Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
Yeah, I’m really not a fan of the whole “Get a load of how X dealt with Y, boy he really handed him his own butt cheeks on a plate” thing. To me, once you’re cheering on one side of a debate, you’re demonstrating there was a need to do that cheering for that side of the debate. Which is a tacit confession that maybe that side isn’t winning at all, so it’s kind of self-defeating.
But, it’s the verbiage of this thing. And the fact that it’s buried in a thread literally thousands of posts long. Must do what I must do — go out and grab it. Preserve it for posterity.
Brad, I apologize in advance that I’m about to use bad words on your page, but I simply don’t have the time, nor the patience to deal with this fucking troglodyte imbecile in an amicable fashion.
Instead I’m going to mock him, berate him, insult him and his fundamental philosophy, maybe call him some more names, rejoice in my giant majority, maybe add a few more insults, then go to bed, in my giant house in the mountains with my hot athletic wife. I won’t bother to wait for Forest’s response, because it will consist of some poorly thought out sound bytes regurgitated from Mother Jones and a series of links, and I’d rather suck start a 12 gauge than listen to one more fucking doofus tonight.
First off, why won’t anybody answer his question about the gender gap?
Well, Forest, that would be because it is a stupid fucking question.
You’re like that crazy hobo on the subway demanding everyone justify the moon ferrets. But moon ferrets aren’t real, so why waste a bunch of time explaining that to a stinky hobo. But I’ll try, because I’m a retired accountant, and when people like you try to use stats it is like watching a monkey humping a football. So amusing, but kind of sad.
If you mean the pay gap that exists between women, anybody with an ounce of statistical sense knows that it is insignificant when it comes to actual equivalent jobs with equivalent requirements. Once you factor in that women are statistically more likely to take time away from their careers for child rearing and factor that in, the pay difference is statistically insignificant. Unless you work in the Obama White House, because fuck you is why.
Men also tend to work more in dangerous or physically demanding jobs by choice, which also pay better. Nobody forces them to go into those fields. Men also get more STEM degrees and women get more LAS degrees. STEM pays better. Nobody is forcing these men to do math, but men and women are different. If you don’t understand why my accounting degree is more valuable that your gender studies degree, you don’t understand basic econ 101 and supply and demand. So yes, I would like fries with that.
If you mean the gender gap in voting between the parties, just about every psychological study ever conducted by somebody not huffing paint understands that women tend to make decisions more emotionally and men tend to make them more logically. I see you reaching for you Sexist Card, but I said tend. This is not always the case, it is simply a trend. If you don’t like it or find that sexist, you can fuck off and die. Men and women are different. Most of us happen to like that. Some men think more emotionally (like pajama boy metrosexual hipster douchebags for example), and some women think more logically (like hot republican warrior babes), but a trend is a trend.
Now, the DNC being a bunch of sleazy shitwads, do manage to have some people working there who are excellent at stats and marketing. I’m assuming they hire evil republican capitalists for these positions because they show some basic competence. Regardless, these clever people understand the whole emotional reaction thing, and when your platform is mostly bullshit, they aim their marketing at a bunch of heart string tugging, sob story, feel good but do nothing, nonsense that appeals to the big hearted and mushy headed voter. Why yes, I don’t want old people to starve and free health care for everyone! Yay!
As for what have conservatives done for women?
Built America.
Deal with it, motherfucker.
You are pathetic at debating. At some point in time you discovered that if you just post enough bullshit, non-stop, you will win by attrition because most people simply do not give a fuck enough to waste their time debating what is basically a fleshy spambot. You’re so bad at this that you even annoy the shit out of the people you might have convinced. If you had an iota of likability, you might have swayed somebody, but you’re so incredibly shitty at this that even the moderates would rather hang out with Harry Reid, and they’re pretty sure he’s a pedophile.
You do not realize that arguing on the internet is a spectator sport. Nobody ever sways the decided, you fool! The goal is to convince the undecided. And on that count, Amy the Sign Language Gorilla makes a better spokesman than you.
You are basically a Speak and Spell, and instead of when pulling the string you get “THE COW GOES MOO” you get “LINK TO HUFFPO” or “WHY WON’T YOU ANSWER MY QUESTION”. Only the Speak and Spell has a use. Children need to learn which animal says moo versus which one barks. You on the other hand, are completely fucking useless, and when it comes to entertainment, my money is on Fisher Price.
When you ask a question, and people answer it, a smart person would then use logic to pick that post apart for the edification of the onlookers and observers. But not you, you just pretend the question wasn’t answered, and keep asking it over and over again. That is the Damien Walter method of arguing, and usually occurs right before somebody with half a brain clubs you like a helpless baby seal.
Don’t feel bad. Compared to Damien, I’m letting you off easy.
I know these things. I’ve seen your kind, and know your methods, which is why rather than debate you, I simply insult you. Then everyone laughs at you. I’m amused. They are amused. We go about our fulfilling lives. You go home, yell at your five cats, then masturbate furiously into your shame pillow while watching episodes of Girls on HBO, before passing out in a puddle of Thunderbird.
Which is why I’m awesome, popular, and rich, and you are a loser with 2 followers. Because you suck, and everyone hates you.
So, at the end of the day, please continue with your link storms, and your tired, boring, hashed out Salon bullshit about the war on women. One of the reason the republicans now have 250 seats in congress is because morons like you have helped to annoy the living shit out of the average American to the point that if a man wearing a HOPE/CHANGE shirt was to step into the intersection in front of their car, they would literally mash the accelerator to the floor, just in the hopes that it was you.
Our many new republican senators thank you.
Now fuck off.
This does inspire a serious question about progressivism: If it is the way forward, and forward is where we are going, where we are destined to go, then how come we don’t just…go? Why is it that every few years the electorate figures out that it’s a cul de sac and we have no choice to retreat from it?
How come 1980? Why 1994? Why 2004, 2010, 2014?
The answer is in this, I think: “As for what have conservatives done for women? Built America. Deal with it, motherfucker.” Proggies haven’t built anything at all except occasional electoral victories, the Obama administration is proof of that. After getting elected, they are builders of what exactly? ObamaCare. Which they & their supporters are going to insist has been a success…there really isn’t anything more that needs to be said after that.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The International Lord of Hate strikes again.
- chunt31854 | 11/16/2014 @ 05:30I have said for years that the opposite non-reason is not reason but force.
The left live in a world that is ruled by an internal logic. That internal logic dictates that their ideology is right and so therefore must prevail. When it is shown that the things they believe are either patently false or worse, have harmed the groups they claim to champion they retreat to their moral high-horse and say; “But I have good intentions” which is a tacit way of calling those who disagree with them evil. No amount of evidence can refute good intentions. If you are a progressive leftist you are righteous because you have good intentions and nothing else matters.
You cannot argue rationally with such people because they are inherently irrational. You can never answer their question because facts, history, and OBJECTIVE truth do not matter. All that matters is the ideology of good intentions.
The respondent in this case replied in the correct way. You cannot be nice to the left. Their idea of compromise is that you completely agree with their ruling elite. Shout them down, rub their nose in it, don’t let them retreat to the moral high-horse
- Fai.Mao | 11/16/2014 @ 15:49mkfreeberg: This does inspire a serious question about progressivism: If it is the way forward, and forward is where we are going, where we are destined to go, then how come we don’t just…go?
Because each change brings its own set of unintended consequences, and society has to adjust to accommodate those changes. A conservative will often recognize the need for change, but will try to moderate the rate of change for just this reason.
mkfreeberg: As for what have conservatives done for women? Built America.
The Greatest Generation was largely liberal. They stuck together after the debacle of the 1929 market crash, persevered and rebuilt the U.S. economy during the Great Depression, defeated fascism in Europe and Asia, constructed the superhighway system, reformed civil rights, and landed a man on the moon. But each of these accomplishments had the seed of its own destruction. Each generation has to remake the world afresh.
- Zachriel | 11/17/2014 @ 06:58Hi Forest!
- Severian | 11/17/2014 @ 09:09It’s funny, when I reached the Speak and Spell line and the Damien Walter paragraph, I was thinking it sounded familiar. I think Larry Correia accidentally summoned the Cuttlers.
Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the water…
- nightfly | 11/17/2014 @ 12:34Nighfly,
read some of “Forrest Johnson’s” comments that Correia is responding to. The similarities are eerie. Ol’ Forrest doesn’t use the royal we, but everything else is straight out of the cephalo-playbook. Why won’t anyone answer my question? I don’t understand that! What 5,000 word explanation are you referring to?
Either “Forrest Johnson” is a Cuttler, or — and this is truly terrifying — there are other shit-for-brains Aspies out there who think that’s a winning debate strategy.
I guess there’s only one way to be sure: Somebody’s got to ask Forrest Johnson about a George Washington quote.
- Severian | 11/17/2014 @ 15:51I like it!
In either case, I think the most practical way of making use of them is the way it was done here: “How do liberals reconcile such-and-such…” And here they come to deliver the essay. Leaving the rest of us to react in whatever way we will.
I used to think a system that put them in charge 40%-60% of the time, was a system that had its own strain of “sanity” behind it, a system that benefited from the “not perfect, but least bad system in the world” sort of thing. As recently as the Florida “Bush v. Gore” debacle of 2000, I thought that. It’s taken me a long time to recognize batshit-crazy.
And here they come to deliver the essay.
I do wonder about the “thinking” here. They’re obviously convinced that “the essay” is airtight and rock-solid; it gets pasted, often word for word, all over the place (seriously: The Cuttlefish, this Forrest Johnson idiot, the anti-GamerGate people who show up at Vox Popoli… they all make the same two or three “arguments,” over and over and over and over and over, word-for-word).
And yet, because they’re so reliant on “the essay,” they’ve got no followup whatsoever. They obviously think it’s the neutron bomb of rhetoric — it’ll disable all the enemy’s defenses, and all that’s left to do is march in and plant the flag. So when we all gleefully dogpile on “the essay,” they have no option but to pull a President Obama: “who is Jon Gruber? I don’t know any Jon Gruber; I never even heard of Jon Gruber until I read about him online; that Jon Gruber I said all those nice things about and took all those meetings with must be some other Jon Gruber.”
How, then, does “the essay” ever get out of beta? Is it crafted entirely in the community-based reality’s secret basement lab, built on nothing but what internet trolls think will be convincing? Is there really a .txt file out there? I suppose that explains their delicious frustration when we don’t say our lines — you can almost see the veins popping out in Forrest Johnson’s head when Correia gives him a tutorial on how to do a ctrl-F search. But… what is this supposed to accomplish? Why do they keep cutting-and-pasting “the essay” when it has never, ever worked?
- Severian | 11/18/2014 @ 08:27The Great Depression was largely cured by defeating fascism in Europe and Asia. The Interstate system was set up to give the armed forces high-quality roads for their motorized units in case of attack, with the civilian benefits being a nice bonus, Civil-rights reform would never have been passed, certainly not in ’64, if LBJ had had to do it on Democrat votes alone. And the reason that the US was able to put a man on the moon was that the Truman administration snaked a large number of German scientists and techies out of Soviet-occupied East Germany, where necessary scrubbed their files of their Nazi memberships and complicity in certain unsavory but standard practices of the Third Reich, brought them over here, naturalized them, gave them top-secret-plus clearances and put them to work for us.
- Rich Fader | 11/18/2014 @ 16:18Rich Fader: The Great Depression was largely cured by defeating fascism in Europe and Asia…
You seem to be responding to our previous comment, and seem to be largely in agreement. The “Greatest Generation” accomplished great things, including defeating fascism in Europe and Asia.
- Zachriel | 11/18/2014 @ 16:22[…] and it’s not just them. You see it all around. Why, as recently as yesterday some liberals commented at this blog right here (which nobody reads, […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 11/19/2014 @ 07:51Ultimate Smackdown just gives me an excuse to post the very similar Ultimate Showdown.
Good guys, bad guys, and explosions as far as the eye can see… what’s not to love?
- nightfly | 11/20/2014 @ 19:04Morgan, I’d like to clarify my reply. As almost always, I was at pretty much no point agreeing with Zachriel, and I have no idea whatsoever where he got the idea I was sympathetic to him. We solved the problems he cites largely not by any principle recognizable as liberalism, unless by “liberalism” Zachriel means “make liberal noises and then do Realpolitik”
The old line about playing chess with a pigeon comes to mind.
- Rich Fader | 11/26/2014 @ 15:10Rich Fader: We solved the problems he cites largely not by any principle recognizable as liberalism, unless by “liberalism” Zachriel means “make liberal noises and then do Realpolitik”
The Greatest Generation was clearly of a liberal bent, electing FDR four times, with a strongly liberal Congress through much of the period. The New Deal was explicitly progressive, with government working to reduce the individual effects of the economic collapse, while also working to rebuild the economy. The economy grew by 7% per year in real terms from 1933-1939. The rebuilt U.S. economy, as well as the attitude of working together as citizens to confront the crisis, along with trust in government, provided the foundation for the defeat of fascism. The U.S. then endeavored to rebuild the war torn societies of Europe and Asia, which led to general prosperity. They then embarked on national programs, such as the superhighway system and the space program. The capstone of that generation was the successful reform of civil rights laws.
- Zachriel | 11/27/2014 @ 06:27Rich, “Zachriel” is a label affixed to a group entity, consisting of lefty-leaning Internet denizens in a group of unknown size. As you can see, they bring value not so much in coming to certain conclusions about things, but rather with showing us the workings of the Zachriel Weltanschauung — so it’s less of a “Here is the right conclusion,” more of a “Here is how we came to the wrong one.”
The Greatest Generation was clearly of a liberal bent, the same way Rich Fader agrees with The Zachriel. It should be noted that part of the Weltanschaaung in question is to deny, or perhaps sincerely fail to perceive, uncertainty. They’re absolutely sure about all of this. One hundred percent. Even the part about you agreeing with them. Come to think of it, who the heck are you to say what your opinions are? Have you been published in a peer reviewed journal, like the experts?
- mkfreeberg | 11/27/2014 @ 07:50mkfreeberg: The Greatest Generation was clearly of a liberal bent, the same way Rich Fader agrees with The Zachriel.
FDR won strong majorities in four straight presidential elections. Congress passed many progressive programs during that period, including Social Security. That suggests a strong liberal bent to that generation of Americans.
- Zachriel | 11/27/2014 @ 13:08FDR won strong majorities in four straight presidential elections. Congress passed many progressive programs during that period, including Social Security. That suggests a strong liberal bent to that generation of Americans.
Right. The “Greatest Generation” was of a strong liberal bent, the same way Rich Fader agrees with y’all about it.
In the case of Mr. Fader, as we can see, once we put the conclusion to the test we find it doesn’t hold. Logical people would then theorize: What other Zachriel conclusions do not hold up, if they can be tested? All of them? Some of them? None of them? We can rule out “none” since we know of at least one that imploded the moment it was tested. So either some, or all.
Over on Planet Zachriel, the thing to do is reject any uncertainty, since it’s much more important to be sure than to be right.
- mkfreeberg | 11/28/2014 @ 02:33mkfreeberg: The “Greatest Generation” was of a strong liberal bent, the same way Rich Fader agrees with y’all about it.
Apparently, Rich Fader agrees that the generation that came of age during the Great Depression did great things, but disagrees that they were primarily liberal. We provided evidence to support that claim.
- Zachriel | 11/28/2014 @ 07:10Apparently, Rich Fader agrees that the generation that came of age during the Great Depression did great things, but disagrees that they were primarily liberal. We provided evidence to support that claim.
Okay. So now y’all are reversing y’all’s previous position,
That previous comment being,
If I was in y’all’s position, I would want to shift the debate too. But the fact is, when it comes to reality, the Zachriel Weltanschauung simply doesn’t work. It isn’t even supposed to.
Y’all thought — lectured — that Mr. Fader was “largely in agreement,” and fortunately we had an opportunity to see this put to the test when Mr. Fader replied. Now y’all want to resume the thinking — lecturing — that “The Greatest Generation was largely liberal.”
I’m starting to think this word “largely” actually means something like “not.”
- mkfreeberg | 11/28/2014 @ 08:02Let me see if I can do this too…”largely” means “not.”
FDR was largely responsible for ending the Great Depression, which largely withered away under the tutelage of his largely freedom-loving “Brain Trust,” with the unemployment rate largely decreasing steadily from his inauguration in March 1933. The Supreme Court declared the actions of this Brain Trust, and the New Deal, largely constitutional in 1937, and FDR responded by being largely respectful of their decision.
The Greatest Generation, meanwhile, being those kids who came of age and had to grow up in a hurry fighting the Nazis, were largely old enough to vote in 1932. They were also largely responsible, through the largely wise and largely freedom-loving policies of FDR, for interning Japanese-American citizens who happened to live near the West Coast beginning in 1942. From all of this, we can see the GG was largely liberal, and FDR largely deserves a place on Mount Rushmore.
This is kinda fun!
- mkfreeberg | 11/28/2014 @ 08:07Zachriel: The Greatest Generation was largely liberal.
mkfreeberg: Let me see if I can do this too…”largely” means “not.”
Are you claiming that FDR was not liberal? Or that the New Deal wasn’t liberal? Or Social Security? The Marshall Plan? The G.I. Bill? The Civil Rights Movement?
Seriously, do words have no meaning for you?
- Zachriel | 11/28/2014 @ 08:20You’ve largely nailed it.
- mkfreeberg | 11/28/2014 @ 08:29mkfreeberg: You’ve largely nailed it.
Ha, ha! FDR and the New Deal aren’t liberal. You’re a card!
- Zachriel | 11/28/2014 @ 08:33Yes, I largely said that. That’s a largely accurate summary of something I said.
- mkfreeberg | 11/28/2014 @ 08:35mkfreeberg: Yes, I largely said that. That’s a largely accurate summary of something I said.
largely, to a large extent : mostly. The story is largely true.
Are you claiming that FDR was not a liberal? Or that he wasn’t elected by large majorities four times? Are you saying the New Deal wasn’t a liberal program? Or Social Security? The Marshall Plan? The G.I. Bill? The Civil Rights Movement?
- Zachriel | 11/28/2014 @ 08:40largely, to a large extent : mostly. The story is largely true.
Problem is, and I pointed this out already, it doesn’t seem like y’all are adhering to that definition. Fortunately, Mr. Fader is. He used that word himself, and we know he is using it in the conventional sense.
Y’all saw with y’all’s own eyes that y’all’s interpretation of his views was incorrect, and didn’t even blink. The only way I can reconcile that is in the way I’ve explained already: “Largely,” in the Zachriel world, means “not.”
But this must be an intermittent thing, since it’s obvious y’all think FDR was a liberal. So the question that confronts is us not: Am I claiming FDR was not a liberal?
But rather one of: Do The Zachriel maintain that Japanese internment was a liberal thing to do?
- mkfreeberg | 11/28/2014 @ 08:54mkfreeberg: Am I claiming FDR was not a liberal?
Why don’t you tell us so we’ll both know.
- Zachriel | 11/28/2014 @ 08:57Why don’t you tell us so we’ll both know.
The question that confronts is us not: Am I claiming FDR was not a liberal? But rather one of: Do The Zachriel maintain that Japanese internment was a liberal thing to do?
- mkfreeberg | 11/28/2014 @ 08:58mkfreeberg: The question that confronts is us not: Am I claiming FDR was not a liberal?
That’s the question that’s been asked several times. Seems to you are reverting to form.
This is how you answer a question directly.
mkfreeberg: Japanese internment was a liberal thing to do?
No.
- Zachriel | 11/28/2014 @ 09:01So Rich Fader, you can see the pattern here. They really do live in a separate universe. They’re absolutely sure about what they “know,” and when it transpires right in front of their stalky eyes that they weren’t so right about it, it doesn’t even faze ’em. Their world is a maze of contradictions; it’s suddenly a complex and nuanced question whether FDR was a liberal, but at the same time, if someone even moves toward questioning the simpler variant of this, they resort to ridicule even when it’s unfounded ridicule.
The whole time, they duck behind the tactic of “but you haven’t answered our question!” It goes on like this for hundreds, perhaps thousands, of posts. No, that is not an exaggeration.
I am happy we were able to illustrate the pattern in just a few posts here. There’s no point to extending the cycle further than that. It would be “largely” an effective use of time, and “largely” educational.
- mkfreeberg | 11/28/2014 @ 09:05mkfreeberg: it’s suddenly a complex and nuanced question whether FDR was a liberal
It’s not a particularly nuanced question. FDR was a liberal. Do you disagree?
- Zachriel | 11/28/2014 @ 09:07Let’s return to the original post.
mkfreeberg: As for what have conservatives done for women? Built America.
The Greatest Generation was largely liberal. They had a lot to do with building America.
- Zachriel | 11/28/2014 @ 09:08The Greatest Generation was largely liberal. They had a lot to do with building America.
There is a phrase that addresses this: “The devil’s in the details.” The definitions are problematic. I already made an issue out of “largely,” but that was parody. However, the parody reinforced the point that definitions do matter.
Also, that when it is shown to y’all directly that y’all’s presumptions were in error, y’all don’t even skip a beat, don’t even acknowledge the error. This, naturally, arouses new & greater questions about the value of y’all’s premises.
That’s on top of the definition problems. The problematic definitions in y’all’s statement are:
“liberal” (hashed out ad nauseum elsewhere, we know we don’t agree on this);
“Greatest Generation” (old enough to vote in ’32? Really?);
“building”;
“America”;
“had a lot to do with”.
The rest of it is crisp, clear, unambiguous and ready for a rational, reasoned discussion to flesh out the details. “The,” “They” and “was.”
- mkfreeberg | 11/28/2014 @ 09:18You managed to post 145 words without engaging your own position or responding to our comment. Try again. We’ll rephrase it.
mk: As for what have conservatives done for women? Built America.
Z: The generation that came of age during the Great Depression was largely liberal. They had a lot to do with building America.
- Zachriel | 11/28/2014 @ 09:22The generation that came of age during the Great Depression was largely liberal. They had a lot to do with building America.
Liberal, as in, interning Japanese Americans? Y’all went on record saying that was not a liberal thing to do. But then y’all indulged in ridicule when y’all perceived I was questioning whether FDR was a liberal.
FDR signed the executive order authorizing the internment. And whatever y’all have in mind with “Greatest Generation,” it would seem they were in on it; FDR had public backing for this action, albeit divided public backing.
So as we try to figure out what y’all mean by “building America” — it would be reckless to presume y’all mean the same thing by this, that normal people mean by something like this — should we count the fences in the internment camps as being part of what was built?
- mkfreeberg | 11/28/2014 @ 09:34mkfreeberg: Liberal, as in, interning Japanese Americans?
There’s your black-and-white thinking again. A liberal can sometimes act illiberally, especially when under political pressure.
mkfreeberg: Y’all went on record saying that was not a liberal thing to do.
Of course it was illiberal. Do you think otherwise?
mkfreeberg: FDR signed the executive order authorizing the internment.
Yes, he did.
mkfreeberg: And whatever y’all have in mind with “Greatest Generation,” it would seem they were in on it; FDR had public backing for this action, albeit divided public backing.
There were very few who spoke out publicly against internment.
Are you saying FDR was not a liberal? Seriously?
- Zachriel | 11/28/2014 @ 09:52There’s your black-and-white thinking again. A liberal can sometimes act illiberally, especially when under political pressure.
:
Of course it was illiberal. Do you think otherwise?
:
Are you saying FDR was not a liberal? Seriously?
Mr. Fader, from what I read before already, is not a dummy so I’m sure he can piece together how it rolls out from here. Lots of posturing built on shaky definitions, and inconsistent applications of the definitions. Here y’all are, in one single post, insisting FDR was a dedicated liberal who did non-liberal things. Messy patchwork all held together with the emulsifying agent of “We’re capable of shades-of-gray thinking. And you are not.”
To really keep it standing for awhile, act incredulous. It’s all about the cosmetics. And in the end, it works! …Largely.
- mkfreeberg | 11/28/2014 @ 10:05mkfreeberg: insisting FDR was a dedicated liberal who did non-liberal things.
Just pointing to the historical record. By the way, you never did defend your original post. Maybe you missed it. Or maybe you don’t think it is defensible.
mkfreeberg: As for what have conservatives done for women? Built America.
Z: The generation that came of age during the Great Depression was largely liberal. They had a lot to do with building America.
- Zachriel | 11/28/2014 @ 10:11@Morgan,
you know, there actually might be some opportunity to learn something here. Zachriel will probably just keep Spergily repeating themselves (items 1,3,4,5, and 8 on The Checklist), but if you want, you could try to develop a “Liberal Rating” for various presidents, since we’re informed that liberals can do illiberal stuff under political pressure. It’d be complicated, but I’m thinking something like “total quarterback ranking” for NFL quarterbacks. You know, something like:
[(attempts at nationalizing industry – political pressure) x (total limitations on freedom x .25 constiutional violations)] / (“let me be clear”) * (amount of positive press spin) * .75 media hackery.
You’d have to go to Zachriel to get the definitive ruling on which actions are “liberal,” but it’s a start.
- Severian | 11/28/2014 @ 10:26By the way, you never did defend your original post. Maybe you missed it. Or maybe you don’t think it is defensible.
Amazing how y’all leaped to eliminating as a possibility: Perhaps there’s nothing that requires defending. We’ve been here before. A few times.
[(attempts at nationalizing industry – political pressure) x (total limitations on freedom x .25 constiutional violations)] / (“let me be clear”) * (amount of positive press spin) * .75 media hackery.
You’d have to go to Zachriel to get the definitive ruling on which actions are “liberal,” but it’s a start.
Well, from what I recall about George Washington, he said something about having tried that and came away convinced it’s a rather futile endeavor. Somewhere in the Farewell Address, around the part where he says “By the way, I’m a proud liberal and card-carrying member of the ACLU.”
I’m just fascinated with the thing about how it’s illiberal to imprison people behind a fence, even though we can tell from the Obama administration’s actions with the IRS and the Tea Party groups, Emperor Three Putt would just love to do something like that to them. And there’d be nothing illiberal about that. Certainly, we have wide agreement throughout the ideological spectrum, that it’s “liberal” to enslave generations of people in exactly the same way, by means of debt rather than by means of razor wire. So I’m not sure how the physical means of imprisonment suddenly makes liberal into illiberal, and vice-versa. But I know better than to ask.
- mkfreeberg | 11/28/2014 @ 11:32That’s where I think Total Liberal Rating (TLR) would be really useful. For instance, the Left spent 1.21 gigawatts of energy informing me that Pharaoh Choomenkamen’s illegal alien amnesty was exactly the same thing as Reagan’s and GHW Bush’s. Let’s take them at their word (even though it’s an obvious lie) — does that increase Reagan’s TLR? What about Bill Clinton’s efforts to “end welfare as we know it”? Does that drop his TLR? If so, by how much?
Best of all, since it’s an equation — you know, science — we can isolate variables. We can solve for, say, “unprovoked bombings of sovereign nations,” and see how that varies by partisan affiliation. Or we could run, say, “failure to close Gitmo” through the TLR equation, or see how “Medicare Part D expansion” stacks up against “ObamaCare.”
What’s not to like? Of course, you’d actually have to get Zachriel to come up with specifics on what counts as “liberal” — not just a cut-n-paste of The Lecture they devised back in 2005 — but since it’s, you know, science, they should be chomping at the bit…
- Severian | 11/28/2014 @ 13:26mkfreeberg: Perhaps there’s nothing that requires defending.
We raised a significant objection. You have ignored that objection, which suggests you have no counterargument.
- Zachriel | 11/28/2014 @ 14:29Checking The Checklist:
Children with Asperger’s:
Have a very hard time relating to others. It doesn’t mean that they avoid social contact. But they lack instincts and skills to help them express their thoughts and feelings and notice others’ feelings.
Like fixed routines. Change is hard for them.
May not recognize verbal and nonverbal cues or understand social norms. For example, they may stare at others, not make eye contact, or not know what personal space means.
May have speech that’s flat and hard to understand because it lacks tone, pitch, and accent. Or they may have a formal style of speaking that’s advanced for their age.
May have only one or a few interests, or they may focus intensely on a few things. For example, they may show an unusual interest in snakes or star names or may draw very detailed pictures.
Five of eight in two sentences. I think that’s a new record.
- Severian | 11/28/2014 @ 15:49