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.
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.
Slart,
You fool, you fell into Sicilian’s trap of revealing your true male agenda.
My advice, quit feeding the troll.
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 ;-)]
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,
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.
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,
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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…)
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).
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.
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
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.