quote:

Originally posted by Markle:
.
There is no topic so elevated that it can't be twisted into your ideological box, so that you can declare that your girl, who seems to think Constitutional provisions about the VP are made of rubber, to be bent and molded to please, is therefore "correct." Because everyone on your "side" is always correct.
.

Markle those are your words stupid. You are describing yourself to a T. You are the one molding and bending what was said to fit your personal preconceived notions.

Show us were Governor Palin's comments in the debate are twisting Constitutional provisions. Senator Biden couldn't even get the Articles of the Constitution correct. He is on the Senate Judiciary commitee. He totes himself as a constitutional scholar.

Oh yeah I almost forgot this one Markle.

Your delusion that Senator Hussein stood up to pressure from the Clinton's in not picking Hillary for VP it looks like Bill Clinton came out in support of broeder Rico on that one.

quote:

There is no topic so elevated that it can't be twisted into your ideological box, so that you can declare that your girl, who seems to think Constitutional provisions about the VP are made of rubber, to be bent and molded to please, is therefore "correct." Because everyone on your "side" is always correct.

Markle, can you read? You're like one of those stupid (and that's not an insult, I mean it as a descriptor) liberal judges who cannot read and understand the words "Congress shall make no law…" and then proceeds to ignore such clear words and create a bunch of laws anyway. You seem to have no respect for logic, truth, evidence, or facts. You are a walking "I'm rubber, you're glue, everything you say bounces off of me and sticks to you" ignoramus (again, I mean that to be descriptive, not an insult). The Articles of the Constitution are clear enough on the issues of the powers and position of the VP. Are you really a lawyer or have you been making that up all along? No lawyer could be that stupid. And, again, I don't mean that as an insult, I mean it as a descriptor. Your mind just cannot comprehend a fact that doesn't fit in precisely with your weaselly (yes, an insult on that one) little liberal view of the world. Again, either you were dropped on your head as an infant or you really do not understand your near psychopathic use of psychological projection as everything that you do you blame others for. It's amazing. You are a textbook case of something, I'm just not sure what.

.
Oooooh, look! A lecture by Bozo on the protocols of discussion!
.

Your delusion that Senator Hussein stood up to pressure from the Clinton's in not picking Hillary for VP it looks like Bill Clinton came out in support of broeder Rico on that one.

Oooo…that's a tough one, Rico. Using what a serial liar says as evidence. What seems apparent enough is that Bill is working against Obama, at least a little. He mentioned the other day that it was McCain who had warned about Fanny Mae. It's therefore quite plausible that Hillary let it be known through back channels that she wasn't interested in the VP slot. If so, of course Obama isn't go to publicly ask her and face the humiliation of her turning him down. But I find it difficult to take anything Clinton says as trustworthy.

quote:

Clinton also agreed that sexism played a part in the defeat of his wife's presidential bid. "I think there's been some of it but a lot of it has been subconscious, which may make it more insidious," he said, adding that in West Virginia, exit polls actually asked voters if Obama's race and Hillary's gender had anything to do with they way they voted. The results were 15 percent and 20 percent, respectively, said 'yes.'

This is, of course, just more liberal nonsense. Democrats specifically and constantly make note of sex and race when running for office and talking about issues. They would be lost without stirring up resentment and envy based on race, sex, and even sexual preference. It is their lot in life to act as sort of a parasite on society; a society that almost assuredly would have settled down into racial comity by now, which it was on its way to doing before the left radicalized the civil rights movement and they became a bunch of Jesse Jacksons, large and small.

In last few posts you guts have resorted to calling Markle an "idiot" and "stupid."

Now you guys have truly lost all credibility.
Game over.

I think it's a stretch to say Biden bombed. I wanted him to bomb, oh yes I did... but I actually think he did OK, and it was a fairly even debate. And because of that, Palin scores, because Biden should have been able to mop the floor with her. That she was so game, shows she has some chops.

Here's the thing I think is going on with Markle. Remember back a few pages ago where he characterized Brad as a Goldberg groupie, and figures he believes "Liberals are nazis"? Well, now he won't listen to anything Brad says.

What Markle needs, in order to ever enter into a meaningful dialog with Brad, is something from Brad like, well, not every Nazi worked at a gas chamber, or dumped bodies in ovens. That would be true. And yet in Germany during the reich, regular grandmas in their homes, making their spaetzle and sauerbraten, were nazis. Had nazi flags and pictures of the Führer in their homes.

We're talking about ideologies here. A belief system that LED to atrocities, even though not every subscriber was a gestapo agent or a jew-killer. Liberalism (in its postmodern, democratic party sense) is a political belief system that has anchors in a kind of thinking where the state did spiral out of control into tyranny.

Brad has always attacked the attitudes and ideas of this belief system. Markle just wants him to admit that if he walked into some dem-voting grandma's house in Saugus, Mass, he wouldn't kill her as she bakes her apple pie. He wants to know that he doesn't EQUATE her with a nazi. The problem with the politically correct, or modern american liberals is that moral equivalency. While Markle emphasizes the reality that the grandma ain't in fact a danger, Brad argues that the overarching ideas have the potential, that's potential, to turn even grandma into a democratic party drone, and the apple-pie oven into one where she's happy to pitch the US Constitution into.

The funny thing is, brother Markle has the same fears the other way, with these so-called right wing-nuts. He's JUST as afraid as Brad of a belief system that will somehow magically turn people into worst-case Americans.

One of my pet-peeves has always been worst-case-American thinking. It's a foregone conclusion now that we expect the worst of people. Sometimes, sure, they warrant that. But sometimes they don't. The left's treatment of Sarah Palin is textbook. They flat out assume she's somehow going to force rape-victims to give birth to rapist-spawn. When really all she's done is have the nads to voice HER opinion on the subject of abortion. To actually fear that she will have the power to singlehandedly overthrow Roe v. Wade is ridiculous. Bush feels the same way about abortion, and he didn't do it. The Constitution he swore an oath to preserve, protect, and defend, won't let him. Power will never be concentrated in the hands of one guy to the point where they'd EVER be able to do an end run around the American People. That's euro-thinking. Monarchic thinking.

My liberal friends (which account for almost all of my friends except my thalo.net brothers), are expressing all kinds of hatred and anger at Bush and Palin and Republicans. I mean it's real snarling hatred. They hate Bush for the war. And yet it was probably the best thing America ever did, go into Iraq. It was the first move on the chessboard that is going to eventually lead to peace in the Middle East. That it's a TOUGH war, goes without saying. But at least we went there. And lo and behold, it worked. No more domestic terror attacks. Why? Because we're in Iraq. And Afghanistan. The war on terror, sorry, HAS to be fought on more than one front. Eventually it's going to be WWIII and include Iran, probably. But a stable Iraq that's our ally might--might actually stop that. Which it wouldn't from piddly remote Afghanistan.

My lib friends hate Palin. Can't stand her. Why? Abortion. "Pray away the gay." And probably because she can shoot a gun at an animal without blinking, and then eat the meat. But if they met Sarah at a PTA meeting, they'd probably love her. It's because of worst-case American thinking that they hate her. They think she's going to force her beliefs on them and the country.

But when a republican "forces their beliefs" on the country, it's usually beliefs they already have. When democrats do it, however, it's almost always based on the premise that government is the answer. And that's where I think there's more potential for disaster. Yes, not every grandma in the reich worked the jew-ovens, but the idea of a state that had its hooks in every part of her life could have conceivably pressured her to display her political loyalty or face punishment. Maybe burn a book. That's because as an ideology it often ACTED on worst-case german fears, and created a state that went totally off the deep end and forced it into tyrannical thinking, and from that outgrew the idea of the master-race, and the superiority of aryans over others.

We have to be vigilant in this country to take an idea like BEST-case American thinking, and make sure it means expecting the best from us, under our Constitution... keeping power in the hands of the people. And not turning it into elitism and superiority, which often characterizes state ideologies which put government above and on top of the people. The liberal democratic philosophy does this. Which is why it has a kind of intrinsic danger. And OF COURSE, Saugus-grandma is the farthest thing in the world from a book-burning political zealot. But plant her in a garden where it's accepted that government controls her every move, and starts being able to strongarm her into living her life in such a way where she serves the state, instead of where the state serves her... and suddenly worst-case-American scenarios seem a bit closer and scarier.

And yet, to understand why this kind of thinking is a peeve of mine, you have to believe that there's such a thing as self-fulfilling prophecies. That the more you tell people they're chimps, the quicker they'll become exactly that. Hitler told a small elite group of blonde-haired, blue-eyed germans that they were better than everybody in the world. That they DESERVED dominion, by birthright.
Meanwhile he told others that they weren't worth keeping alive. That they were dirty and disgusting and not useful for anything but manual labor.

quote:

In last few posts you guts have resorted to calling Markle an "idiot" and "stupid."

Now you guys have truly lost all credibility.
Game over.

Credibility is lost not by a few adjectives, but by doing little more than you and Markle do. And that's throwing around these little Argument Clinic phrases which say nothing, argue nothing, present nothing, and prove nothing other than that liberals like you and Markle are all about besmirching people rather than arguing the points. Markle continually refuses to engage the issues and resorts to the same sort of low-brow stuff that characterizes what you think passes for an argument. If I'd "lost all credibility" as many times as you guys have said, I would have had none to lose a long time ago. Join the cast of idiots, Snobby. You're one of them. Present some ideas regarding anything of substance, and I'm there with bells on as usual. But you, Markle, and now Darr just seem to have nothing buy emotional arguments meant to impugn someone's character. That might work in real life, but on an internet forum its value (at least here at thalo.net) is next to nothing. Every time you guys take this tack it's like you're arguing with the umpires after you've already been rung up.

quote:

Bush feels the same way about abortion, and he didn't do it.

Of course a president doesn't have the direct power to overturn a Supreme Court decision. Not even Cheney's "unitary executive" theory went that far. But presidents appoint Supreme Court justices, and vice presidents who become presidents appoint Supreme Court justices. Bush has appointed two very conservative justices, including the current Chief. Legal observers say we're only one vote--i.e., one justice--away from overturning Roe.

Personally, I subscribe to the belief that if a conservative Supreme Court did overturn Ros it would be the best thing that ever happened for the Democrats. The majority of the country supports legal abortion. The outrage against Republicans for the overturning of Roe would sweep them out of office. Republicans don't really want to overturn Roe anyway; once it happens they will have lost the biggest issue they have to stir up their "base." Best to keep it alive so they can campaign against it. If Bush should by chance have to appoint another justice before he leaves office in a few months, he'd probably think twice before appointing another Scalia or Thomas or Alito or Roberts and guarantee the deathknell of his party by assuring the end of Roe.

BTW, have you noticed that, so far, abortion has not been a very noisy issue this time?
.

quote:

liberals like you and Markle are all about besmirching people rather than arguing the points.

Liberals like "Senator Hussein?"
.

The funny thing is, brother Markle has the same fears the other way, with these so-called right wing-nuts. He's JUST as afraid as Brad of a belief system that will somehow magically turn people into worst-case Americans.

And Brad has argued before that this is self-induced hysteria of the left is there for political advantage, not because it in any way, shape, or form reflects reality. And it works. Snobby Robby, Markle, and others show how it can really work. They're often in here the next day with the talking points I've already heard from three or four others. If we're ever going to maintain our freedoms in this country, we have just all got to learn to think for ourselves. We can certainly get good ideas from other, but if we are just parrots we are doing liberty no favors.

One of my pet-peeves has always been worst-case-American thinking. It's a foregone conclusion now that we expect the worst of people. Sometimes, sure, they warrant that. But sometimes they don't. The left's treatment of Sarah Palin is textbook. They flat out assume she's somehow going to force rape-victims to give birth to rapist-spawn.

I agree. One of the political tactics (or tactics in any area of life where humans are involved) is the use of exaggeration and scare tactics. If you want to get technical, it's actually a good idea to be paranoid rather than the reverse, at least some of the time. You only have to be right one out of twenty times (or so) for this trait to pay off. And remember, I'm talking about these human traits having been developed in our hunter-gatherer days when 99% of all human-specific traits are thought to have developed. Someone whistling and walking through the tall grass without a care in the world is soon lion food. Paranoia and exaggerating small fears has evolutionary merit. But it's also a trait, like all of our human traits, which can be gamed. Our desire to love and be loved is gamed by religion (and by politicians too, especially the Obama types). Name a human trait and I'll bet you can think of how it is being regularly gamed. The point is not to turn all cynical but to be wide-eyed about what is actually going on. Of course sometimes a small warning sign can indeed turn into something major. But the history of the left is ignoring the real warning signs and drumming up false ones. Anyone could have read "Mein Kampf" and know what Hitler was about. Churchill did. Neville remained clueless. Anyone could read the writings of Hamas, the PLO, al-Qadae or various other violent Islamic organizations and know where they're coming from. But still the Jimmy Carters and Obamas of the world think that all it will take is a little personal schmoozing to turn them around. It's actually a good idea to be a little paranoid. But it's a better idea to be able to take in and acknowledge the facts that are obvious (such as the fact that the VP presides over the Senate, breaks tie votes, and whose duties are indeed described partly in the Legislative section of the Constitution). But liberals (progressives, remember) are about making over the world as they see fit without regard to law, logic, or just the evidence of whether their policies help or hurt. It's power and action for action's sake based. I think Goldberg makes this point rather well in "Liberal Fascism."

…keeping power in the hands of the people. And not turning it into elitism and superiority, which often characterizes state ideologies which put government above and on top of the people.

Mark Steyn say in With a Wink and a Smile:

quote:

Sarah, at her best, sounded like the citizen-politician this country’s Founders intended. She hasn’t voted 397 times against this or that in the U.S. Senate, because she’s been running a state, and a town, and a commercial fishing operation. She’s a doer, not a talker, which is why so many of my fellow professional talkers disdain her.

I've had my moments in my life of being a snob, but mostly I've just never looked down on the common man or woman. I know the wisdom and knowledge of the typical Joe or Jane on the street is often superior to the knowledge of those in power. Having the kind of knowledge it takes to get and maintain political power doesn't necessarily make anyone a rocket surgeon. And one look at Biden and a number of politicians makes this clear. Palin is like kryptonite to those who tie their egos to their fancy suits, their cars, their power lunches, etc. All of this kind of stuff counts for something in the normal BS of city and business life. But America is the way it is because it was based on higher ideals than having nice hair and a fancy car. And I don't care how Palin pronounces her "O's" or how small the town she comes from is. That kind of stuff is threatening only to people who put too much value on the superficial and whose lives are likely propped up by too much of it.

quote:

They're often in here the next day with the talking points I've already heard from three or four others. If we're ever going to maintain our freedoms in this country, we have just all got to learn to think for ourselves.

Yeah.... This from the guy who's in here every day copying and pasting half the right-wing internet at us.

He absolutely has no understanding of his own tics and actions.
.

quote:

One of the political tactics (or tactics in any area of life where humans are involved) is the use of exaggeration and scare tactics. If you want to get technical, it's actually a good idea to be paranoid rather than the reverse, at least some of the time.

The reverse is gullible. And scare tactics don't work if you're not. Everyone I know, even my dad, who's a really bright guy, has fallen for the scare tactics of the government about the economic bailout plan. Where every fiber of my being said this was a masterful long con operation, everybody else is going oh wow, we have to get some money into the system, or nobody will be able to borrow. Uh, ya think? Excessive and irresponsible borrowing put us here. And I didn't see anything in the bill that said what's happening NOW isn't more of the same.

I assume this isn't a joke:

Obama Youth - Junior Fraternity Regiment

quote:

The reverse is gullible. And scare tactics don't work if you're not. Everyone I know, even my dad, who's a really bright guy, has fallen for the scare tactics of the government about the economic bailout plan. Where every fiber of my being said this was a masterful long con operation, everybody else is going oh wow, we have to get some money into the system, or nobody will be able to borrow. Uh, ya think? Excessive and irresponsible borrowing put us here. And I didn't see anything in the bill that said what's happening NOW isn't more of the same.

Everyone and their mother is (or was, now that they passed something in Congress) screaming that economic collapse was imminent unless there was an immediate bailout. And that might have been all well and good if I would have heard the majority in Congress:

A) Point out what the problem was
B) Acknowledge the fault for that problem
C) Show how they were planning to fix that problem
D) Show how the bailout package actually fixed the problem

I don't think any of these points were even remotely achieved. The credit markets may be placated for now, but what's to say there won't be another, even bigger mess in a few years?

It's apparently actually a fascist thing when the profits of companies are private but the losses become socialized. If not technically fascist, it's bizarre, unfair, and unsound. Gullibility is an emotion or intellectual susceptibility that I'm not really all that sure about. It exists, for sure. A certain mount of flexibility in human thought is a must or we would be dull stones unable to adapt and soak up new information and ideas. On the other hand, too much gullibility and it's quickly Jonestown. No one really knows what genes, or sets of genes (at least as far as I know) are responsible for these traits. But they do seem to be traits. And regarding anything genetic or behavioral, there's usually a bell curve of some kind describing that behavior. The vast majority of the people are clumped toward the middle of that bell curve, but there are also extremes on either end. Genetic diversity, basically.

I think people at large can also be indoctrinated into gullibility, of course. It can be increased. And through thalo.net, Penn & Teller's "Bullshit," South Park, Chris Rock, and others there is also the ability to decrease gullibility by separating the facts from the bullshit. But on some of these economic questions, I just don't have the kind of background to answer them definitively. (Hell, who does? They all seem like a bunch of chimps out there.) But we could easily be back at square one in a few years. The underlying problem was never addressed so I can't imagine that they've actually plugged the leak. Did they actually repeal the Community Reinvestment Act, for instance?

If that wasn't so scary it should be funny.

I guess the outside world doesn't understand Senator Hussein isn't a muslim.

How dare they manipulate those nice American children singing for Hussien.

Brett Baier's report on Fox on the financial meltown is magnificent. They've been running it over and over. It's on right now.

Brett Baier's report on Fox on the financial meltown is magnificent. They've been running it over and over. It's on right now.

Yeah, Thanks for the heads-up. I just got done watching that report. Seemed very non-Scientologist and non-fear-mongering to me. So I'm not the only American wondering then, "When will you assholes expect us to bail you out again?" And his point on the kind of change Washington needed, and who might provide it, was a great one. I really wish McCain would boldly step up to the plate on this, but he didn't. Few did. And if you can't name the beast, you can't kill it.

The Dodgers really do look like the team to beat. They swept the Cubs. It wasn't even a contest. And early money might be on a Dodgers-Red Sox World Series. Tampa Bay might have something to say about that, but I can't imagine the Dodgers doing anything but steam-rolling over either the Phillies or the Brewers.

quote:

If not technically fascist.....

Mr. "Think-for-yourself" is now a Goldberg pod person.
.

Mr. "Think-for-yourself" is now a Goldberg pod person.

You're really going over the edge, Markle. WALK AWAY FROM THE EDGE!!! LOL.