to not only the man, but people like me who happily voted for him. Why would you expect other than attack in response? As for Al Franken, he is a man I’ve long admired, as much for his well done books as for his comedic skills. He also was the mid-day host on Air America Radio for a few years and to me at least proved to have serious political chops. Why would you think that “Saturday Night Live funny man” would also not bring return attack rather than discussion. The truth is obvious that you made the initial post to get attacked, thus being able to attack in return.
The second problem with your initial remark goes to my point about disguising your agenda, rather than openly discussing it from the beginning. whether you say it is or not “Cap N’ Trade” is short hand for the whole global warning issue. You know that, but you choose to parse words the better to engage in argument, rather than discussion. You work hard to incite and then add this statement at the bottom, purportedly to show your “innocence,” but really so you could disingenuously that it was you who were first attacked”
“(I know, I admit, it that was an insensitive comment. I’ll also admit I couldn’t help myself. I’ll also admit the hypocricy of Sanford in comparison. I admit to all these things so please do NOT use my admittedly insensitive statement as a launching pad to go off on some kind of diversionary rant)”
Let’s put it into “street” terms, with which we are both familiar:
You slap me in the face and then immediately and profusely apologize….I’m going to get even madder about the apology and break your nose.
You know as well as I that if in that situation I don’t attempt to break you nose, or other bodily damage I have lost the encounter. Now you know damn well that that’s the same scenario except with words. We both know you are quite intelligent and wise in the ways of the world. Your supposed disclaimer really meant:
“Come on back at me if you dare, I’m ready to take on all comers.”
So it is with more than a tad of hypocrisy that you then declare yourself to be the “innocent” victim of progressive group think. Sicilian 1, was I wrong to believe you were intelligent or self-aware? I say that because you would have to be stupid and self deceiving not to realize what you were doing and I don’t think you are. Neither, however, are the people who responded to your baiting and taunting. since I’m much more familiar with their writing and opinions than you are, I’ve been here longer, I can also categorically state that your that none of them can be put into a political box, or party line when it comes to their views. They are all very much as independent thinkers as you are.
Finally, a listing of your insults is instructive to show how you have set this all up so you could counter attack based on your false assumptions as to who you were addressing:
“Don’t be so mad. This should be a great day for all you progressive Obama rump-swabs, lap-dogs, sychophants, etc.”
“But of course you had to take the bait. When is it that a progressive couldn’t help themselves but to jump on their morally superior soapbox and wag their finger at someone.”
“Especially when I baited you so easily.”
This was addressed to AY, who bless his Texas soul, is hardly what anyone would call a progressive lap dog. Secondly, you blatantly admit that the purpose of your original post was to bait. Disingenuousness abounding.
“B/ that is what the progressives do, they enslave everyone to the doles of govn’t then just use them as pawns as they enact all their social engineering.”
“Oh ya, I forgot, progressives don’t have a sense of humor or if they do they supress it to get on their soapbox to villify those who disagree with them in order to gain points for their misguided causes”
That was to Swarthmore Mom, who since she has posted here has expressed a number of views also not following any particular party line. As for your attacks aren’t they “ad hominem?” Why is it okay for you to attack this way and then cry fould when people reply in return fashion. Is it because you think you’re somehow pure, but they’re not since they’re progressives?
I could go on and on with this since every one of your posts on this thread has shown the same characteristics, so it just would become repetitive. Sicilian 1, it would be nice to have you as part of this rather unique community, but if you keep engaging in your baiting behavior, rather than just sharing your own unique viewpoints, then you in effect just turn yourself into another troll. What you might not know about me is that I have been posting on Internet message boards for many years, some of them well known progressive sites, where I found myself disparaged for my support for Israel. I discontinued writing for awhile in response. The I found JT’s site, a far cut above the rest and I’ve been here ever since mainly because of the quality of content and the intelligence of its’ contributors. You might find some value here yourself, if you would limit yourself to a debate of ideas, rather than indulge in troll-like game playing.
I do not define a specific viewpoint b/c I am NIETHER a democrat nor republican, conservative nor liberal. I am an individual who holds dear my individual rights and freedoms. That is why I so strongly object to the 2 party system and this ridiculous political process. Why does it have to be an either/or decision? As a human being you are confronted with countless decisions through the day and the options available to those decisions are sometimes boundless and many times you never even explicate all the options. And voting along part lines is even MORE ridiculors. Why if a certain party represents a certain position on one topic am I required to go along with the next?
Cap-n-trade, healthcare and amnesty. If you’re a “democrat” which means you HAVE to be defined as a “liberal” means you HAVE to be for ALL 3 of those NO matter your opinions or how you’ll be affected. If you’re a “republican” which means you HAVE to be against ALL 3 of those NO matter your opinions or how you’ll be affected.
Personally, I’m undecided about cap-n-trade as far as the global-warming aspect b/c I’ve seen too much evidence that contradicts. But I am DEAD against the tax aspect. Healthcare I believe should be FIXED. But WHY do I have to pick a socialized plan or no plan? I am against amnesty but NOT for any “racsist” reasons of which I WILL be accussed of just for being against it.
The political process wasn’t suppossed to be a winner-take-all, win-or-lose game. The only people who suffer from that set-up is WE THE PEOPLE.
I NEVER implied my positions on those topics b/c I WAS intentionally baiting so that I could expose ALL the hypocrites and their soapbox inspired ad hominem rants. AND it works every time. ALL I have to do is “hint” at a topic AND the HYPOCRITES with their biases that are so ingrained step right in my track. And even though I’ve revealed my intentions, the Hypocrites will STILL swallow my bait b/c they can’t help themselves.
I admit what I do I am NOT a hypocrite. I will NOT step into the traps of MOST progressives who want to wag their finger in moral superiority anyway. The engagement with those types is a waste b/c the entire conversation is just a ploy on their part as they wait to “pounce” on any opening to drape themselves in morality and demonize their opponents better to disguise their ignorance on the topic. I just cut to the chase and reverse the trick AND it is that reason why I am attacked so viciously b/c I take away the higher ground from them.
But I am the innocent victim b/c the progressive crowd doesn’t have to take my bait. I am more than happy to debate the issues point by point with little rhetoric involved. But I am exhausted with the progressives and there dishonest in debating only to try and trap the opponent. So I just cut to the chase. But the ad hominem attacks never cease from the progressive crowd b/c that’s what they really want to do. The progressives should be happy at me for removing all the pretenses and bringing the argument where they want it from the outset. Who else serves up the meatballs for them to get on their soapboxes. They’re just mad that their opponent (me) is just as good at their rhetorical game.
If none of them can be put into a “box” then why do they seem to ALWAYS fall into my traps so readily? They’re easy picking. I just have to throw out a little bait and they get on their soapbox to spew the typical progressive party line. I know what they’re going to say before they say it so if they weren’t so predictable why is that so? They should look in the mirror to evaluate their positions and see what pavlovian dogs they have become.
I am NOT pure, it is the faux, self-assigned purity of the progressives that is hypocritical. You’ll NEVER see me trying to negate some else’s argument by trying to morally impune their opinions. I only RESPOND with ad hominems to the initial ad hominem attacks which I’ve so easily baited them into.
My intent is NOT a game it is a goal to expose the progressive hypocrites at every turn. It is even a slight progressive mentality that will ruin this country. Social engineering does NOT work. When you force things on people you take away their liberties to choose. We all end up being wards of the state serving as the means of the masters to achieve their ends. These progressives NEVER will learn that academic theories work perfectly on paper but when they are implemented things invariably go awry. And the citizens of this country should NOT be used as lab rats so these progressives can try to “prove” their thesis’ to be correct.
And trying to wrap every decision into some kind of higher degree of moral servitude as if you don’t agree with a certain position you’re just some kind of evil, insensitive monster is just another trick of the demagouge. That is what I find more insulting than anything. The progressive acts as if any kind of “constraint” against morality is an act of intolerance then when someone expressess an opposing viewpoint he is then villified as the intolerant. They use intolerance to shut-up opposing viewpoints by branding those opposing viewpoints as intolerant. I am SICK and TIRED of it and I will NOT let them get away with it with me and I will bait them to expose them at every turn.
This demagougery trick of forcing their positions on everyone by painting their disagreements as immoral is in fact the immoral act. This country was created on and for dissent. When you pass a 1,201 page cap-n-trade bill that was introduced the day before and add a 300 page ammendment at 3am hours before the vote then take a vote while the bill is actually being typed without ever giving those voting on it a chance to read it let alone the American public (What happened to the transparency website?)a chance to even become aware of it so they could voice their opinions to the duly elected representatives is ABSOLUTE tyranny!!!
I don’t care if the bill turns out to be a good bill. I want to know, where was the DEBATE!! Why couldn’t WE THE PEOPLE find out about this before the House voted? Those are our reps NOT Obama’s minions!!!
But see, everyone is SO conditioned they’ll take what I said as an opening to ad hominem brand me as being against global-warming. Which I’m NOT!!! They’ll take that to ad hominem brand me as being anti-Obama and if that track fails they’ll accuse me of being a racsist.
(Just an aside: I love it whenever I debate a “white-guilter” who as I start to pummell them with an anti-Obama tirade accusses me of being a racsist. Then I pull out a picture of my kids. You should see how they swallow their words. That’s when I GET the moral high-ground and once again expose the “white-guilters” for the hypocrites that they are.
They’ll take what I said to brand me as a republican/conservative intolerant. Which I’m NOT!!!
I declare each and every politician guilty as charged!! They’re ALL out to use us as their pawns!!
It is these progressive ideological slaves and the ignorants in the massess that lets these politicians get away with their tricks.
People are so conditioned and brainwashed they do NOT evden care the way the House high-jacked democracy to get their little pet legislation passed by their master. Most don’t even know how their going to get taxed back into the stone ages by this c-n-t legislation. Most don’t even know that the REAL global-warming believers are NOT happy with this bill b/c it doesn’t go far enough in limiying carbon emmissions.
All this bill accomplished was raise taxes, make barely a token gesture at curbing carbon emissions BUT put more power in govnt’s hands while taking away more liberty from the American people.
Whatever side you’re on the bill is going to hurt YOU. But people are so caught up in this either/or debate that they do NOT even care to investigate what is in the bill. If they’re dems/liberals/Obamaites then they cheer b/c “they” won!!!! But the way this whole thing went down is a loss to the people of this country.
Obama is a democrat which means he represents the cause of global warming so obviously all those who believe in global warming look to Obama and the dems to represent their interest. BUT as I’ve said, the c-n-t bill does NOT go far enough. Ask the REAL HARDCORE global-warming believers. So Obama and the dems did not even represent the interests of their own constituency. But they “BEAT” the conservative/republicans so that means by instinct the constituents of Obama and the dems have to be happy and it means they should buy hook-line-and-sinker that their interest was represented and the bill will be good for them and it also means that any criticism is to be ad hominem attacked.
It’s that mentality that is the true danger in this country. And more and more people are falling into that pattern everyday.
Just like they don’t care that Franken high-jacked that election. All they care is that he won. And any criticism about the results will be defended with the ad hominem, ‘you weren’t crying about Bush in 2000.’ When the truth is that there is NO defense for the crimes of either man and every concerned citizen should be crying over the disregard for the liberty of the people.
But NO, I’m against c-n-t so I get demonized as whatever ad hominem bias the progressive wants to use to stick on me.
But I’m going to play by the progressives rules and continue to expose there own intolerance and biases untill they wake up and realize who they are and how they’ve been brainwashed.
“I do not define a specific viewpoint b/c I am NIETHER a democrat nor republican, conservative nor liberal. I am an individual who holds dear my individual rights and freedoms.”
You grant yourself a privilege you deny others here wrongfully.
“Cap-n-trade, healthcare and amnesty. If you’re a “democrat” which means you HAVE to be defined as a “liberal” means you HAVE to be for ALL 3 of those NO matter your opinions or how you’ll be affected. If you’re a “republican” which means you HAVE to be against ALL 3 of those NO matter your opinions or how you’ll be affected.”
Quite simply you are wrong and again denying others their individuality of belief.
“I WAS intentionally baiting so that I could expose ALL the hypocrites and their soapbox inspired ad hominem rants. AND it works every time.”
This is the game playing I referred to. Why not state a position, explain your thinking, get a response and then reply to that. That is what is known as discussion and is much more profitable than surmising what people believe by your own incorrect value judgments.
“I admit what I do I am NOT a hypocrite. I will NOT step into the traps of MOST progressives who want to wag their finger in moral superiority anyway.”
So why should we, mostly not traditional progressives, step into your “baiting” traps? Don’t you get it? We’re more than smart enough to understand what you’re doing and most of the replies to you were “baiting” you back. You are so smug though that you don’t realize it and were thus hoisted on your own petard. As we can see you don’t like to be on the other end of the “trap” and that exhibits that you can dish it out, but can’t take it. In that sense you are a hypocrite, but you are so in love with your own ideas that you lack the self awareness to see it.
“But I am the innocent victim b/c the progressive crowd doesn’t have to take my bait. I am more than happy to debate the issues point by point with little rhetoric involved.”
You are neither “the innocent victim,” nor are you willing to debate the issues point by point. We had a long exchange on the other thread and throughout it, although revealing personal details, you basically never answered my questions about the issues other than making blanket statements which you didn’t bother to provide the underlying reasoning for. I answered your questions, but you avoided answering mine, nor did you go point by point with me. Your avoidance was characterized by non-committal statements like “let me think that over.”
“But I am exhausted with the progressives and there dishonest in debating only to try and trap the opponent.”
You have already admitted to baiting to try to trap your opponents, why is it okay for you to do, but not to have it done to you?
“The progressive acts as if any kind of “constraint” against morality is an act of intolerance then when someone expressess an opposing viewpoint he is then villified as the intolerant.”
I’m sorry to say this but: Schmuck, don’t you get it? This is not a progressive website. You claim that you are besmirched with people misrepresenting your views and then you go ahead and misrepresent our views. you are fighting a battle with the wrong people, but what’s worse is that in your anger and smug self-certainty, to don’t even bother to actually read what is being written.
“But I’m going to play by the progressives rules and continue to expose there own intolerance and biases untill they wake up and realize who they are and how they’ve been brainwashed.”
You really seem hung up on making people realize how wrong they are. It is a theme that runs through all you’ve written on this site. On the thread discussing Islam, you couldn’t get over the fact that Islam won’t admit that they are trying to falsify Jewish history. Sadly, I’m coming to the point where I realize that you are so immersed in your own thought patterns, that you make yourself incapable of having a good discussion. Please remember our dialogue sicilian 1, where I didn’t attack you or characterize you. Perhaps then you can realize that what I’m saying to you is with the utmost sincerity. You need to re-examine your own actions here and realize where you’ve gone off the rails and projected onto other people, that which you are doing yourself.
Si1,
You, Mike Spindell, others, and I–as long as we are human beings—are hypocrites about something throughout life. Only the better of us—and I am sure that includes you, sometimes—strive not to let our hypocrisies or lies result in injustices to our fellow humans.
Any human who states unequivocally that he or she is *neither* a liar nor a hypocrite, most likely falls squarely within the worst of the lot regarding those 2 unpleasant human traits.
I do not consider you a troll, thanks for posting here, and I appreciate Mike Spindell et al. for responding to you.
I do NOT grant myself a privledge then deny it to others. Anybody can be whatever they want. It is the ideological slaves who are the hypocrites. And it is my right to enjoy exposing them if I wish.
The 2nd comments of which I quoted was done to point ou the ridiculousness of the party-line. That quotation points out what you MUST believe if you strictly affiliate yourself with a certain position/party and if you have even an opposing view that you MUST be labeled as a whole and not just respected for having that individual view. I said what I said to show the pidgeon-holing individuals are forced to accept by this system. I obviously do NOT agree with that premise and was presenting it in that form to show the ridiculousness of what we as individuals are all forced into with party affiliations.
I hope it is that you just missed my point. Because a FAVORITE progressive rhetorical trick is to take quotations out of context to then prove their own morally superior point.
If you progressives do NOT want to step into my baiting traps then do NOT. But you always can NEVER seem to help yourselves. I set the trap you take the bait. Do NOT blame me for being the bad guy. You are the ones who can NOT help yourselves. What all YOU psuedo intellects do NOT understand is that b/c I set the trap and you took the bait it is you who are playing my game. You do NOT bait me b/c you say exactly what I know you’ll say and make it easy for me to expose your hypocracy. You are just so used to holding the moral high ground to pontificate your views that your intellectual arrogance can not allow you to control your emotions.
B/C YOU NEVER answered my questions. I asked you VERY specific questions but YOU turned every question into an opportunity to take a shot at Christianity ,though I have NEVER defended it. You yourself are so in love with your own pseudo intellect and the praise from your sychophants on this site that you can NOT even see how you turn EVERY question into a chance for YOU to pontificate on your own issues. If you look back you will sdee how I had to continuously repeat my questions and pull you back on topic from some anti-whatever, finger-pointing, what-about-them rant. But like the well trained progressive that you are who has the progressive handbook nearby every discussion you employ that “what-about-them” tactic to every question. This has been so ingrained in you that you do NOT even know that you are doing it, unlike me who admits to all my rhetorical tricks. At least I’m honest and NOT trying to slant my debates to an issue of who is morally right. You will see that I NEVER use the “what-about-them” finger-pointing argument to try and back up my position.
Any time I say “let me think that over” it is b/c I’m NOT so intellectually arrogant that I will try to present myself as a know-it-all on a subject of which I haven’t contemplated. That is intellectual honesty.
You have NO defense. Any time you post, you will turn a specific question into an opportunity to give a long vapid self-absorbed dissertation on something completely off topic. You will then play your little “what0-about-them” game to try to assault the questioner and make yourself seem knowledgeable and of a higher moral standard. I had to repeat my questions over and over as I waded through the verbiage of your pontifications on subject of which I NEVER inquired about and did little to serve your argument or disprove my question beyond the simple, “you can’t say nothing about them b/c they did too.” And those you pointed your finger at weren’t even groups or positions I had ever defended thereby lenging NO validity to anything you were claiming to disprove my question which NEVER should have even had the need to be disproven anyway b/c it was only a question. It is YOU who can NOT answer a straight question!
It is perfectly ok for the progressives to try to bait and it is perfectly my choice not to fall for it and instead turn the tables on them.
You don’t get it b/c you are a progressive who thinks he’s part of the populus. You’ve been brainwashed by your progressive masters. If they are NO progressives on this site (And you are certainly one) then why is it so easy for me to bait the progressives. Because that is my intention and I seem to always accomplish it, you yourself are a case in point.
I do NOT misrepresent a view b/c as you’ve noticed I frame my statements to draw out the progressive biases. My views obviously get assumed b/c my initial ploy is to cloud my view in order to smoke out the progressives. Then when they act on their emotionally lacking assumptions and start labeling my they then open the door for my to expose their hypocracy.
Not how wrong they are BUT how hypocritical they are and how they use their own biases to then try to label the others biases. This is the little trick progressives like yourselves play, you possess a certain bias on a topic, they topic is presented and as soon as your opponent speaks you hurl the bias accusation at him, demonizing him and in turn making yourself seem above it all so then you can present your own bias in a cloak of morality.
I NEVER mentioned Islam in any of these discussions but it is like all you progressives to go off topic to prove your point b/c you’re blinded by you own ignorance.
As far as Islam (which I’m starting to see you as an apologist for. And for whatever reason.) I do NOT care about all the other red-herrings that you want to throw into the argument. I have admitted to you ad nauseun the sins of EVERY other religion, especially Christianity. I have admitted to being an unabashed Jewish apologist and it is admittedly the religion of which I am most sympathetic. I am ONLY concerned with Islam’s attempts to falsify Jewish history b/c NO matter how hard you rhetorically try with past history and present exaggerations, it is Islam who wants to wipe the Jews off the face of the map.
Please, I have written extensively about my experiences with intolerants in Academia and ignorants in prison. I have written extensively about my insulting regard for Islam’s claims, revisionist nature, arrogance and insistence on submittance. I concede the “evil” of Christianity. I concede the hypocracy of the West and the bad feelings they’ve left being in the Arab world through their coloniztion. I make no excuses. My concern is Islam’s PRESENT day interaction with Judaism and their insistence on STEALING their history. THAT can NOT be refuted. And pointing fingers at other religions does NOT to support the apologies of Islam.
We have beaten this issue to death. Lets just wait untill the next terrorist attack when I jump on a site or post on my blog with the thinly vieled anti-muslim bait and all you progressives can jump on your soapboxes untill you’re hearts content. I promise I’ll serve you all up that meatball so start writing your speeches now.
(Is it alright to say I had my tongue firmly planted in cheek b/c many of my points have been missed)
You claim sincereity yet call me a schmuck. But that’s more progressive arrogance. The rules apply to everyone but them so they can contently talk out of both sides of their mouth.
I myself have NEVER used a gratuitously derogative term (i.e. troll, schmuck) I am confident enough in my vocabulary to express my views without resorting to those low grade tactics
FFLEO,
I hope, like you said ,to not let any hypocracies I may hold hurt others.
What I have tried to show to these progressives or whatever they want to call themselves is that they do NOT have ownership of any “rightness” b/c they hold a certain position.
There are some universal truths: murder is unacceptable, pedophiles are monsters, etc.
But when it comes to political debate dissent is a good thing and I’m sure that even the progressives would agree. But anyone who tries to shut-up legitimate debate by draping their positions in some kind of moral superiority in order to demonize their opponents with all manner of unsubstantiated labels is the intolerant, heavy-fisted tyrant he accusses his opponent of being. This is demogougery at it’s worst. And these progressives engage in it so readily with every trap I set.
I do Not accuse you of this I just used my reply to your message as a chance to say that.
Thank you for your kind words and encouragement.
sicilian1,
I think you have misunderstood the point of this discussion, you onionhead! (That was a gratuitous ad-hominem attack, I have no personal knowledge about the shape of sicilian1’s head, sorry
). You don’t win an argument (at least here) by posting the most or ranting the longest or sounding the fanciest or spewing your ideas until everyone else gets tired of pointing out how wrong you are – you win by convincing someone else that you are right. If you get Mike (A. or S.), AY, Swarthmore Mom, or any of the other regulars to agree with you and I’ll be impressed, but from what I’ve seen of your posts, I highly doubt that will ever happen.
Slartibartfast,
This must be Patty C’s new moniker, sicilian1,
You don’t win an argument (at least here) by posting the most or ranting the longest or sounding the fanciest or spewing your ideas until everyone else gets tired of pointing out how wrong you are – you win by convincing someone else that you are right.
***********************
This is the way she does it.
Slartibartfast,
It is me who will NEVER get tired of pointing out the hypocritical rhetorical tricks of you progressives. You follow the exact same game plan with every issue, I’ll repeat it again so you can try to avoid it:
Wait for someone to speak on a topic immediately demonize them with baseless accusations then drape your bias views as some type of moral sanctity in effect shutting down all legitimate debate.
With me I lay a little incendiary bomb that you knee-jerk, emotionally unstable progressives can’t resist detonating. You assign an assumption then use it as launching pad for your rants.
It works EVERY time. You are again another example of my premise.
As I explained to you in my blog last night, I am NOT looking for consensus nor do I hold any wieght in it. I do NOT follow along with the pavlovian massess. My opinions are my own, I try to back them up. You can draw your own conclusions.
I will NEVER count a “win” as convincing others to agree with me. A win for me is being able to formulate a well informed opinion then being able to articulate it. That is a win for me. It is intrinsic in value. I do NOT need any sychophants in my camp.
Remember what I said to you about skepticism as oppossed to consensus.
AY,
Not surprised the ad hominem, labeling attacks are the m.o. of your progressive crowd.
Do NOT try to group me or besmirch me by attaching me to one of your opponents who you’ve already demonized. It will NOT work. My thoughts are my original own.
You see how easy it is with your crowd? You see how you keep on stepping in it?
I didn’t even have to do anything. You progressives are so intellectually arrogant that you can’t see how you keep falling into my traps.
Your own words exposed your own faulty rhetoric.Patty C is a past enemy of your’s who you’ve demonized in order to discredit and it’s probably worked with all th other pavlovian progressives on this site. Knowing this you try to attach her to me in a feeble attempt to discredit me. But I know your game and dissectede it for you. You are out of your league do NOT let the tagline fool you. Yes I may be your typical muscle head but I am well educated and a master rhetorician. You can NOT fool me. So just keep falling into my traps or setting yourselves up to enable me to expose you.
If you want to be a progressive then that is fine but I advise that you discard your faulty rhetorical tactics b/c they won’t work with my. But if you’re really smart you will see that I am exposing the desperate fault line in the progressive ideology. It can NOT stand on it’s merits. There is NO real substance behind it. It is nothing more than a “feel-good psychology” that can NOT stand up to legitimate critical debate.
I’ve had enough fun for today. I could toy with you progressives untill bed time but then I’d never get anything done. I’ve already wasted much of the day exposing the faulty rhetoric and logic of my opponents.
I shall return.
sicilian1,
Will you return on Tuesday as well? I admit, I am everything you think I am. I cannot deny the existence of your thought process and know that only Mr. Butler has the appropriate words of wisdom for you. Since you are as brilliant as you claim in exposing progressives then maybe you may decipher the phraseology. This is for you alone for you to do, you have to rely upon your own intelligence, whatever that may be or lacking therefore.
So if we are all progressive as you claim, then it is presumed that you are nothing more than digressive? Would you not agree?
Sicilian 1,
Okay you win. I quit. I am everything you say I am and worse and you are the only pure intellect that I have ever encountered. I see the error of my ways and will engage you no more. In truth though, in all your magnificence and purity of motive, you are a schmuck.
Bye.
snicker
Is it me, or does sicilian1 sound like a ten year old alone in his room acting out some fantasy game with dolls?
Talk about a B-movie dialect.
Mike S., I’ll say this, you get an A++ for effort. I believe that for some people, a perpetual state of defensive anger is the only proof that they are alive.
AY,
For a deductive argument to be valid:
IF all the premises are true then the conclusion MUST be true.
The key words are IF/MUST.
To test for validity first a logician assumes the premises to be true in order to determine the conclusion MUST be true. That is all there is to a test of validity.
Lets do the FIRST step.
This is what logicians call a truth table.
This is a classic modus pollens argument.
1 progressive(p) => digressive(Q) (You all prog. then me digr.)
2 progressive(p) (You all prog.)
—————- (Therefore)
3.: digressive(.:Q) (Me digr.)
p Q p .:Q
t[t]t t t
t[f]f t f
f[t]t f t
f[t]f f f
The first premise 1)That you are all progressives and then I am a digressive must be assigned a truth value for each possibility.
The bracketed letters is what determines the truth validity of the first premise. The truth of each premise is then compared to the conclusion.
This is in fact a valid argument b/c there is no line in which all the premises are true and the conclusion is false.
However we are NOT done b/c a valid argument is judged as either sound or unsound.
A good deductive argument MUST meet two conditions:
1)It MUST be valid AND
2)ALL the premises must be true
We’ve already established that the argument is valid.
However now we must analyze the premises to see if the argument is sound or unsound.
Premises are the reason to support the conclusion
The premises of this argument are:
1) If you are ALL progressives then I must be a digressive
2) You are all progressive
The question is do the premises support the conclusion which is:
C)I am therefore a digressive.
So though the argument is valid it will ONLY be sound if it has true premises.
Lets analyze premises
1)Clearly this is a FALSE premise b/c although you may be progressives that does not automatically make me a digressive. I could in fact be a more progressive progressive or in fact static or any number of other directionary designations.
2)Clearly this is a ealse premise. Mike S has repeatedly stated that he is NOT a progressive as has FFLEO and Gary T, to name just a few as well as your enemy Patty C. So this premise is ABSOLUTELY, IRREFUTABLY FALSE.
So this in fact proves your argument though to be valid is nevertheless unsound. And that, is ALL that matters.
So not only are your rhetorical skills inferior, you have proven that you possess faulty logic. But that does not surprise me in the slightest. Progressives are as a lot knee-jerk reactionaries who can only spew their programmed souundbites. It is you progressives who define the term “psuedo intellectual” You busy yourselves spouting vapid platitudes to make yourself feel good and get pats on the back from your crowd. All it does is take me the slighest mention of the word progressives to get a reaction out of your crowd.
I have no problem to continuously expose your ignorance. It NEVER fails you continue to step in it. I don’t even have to bait you emotionally unstable progressives any longer.
MIKE S,
It took me a long time but I did finally show your intellectual arrogance.
Thank you for giving me the eternal high ground with your derogatory insults.
But that is the last resort in the progressive playbook; dismiss their opponents with vile insults; implying to take the high ground with a refusal to stoop to a level they have deemed beneath them when it is in fact they who took it to the gutter in frustration over having their words and tricks used against them.
sicilian 1:
“To test for validity first a logician assumes the premises to be true in order to determine the conclusion MUST be true. That is all there is to a test of validity.”
*************
Let’s test sicilian 1’s theory as he stoops to educate we the ignorant:
1. All jackasses bray loudly.
2. sicilian 1 brays loudly.
3. Ipso facto, sicilain 1 is a loud jackass!
Yep, two obviously true premises and one abundantly true conclusion. Not logically correct of course despite sicilian 1’s theorem but anecdotally who can argue with it.
Teach on Socrates! I ‘m learning more about you by the minute.
Bob, esq. Mike A,
Yes, continue to expose your inferior progressive abilities. You are unable to see your own hypocricies and the rhetorical tricks you play.
Mike A can’t ask anything other than a loaded question so he can spew his pre-arranged party-line.
Bob, I already exposed AY attempts to demonize me with insults. It is a dishonest, lazy, unwarranted rhetorical trick. When all else fails discredit your opponent with belittling comments.
But hey, we all gotta work with what we got.
roflmao
Uh, yeah Sil, this is very informative. Keep it up.
snicker
mespo,
I haven’t put the argument through the validity table. That in fact is a CONJUCTIVE argument joined by an (AND) it mauy or not be valid or invalid but the argument does not pass thev test for soundness.
But please continue, I love to recieve the insults from the compassionate, highly intellectual, moralist, high brow progressive crowd
Buddha,
When Siddartha was under the tree contemplating reality he probably used some of these logical tables and exercises.
You know Sil, sometimes comments get belittled because they’re stupid, illogical and/or highly flawed and ill thought out.
Like yours.
You like one kind of reasoning and one kind only: Outcome Based Reasoning. That outcome which you desire (Progressives = Bad) is simply propaganda language, sport. It’s also first order bad logic. You seek to demonize what you have yet to this point best with logical argument and proof. And when you try, you fail miserably. You probably shouldn’t lecture on logic to a group of which many are fully equipped to teach logic as a collegiate academic subject if not at a graduate studies level. Logic is a tool. You’ve just demonstrated you don’t know how to use it with firm certainty and mespo made you look foolish for your effort. Not a brilliant move that considering your earlier appeals to your own vanity. Many of the regulars have lectured on logic. We just didn’t get laughed at. I wonder why?
I know I’m wasting time talking to you. Based on the totality of your posts you’re either paid, brainwashed beyond all help or intractably stupid. Maybe all of the above. So I guess it’s a good thing I point this out about you for the benefit of others so they see you in your proper context of cautionary tale. You are consistent. Consistently wrong and consistently proven to have a dishonest Neocon agenda that is.
I was told there would be no math here!
Mike S., I haven’t seen the word “schmuck” since my days growing up in Skokie. It has a nice ring to it!
sicilian 1:
“I haven’t put the argument through the validity table.”
*************
Save yourself the time. My example was a classic example of the formal logical fallacy of affirming the consequent. That’s why I said it wasn’t logical, but alas it appears accurate.
Thank-you!!! AY, SM, Rafflaw, Mike Appleton, Mike Spindell, Rafflaw, Slartibartfast, FFLEO, Mespo, Buddha & Bob on this thread as elsewhere you all so often make me smile and laugh!
Sicilian1, not so much.
P.S. I left out Larry David and so many others…
P.P.S. Where has Cook County Dem been? Hope to see him soon!
scilian1,
I also wanted to address your comments about science. You said, “Consensus stops science in its tracks.”, this is a ridiculous statement. Consensus is how science takes a step forward – does it hurt science that there’s a consensus about evolution or Newtonian mechanics or atomic theory? The arc of scientific discovery goes from a new hypothesis to finding evidence to arguing that the evidence show the hypothesis to be correct to consensus that the hypothesis (now a theory) is correct. The skepticism necessary to science is not the skepticism of the public (although I certainly believe that the skepticism of the public is a good thing), but rather the skepticism of doing everything that you can think of to prove yourself wrong – to take your hypothesis and try to the best of your ability to destroy it. But I’m sure as a master of logic you understand all this. I hope you continue to entertain us with your logic lessons, I’m sure that everyone else is just as fascinated by your pedagogical display as I am. I would address several other points, but it seems to me that others (as usual) are doing the job more ably than I could manage anyway…
rafflaw,
Don’t worry – math is your friend
Slats,
Math may be my friend, but Geometry is my enemy.
rafflaw 1, July 2, 2009 at 11:21 pm
Slats,
Math may be my friend, but Geometry is my enemy.
**************************
Maybe you can get someone from Enron to help you. I know they know how to cook book maybe they can teach you math as well. It is your friend.
Now raff, that was funny!
Former Fed,
Everything I did in Math was funny.
Well rafflaw, at least you most likely never got caught in a Lover’s *Triangle*…
rafflaw,
What did Euclid ever do to you?
Slar,
I bet raff had a stern ol’ math ‘fesser who shouted out “Euclid” in class one day and raff was a’readin’ his Perry Mason comic book and he thought the teacher said ‘You Kid”! and skert raff offin’ math forevermore. Good thing, cause he took up the law instead where he could make a livin’ and a difference.
Good choice Rafflaw
FFLEO,
“… he took up the law instead (of math) where he could make a livin’ and a difference.” That hurts man – mathematicians may not make as good of a living as lawyers but they can make a difference. Who knows what rafflaw might have done with more schooling and less money…
Buddha,
You are the propagandist who can only spew the set template that has been drilled into your head.
You can NOT cpme to terms that it is you the progressive who builds every conclusion on faulty premises. That is why none of your arguments can pass the test and all your defense mechanisms are merely failed rhetoric to demonize.
You are certainly NOT equipped to teach logic. What? I did the truth table right there on the post AND was even honest enough to admit the argument passed the validity test. I did NOT manipulate ANYTHING unlike the intellectually dishonest progressives. The test for validity was NOT in my favor yet I still presented it truthfully.
I then showed how the premises were faulty making the argument a valid yet unsound one.
I did it for your own eyes. Honest AND truthful!!! Yet you want to try and impune my intellect by singing the praises of you and your ilk, by putting yourself on a pedastal in order to discredit me.
How does that work? I exhibited complete objectivity to show what the results of the argument would be and presented the outcome truthfully. If you want to argue logic, then there can be no complaint b/c I did. You just did not like the result so you resort to your inferior brand of rhetoric.
You see I won’t fall into your meager trap. I never tried to lecture abt logic. I only presented an equation that all logicians use to teat for validity and soundness. I never said there weren’t any capable logicians on this site. And if there are that does not mean that I am not a capable logician, it only means there are more than 1 capable logicians.
See, you are the one with the faulty logic.
Your premise is that there are capable logicians on the site. The conclusion is therefore I am not a capable logician and not worthy to challenge the other logicians. While the premise could be true the conclusions you draw are obviously not true. I may very well be a capable logician and nobody has the authority of telling me who I am or am not worthy of challenging. And just b/c there are capable logicians does not mean I am not one nor would I lose my right to challenge. And the fact that I presented an honest/objective table of truth lends credence to the fact that I do have some formal knowledge of practical logic therefore your indictments of me must only be generated from a personal bias.
All progressive argument does not possess strong logic and there rhetorical tactics are mainly immature finger-pointing and branding that will not work with me.
It is you who exposes your biases at every turn, you are the one who brands me continuously and accusses me of the very same thing you’re guilty of.
Please, I encourage you, continue with the name calling. It only further proves me point.
Oh ta, and could you please lose the tag, it is an insult to the great Siddarthura and he would not be proud.
sicilian 1’s logic seminar gleaned from his writings.
Proof of Theorem That This Is a Progressive Web Site
1. All people on this site are progressives.
2. Progressives are stupid, ignorant, conformist people.
3. Because point 2 is true than baiting progressives is fair.
4. When people respond to my baiting they are progressives.
5. Points 2&4 proves progressives are conformists.
6. People on this site respond to my baiting proving point 1
Proof of Theorem That Islam is a Bad, Terrorist Religion
1. Islam is a bad terrorist religion.
2. Islam Is A Bad Terrorist Religion
3. ISLAM Is A Bad Terrorist Religion
4. ISLAM IS A BAD Terrorist Religion
5. ISLAM IS A BAD TERRORIST RELIGION
6 ISLAM IS A BAD TERRORIST RELIGION!
Schmuck, a Yiddish word, has a range of meaning depending on context. In its most innocuous use, a schmuck is a person who does a stupid thing, in which case “dumb schmuck” is the appropriate expression.
A schmuck’s behavior ranges from pesky and inconsiderate, to obnoxious and manipulative. A schmuck’s personality type ranges from jerk to bastard.
Schmucky behavior also falls within a range of intentionality. Some schmucks carefully plan their bad behavior, some only a little, and some not at all. For example, the bastard may spend considerable time planning his bad deeds. In contrast, the dumb schmuck and the pesky behave badly without any forethought.
http://www.schmucku.com/definition.html
mespo,
If you were AFFIRMING the CONSEQUENT it would have read like this.
1)All jackasses bray loudly then sicilian1 brays loudly
2)sicilian1 brays loudly
——————————
All jackassess bray loudly
That is a correct affirming the antecedent.You did not put a consequent in your first premise. The purpose of affirming the consequent is to PROVE the antecedent (i.e. my example above) If you are even acknowledged your unexplicated intention of affirming the consequent, you only used it to then prove the consequent which is faulty logic.
So while you were correct in stating that AFFIRMING the CONSEQUENT is invalid b/c they ALL are invalid, you wrote the argument in an incorrect form.
In all logical arguments the FIRST premise MUST be an if/then or to be a negation be separated by a (not) to be a disjunction an (or) a conjunction an (and) or a conditional a(then)
Your argument should have been written like this in a modus ponens form:
1)If all jackassess bray loudly then sicilian1 is a jackass
2)All jackassess bray loudly
——————————
sicilian1 is a jackass
That would HAVE to be a valid argument b/c all modus ponen arguments are valid. But once again you MUST test for soundness b/c that in the end is what determines the truthfullness of an argument. Absolutely any argument can be made to conclude to be true but if the premises are faulty the argument is junk.
1)Clearly once again, a faulty premise. We can NOT assume that ALL jackassess bray loudly. And I certainly am NOT a jackass. I am a human being. The fact alone that I have procreated 3 times w/another human being proves that point.
2)The second premise is once again as already stated faulty.
Therefore this is an unsound argument.
The way you framed your initial argument it would have even been impossible to logically draw the conclusion that you tried to.
Strictly logically speaking the entire form (premises and conclusion) was wrong and you weren’t even accomplishing your intended mission of affirming the consequent b/c of your faulty set-up
Your welcome.
Nice try, Karl, er, Sil. A propagandist calling an avowed and proven anti-propagandist a propagandist is just too funny and a lot like deja vu coming from the troll crowd. You boys are running out of tactics, eh? Smart enough to tow the line but not smart enough to realize Rove is a one trick pony.
I’m afraid your credibility ship here has sailed long ago though.
And although you may think Siddhartha would find me an embarrassment, at least I have only offended one man with my ignorance and you have managed to offend an entire island and her population with yours. I said it was a waste of time to address you and I do stand corrected. You’ve just again shown your true nature. The bad news is you may think it wins people over to your side, but no, it doesn’t. You don’t lose because us nasty progressives trick you with rhetoric. You lose because you back losing ideas and do so poorly. You also exhibit all the charm, wit and grace of a sick cat coughing up hairballs.
But I’m done playing with you now, little boy. Run along and use your blunt amateur tools to try to smear progressives some more much to our collective amusement. Because just like a misbehaving child, you think the attention you are getting is positive. It’s not.
And that’s where the real humor lies. Your total inability to accept that the more you talk, the more you sound like a propaganda parrot that simply isn’t smart enough to know he’s a joke to those he’s addressing and not the beacon of enlightenment he has clearly portrayed himself as. You’re like Col. Klink on Hogan’s Heroes. Nominally a bad guy, but you’re just so inept, it’s plain funny. And the pissier you get, the funnier it is. In fact, you’re so foolishly consistent, I think we need to start calling you a hobgoblin instead of a troll.
So run along now. Do the Stupid Monkey Dance some more for the grown ups, little hobgoblin. I giggle in anticipation of the next bit of “wisdom” you have to impart. I’m sure the net result will be Progressives = bad or I’m a disgraceful douche bag of some sort.
MIKE S,
your proof theorm starts off with a faulty premise. I NEVER said ALL those on this site were progressives. That must be your subliminal guilt-complex causing you to transpose that.
My only intention is to bait and expose progressives wherever they may be. Thank you for continuing to allow me to so easily accomplish my mission.
So w/the faulty 1st point all other points become unsound or invalid. However I will humor you and take them as they stand alone.
Point 2 may or may not ne true b/c every progressive has to be taken individually.
Point3 whether or not point 2 is true is true b/c it is fair to bait to expose the ingrained biases and intolerance of progressives. It is fair to use their own tactics against them.
Point4 is true if my intention was to bait a progressive and they bit. Sometimes non-progressives rise up to defend the progressive. Admittedly that does not make them a progressive but if they argue from a progressive viewpoint then they will open themselves up to my criticism.
Point5 B/c Point2 may or may not be true then Point may or may not be true. And besides, I think this is a redundant point b/c you mentioned conformist twice.
Point6 is faulty logic b/c is NOT true and I never claimed it to be. My only aim is to bait progressives and it continues to be successful.
Therom 2 may in fact be true. Obviously as the #1 Islamic apologist you do not think so.
Everyone knows what the intention of branding someone a schmuk is. Do NOT try to play a semantic game. If you meant it you meant it. Do not try to excuse yourself. That’s how you like to play, fine. It’s not going to take me off mine.
Buddha,
There you go back to the progressive playbook. “Rove” “neocon” Can’t you come up with anything better than these demonizing branding tactics, You can NOT argue one point without taking those intellectual and verbal shortcuts. You try to slime and demonize and think that I’m going to respond in turn or even think that I will defend myself against a label I am not. I will not step into your trap I am NOT a slave to an ideology and am certainly not part of the groups you try to throw me into. You are a one trick pony reading from the same old tired handbook.
Finaly an acknowledgement of the great Siddarthura but you do not even know how I exposed your ignorance. I made the Siddarthura reference at least 8 times in the past month yet you NEVER once even nodded to my name-drop. Any attempts now to try to claim knowledge of the great one is NOT credible. A true practitioner of the great one would not have taken kindly to my incessent vieled insults to your lack of knowledge of his person and teachings. And anyone who was an adherrent to those teachings would never want to offend b/c that is not what he taught.
Your belitting comments do not discredit me they only expose your lack of intellect and ability to control your emotions.
Can’t you come up with anything better than recycling their tired old tactics?
No?
Well then quit bitching when you’re called on it.
sartiblartfast,
Since your so brillant why don’t you read a quote from MIT professor Richard Lindzen when speaking about consensus vs. skepticism. Look him up. I only promote my blogs not others.
And remember THAT is my ONE and ONLY point. Not a criticism against global-warming b/c I’m NOT a scientist so the jury is still out for me.
Buddha,
Don’t like it when others do the same. THe only trick you got is to accuse your opponents of being “Rovian”
At least I let you step in it first.
“You also exhibit all the charm, wit and grace of a sick cat coughing up hairballs.”
Only difference being the cat may be worth saving.
irony (ī′rə nē, ī′ər nē)
noun pl. ironies -·nies
1. a method of humorous or subtly sarcastic expression in which the intended meaning of the words is the direct opposite of their usual sense the irony of calling a stupid plan “clever”
2. an instance of this
http://www.yourdictionary.com/irony
Here’s your problem sicilian 1, you have no sense of the above. I wasn’t writing a logistical syllogism, I was lampooning your attempts at logic. What did you do? You tried to take apart the logic of my clearly illogical statements, which were a satire of how you think you are logical in your writing. You indeed appear to be an angry, or combative man, who has no sense of humor, or his own fallibility. Curiously,
you project these personality traits onto those who disagree with you. This means you lack self-awareness, which I suggest to you is something you should remedy for your own good.
“Everyone knows what the intention of branding someone a schmuk is. Do NOT try to play a semantic game. If you meant it you meant it. Do not try to excuse yourself.”
Of course I meant it and in no way was trying to either excuse myself or apologize. I was merely providing the current meaning of the word, which originally applied to a foreskin, in order to be clear on the epithet I was using for those not familiar with Yiddish.
“Everyone knows what the intention of branding someone a schmuk is. Do NOT try to play a semantic game. If you meant it you meant it. Do not try to excuse yourself.”
Step in what, exactly, Sil? The proper response to your inability to shift tactics? Well, yeah, I guess I did step in that. With both feet too. At least it smells better than what’s on your shoes, sport. Hmmm. That smells like ineptly deployed propaganda! Which strangely enough smells just like your original allusion and the inside of your cranium.
Mike S,
You’re suppossed attempts at irony were irrelevant b/c none of your points could be definitvly attributed to any accusations I may have made.
It was a lame and hueeied attempt at best and did Not accomplish or expose anything in the slightest.
The next time you make an attempt at satire put a little more thought into it or at the very least keep your day job b/c work as a satirist is definitely NOT in your future.
I project NOTHING on ANYONE untill they take my bait and throw the first salvo. So please continue to do so b/c you are definitely proving my point and satisfying my goals.
So I am glad you admitted to your guilt b/c in many crimes intent is enough to convict. So you are guilty of intending to attempt to discredit me by branding me which plays to the ignorant sychophants in your lot who think whoever throws the most and most debasing slurs is the winner of an argument.
Your attempts to win arguments rhetorically and logically have failed. So you attempt satire only to expose your lack of satirical skills.
Buddha,
Oh Siddarthura would be ashamed to have such an ignorant as a student. You besmirch the great ones name.
Please continue to step in it.
sicilian 1 debating style:
nyah, Nyah, NYah, NYAh, NYAH. All sturm no drang.
sicilian1,
You should really avoid referencing someone to support your (Brief grammarian aside – your first sentence should read: “Since you’re so brilliant…” not “Since your so brilliant…”, I would appreciate better attention to detail when discussing my brilliance
) argument without giving a link yourself, especially when googling the person in question yields far more sites attacking his conclusions and credibility than supporting it. For starters, a page debunking Richard Lindzen can be found here:
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Lindzen.htm
One quote from this page that I liked was “…Lindzen has no testable theory, no data, and no papers explaining the current temperature trend.” For us scientists (and while I am not an expert on climate change, I am a working research scientist) the lifeblood of scientific endeavor is testable hypotheses – you formulate a hypothesis, determine an experiment to test its validity, collect data, and publish evidence supporting your argument (preferably in a respected, peer-reviewed journal). In science there will always be people who don’t agree with the consensus, but until they can produce evidence to support their position they do not in any way invalidate that consensus.
Please keep up the0 debating, it’s very entertaining watching your antics. It’s like a mouse being played with by a bunch of cats and thinking he is winning because he’s still alive, never realizing that killing him would spoil the cats’ game. Besides, the Buddha would be inconsolable if he didn’t have you to play with…
Mike S,
Thank you for the definition of irony (and here I thought that irony meant things were metal-like…) and your in depth analysis of sicilian1’s debate style. I’m waiting to see if he can master the “Did not! Did too!” and “ppptthhbbb!” techniques.
Progressives,
I will now finally give you a lesson on how I exposede your ad hominem biases, lack of critical thinking, ignorance and every other sly trick you are guilty of.
1)I initially said that the seating of Franken would now give the Dems their fillibuster proof majority which would allow passage of cap-n-trade and all their other social engineering adgenda.
You as knee-jerk progressives got you dander up and immediately assumed that I was against cap-n-trade. A logical assumption I will concede.
However, where your illogical inability to reason reared it’s ugliness. You assumed that b/c I was against cap-n-trade that I was:
1)Against global-warming
2)A conservative
3)A Republican
4)A Necon
5)Anti-Obama
6)Intolerant
7)Racsist
8)Bigoted
9)Lacking compassion
10)Ignorant
11)Just b/c I was against one position of the Democratic adgenda I was against all of them.
Then you allowed your progressive inability to control your emotions consume you and took the assumption that I was against cap-n-trade to brand me with the 10 other labels and then some.
Never once was I asked to explicate my reasons and even they I did in more than 1 post, they were ignored as you progressives indulged in your ad hominem attacks.
So even my implication that I was against cap-n-trade set you progressives off on a fury and the immediate labeling of me without ever trying to engage me to discover my reasonings behind my position which in effect accomplished my ONLY mission which was to expose your own unreasoned biases.
Lets take the argument that I (sicilian1) am against cap-n-trade.
My convergent arguments to support why I am against that legislation are:
1)I do not believe taxing Americans is a way to remedy the problem. Any arguments in support of the taxation (i.e. the punative need or the moral responsiblity, etc.)are not sufficient in my opinion to justify the increased taxation.
2)Especially if you are part of the global-warming crowd you should be disappointed by this legislation b/c it does NOT do nearly enough (infintesimal at best) to curb carbon emissions. The REAL HARDCORE global-warming believers are very disappointed with this legilation b/c it did NOT serve their interests of causing a significant decrease in carbon emissions.
C)So even if you believe in taxation as a way to remedy this problem you should NOT be happy b/c the increased taxation will be mainly just that, a tax increase, and will do nothing to accomplish what it was suppossed to accomplish which was to reduce carbon emissions.
So the two sub arguments of the main argument stand alone. You can agree or disagree with either/or.
However, they do link to support the conclusion. So here you have an initial argument:
sicilian1 is against cap-n-trade.
That is supported by two sub arguments which can then be linked to support a conclusion.
This is how a logician would keep all his bases covered in argumentation.
So to conclude further:
If one is for cap-n-trade legislation they are then for:
1)Higher taxation at no real benifit for the intended purposes.
2)An INFINTESIMAL decrease in carbon emissions.
3)Are blind slaves to their party masters.
4)Label a win as their “guys” defeating the “guys” no matter the consequences to them or their nieghbors.
Again, we have a convergent argument where the sub arguments can stand alone to support the stated conclusion.
The big bad “white elephant” in the argument is this:
1)The legislation will NOT make a dent in carbon emissions.
That is irrefutable. The global-warming alarmists are raging about that fact. They are disappointed to the point of suicide.
That can NOT be ignored and anybody who does is nothing more than a BLIND party loyalist/ideologue who has been demagouged to death and will demagouge anyone who disagree’s with him.
The fact that I have been attacked and branded, the fact that the debate has degenerated to mainly a vile name calling assault against me proves my point about progressives.
All it took was a little bait and they all bit. They immediately jumped on their self absorbed soapboxes demonizing me and wrapping themselves in their capes of moral superiority. They proved by their own actions who DISINGENUOUS, arrogant and ignorant they all are.
If they REALLY cared about global-warming and were even willing to accept punitive taxation to accomplish their self designated high minded adgenda they would be against the cap-n-trade bill passed in the house b/c the thing they’re so concerned about (global-warming) is not going to be remedied in the slightest. But they’re happy b/c their “guys” won and anybody who disagrees is against their “guys” so they pull out the ad hominem artillery.
I proved my point and accept your continued feeble challenges to prove it again and again
Slartibartfast,
Your cat and mouse analogy is apt. I was trying to give him a sporting chance by defining irony, but alas like everything else it is lost on him, clouded by the haze of his imagined superiority, covering a psyche which would be cruel to speculate on. At least GWLSM has taught him that using caps only does not an argument make.
To be honest though, while even being caught up in this and admittedly a prime offender. I can’t help feeling sorry for him. A central premise of his is that academics,intellectuals and those dreaded progressives have treated him badly and tormented him. From his perspective he takes our rejoinders as more of the same. He seems incapable of realizing that he has brought this on himself and so feels himself as sort of a lone fighter for justice, among smug pseudo-intellectuals.
My sadness stems from the fact that as a child I was picked on a lot and while a game fighter got beat up a lot. I lived with this victim feeling until I got some help and then came to see how my own arrogance many times invited the attacks. It was a hard thing to realize about myself, but ultimately liberating. So I have some empathy for his problems, which is
admittedly tempered by his obnoxious methods.
Sartiblasdt,
I will give you kudo’s b/c you did ever so slightly get me to bite on your bait and you should be congratulated.
I ussually argument my points on the premises that I raise alone.
I will NOT debate the issue of global warming b/c I am not convinced one way or the other. I have seen too much conflicting informattion.
Once again, you exposed yourself for your inability to stick w/in the parameters. My only premise was consensus vs. skepticism. While I may in fact believe the professor to hold holes in many of his own arguments, I did like what I had read he said about the need for skepticism in science.
As I stated skepticism VS. consensus was nmy ONLY point. It was you who went off on a rant about scientific consensus. Then you cherry-pick examples to try and prove your consensus point.
Well, here’s a skepticism example:
Galileo was skeptical the sun orbited the earth: when that was the consensus. Imagine if we didn’t have that LONE WOLF questioning the “consensus” we would’ve never found out it was actually the earth orbiting the sun.
The consensus was that the earth was flat too. But Christopher Columbus was skeptical and he set out and discovered the new world. Now think if he had never done that. None of you progressives would have America, the country you live in, to rail against.
I may in fact be able to be conviced that global-warming is happening. I am NOT a slave to any one ideology. However just b/c I am against cap-n-trade does NOT mean I am automatically against global-warming. And just b/c I subscribe to skepticism in science as oppossed to consensus does NOT mean I do NOT believe in global warming. B/c this time the consensus may prove the skeptic wrong and the next time may be vias-versa. Only time will tell.
But please, cease and disist using my post as a chance to manipulate your way onto your soapbox. Stay w/in the parameters of the argument.
My name is Luka…
I live on the second floor?
Mike S,
More progressive tricks. Trying to discredit me by dismissing me w/your arrogant elitist hand. It will NOT work.
Your attempt at irony is beyond lame. Do NOT try to assault me to cover up for BAD satire. See that’s some more of your rhetorical dirty-dealings.
Just b/c you are the ultimate Islamic apologist and do not like my criticisms does not make my criticisms invalid. You have read my post/blogs and you know full well that my criticisms of Islam are well founded and you yourself have admitted right here on this site that you have agreed with many of my criticisms.
So you’re attempts to categorize or demonize me with your lame satirical attempts are not only a failure but dishonest. You try to satirically frame my criticism as baseless generalities just get pat yourself on the back and play to your sychophants in the peanut gallery.
Do you see how you continue to discredit yourself? If you’re are going to generalize my arguments on Islam w/satire then what does that say about you who have admittedly on this very site stated that you do agree with many of my criticisms of Islam?
Do you see that that in fact makes you dishonest? Or so driven by ego-mania and arrogance that you yourself are willing to bring discredit on you just to slur and make lame attempts to poke fun at me.
Please Mike, no regrets this thread keeps getting funnier and funnier; you guys crack me up! (He could just stop posting.)
Although you may have a point; maybe he has no one else.
Seriously Sicilian1,
Please accept this with no disrespect intended but is there anyone you can confide in with whom you could share this and a few of the other threads you have posted on; maybe get some objective feedback on your contributions to the dialog here.
It couldn’t hurt and it might be helpful in other areas too.
p.s. Yes, Craig Ferguson is another very funny “progressive”…
CeJ,
Yes, continue to prove my point. Personal attacks are all you progressive types have left. You’re attempts to belittle me not only expose your inferior sense of humor but they expose your dirty little rhetorical tactics that those in your crowd lean so heavily upon.
A play to the peanut gallery does NOT equal a win. Consensus does NOT mean you are right. I do NOT judge “wins” or “losses”, “right” or “wrong” on how many pavlovian dogs I can round up into my camp.
The only pleasure I get is intinsic. Secure in the knowledge that I have once again exposed the hypocricy of the progressive crowd. And to be able to do it on a site that could not even be classified as a blatantly progressive site is quite the accomplishment on my part. So continue to satisfy my objectives it is greatly appreciated.
If all you progressives want to see my lesson in how I played you then please refer to my prior post on this site:
July 3, 2009 @ 2:07pm.
Sicilian1,
I’m sorry you see my posts as attacks I meant you no harm.
Sicilian1 @ 1:22pm “I project NOTHING on ANYONE until they take my bait and throw the first salvo.”
This was your first comment on this thread @8:47am :
“Only in America!!! A failed comedian has become the MOST powerful man in the Senate…la,la,la,la……………….
The words you use…; you keep using those same words ….;
“I do not think they mean what you think they do!”
Let the record show @2:07pm you left off a few “assumptions”:
#12 Lacks a Sense of Humor
#13 Lacks Self Awareness
#14 Tiresome Repetitive Bore
#15 SCHMUCK!
p.s. “Never get in a land war in…..”
snicker cough cough
CEJ,
Do NOT try to cherry-pick out of context quotes. I give LONG well-developed dissertations where I explicate my thoughts and cover my bases.
What? It’s ok for Mike S to make a lame attempt at satire but my lame attempt at sarcasm is then used to demonize. You see, I gave you the rope and you used it to hang yourself.
You like all progressives try to skip the issue and sling mud. My lesson lfet today at July 3 2009, @2:07 proves how you all fallede right into my trap.
But like the intellecvtual arrogants all of you are you refuse to acknowledge your defeat. Please, keep satisfying my objectives.
What color is the sky in your world?
Do the voices in your head keep you up at night?
Do you ever tire of being the only intelligent life in the universe?
So what’s perfection like?
Color me curious.
sicilian1,
You don’t get to control how I respond – the only thing that you control is what you post. You don’t make the rules – the only person who makes the rules on this blog is Professor Turley, so please stop referring to the convoluted, abstruse set of debating rules that seems to exist only in your head and answer the points that others raise (or don’t, but if you don’t you are tacitly admitting that you can’t). When you put forth a person as an authority (Richard Lindzen), it is reasonable for us to consider the bona fides of that person in order to determine their credibility (well, now didn’t that sound all lawyery… I’ve been hanging around this blog too long). Galileo planted the seeds of the current consensus because he had evidence to back up his skepticism (also, the consensus he was opposing was not a scientific one, but a religiously enforced one). Columbus was performing an experiment to test his hypothesis that there was a faster way to the East Indies (and it’s been know that the earth is round since early seafaring times when people observed the hulls of ships disappearing from view before the mast). Do you really think that if not for Columbus’ voyage Europeans would have never found the Americas? Finally, even if, as you say, cap and trade is ineffective at fighting global warming, I still approve of the idea of taxing undesirable behavior (i.e. polluting) since the only way the free market can eliminate harmful waste is for there to be a cost attached to it.
Mike S,
Abstruse -adjective 1) hard to understand; recondite, esoteric: abstruse theories. 2) (Obsolete) secret; hidden. Good word, eh? I, too, can’t help but feel a little sorry for siciian1 along with a sick fascination with his version of reality.
CEJ,
It’s inconceivable that sicilian1 doesn’t understand the words he’s using…
“I do not mean to pry, but you don’t by any chance happen to have six fingers on your right hand?”
Buddha & Slar,
LOL!!! I love that movie; I keep picturing S1 as Vizzini- “never go up against a Sicilian when death is on the line…..
Fortunately I am a woman with only the normal 5 digits per hand!
at last, the Al Franken Decade begins.
Slartibartlast,
You don’t like the rules b/c you can NOT adhere to any logic nor sensible rhetoric. I’ve exposed yoyr playbook continuously.
Do NOT continue to try to put yourself on a pedastal. You can adhere to any debating rules that you want but do NOT think that I won’t take every opportunity to expose them.
Admittedly I did bring up the professor’s name BUT do NOT think I will let you get away with continuing to use it as a red herring.
I NEVER defended his science. I only said I liked his argument/reasoning behind skepticism vs. consensus.
You cherry-picked an argument for consensus while I then cherry-picked 2 for skepticism. SKEPTICISM vs. CONSENSUS is what i’m talking and they are BOTH valid positions. Many consensus’ are proven to be true while many skeptics prove themselves to be true. You raised the issue of consensus to support something you said and I raised the issue of skepticism to prove just how valid that it too can be.
You will NOT trap my into any global-climate-whatever pidgeon-holing. I have stated repeatedly that I am NOT an expert and am undecided. I NEVER presented the professor’s opinions as representative of mine. Once again, I only stated what he said abt skepticism vs. consensus.
Hey, you look for consensus. But I’m a critic by nature and look for the holes in argument. So obviously you will be swayed by consensus opinion while I will be more of the skeptic. But please, stop trying to reinvigorate yor arguments or lure them into familiar ground from which you can rant by throwing red herrings into the argument.
Where do you get off accussing me of putting the professor forth as an authority? Where did I ever even mention him as representing my position on climate-change when I brought up his name? Do NOT try to use your rhetorical progressive tricks to hold the high ground. It is disengeious and dishonest. Or are you just too ignorant to see what you are doing? Do NOT use loaded questions or attach me with a buzz-label. I repeat I NEVER represented the professor to be an authority repesenting my views and I do NOT appreciate your attempts to characterize it as such. Learn some better rhetorical tricks than that.
How could the professor who is not a believer in global warming ever represent my views when on more than one occassion on this post I emphatically stated I was undecided about global-warming?
But you have only shown your true progressive colors. You have manipulated a circumstance to jump on your soapbox and attempt to disparage me.
I am too smart to ever be lured into a tit-fot-tat, finger-pointing argument.
Of course you agree w/taxing “harmful” behavior. You’re a progressive. You feel it is your right to determine the freedoms of everyone. You feel those who do not agree with you are on the side of “evil” and it is you the “righteous” responsibility to punish them with draconian taxation.
As I explained the taxation will have no effect beyond raising more taxes b/c their is not enough in the bill to make a dent in carbon emissions. If you don’t believe me then go check out what all the hardcore global-warming apologists are saying.
But like the good progressive you are you feel good about yourself and feel as if you’re getting your “brownie-points” to heavan b/c you’re on the side if what you’ve determined to be “good” and you’re “for” punishing those “evil” people who engage in what you determine to be “harmful behavior”
I hope it makes you sleep better at night that the American public will pay higher taxes, lose more freedom and the ozone layer will STIL continue to burn b/c there will only be an infintesimal reduction in carbon emissions.
And that is why I’m against cap-n-trade. B/c if the ozone is burning this legislation is NOT going to do anything to stop it.
But I’m glad you exposed yourself as the progressive you are who believes a “win” is when their masters “beat” the other “guys” as long as they’re able to wrap their actions in all kinds of moral platitudes.
Now that’s comedy.
sicilian1,
You said “Since your [sic] so brillant why don’t you read a quote from MIT professor Richard Lindzen when speaking about consensus vs. skepticism.” thus putting Richard Lindzen forward as someone who you believe has insight into the philosophy of science (the roles of consensus and skepticism in science). I believe that you fundamentally misunderstand the roles of consensus and skepticism in science and did the research that you suggested by looking up professor Lindzen in order to better understand your argument and found that he’s published no papers in peer-reviewed journals against global warming and that he is funded by oil companies. In what way is this not relevant to determining his (and by association, your) credibility? Also, I’ll put myself on a pedestal whenever I want to because I’m good enough, I’m smart enough, and dogggonit people like me…
Buddha and CEJ,
Should we tell him the poison is in both cups?
He’ll find out soon enough. Or not. lol
From the sicilian 1 blog: “I [sicilian 1]served a federal prison sentence and it didn’t cause an awakening me or a moment of epiphany. the experience only changed my perspective on life.”
**************
It may be telling that our little logistician here learned little from his stint in a federal prison, but I have learned to expend neither time nor breath on a convicted felon–or a convicted anything. Call it ad hominem, but the common law judges and I agree that they are worth neither the time nor the effort it takes to separate their lies from their facts from their nonsense.
Mespo727272:
you would dismiss Don King? Isnt that a rather shallow view? Some certainly are changed by prison and for the better. Although it is Dantes vision.
NEVER did I present the professor’s stance of as being representative of my own. That is the BOTTOM line irrefutable.
I will NOT get trapped by your twisted word play. Your continued progressive rhetorical tricks will NOT be successful in luring me into a tit-for-tat argument allowing you to fire off your already loaded biased rant.
I have repeatedly admitted that I am a “fence-sitter” on the global-warming topic. I will NOT let you characterize the professor’s position as representative of mine. Through my attempts to find some sensical arguments about climate change I came accross the professor and liked what he said about skepticism vs. consensus and was only using those comments in regard to our debate on that topic.
You see, I am specific and NEVER represent myself to be knowledgeable about something of which I am not certain. Unlike you progressive types who only make assumptions to jump on your soapboxes and spew your pre-determined rants. No matter how hard you try to lure me I will NOT let you use me to rant and rave about your pet topic. You will NOT be successful in setting me up as the demon for you to them drape yourself in moral highness.
I do NOT debate climate change easier which way b/c the debate has been CORRUPTED by extemists on both sides. Every scientist is a bought and paid for shill for whatever interest group is using them to manipulate the science to promote their adgenda. WE THE PEOPLE are all being duped by everyone involved. I choose NOT to get involved b/c I am NOT an extremist and to be a part of that specific debate you MUST be an extremist on either side you fall.
So if you believe to deter “undesirable behavior” it is ok to tax the free market to eliminate what you determine to be “harmful waste” how is the market suppossed to remain “free”
Oh ya, I forgot, you’re a progressive therefore you were endowed with a naturally born right to determine the freedoms of all mankind. You, oh great progressive master are endowed with the moral authority to determine how much freedom is allowed in the “free” market. That is b/c it is only you, oh lord progressive who has the transcendent insight to determine what is “right” and “acceptable” “behavior” Oh, great progressive guide please set the path for us mere “ignorants” and “evil-doers” in the massess. It is only you oh great progressive majesty who knows what is “good” and “righteous” for us less than perfect beings. Oh great supreme progressive please shoulder this burden for humanity for it is only you who is endowed with the enlightened being to show us the way to perfection. Oh great omniscient progressive save us from ourselves and we will do your bidding in all things.
“I approve of taxing undesirable behavior to eliminate harmful waste from the free market.” That right there is the progressive mantra. I am so glad you felt the psuedo-intellectual need to insert yourself into the conversation and the intellectual arrogance to think you could lure me into an argument on your “home-turf” b/c I knew it’d only be a matter of time before you’d seal your doom. With all my verbiage in all my posts I could have NOT defined the progressive position so abtly.
“I still approve of taxing undesirable behavior (i.e. pollution) since the only way to eliminate harmful waste is for there to be a cost attached.”
That shall stand in memorium as the progressive thought process. Where do you get the arrogance to detern mine undesirable behavior? Where do you get the arrogance to determine harmful waste? And where do you get the arrogance to think that the only way to “eliminate” whatever it is you determine to be “undesirable behavior” is through taxation b/c there is a “cost attached”? Who endowed you with this superiority.
B/c maybe I can give you as a progressive a lesson in liberty. Punitive taxation does NOT work. It only stifles freedom’s and liberty. Punitive taxation was one of the reasons this country broke away from their colonizing masters.
The way to eliminate “pollution” if that’s only what you’re talking about is to encourage and incentivise invention and innovation. Give people are reason to go out and try to find a better way. Don’t just whack them with draconian tax burdens that harm investment and cause companies to out source and shut down.
You still do NOT get it. I’ve repeated over and over again that the taxation is NOT going to make a dent in carbon emissions. Don’t take my word for it, listen to ALL the global warming types. They’re disappointed in the cap-n-trade legislation beyond belief. They will tell you it did NOT go far enough to curb emissions. How many times do I have to repeat it for you to remove the blinders and see that you’ve been hood-winked by your progressive masters? But you’re all such slaves to the progressive party-line that you brainwash yourselves into believing that b/c your “guys” won and the other “guys” lost that it’s a “win” for your ideology.
I’ll repeat, WE THE PEOPLE got hosed big time. Our taxes will SKY-ROCKET, our energy bills will go THROUGH THE ROOF and if the ozone layer is burning up it will continue to do so b/c cap-n-trade will NOT stop it. These are IRREFUTABLE facts.
But you’re happy b/c you’re a progressive and your “guys” “won” and you can pat yourself on the back and feel fulfilled and all you in your ivy-towers can look down on the massess b/c another “moral” tax has been assigned to all the “evil-doing” carbon burning Americans.
Once again, I will quote you, “Finally, even if, as you say, cap-n-trade is ineffective in fighting global warming, I still approve of the idea of taxing undesirable behavior (i.e. polluting)since the only way for the free market to eliminate harmful waste is for there to be a cost attached to it.
So even though the implementation of the bill will NOT eliminate “harmful waste” you still want to attach a cost to the free market by taxing what, I will even concede for arguments sake, is “undesirable behavior” (pollution). So what’s your purpose if attaching a cost to the market by taxing undesirable behavior does not accomplish the mission of eliminating harmful waste? What gain do you get out of it besides saying your side “won”, draping youself in “moral superiorty” and “wagging” your “moral finger” at all us “evil-doers”
Oh ya, I forgot, those are your only intended gains. I keep on proving it time after time after time.
I know I will recieve a retort where you try to “step” out of what you “stepped into, you intellectual arrogance and ignorance will not allow you to do anything else. But go ahead, keep digging yourself deeper. After what you said I’m actually throwing sand on the coffin b/c I feel content in how definitvely you have proved my point. But you progressives never cease to amaze me just how deeply you can bury yourself. \
I’ll be waiting for your feeble retort but I must rest for a time. This continued sparing has tired me for the moment
Scilian1:
quit calling them progressives, they are either socialists or communists. There is nothing “progressive” about them. They denegrate the constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
I wish I had this but it certainly sums it up.
“They (liberals/progressives) repudiated the Founders’ principles, holding that there are no self-evident truths—in the Declaration of Independence or elsewhere—only change in the constant search for progress without final goals. There are no permanent rights with which man is endowed, but endlessly evolving rights that develop and grow based on new demands. Our fidelity must be to a “living” Constitution that adapts to fit the demands of the times. The way forward is to control social conditions and engineer a better society, redistributing wealth through a distant and patronizing welfare state that regulates more and more of the American economy, politics and society.
Over the course of the twentieth century—as America’s principles were assaulted, undermined, and redefined in our culture, in our uni¬versities, and in our politics—we have taken significant steps down this path. The Progressive Movement laid the intellectual groundwork, but the basic infrastructure of the modern welfare state established under the New Deal has expanded in regulatory scope and social purpose under the Great Society and its progeny in both political parties. We are in the beginning of a new and perhaps decisive move in this direction.
Now, more than ever, is the time to relearn the meaning and contemporary significance of the Declaration of Independence and recognize that modern liberalism has explicitly rejected the truths it proclaims.
Woodrow Wilson, one of the most famous early progressives, argued during the 1912 presidential campaign that “all that Progressives ask or desire is permission…to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle,” meaning that it should promote an ever-expanding set of powers for an ever-expanding government. The problem, he declared, was that pesky Declaration of Independence: “some citizens of this country have never got beyond the Declaration of Independence,” he remarked with astonishment; “The Declaration of Independence did not mention the questions of our day.”
The progressive view rejects outright the very idea, at the heart of the Founders’ way of thinking, of being guided by permanent or fixed principles. As the prominent progressive historian Carl Becker put it in 1922, “to ask whether the natural rights philosophy of the Declaration of Independence is true or false, is essentially a meaningless question.” Such relativism renders meaningless the whole American experiment in self-government.
But denying the truth of America’s principles for the sake of “change” can make no claim to progress at all—a point made with unsurpassed clarity by Calvin Coolidge (learn more here) on the 150th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence in 1926: “If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions.””
Mespo: “It may be telling that our little logistician here learned little from his stint in a federal prison, but I have learned to expend neither time nor breath on a convicted felon–or a convicted anything. Call it ad hominem, but the common law judges and I agree that they are worth neither the time nor the effort it takes to separate their lies from their facts from their nonsense.”
A few questions; taunting as they may be.
Does the foregoing mean you have or have not the courage of your convictions?
Are you also saying that felons like Nelson Mandela are not worth the time or effort…?
I ask because I taunt.
Mespo,
Yes continue to attempt to discredit me w/personal attacks. It is fallacious and the what the progressives always turn to as a last resort.
I never tried to hide my federal prison sentenve. I wear it proudly as a badge of honor. I did the crimes and served my time. And I stand in solidarity with all my convicted federal brothers past, present and future.
Now lets get to a lesson on affirming the consequent
The eqation would look like this:
If A Then B
B
——-
A
Your equation read like this:
A
B
——-
B is A
That is NOT an accepted logical equation. And it falls further on it’s face when you insert the words into the equation.
Donkey’s bray loudly
sicilian1 brays loudly
Therefore
sicilian1 is a donkey
How do the premises lead to the conclusion. You’ve stated that A does a thing and B does the same thing so you then conclude that B is what A is. That would never pass any logical standard.
So lets give you the benefit of the doubt
Donkey’s bray loudly then sicilian1 brays loudly
sicilian1 brays loudly
Therefore
Donkey’s bray loudly
That is what you would call a classic affirming the consequent in order to prove your antecedent.
But as you can see it does not prove what you were trying to conclude.
To prove your point you would’ve had to frame the eqation in a manner more like this:
If donkeys bray loudly and sicilian1 brays loudly then sicilian1 is a donkey
Donkey’s bray loudly
Therefore
sicilian1 is a donkey
That would be a classic modus ponens equation.
If you were intent on Affirming the Consequent then it would look like this:
If braying loudly makes sicilian1 a donkey then donkeys bray loudly
Donkey’s bray loudly
Therefore
sicilian1 is a donkey
Something like that would’ve passed a logical test much easier.
I reccomend you brush up on affirming the consequent before stepping in it again. Please do NOT let your psuedo intellectual arrogance get the best of you
theres a lot of that on this site.
BOB, esq.
I would assume from your tag that you must be a lawyer. And obviously you possess some self esteem issues as you must make sure we all know you are a lawyer.
My federal lawyer was very good. He represented me admirably and I was satisfied. The federal arena is a very difficult venue for criminal defendents and lawyers. The feds stack the deck in their favor and most of the time as a criminal defendent you’re going to take what they give you. All you can ask from your lawyer is to make sure the feds don’t hurt you too bad. If you’re lawyer has done that then he has done his job.
Unfortunately most fed lawyer barely do the minimum. They are spooked at the power of the federal govn’t, deathly afraid to open their mouths to prosecutors and judges. Prosecutors themselves have immense power and exert it mercilessly. Most times a criminal defendant is better off w/a public defender b/c the prosecutors are more willing to work w/them. If a defendant comes in w/a high-priced bigshot the feds get real indignant. After all you’ve got a federal prosecutor making govn’t grade pay while this hotshot is probably making 5 times what the fed brings home in a year. The feds like to pull out all the stops to put the defendant in prison to teach them a lesson. The federal system is very draconian in nature. In some respects your better off w/a state beef and in some cases depending on specific state laws you’re better off w/a fed beef.
But when the feds come, they come hard and they come for blood. The more you try to fight them the worse they are.
Knowing the injustices perpetrated against many defendants as prosecutors work the #’s angle to keep their convictions high, knowing the many poor souls (Many times blacks from the inner city or illegal aliens) who fall through the cracks, knowing the personal biases prosecutor’s bring to their cases, I hope if you are one you bring a degree of passion to your job. I myself do not know how the zealots sleep at night. B/c putting one undeserving criminal behind bars or handing out an undeserved draconian sentence is not worth all the criminals who deserve their confinement.
If you are a criminal defgense attorney then remember, it’s guys like me who allow you to live your life. Your lifestyle depends on our existence. And if you’re one of those sell-out defense attorney’s (which I’m not claiming you are) then search your soul.
IS,
Thank you for your clarity.
The problem is that the progressives BELIEVE in everything WW said. WW was just honest b/c it was a new movement. Now the progressives hoodwink everyone by demonizing their opponents and wrapping their adgenda in a higher degree of morality.
They fail to believe what CC said abt the govn’t derived their powers from the consent of the people. They don’t understand that “THEY” work for us. They believe in the “nanny” state, they believe “the chosen” are endowed with a higher purpose and know what’s best. They don’t even realize the way they are “pawns” of their “masters” They consider everyone else to be the “ignorant massess” when their progressive masters include them in that very same lot. They willingly do the bidding for the “betterment” of society NEVER realizing all the liberties they are throwing away.
Sicilian,
You left out that progressives all punch babies and eat kittens.
Gyges,
Eating kittens is just plain wrong!
Gyges,
Eating kittens is just plain wrong!
I could not agree more. That was a family show. Father Knows Best. Never saw them in the same bed either.
But then again remember when June would tell Ward that he had been too hard on the beaver last night? Now that was a family show as well.
Tonight Sicilian1 will be playing the part Vizzini.
Inigo Montoya: That Vizzini he can fuss.
Fezzik: I think he likes to scare us.
IM: He probably means no harm.
Fez: He is really very short on charm.
IM: You really have a great gift for rhyme.
Fez: Yes some of the time.
Vizzini: Enough of that!
IM: Fezzick are there any rocks ahead?
Fez: If there are we’ll all be dead.
Vizzini: No more rhyming; now I mean it.
Fez: Anybody want a peanut?
Vizzini: Yeaahhhhhh!!!!
Man in Black: Truly you have a dizzying intellect.
Vizzini: Wait til I get going! {pause} Were was I?
Vizzini: I can’t compete with you physically;
and your no match for my brains.
MIB: Your that smart?
Vizzini: Let me put it this way; have you ever heard of
Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?
MIB: Yes.
Vizzini: Morons!
Slar: Should we tell him the poison is in both cups?
Buddha: He’ll find out soon enough!
AY:
“But then again remember when June would tell Ward that he had been too hard on the beaver last night? Now that was a family show as well.”
I will never watch “Leave it to Beaver” the same way again.
AY,
I was quoting “The Tick”, but I believe in finding meaning where you can…
Bob,Esq:
“Does the foregoing mean you have or have not the courage of your convictions?
Are you also saying that felons like Nelson Mandela are not worth the time or effort…?
I ask because I taunt.”
*********************
To compare sicilian 1 to Mandela is to compare a fart in my bathtub to Katrina.
sicilian1,
You said, “Every scientist is a bought and paid for shill for whatever interest group is using them to manipulate the science to promote their adgenda[sic].” It is statements like this that show your ignorance. For the record, most scientists in universities are funded by grant money which is decided on before the research is conducted. They don’t have interest groups controlling their agendas and if they compromise their science they hurt their own reputation and their ability to get new grants. On the other hand, when scientists work for a corporation their research is typically only published if it furthers the company’s interests. I don’t know who you think is spending huge amounts of money to produce false global warming research, but it just isn’t happening.
As for your straw man misrepresentation of my thoughts on cap and trade, (I assume that a logician of your caliber understands the concept of a straw man, especially given your gratuitous use of straw men in you arguments) the point of taxing pollution has nothing to do with moral superiority or punitive taxation, it has to do with effective governing. The act of polluting (and I’m not just talking about carbon emissions, I’m talking about all pollutants) reduces the value of the air or water that has been polluted. When a corporation reduces the value of something they do not own, they should be forced to compensate the owner. As the ownership rights of our air, water, and soil are difficult to exert, the government is the only entity capable of dealing with this. By attaching a cost to polluting, industry is given incentive to stop polluting in an efficient way. This results in greener industry, cleaner air, water and soil, and new technologies and expertise in sustainable industry (which will be in demand throughout the world). One may argue that these goals aren’t appropriate or are too expensive or this policy isn’t an effective way of achieving them, but I very much doubt that you could make any of these arguments effectively. (Not to interfere with your compulsive need to label everyone here progressive, but the idea of pollution being a property rights issue is really a libertarian one.) CEJ suggested earlier that you might want to have a friend or confidant look at this thread and I have to second the idea as I don’t think that your arguments are a part of the reality based world. Let me put it this way: One of us is not making any sense and I’m pretty sure that most of the posters here would agree that it isn’t me. You seem to be harboring a lot of anger towards progressives and I’m sorry if progressives killed your puppy (hit by a Prius?) when you were a child, but you really have no understanding of what progressives believe or what the logical underpinnings of our philosophy is, so please stop proudly displaying your ignorance and hypocrisy by talking about things you don’t understand and labeling everyone in sight while shrilly decrying any labels anyone attaches to you. Spend some time looking at your own behavior here – you might find that it doesn’t reflect very well on you.
Slart,
You can’t eat the earth, that’s where I keep all my stuff!
So many posts since my last one that it has taken me time to catch up. This man is like watching a train wreck in slow motion. More truthfully it is like watching a kickoff returner
zigging, zagging, sidestepping and backtracking for endless seconds and then being tackled fifteen yards behind where he caught the ball. Afterwards, being interviewed on TV about the run he proudly states: “Well I may have lost yardage but I sure tired them out.”
This guy argues like someone else we encountered about 8 months ago, but the name escapes me. Perhaps he’s returned with a different persona, or maybe there is just a rampant narcissistic
personality type about, that declares victory, while in the throes of defeat. Wasn’t there a Monty Python skit about a knight that keeps returning from battle with another extremity lopped off only to proclaim the progress he was making?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4
None shall pass . . .
Thanks Buddha, that was it.
Remind you of anyone…….?
Gyges,
SPOON!
Mike,
He sure does remind me of someone. His initials were Wayne. But it seems like he’s abandoned the strait attack line (which was getting him mauled) and, as you so aptly noticed, switched to the “victory is mine if I say so long enough” strategy. Wayne tried that before, but his personal animosity towards some of the regulars always blew up in his face before he could reach the stage of our current pest. The fact that some of the regulars pushing Wayne’s buttons clearly pissed him off is beside the point but you can see a “redemption” attempt for that kind of embarrassment in The Last Genius In The Universe’s current strategy – also an indicator that you you may be on to something as to identity. If they aren’t the same person they should certainly consider going bowling together.
straight not strait lol I don’t want to give him credit for being smart enough to wage naval warfare.
“… he took up the law instead (of math) where he could make a livin’ and a difference.” That hurts man –”
_________________________________
Slar, I am pleased you read my ’slight’ towards mathematicians. I love biometry and ‘Biometry: The Principles and practices of Statistics in Biological Research’ by Sokal and Roth is one of my favorite books. I purchased a copy for my government job and turned it in when I retired. I have often considered purchasing a personal copy for the sheer reading/thinking pleasure.
The perfect biometrician—in my book—would be comprised of a field biologist who spent 10 years afield and then returned to college to receive his masters in biometry/biomathematics and finally returned to the field to apply what he had learned in both scientific endeavors.
Obviously, I have a great respect for biometricians but I also like to get in an unintellectual jab at any mathematician whenever I can.
I somewhat doubt that you will return to read this; I almost got lost trying to find this long thread.
Slarti & Gyges,
Have any of you seen The Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs at Midnight? I hear he’s running around these parts. The 4th is just his kinda holiday.
FFLEO,
I subscribe to the threads I post on so I know when some old coot replies with a post trashing mathematicians
Personally, I think that there is a value in people with a math background working in biology. The last biology class I had was my freshman year of high school, but I am currently working in a molecular biology lab doing mathematical modeling – I am useful because given my background I have skills that no one else in the lab has. Everyone else in the lab knows a great deal about the biology so I get to learn it from them and help them improve their understanding. My collaborators and I find this a good paradigm for mathematicians and scientists working together. There is a depth and breadth of knowledge about mathematics that I think is essential to doing my job that I doubt many people not trained in math have and at the same time, while more knowledge about biology is useful it is also in plentiful supply in my lab so it is easy to learn what I need to do my job. My collaborators verified a prediction of my model, so I need to go and work on the paper, but in closing just let me say that mathematical biologists beat biometricians any day of the week! Ppptthhhbbbbbttttt!
Buddha,
sicilian1 probably is The Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs at Midnight. They both provide running commentary via crazy, disjointed rants and talk about themselves a lot…
Slartiblast,
The grant money IS doled out by the govn’t so it goes to the programs which make their vulnerability to being compromised to the adgenda of the hacks doling out the money. If their science does NOT jive w/the adgenda the grants stop. The govn’t is NOT going to dole out grant money to a program that is critical to an adgenda they won’t to promote.
I know you are not so naive to not know that is how things in the real world work.
And scientist that can NOT get the grant money to promote their scientific adgenda will get it from so-called philanthropic organizations or so-called non-profits.
You see, the problem is that you are to naive to see how everyone is a pawn to promote the adgenda’s of the powers that be. But that is unsurprising b/c as a progressive you are too filled w/intellectual arrogance to understand how your own masters play you to do their bidding. And if you are part of the power structure then you of course would want everyone to think that it is all on the level.
There are those producing false research on both sides. If you do NOT think that this is mainly a politically fueled debate then you are naive.
Yes, you are so ingrained in your progressive rhetoric that you believe that taxing “undesirable behavior (i.e. poluution) is effective governing. Of course that is what all progressives feel. People are either too “stupid”, “mean”, “lazy”, “apathetic”,”corrupt” or the progressive favorite, “EVIL” to do what you have determined needs to be done so “attaching a cost” through “taxation” is your remedy.
Now here is where we get into the political ideology of the progressive. You feel that taxing an “industry” will give them the “incentive” to be more “efficient” and “compensate” the “owner” Then according to the rest of your progressive theory that you have “cut” and “pasted” from the progressive “theorum manual” are just suppossed to fall in place and “kumbaya” we’ll all live happily ever after just like the great progressive masters have told us we will if we follow and implement their plan.
I will not argue specific policy with you b/c I have BAITED you into laying out your policy which allowed me to expose you strict BIASES on the issue.
You like all progressives just want to paint me into an either/or corner where you can pull out your locked and loaded artillery to demonize me then wag your moral finger in my face. An argument with you on this topic could in fact NEVER be an argument b/c you have already laid out your adgenda and even been so smug as to extrapolate imagined arguments I might say when I have NEVER indicated my true positions. You like all progressives assume what everyone else thinks just b/c they do not come from your specific school of thought then you “label”, “demonize”, “dismiss”,”insult”,”belittle”,etc. And then you feel you have the right to do so b/c you could never imagine you progressive viewpoint could ever be wrong.
I never said I was a libertarian. You just try once again to tag me. You as a progressive do NOT and NEVER will understand that you can NOT group people. I am an individual with differing opinions of different issues and I reserve the right to avail myself of all the information untill I take a definitive position. But you as a progressive feel you have to fit your opinion to whatever adgenda your party masters dictate and you can’t understand anyone who doesn’t and if they don’t then you brand them an enemy and evil.
Let me put it this way, just b/c I do NOT agree with you does NOT mean that I am not making sense. There is a reality outside your own little progressive world. And just b/c you have a bunch of sychophantic progressives egging you on from the peanut gallery does NOT prove anything.
You are so blinded by smugness, arrogance and ignorance that you do NOT even have the ability to existentially examine yourself.
My ONLY intention was to expose the biases of progressives. It took you a little bit but I finally did expose.
All it did was take a little “bait” with the mention of a professor who I specifically said I was NOT promoting. I only mentioned a specific insight on a general topic. NEVER did I say he represented me. And I specifically stated I was not endorsing his position. But you siezed on that and several times tried to “bait” me into taking his side on climate change. I refused to bite and instructed you so. Then you gave yourself up with one little sentence (which I believe the progressives should adopt as their mantra) I exposed your biases through that sentence. Then through your intellectual arrogance you actually explicated your argument in fair detail in the process deepening your biases while then exposing your dismissive bias of other viewpoint that you tried to dishonestly assign to me then through in an insult that I couldn’t even defend those policies you imagined I endorse to try to goad me into a defense of policies I may not agree w/but which you are ready to assault.
I do NOT like taxes. I do NOT feel they solve problems. You on the otherhand disagree. And further you feel it is a right to “attach cost” to the “free-market” to eliminate the “waste” of “undesirable behavior”
It may be “waste” and it may be “undesirable behavior” and I may agree with that. But “attaching a cost” to the “free market” through “taxation” is NOT something I agree with and does NOT work.
You are a progressive and I exposed your progressive adgenda. I also exposed your faulty logic w/my repeated logical equations and also exposed your dishonest ad hominem character assaults.
You see, as a progressive who looks to group others you would obviously need the cheers from your group.
Me on the other hand have accomplished my mission of exposing you progressives. Look how many assaults I have encountered. If I wasn’t successful in exposing progressives then I wouldn’t have so many of you assaulting me. You continue to prove my point.
But you are so filled w/arrogance you will continue to post retorts to my post. It is your inability to come to terms w/your faulty intellect or at least the reality that I continue to expose you. So you continue to try to step out of the quicksand only to let me push you down deeper.
I said before that I was throwing dirt on your grave but that it wouldn’t surprise me that you would try to come back. Well, please, keep proving my point.
You said, “but I doubt that you could make any of these arguments effectivly”
So besides exposing your intellectual smugness, you have also played another one of the slimy progressive tricks by attaching positions to me that I NEVER once verbalized.
When did I say, “these goals aren’t effective”, “are too expensive”, “this policy isn’t an effective way of achieving them”?????
That is the loaded tricks progressives play to take their argument onto familiar territory where they can spew their well-rehearsed party-line
MIKE S,
Oh you do not disappoint. All your ad hominem attacks do not gain you any points. Of course that is what you resort to when it is all you have left.
MY point is that you’re a progressive. You have proven to be so you do not like the label I attach.
Remember, I only pull out the progressive label after you and the rest of your ilk swallow my bait.
The progressive label NEVER comes out untill you’ve taken my bait unlike the rest of your lot who throws political tag’s on me on assumption only.
Then when I brand them w/the label from my exposition of them, they get mad
Sil1
What are you attempting to say with your rant. For about 4 days now you have made absolutely no sense. Is there a reason why?
AY,
I certainly made enough practical sense to prove your argument to be valid yet unsound. I did the truth table to prove it.
If you refer to my post on:
3 July, 2009 @2:07
My intention was to “bait” the progressives to then expose them as progressives that they are then prove ALL their hypocricies and how they use those hypocritical biases to brand label and demonize in order to drape their own biases in some type of moral sanctity.
I explained how I did it in:
3 July, 2009 @2:07
I know it is difficult for you progressives to understand b/c you spend so much time patting yourself on the back for what you think are “right” and “virtuous” beliefs and that they are such b/c you hold them. I also know it will be hard to understand for you progressives b/c you are such a bunch of intellectual arrogants who believe you are endowed with a higher degree of intelligence and nobility.
But if you see I NEVER initiate the insults or accusations. I only “bait” to then “expose” And it works every single time.
I have in fact spent 4 days explaining to you progressives what I am doing and what I know you will do but you are too stubborn and blinded by your arrogance and continue to fall into my traps and prove my point.
Instead of continuing to try and “one-up” me you would be much better served to engage in a deep existential inquiry of yourselves to come to terms w/what I have done to you.
Also please do NOT tell me to advise what I have just advised you b/c you will once again further prove my point.
sicilian1,
Since its a beautiful day and I’m sitting in a light, airy room with a gorgeous view (not to mention I’m procrastinating furiously), I thought that I would go through your latest post paragraph by paragraph – lets see how far I get before I decide to go jump in the lake…
You said:
The grant money IS doled out by the govn’t so it goes to the programs which make their vulnerability to being compromised to the adgenda of the hacks doling out the money. If their science does NOT jive w/the adgenda the grants stop. The govn’t is NOT going to dole out grant money to a program that is critical to an adgenda they won’t to promote.
I know you are not so naive to not know that is how things in the real world work.
I know some of the people who decide which grants get funded and I can say that their agendas are typically along the lines of what research is most likely to successfully advance the research mission of the agency. The agencies have missions like “cure cancer” or “study the impact of the environment on people’s health”, not “produce false research supporting global warming to further the evil progressive agenda”. I suspect I know much more than you about how grant money is handed out in the real world and the agendas of the people doing it are much more focused on doing what the see as their part in scientific advancement rather than marching in lockstep to further the goals of some massive conspiracy. (For your convenience I though that I would make a note of each time I labeled you by your ridiculously broad definition
1 – conspiracy theorist)
You said:
And scientist that can NOT get the grant money to promote their scientific adgenda will get it from so-called philanthropic organizations or so-called non-profits.
What is wrong with this? Keeping in mind that the agenda of most scientists is to better understand the nature of the small corner of the universe that they’ve chosen to study (all from the most base and selfish of motives, I’m sure), why shouldn’t they look for money to further their life’s work anywhere they can find it?
You said:
You see, the problem is that you are to naive to see how everyone is a pawn to promote the adgenda’s of the powers that be. But that is unsurprising b/c as a progressive you are too filled w/intellectual arrogance to understand how your own masters play you to do their bidding. And if you are part of the power structure then you of course would want everyone to think that it is all on the level.
Okay, I should have waited until here to label you a conspiracy theorist – sorry, I jumped the gun a little. But I guess that as someone who is dependent on my cruel overlords doling out grant money to forward their evil agenda (of trying to cure melanoma, in my case) I’m a part of the power structure and want everyone to think that it is all on the level. Move along people, nothing to see here…
Well, that was kind of fun – I’m going to get dinner and go for a swim, I’ll post some more after the fireworks.
Sartiblast,
Lets get to the original point:
“Finally, even if as you say, cap-n-trade is ineffective at fighting global warming, I still approve of the idea of taxing undesirable behavior (i.e. pollution) because it is the only way the free market to eliminate harmful waste is if their is a cost attached.”
That is what you said! Your words! Can’t take them back or manipulate w/semantics now!
Since cap-n-trade will raise taxes w/out curbing global warming as is irrefutably accepted. Then that means you approve of raising taxes only for symbolic reasons.
“Finally, even if as you say, cap-n-trade is ineffective in fighting global warming” This seems like the closet thing your stubborn progressive mind will get in admitting that cap-n-trade will not do what it’s suppossed to as far as fighting global warming.
“I still approve of taxing undesirable behavior (i.e. pollution) You said it. You determine what is “undesirable behavior” and deem it worthy of taxing.
“because the only way the free market can eliminate harmful waste is if there is a cost attached” Again your words. You believe the way to control the free market for what you have determined to be waste is to attach a cost with taxation.
In my book that is puntitive taxation. And I do NOT believe in that.
In your distorted progressive view of the world you think “attaching costs” in the form of “taxation” to what you in your ivy-tower deem to be “undesirable behavior” to “eliminate” what you once again in you ivy-tower deem to be “waste” is the way to remedy and solve problems.
I obviously do NOT believe that and b/c you progressives are such a raging ego-maniacal lot who can NOT take your self-dubbed altruistic positions to be questioned and only work to demonize your opponents or frame loaded questions from which you can give your morally superior soapbox rants, I will NOT engage you in a tainted and corrupted debate from the outset.
You accomplished my mission by crystalizing your progressive views in that one sentence. The fact that you further explicated them in your next post only confirmed your extreme progressive views.
“Finally, even if, as you say, cap-n-trade will do nothing to fight global warming, I still approve of taxing undesirable behavior because it is the only way the free market can eliminate harmful waste is if there is a cost attached.
Your words!
Classis progressive thought process!
I proved my point! You are undoubtedly a raging progressive!
Sartiblast,
Sorry to inform you but that grant money is LIKE free money. Grant money is the lifeblood of these scientist. If they’re out of grant money then they’re out of a gig.
Some researchers are more on the level than others. Many of the “cure cancer” grants are on the level. BUT if you think these climate change researchers who are fighting for grant money aren’t playing to their “biased” audience then you are beyond naive.
But like I said you are a progressive so every thought you possess has been formulated from some type of higher moral consciousness. Or you’re just another progressive propagandist who wants to drape their ideologies in a higher morality.
Please, oh intellectually arrogant progressive, please keep proving ALL the generalisations I make about you and your crowd are right.
My mother was the head of a community outreach organization. She got paid much of her career w/grant money. So oh arrogant, ignorant, vapid, self-absorbed progressive who thinks only their outlokks and experiences are what matters,know that you are NOT the only one w/first hand experience w/how grants work.
See, I’m just honest. My mother knew exactly what she had to do and who she had to cater to and who’s palms needed to be greased and who’s adgenda’s had to be served to make sure that grant money kept coming. And my mother was very successful. She ran the agency for over 20 years and handed it off in good hands after she retired.
But b/c you drink at the trough of grant money it is obvious that you would want to keep the facade of moral sanctity to keep your money flowing. But don’t act like you don’t have to cook the books to keep that grant money flowing.
And calling me a conspiracy theorist is definitly a compliment.
It’s the blind ideologues like you that think your masters are serving their interests when in fact you’re only acting as pawns to further their adgenda. Or like I said you’re part of the progressive propagandist power structure who wants to keep up the facade of a higher moral purpose the easier to promote your adgenda’s
If you are trying to cure melanoma then do NOT lump yourself in w/the charlatans and corrupted scientists in the global warming crowd b/c you are doing yourself a diservice.
And just for clarity I was talking about the frauds on both sides in the climate change crowd when they go for grants as I made clear when I said most of the “cure cancer” researchers are on the level. I said that at the top of the post.
But b/c you are in science you lump yourself in w/the global warming scientists who have been corrupted. Climate change is a political fight NOT a scientific fight like “cure cancer” which is altruistic. And b/c of the political atmosphere in the climate change issue it is IMPOSSIBLE for any scientist on either side NOT to have been corrupted to a certain degree. Don’t believe it’s politics? Look at cap-n-trade,a tax increase while accomplishing NOTHING with the intention which is to curb global warming.
But as a progressive you believe in “grouping” everyone. And you believe in acting as a group and what’s good for the “group” is good for all and if someone disagree’s w/one thing in the “group” adgenda then they are the enemy. That is how you’ve been conditioned to think.
So b/c you work in the field of science w/grant money and you know how your research team operates then b/c you believe in progressive “group-think” you think you HAVE to defend ALL scientists working w/grant money. When as a scientist finding the “cure for cancer” which is an altruistic endeavor and one which you should be congratulated for working. (I myself had an aunt die from melanoma many years ago. She was one of the original tan freaks) I commend you for your research. You should be insulted by the scientist in the climate change crowd who are run by the masters paying their grants. You’ll NEVER have your grant taken away and you NEVER should as you are engaged in good works. What govn’t hack would ever cut a grant for curing cancer. But the same can NOT be said for the climate change types.
The progressive “group-think” mentality is dangerous. We are all individuals with individual choices.
Option A is not always the only solution. And b/c someone believes in, NOT option A, doesn’t mean they’re the enemy and doesn’t mean they’re automatically wrong b/c they believe in, NOT option A.
If you are a progressive then be a progressive but do NOT be a slave to the masters. And do not subscribe to the progressives dirty rhetorical handbook.
Buddha:
“Have any of you seen The Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs at Midnight?”
EMBWBAM: Yeah, yeah… tell me I’m wrong baby!
EMBWBAM: (answering himself) I can’t cause you’re not.
lol
sicilian1:
“BOB, esq. I would assume from your tag that you must be a lawyer. And obviously you possess some self esteem issues as you must make sure we all know you are a lawyer.”
Actually, I’m from the planet Ustrevia; I evolved from a tree.
Slat,
You should meet my wife, she’s got two whole degrees in the field in which you currently work.
Die Fledermaus et al,
I own the complete DVD set of The Tick, and The Tick VS. The Tick is one of my favorite episode (although The Tick Vs. Proto Clown and Mustache Feeling are my two favorites).
Bob, esq,
Don’t you thing that sounds like sicilian1? Although I think that in the end we keep coming back to “I do not think it means what you think it means”.
Gyges,
Who knows, maybe your wife and I work together
The Tick vs. The Tick is a great one, but I’d have to say my favorites are The Tick vs. Science with the Mad Science Fair (some are angry, some are insane, but they’re all mad scientists…) and the multiple mind-swap and The Tick vs. Filth where The Tick and Arthur go into the sewers beneath the city where The Sewer Urchin is the apotheosis of cool (remember to pack your melted butter and lemons to fight off the giant lobsters…)
Sartibartfast,
“Finally,even if, as you say, cap-n-trade is ineffective at fighting global warming, I still approve of taxing undersirable behavior (i.e. pollution)because the only way for the free market to eliminate harmful waste is if there is a cost attached.”
The progressive mantra. You said it.
Lets break it down again:
Your preface of your statement is this:
“Finally, even if, as you say, cap-n-trade is ineffective at fighting global warming….”
So right away you make clear that you do not care if cap-n-trade is effective in accomplishing it’s mission of reducing pollutants. Ok so we know that all you are concerned abt is the symbolism attached to the bill.
“…I still approve of taxing undesirable behavior…”
So the key words are “I still….” So you are conceding that I may be right abt the ineffectiveness of cap-n-trade yet that does not matter to you b/c; “….even….” , “….I still….”
Then you go on to endorse “taxing”, “undesirable behavior (i.e. pollution)…”
“because the only way for the free market to eliminate waste is if there’s a cost attached.”
So you feel that the free market can not “eliminate waste” unless there is a “cost attached.”
This goes to proving your arrogance. You feel that those involved in the “free market” can not be trusted to act in a way that you feel they should so to make sure they do what you deem fit is to; “attach a cost” w/ “taxation.”
As a progressive you have deemed it your right to orchestrate, regulate, engineer, etc., the lives of free-born individuals b/c they known better and b/c you are endowed w/a higher state of overall being.
I have exposed you. I’ve accomplished my mission. Admit it.
Sartibart fast,
Question:
When humans breath, carbon dioxide (An undesirable pollutant) is emitted. In one study, the emission rates of carbon dioxide by college students were measured during both lectures and exams. The average individual rate RL (in grams per hour) during a lecture class was satisfied by the inequality:
The absolute value of: RL-26.75< (or = to) 1.42
Whereas during an exam the rate, RE satisfied the inequality:
The absolute value of: RE-38.75< (or = to) 2.17
A)Find the range of values for RL and RE
B)The class had 225 students. If TL and TE represent the total amounts of carbon dioxide emmitted during a 1-hour lecture and exam, respectively write inequalities that describe the ranges for TL and TE
C) THIS IS THE MILLION DOLLAR QUESTION.
Come up w/a formula to determine how much of the "undesirable behavior" (i.e. pollution) which is the carbon dioxide that the students emitt, needs to be TAXED, seeing that as a natural physiological behavior (the exhalation of gases), the "waste" can not be "eliminated."
Seeing that this "undesirable behavior" can not "eliminate" the "waste" to any kind of degree b/c this "behavior" is a natural human physiological requirment. It would only be "right" to attach a cost" to this behavior b/c all "undesirable behavior" as decreed by the progressive needs to be subject to "taxation."
And since the rising levels of carbon dioxide is what it fact initiates our physiological mechanism for inhalation then we as humans are guilty by our very existence of "undesirable behavior" so I guess you as the progressive are endowed w/the task of determing how much of a tax each individual human should pay as punishment for this "undesirable behavior" that is "wasteful."
But let me give you a little clue. If you take my "bait" then you will further prove that you are a raging progressive, strict in their ideology.
And now, back to the show…
You said:
There are those producing false research on both sides. If you do NOT think that this is mainly a politically fueled debate then you are naive.
I’m not sure what you mean by false research – do you mean data falsified to show evidence for some evil political agenda or an intentionally incorrect interpretation (pardon the alliteration) of the data to provide support for some evil political agenda? Either type of false research would become apparent quickly in science – the former problem is why research is repeated by independent labs before it is accepted and the latter problem only lasts until someone else proposes an interpretation that fits the data better. Now in the next couple of paragraphs you become very “big” on “words” enclosed by “quotation marks”.
You said:
Yes, you are so ingrained in your progressive rhetoric that you believe that taxing “undesirable behavior (i.e. poluution) is effective governing. Of course that is what all progressives feel. People are either too “stupid”, “mean”, “lazy”, “apathetic”,”corrupt” or the progressive favorite, “EVIL” to do what you have determined needs to be done so “attaching a cost” through “taxation” is your remedy.
First off, “progressive rhetoric”? Rhetoric can be employed to argue for progressive ideas and progressives could use certain rhetorical tactics, but what is “progressive rhetoric”? Do you mean I’m so ingrained in my progressive ideology? And yes, I believe that the best way for government to eliminate a behavior deemed detrimental to the country (if pollution should be deemed detrimental is another discussion, but I think that it is) is to levy a tax on that behavior. This provides a financial incentive for industries to eliminate the behavior and corporations are built to respond to financial incentives. The size of the tax can be increased as the technology to eliminate the behavior is developed and the cost of eliminating the behavior is reduced. This allows government to avoid placing an undue financial burden on industry. Revenues from the taxes can be used for deficit reduction. I think that this method of governing is a far more effective means of effecting a desired behavior than legislating that behavior. For example, if you want more fuel efficient cars then raising the gas tax $0.05 a year is a much better way to do it than raising CAFE standards (the minimum average MPG that a car company’s fleet gets). If you have a better suggestion to eliminate pollution (or you like pollution and want more of it), let’s hear it. I don’t think that people (in general) are stupid, mean, lazy, apathetic, corrupt, or evil. I pretty much assume that everybody looks out for what they see as the (more or less) enlightened self-interest of themselves and theirs (however they want to define ‘theirs’ – self, family, nation, race, universe…). And I’m giving my opinion about what I believe should be done – an opinion which I can support solidly and am perfectly willing to debate with you or anyone else. Pressing on…
You said:
Now here is where we get into the political ideology of the progressive. You feel that taxing an “industry” will give them the “incentive” to be more “efficient” and “compensate” the “owner” Then according to the rest of your progressive theory that you have “cut” and “pasted” from the progressive “theorum manual” are just suppossed to fall in place and “kumbaya” we’ll all live happily ever after just like the great progressive masters have told us we will if we follow and implement their plan.
Again with the quotation marks. Calling my positions progressive is not an argument against them – our country is much better off because of many progressive ideas enacted into law by our government. I must have misplaced my copy of the “progressive ‘theorum[sic] manual’”, can you send me a replacement? I’m not sure where you got the idea that there are some great progressive masters or just who you think these masters are, but progressives tend to be an independent lot and getting them to agree is like herding cats. And I certainly don’t think that there are any policies that the government can enact that will bring about utopia.
You said:
I will not argue specific policy with you b/c I have BAITED you into laying out your policy which allowed me to expose you strict BIASES on the issue.
I’m not sure exactly what you want to argue about – I’ve brought up issues you’ve raised or implied which I had something I wanted to comment on. I don’t try to hide my positions on any issues, so if you’d like to believe you baited me into something, that fine, but just asking about my positions would have produced the same result. I’ve stated my views on some issues and policies – I’m not sure what “you strict BIASES” means (except I believe that it is probably “your” instead of “you”) but I haven’t posted anything that I don’t believe and you haven’t given any substantive argument that anything I said is wrong.
You said:
You like all progressives just want to paint me into an either/or corner where you can pull out your locked and loaded artillery to demonize me then wag your moral finger in my face. An argument with you on this topic could in fact NEVER be an argument b/c you have already laid out your adgenda and even been so smug as to extrapolate imagined arguments I might say when I have NEVER indicated my true positions.
I’m really not trying to paint you into a corner on anything – I’m entertaining myself while procrastinating work that I should be doing and I find your posts very entertaining. To the best of my recollection (it’s getting to be a really long thread) neither I nor anyone else here has questioned your morals – and morals have nothing to do with wether or not a policy is an effective means to accomplish a goal. I extrapolate your imagined arguments (and nice use of the word extrapolate, btw
) in order to let you know how I am interpreting your words and to give you the opportunity to define your positions, it is part of a process known as communication, you should try it sometime…
You said:
You like all progressives assume what everyone else thinks just b/c they do not come from your specific school of thought then you “label”, “demonize”, “dismiss”,”insult”,”belittle”,etc. And then you feel you have the right to do so b/c you could never imagine you progressive viewpoint could ever be wrong.
This is great! If you just replace the word ‘progressive’ with ’sicilian1′, this describes your actions here as well as what seems to be your blind faith with regard to the correctness of any beliefs that you hold. In fact, I make it a point to listen to views from left, right, and center and to test my views against all others – I don’t believe these things because I was told to by someone, I believe them because in my opinion they are the best that I’ve encountered.
You said:
I never said I was a libertarian. You just try once again to tag me. You as a progressive do NOT and NEVER will understand that you can NOT group people. I am an individual with differing opinions of different issues and I reserve the right to avail myself of all the information untill I take a definitive position. But you as a progressive feel you have to fit your opinion to whatever adgenda your party masters dictate and you can’t understand anyone who doesn’t and if they don’t then you brand them an enemy and evil.
I never called you a libertarian. I said that the policy that I was articulating came from libertarian roots in my psyche not progressive ones. I was labeling myself, not you. I’m not afraid or ashamed to admit that my political opinions are based in large part on progressive and libertarian ideals or that I think my ideas make more sense than yours (whatever they are, I think they make less sense, but if you’d like to try to convince me otherwise, please do. ‘…you can NOT group people.’ Huh? Sure I can. You belong to the group of people posting on this thread under the handle ’sicilian1′ (a very small group, one suspects), I belong to the group of people making reference to ‘The Tick’ on this thread (“Not in the face!”) People can be correctly categorized my many groups – what I think you want to say is that people are not defined by the groups they belong to – which would be ironic as all you have done on this thread is to label everyone progressive and assume because you labeled us that way that we all thought exactly the same. (Pot meet kettle!)
Well, that’s enough for now – but don’t worry sicilian1, I’ll finish with this post and respond (more briefly) to your other posts when I get the chance.
My Kudos to Slartibartfast, who has patiently completely demolished sicilian 1’s poor attempts at argumentation, without rancor of ad hominem attacks. This is an example of a confident and patient person applying logic to disintegrate poorly crafted arguments and yet do so civilly.
However, let us not forget sicilian 1’s brave contributions to this dialogue, which show great stamina, if little logic. While it is true that sicilian 1’s main thrusts have been “I’M RIGHT
YOUR WRONG, YOU’RE DIRTY PROGRESSIVE, I’M AN INDEPENDENT THINKER
I’VE BAITED YOU ALL….I WIN, I WIN, I WIN! ADMIT IT, PLEASE ADMIT IT! I NEED YOU TO ADMIT I’M RIGHT OR I’LL JUST KEEP BLATHERING ON MAKING NO SENSE AND BEING OBNOXIOUSLY INCOHERENT.
Let’s give him a hand folks because it’s not easy to maintain such dogged tenacity in the face of continually being made to look silly and inane. That should count for something. Shouldn’t it?
And finally, the conclusion…
You said:
Let me put it this way, just b/c I do NOT agree with you does NOT mean that I am not making sense. There is a reality outside your own little progressive world. And just b/c you have a bunch of sychophantic progressives egging you on from the peanut gallery does NOT prove anything.
Certainly your disagreeing with me does not imply that you aren’t making sense – your fractured logic and occasional descent into incomprehensibility, on the other hand… A shout out to my sycophantic homies! You guys rock!
You said:
You are so blinded by smugness, arrogance and ignorance that you do NOT even have the ability to existentially examine yourself.
You wound me with your words! I wonder how you know about my ability for existential reflection…
You said:
My ONLY intention was to expose the biases of progressives. It took you a little bit but I finally did expose.
The definition of bias (dicitionary.com) is given as: a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice. I’m not really sure what biases you have exposed – you have discovered our positions, but we we’re hiding them, so it isn’t much of an achievement.
You said:
All it did was take a little “bait” with the mention of a professor who I specifically said I was NOT promoting. I only mentioned a specific insight on a general topic. NEVER did I say he represented me. And I specifically stated I was not endorsing his position. But you siezed on that and several times tried to “bait” me into taking his side on climate change. I refused to bite and instructed you so. Then you gave yourself up with one little sentence (which I believe the progressives should adopt as their mantra) I exposed your biases through that sentence. Then through your intellectual arrogance you actually explicated your argument in fair detail in the process deepening your biases while then exposing your dismissive bias of other viewpoint that you tried to dishonestly assign to me then through in an insult that I couldn’t even defend those policies you imagined I endorse to try to goad me into a defense of policies I may not agree w/but which you are ready to assault.
I think you will find that if you mention an outside source here then people will check up on it. I’m not sure and this thread is too long to go back and check, but I don’t believe that I ever asserted that you agreed with Richard Lindzen, I just questioned his value as a source based on my research about him – I may have tried to see which of his positions you agreed with (since you did bring him up, I assume you agreed with him on something), but I wasn’t trying to ‘”bait” you. I don’t take instructions from you – I will respectfully consider any requests that you make, however. (Future archeologists will have to decipher the next bit as, alas, I’m not up to it.) Apparently explicating my argument in fair detail was a result of my intellectual arrogance and resulted in deepening and then exposing my dismissive biases of (against?) other viewpoints that I dishonestly tried to attribute to you in an effort to insult you by saying you couldn’t defend the policies which I had implied you endorsed am ready to assault. Wow. That was a pretty impressive run-on sentence. I have a question for you: Of the two of us, do you really think that you are the more logical and rational?
You said:
I do NOT like taxes. I do NOT feel they solve problems. You on the otherhand disagree. And further you feel it is a right to “attach cost” to the “free-market” to eliminate the “waste” of “undesirable behavior”
I think that financial disincentives for undesirable behavior are an effective way of governing industry (and eliminating the behavior).
You said:
It may be “waste” and it may be “undesirable behavior” and I may agree with that. But “attaching a cost” to the “free market” through “taxation” is NOT something I agree with and does NOT work.
I agree with everything here (except the gratuitous use of quotation marks) except for “and does NOT work”. I believe the you are wrong about the policies that I’ve suggested being ineffectual and in any case you have offered no argument as to why you are correct.
You said:
You are a progressive and I exposed your progressive adgenda. I also exposed your faulty logic w/my repeated logical equations and also exposed your dishonest ad hominem character assaults.
Yes, I am a progressive and if you mean that I stated my opinions, then I guess you could say you exposed my agenda. As for my dishonest ad hominem character assaults, as far as I can recall the only ad hominem I’ve used against you was to call you an onionhead, which I noted was an ad hominem attack and if my apology was insincere the attack was not meant maliciously. If I hurt your feelings then I truly am sorry.
You said:
You see, as a progressive who looks to group others you would obviously need the cheers from your group.
Obviously. (and once again we are back to Vizzini
You said:
Me on the other hand have accomplished my mission of exposing you progressives. Look how many assaults I have encountered. If I wasn’t successful in exposing progressives then I wouldn’t have so many of you assaulting me. You continue to prove my point.
I like how you think of posting on a blog as a mission. By assaults do you mean attempts to engage you in debate? I suspect that those of us responding to you are doing so because we find it entertaining. I know I do. And what was your point, exactly?
You said:
But you are so filled w/arrogance you will continue to post retorts to my post. It is your inability to come to terms w/your faulty intellect or at least the reality that I continue to expose you. So you continue to try to step out of the quicksand only to let me push you down deeper.
I am like Lucifer after the fall, filled with towering arrogance and rage! Therefore I respond to your posts. Okay. Whatever. I guess my faulty intellect is unable to grasp what it is that you have exposed that I haven’t given freely. You can float in quicksand if you are still and don’t struggle (as George Carlin said, “…some people need practical advice.”)
You said:
I said before that I was throwing dirt on your grave but that it wouldn’t surprise me that you would try to come back. Well, please, keep proving my point.
Sure. You’re welcome.
You said:
You said, “but I doubt that you could make any of these arguments effectivly”
So besides exposing your intellectual smugness, you have also played another one of the slimy progressive tricks by attaching positions to me that I NEVER once verbalized.
When did I say, “these goals aren’t effective”, “are too expensive”, “this policy isn’t an effective way of achieving them”?????
That is the loaded tricks progressives play to take their argument onto familiar territory where they can spew their well-rehearsed party-linechance.
Perhaps that was somewhat smug, but I also believe it to be true. I attributed positions to you in order to make you reject them or accept them and either way better define you position, it’s a rhetorical technique and I don’t believe that I ever continued to say that you asserted a position that you’d rejected. I’m not sure what about that is a “loaded trick progressives play” or exactly what “well-rehearsed party-line” I’ve been spewing, but I apologize if I spewed on anyone.
Finally, I’d like to say that I truly am sorry, because if you read this with an open mind then it is going to be somewhat unpleasant for you and while I don’t enjoy that I hope you can learn from it.
Onionhead.
SCORE
Slartibartfast – 27
sicilian1 – 0 / T*
__
* Technically a blowout, the Board of Major League Rhetoric awarded the team a score of “T” for “tenacious” although there was a scandal later when one of the Board members claimed that his vote had been for the verbiage “twaddle”, his vote miscast as he crossed to room to get a Coke.
All I can say at what may be the conclusion to the longest, yet least productive thread in many a month, is that once again the Progressive Cause has sallied forth victorious in its goals to control thought and the world. I give thanks to our hidden leadership for showing us the way to proceed in lockstep unity and I pray to the specters of Woodrow Wilson, Karl Marx, Groucho Marx and Charlie Chaplin and all those others to whom we are slavishly devoted. In this thread we have vanquished the formidable Onionhead, whose rhetorical skills have been so cleverly disguised and while we fell into his trap of cleverly baiting us, we prevailed by overwhelming him with the argumentation style taught to us by our forebears.
Many a day I remember in our 10 hour long Progressive Classes, having my knuckles rapped by our horned and forktailed Professors, when my attention slipped and I veered from the part line in my answer. However, as we all know, collectively of course, all that pain and studying was worth it as we stand at the precipice that will finally lead us to control all of humanity and convert them to our evil ways.
Today Onionhead, that last bastion of independent thought,
Tomorrow The World!
Sartiblastfast,
Yes, but I am exposing progressive rhetoric. I may employ rhetoric BUT it is only done to expose progressive rhetoric.
ALL it took for me to do was inocuously throw out the name of a climate change professor in reference to what he said about something in a totally unrelated to climate change. And I specified that when I mentioned him. You siezed on that (As I knew you would) to rant and rave about climate change to “PROVE” you are right. I intended to expose your bias and I succeeded.
As I have repeatedly said, I am up in the air about climate change. I am open to being swayed, if I see some GOOD and RELIABLE evidence on either side, I could be convinced. However, the more I research the subject the more I am disappointed by the corruption on both sides.
But you as a progressive zealot can NOT and NEVER will see that. In your intellectual arrogance you could NEVER imagine yourself to be wrong.
You are so stubborn that you believe your solution is the only solution and that anyone who does not buy your solution hook-line-and-sinker is wrong.
Can’t you see what an arrogant zealot you are? You want to argue w/me about climate change when I NEVER said I don’t believe in it b/c I may in fact do. I only do NOT believe that taxation is the only solution or that it is justified and I also believe that the science is corrupted. But in your zealotry b/c I can NOT be brainwashed to swallow your party-line you continue to argue a subject of which I am not completely against.
In your stubborn, arrogant zealotry you believe that ALL scientist on your sied are pure and that ALL scientist that disagree w/your side are bought off by the oil companies.
Do you see hoe biased that is?
What makes your side completely honorable and the other evil?
Couldn’t there be truth-tellers on your side and truth-yellers on the other side? Couldn’t there be liars on your side and liars on the other side? Can’t their be truth and misinformation on both sides?
But you refuse to accept those possibilities b/c you’ve been so brainwashed by your masters to only think you’re “right”
You come from the ideology that taxation is the incentive to improve society. I come from an ideology that taxs breaks provide the incentive to improve society.
Please save your progressive ideology to show why taxation provides the incentive. It’s the same excat speech that progressives have been spewing since the birth of their ideology. You are NOT providing any insight whatsoever. It’s been plagerized straight from the progressive part handbook. Just b/c you can regurgitate what your masters have drilled into your head doesn’t mean you “figured” anything out.
What you do NOT understand and NEVER will in all your arrogance is that I’m NOT trying to prove your progressive ideology wrong. I am ONLY trying to prove that YOU ARE a progressive and that YOU ARE a HYPOCRITE.
It is all you progressives that get so defensive when I expose you as progressives.
No the very fact that you are a progressive means you think you are right and everybody else is not right and then you all use your belittling adjectives after I’ve exposed you. You do NOT get it, nobody can argue w/progressives b/c they come from a stubborn biased position. They do not want to engage in dialouge. They ONLY want to”PROVE” they are right.
I can NOT give you my opinions b/c you’ve already assigned me w/imagined positions. Further exposing your dirty progressive rhetorical tricks. Which is my purpose anyway.
You do NOT listen to other views. You have worked OVERTIME to “PROVE” yourself right when I have never even tried to initially propose anything counter.
Do you understand that I am a master counter-puncher? I continuously set traps for you to fall into.
MIKE S,
Your peanut gallery cheering will NOT discourage me. Nor will I let a psuedo intellect such as yourself try to sway the truth.
I have continuously set traps of which all you progressives fall into.
Sartiblastfast’s continued frenzy to defend her climate change adgenda is proof. All it took was the mention of the name of a professor and she jumped on her bandwagon.
But arrogants such as yourself can never see the subtlety which I use to trap you knee-jerk progressives.
You can NOT win b/c you have fallen in my trap and it is only me who can let you out. At this point I am toying w/you.
I have exposed you so now you leave the heavy lifting to sarti who I am now toying with. At first she was a semi-worthy challenger but now I’m just looking for the ref to stop the fight. And since he won’t and non of you progressives will throw in the towel to stop my pummeling, I will continue to get the exercise needed to combat progressives everywhere.
How can you make me look like anything when it is you who have fallen into my traps and continue to do so?
Just more dishonest progressive rhetoric.
Sarti,
Yes you were hiding behind the idea that you are not a progressive. You all think you are part of the populus. When you are nothing but ivy-towered arrogant progressives of which I’ve exposed.
In your fanaticism to smear me w/a red herring, you continue to try to assign the professor’s climate change position to me. It will NOT work. You could check him all you want. My statement was that I ONLY liked his insight into skepticism vs. consensus. Unlike you progressives I can look at someone I may not agree with yet still find something of value in some other statement they may make. You never could assign anything the professor said abt climate change b/c I never said I agreed w/him on that issue. If you weren’t so ignorant and fanatical abt branding someone so then you could give your pre-arranged rants in opposition then you would have been able to discern on the specifics of what I said.
So if you’re an admitted progressive then I did in fact accomplish my mission of exposing you.
It took you 3 days but you’ve finally admittede what I had proved from your first post in response. The fact that it took you this long only proves that a progressive will ONLY admit their progressivism when backed into a corner. Untill that point they will demonize their opponents while painting themselves in a cloak of morality.
No, you need to search your progressive soul. The only reason why you respond is b/c you assume that b/c I do not agree w/your entire adgenda hook-line-and-sinker that I must be the enemy so you post to try to “PROVE” me wrong and in effect take my bait in exposing you as a progressive and a hypocrite. I already know that it is impossible to engage progressives b/c they feel that only their idea’s count. So my only goal is to toy w/the progressive and use their dirty rhetorical tricks against them.
Also every progressive is so intellectually arrogant that they can NEVER believe anyone disagree’s w/them and they can NEVER accept defeat that is why they are so easy for me to entrap.
Exactly, you assigned positions to me. That is what progressives do. You ask loaded questions and try to paint those who do not follow in lock step with you. You never once asked me the simple question: what do you think we should do?
You know why? B/c you as a progressive do NOT care. As a progressive you have pre-arranged arguments of which to rant against. That is why you try to assign positions to others. You have memorized your progressive demonizing rhetoric. That is why I do not debate w/progressives b/c the argument is illegitimate from the outset.
Do you see how the fact that you have admitted and think it’s okay to apply positions to others proves every single one of my generalizations about you? Lose some of your arrogance and maybe you’ll see what I have done to you.
MIKE S,
Just b/c you try to skew my points by declaring victory, you should not be proud.
As I’ve said come to terms w/your arrogance. I have exposed you at every turn. There is no way you can ever be victorious when you are playing w/in my realm.
Continue to try to pull the wool over your own eyes and the eyes of your ilk. It only proves my point further and continues to accoplish my mission of exposing progressives for what they are.
Progressives,
“Finally, even if, as you say, cap-n-trade is ineffective at fighting global warming, I still approve of the idea of taxing undesirable behavior because the only way for the free market to eliminate waste is if there is a cost attahed.”
—-Satibartfast
Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson (Two father’s of the progressive movement) would be proud.
No progressive has ever articulated the progressive ideology better when it comes to regulating the “free” market.
Memorize this mantra, it will come in handy when trying to promote the progressive cause in your debates.
Mike S, Buddha, and anyone else who is still listening:
I understand everything now! sicilian1 is the love child of Vezzini and The Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs At Midnight! This explains so much! Mike may have called the end of this thread a little too early, but he and Buddha certainly weren’t wrong about sicilian1’s tenacity. Fortunately, I went through and commented on more of sicilian1’s posts last night. I didn’t post it because it seemed like piling on, but if he feels that he’s getting valuable experience by pummeling me, who am I to deny him? By the way, I belong to the Groucho Marx school of progressivism: Freedonia uber alles!
sicilian1,
As a point of fact, I’d like to mention that I’m male, not female – not really important I just didn’t want to pretend that I’m anything that I’m not. As promised here are comments on your most recent posts – I’ll start working on your new ones, too.
sicilian1
1,July 4, 2009 at 6:51pm
Sartiblast,
Lets get to the original point:
“Finally, even if as you say, cap-n-trade is ineffective at fighting global warming, I still approve of the idea of taxing undesirable behavior (i.e. pollution) because it is the only way the free market to eliminate harmful waste is if their is a cost attached.”
That is what you said! Your words! Can’t take them back or manipulate w/semantics now! [Yes, my words, although I think that I used the correct form of 'their'.]
Since cap-n-trade will raise taxes w/out curbing global warming as is irrefutably accepted [by whom is it irrefutably accepted?]. Then that means you approve of raising taxes only for symbolic reasons. [I think you mean for strictly rather than only symbolic reasons. In any event, I could also believe that the reduction of pollution was worthwhile apart from its impact on global warming or that by increasing the rate of taxation under cap-n-trade will eventually make it effective.]
“Finally, even if as you say, cap-n-trade is ineffective in fighting global warming” This seems like the closet thing your stubborn progressive mind will get in admitting that cap-n-trade will not do what it’s suppossed to as far as fighting global warming. [I'll admit it's only a small step, but it's a step in the right direction and a journey of 1000 miles starts with a single step...]
“I still approve of taxing undesirable behavior (i.e. pollution) You said it. You determine what is “undesirable behavior” and deem it worthy of taxing. [Yes, I determine what is, in my opinion, undesirable behavior worthy of being taxed.]
“because the only way the free market can eliminate harmful waste is if there is a cost attached” Again your words. You believe the way to control the free market for what you have determined to be waste is to attach a cost with taxation.
In my book that is puntitive taxation. And I do NOT believe in that. [It is not putative taxation - the purpose of the tax is to stop pollution, not to punish companies.]
In your distorted progressive view of the world you think “attaching costs” in the form of “taxation” to what you in your ivy-tower deem to be “undesirable behavior” to “eliminate” what you once again in you ivy-tower deem to be “waste” is the way to remedy and solve problems. [Yes, although once again I would ask you to go easy on the quotation marks...]
I obviously do NOT believe that and b/c you progressives are such a raging ego-maniacal lot who can NOT take your self-dubbed altruistic positions to be questioned and only work to demonize your opponents or frame loaded questions from which you can give your morally superior soapbox rants, I will NOT engage you in a tainted and corrupted debate from the outset. [If this debate has been tainted and corrupted from the outset, why are you participating in it?]
You accomplished my mission by crystalizing your progressive views in that one sentence. The fact that you further explicated them in your next post only confirmed your extreme progressive views. [Oh my!]
“Finally, even if, as you say, cap-n-trade will do nothing to fight global warming, I still approve of taxing undesirable behavior because it is the only way the free market can eliminate harmful waste is if there is a cost attached.
Your words! [Well, they started as my words, but you're starting to twist them... I believe the most effective way to develop green technology and eliminate pollution is to tax pollution - do you disagree with that statement?]
Classis progressive thought process! [Okay. Whatever that means.]
I proved my point! You are undoubtedly a raging progressive! [Are you on a blog scavenger hunt? What are you looking for next, an angry birther?]
sicilian1
1, July 4, 2009 at 7:31 pm
Sartiblast,
Sorry to inform you but that grant money is LIKE free money. Grant money is the lifeblood of these scientist. If they’re out of grant money then they’re out of a gig. [I am currently funded through the first of the year, after that if I don't find new funding I'm out of a gig - what makes you think that I lack understanding of this process?]
Some researchers are more on the level than others. Many of the “cure cancer” grants are on the level. [So many of my colleagues are on the level? Thank you, you are so gracious.] BUT if you think these climate change researchers who are fighting for grant money aren’t playing to their “biased” audience then you are beyond naive. [The grant money comes before the research and continued funding is dependent on the quality of the science. I can assure you that what you are suggesting doesn't tend to happen in the world of peer-reviewed science.]
But like I said you are a progressive so every thought you possess has been formulated from some type of higher moral consciousness. Or you’re just another progressive propagandist who wants to drape their ideologies in a higher morality. [I tend to pick both my ideologies and the policies that I advocate because of them for pragmatic rather than moral reasons - morality shouldn't be legislated (and it can't, really).]
Please, oh intellectually arrogant progressive, please keep proving ALL the generalisations I make about you and your crowd are right. [Just to check - you've been making multiple generalizations about me (labeling me) but any attempt that I make to in any fashion label you is unfair, right?]
My mother was the head of a community outreach organization. She got paid much of her career w/grant money. So oh arrogant, ignorant, vapid, self-absorbed progressive who thinks only their outlokks and experiences are what matters,know that you are NOT the only one w/first hand experience w/how grants work. [Yes, I'm sure that your mother being funded through grants gives you every bit as much knowledge about how research funding works as I have. And by the way, that would be second hand experience with how grants work.]
See, I’m just honest. My mother knew exactly what she had to do and who she had to cater to and who’s palms needed to be greased and who’s adgenda’s had to be served to make sure that grant money kept coming. And my mother was very successful. She ran the agency for over 20 years and handed it off in good hands after she retired. [Good for your mother! What does this have to do with scientific research?]
But b/c you drink at the trough of grant money it is obvious that you would want to keep the facade of moral sanctity to keep your money flowing. But don’t act like you don’t have to cook the books to keep that grant money flowing. [I'm not sure, but I believe that 'cooking the books' on a federal grant application would be a federal crime - I keep the money flowing by producing results, that's why it's known as publish or perish...]
And calling me a conspiracy theorist is definitly a compliment. [Umm. You're welcome?]
It’s the blind ideologues like you that think your masters are serving their interests when in fact you’re only acting as pawns to further their adgenda. Or like I said you’re part of the progressive propagandist power structure who wants to keep up the facade of a higher moral purpose the easier to promote your adgenda’s [Just so you know, it's spelled a-g-e-n-d-a and the 's in this case is just wrong, grammatically speaking. My masters must be extremely powerful and subtle to control me without my knowledge - you are right to fear them!]
If you are trying to cure melanoma then do NOT lump yourself in w/the charlatans and corrupted scientists in the global warming crowd b/c you are doing yourself a diservice. [Thanks. I think there are far fewer 'charlatans and corrupted scientists' than you seem to.]
And just for clarity I was talking about the frauds on both sides in the climate change crowd when they go for grants as I made clear when I said most of the “cure cancer” researchers are on the level. I said that at the top of the post. [Gee, wasn't that nice of you.]
But b/c you are in science you lump yourself in w/the global warming scientists who have been corrupted. Climate change is a political fight NOT a scientific fight like “cure cancer” which is altruistic. And b/c of the political atmosphere in the climate change issue it is IMPOSSIBLE for any scientist on either side NOT to have been corrupted to a certain degree. Don’t believe it’s politics? Look at cap-n-trade,a tax increase while accomplishing NOTHING with the intention which is to curb global warming. [Climate change (a better description of the phenomenon than global warming, btw) is a scientific inquiry about which there is a political fight. By corrupted do you mean that they have beliefs about whether or not man impacts climate change or do you mean that they knowingly disregard or misinterpret data to suit a political agenda? Because I don't believe that the latter happens very often - I don't even think that the researchers paid by special interests are guilty of this, I just know that their research wouldn't be published if it didn't agree with their employer's agenda and is therefore suspect.]
But as a progressive you believe in “grouping” everyone. And you believe in acting as a group and what’s good for the “group” is good for all and if someone disagree’s w/one thing in the “group” adgenda then they are the enemy. That is how you’ve been conditioned to think. [I've already commented about 'grouping', but imagine that the group is people in a lifeboat and most of the people's agenda involves rowing or bailing, is the person who's agenda is about drilling holes in the hull an enemy? Now imagine that the earth was the lifeboat...]
So b/c you work in the field of science w/grant money and you know how your research team operates then b/c you believe in progressive “group-think” you think you HAVE to defend ALL scientists working w/grant money. [I don't believe in any progressive 'group-think', nor do I have to defend all scientists supported by grants, I just think that the system on peer-reviewed science funded by grants doesn't tend to be susceptible to the problems you suggest (which is not to say it doesn't have other problems).] When as a scientist finding the “cure for cancer” which is an altruistic endeavor and one which you should be congratulated for working. (I myself had an aunt die from melanoma many years ago. She was one of the original tan freaks) [Sorry to hear that - you should always wear sunscreen. And a hat - people aren't wearing enough hats.] I commend you for your research. [Thanks.] You should be insulted by the scientist in the climate change crowd who are run by the masters paying their grants. [Again, I think these are far fewer in number than you do.] You’ll NEVER have your grant taken away and you NEVER should as you are engaged in good works. What govn’t hack would ever cut a grant for curing cancer. But the same can NOT be said for the climate change types. [Grants don't generally get taken away - you apply for the grant, get the money, do the research, and then apply for the next grant, usually on the strength of the research you did with the previous funding. This is true for both cancer research and climate change research.]
The progressive “group-think” mentality is dangerous. We are all individuals with individual choices. [What have I ever done to make you think I indulge in group-think of any sort or that I don't believe that people are individuals and should have the right to make their own choices?]
Option A is not always the only solution. And b/c someone believes in, NOT option A, doesn’t mean they’re the enemy and doesn’t mean they’re automatically wrong b/c they believe in, NOT option A. [Okay.]
If you are a progressive then be a progressive but do NOT be a slave to the masters. And do not subscribe to the progressives dirty rhetorical handbook. [Sure. What have I done to indicate that I am a slave to anyone? I don't know, they said they'd give me the progressive theorum manual free if I subscribed
]
Slart,
You fool, you fell into Sicilian’s trap of revealing your true male agenda.
My advice, quit feeding the troll.
Gyges,
Next thing you know I’ll be getting involved in a land war in Asia…
I know that I should probably stop feeding him, but I’m fascinated to see how long this can keep going.
SArti,
Of course you would initiate with the ad hominem insults. It is the rhetorical ploy of the progressives to influence their peanut gallery audience into believing that they are getting points.
If you could see pass your blind arrogance then you would see that I never do anything other than use your own words to attack you.
But of course you would ignore the fact that you admitted that you assignede a position to me. It doesn’t matter what excuse you use can you not see that that is not fair? But as a progressive these dirty tactics are so ingrained in you that you are obviously ignorant.
So not only did you prove that you were a progressive by assigning me a position. But in explicating why you did so you only proved further that you are a progressive. Then you’re inability to see the unfairness in that once again further exposes your progressivism. Then your ignoring of how I exposed all this further proves you are a progressive.
You will NEVER ask me my opinion. You will only assign me one and continue to try and trick me into assuming your assigned position to me b/c you are a progressive.
I am not participating in a debate with you b/c as a progressive it is impossible to do so.
You want to debate only so you can get on a soapbox rant.
I only want to continuously expose you.
How can you accuse me of twisting your words? I’m quoting you verbatim.
But that’s the progressive trick. Say something, have it thrown back, then try to say you didn’t say it.
I’ll quote you once again:
“Finally, even if, as you say, cap-n-trade is ineffective at fighting global warming, I still approve of taxing undesirable behavior (i.e. pollution) since the only way for the free market to eliminate harmful waste is if there is a cost attached.”
No twisting of words. It means what it says. So you can rationalize and play your little semantic games. But you can NOT step out of it.
You see, what you do not understand was that I originally baited all the progressives on this site not to engage in any debate, b/c I already know that to be impossible w/progressives, but only to expose not only there ideology but there hypocricy and there dirty rhetorical tricks.
But b/c the progressive thinks he is always the smartest guy in the room you have failed to appreciate the advanced lesson in rhetoric which I have given all you progressives. I have used your own rhetorical baiting tricks against you. But you keep on stepping in it.
One of the secrets of comedy is repetition.
LOL!
I think we are going to need a paternity test for this troll; we have not ruled out “The Black Knight”! He always triumphs; he is invincible. “Come back here and take what is coming to you. I’ll bite your legs off!”
Sicilian1,
You @ July 6, 3:17pm: “Of course you would initiate with those ad hominem insults.” Just to remind you again; it was you who started this thread with insults on July 1, 8:47am you called Senator Al Franken a “failed” comedian and then went on to attack his wife.
Gyges,
Of course, your right! So is Buddha!
Sarti,
No continued funding is based on how well the research jives w/whatever the master doling out the money wants it to.
You’re research grant is not on the same level as the climate change scientists. (Below your level) These scientist have been completely corrupted by politics.
Oh, I forgot, you’re a progressive so only your “guys” are pure. It’s the others who have been corrupted.
But don’t you see how you insist that your views are “right”?
You have gone off defending your views before I ever stated any oppossing position. You let my ambiguous baiting techniques expose your bias. You continue to explicate when I don’t even ask you to do so further exposing your progressive arrogance.
I’ve only generalized and label after you’ve opened your mouth. You on the otherhand labeled me before I ever even made it clear what my positions were. Then you assigned positions to me and wait for me to assume them yet never once even think to ask me my position.
Ya, ask all those made a career out of heading federal agencies if they haven’t cooked the books. (see; Fanie/Freddie)The feds give the implication to those in charge what they’re suppossed to do. Those drinking at the climate change trough no what needs to be done.
You’d be better off getting hip to some of those “conspiracy theories” then you wouldn’t be such a pavlovian pawn to your progressive masters.
They intentionally disregard, misinterpret and manipulate data to serve their masters. If you do not agree with that then there is no arguing with you.
It’s like faith; either you believe in “God” or you don’t. And it’s not worth either side exhausting themselves trying to prove the other wrong. But, either/or is right and the only way we’re going to find out 100% who is right is when we die. But people get so fanatical about the issue that it degenerates into nothingness.
Climate change has become like a religion. And it is the EXTREMIST who CONTROL and RUIN the debate. I do believe in climate change but the issue has become so politicized and radicalized that NOTHING is being accomplished (see: cap-n-trade)
Why does it have to be either/or? Couldn’t there be some middle groun? Why do I have to completely buy what Al Gore says? Or completely buy what Michael Critchon said? Maybe George Carlin’s (oh, great progressive icon that he is) bit be right-on-the-money? Why do we have to draw lines in the sand?
The politics NEEDS to be ELIMINATED frrom the debate. Then maybe, we can get down to the science. Untill that happens I will remain skeptical and undecided.
You of course as the progressive will ignore my explication of my thoughts on the issue. You will continue to try and trick me into taking a side you’ve assigned me so you can “PROVE” to the other zealots and sychophants in the peanut gallery that you are “right”
Of course their research would be published. All it has to do is promote a view of the party masters and they’ll tout it as gospel w/out any hard facts.
You’re little life boat analogy shows you’re bias. To boil the climate change issue down to that type of simplicity to prove your point is disengenuous.
My analogy about climate change=religion was to prove the either/or mentality. You analogy proves my point about the either/or mentality. Yopu’ve already jumped on the assumption that the earth is the life boat so we ONLY have two options: yours or not yours and anyone who believes not yours no matter how diverse their opinion may be is wrong.
You see the grant money will keep on coming if the research says what the masters on either side want it to say.
I believe in the conspiracy theory. I’ve seen too much corruption in the system to ever believe it doesn’t exist. You have your rose-colored glassess on. I am not going to denigrate you for that b/c everyone wants to believe things are on the level. But I’ve been played by the system and seen it hurt others too many times to ever believe it’s not corrupted.
CEJ,
You’re right, maybe his ancestry is more complicated that I thought… “’tis but a scratch!” I guess I need to take another arm off.
sicilian1,
Well, you certainly can post at an impressive rate, I’ll give you that.
s1:
Of course you would initiate with the ad hominem insults.
Yes, I use mild ad hominem attacks as a humorous device and Mike S. repeated them using sarcasm, but as CEJ pointed out you were the first to use ad hominem attacks against Senator Franken and his wife.
s1:
You will NEVER ask me my opinion. You will only assign me one and continue to try and trick me into assuming your assigned position to me b/c you are a progressive.
I am not participating in a debate with you b/c as a progressive it is impossible to do so.
Here are some questions about your opinions: What do you think defines a progressive? Why do you think that it is impossible to debate with a progressive? Are you willing to test the hypothesis that it is impossible to debate progressives by answering my questions?
“but now I’m just looking for the ref to stop the fight. And since he won’t and non of you progressives will throw in the towel to stop my pummeling, I will continue to get the exercise needed to combat progressives everywhere.”
I think that this whole thread has turned tragic. We are dealing with someone with issues, if you catch the drift, knowing my background. Go back over all his posts on this thread, read them and then see what you’re feeling inside. This is getting to be an exercise in cruelty and I admit my large part in it. It is one thing to argue with a troll, but I suspect this behavior goes far deeper than trollhood. I have no wish to explain this feeling of mine further for what should be obvious reasons, but I take no pleasure in the continued slaughter.
sicilian 1, you have destroyed all my arguments and exposed me. I am quitting now in deference to your superior intellect, which has exposed me for the progressive I am.
Wow, I’m amazed that this thread is still running strong. After reviewing the recent entries, I have made the following observations about Mr. sicilian:
1. He has an unhealthy fixation on “exposure.”
2. He confuses self-reflection with self-absorption.
3. He treats those who disagree with him as conspirators.
4. He is incapable of being convinced of the possible validity of alternative viewpoints.
5. He resides in a world of either/or theories of truth.
6. He believes that attacking the presumed motives of others is an appropriate tool of rhetoric.
7. He is unable to sustain an exchange of ideas on a single topic.
I am now prepared to reveal Mr. sicilian’s true identity. He is actually Antonin Scalia on speed.
Okay I will try not to add fuel to the fire; but I am laughing!
Sarti,
You define a progressive as I’ve proven ad nauseum.
It is impossible to debate anything w/progressives as I’ve proven ad nauseum.
You’re exposed biases make any debate w/you illegitimate.
You do NOT want to debate you onlly want to “PROVE” yourself right and “PROVE” others wrong.
You repeatedly exposed yourself as a biased, hypocrite who uses dirty rhetoric to win debates, as I’ve proven ad nauseum
Mike S,
You have no credibility as I’ve displayed time after time. You only continue to exhibit your intellectual arrogance.
Playing the psychologist is another progressive rhetorical trick to try to discredit and dismiss their opponents.
I’ve already got inside your head. You played into my trap and continue to indulge me by doing so.
Mike A,
Your progressive tricks are ineffective as I’ve demonstrated over and over.
When all that is left belittle and label.
Keep proving my point
Darn, I thought Mike A. meant Michael Jackson.
Mike A.,
“He is actually Antonin Scalia on speed.”
Now that’s good detective work! I thought his style was familiar . . .
Wow, I’m amazed that this thread is still running strong. After reviewing the recent entries, I have made the following observations about Mr. sicilian:
–
This is what Bartlebee/Cromagnum Man/Waynebro’s MO was/is.
Start fights and then continiue to exasperate everyone until finally declaring himself the winner. He wants to start a private debate site and invite turlees as judges.
Quo usque tandem abutere, siciliana, patientia nostra? Sicilian, if you are going to toss out Latin terms, you must at least be able to fake it properly. The correct phrase is “ad nauseam.” Your writing displays some gender deficiencies. See, once again I have fallen into your clever trap, you diabolical mastermind!
Progressives,
Yes continue to congratulate one another for nothing. All you have done is proven my point.
You take my bait.
Reveal your biases, predjudices, knee-jerk reactions, accuse, presume, assume.
Then jump on soapboxes to assault w/assigned positions of which your opponent has never articulted.
Get defensive and frenzied when your same rhetorical tricks are used against you to reveal what you are.
Then deny what you are while you futiley try to reverse the tactics I have already reversed on you.
Remain ignorant to what has been done and I continue to do to you.
As, in all your arrogance you stubbornly insist that you are playing me.
Understand you can not play the one who initiates the game. Everything is done on my terms. Your continued stubborness to realize how gullible and ignorant you are is your downfall.
All your premises are built upon fallacies. Your tactics are hypocritical. You are guilty of what you accuse others of just by the very fact that I so easily engage you.
But your vapid self-absorbtion will never let you see the light.
So go ahead continue to play to those in the peanut gallery.
Continue to congratulate one another for unrealized victories.
But that is another m.o. of the progressive to gang-up then dismiss and declare victory as you as you hiest one another on your progressive pedastal.
After the way I have exposed your biases and hypocricies. After you have been such easy fodder for my tricks I would hope that you would all engage in some self examination to realize your faults and deficiencies in thought.
Uno absurdo dato, infinita sequuntur.
Almost forgot – generally poor spelling, grammar, and sentence construction are other dead giveaways. He never studied proper English much less Latin…
‘Veni, vidi, vici’
Yes progressives when all you have left, insult and belitte.
Patty C,
I suggest you go and proof read the posts. Your style was compared by your progressive friends to mine.
So I would say you are yucking it up with the enemy.
Don’t believe that your friends took a shot at me at your expense?
2 July 2009 @4:06
Read it and weep. AY took a gratuitous shot at you then no one raised a word in your defense.
But that’s progressive m.o. they’ll cut anyone loose when it’s to their benefit.
Patty C:
“Almost forgot – generally poor spelling, grammar, and sentence construction are other dead giveaways. He never studied proper English much less Latin…
‘Veni, vidi, vici’”
************************
Hey Patty for me it’s “”Veni, Vidi, Dormivi.”
MESPO,
The progressive who tries to affirm the consequent with an obvious example that did not in fact affirm the consequent b/c he did not include a consequent to affirm in the first premise.
More psuedo-intellectual tricks. Then they congratulate themselves and get vicious in there attacks.
Patty C:
Did you hear a buzzing around here? I think it’s the rare self-congratulatory jackass fly (stupidus et extremis). Annoying, pestering, but ultimately easy to swat and of little consequence. How’s your holiday weekend?
snore…
Isn’t that a brass band, I hear, too?
p.s. Weekend was dark and stormy but loose as a goose. How about you?
Patty C:
I hear those trombones coming up in the background too. Anyway, pretty quiet around here. Suffering through a kitchen remodel at our home–I call it my own little stimulus package–and getting ready for the appliance install. I am shedding tears because my Wolf range is out of commission for a while and I’m microwave/takeout pizza bound.
patty c,
Don’t want to admit that who you percieved to be your friends would so readily stab you in the back and use you as fodder for their own purposes.
Remember as you yuck it up that they will cut you loose when the opportunity presents itself.
You show your progressive tendencies. Of course you’re not mad b/c you will probably do the same when the opportunity presents itself to you.
Mespo,
Yes, oh psuedo intellect.
Continue to ignore youe deficiencies the better to convince yourself and those sychophants of your ilk that you are what you think you are and you are who they congratulate you to be.
bzzzzzzzzzzzzzt
BZZZZZZZTTTT
ZAP!
plink.
bzzzzzzzzzzt
BZZZZTTTTTTTT
I didn’t know they made insect zombies.
sicilian1 1, July 6, 2009 at 10:43 pm
patty c,
Don’t want to admit that who you perceived (percieved) [sic] to be your friends would so readily stab you in the back and use you as fodder for their own purposes.
****************************************
Look buddy, take your crap elsewhere. We may fight amongst ourselves. And some may have different feelings about other, but please take your crap elsewhere. I know you need the attention and slarti has even tired of you so direct all of you amine at me, can you?
I suggest that if you do not, you will maybe not like all of the other consequences embellished on this blawg.
Patty C,
Knew it wouldn’t take long before I could bait you into a personal attack. But that is the progressive track. Insult, belittle and get vicious b/c you are all nothing but a psuedo intellectual bunch. It’s only a matter of time before your ignorance rears it’s ugly head.
Just can’t come to terms w/the way you’re friends sold you out. But of course, it means more to be in the progressive crowd then to protect your own dignity.
Remember, when you criticize and insult me, you are doing so to yourself. After all, AY compared your style to mine w/no objections from those in your crowd.
Don’t believe me?
2 July 2009 @4:06
But yes, oh progressive, wallow in your ignorance and hypocricy.
Your continued biting of my bait only reinforces and amuses me all the more.
sicilian1:
“Continue to ignore youe deficiencies the better to convince yourself and those sychophants of your ilk that you are what you think you are and you are who they congratulate you to be.”
********
I don’t ignore them my felonious friend, given their multitude, I bask in them!
“A man only becomes wise when he begins to calculate the approximate depth of his ignorance.”
—Gian Carlo Menotti
Mespo,
You’re insults do not phase me. As an ethnicity who has had war declared upon them by corrupt governments throughout the world I wear my badge of incarceration with honor.
But yes, I have exposed you as an intellectual fraud. Though you ignore the fact that I exposed your inablity to affirm the consequent when you thought it was you who were showing off your intellectual chops, I shall continuously refer to that example so your intellectual facade continues to be exposed.
It amuses me so that you were trying to show how smart you were, trying to talk down to me when in fact you exposed your own ignorance.
mespo727272:
“A man only becomes wise when he begins to calculate the approximate depth of his ignorance.”
——————————————–
you must be one very wise man.
IS:
“mespo727272:”
“you must be one very wise man.”
************
Why, thank you IS. You really have learned something new!
IS,
Couldn’t have said it better. This ignorant only exposes himself more with every post.
Mespo tried to affirm the consequent when he didn’t even put a consequent in the premise.
And Mespo is such an arrogant progressive he fails to realize his own ignorance.
sicilian1:
“You’re insults do not phase me. As an ethnicity who has had war declared upon them by corrupt governments throughout the world I wear my badge of incarceration with honor.”
***********
Methinks, the lady doth protest too much!
Mespo,
Oh, ignorant progressive you can not become wise untill you realize your ignorance. And only by losing your progressive arrogance can you begin to do so.
Mespo,
So what about the fact that you the intellectually superior progressive (sic) tried to affirm the consequent and failed so miserably.
Your inability to put a consequent in the first premise was an astounding exposition of your absolute intellectual inferiority.
Can you cook outside?
Go out and buy a cast iron pizza pan or griddle or something. I have a Lodge chicken fryer with a lid that I got from Amazon, cheap, and seasoned myself, but you can order them seasoned. They are heavy, but the best all around pan ever. Check out Target or Wal-mart, even. They sell woks, hibachis and sportsmen’s grills, too! Get creative.
http://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=chicken+fryer+cast+iron&ta
g=googhydr-20&index=aps&hvadid=2743288765&ref=pd_sl_63pf1k848n_b
I’ll try to think of good easy stuff to make from the fridge, you lucky dog.
Despite what the math may suggest, two half-wits don’t make a whole wit. IS and Sil solved that AND showed their work. It’s the first thing I think they’ve earned an A on.
sniffle
Our little trolls are growing up.
Buddha Is Laughing 1, July 6, 2009 at 11:16 pm
Despite what the math may suggest, two half-wits don’t make a whole wit. IS and Sil solved that AND showed their work. It’s the first thing I think they’ve earned an A on.
********************************
Do they not at least make a Twit or don’t you give a Twit Ass.
Progressives,
The talk of math.
Oh, such great intellects, my math problem awaits your solving.
5 July 2009 @3:45
Patty C:
I’ve got a gas burner on my outdoor grill but I don’t have anywhere to wash pots or pans. The bar sink is under repair too. I am trying to work out of the garage sink. What do you think about a heavy cast iron dutch oven? I can use that on an old Coleman stove I have.
Buddha:
Don’t remonstrate our little foolish friends. I am enjoying their bluster. This obsession with affirming the consequent is hysterical. Apparently a subtle form of the formal fallacy really has him going. Unless it’s written as an if/then statement he’s really crisscrossed–typical novice. That, of course, is why I wrote it that way. I ran into my old undergrad prof at lunch the other day and this is the type of argument he gets from freshman in their first year of logic! I see sicilian1 has at least gotten that far. Brava!
BIL:
I am no more a troll than you or mespo or AY.
I am a man I am not a troll. I am mortal flesh, that feels pain and rejoices in life. I am not a troll, a thousands times no, to bear such ignominy and shame is beyond the limits of human endurance.
I sought affirmation but received ridicule, cruel fates of life lead me to the river. Shall I cross or remain sentient, for another day is nie and promises rebirth and a new chance.
A bullet or the sun? My eternal question.
Mespo,
Oh yes, try to denigrate me after I proved your inferiority. That is the progressive way.
Your argument was in fact inferior and juvenile w/only 2 premises, even if you are given the benifit of the doubt to assume what you were trying to convey.
I already explained to you the difference b/t modus ponens, modus tollens, denying the antecedent and affirming the consequent. I explained to you a negation, disjunction and a conjunction in addition to a conditional (if/then) statement.
I even showed you examples of how they would apply to your incomplete argument. I did you the favor of assuming what your ignorant mind was incapable of expressing.
The fabricated story w/your professor will not cover for your ignorance.
B/c even if they lie of that “run-in” is to be believed it shows that you were to ignorant to even know what you were trying to propose b/c you had to ask someone after your ignorance was exposed.
It also shows you were dishonest in the suppossed question you asked your suppossed professor b/c I only critically dissected what you presented. The question couldn’t have been anything beyond a simple logic 101 question b/c that was all the info you provided.
Just admit your intellectual inferiority was exposed. Then your ego so wounded you had to go run to some progressive professor to sooth yourself, if that is even to be believed
mespo727272:
actually what is logic good for? especially the new logic. One can “prove” a horse is a table but so what?
I dont need to prove gravity, I just need to drop a ball. I dont need to prove that an object remains at rest until acted upon by another, I need only kick a ball.
What good is “formal logic” if you prove a fallacy? Maybe as an exercise to stimulate the brain but little else unless used honestly.
I think you lawyers rely on “formal logic” to prove invalid points to make your case.
I think categories are more important and a prerequisite for logic. You have to be able to differentiate between horse and table.
mespo727272:
I must admit, I think Sicilian1 has a point about that entire Prof. story. That is what it sounded like to me as well.
What do you think about a heavy cast iron dutch oven? I can use that on an old Coleman stove I have.
—
Absolument fabuleux!
Cast iron doesn’t like a lot of soap or scrubbing.
Empty, wipe, rinse, and fire dry. Light oiling with a soft cloth
once in a while…
“…for another day is nie and promises rebirth and a new chance.”"
***********
nie? Which day is “nie?” Let me help, “for another day is [Tuesday] and promises rebirth and a new chance.”
LOL, you guys really are intellectuals.
And sicilian1 I do admit you are the intellectual victor in the world of logic you possess– a lonely world, but at least it’s yours. LOL
IS:
I eat lunch with him once a month, diphthong.
mespo727272:
personally I was just joking around and used nie as an abreviation for the old english “níehst” roughly meaning near.
No more so the intellectual than you looking for quotes on “Bartlets Famous Quotations” to make points that you are unable to make for yourself. I think one refers to that as “second handedness”. At least Scilian1 is trying to make his own points and use his own mind.
mespo727272:
is a dipthong something a girl with 2 butts would wear?
Mespo,
No in the world of practical logic I am the victor.
You are the intellectual ignorant who can’t admit that you presented:
A) half a premise.
B) A second premise that drew a on a non-existent consequent.
C)A conclusion that was impossible to draw from the information in the premises.
Did you tell that to your suppossed professor when you saw him?
You are still such an arrogant that you continue to engage me after I exposed your ignorance, unable to accept that fact which only causes you to further expose yourself for the consumate ignorant that you are.
You know, lawyers are suppossed to be able to put their arguments through a truth table before they present them so they know where are the possible holes in their arguments which their opponents may attack.
You must’ve missed that class. Or maybe you’re just so smug in your psuedo intellect which you’ve probably worked hard at fabricating and which those in your progressive crowd are so used to congratulating that you can no longer see how ignorant you’ve become.
I exposed you yet you persist.
IS:
“At least Scilian1 is trying to make his own points and use his own mind.”
**********
As with Sarah Palin, that’s the scary part.
Good links here from your neck of the woods, mespo.
http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/lifestyles/food_cooking/article/F-DUTC24_20090623-183805/275816/
http://papadutch.home.comcast.net/~papadutch/
mespo – this salad can stand on its own, but also good with grilled chicken.
If you can find tuna steaks how about a Salad Nicoise? If you grill salmon, you can make cakes from a couple of 8 oz leftovers.
You can also steam mussels with a splash of wine or clams in beer in a plastic bag in the microwave. ‘Sautee’ some garlic, bell pepper, and onion and herbs (basil, oregano, thyme) and S&P in olive oil, first to flavor. A baguette and a salad-that’s dinner.
An exotic Moroccan couscous salad with chickpeas, raisins and colorful vegetables coated in a delicately spiced olive oil and lemon dressing. Serves four as a side dish or two as a main meal.
1 cup quick-cooking couscous
¼ cup raisins
1¼ cups boiling chicken or vegetable stock
3 tablespoons extra virgin olive oil
2 tablespoons lemon juice
1 clove garlic—minced
1 teaspoon ground cumin
1 teaspoon ground coriander
½ teaspoon ground ginger
1 teaspoon salt
1 carrot—peeled and grated
½ red pepper—diced
¼ red onion—finely diced
1 cup canned chickpeas—rinsed and drained
2 tablespoons finely chopped flat-leaf parsley
MIX the couscous with the raisins in a bowl and pour over the boiling stock. COVER with a dish towel, plate or plastic wrap to seal in the steam and let sit for 5 minutes. PLACE the oil, lemon juice, garlic, spices, and salt in a jar with a screw-top lid and shake to mix. FLUFF the couscous with a fork to separate the grains and stir through the carrot, red pepper, onion, chickpeas and parsley. POUR over the dressing and toss together until well combined.
—
Mixed Vegetable, Chickpea, Prune & Pine Nut Couscous. Fluffy couscous combined with a selection of colorful vegetables, chickpeas, toasted pine nuts, chopped prunes and Moroccan seasonings.
Insalata di Riso (Italian Rice Salad). Packed with tasty and healthful ingredients including tuna, tomatoes, toasted pine nuts, mushrooms, peas, cubed mozzarella cheese, artichoke hearts and peppers.
Moroccan Chicken & Olive Tagine with Almond Couscous. Tasty chicken and olive tagine, served over a bed of almond-studded couscous.
If I may be so bold as to return to the nominal subject of this thread, Senator Al Franken will be sworn in today, July 7, 2009. At long last. Mazel tov!
Mespo,
You said on:
July 2, 2009 @9:21pm.
“My examole was a classic example of the formal logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.”
The info you gave for your argument was on :
July 2, 2009 @8:31 pm.
“1. All jackasses bray loudly.”
“2. sicilian1 brays loudly.
“3. Ipso facto, sicilian 1 is a loud jackass!”
So, You have stated that that was an example of affirming the consequent.
According to your info it would be impossible to affirm the consequent b/c there was no consequent in the first premise. The whole idea about affirming the consequent is to prove the antecedent. Obviously the only way to prove the antecedent is to have a consequent to affirm.
B/c your argument has incomplete info it would be absolutlely impossible to conclude anything deductively or even inductively.
But, ignorant as you are, I will give you an assist.
Giving you the benefit of the doubt lets put the argument in a form better to prove your point.
1. (If all jackasses bray loudly and if sicilian1 brays loudly) then sicilian1 is a loud jackass
2. sicilian1 brays loudly
C. sicilian1 is a loud jackass!
That would be a modus ponens argument as I explained it to you before.
The antecedent of the 1st premise is in the form of a conjunction() which then leads to the consequent of the conditional statement (You, yourself set it up in if/then form)
In the second premise the antecedent of the 1st premise () is affirmed b/c both premises are true but only b/c your faulty logic has declared them to be true.
That would lead one to conclude that the consequent of the 1st premise MUST be true.
As was said that is what you call CLASSIC modus ponens argumentation.
With your info trying to put it in as you claimed; classis affirming the consequent form it would look more like this:
1. (If all jackassess bray loudly and sicilian1 brays loudly)then sicilian1 is a loud jackass
2. sicilian1 is a loud jackass
C. All jackassess bray loudly and sicilian1 brays loudly.
You task in affirming the consequent is to prove the antecedent true which you fallaciously try to trick your audience into believing your conclusion to be true. (ALL affirming the consequents as a rule are fallacious)(But in argumentation you do not care about truth or fallacy ONLY what you can prove)
So, in your second premise you have affirmed your consequent which by rule means your antecedent has been proven true.
But do you see how in your ignorance, even if one bends over backward to try and interpret what your inferior mind was trying to articulate, if your info is plugged in to affirm the consequent, which you stated your example to be a classic representation of, that it only proves that jackasses and sicilian1 bray loudly. NOT that sicilian1 is a jackass which is what you intended to conclude.
Do you see how you’ve been exposed as an intellectual charlatan. I was able to use your own quotes (July 2, 2009 @8:31/July 2, 2009 @9:31)That is how any skilled attorney would operate. I used your own words to prove my point that you are only an intllectual fraud.
So not only are you ignorant. But you double your ignorance by thinking that you’re schooling another when all you ended up accomplishing was magnifying your own ignorance. Then you triple your ignorance by refusing to admit your ignorance. Then you continue to compound you ignorance by rationalizing, manipulating and trying to re-frame what you said or re-define what were your intended accomplishments.
You need to engage in a deep existential inquiry of your soul to come to terms w/the inyellectual facade you present to the outside world and your failure to truly admit how ignorant you really are. B/c if you continue to bask in your vapidity and try to present yourself as something you are not then you will never have true peace of mind. You will only continue the losing battle of trying to prove the unprovable about yourself or even attain that of which you are not endowed with the abilities to attain.
You are an ignorant and a fraud. But that does not mean that is a static state. I would say you should search your soul to correct your flaws and come to a more complete state of being.
Patty,
Thank you for the couscous recipe, I was looking for one after having some delicious couscous this weekend. I personally prefer cast iron for all my cooking, but my wife won’t let me buy it because she says it to heavy for her. This is strange since I do all the cooking, by her choice.
Mespo,
Have you taken up the cudgel? Wouldn’t ignoring be more fun?
As to IS I think he sees himself as a gadfly from the Right. If he could only understand the definitions better maybe he could be.
mespo writes: I’ve got a gas burner on my outdoor grill but I don’t have anywhere to wash pots or pans. The bar sink is under repair too. I am trying to work out of the garage sink. What do you think about a heavy cast iron dutch oven? I can use that on an old Coleman stove I have.
I think this is what restaurants were invented for. and carry out.
the problem with the coleman is that you probably can’t get it hot enough to do anything interesting and for sure heat a cast iron dutch oven all the way through. you’d do better with a campfire. what you can do if you are really determined is to heat water from your garden hose on the coleman stove to wash smaller dishes in a large soup pot. all in all it seems much more trouble than its worth unless you really like that sort of thing.