Prof SOWELL on BWARNEY FWANK

[editec]

Usually it's no use arguing with facts when dealing with right wingers. They have been sold alternative history in just about every area and this is no different. They want to blame CRA for the meltdown when the numbers undeniably (for anyone who will actully look at them) show that this is bunk. They want to hold up Barney Frank (a convenient gay male) as the boogieman responsible when in reality, Frank has been the only Congressperson, for decades, that has advocated for more money for renters rather than pushing for more home ownership. It's what the right wing noise machine feeds them however and there's nothing whatsoever you're gonna do about it. They will believe what they want to believe, regardless of the facts. All you can do is post the facts in the hope that others who are not so brainwashed by the right wing noise machine may be swayed. In all likelyhood, the wing-nut you are debating is beyond hope of reason.

Why reward people for bad behavior?

When a poster proves that he is not interested in discussing the issues, when he wants to talk about you and why you're an idiot, seriously...the discussion is over.

And when a poster begins his thoughts with cult of personality polotics you know damned well that he isn't remotely coversant about the facts and is merely mouthing the character assassinating drivel he's been listening to on hate TV or radio.

Some people cannot understand why AIR AMERICA died.

I can.

Its because the kinds of people who might agree with the issues that Air America's talking heads had, simply were not interested in the same kind of "let's character assassinate the other team kind of nonsense that is so welcome on right wing hate radio.

I'm not a freaking team player and I think that's rather common among the more liberal thinkers in this world.

We don't give a rat's ass about parties because we know that the parties are inherently corrupted by the system we have in place.

If we could stick to the issues and keep personality politics out of it, and if we could refrain from insulting those who disagree with us, we all might actually learn something.

But that's no fun for people who lack the horepower to actually understand (let along comment on) these very complex issues.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Usually it's no use arguing with facts when dealing with right wingers. They have been sold alternative history in just about every area and this is no different. They want to blame CRA for the meltdown when the numbers undeniably (for anyone who will actully look at them) show that this is bunk. They want to hold up Barney Frank (a convenient gay male) as the boogieman responsible when in reality, Frank has been the only Congressperson, for decades, that has advocated for more money for renters rather than pushing for more home ownership. It's what the right wing noise machine feeds them however and there's nothing whatsoever you're gonna do about it. They will believe what they want to believe, regardless of the facts. All you can do is post the facts in the hope that others who are not so brainwashed by the right wing noise machine may be swayed. In all likelyhood, the wing-nut you are debating is beyond hope of reason.

Why reward people for bad behavior?

When a poster proves that he is not interested in discussing the issues, when he wants to talk about you and why you're an idiot, seriously...the discussion is over.

And when a poster begins his thoughts with cult of personality polotics you know damned well that he isn't remotely coversant about the facts and is merely mouthing the character assassinating drivel he's been listening to on hate TV or radio.

Some people cannot understand why AIR AMERICA died.

I can.

Its because the kinds of people who might agree with the issues that Air America's talking heads had, simply were not interested in the same kind of "let's character assassinate the other team kind of nonsense that is so welcome on right wing hate radio.

I'm not a freaking team player and I think that's rather common among the more liberal thinkers in this world.

We don't give a rat's ass about parties because we know that the parties are inherently corrupted by the system we have in place.

If we could stick to the issues and keep personality politics out of it, and if we could refrain from insulting those who disagree with us, we all might actually learn something.

But that's no fun for people who lack the horepower to actually understand (let along comment on) these very complex issues.

I mean this is just too funny!

That's why Air America died???????

See my other posts about the definition of schmart!

Do you know what happened in 1773?

 

[AquaAthena]

A definitive exposure of the LEAST FRANKEST Politicos in U.S. History: Bwarney FWANK:

Is Barney Frank? - Thomas Sowell - Townhall Conservative

Thomas Sowell's thinking is always impressive to me. I have two of his books...

 

[midcan5]

I thank you for the positive rep, though from the above I guess I'll assume that was a mistake? I fail to find where I

...you engage in the same childish name calling...

Mind you, I'm certainly not saying I do not engage in some one-on-one nasty conversations, I do. However, in general you will not find that I write long posts railing against 'liberals,' especially in vile terms.

To defend or attack whatever that poster had to say, sorry, I missed his point. I didn't read it.

I usually do not negative rep as I find it childish even when I disagree. But you used the same vulgar ad hom term, thus my comment, and if you don't take the pieces serious enough to read, then why even comment.


The curious thing is the poor are called irresponsible, and left to hang on the line when they err, while the wealthy are too big to fail or they steal golden parachutes and no one mentions that. Curious that helping people is wrong when it is on the lower end of the class scale but hunky-dory on the top end.

The Conservative Nanny State


“Here is the brutal truth, exposed systematically, methodically, unsparingly. Forget the pork rinds and the hokey Texas twang: Conservative government is government by and for the upper class.”

 

[The Rabbi]

I thank you for the positive rep, though from the above I guess I'll assume that was a mistake? I fail to find where I

...you engage in the same childish name calling...

Mind you, I'm certainly not saying I do not engage in some one-on-one nasty conversations, I do. However, in general you will not find that I write long posts railing against 'liberals,' especially in vile terms.

To defend or attack whatever that poster had to say, sorry, I missed his point. I didn't read it.

I usually do not negative rep as I find it childish even when I disagree. But you used the same vulgar ad hom term, thus my comment, and if you don't take the pieces serious enough to read, then why even comment.


The curious thing is the poor are called irresponsible, and left to hang on the line when they err, while the wealthy are too big to fail or they steal golden parachutes and no one mentions that. Curious that helping people is wrong when it is on the lower end of the class scale but hunky-dory on the top end.

The Conservative Nanny State


“Here is the brutal truth, exposed systematically, methodically, unsparingly. Forget the pork rinds and the hokey Texas twang: Conservative government is government by and for the upper class.”

Who says the wealthy are too big to fail? That is the Obama Administration and its supporters, arguing that letting them fail would create an unacceptable loss of jobs. The conservative response is Schumpeter's Creative Destruction: Let them go out of business. That is how the market regulates itself.

 

[Liberty]

Sowell is a partisan hack. This has been refuted with data several times but the ideological shills keep repeating the same lies over and over.

If anyone can back up Sowell's argument with empirical data, please post it. But I haven't seen a single thing yet to back this up.

racist

 

[Annie]

I thank you for the positive rep, though from the above I guess I'll assume that was a mistake? I fail to find where I

...you engage in the same childish name calling...

Mind you, I'm certainly not saying I do not engage in some one-on-one nasty conversations, I do. However, in general you will not find that I write long posts railing against 'liberals,' especially in vile terms.

To defend or attack whatever that poster had to say, sorry, I missed his point. I didn't read it.

I usually do not negative rep as I find it childish even when I disagree. But you used the same vulgar ad hom term, thus my comment, and if you don't take the pieces serious enough to read, then why even comment.


The curious thing is the poor are called irresponsible, and left to hang on the line when they err, while the wealthy are too big to fail or they steal golden parachutes and no one mentions that. Curious that helping people is wrong when it is on the lower end of the class scale but hunky-dory on the top end.

The Conservative Nanny State


“Here is the brutal truth, exposed systematically, methodically, unsparingly. Forget the pork rinds and the hokey Texas twang: Conservative government is government by and for the upper class.”

If you say so, I'm not finding it. Unless using the word that made me ignore his post, was your point? Well yes, I used it, but not against Toro or anyone else. It was to make the point that vulgarities, even made up ones, do not necessarily generate attention to the topic, just to the poster.

 

[MaggieMae]

Usually it's no use arguing with facts when dealing with right wingers. They have been sold alternative history in just about every area and this is no different. They want to blame CRA for the meltdown when the numbers undeniably (for anyone who will actully look at them) show that this is bunk. They want to hold up Barney Frank (a convenient gay male) as the boogieman responsible when in reality, Frank has been the only Congressperson, for decades, that has advocated for more money for renters rather than pushing for more home ownership. It's what the right wing noise machine feeds them however and there's nothing whatsoever you're gonna do about it. They will believe what they want to believe, regardless of the facts. All you can do is post the facts in the hope that others who are not so brainwashed by the right wing noise machine may be swayed. In all likelyhood, the wing-nut you are debating is beyond hope of reason.

Why reward people for bad behavior?

When a poster proves that he is not interested in discussing the issues, when he wants to talk about you and why you're an idiot, seriously...the discussion is over.

And when a poster begins his thoughts with cult of personality polotics you know damned well that he isn't remotely coversant about the facts and is merely mouthing the character assassinating drivel he's been listening to on hate TV or radio.

Some people cannot understand why AIR AMERICA died.

I can.

Its because the kinds of people who might agree with the issues that Air America's talking heads had, simply were not interested in the same kind of "let's character assassinate the other team kind of nonsense that is so welcome on right wing hate radio.

I'm not a freaking team player and I think that's rather common among the more liberal thinkers in this world.

We don't give a rat's ass about parties because we know that the parties are inherently corrupted by the system we have in place.

If we could stick to the issues and keep personality politics out of it, and if we could refrain from insulting those who disagree with us, we all might actually learn something.

But that's no fun for people who lack the horepower to actually understand (let along comment on) these very complex issues.

Was "polotics" a typo? It's really quite apt in defining the politics of today. A bunch of horses upon which sit asses bigger than the horse's asses as they ride around a rough playing field trying to whack a ball with a stick, and the winner is the one with the strongest balls successfully hitting a target.

 

[8537]

Who says the wealthy are too big to fail? That is the Obama Administration and its supporters, arguing that letting them fail would create an unacceptable loss of jobs. The conservative response is Schumpeter's Creative Destruction: Let them go out of business. That is how the market regulates itself.

Did you type that with a straight face?

 

[gautama]

Who says the wealthy are too big to fail? That is the Obama Administration and its supporters, arguing that letting them fail would create an unacceptable loss of jobs. The conservative response is Schumpeter's Creative Destruction: Let them go out of business. That is how the market regulates itself.

Did you type that with a straight face?

ShittyDigits,

You Obamarrhoidal LIEbturds do not have a "straight face".

Consider your historical record in the signature statement.

 

[8537]

Who says the wealthy are too big to fail? That is the Obama Administration and its supporters, arguing that letting them fail would create an unacceptable loss of jobs. The conservative response is Schumpeter's Creative Destruction: Let them go out of business. That is how the market regulates itself.

Did you type that with a straight face?

ShittyDigits,

You Obamarrhoidal LIEbturds do not have a "straight face".

Consider your historical record in the signature statement.

You, sir, are a great American.

 

[The Rabbi]

Who says the wealthy are too big to fail? That is the Obama Administration and its supporters, arguing that letting them fail would create an unacceptable loss of jobs. The conservative response is Schumpeter's Creative Destruction: Let them go out of business. That is how the market regulates itself.

Did you type that with a straight face?

What Gautama said, you LIEBTURD Obamarrhoid!

 

[8537]

Who says the wealthy are too big to fail? That is the Obama Administration and its supporters, arguing that letting them fail would create an unacceptable loss of jobs. The conservative response is Schumpeter's Creative Destruction: Let them go out of business. That is how the market regulates itself.

Did you type that with a straight face?

What Gautama said, you LIEBTURD Obamarrhoid!

Very insightful.

How do you think ol' Schumpee would have viewed the devolution to corporatism in the past 30 years Rabbi?

In other words, please don't toss out big words unless you actually know what they mean.

 

[gautama]

Did you type that with a straight face?

ShittyDigits,

You Obamarrhoidal LIEbturds do not have a "straight face".

Consider your historical record in the signature statement.

You, sir, are a great American.

 

[The Rabbi]

Did you type that with a straight face?

What Gautama said, you LIEBTURD Obamarrhoid!

Very insightful.

How do you think ol' Schumpee would have viewed the devolution to corporatism in the past 30 years Rabbi?

In other words, please don't toss out big words unless you actually know what they mean.

Since there is no "devolution to corporatism" he wouldn't have said boo.

 

[8537]

What Gautama said, you LIEBTURD Obamarrhoid!

Very insightful.

How do you think ol' Schumpee would have viewed the devolution to corporatism in the past 30 years Rabbi?

In other words, please don't toss out big words unless you actually know what they mean.

Since there is no "devolution to corporatism" he wouldn't have said boo.

^Clearly never read Schumpeter in your life....or perhaps you've simply forgotten that Schumpeter talks at considerable length about the movement from capitalist markets to corporatists structures that resemble socialist decision making as a natural evolution.

Would you like a bigger shovel for this hole?

 

[The Rabbi]

Very insightful.

How do you think ol' Schumpee would have viewed the devolution to corporatism in the past 30 years Rabbi?

In other words, please don't toss out big words unless you actually know what they mean.

Since there is no "devolution to corporatism" he wouldn't have said boo.

^Clearly never read Schumpeter in your life....or perhaps you've simply forgotten that Schumpeter talks at considerable length about the movement from capitalist markets to corporatists structures that resemble socialist decision making as a natural evolution.

Would you like a bigger shovel for this hole?

I dunno. What size shovel will fit your asshole?
A little knowledge is a ridiculous thing.

 

[jillian]

Sowell is a partisan hack. This has been refuted with data several times but the ideological shills keep repeating the same lies over and over.

If anyone can back up Sowell's argument with empirical data, please post it. But I haven't seen a single thing yet to back this up.

racist

no. sowell is a partisan hack.

that's fact.

 

[The Rabbi]

Sowell is a partisan hack. This has been refuted with data several times but the ideological shills keep repeating the same lies over and over.

If anyone can back up Sowell's argument with empirical data, please post it. But I haven't seen a single thing yet to back this up.

racist

no. sowell is a partisan hack.

that's fact.

Partisan hack=doesn't suck Obama's dick.

At least no one will accuse you of not being a partisan hack!

 

[jillian]

racist

no. sowell is a partisan hack.

that's fact.

Partisan hack=doesn't suck Obama's dick.

At least no one will accuse you of not being a partisan hack!

thanks for proving you're a lowlife.

what's it like working at the fryer?