I Miss Bush

[Shawnee123]

You're welcome. I forgot how much fun this is.

And you, grand man, just sit around like a spider waiting for someone's comment to hop on to, being bereft of any original ideas or thoughts: even when it comes to who you want to insult. You hate monster, UG and monster have a tiff, you blow UG (and you're ALWAYS with sky, because you share a mutual hatred.) You are so very transparent.

UG, sweetie, your cult is going to SUCK!

Riled up yet?

Oh, yeah, and I did see your sweet post where you almost forgot you hate me and asked me to come back (before you deleted it.) It was very sweet, though full of the sugary lies so often perpetuated by you and your kind.

I can't believe I ruined this fine discussion...what page was that on again?

[Urbane Guerrilla]

More like I prefer to confine any combats to their original arena, rather than dueling throughout all the forums on the site -- that's too jerkish for me. There are things you write I find variously agreeable, and for clarity's sake I will say so as they come up. There are others I oppose with every fiber my being has and every value I've got.

I've initiated threads before. If you missed them, too bad.

I tiff with monster from time to time. Hatred's not what I feel, though.

As for your understanding of "my kind," I put it to you that it is scant, third-hand, and pretty much off. And I can't remember deleting a post here, come to that. Sugary lies? Not from me.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by BigV

I hadn't realized we were running low on condescension.

Full up now, though. Thanks!

A reliable sign that I think you're being stupid enough to embarrass yourself. When you're not coming up to scratch, I condescend to you and make stupid hurt.

If you do not enjoy this, you know what to do.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

The only way Obama can get re-elected is to do what the voters want. The only way for the repubicans to make Obama a one term president is to prohibit Obama from doing what the voters want. In other words, the repubicans want to screw the voters.

This is multiply erroneous. Let us count up the ways:
1) The voters do not want to do Socialism.
2) Obama does.
3) The Republicans are there to stop Obama from doing the Socialism the voters do not want.
4) Buttscrewing the fools who don't appreciate the Republic, capitalism, or the strong dollar is not bad either for the electorate or the Republic in which it dwells. Uncomfortable for fools, though.
5) What the Republicans hope to do therefore is protective of my proper interests. Which are, I think, consonant with the good of the Republic.

So once again, unclean Spexx, your rabid bigotries both discredit you, and disorder your thoughts. Radar has the same problem, you know. Is he the company you want to keep? The example you would follow?

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

More like I prefer to confine any combats to their original arena, rather than dueling throughout all the forums on the site -- that's too jerkish for me. There are things you write I find variously agreeable, and for clarity's sake I will say so as they come up. There are others I oppose with every fiber my being has and every value I've got.

I've initiated threads before. If you missed them, too bad.

I tiff with monster from time to time. Hatred's not what I feel, though.

As for your understanding of "my kind," I put it to you that it is scant, third-hand, and pretty much off. And I can't remember deleting a post here, come to that. Sugary lies? Not from me.

Silly wabbit...

That post was for crass, not you. You just got caught in it because of all the glomming crass does.

Re-read it and know that the only part for you was that your cult is going to SUCK. I have seen your initial struggling membership, and it does not bode well for future advances. You can't have ALL the brain power in your imagined land of the free and the brave, can you? Surely you need a couple other people, at the very least, who can master skills beyond slobbering all over you and placing the correct part in each widget?

But you, UG, with all your superiority...well, I just think you're the grooviest! Though I agree with very little you say, I admire your original thought and your ability to form complete and eloquent sentences.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

This is multiply erroneous. Let us count up the ways:
1) The voters do not want to do Socialism.
2) Obama does.

BUZZZZZZZZZZZ Well this is your classic "straw man" fallacy that UG depends upon so well. Instead of arguing Spexx's point, he creates a straw man "Socialism" to argue against. It's only Socialism because he calls it that; what Obama has done is so far short of actual Socialism that it would be unrecognizable by that term in an *serious* discussion.

3) The Republicans are there to stop Obama from doing the Socialism the voters do not want.

This is a continuance of the straw man, but it is always helpful to remind everyone that only 2 short years ago the Republicans were spending like drunken investment bankers in a strip club where the strippers were wearing guaranteed notes for thongs.

True intellectualism requires true intellectual honesty. I will recognize it in you, UG, when I see it.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

A reliable sign that I think you're being stupid enough to embarrass yourself. When you're not coming up to scratch, I condescend to you and make stupid hurt.

If you do not enjoy this, you know what to do.

Yes, yes I do.

When I am being condescended to, I consider the source. If it is one that is worthy of my respect, then I reflect on my own behavior and attitudes, searching for what is in me that warranted such communication. You imply with your remarks that I am being stupid, stupid enough to embarrass myself.

This is multiply erroneous:

1 -- I am not stupid. Nor are my posts here evidence of stupid. I would agree that engaging you in this kind of serious fashion is borderline stupid, and quixotic at best.

2 -- In practically every area where we have social intercourse, but most especially regarding politics and human relations, you are not a source worthy of my respect. This makes my self check very quick, practically moot. Your remarks do not hurt me. Your opinion of me is a matter of monumental indifference to me. You have show over a very long time that you do not care for me, or for the other dwellars here. It is precisely because of this long established behavior that your rebukes like this do not sting. All of your comments like this therefore have have no corrective power. They rise only to the level of irritating noise.

So, you are right, I do know what to do. I will filter out such noise so I can continue to focus on the communication here, offered by those dwellars that are worthy of my respect.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Adult thinking sounds like me.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

See, Rich? Right there is where your problem is.

UT, the people who insist that the socialistic features of Democratic Party policymaking and of Obama's vision in particular are somehow non-socialistic do not seem to really know what socialism is. They persist in a denial not supported by evidence.

And repeating to yourself that Glenn Beck is "not a credible source, not a credible source, not a..." shall not win the argument, nor diminish the statist and socialist features of Dem Party policymaking in the least. Democrats out of power is what will manage that, particularly with libertarians and libertarian-leaning Republicans in power.

If Glenn Beck isn't going to do it for you, then hew to Mark Levin. He's got a legal background in constitutional law. The Donkey Party drones that call in from time to time can't lay a glove on the guy. Yet somehow, they believe their road has virtue to it... somewhere.

[Undertoad]

Quite the dodge, UG, but I was talking about you and your own intellectual honesty, not the intellectual honesty of "the people who insist..."

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

UT, the people who insist that the socialistic features of Democratic Party policymaking and of Obama's vision in particular are somehow non-socialistic do not seem to really know what socialism is.

Oh please do tell, wise one. What is socialism?

[GunMaster357]

Socialism

An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had never failed a single student before but had, once, failed an entire class. The class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said ok, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism.

All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too; so they studied little.. The second Test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for anyone else. All failed to their great surprise. The professor told them that socialism would ultimately fail, not because the harder to succeed the greater the reward, but when a government takes all the reward away; no one will try or succeed.

[DanaC]

Socialism isn't about removing rewards.

There is a great distinction between 'grades' and 'money'/'ownership of the means of production'. Grades are not necessary to exchange for shelter, food and warmth. Nor did giving them a mass grade in anyway place the means of acquiring those grades (production) into their hands.


[eta] My own personal opinion is that those things necessary to survival and basic human dignity should not be seen as 'rewards'. They are a starting point.

[SamIam]

Arguing the finer points of socialism with UG is like trying to discuss atheism with the Spanish Inquisition.

As an aside, I am amazed how we characterize socialism as "da debbil' while at the same time allowing our economy to become ever more dependent on the whim of communist China. Everyone tries to excuse this by saying that China has become "capitalist" or more like us. Actually, the US is becoming more like China. Our government pours money into failing corporations and subsidizes financial entities that have acted to the detriment of the country, and politicians pass these actions off as sound economics.

The Chinese government gives loans at low or no interest to Chinese corporations which allow them to flood the world with cheap products. Chinese manufacturing is heavily subsidized, and the Communist system allows workers to get by on such a low wage that no capitalist country can compete with it.

[Shawnee123]

As an aside, I am amazed how we characterize socialism as "da debbil' while at the same time allowing our economy to become ever more dependent on the whim of communist China.

Because it isn't about socialism or communism. The fatcats only ask themselves if it makes them fatter. If it makes them fatter, of course it's good ol' American capitalism.