I understand this as an article of faith amongst lefties, but would anyone mind telling me why it matters? Isn't the only thing that matters is that the you are happy with what you have - not where you stand in the great social pecking order?
Why the obsession with this? What difference does it make between you and me if you have more than I do?
Somewhat off topic, with regard to wealth distribution, but spot on as to who is misinformed, what have you to say about this?
"U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner will present Congress with three options for reducing the government’s role in the nation’s housing finance system and shrinking the footprint of mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac..."
Why should they do that? Could it be because of years of distorting the housing market by exaggerated incentives for home ownership. This is the new reality and people better come to terms with it.
Here is an interesting take on the Obama (and leftie in general) schizophrenia on business. And what can we expect from the Democratic Party when they can't hold onto people like Sen. Webb?
Knowledge is power. If people don't think there's a problem they aren't likely to call for a solution. In Egypt it was obvious to everyone just how rich and corrupt Mubarak was. In the US most Americans don't realize just how rich guys like the Kochs are, how much power they wield, how much their industries are damaging the environment, and how little they pay in taxes relative to their wealth. Instead we're treated to a non-stop stream of lies from Fox that reflect Republican propaganda, from "poor people buying houses they couldn't afford caused the recession" to "global warming isn't real."
That's why it's important for the people to have a good grasp of what's really going on. If you don't have the right information you're not likely to come up with the right solutions. Or pick the right people to represent you.
And once again you fail to describe any harm that you suffer by someone else being wealthy. Lots of vague hand-waving, but not one specific thing. Even the ways of God aren't that mysterious.
What power have the Kochs used to force you to do something that you didn't want to do?
Which business of theirs has polluted where and what?
The highest 10% of incomes pay 70% of all income tax - that isn't enough? How much does your envy demand?
You pathetic brainless religious zombies just respond to the dog whistle - every fucking time. And have the unmitigated gall to bitch about how your mirror-images on the right-wing are so guilty of that.
You wouldn't know knowledge if it bit you on the ass - you just keep singing out of the holy left's hymnal.
That's what we need - more government solutions! Fannie and Freddie were probably set up to "solve" a problem too, and they were run into the ground by a whole slew of ivy leaguers who are probably still trying to "solve" the problem they were set up to solve. (quick, now jump back to your intentions or talk about "the right" some more)
Juris-I will be writing on the Fannie/Freddie thing in a few days.
And once again you fail to describe any harm that you suffer by someone else being wealthy.
BLK and I can't be held responsible for your continued refusal to look at facts. Moreover, your willful ignorance regarding severe systemic flaws in the way our country's hierarchy is set up has long since past frustrating.
BLK and I can't be held responsible for your continued refusal to look at facts.
What fucking facts? I asked three questions that could be answered with facts that would elaborate on assertions in blk's comment. I even gave a fact in my third [non-rhetorical] question - do you recognize it? I don't mind which side of that divide you fall on - as long as you know it about yourself.
That's the difference between religious zealots - who don't need any evidence to make assertions - and critical thinkers.
>BLK and I can't be held responsible for your continued refusal to look at facts. Moreover, your willful ignorance regarding severe systemic flaws in the way our country's hierarchy is set up has long since past frustrating.
Well, blk doesn't usually engage in discussions so that is on him.
But one of the main reasons why he doesn't is due to your inherent bias. It's a bias that others, like young Hap here, also share. blk and I could present fact after fact...study after study...idea after idea and it still wouldn't matter. If you don't LIKE it, you won't accept it. It's become a sort of bizarre game of make believe combined with adolescent behavior.
It's not stupidity, Hap. It's willful ignorance. There is a difference.
I'll tell ya what, why don't you actually try that, at least once, before you tell me exactly how it will go down. Because you can't really know until you try it. And doing so really shouldn't hurt you all that much. You might even find that you like facts - once you make their acquaintance.
If you don't LIKE it, you won't accept it.
P R O J E C T M U C H ? ? ?
There is a reason that your canon of responses is there at TSM.
>But one of the main reasons why he doesn't is due to your inherent bias. It's a bias that others, like young Hap here, also share.
A minor variant on #11, "You're Not Smart Enough For Me To Converse With." Well done again Mark. You don't change much do you?
>blk and I could present fact after fact...study after study...idea after idea and it still wouldn't matter.
What Juris said. Or, to be slightly more specific, you very very rarely present anything coherent or relevant to back up your statements - you just do lots of #5 and hope that nobody notices. This one is no exception, as Juris has asked you.. I dunno, 10 times to substantiate the claim that by virtue of someone else getting richer or more wealthy, you are harmed. Blk has punted nicely on this one as well.
I'd change this a little bit. "If I can't make logical sense of it, I don't accept it." Unfortunately, you very rarely make logical sense.
>It's become a sort of bizarre game of make believe combined with adolescent behavior.
You really seem to think that you're actually in some sort of teacher mode here, don't you? Has it ever occurred to you that it is you who has a great deal of learning to do? Or does your deep reflection preclude that possibility?
Juris-I've done it so many times and you refuse to take notice. Your bias prevents this from happening.
Every sit back and think about that list over TSM? Can you honestly imagine any one of them capable of making a list like that about themselves? The simple fact that it exists is proof positive that most conservatives and libertarians are incapable of reflection. They stick to their guns no matter what and it's always someone (liberals and progressives) fault. They are in constant attack mode with the central strategy of winning the argument and never admitting fault.
Hap, when you are presented with something you don't like, it immediately (as if by magic) becomes illogical. That's they way you "win" arguments. Liberals, Democrats, and Progressives are "illogical" so, therefore, they are wrong. Throw in some words like "genetic fallacy" and "non sequitur" and the facts that you don't like are marginalized in just the way you like them to be.
It used to quite clever back when I fell for these antics. Sadly for you, no longer:)
>Hap, when you are presented with something you don't like, it immediately (as if by magic) becomes illogical.
Uh huh. Given the copious amounts of evidence that you are unable to distinguish between logic (ie, concepts or ideas that complement each other in some way) and irrelevancy (ie, concepts or ideas that have no meaningful relation), I'm not surprised that you think that it is magic.
>Throw in some words like "genetic fallacy" and "non sequitur" and the facts that you don't like are marginalized in just the way you like them to be.
Oh, my bad. I guess it's bad form to point out when you engage in such fallacies. Wouldn't want you to think about how well your positions are backed up now, would we? :)
>It used to quite clever back when I fell for these antics. Sadly for you, no longer:)
Ah, gonna go with the "i'm too wise to answer your questions" eh? Very surprising. :) You must think you are awfully important in my mind, such that I'd carefully craft a means to trick you. Sorry, but no. My attempts to get you to explain yourself are just that - attempts to get you to explain yourself. That you fail to do so in anything resembling a coherent way is just a sad reflection of what passes for 'intellectual' these days, which you seem to fancy yourself to be.
Juris-I've done it so many times and you refuse to take notice.
No M, you don't. I wouldn't have to ask repeatedly if you did. Fuck you and your assertions about my bias. If just ONE time you would actually attach a fact to a theory, then you could point to that time and say "see, I did it". But you don't. You just wave your hands and plead. Seriously, if you worked half as hard at actually researching an opinion as you do bloviating about it, you might just make a coherent point.
Mark explains himself every day on here. What is your problem?
No, M expresses his opinions and almost never bothers to substantiate those opinions with facts. Now, people who espouse religious beliefs don't need evidence to believe in something. If all that M offers satisfies you, well, then, you are just another religious zealot. I am looking for more if I am to give any credence to the theory.
They are in constant attack mode with the central strategy of winning the argument and never admitting fault.
You really don't even realize when you are projecting, do you?
Classic. I refer you again to where Katrina vanden Heuvel fails to admit a simple error, lest it unhinge the universe she (and apparently you) live in.
Sorry, juris, but he lists facts all the time and you twist them around to suit your libertarian tendencies. You never think for a moment that there might be some validity to what he presents and treat everything that you don't like with disdain.
No one can twist a fact. That's the problem with facts - for people like you and M. They are very inconvenient things, so they are best ignored. Instead, it is much easier to pretend that the world is exactly like you imagine it - then you never have to modify what is inside your head to match what is outside. Mind you, that isn't how I choose to live - but it is a choice. Your choice.
Or, you could answer any one of the questions I raised earlier - with factual content. It would be a refreshing change.
22 comments:
I understand this as an article of faith amongst lefties, but would anyone mind telling me why it matters? Isn't the only thing that matters is that the you are happy with what you have - not where you stand in the great social pecking order?
Why the obsession with this? What difference does it make between you and me if you have more than I do?
Somewhat off topic, with regard to wealth distribution, but spot on as to who is misinformed, what have you to say about this?
"U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner will present Congress with three options for reducing the government’s role in the nation’s housing finance system and shrinking the footprint of mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac..."
Why should they do that? Could it be because of years of distorting the housing market by exaggerated incentives for home ownership. This is the new reality and people better come to terms with it.
Here is an interesting take on the Obama (and leftie in general) schizophrenia on business. And what can we expect from the Democratic Party when they can't hold onto people like Sen. Webb?
Knowledge is power. If people don't think there's a problem they aren't likely to call for a solution. In Egypt it was obvious to everyone just how rich and corrupt Mubarak was. In the US most Americans don't realize just how rich guys like the Kochs are, how much power they wield, how much their industries are damaging the environment, and how little they pay in taxes relative to their wealth. Instead we're treated to a non-stop stream of lies from Fox that reflect Republican propaganda, from "poor people buying houses they couldn't afford caused the recession" to "global warming isn't real."
That's why it's important for the people to have a good grasp of what's really going on. If you don't have the right information you're not likely to come up with the right solutions. Or pick the right people to represent you.
Knowledge is power.
Then why all the whining about wealth?
And once again you fail to describe any harm that you suffer by someone else being wealthy. Lots of vague hand-waving, but not one specific thing. Even the ways of God aren't that mysterious.
What power have the Kochs used to force you to do something that you didn't want to do?
Which business of theirs has polluted where and what?
The highest 10% of incomes pay 70% of all income tax - that isn't enough? How much does your envy demand?
You pathetic brainless religious zombies just respond to the dog whistle - every fucking time. And have the unmitigated gall to bitch about how your mirror-images on the right-wing are so guilty of that.
You wouldn't know knowledge if it bit you on the ass - you just keep singing out of the holy left's hymnal.
Just saw this; talk about misinformed!
Solutions!
That's what we need - more government solutions! Fannie and Freddie were probably set up to "solve" a problem too, and they were run into the ground by a whole slew of ivy leaguers who are probably still trying to "solve" the problem they were set up to solve. (quick, now jump back to your intentions or talk about "the right" some more)
Juris-I will be writing on the Fannie/Freddie thing in a few days.
And once again you fail to describe any harm that you suffer by someone else being wealthy.
BLK and I can't be held responsible for your continued refusal to look at facts. Moreover, your willful ignorance regarding severe systemic flaws in the way our country's hierarchy is set up has long since past frustrating.
BLK and I can't be held responsible for your continued refusal to look at facts.
What fucking facts? I asked three questions that could be answered with facts that would elaborate on assertions in blk's comment. I even gave a fact in my third [non-rhetorical] question - do you recognize it? I don't mind which side of that divide you fall on - as long as you know it about yourself.
That's the difference between religious zealots - who don't need any evidence to make assertions - and critical thinkers.
>BLK and I can't be held responsible for your continued refusal to look at facts. Moreover, your willful ignorance regarding severe systemic flaws in the way our country's hierarchy is set up has long since past frustrating.
http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2009/08/standard-responses-of-markadelphia.html
A textbook #5. Well done.
Well, blk doesn't usually engage in discussions so that is on him.
But one of the main reasons why he doesn't is due to your inherent bias. It's a bias that others, like young Hap here, also share. blk and I could present fact after fact...study after study...idea after idea and it still wouldn't matter. If you don't LIKE it, you won't accept it. It's become a sort of bizarre game of make believe combined with adolescent behavior.
It's not stupidity, Hap. It's willful ignorance. There is a difference.
blk and I could present fact after fact
I'll tell ya what, why don't you actually try that, at least once, before you tell me exactly how it will go down. Because you can't really know until you try it. And doing so really shouldn't hurt you all that much. You might even find that you like facts - once you make their acquaintance.
If you don't LIKE it, you won't accept it.
P R O J E C T M U C H ? ? ?
There is a reason that your canon of responses is there at TSM.
>But one of the main reasons why he doesn't is due to your inherent bias. It's a bias that others, like young Hap here, also share.
A minor variant on #11, "You're Not Smart Enough For Me To Converse With." Well done again Mark. You don't change much do you?
>blk and I could present fact after fact...study after study...idea after idea and it still wouldn't matter.
What Juris said. Or, to be slightly more specific, you very very rarely present anything coherent or relevant to back up your statements - you just do lots of #5 and hope that nobody notices. This one is no exception, as Juris has asked you.. I dunno, 10 times to substantiate the claim that by virtue of someone else getting richer or more wealthy, you are harmed. Blk has punted nicely on this one as well.
>If you don't LIKE it, you won't accept it.
I'd change this a little bit. "If I can't make logical sense of it, I don't accept it." Unfortunately, you very rarely make logical sense.
>It's become a sort of bizarre game of make believe combined with adolescent behavior.
You really seem to think that you're actually in some sort of teacher mode here, don't you? Has it ever occurred to you that it is you who has a great deal of learning to do? Or does your deep reflection preclude that possibility?
Juris-I've done it so many times and you refuse to take notice. Your bias prevents this from happening.
Every sit back and think about that list over TSM? Can you honestly imagine any one of them capable of making a list like that about themselves? The simple fact that it exists is proof positive that most conservatives and libertarians are incapable of reflection. They stick to their guns no matter what and it's always someone (liberals and progressives) fault. They are in constant attack mode with the central strategy of winning the argument and never admitting fault.
Hap, when you are presented with something you don't like, it immediately (as if by magic) becomes illogical. That's they way you "win" arguments. Liberals, Democrats, and Progressives are "illogical" so, therefore, they are wrong. Throw in some words like "genetic fallacy" and "non sequitur" and the facts that you don't like are marginalized in just the way you like them to be.
It used to quite clever back when I fell for these antics. Sadly for you, no longer:)
>Hap, when you are presented with something you don't like, it immediately (as if by magic) becomes illogical.
Uh huh. Given the copious amounts of evidence that you are unable to distinguish between logic (ie, concepts or ideas that complement each other in some way) and irrelevancy (ie, concepts or ideas that have no meaningful relation), I'm not surprised that you think that it is magic.
>Throw in some words like "genetic fallacy" and "non sequitur" and the facts that you don't like are marginalized in just the way you like them to be.
Oh, my bad. I guess it's bad form to point out when you engage in such fallacies. Wouldn't want you to think about how well your positions are backed up now, would we? :)
>It used to quite clever back when I fell for these antics. Sadly for you, no longer:)
Ah, gonna go with the "i'm too wise to answer your questions" eh? Very surprising. :) You must think you are awfully important in my mind, such that I'd carefully craft a means to trick you. Sorry, but no. My attempts to get you to explain yourself are just that - attempts to get you to explain yourself. That you fail to do so in anything resembling a coherent way is just a sad reflection of what passes for 'intellectual' these days, which you seem to fancy yourself to be.
Seriously, are you fucking retarded or just playing games? Mark explains himself every day on here. What is your problem?
>Seriously, are you fucking retarded or just playing games? Mark explains himself every day on here. What is your problem?
Another one of Mark's students, methinks?
Juris-I've done it so many times and you refuse to take notice.
No M, you don't. I wouldn't have to ask repeatedly if you did. Fuck you and your assertions about my bias. If just ONE time you would actually attach a fact to a theory, then you could point to that time and say "see, I did it". But you don't. You just wave your hands and plead. Seriously, if you worked half as hard at actually researching an opinion as you do bloviating about it, you might just make a coherent point.
Mark explains himself every day on here. What is your problem?
No, M expresses his opinions and almost never bothers to substantiate those opinions with facts. Now, people who espouse religious beliefs don't need evidence to believe in something. If all that M offers satisfies you, well, then, you are just another religious zealot. I am looking for more if I am to give any credence to the theory.
They are in constant attack mode with the central strategy of winning the argument and never admitting fault.
You really don't even realize when you are projecting, do you?
Classic. I refer you again to where Katrina vanden Heuvel fails to admit a simple error, lest it unhinge the universe she (and apparently you) live in.
Sorry, juris, but he lists facts all the time and you twist them around to suit your libertarian tendencies. You never think for a moment that there might be some validity to what he presents and treat everything that you don't like with disdain.
No one can twist a fact. That's the problem with facts - for people like you and M. They are very inconvenient things, so they are best ignored. Instead, it is much easier to pretend that the world is exactly like you imagine it - then you never have to modify what is inside your head to match what is outside. Mind you, that isn't how I choose to live - but it is a choice. Your choice.
Or, you could answer any one of the questions I raised earlier - with factual content. It would be a refreshing change.
for people like you and M. They are very inconvenient things
In a word, no. This is you juris, not Mark. Or did I miss you extolling some of the virtues of liberals and progressives somewhere in comments.
Post a Comment