Is this ethical?

[bradleym]

You use quotation and speech marks more than the BBC. And the statement below struck me as wholly arrogant:

 

But if you insist on making simplistic, and frankly antagonistic statements, then don't be surprised if someone who appreciates the complexities of the situation eventually throws up his hands and gets nasty about it.

 

When liberals use this simplistic and, frankly, antagonistic strategy, they shouldn't be surprised when thinking people eventually throw up their hands and get nasty about it.

 

Ha, ha, this from CC's resident Vogon-in-chief. I certainly didn't expect _you_ to understand any of this. You demonstrate every day that you haven't even the _capacity_ to understand it. That is ok, i pity you.

 

And no, I don't plan to meet you at the trailhead for a fistfight. You might hurt me.

 

By reducing a topic as complex as our current economic crisis and the appropriate response to a few simplistic statements, when clearly (to thinking people) it isn't simple, and to introduce topics with prejudicial and inflammatory language, well, ye reap what ye sow, I guess, only jmo cannot take the heat.

 

I think at this point you should tell me to FOAD. It will destroy my argument and prove your brilliance beyond doubt. That is what its all about, correct?

[el jefe]

the real laugh here is bedwetter presuming to speak for "thinking" people!

[ivan]

Ha, ha, this from CC's resident Vogon-in-chief.

insult of the day!

[Fairweather]

You use quotation and speech marks more than the BBC. And the statement below struck me as wholly arrogant:

 

But if you insist on making simplistic, and frankly antagonistic statements, then don't be surprised if someone who appreciates the complexities of the situation eventually throws up his hands and gets nasty about it.

 

When liberals use this simplistic and, frankly, antagonistic strategy, they shouldn't be surprised when thinking people eventually throw up their hands and get nasty about it.

 

Ha, ha, this from CC's resident Vogon-in-chief. I certainly didn't expect _you_ to understand any of this. You demonstrate every day that you haven't even the _capacity_ to understand it. That is ok, i pity you.

 

And no, I don't plan to meet you at the trailhead for a fistfight. You might hurt me.

 

By reducing a topic as complex as our current economic crisis and the appropriate response to a few simplistic statements, when clearly (to thinking people) it isn't simple, and to introduce topics with prejudicial and inflammatory language, well, ye reap what ye sow, I guess, only jmo cannot take the heat.

 

I think at this point you should tell me to FOAD. It will destroy my argument and prove your brilliance beyond doubt. That is what its all about, correct?

 

Now you're publicly implying that I've somehow threatened you at some point in the past and are (falsely) claiming that I end discussions with FOAD? Wow; you really are a little pussy. I think you either have me confused with the resident angerlibtard GGK, or are trying to make some sort of crybaby statement because I called you out on your oft-demonstrated arrogance. Please, share with us all your brilliance-resume--the one that you believe those with whom you disagree lack. I think you're giving yourself way too much credit.

[Fairweather]

Ha, ha, this from CC's resident Vogon-in-chief.

insult of the day!

 

I'm not sure what a Vogon is, but I suspect it's not nearly as bad as a pot-addicted social studies teacher who ignores his family on weekends so he can belay (and lower) Ron Jeremy up the next half-pitch.

[ivan]

Ha, ha, this from CC's resident Vogon-in-chief.

insult of the day!

 

I'm not sure what a Vogon is, but I suspect it's not nearly as bad as a pot-addicted social studies teacher who ignores his family on weekends so he can belay (and lower) Ron Jeremy up the next half-pitch.

the only thing i'm addicted to is you, dude - and i ain't ever quitting you!

 

and as a compassionate libtard, i seriously commend you to read the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy, from whence the vogon reference springs - it might even cure you of your vehemence?

[el jefe]

fairweather's posts are pure vogon poetry...

[ivan]

fairweather's posts are pure vogon poetry...

nah - as i recall classic vogon poetry causes advanced sedation and ultimatley spontaneous suicide - FW's prose just makes folks pissed off and crotchety

[jmo]

I love the way that you guys project your own intolerance and bias on to others...Up until now, I've hardly thrown any mud, despite all that's been thrown back at me. I have better things to do with my time than argue with a bunch of third grade dropouts who can convince themselves they are right by bashing down every who disagrees with them. Enjoy your litter box.

 

jmo, i hate to be the one pointing this out, and i don't suppose you will accept it, but here goes...

 

You began recently to post statements, assertions and leading questions that perhaps in your mind are 'true' or 'factual' or 'clear as day'. Things like, 'Obama is no messiah', 'why is Obama appointing criminals?', 'Obama is out to destroy capitalism', 'Obama wants to infringe our civil rights', etc (some of these are paraphrased, but i think the essence is accurate). You've also stated several times that the market has fallen significantly since the election, or since the inauguration, as though there is a direct correlation and there might not be anything else than Obama out there in the wide world that is driving markets.

 

In the case of the FOX article that you employed to 'prove' your assertion that 'Obama is no messiah' (no one here, certainly not me, ever asserted that he was--classic strawman), I attempted to demonstrate to you that the reality addressed by that article is a little more complicated than the article would have us believe. I didn't 'prove' that the article was wrong (not my intent), but that it wasn't exactly right either. I don't think that has sunk in with you--in which case, you might be a little more hesitant about your statements--and maybe it never will.

 

You wish to engage in 'civil political debate', yet you insist on declaring that the analyses and solutions to problems are very simple, and that the Obama administration are either very cynical or very stupid for not realizing how simple things really are. (How can we pronounce such final judgements on an administration that is less than two months old, anyway?)

 

For example, you stated in another thread that there are four or so things you would do about the economic situation were you president. Yet, reducing spending to balance the budget could actually make it worse, counter-intuitive as that may seem. Econ 101 describes the economy as a circulation of wealth, and recessions are in part the absence of circulation, so there may actually be a role for government in trying to restart that circulation, even at the risk of future inflation due to deficits. Balanced budgets result as much from increased tax receipts due to a strong economy as they do from cutting spending.

 

There is plenty to debate in the above paragraph, and i'd be happy to do so--i might learn something.

 

But if you insist on making simplistic, and frankly antagonistic statements, then don't be surprised if someone who appreciates the complexities of the situation eventually throws up his hands and gets nasty about it.

 

It has little to do with 'liberal' v 'conservative'. I get in just as much trouble around here with j_b as i might with you, and those labels just serve to perpetuate simplistic and uninteresting shouting matches, when in fact there are interesting things to talk about.

 

Bradley,

 

I sent this as a PM, but your box is full.

 

You brought up some good points both in the debate and about it. Someone else mentioned that some of the things I posted were passive aggressive instead of openly aggressive, and I posted an apology in one of these threads. Sometimes we miss our own bias in what we post.

 

There are several different attitudes here, and the different personalities become apparent quickly. I enjoyed the discussions with you and a few others. It seemed that some posters didn't even read what wrote before attacking me for things I specifically said I was against.

 

Your posts about the Earmarks made me stop and think about it for a bit. It wouldn't be politically feasible for Obama to go on a crusade against earmarks, so it's understandable that he went along with it recently. He should have known better and not campaigned on that position, but I'll cut him some slack here and not hold it against him. There are plenty of bigger things.

 

You are also right that there is no direct correlation between Obama and the stock markets plunge. I believe it was related to him, but I should be more careful about presenting my beliefs as facts. "Obama is no messiah"? Strawman arguement. Point taken. "Obama appointing criminals." Iflammatory, yes but they have all admitted to not paying them. "Obama want to take away our civil liberties." That is a fact that can proven. The 2nd Amendment is a civil right and Obama has a very long history of supporting legislation to infringe it.

 

can't take the heat or not worth my time? People will think what they want to. Maybe it's a little of both. When people post intelligent thoughtful replies, it's worthwhile. When I get attacked by people for things I haven't even said or implied I start to wonder. I realize that my comment about him being the messiah wasn't very helpful. In any case, I've gotten many complaints from my wife about spending too much time here.

 

To end it all, thank you for the intelligent and educational post. I will keep in mind what wrote, though there are still some that will get nasty no matter how I write things.

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Ha, ha, this from CC's resident Vogon-in-chief.

insult of the day!

 

I'm not sure what a Vogon is, but I suspect it's not nearly as bad as a pot-addicted social studies teacher who ignores his family on weekends so he can belay (and lower) Ron Jeremy up the next half-pitch.

the only thing i'm addicted to is you, dude - and i ain't ever quitting you!

 

and as a compassionate libtard, i seriously commend you to read the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy, from whence the vogon reference springs - it might even cure you of your vehemence?

 

OMFG, FW didn't know what a Vogon is? And he claims to be into Sci Fi?

 

Dudes, I bet he's never seen Dark Star either.

 

BUSTED ASS?

 

OOOOOOHHHHHH YEEEAAAAAHHHHHHHH

Edited March 9, 2009 by tvashtarkatena

[KaskadskyjKozak]

fairweather's posts are pure vogon poetry...

nah - as i recall classic vogon poetry causes advanced sedation and ultimatley spontaneous suicide - FW's prose just makes folks pissed off and crotchety

 

libtards are by nature pissed-off and crotchety. j_b exemplifies this phenomenon.

 

[ivan]

 

libtards are by nature pissed-off and crotchety.

why limit it political persuasion? it's pretty much humans in general - our political creeds just give us somethign specific to be pissed about, to focus the pre-existing back ground angst

[tvashtarkatena]

Welcome to the Planet of the Angry, Furless Monkeys

[ivan]

Welcome to the Planet of the Angry, Furless Monkeys

i woulnd' think of you as "furless" tvash

[bradleym]

Now you're publicly implying that I've somehow threatened you at some point in the past and are (falsely) claiming that I end discussions with FOAD? Wow; you really are a little pussy. I think you either have me confused with the resident angerlibtard GGK, or are trying to make some sort of crybaby statement because I called you out on your oft-demonstrated arrogance. Please, share with us all your brilliance-resume--the one that you believe those with whom you disagree lack. I think you're giving yourself way too much credit.

 

QED.

[bradleym]

fairweather's posts are pure vogon poetry...

nah - as i recall classic vogon poetry causes advanced sedation and ultimatley spontaneous suicide - FW's prose just makes folks pissed off and crotchety

 

libtards are by nature pissed-off and crotchety. j_b exemplifies this phenomenon.

 

you write nice poetry too.

[Fairweather]

 

QED.

 

I don't think so. You are an arrogant little fuck, though. □

[kevbone]

What is this thread about?

[Off_White]

A cursory reading suggests that JMO is trying to have a civil political debate, the kind where you read and consider what someone else has posted, rebut their positions and acknowledge their points.

[billcoe]

 

QED.

 

I don't think so. You are an arrogant little fuck, though. □

 

 

"Q.E.D. is an abbreviation of the Latin phrase quod erat demonstrandum, which literally means "which was to be demonstrated". The phrase is written in its abbreviated form at the end of a mathematical proof or philosophical argument, to signify that the last statement deduced was the one to be demonstrated, so the proof is complete."

 

Proof complete. BTW FW, Bradleys seems like a pretty good guy, no reason getting all aggro. Life's already too short.

 

Take care all!

[el jefe]

A cursory reading suggests that JMO is trying to have a civil political debate, the kind where you read and consider what someone else has posted, rebut their positions and acknowledge their points.

 

something more than "a cursory reading", off white, would reveal jmo engaged in his usual tactic of setting up a straw man argument in order to disseminate a false interpretation of events, working under the guise of "trying to have civil political debate". his "he's no messiah" thread is another example of the same tactic. this guy deliberately misinterprets events in order to push his agenda, then pretends those who call him on his bullshit are unwilling to engage in a "civil political debate". he considers it "uncivil" to be confronted with the facts. "civil" behavior, on the other hand, is to accept his false assumption and debate an imaginary issue that misses the real point. in this case, jmo wants to "discuss" the obama administration's attempts to limit rush limbaugh's right to free speech -- how unethical for people on the government payroll" to do this! the truth, however, is that the democratic administration is promoting the idea that rush is the voice of the republican party and, as a consequence, they are actually encouraging limbaugh to exercise his right to speak his mind. certainly there isn't anything unethical about those on the govt payroll encouraging a citizen to exercise his right to free speech.

 

[ivan]

i usually curse when i read too

[el jefe]

i usually curse when i read too

 

if i spent my sunday grading papers, i'd curse when i read, too.

[kevbone]

deliberately misinterprets events in order to push his agenda

 

 

I get it....kind of like the last eight years.

[Chuck_Norris]

Here is a fact: Kevbone is the only impacted stool that I have to punch out of my anus. You can see my obvious discomfort in Walker Texas Ranger episode 34, season 2. In that episode we pass off it off as "work-related stress" that causes me to take the docs advice and go on a fishing trip. But then I end up kicking ass anyway with the local druggies.