Fux Freakout

[j_b]

you are a scumbag for evading the issue once again

And what are you for hurling yet another lame insult, you Internet Tough Guy.

 

anybody else noticed that Attila suddenly discovered "internet tough guys" after years of spewing abusive garbage at people in spray? what a "whiiinerrrrr". LOLZ

[Kimmo]

I don't understand. Are you saying you were not being serious? It wasn't obvious, especially since many people around here claim to have some ability to understand people's psychology from their writing (or rather what they read into it). Anyway, sorry if I jumped to conclusions.

 

i'd like jayb to actually, for once, state his position clearly, without the headache inducing madness that masquerades as principled ideology.

 

to accomplish this end, i thought i would give him the benefit of the doubt, but evidently this didn't interest him.

 

not that i necessarily blame him....

[j_b]

so you were being serious? wtf? which is it?

 

There is very little difference between JayB and FW, despite the long winded monologues. They are both animated by the same belief that anything other than unfettered capitalism amounts to the gulag and they basically agree on most everything, including tactics.

[Kimmo]

so you were being serious? wtf? which is it?

 

you amuse me!

 

There is very little difference between JayB and FW, despite the long winded monologues. They are both animated by the same belief that anything other than unfettered capitalism amounts to the gulag and they basically agree on most everything, including tactics.

 

i have a visceral agreement with what you say, but i also have a tendency to question my viscera.

 

i'm not sure it's quite as simple as what you say, contrary to the evidence.

[j_b]

Well, I am glad you are amused. I'll have to try calling someone hysterical some day then I'll be equivocal about my meaning, just to see how amusing it could be.

 

Nobody is asking you to use your guts when there is plenty of evidence.

 

I fail to see what's so complicated about deciding that a social Darwinist who thinks that economic freedom including that of corporations takes precedence over the rights of everybody else pretty much agrees on many things with another social Darwinist who thinks that economic freedom including that of corporations takes precedence blablablabla

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I fail to see what's so complicated about deciding that a social Darwinist who thinks that economic freedom including that of corporations takes precedence over the rights of everybody else pretty much agrees on many things with another social Darwinist who thinks that economic freedom including that of corporations takes precedence blablablabla

 

You are f-ing insane.

 

 

[j_b]

the douchebag has returned presumably to entertain us some more with his grammatical contributions.

Edited February 13, 2011 by j_b

[prole]

I fail to see what's so complicated about deciding that a social Darwinist who thinks that economic freedom including that of corporations takes precedence over the rights of everybody else pretty much agrees on many things with another social Darwinist who thinks that economic freedom including that of corporations takes precedence blablablabla

 

You are f-ing insane.

 

Your response typifies your style of "debate". As usual j_b posts a long argument, which you simply dismiss, along with some vapid insults. And you actually expect people to engage you seriously in discussion - there's nothing serious yet alone substantive that you have to offer. And your cryptonazi twin is not different.

[Kimmo]

I fail to see what's so complicated about deciding that a social Darwinist who thinks that economic freedom including that of corporations takes precedence over the rights of everybody else pretty much agrees on many things with another social Darwinist who thinks that economic freedom including that of corporations takes precedence blablablabla

 

You are f-ing insane.

 

 

is there any chance you might for once add something of substance and value to a thread?

 

you take the time to read, but you rarely add anything beyond insult.

 

i'm curious as to your reason for posting at all. is it to give your children something to read some day?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I fail to see what's so complicated about deciding that a social Darwinist who thinks that economic freedom including that of corporations takes precedence over the rights of everybody else pretty much agrees on many things with another social Darwinist who thinks that economic freedom including that of corporations takes precedence blablablabla

 

You are f-ing insane.

 

Your response typifies your style of "debate". As usual j_b posts a long argument, which you simply dismiss, along with some vapid insults. And you actually expect people to engage you seriously in discussion - there's nothing serious yet alone substantive that you have to offer. And your cryptonazi twin is not different.

 

Are you serious? Compare the rambling nonsense of j_b with his cc.com hominem's prose and tell me you actually believe they are equivalent. Read the quote above from him and honestly tell me it is cogent and the product of a healthy mind.

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I fail to see what's so complicated about deciding that a social Darwinist who thinks that economic freedom including that of corporations takes precedence over the rights of everybody else pretty much agrees on many things with another social Darwinist who thinks that economic freedom including that of corporations takes precedence blablablabla

 

You are f-ing insane.

 

 

is there any chance you might for once add something of substance and value to a thread?

 

Parse what j_b wrote above and convince me that it is actually something of substance, please; I am dying to see what you can come up with.

 

 

[j_b]

Nobody has to try convincing a troll like you of anything. Random insults will just do fine for you, douchebag.

[Fairweather]

Parse what j_b wrote above and convince me that it is actually something of substance, please; I am dying to see what you can come up with.

 

 

It looks to me like he went to the ontological bakery and is now trying to eat his holistic cake with atomist frosting--and getting really confused about the recipe. Someone up in Bellingham (probably one of the Jacks) told him it should taste like communitarian, but the sad truth is that no such flavor likely exists. At the same time, he's doing a really poor job of reconciling Rokeach's Two Value Model of freedom and equality--as he chews on his cake.

[Kimmo]

Parse what j_b wrote above and convince me that it is actually something of substance, please; I am dying to see what you can come up with.

 

oh, ok, you simply didn't undersand. that's different.

 

you might have asked him though, nicely, as to what he meant.

 

my take is that he thinks there are deep human values and rights that get trampled in a society that gives primacy to money and its attendant influences. there is nothing original about the US being shaped in so manys ways by the aggregration of capital in the hands of a few who then exert tremendous influence on policy and culture, but i believe that, regardless of how much precedent exists, he is troubled by it.

[Kimmo]

Good article:

 

islam's influence in egypt.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Parse what j_b wrote above and convince me that it is actually something of substance, please; I am dying to see what you can come up with.

 

oh, ok, you simply didn't undersand. that's different.

 

you might have asked him though, nicely, as to what he meant.

 

my take is that he thinks there are deep human values and rights that get trampled in a society that gives primacy to money and its attendant influences. there is nothing original about the US being shaped in so manys ways by the aggregration of capital in the hands of a few who then exert tremendous influence on policy and culture, but i believe that, regardless of how much precedent exists, he is troubled by it.

 

LOL!

 

Here's the quote again:

I fail to see what's so complicated about deciding that a social Darwinist who thinks that economic freedom including that of corporations takes precedence over the rights of everybody else pretty much agrees on many things with another social Darwinist who thinks that economic freedom including that of corporations takes precedence blablablabla

 

As usual j_b is attributing some sort of broad-brush stroke set of beliefs to his interlocutors, lumping them into one pile. He vaguely mentions the term "Social Darwinist" and, in a convoluted run-on, talks about how one supposed "Social Darwinist" agrees with some vague "other Social Darwinist", and attributes to them both some supposed belief they hold regarding the precedence of economic freedom.

 

I am sure if you read the Unabomber's Manifesto there are grains of truth and valid commentary on modern society. However, that does not mean the Mr. Kaczynski was not bat-shit crazy. When I read j_b's ramblings I honestly do wonder about his sanity.

 

[Fairweather]

He's about as smart as one can expect a true believer to be: not very.

[Kimmo]

 

As usual j_b is attributing some sort of broad-brush stroke set of beliefs to his interlocutors, lumping them into one pile.

 

i'm quite sure i've witnessed this phenomenon from almost everyone who posts here. certainly you lump "the left" and "the libtards" and stalinists together, yes?

 

He vaguely mentions the term "Social Darwinist" and, in a convoluted run-on, talks about how one supposed "Social Darwinist" agrees with some vague "other Social Darwinist", and attributes to them both some supposed belief they hold regarding the precedence of economic freedom.

 

this gets a little trickier perhaps: i'd contend that the american/puritan/rapacious capitalist model does trend towards social darwinism. heck, if you don't have the smarts/drive/luck of the draw etc., you might even find yourself quite literally dead, due to your unfortunate circumstances living wihtout health insurance, in a high crime area, etc etc. certainly his generalization is just that: a generalization; but i do believe it holds truth.

 

 

 

I am sure if you read the Unabomber's Manifesto there are grains of truth and valid commentary on modern society. However, that does not mean the Mr. Kaczynski was not bat-shit crazy. When I read j_b's ramblings I honestly do wonder about his sanity.

 

i'd hold that what pushed the unabomber into the clinically identifiable "sociopath" department was his willingness to engage in terrorism. i would also hold that george bush was a much more dangerous sociopath than ted kaczynski, responsible for the slaughter of 100,000's of thousands of completely innocent people, but he didn't live alone in the woods without friends, and he had cover in the form of "acceptability" and the veneer of "sanity".

[KaskadskyjKozak]

i'm quite sure i've witnessed this phenomenon from almost everyone who posts here. certainly you lump "the left" and "the libtards" and stalinists together, yes?

 

Nope. There's two people who regularly post in Spray that I regularly call out as being marxists - prole and j_b. If you can find a post where I call YOU that, please let's see the link.

 

this gets a little trickier perhaps: i'd contend that the american/puritan/rapacious capitalist model does trend towards social darwinism. heck, if you don't have the smarts/drive/luck of the draw etc., you might even find yourself quite literally dead, due to your unfortunate circumstances living wihtout health insurance, in a high crime area, etc etc. certainly his generalization is just that: a generalization; but i do believe it holds truth.

 

Nonsense. Although it is an American value to be self-sufficient and earn your way, it is also an American value to give generously to charity and to help one another. What the right opposes is wasteful and FORCED government intrusion in the latter, often with outcomes that fall flat w/r/t to achieving the supposed aims of the government programs in question. Indeed the latter smack more and more simply pimping for votes, and building a dependent, obligated electorate.

 

 

 

 

i'd hold that what pushed the unabomber into the clinically identifiable "sociopath" department was his willingness to engage in terrorism. i would also hold that george bush was a much more dangerous sociopath than ted kaczynski, responsible for the slaughter of 100,000's of thousands of completely innocent people, but he didn't live alone in the woods without friends, and he had cover in the form of "acceptability" and the veneer of "sanity".

 

Alright, now I am saying you are f-ing insane. "George Bush is a sociopath" - that is the type of nonsensical hyperbolic rhetoric I expect from Prole. For you guys left of center it's never the obvious call on who is "evil" or a "sociopath" but always some crazy moral equivalency argument rooted in self-hatred and the desire to attack your own as "no better" than the "other".

[j_b]

I am not going to dwell on KKK's Bircher fantasies because anybody who pays attention knows about his far right wing politics, but is anybody surprised he is still talking about me and has yet to say anything relevant to the discussion in this thread. Can anyone remember the last time, KKK actually discussed the issue at hand rather than smear people who say things he doesn't like?

[j_b]

Parse what j_b wrote above and convince me that it is actually something of substance, please; I am dying to see what you can come up with.

It looks to me like he went to the ontological bakery and is now trying to eat his holistic cake with atomist frosting--and getting really confused about the recipe. Someone up in Bellingham (probably one of the Jacks) told him it should taste like communitarian, but the sad truth is that no such flavor likely exists. At the same time, he's doing a really poor job of reconciling Rokeach's Two Value Model of freedom and equality--as he chews on his cake.

 

[j_b]

Although it is an American value to be self-sufficient and earn your way, it is also an American value to give generously to charity and to help one another.

 

is that why you support giving tax breaks to plutocrats who are investing to create jobs abroad? is that an American value too?

 

What the right opposes is wasteful and FORCED government intrusion in the latter, often with outcomes that fall flat w/r/t to achieving the supposed aims of the government programs in question. Indeed the latter smack more and more simply pimping for votes, and building a dependent, obligated electorate.

 

KKK supported spending 3 trillion we didn't have to wage war in Iraq and Afghanistan, giving $400 billions to the pharmaceutical industry, widespread clamp down on civil liberties, the unitary executive, etc and yet, here is this hypocrite trying to lecture us about "wasteful and FORCED" government. Has the far right wing mastered Orwellian newspeak or what?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Although it is an American value to be self-sufficient and earn your way, it is also an American value to give generously to charity and to help one another.

 

is that why you support giving tax breaks to plutocrats who are investing to create jobs abroad? is that an American value too?

 

What the right opposes is wasteful and FORCED government intrusion in the latter, often with outcomes that fall flat w/r/t to achieving the supposed aims of the government programs in question. Indeed the latter smack more and more simply pimping for votes, and building a dependent, obligated electorate.

 

KKK supported spending 3 trillion we didn't have to wage war in Iraq and Afghanistan, giving $400 billions to the pharmaceutical industry, widespread clamp down on civil liberties, the unitary executive, etc and yet, here is this hypocrite trying to lecture us about "wasteful and FORCED" government. Has the far right wing mastered Orwellian

newspeak or what?

 

You need to get (back) on meds. Seriously.

[prole]

What the right opposes is wasteful and FORCED government intrusion in the latter, often with outcomes that fall flat w/r/t to achieving the supposed aims of the government programs in question. Indeed the latter smack more and more simply pimping for votes, and building a dependent, obligated electorate.

 

Ya, we could tell!

[tvashtarkatena]

Actually, what the Tea Baggers are focused on right now are social conservative proposals to limit abortion, discriminate against gays, and further marginalized the poor via over 500 such proposals nationwide. It's just Newt Gingrich 2.0.

 

Not much of a serious effort to reduce military spending or end the drug war, though...ya know, while were on the subject of hyper-expensive boondoggles.