"Well, isn't that just trying to prove you wrong...just like I said?"
We can learn much from the youth today.
21 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Considering the belief you have shown in things that are solely products of your imagination, the fact that you spoke to him and he answered you doesn't mean he has an independent existence outside your head, you know.
Besides, how would that be proving you wrong? Just because you are inventing his existence doesn't mean you weren't trying to use that existence to say something.
Think of it like the Homeric essays, where the 'conversation' was likely invented.
The flip side is, if he is real and a student at your school, telling him about your online life where your friends (like Reverend Jim) are all corporate cock suckers might not be career enhancing.
I apologize, Mark. You know I'm only kidding about your imaginary friends and those mysterious voices. I have no doubt you're talking to real people, and absolutely no doubt you 'heard' what you did...I just suspect that they actually said something closer to, "Hey Mark, how ya doing?", whereas you heard, "Bush is Hitler. Cheney is the devil. Haliburton...Haliburton...Haliburton!" LOL
When you're having a debate about what is true, who loses when they change their mind because someone else has a better argument? Why is distinguishing right from wrong such a bad thing in your book, Mark?
Just do this kid a favor Mark - don't pass on your own intellectual disabilities to him. Don't teach him that thinking in soundbites and slogans is an acceptable substitute for reason and logic. Don't teach him that the use of bigger words is the same thing as intelligence. And for gods sake - don't teach him to ignore what other people say in favor of his own preferred narrative of what they say. You may be way too far gone, but he doesn't have to take the same path.
Way too far gone exactly where, Hap? It seems to me that the only reason you think that is that I have a different political ideology than you do. Aren't all liberals like that? If not, then who? Can you name more than one or two? If not, then the problem is with you, not me. In fact, I challenge you to name more than three liberals that are not intellectually disabled and have reason and logic.
Again, we see a more apt description of yourself and some others that post here and not me. Cohen's piece from the other day mean anything to you at all?
Larry, I agree. It's always interesting to see which questions Mark ignores. In this case, it's the questions about the central topic of his post.
I have my theories on the answers to that question, but I think it would be better for Mark to answer for himself rather than trying to guess what goes on in his mind.
BTW, Mark. That you refuse to answer such questions (or apparently even consider them) is right near the top of the list of disabilities that Hap is talking about.
Dave-it happened exactly as I described it. Of course, I must have something wrong with my perception because it can't possibly be that I'm right about ANY of my analyses regarding conservatives, correct?
you refuse to answer such questions .
Wow. You guys really need to come up with some new material.
Erm - that those disabilities I listed are too deeply ingrained in you for you to be able to grow out of them now? (Not sure what else that could have possibly meant, but as you aren't known for reading comprehension, whatever.)
>I challenge you to name more than three liberals that are not intellectually disabled and have reason and logic.
Sure - Ta-Nehisi Coates over at The Atlantic, Armed Liberal over at winds of change, and Kevin Drum at Mother Jones. I certainly don't agree with a lot of their positions, but they don't show nearly the same "the world is how I wish it is!" naivety/arrogance that you do.
>Cohen's piece from the other day mean anything to you at all?
You keep forgetting - I'm not an R, so even though I think you're deeply unserious for trading in phrases like "cult" or "gang", I have no strong interest in defending the R's. The only thing I like about the R's is that they are somewhat more likely to support my priorities than the D's are.
I’m quite careful not to throw out blanket statements so I’d never say that you’re 'never' right about ‘any’ analysis, but I’m comfortable with a 85% incorrect rating. Case in point, the whole cult concept. Take the basic components of Cohen’s premise, abortion, global warming, taxation and spending…and reverse them…do you see many (any?) pro-choice, anti-global warming, low tax & spend Liberals? Of course not. So by your own definition, Liberalism is also a cult. Rather than characterize either party as a cult, I think the better definition is a “two party system”.
Great article today by Ann Coulter on the effects of single parent families on crime, etc. Liberals love to say how imposing healthcare on others is for the greater good…what are your thoughts on imposed dual parent families or adoption for kids? Hard to impose (and I absolutely positively don’t espouse imposing anything on anybody) but just think of the savings and the greater good…
do you see many (any?) pro-choice, anti-global warming, low tax & spend Liberals?
Uh...yes. There are plenty of pro life (I assume that's what you meant) liberals. President Obama and the Democrats are all about cutting taxes these days for most people. The president just proposed further cuts in spending amounting to 4 trillion dollars instead of the 1.2 currently being kicked around. This is the whole point of the Brooks piece. When you have Democrats talking about massive cuts, you take the deal.
Climate change really needs to be pulled from the political arena so that part of your question really doesn't fit in with your overall gist. But your point is well taken because that's the chief difference between the right and left today. The left compromises and the right does not.
The right used to not be a cult. Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan...none of these men were cult like. Compare them to Bachmann, Palin, and Santorum.
And, while liberals certainly have had their cults in the past (mostly in the 60s and 70s), they never really ran the party as they do the right today. Purity tests? Oaths? It's just weird, dude. We don't do that sort of thing. We do:
Women’s Voting Rights The Civil Rights Act of 1964 Public schools Child-labor laws National Parks National Forests The Interstate Highway System Public Broadcasting/Educational Television Americans With Disabilities Act Family and Medical Leave Act
Dave-I checked out Coulter's article and found it to be silly. It's the fault of liberals that there are single parents? Uh...what about Bristol Palin?
But your overall question is valid. Most children of two parent homes do much better in life. If you recall, Manzi cited those studies in the piece we talk about all the time on here. I've always been a big believer in committed relationships between two people being the best way to go with or without children. I have a variety of reasons for this and it's not just because of the greater good for children. One big reason is that it's simply more romantic.
Imposing it is a tougher nut to crack but maybe it could be a requirement for adoption. But I think a lot of this is part and parcel to the Michael Jordan Generation.
"It's the fault of liberals that there are single parents? Uh...what about Bristol Palin?"
Kids, don't let Marxy discourage you from reading the column. I find Ann to be one of the best transgendered right-wing writers out there. She's the only one, but that makes her the best.
I deliberately didn't comment on that component of her article. It just seemed an interesting comparison...the liberal horde here is quite fond of saying how healthcare (for instance) should be imposed on people 'for the greater good'. Well, following that line of thought, why aren't they suggesting such things as brought up in the article, impossing two parent families, if that also reduces crime and saves the country gobs of money?
Your list is neither here nor there.
An interesting experiment. Take some of Cohen's items to qualify either party as a cult (abortion for example) and find the percentage in each party opposed to the base party line; i.e. are a greater percentage of Republicans Pro-Choice than Democrats are Pro-Life? ...will get back to you on that.
21 comments:
Considering the belief you have shown in things that are solely products of your imagination, the fact that you spoke to him and he answered you doesn't mean he has an independent existence outside your head, you know.
cough *bullshit* cough
Besides, how would that be proving you wrong? Just because you are inventing his existence doesn't mean you weren't trying to use that existence to say something.
Think of it like the Homeric essays, where the 'conversation' was likely invented.
The flip side is, if he is real and a student at your school, telling him about your online life where your friends (like Reverend Jim) are all corporate cock suckers might not be career enhancing.
I apologize, Mark. You know I'm only kidding about your imaginary friends and those mysterious voices. I have no doubt you're talking to real people, and absolutely no doubt you 'heard' what you did...I just suspect that they actually said something closer to, "Hey Mark, how ya doing?", whereas you heard, "Bush is Hitler. Cheney is the devil. Haliburton...Haliburton...Haliburton!"
LOL
When you're having a debate about what is true, who loses when they change their mind because someone else has a better argument? Why is distinguishing right from wrong such a bad thing in your book, Mark?
Just do this kid a favor Mark - don't pass on your own intellectual disabilities to him. Don't teach him that thinking in soundbites and slogans is an acceptable substitute for reason and logic. Don't teach him that the use of bigger words is the same thing as intelligence. And for gods sake - don't teach him to ignore what other people say in favor of his own preferred narrative of what they say. You may be way too far gone, but he doesn't have to take the same path.
Way too far gone exactly where, Hap? It seems to me that the only reason you think that is that I have a different political ideology than you do. Aren't all liberals like that? If not, then who? Can you name more than one or two? If not, then the problem is with you, not me. In fact, I challenge you to name more than three liberals that are not intellectually disabled and have reason and logic.
Again, we see a more apt description of yourself and some others that post here and not me. Cohen's piece from the other day mean anything to you at all?
Lame. Just ... lame. I almost feel sorry for Mark.
Larry, I agree. It's always interesting to see which questions Mark ignores. In this case, it's the questions about the central topic of his post.
I have my theories on the answers to that question, but I think it would be better for Mark to answer for himself rather than trying to guess what goes on in his mind.
BTW, Mark. That you refuse to answer such questions (or apparently even consider them) is right near the top of the list of disabilities that Hap is talking about.
Dave-it happened exactly as I described it. Of course, I must have something wrong with my perception because it can't possibly be that I'm right about ANY of my analyses regarding conservatives, correct?
you refuse to answer such questions .
Wow. You guys really need to come up with some new material.
>Way too far gone exactly where, Hap?
Erm - that those disabilities I listed are too deeply ingrained in you for you to be able to grow out of them now? (Not sure what else that could have possibly meant, but as you aren't known for reading comprehension, whatever.)
>I challenge you to name more than three liberals that are not intellectually disabled and have reason and logic.
Sure - Ta-Nehisi Coates over at The Atlantic, Armed Liberal over at winds of change, and Kevin Drum at Mother Jones. I certainly don't agree with a lot of their positions, but they don't show nearly the same "the world is how I wish it is!" naivety/arrogance that you do.
>Cohen's piece from the other day mean anything to you at all?
You keep forgetting - I'm not an R, so even though I think you're deeply unserious for trading in phrases like "cult" or "gang", I have no strong interest in defending the R's. The only thing I like about the R's is that they are somewhat more likely to support my priorities than the D's are.
You guys really need to come up with some new material.
Well then, where's the answers to those questions?
I’m quite careful not to throw out blanket statements so I’d never say that you’re 'never' right about ‘any’ analysis, but I’m comfortable with a 85% incorrect rating. Case in point, the whole cult concept. Take the basic components of Cohen’s premise, abortion, global warming, taxation and spending…and reverse them…do you see many (any?) pro-choice, anti-global warming, low tax & spend Liberals? Of course not. So by your own definition, Liberalism is also a cult. Rather than characterize either party as a cult, I think the better definition is a “two party system”.
Great article today by Ann Coulter on the effects of single parent families on crime, etc. Liberals love to say how imposing healthcare on others is for the greater good…what are your thoughts on imposed dual parent families or adoption for kids? Hard to impose (and I absolutely positively don’t espouse imposing anything on anybody) but just think of the savings and the greater good…
do you see many (any?) pro-choice, anti-global warming, low tax & spend Liberals?
Uh...yes. There are plenty of pro life (I assume that's what you meant) liberals. President Obama and the Democrats are all about cutting taxes these days for most people. The president just proposed further cuts in spending amounting to 4 trillion dollars instead of the 1.2 currently being kicked around. This is the whole point of the Brooks piece. When you have Democrats talking about massive cuts, you take the deal.
Climate change really needs to be pulled from the political arena so that part of your question really doesn't fit in with your overall gist. But your point is well taken because that's the chief difference between the right and left today. The left compromises and the right does not.
The right used to not be a cult. Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan...none of these men were cult like. Compare them to Bachmann, Palin, and Santorum.
And, while liberals certainly have had their cults in the past (mostly in the 60s and 70s), they never really ran the party as they do the right today. Purity tests? Oaths? It's just weird, dude. We don't do that sort of thing. We do:
Women’s Voting Rights
The Civil Rights Act of 1964
Public schools
Child-labor laws
National Parks
National Forests
The Interstate Highway System
Public Broadcasting/Educational Television
Americans With Disabilities Act
Family and Medical Leave Act
Those sorts of things...
Purity tests? Oaths? It's just weird, dude. We don't do that sort of thing.
Ah, so "political correctness" never happened.
Dave-I checked out Coulter's article and found it to be silly. It's the fault of liberals that there are single parents? Uh...what about Bristol Palin?
But your overall question is valid. Most children of two parent homes do much better in life. If you recall, Manzi cited those studies in the piece we talk about all the time on here. I've always been a big believer in committed relationships between two people being the best way to go with or without children. I have a variety of reasons for this and it's not just because of the greater good for children. One big reason is that it's simply more romantic.
Imposing it is a tougher nut to crack but maybe it could be a requirement for adoption. But I think a lot of this is part and parcel to the Michael Jordan Generation.
"When you have Democrats talking about massive cuts, you take the deal."
What? Why?
If massive cuts are so good that you take them - no matter what, then what are you saying?
"It's the fault of liberals that there are single parents? Uh...what about Bristol Palin?"
Kids, don't let Marxy discourage you from reading the column. I find Ann to be one of the best transgendered right-wing writers out there. She's the only one, but that makes her the best.
"they never really ran the party as they do the right today."
Yep, they are so much worse than the graft and corruption of Tammany Hall. [insert google search]
It seems that corruption and government seem to go along together.
More government will put an end to that nonsense.
I deliberately didn't comment on that component of her article. It just seemed an interesting comparison...the liberal horde here is quite fond of saying how healthcare (for instance) should be imposed on people 'for the greater good'. Well, following that line of thought, why aren't they suggesting such things as brought up in the article, impossing two parent families, if that also reduces crime and saves the country gobs of money?
Your list is neither here nor there.
An interesting experiment. Take some of Cohen's items to qualify either party as a cult (abortion for example) and find the percentage in each party opposed to the base party line; i.e. are a greater percentage of Republicans Pro-Choice than Democrats are Pro-Life? ...will get back to you on that.
Hey, Mark just figures that if standards are good, then double standards must be better.
Larry, consider yourself lucky that you aren't getting a bill for a new monitor. I managed to swallow that coffee before it could be sprayed.
Post a Comment