That’s because they get it!

Fro a while now we have had an orchestrated LSM attempt to pretend that the economy is not in the tank or heading that way yet again, so it comes as no surprise to me that 7 in 10 small business owners are not hiring, and blaming the economic policies of the last 3 years and the bad economy it has created for not doing so. Things are bad out there. Don’t let the LSM tools that shill for the collectivists tell you otherwise. And most small business owners put the blame squarely where it belongs despite USNews’s attempt to hide that:

The Obama economy is so bad that 77 percent of small business owners do not plan to hire any more workers despite all of Washington’s hype that the business climate is getting better. Worse: 64 percent of small business owners in a new survey provided to Whispers see the nation teetering on the verge of another recession.

Most shocking of all in the survey of small and medium sized business owners is that many would like to hire more workers but can’t, and new financing rules imposed by hurting banks have made getting loans sharply more difficult than in the past.

These small business owners are right: the current business climate is downright hostile to most business owners, and doubly so to small business owners, and unless your run a mega corp that gives big to one political party, you are threading water. Business owners are lambasted regularly by the collectivist, wealth redistribution, class warriors that totally owned government for 2 years, and still hold the executive and the Senate. We have had a slew of horrible anti-business laws passed during the left’s tenure, including some which have begun to show their negative impact but are going to inflict far more damage and pain down the road, like Obamacare. But even worse is how we now have rogue agencies like the EPA doing what the left couldn’t by law, and coming up with their own business crushing rules. Rules, I add, that a big government growing, tax and spend heavy collectivist wealth redistributionist, democrat controlled congress, with a clear majority that would allow them to override any veto, and that told us they had a mandate (no, not two guys on a date) to do things just like that, wanted desperately, but could not pass. And that was because these onerous rules were economically poisonous and deadly to anyone that voted for them. So yeah, being a small business owner these days is down right dangerous business.

Also, I need to correct the authors and point out that banks are not loaning because banks are now by law mandated to hold on to much larger cash reserves, and have far more onerous regulation related to risk that make any kind of loans to people that didn’t need it in the first place, dangerous to them.

“Despite positive job numbers for the month of October, it is clear that business owners have a differing view of the economy,” said Connie Certusi, executive vice president and general manager of Small Business Accounting Solutions, a division of Sage North America. Sage, a business management software supplier, conducted the survey among its 3.2 million customers.

Those positive numbers they talk about is only “positive” if you are desperate to pretend that the general actions of the collectivists have done anything but harm to the economy. Otherwise the numbers are still showing an anemic economic condition and a desperate and moribund jobs market. Business owners get this. They are not fooled because they see the bottom line at the end of the month.

“The Sage SMB Perspective on Economic Recovery survey found that 64 percent of business owners who participated in the survey believe that we are either already in a recession or are headed for one in the next six months,” said Certusi. “Not surprisingly, 65 percent of respondents in the Sage SMB Perspective on Economic Recovery said that the negative economy has had an impact on their own business.” And, “The most telling statistic,” she added, “is that 48 percent of business owners would like to hire additional employees but cannot due to issues related to the bad economy.”

Like I said: these guys get it. They are not fooled by the propaganda media and the WH are shoveling out. I personally know people that told me a while back they would not hire with these clowns running the show, because they were not going to work to feed the beast instead of their family.

The survey will provide fodder to those in Washington worried most about the economic impact on small businesses, the sector Democrats and Republicans agree is key to creating jobs.

Hah! What it will do is make republicans say “I told you so” and democrats and the LSM get more desperate in their lies about the economic situation and what is hurting it. The one constant is that the job market will stay shitty, and that’s because the people that create wealth have had enough, if I can take a line from Joe Biden, of the raping coming from people that think the money belongs to the government. Job prospects remain bleak and we can expect this to last until the WH is vacated and the democrats are reduced to an insignificant minority and their wealth redistribution scams are terminated.

Comments are closed.

  1. Manwhore

    We are so polarized, to some dim bulbs this will not count for anything. “Middle Class” is the new commie. There are so many real and relevant issues to discuss and sort out. It’s pretty sad that something like this (or anything rich posts) makes the front page.. I read today that the disparity between senior citizen wealth and youth wealth here is about 46:1. That’s worth debate, unless you’re just some pissy pants senior who thinks that MTV is the new world order.

    Thumb up 0

  2. balthazar

    Why is that “worth debate”? Seniors have had their whole life to save money and plan retirement. It makes SENSE they have more money. And FYI Im 37 before you accuse me of being an “old man, get off my lawn” person.
    Citation needed for the 46:1 comparison too please.

    Thumb up 1

  3. balthazar

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH, they take the value of the persons house into account, no fucking wonder the “wealth gap” is so high, Old people have had 30+ years to “build wealth” in their house. Totally misleading bullshit.

    In addition, they even state that there’s more young people living with their parents later, that skews the numbers as well.

    Way to take 1 fact out of a report and just throw it out there all poo flinging style, hoping it sticks.

    Thumb up 3

  4. Manwhore

    God, you just adhere to all of the bullshit rules of arguing on the internet. In this case it’s “flat out deny it in the face of the truth” form of arguing.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Fact proven, denied in the face of proven fact. the only thing I hope stuck was a 46:1 scenario (took it easy) and you even stepped on your dick over that.

    Thumb up 0

  5. balthazar

    how blumblewhore?

    You throw a useless statistic out there with no backround hoping people wont look into it an call you out on your misrepresentation. I called you on it so go back to your fucking hole.

    Thumb up 4

  6. AlexInCT *

    Awesome post Balthazar. The whiners that comprise Team OWS want what their parents have now, after 3 or more decades of work and savings, given to them immediately and at other people’s expense.

    Thumb up 0

  7. mikedomi39

    Sorry Balthazar, but I think you are wrong. From the link:

    Perhaps the biggest factor leading to the wealth gap between the ages though, is the housing market, the Pew Center said.

    While rising home equity helped drive wealth gains for the older generation over the long-term, younger people had less time to ride out the housing market’s volatility — especially its most recent boom and bust.

    “Most of today’s older homeowners got into the housing market long ago, at ‘pre-bubble’ prices,” the report said. “Along with everyone else, they’ve been hurt by the housing market collapse of recent years, but over the long haul, most have seen their home equities rise.”

    “For young adults who are in the beginning stages of wealth accumulation, there has been no such luck, at least so far.”

    The pew study took your 30+ years into account. And as far as the “young people living at home” skewing the numbers, isn’t that more of a sign that they have no/little income…which might be why they are living at home? Proving the point? We can argue WHY this is happening all day, but it is happening.

    Way to take 1 fact out of a report and just throw it out there all poo flinging style, hoping it sticks.

    AlexinCT does this often, especially when talking about the 2008 collapse.

    Hope you and yours are well.

    Thumb up 1

  8. AlexInCT *

    The pew study took your 30+ years into account. And as far as the “young people living at home” skewing the numbers, isn’t that more of a sign that they have no/little income…which might be why they are living at home?

    Fist off, most of these young people live at home for one of the following reasons: they are unemployed, unemployable, do not want to work, or have no skills that will ever make them gainfully employed, oft combined with a lot of debt, and parents that never cut the cord and continue to cater to them. Yes, there are some unfortunates out there, but they tend to be in the minority, even in today’s horrible economy. But the majority of the momma’s basement dwellers are simply never going to amount to much and thus be able to afford a home.

    Pretending that the gap exists simply because they do not have a home and their parents do while ignoring the fact that the parents saved up over time to buy that kind of baffles me. Those kid’s parents might have entered the hosing market pre-bubble. My father-in-law bought his house cash from an old lady with a handshake agreement for $7400 dollars, then paid her weekly. He did that while married with 3 kids (and 3 more to come). My parents did it the old fashioned way – 20% down after a decade of saving – and without straddling themselves with gigantic debts pursuing worthless college degrees. Their home WAS their major investment.

    If your point is that homes are now too expensive, welcome to the results of a combination of horrible big government policies that have driven that result. Between the fuckers that make it impossible to build enough houses to allow demand to outstrip supply, and thus drive up prices, and the big government push to force lenders to let the most unqualified people buy houses with nothing down, they drove prices through the roof. It’s all correcting itself though. Houses cost a lot these days, but when you are already carrying a mortgage from your “education” you are the one that cornered yourself. As I have repeatedly said, anyone stupid enough to think that they are owed a big money job by virtue of a college degree, doubly so if they straddled themselves with incredible debt getting there, and finds themselves now angry and demanding a free pass because that obligation prevents them from buying whatever it is they want, including a house, can kiss my ass.

    AlexinCT does this often, especially when talking about the 2008 collapse.

    Actually what I do is lay blame where it belongs: with the people that have the power to regulate and use that power to try and warp reality and economics while making money from the process. People like you however want to pretend that the problem is with the victims of that regulation, because then it absolves the politicians that share your politics and gives those that made bad choices a group to fleece, to then pay for the consequences of those bad choices these people do not want to have to deal with. I guess that’s why the phrase “You rob banks because that’s where the money is” applies to OWS. That they think it is OK to have the regulators that created the problem in the first place do the stealing now to benefit them all but makes my case for the morality of this movement. But you can keep pretending there is an equivalence if it makes you feel all righteous and warm. Moron.

    Thumb up 0

  9. balthazar

    Actually Mike, they dont take a lot of them into account because it would skew the numbers back the other way. A lot of young people who live with their parents are able to pay off that debt quickly exactly because they do live there. Taking a whole subsection that would make the numbers better out of the equation is dirty pool at best.

    Thumb up 1

  10. CM

    AlexinCT does this often

    Precisely. He fills in the rest with his own narrative, presented as fact. He responds to the accusation by just doing it again. And around and around we go.

    Thumb up 1

  11. ilovecress

    Fist off, most of these young people live at home for one of the following reasons: they are unemployed, unemployable, do not want to work, or have no skills that will ever make them gainfully employed, oft combined with a lot of debt, and parents that never cut the cord and continue to cater to them.

    But I thought your whole post was about how Small Businesses weren’t hiring? So maybe the two are linked. It’s not that people don’t want to work, it’s that there’s nee jobs…

    You can’t argue that the economy is in the tank, and there is a huge lack of jobs – then go onto say that the unemployed are lazy. Pick a side. Either there are enough jobs to go around, or there aren’t.

    So maybe you could offer a word of advice to those ‘basement dwellers’?

    For what it’s worth – here in NZ I beleive that SME is the key to getting us out of this mess in a sustainable way. Investing in SME creates jobs, which creates demand from the middle class (terrible demographics..) which creates demand, which expands to export.

    It’s the guy with the great idea and the work ethic that is going to turn things around.

    Thumb up 1

  12. Manwhore

    You throw a useless statistic out there with no backround hoping people wont look into it an call you out on your misrepresentation. I called you on it so go back to your fucking hole.

    Not at all, and once again (surprise, surprise) you are wrong. My point being that there are two wildly different economic dynamics going on which might even explain the rifts here (and it’s completely generational, something I’ve noted here numerous times). Scoff at whatever conclusion I come to from it all you want, but it’s there.

    Besides, I think cress addressed the “convenient when it suits me” approach to defending the middle class. Basement dwelling losers, or victims of government over-regulation and largess? Seems they fit both of those bills quite nicely–way to talk about the country’s future.

    It use to be that you wanted the generation after yours to get further than you did. To hear Alex tell it, they should go back to living in depression era America (but pay SS and Medicare for him).

    Precisely. He fills in the rest with his own narrative, presented as fact.

    Well, to be fair there’s only one conclusion to every post, it’s “the government did it.” Except when he likes the government tear gassing people he disagrees with politically–that’s government he can tolerate.

    Reading through one is like watching Shark Week where a feeding frenzy is started off of by one fish. That one fish being some obscure notion (like OWS are rapists because he read an article he agreed with) and so the derp frenzy of 300 plus words surrounds this obscure notion.

    Thumb up 0

  13. CM

    The most recent national survey (from the Quinnipiac Polling Institute) suggests a serious image problem for the Republican Party, with just 28 percent of voters saying they have a favorable view of the GOP and 57 percent saying they have an unfavorable one.

    http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1669

    That’s quite a gap (the Dem gap is just 3 points). I assume from what Alex is saying that those 28 percent are the small business-owners…..

    Thumb up 0

  14. AlexInCT *

    But I thought your whole post was about how Small Businesses weren’t hiring? So maybe the two are linked. It’s not that people don’t want to work, it’s that there’s nee jobs…

    As I said, some of those basement dwellers might simply be out of luck because the economy is bad, but most of them tend to be either unemployable, or see real work as something beneath them. That’s why you have so many of them that think a 7 year stint at a college to get a studies degree not automatically resulting ina 6 figure job means they have been had by the banks.

    You can’t argue that the economy is in the tank, and there is a huge lack of jobs – then go onto say that the unemployed are lazy. Pick a side. Either there are enough jobs to go around, or there aren’t.

    I can certainly argue that the economy is in the tank, but that the ones showing up to protest at these OWS meetings tend to be lazy, stupid, and greedy. There is no reason for the bad economy and the dumb people to not logically coexist. These people would be doing much of the same if the economy was good except, nobody would pay attention to them, as was the case in the past.

    So maybe you could offer a word of advice to those ‘basement dwellers’?

    I actually did exactly that to a few of them, inculding a relative. Put that joint & the PS3 remote control down. Despite your belief that smoking dope has not causes you any harm, the fact that you live in that basement and spend you days playing video games and complaining about your tens of thousands of dollars in debt going to school to learn puppetry or some other such nonsense, while complaining about the evil capitalists that work 10 hour days having sold out, proves that. Start your own fucking business if you do not want to be told what to do.

    For what it’s worth – here in NZ I beleive that SME is the key to getting us out of this mess in a sustainable way. Investing in SME creates jobs, which creates demand from the middle class (terrible demographics..) which creates demand, which expands to export.

    What is SME?

    It’s the guy with the great idea and the work ethic that is going to turn things around.

    And you would be surprised how many of the basment dwellers think the great idea is to have government rob the people with money to forgive them their mistakes instead of inventing somethign people will pay oodles of money for and in the process, with hard work, make them rich.

    Thumb up 2

  15. AlexInCT *

    Did you see the questions asked and the demographic polled? Don’t worry, the only poll that counts is the election, and the democrats are going to take another shellacking in the next one. If not, at least I have the consolation that a continuing bad economy harms the very people that keep electing democrats the most, so the universe is just. And have no doubt that as long as Obama is in the WH and democrats keep pushing these idiotic Keynesian bullshit policies the economy will stay bad. Dumb people desrerve to suffer for doing stupid things. Mother nature is a bitch, but I do love her for actually not caring about what stupid people want to pretend things ought to be like, and smacking them hard.

    Thumb up 0

  16. Mississippi Yankee

    I still contend the mikedomi39 is a ‘nom ge guerre’ of an ivory tower liberal.

    If you watch closely he’ll slip up and disappear for months.
    DOG, I love this place!

    Thumb up 0

  17. Mississippi Yankee

    A little bit OT but…

    The Republican party in Mississippi is on the verge to take the majority in the State House for the first time in 140 years.

    Political shenanigans not withstanding of course.

    Thumb up 0

  18. ilovecress

    As I said, some of those basement dwellers might simply be out of luck because the economy is bad, but most of them tend to be either unemployable, or see real work as something beneath them.

    So if you take the unemployable out of the equasion, and then take out the lazy people that aren’t even looking for work, and then take the people that see real work as beneath them out fo the unemployment figures….is unemployment under Obama really that bad? I mean if loads of the unemployed are made up of people who don’t want to work anyway – wheres the problem? I know this is a c*nty snark, but just pointing out the incongruity of your statements.

    There is no reason for the bad economy and the dumb people to not logically coexist.

    Absolutely. But you have to admit that a) No jobs and b) less people working might feasibly be linked?

    Put that joint & the PS3 remote control down…….. Start your own fucking business if you do not want to be told what to do.

    So…go get a job then? I thought there weren’t any jobs?

    What is SME?

    Small/Medium Enterprise (basically small businesses) We need people to make some stuff, but we also need some people to buy the stuff that the guy makes.

    Thumb up 1

  19. balthazar

    I already addressed your idiocy, and why the numbers are so skewed. If you choose to ignore it you just prove further what Jim and others think of you is true.

    Thumb up 1

  20. Manwhore

    Balthazar, you are about as confused as you sound, and twice as thick. You argued (like a true moron) against a Statistic. I could understand disputing theories of the statistic, but your dumbass argued against a number.

    Good job bro.

    Thumb up 0

  21. CM

    Did you see the questions asked and the demographic polled?

    Yes. I even linked to it so you could see for yourself. Unlike you – where is your link to your poll?

    Anyway, if the only poll that counts is the election, then why are putting ANY stock into a poll about what small business owners think?

    Thumb up 0

  22. AlexInCT *

    So if you take the unemployable out of the equasion, and then take out the lazy people that aren’t even looking for work, and then take the people that see real work as beneath them out fo the unemployment figures….is unemployment under Obama really that bad?

    Are we talking of doing it under all other presidents too, and comparing the numbers apples to apples, or just for Obama so you and he can then pretend unemployment isn’t that bad like the LSM keeps telling us? And I would like to point out that there is a reason that even in the most booming economies, with people hiring even unqualified workers because the pickings are slim, we practically still have had 4% unemployment, BTW. Can you guess why?

    I mean if loads of the unemployed are made up of people who don’t want to work anyway – wheres the problem?

    I am glad you asked that. The problem is that they don’t want to work AND are demanding other people pay to feed, house, cloth, pay their debts, and buy them video games, drugs, pr0n, and whatever else they feel they are entitled to. If they didn’t want to work and government wasn’t stealing my money to give to them I wouldn’t give a fuck what they did, unless they where causing harm to others. As soon as my pcoketbook is raided so they can not work, there is a problem.

    I know this is a c*nty snark, but just pointing out the incongruity of your statements.

    No, you erected a weak straw man, to knock it down, and pretend you had an argument, and I took the idiotic thing apart. But you can claim you where snarky and not just lame.

    Absolutely. But you have to admit that a) No jobs and b) less people working might feasibly be linked?

    I never disagreed with that relationship and was expressly pointing that out with this post. However, what would be nice is for people like you to admit that “Keynesian wealth redistribution assholes” and their stupid policies of the last 5 decades doubling down over the last 3 years, are the reason that we are stuck with “No Jobs”. If we got rid of that problem then the “No Jobs’ problem would all but be halfway solved.

    However, the fact that we have fewer jobs impacting unemployment still doesn’t do away with the fact that we have a score of moochers taking advantage of this to ask for more lucre. They can and do coexist fine, and the data backs that up.

    So…go get a job then? I thought there weren’t any jobs?

    Create one. Go into business for yourself. That’s what successful people do. Like the people that have been working the money end at all these OWS protests against evil banks and corrupt practices that then took the money and run. That last bit was sarcasm and another dig at the losers BTW.

    I get calls & e-mails every fucking week from people that think I should interview for a job somewhere or another, despite me having taken my resume ofline almost 3 years ago. But then again, I am good at what I do, work hard, and have always left every employer feeling like our arangement has been mutually beneficial, and never felt entitled to a job.

    Small/Medium Enterprise (basically small businesses) We need people to make some stuff, but we also need some people to buy the stuff that the guy makes.

    Ah, so your solution is to have government take money from those that have, because, based on some incredibly contorted logic nobody on the left has ever been able to logically explain to me, they obviously only can have if they took it away from the not haves, and give it to those that don’t have, because of whatever reason, so they can go buy things and get the economy rolling. BRILLIANT! Nothing can go wrong with that.

    Me, I though the answer was to get rid of the wealth redistribution pimps and their stupid policies & rules, so the small business owners who now will not hire would go out and try to make money, which practically always leads to them hiring more workers, solving the jobs problem. Those workers, then have money they can spend, and they earned it by working of all things!

    Thumb up 1

  23. AlexInCT *

    Great question. You can choose not put ANY stock in it at all. In fact I continue to hope that the elft doesn’t and puts stock only in the polls they like. It will make the elction even more fun to watch.

    Thumb up 0

  24. balthazar

    Mike and I actually know each other and have played many games of beer pong. That tends to make everything politics wise seem stupid :)

    Thumb up 0

  25. Manwhore

    I actually did exactly that to a few of them, inculding a relative. Put that joint & the PS3 remote control down. Despite your belief that smoking dope has not causes you any harm, the fact that you live in that basement and spend you days playing video games and complaining about your tens of thousands of dollars in debt going to school to learn puppetry or some other such nonsense, while complaining about the evil capitalists that work 10 hour days having sold out, proves that. Start your own fucking business if you do not want to be told what to do.

    There are people I know who make money playing PS3 and posting videos. They’re called Machinima directors and they do make some good scrilla. There’s people who make a lot of youtube money.

    Point being, the economy is changing and it would seem that your thermometer for judging opportunity might need to be tuned up.

    Thumb up 0

  26. Manwhore

    I get calls & e-mails every fucking week from people that think I should interview for a job somewhere or another, despite me having taken my resume ofline almost 3 years ago. But then again, I am good at what I do, work hard, and have always left every employer feeling like our arangement has been mutually beneficial, and never felt entitled to a job.

    Although I find this hard to believe (being that you’ve just written the last five posts with a slew of spelling and grammatical errors), I’d imagine engineering to be somewhat of an idiot savant proffession (not trying to be insulting in any way–meaning people who do it well might only do that well). my step father is a civil engineer in concrete, and I think he is a genius at his job (worked his way up through the FDOT/started by mowing the side of the roads with a tractor).

    Alex, I really do think that the days where you got a menial job and worked your way up the ranks are gone. The reason that I’ve harped on this education thing with you, is that, for my generation (and the ones younger) you simply cannot have “no” college degree and get a real job.

    So when you’re bitching about all these kids bitching about useless degrees, they have them because they thought that’s what gets them to the next level. I’m a little shocked that you think that getting an education is a bad thing (for another debate, I suppose). Regardless, you are considered a “classic” (older model, probably well maintained, could use a paint job :) ) like my dad. The ethics you profess are not what is needed in the workforce right now.

    Right now, the American work force needs people with ideas. Not ideas like “I know we need a bridge, this is what it should look like” but ideas like “this is how we make money selling movies when the internet lets you download them for free” ideas. It might be a little awkward for you, but that’s what’s going on right now, and not many have solutions.

    Thumb up 1

  27. AlexInCT *

    There are people I know who make money playing PS3 and posting videos. They’re called Machinima directors and they do make some good scrilla. There’s people who make a lot of youtube money.

    Like mega money making atheletes, they are the exception, and not the rule though, Manwhore. They also work their ass off to make it work. It’s work more than anything for them, and often not fun. I have been there. Most of the game console generation doesn’t get that.

    Point being, the economy is changing and it would seem that your thermometer for judging opportunity might need to be tuned up.

    Heh, sure. Keep telling yourself that buddy. BTW, taking money from someone to pay for your mistakes doesn’t qualify as an opportunity, unless you also feel kidnapping for ransome or bankrobbery are just opportunities too.

    Thumb up 0

  28. AlexInCT *

    Although I find this hard to believe (being that you’ve just written the last five posts with a slew of spelling and grammatical errors),

    Ah, the refuge of a useless BA degreed tool. My discipline is engineering, not poetry, and I never professed to be stupid enough to equate people that can write or talk pretty with intelligent people. Check out the doofus in the WH for proof. I apologize for doing work and running circles around the many weak arguments here at the same time. I confess I put more time into making sure my work is clean and correct than I did the comments you denigrate, but then again, these comments don’t pay my bills. However, let me promise that I will pay more attention to the spelling mistakes in my posts & comments, if you promise to pay more attention to the massive gaps in logic & facts in your comments.

    I’d imagine engineering to be somewhat of an idiot savant proffession (not trying to be insulting in any way–meaning people who do it well might only do that well). my step father is a civil engineer in concrete, and I think he is a genius at his job (worked his way up through the FDOT/started by mowing the side of the roads with a tractor).

    Imagine it however you want. I collect my paycheck, and a real good one too I will add, and you keep trying to justify stealing from others as something conservative or good, because while you can use spellchecker to fool people into thinking you can spell, you aren’t coming across as qualified to do much else.

    Right now, the American work force needs people with ideas. Not ideas like “I know we need a bridge, this is what it should look like” but ideas like “this is how we make money selling movies when the internet lets you download them for free” ideas. It might be a little awkward for you, but that’s what’s going on right now, and not many have solutions.

    What it doesn’t need are people that think robbing Paul to pay Peter are “ideas” like the OWS people do. I can also guarantee you that the people with “ideas” that will make a difference you talk about will not be at any OWS meetings. That’s because ideas are worth shit until someone does the work to turn it into soemthing tangible. Those people will not be found at any of these OWS circle jerks.

    Ciao!

    Thumb up 0

  29. Manwhore

    What it doesn’t need are people that think robbing Paul to pay Peter are “ideas” like the OWS people do. I can also guarantee you that the people with “ideas” that will make a difference you talk about will not be at any OWS meetings. That’s because ideas are worth shit until someone does the work to turn it into soemthing tangible. Those people will not be found at any of these OWS circle jerks.

    Hook, line, and sinker. So, my stepdad is engineering bridges. The last time I checked, bridges were funded by at least local governments. Using my decade of experience in retail manufacture, I would say that you are probably not engineering consumer electronics (unless you work for Hasbro in CT).

    So, if you are an engineer, and a civil engineer, one might wonder how you get paid? Are you pitching for government contracts to get paid?

    Thumb up 0

  30. sahrab

    Alex since you missed (or ignored) this point of Manwhores’, figured i’d post it for you again

    Alex, I really do think that the days where you got a menial job and worked your way up the ranks are gone. The reason that I’ve harped on this education thing with you, is that, for my generation (and the ones younger) you simply cannot have “no” college degree and get a real job.

    So when you’re bitching about all these kids bitching about useless degrees, they have them because they thought that’s what gets them to the next level.

    Before you attempt to lump me in as supporting OWS and their ilk I do not. Nor the beleif they should be handed a job “Just because”.

    Manwhore has a point; in the field i work in, the abillity to work your way up from the bottom is a bygone era. Companies expect interview candidates to have an AA at minimum. While experience is always great, and if you have 15-20+ years of it you are typically grandfathered, without the sheepskin you have hindered yourself.

    Is it fair.. i dunno its the cost of being able to have a career. Whether or not the cost of the degree is recouped is not germain in todays world. The cost of the degree is necessary in order for you to obtain a job.

    My comments are solely directed at the field i currently work, other careers this may not be the case. But, as my son has found out, you will have a hard time getting a job as a diesel mechanic without both experience and schooling under your belt. In his field both are necessary. (and Diesel Tech schools run about 20k a year, the cost of a local school)

    Note the field the degree is in is also important.

    Thumb up 0

  31. AlexInCT *

    Well, let me answer it then.

    Alex, I really do think that the days where you got a menial job and worked your way up the ranks are gone.

    These days were long gone by the time I entered the job market some 3 decades ago already, and some might argue that it happened even before that. This sort of job security has been a myth since the early days of the century according to many. Unless you are in the trades where experience, hard work, the capability and desire to learn – especially new technology – and some business sense, matter, you are correct, though. The exception again being the fucking unions that make none of that necessary and protect old timers at the expense of the young that are willing & hard working.

    I got my masters in engineering before the end of the USSR and the massive cost cutting made it very obvious to me that engineering work would be very scarce to get for a while and made a switch to software development. That transition was easy for me, because engineering degrees are about how to solve problems, and those skills translate to any discipline. I never had a job handed to me. I fought for every one of them, busted my ass, and earned every damned penny they paid me. That’s why I now have a resume that shows a skill set that makes everyone want to get me to go work for them despite the bad economy. It took time and it was not handed to me like the young people today feel a high paying job would/should be handed to them because they finished college.

    The reason that I’ve harped on this education thing with you, is that, for my generation (and the ones younger) you simply cannot have “no” college degree and get a real job.

    Bill Gates & Steve will disagree with that, but that’s not the point.

    The reason you & I keep going around and around on this is that I have been very clear that a college degree is no guarantee of a job either. First off, not all college degrees are created equal. There are way too many college degrees that amount to nothing but someone pursuing their passion for a few years simply because nobody in the real world offering a paying job values those skills. Racking up a ton of debt going to college to get one of those degrees is insane. And for some reason too many people simply refuse to accept that.

    Even worse, is the dumbing down that has been going on in college education – college was about learning to do critical thinking and solve problems, but with the exception of the hard sciences, engineering, and medicine, and some splattered disciplines, it is now liberal indoctrination passing as all of that – while the cost has skyrocketed. Whatever value a college degree that wasn’t hard science, medicine, law, engineering, or business might have once had has also evaporated. I hear “Studies” or “Sociology” degree, and I think qualified to flip burgers. So does every possible employer other than government. That dumbing down, combined with the devaluation caused by the “everyone must go to college” attitude that the people that tell us everyone that plays should get a trophy have imposed on the system has further eroded the value of the degree.

    This erosion/decline in both value of a college education, while costs have been skyrocketing and those that get the degrees come out with their heads so full of nonsense that they are harder to actually train to work, has been apparent forever. If you decided to stop working and go rack up debt pursuing your “passion”, and then find yourself unemployable, well it may be convenient to lay blame elsewhere, but the problem is with you.

    So when you’re bitching about all these kids bitching about useless degrees, they have them because they thought that’s what gets them to the next level.

    See, I don’t buy this argument, I am sorry. It is only half of the equation. Going to college was not the key to getting to the next job level: going to college and learning something that your employer would find very useful and was willing to pay you for was the key to a job and the next level. What the people that feel going to college was all they needed to secure a job prove to me is that these kids are not too bright to begin with, and that they are not even clever enough to direct their anger where it belongs: the people that duped them (and I guarantee you it was not 1% they are now pissed at), reinforces that for me.

    I am thus not surprised they are unemployed now, and figure many would still be unemployed, or employed for peanuts, in crappy jobs that do not pay them enough to cover the debt they racked doing this, even if the economy was booming, because they learned nothing of value. They pursued their passion, partied on campus, and thought that would guarantee them a job when the gravy train dried up. I have interviewed a few of these kids that felt that they had gone to college and they where now owed a high paying job. Had one once even tell me that he would rather stay home and do nothing than do work he felt was beneath him but was required as part of the entry level job. And he did it all with his condescension that he had to go through the whole interview process right out on his sleeve.

    BTW, I too was told college was a must have for success, as a kid. But I also was keenly aware that if I did medicine or engineering, maybe even law if I was willing to sell my soul, or like my father wanted business, I would get paid a lot better than if I slacked for 4 years (or more) and simply did something easy. Like ride my languages experience. While I spent every night working doing my masters, my roommates that were pursuing their passions went out to party. I looked for an internship to prove myself and busted my ass to show my employer I was a worthy investment. I got a job. And I graduated without debt too.

    Been hired, laid off, changed jobs, lots of times, but always landed on my feet, because I do not think I am owed anything and give my employer his money’s worth. I have even worked for less than what I did was worth. It goes both ways. These kids we are talking about? Their argument, to me, boils down to “I went to college as I was told, and now I expect you to give me a high paying job to do what I like”. Even if what I am qualified to do or would like to do can be done by anyone, or worse, is of zero value to employers (the people that pay).

    Despite the desire to create the illusion that they where handed a raw deal, and maybe some where, the majority of these kids come off as entitled punks that now want other people to pay for their lack of common sense, vision, or ability to provide something of value to someone that might then employ you.

    My advice is that they push back against government and these schools, not ask them to rob others to bail them out. The cost of college today is insane, and it is so because of government collusion with the schools. This “everyone must go to college” thing and the easy loans, combined with the entitled prissy society several decades of PC bullshit have created, is why these kids are where they are now. Break that chain and force the schools to reprize their shitty experience to something both more realistic and commensurate with the worth of their degrees. Don’t pretend that you want to solve this by going to the very people responsible for the problem for a solution, though.

    Don’t get me wrong, I empathize with their plight, but I do so up until the point where they want to stick me with the bill for their mistakes and are going to the very people that are behind the problem to “fix it”. And by “fix it” they sure don’t come across to me as meaning that this unholy alliance between the lefty indoctrinators and their partners in big government be broken so that the cost can finally plummet to something more realistic, but instead feel like what they want is that someone else pays. And nobody here is gonna argue that their end goal is to pass off the bill to someone else, are they? Fuck that.

    Thumb up 0

  32. CM

    Umm they are the biggest employers in the US? Maybe thats why?

    Exactly. So why do so many have an unfavourable opinion of the Republicans, and why don’t more have an unfavourable opinion of the Democrats?

    Thumb up 0

  33. sahrab

    Bill Gates & Steve

    Alex,

    You cant state that people who make money selling PS3 videos on Youtube and “mega money making atheletes” are the exception, and not the rule and then turn around and rely upon the exceptions to the rule to make your own argument

    Thumb up 0

  34. Miguelito

    I’d imagine engineering to be somewhat of an idiot savant proffession (not trying to be insulting in any way–meaning people who do it well might only do that well).

    I’m a unix sysadmin (which is titled here as an engineer) and I support a lot of engineers. Sadly, you’re not far off the mark. It’s not necessarily idiot savant, but there are a TON of people in the field that can’t write worth a damn. That’s ignoring the language barriers that you’ll run into a ton if you support EEs like I do, since we get most of them from India/China/South Korea/etc these days. There’s a reason there are whole departments to handle the documentation for the stuff the engineers produce. Most of what they do is take the basic notes from the engineers and create the docs from that.

    Hell, the sysadmin field is famous for being horrid at just doing basic documentation ourselves, so I’m not one to talk. It takes a lot of prodding to get me to doc a lot of stuff. Mostly though because people tend to want every tiny detail doc’d (so I’d never have time to actually work) or want me to include far too much background that people who’ve been hired to do this work should already know (this includes my past manager at one point)! To top it off, far, far too many other admins are too lazy to read it so you start to wonder why bother?

    So when you’re bitching about all these kids bitching about useless degrees, they have them because they thought that’s what gets them to the next level. I’m a little shocked that you think that getting an education is a bad thing (for another debate, I suppose).

    I only have a problem when they get degrees in something that’s not really building any marketable skills, then complaining that a job isn’t falling into their laps myself. My own experience when I went from a CC to a 4 year university was an orientation where about 80% of the hands went up for “business degree” when they did a quick survey. This was in ’93/’94 when ever other cover of news magazines were lamenting the lack of jobs for graduating MBAs. Most of these kids were starting an undergrad degree only. How they couldn’t put 2 and 2 together and see that the market for business degrees was massively over-saturated and find something else that made sense is beyond me.

    Right now, the American work force needs people with ideas. Not ideas like “I know we need a bridge, this is what it should look like” but ideas like “this is how we make money selling movies when the internet lets you download them for free” ideas. It might be a little awkward for you, but that’s what’s going on right now, and not many have solutions.

    I’d love to see some new thinking like that for TV shows and stuff myself too. If I had cash, I’d almost want to help drive it. Too many shows I’ve liked in the last few years have been killed because they didn’t get the ratings, when the ratings model seems completely outdated. Something new is needed there.

    Thumb up 0

  35. AlexInCT *

    You cant state that people who make money selling PS3 videos on Youtube and “mega money making atheletes” are the exception, and not the rule and then turn around and rely upon the exceptions to the rule to make your own argument

    Actually I ONLY mentioned them to point out that college is not as important as working hard, and some luck is always nice too, but whatever. And I didn’t rely on the exception to the rule to make my point. I guess you expected me not to be able to make it and then didn’t like it since you obviously didn’t.

    My point was precisely that a college degree, and for that matter any kind of education or training, wasn’t as important as what you can offer an employer based on that training or problem solving ability, how hard you work when given the chance, or doing your own thing, like Bill and Steve that I mention above, did. As my grandfather used to say: it is absolutely funny how coincidental it is that hard work seems to result in success.

    Take your son for example. Once the economy gets better he will have a far better shot at a job, based on what he chose to learn, than any of these “studies” people that simply don’t get it but demand the very people that fucked them over now fuck others over to make good with them.

    Thumb up 0

  36. AlexInCT *

    It happens all the time to you, but you aren’t even bright enough to catch on, so the PM isn’t going to help you much. Go figure.

    Thumb up 0

  37. Manwhore

    I’ve got a special mouse to mark the day we get a real point. I wouldn’t worry about missing anything though…It’s just sitting here and collecting dust.

    One of these days a rational, well thought out point might happen, but for now wharble garble and derp are all the chef cooks between fapping sessions.

    Thumb up 0

  38. Manwhore

    Oh, I’m not the stupid one. I think I proved that point, all your vitriol aside. I’m actually pretty smart.

    I’ll get off your lawn and let you have the last word, but you’re future posts on OWS or the economy in general will be debunked thoroughly. That’s a warning shot. I’m not an OWS guy (you EPIC FAILED at that too) but I do encourage this country to remember how to protest. God bless these kids for wanting this country to produce for them, and not standing for tyranny. God bless them. You, on the other hand need a software update.

    I don’t agree with OWS, but I do like that they decided to air the issues through protest. That’s what Washington did.

    I’ll keep in living in your head, rent free.

    Thumb up 0

  39. Manwhore

    Take your son for example. Once the economy gets better he will have a far better shot at a job, based on what he chose to learn, than any of these “studies” people that simply don’t get it but demand the very people that fucked them over now fuck others over to make good with them.

    This DERP knows no bounds. Once the economy gets better his degree will be more valid to you? He chose to learn something that you should take note of (I know you didn’t, as you never do). He learned a trade and is being punished for it with his debt, and at the same time limited opportunity because no one would look at him without the degree.

    Thank God no one listens to you (really, go back through your threads). There is a real problem today of kids getting degrees and having no opportunities. There are fathers out there that wished them well and supported going to college who are now suffering. You’re a callous twit and a shill for something that won’t even benefit you.

    I noticed you never answered my question about how you get paid. You can’t. Much like rich, you are sucking the government teat. Good for you. The rest of the “real world” that supports your idiocy will continue to do so. I’ll just strike one more chalk against a so called “conservative” who supports government suppressing legitimate protests.

    Am I for OWS? NO! I am for a constant reminder that PEOPLE run this REPUBLIC. Not whigs in the supreme court.

    Get as salty as you want. (you can even look that up on UD)

    Thumb up 0

  40. AlexInCT *

    This DERP knows no bounds.

    Coming from a whiney cunt like you this is just fucking hilarious.

    Once the economy gets better his degree will be more valid to you?

    Actually he has no degree, but I am not surprised you missed that. For all your blather about my writing skills you seriously lack logic and reading comprehension. My bet is you are unemployed.

    Sahrab’s son wants to be a diesel mechanic, and I find that to be far, far more valuable that about 60% of college degrees. What I find more interesting is the why you insist in ignoring this, when I have been crystal clear about it. Some skills are more valuable than others. That’s why paying $20K to become a diesel mechanic is a better investment than paying the same for any “studies” degree. Your odds of employment are better. Notice I said ODDs, not that you get a guaranteed job. Methink’s that’s the problem, you are a fucking punk that feels he is owed a job, and then a high paying one too.

    He chose to learn something that you should take note of (I know you didn’t, as you never do). He learned a trade and is being punished for it with his debt, and at the same time limited opportunity because no one would look at him without the degree.

    Actually moron, and let me put up the quote, you are the one assuming he learned that.

    But, as my son has found out, you will have a hard time getting a job as a diesel mechanic without both experience and schooling under your belt. In his field both are necessary. (and Diesel Tech schools run about 20k a year, the cost of a local school)

    Notice there that experience & schooling are mentioned, the cost for schooling is mentioned, but at best, it is inferred that he got the schooling (or not). For all we know he doesn’t have it, has not completed it, or was planning to do it but the cost and the risk are too staggering. If he got it, he lacks the experience part. However, as I already pointed out, once things pick up he will have a far better chance at a job in that field than 60% of college degreed tools will. That’s your lack of reading comprehension at work for you. Now to have more fun making you look like the idiot you are.

    Thank God no one listens to you (really, go back through your threads).

    Heh, really? Is this more of your lack of logic or are you just spraying shit and hoping it sticks? About the only ones arguing with me are CM, Kimpost, and you. I know why CM and Kimpost do it, and while it serves to give me a chuckle, you I think do it because you hate that I gave you the rope to hang yourself and expose what kind of moron you are.

    There is a real problem today of kids getting degrees and having no opportunities.

    The bigger problem is that the very kids getting “no opportunities” voted by a huge margin for the very idiots that started and keep compounding the fucking problems that now give them no opportunities, then when they are between a rock and a hard place, go back to them for a solution. If someone rapes my ass it will be the last person I go to for help with stopping that. Fuck, how hard is that for you to comprehend? Even more pathetic is the cry that others now have to pay for them because they have no opportunities. Guess what fucktards: when you expand the collectivist state, the collectivist state becomes the sole purveyor of employment, the wealth pie stops growing and even starts shrinking, and everyone shares in the misery. That’s where we are now, and you kind – the OWS tools – are going to the problem makers, the fucking class warriors that caused these problems to begin with, to ask for them to do some more stealing form others to cover your stupid asses.

    There are fathers out there that wished them well and supported going to college who are now suffering.

    The father are suffering? From what? The whiney brats that that think they are entitled a high paying job because they went to college?

    You’re a callous twit and a shill for something that won’t even benefit you.

    Finally some honesty! This is all about what’s in it for you and people like you that feel they are entitled to whatever. I am sure you didn’t intend to show what your motivation was, but thanks for doing so.

    And I am not shilling for anyone. I understand the problem, know who keeps making it worse, and unlike you, I have not sold out, in the hopes of letting the very fuckwads that are causing the problem in the first place, now buy my loyalty with a handout at the expense of others. Others like me that have not done anything wrong and know better, but which you feel should be ripped off to pay off your stupidity and bad luck What a fucking conservative thing to do BTW..

    I noticed you never answered my question about how you get paid.

    WTF? I have to do this again? I get paid because I do work that is valuable to someone and that someone pays me. I do not hold any illusion that my paycheck is guaranteed either. How hard is that concept to understand?

    You can’t. Much like rich, you are sucking the government teat. Good for you. The rest of the “real world” that supports your idiocy will continue to do so.

    WTF are you talking about? Is this your inability to grasp even the most simple and basic logic manifesting itself again? Did you miss me saying that I get weekly e-mails and calls from people that hope to secure me to work for them, but have to tell them I am already in over my head? Let me put it in bold and italics for you so the next time I can just cockslap you with it. I have a full time job, with benefits, and do consulting work on the side, fuckwad. I probably pay more in fucking taxes than you earn gross. And I plan to be working until the day I keel over or I strike it rich enough to keep my high standard of living.

    Why the fuck do you think I am so against people like you trying to have government take even more money away from me huh? If I was sucking at the government’s teat I would be out there asking for them to take even more from people that work like you are. WTF do you do for work? Here is my guess: nothing but whine.

    I’ll just strike one more chalk against a so called “conservative” who supports government suppressing legitimate protests.

    Hah, says the guy that has sold out and wants to have democrat politicians rob people like me to bail him out. Shit this is priceless.

    Am I for OWS? NO!

    You are a fucking liar. Maybe you suffer from reading comprehension and some mental disorder, but I don’t and you have consistently been pro OWS.

    I am for a constant reminder that PEOPLE run this REPUBLIC.

    Right, that’s why you feel government needs to be encouraged to rob some people to help you and those other kids that feel jaded because they didn’t get a guaranteed job out of college, out.

    Not whigs in the supreme court.

    WTF does this have to do with anything? The supreme court? Seriously, are you on meds and you have forgotten them today? Where does the supreme court factor into this discussion about entitled whiny people and a corrupt government that uses wealth redistribution as a means to buy votes from a dependant majority? I really would like to know.

    If anything, the reason that the people feel like they no longer run the country is that the politicians have corrupted out government so badly. They have permanently created a lopsided system where the people that can be bought with handouts from government, and those handouts are obtained by constantly increasing how much government keeps stealing from the productive, always can be counted on to vote their special interests, making it impossible to break the fucking cycle. Everyone feels entitled and they come up with excuses to justify why it is OK to take from others to give them what they want. Case in point the OWS crowd and you.

    Get as salty as you want. (you can even look that up on UD)

    Get a clue. So far all I am doing is showing how inept you are. I sure as hell hope no employer sees how puerile and incapable you are. Thank the lord for internets annonimity.

    Thumb up 0

  41. AlexInCT *

    You mean this is what you & manwhore suffer from? Check.

    Links to stupid shit don’t make you either smart or right CM.

    If anything that effect you speak off applies to your side of the isle and summarizes liberalisms to a tee. It’s AGW. It’s the belief that you can punish productive people, under the guise of doing good, and not see a negative effect. It is the belief that government solves all problems. It is the idiotic notion that you are entitled things by simple virtue of being born. It’s the ignorance that results in class warfare and ignores the people that profits the most from it: the politicians peddling it. It’s idiotic and impossibly dumb things like the “war on poverty” and “wealth redistribution” politics because the world isn’t fair.

    Here is a challenge for you CM: disprove what I have said by actually showing me real examples that contradict what I have said with facts and logic, not liberal talking points.

    Thumb up 0

  42. CM

    Your response is “No, you are!”. That’s a 7 year old’s response.

    I’ll continue to discuss issues (with people I disagree with) that can actually act like an adult thanks, and don’t constantly rely on making shit up and being dishonest. There are plenty of them around, and they often make excellent arguments against me.

    Thumb up 0

  43. AlexInCT *

    My response is exactly what you need. Maybe you thought you were being clever but I realized very fast what your plan was. Unfortunately nobody is biting and you keep flailing and failing. You can keep pretending like I am the issue, but it ought to be obvious by now even to someone as dense as you you are convincing no one that you are the agrieved smart guy and I am just making shit up. The only dishonesty here comes from you and it is that you lie about actually being interested in arguing in good faith. You have no such desire whatever. And I have not been the only one to call you out on that.

    And your ‘threat” to no longer respond to me is “Fucking Awesome”. Finally! You can circle jerk with… Hmmmm.. Who is left that still bothers with you?

    Thumb up 0

  44. Manwhore

    Actually he has no degree, but I am not surprised you missed that. For all your blather about my writing skills you seriously lack logic and reading comprehension. My bet is you are unemployed.

    Your attitude is that he shouldn’t. Only the degrees you approve of should be the ones people move forward with. Most specifically you seem to have an innate hatred of those with English literature, the arts, and anything of the social nature. What a shitbird like you doesn’t realize is that society is more mutli-faceted than a blushing moron like you actually can comprehend.

    The question contains….Nuance. Written as if he’d had it, couldn’t find work; but the economy got better so would that make his degree more valid? Your argument style is to accuse whoever you’re arguing with of something and then DERPITY DERP DERP on as if you’d solved the investigation. You’ve accused me of several things (including being unemployed–another fail) but it is you who are a misguided moron who probably can’t rub two sticks together.

    It was a juvenile attempt for you to assume I didn’t know the kid didn’t have a degree yet. “Like, DUH!!” Some of this is so stupid, I wonder how you look yourself in the mirror and say “man, I am a smart political blogger!” You are the DERP King, you can DERP anything!

    I’ll let off the gas pedal on the rest, I’d assume you’re gonna need time to lick wounds and finish the crow you got served. Suck it easy.

    Thumb up 0

  45. Mississippi Yankee

    Hasn’t it been warned that if you want to know what a lefty is up to just listen to what he accuses others of doing?

    You,out there, we know who you are,

    Thumb up 2

  46. AlexInCT *

    Ooohhh.. I am skeered.

    So you do admit you are an OWS supporter after you told me in another post you where not, huh? Then you deny being a shill for them in the same post? Fuck, I get more consitency from pudding.

    BTW, how are you gonna debunk my OWS posts, huh?And why only threathen to debunk future ones? Why not the previous ones? I mean shit, they are killing people now at these OWS things, it has become lord of the flies by all acounts, and even the LSM is losing interest because it is damaging the left, but you still are carying water for them?

    You are a fucking caricature dude.

    Thumb up 0

  47. AlexInCT *

    Your attitude is that he shouldn’t.

    WTF are you talking about now dickhead? Since when does me pointing out that it is stupid to end up with debt equal to a mortgage for a fucking “studies”, sociology, or some other such useless college degree and that people that want a job or to make money better not waste time equate with me not wanting them to get a degree? You do understand the concept of cost vs. rewards, right? Is this you showing us again why you aren’t qualified to fucking even flip burgers.

    Only the degrees you approve of should be the ones people move forward with.

    Actually I have been very clear that my entire beef with this thing is that everyone is free to pursue any degree they want, but when they rack up a shit load of debt or can’t find a job with that degree, they better not pretend society has failed them and demand others bail their ass out. You on the other hand have done everything to pretend that’s not what I am saying because otherwise all you do is whine like a fucking bitch.

    Most specifically you seem to have an innate hatred of those with English literature, the arts, and anything of the social nature.

    Let me repeat it again moron: I hate the ones with any kind of degree that now complain that since they are unqualified to do anything and they can’t find a job, or worse that they aren’t able to get a job that pays them what they think they need to be getting paid, and now expect government to rob those of us that didn’t do stupid to fix their problem. Whatever their fucking degree is. But you can keep pretending otherwise so you can keep posting dumb shit.

    What a shitbird like you doesn’t realize is that society is more mutli-faceted than a blushing moron like you actually can comprehend.

    What an idiot like you refuses to acknowledge is precisely that there are no job guarantees and that not all degrees are created equal. Yes, society is multi-faceted, to use your term, but you are not going to pay a doctor, aircraft mechanic, pilot, or CEO, what you pay someone with limited skills or skills you don’t value. And I now am certain I know why you struggle with this concept: you are a fucking closet communist. Nothing else fits. Only fucking communists believe all labor is paid equally because all labor is of equal value. A douchey idea at best.

    The question contains….Nuance.

    What question is that? If the question is “Is Manwhore a fucking idiot?” there is no nuance. The answer is a resounding yes.

    Written as if he’d had it, couldn’t find work; but the economy got better so would that make his degree more valid? Your argument style is to accuse whoever you’re arguing with of something and then DERPITY DERP DERP on as if you’d solved the investigation.

    Please point out what I accused sahrab’s son of? Or do you mean that I accused you of acting like a collectivist and you disliked me for pointing that out? Though.

    You’ve accused me of several things (including being unemployed–another fail) but it is you who are a misguided moron who probably can’t rub two sticks together.

    Actually I stated, after YOU accused me of being a fucking government parasite first, that with your inability to do basic logical thinking, I would not be surprised to find out you are unemployed. Are you trying to set up a straw man so you can pretend you are arguing in good faith and I am not? Because it is a major fail. You even sound like a petulant angry little brat that is jealous.

    And think what you want dude. No skin off my back. I am living large & in charge. I am employed, am putting money away so I do not have to eat cat food when SS finally goes broke, and will always land on my feet because I am not a fucking whiney bitch like you.

    It was a juvenile attempt for you to assume I didn’t know the kid didn’t have a degree yet.

    Manwhore says: November 11, 2011 1:00 am at 1:00 am (UTC -5) |

    Once the economy gets better his degree will be more valid to you?

    Your words.

    “Like, DUH!!” Some of this is so stupid, I wonder how you look yourself in the mirror and say “man, I am a smart political blogger!” You are the DERP King, you can DERP anything!

    Look at the exchange above this. Then ask me who is the stupid one.

    I’ll let off the gas pedal on the rest, I’d assume you’re gonna need time to lick wounds and finish the crow you got served. Suck it easy.

    You must be off the meds or hitting some real hard illegal drugs. If you are the barometer of how smart this generation you claim to be in that is the future, then I am afraid the future looks bleak as hell. taking you to the woodshed was too easy. I am starting to feel like I am abusing a mentally challenged person every time I need to respond to you.

    Thumb up 0

  48. Manwhore

    WTF are you talking about now dickhead? Since when does me pointing out that it is stupid to end up with debt equal to a mortgage for a fucking “studies”, sociology, or some other such useless college degree and that people that want a job or to make money better not waste time equate with me not wanting them to get a degree? You do understand the concept of cost vs. rewards, right? Is this you showing us again why you aren’t qualified to fucking even flip burgers.

    Ok, I think you might just be trying to be goofball at this point. So, if I tell you that the world has changed and you need a degree to do anything of substance and you say “well, that just means you better choose carefully” how in the fuck is an 18yr old kid supposed to be lucky enough to figure that out. you keep harping on sociology, but you’re wearing your DERP on your sleeve. I come from a family of engineers, bankers and attorneys. If I had chosen the banking path (obviously the safest, right?) I’d be in a world of shit. Banking will become almost fully automated soon, and like selling CDs of music, many positions will become a thing of the past.

    you, being the dumbass shitbird that you are, is trying to apply 20/20 hindsight to life. How great for you to know which degrees will matter in the next ten years. How about I challenge you to something, sport. Much like the five dollar fee you got wrong and t-bagged by me over, let me ask you a challenge for a post.

    Why don’t you, Fred Flinstone, use your dinosaur to tell all us what jobs you should get degrees for? I’d be interested to see what kind of herp derp you come up with for that. I would actually laugh my ass off to see what DERP you squirt out your ass from that.

    So, put up or shut up, oh genius one. Twirling around in your computer chair and solving the world’s problems with 20/20 hindsight, huh? Let’s see what you can actually predict that all the stupid people can’t..

    And think what you want dude. No skin off my back. I am living large & in charge. I am employed, am putting money away so I do not have to eat cat food when SS finally goes broke, and will always land on my feet because I am not a fucking whiney bitch like you.

    ORLY? From your incoherent rants, I surmise that you are a cranky and bitchy old man who is frightened to hell about a world that you don’t understand now. I’d be scared too, if I was your age. It’s getting ugly out there, and it seems voting republican doesn’t fix it all. It’s not getting fixed voting dhimmocrat either. Seems like we got real problems that are just foisted onto the backs of the younger generation.

    Besides, what are you ? Ronnie from Jersey Shores with this “Come at me bro meme?” You sound like a scared old man brandishing a rake for a weapon.

    Actually I stated, after YOU accused me of being a fucking government parasite first, that with your inability to do basic logical thinking, I would not be surprised to find out you are unemployed. Are you trying to set up a straw man so you can pretend you are arguing in good faith and I am not? Because it is a major fail. You even sound like a petulant angry little brat that is jealous.

    I’m legitimately curious about a guy in a field that is almost wholly government subsidy. Almost any engineer I know in the private sector has been farmed out to China (they’re really better at it than you are–if you are in the private sector), when it comes to retail manufacture. So, I naturally assume that if you are a domestic engineer you are on a government contract. You never really dispute that by saying “I engineer toys etc.” you just say I’m an idiot for assuming something about your geographical location and what might be available in the area.

    Answer the fucking question.

    What an idiot like you refuses to acknowledge is precisely that there are no job guarantees and that not all degrees are created equal. Yes, society is multi-faceted, to use your term, but you are not going to pay a doctor, aircraft mechanic, pilot, or CEO, what you pay someone with limited skills or skills you don’t value. And I now am certain I know why you struggle with this concept: you are a fucking closet communist. Nothing else fits. Only fucking communists believe all labor is paid equally because all labor is of equal value. A douchey idea at best.

    Dick sneeze, a good interior designer might get paid EXACTLY (if not more than what a doctor does). Same goes for Music production, James Cameron, etcetera etcetera (can you even spell that “Amental” dude? You do realize that you are now google famous for it–search it). You’re the fucking communist, you think you decide the positions that are needed, KOMRADE.

    I’ll let your cheek heal from being bitch slapped through your monitor.

    Thumb up 0

  49. AlexInCT *

    Ok, I think you might just be trying to be goofball at this point. So, if I tell you that the world has changed and you need a degree to do anything of substance

    I will tell you that you have no fucking clue what you are talking about. The world is always changing. Change or not, it is always people’s personal responsibility to deal with the changes: it’s called history. Read some of it. What we have here though is way too many people that made poor choices, not just one but many, pissed that they now have to live with the consequences of those choices, using the economic crisis caused by people that think just like them, hoping to pass off the costs onto others.

    Yes, a bad economy makes it hard to get a job. I would have respect for the people that protested the politicians, their policies, and the unholy alliance between government mandated loans and financially motivated bastions of leftists indoctrination that have pushed the cost of a secondary education up at orders of magnitude, compared to inflation, that wrecked our economy and continue to keep it depressed, while leaving so many with ridiculous debt and no skills of value.

    But all I see is hippy leftists complaining we don’t need to stop these assholes, but give them even more power to do even more of the same and people that are pissed that while they racked massive debts pursuing their “passions” now are being told no employer values those skills as much as they think they should. These OWS people are trying to pretend like it is ALL people that have been screwed. That’s bullshit. Those that didn’t sit by idly figuring society owed them high paying jobs, and they also surprisingly tend to be the ones making better education decisions, all seem far more adept at finding work.

    and you say “well, that just means you better choose carefully” how in the fuck is an 18yr old kid supposed to be lucky enough to figure that out.

    How the fuck do they know who to vote for? Or what the risk is of signing up to serve in the military? As I already pointed out, I was faced with the exact same dilemma in my generation. I knew by the age of 13 that not all college degrees where created equally and that some of them granted better job perspectives and pay. You telling me that kids today can not determine the same with minimal work? I ddn’t have the interent. My generation had to invent it. My 16 year old has already figured this secondary education dilema out, on his own, and asks me and his advisor for guidance, constantly, on what to do. He definitely knows better than to rack up the equivalent of a mortgage in debt to get a degree that will never, ever be seen as worth the cost by prospective employers, but serves his passion.

    Maybe you are on to something however. I have noticed recently that way to many kids want the benefit of the freedoms of adulthood with none of the responsibilities that come with that. In my generation 18 year olds where expected to be mature and understand that their choices had consequences they would be responsible for. You started thinking about your future and doing things to make it as an adult early, because this was all part of how things worked. Now we have 20-somethings that are less mature, unable to do anything without someone riding them or doing the hard parts for them, and in general want all the cool shit that comes with adulthood, but none of the responsibilities.

    you keep harping on sociology, but you’re wearing your DERP on your sleeve.

    You keep ignoring the obvious and saying dumb shit like this that leaves no doubt you are either a moron or motivated by personal gain, and neither speaks well of you.

    I come from a family of engineers, bankers and attorneys.

    Last time they all where bankers. No distinction between those doing the bank teller jobs or otherwise, BTW. Now they suddenly are all engineers, attorneys, and ambiguous bankers. I would not be surprised next time they are also astronauts or psychics.

    If I had chosen the banking path (obviously the safest, right?) I’d be in a world of shit.

    Erm, define safest? Does that mean that the prospective for employment and return on educational investment being higher than lets say the guy that left a tenured teaching job to go get a puppetry degree, came back expecting work but found out puppetry isn’t in high demand, and now feels jibbed? I would say so. But if by safest you mean that you are always guaranteed a high paying job, then you again prove your ignorance. There are no guarantees in ANY discipline. None. To pretend otherwise is to act like the AGW proponents that claim there is an optimal temperature and deviations from it mean they are right.

    BTW, only you are thinking that the ambivalent “banker” path is anything to be taken seriously. Considering how many different types of disciplines comprise a bank’s functioning body, methinks you have no clue. A teller and an investor do different things and come from completely different backgrounds.

    Banking will become almost fully automated soon, and like selling CDs of music, many positions will become a thing of the past.

    OK, they are tellers then. Automation must be coming very late to banking I guess, but I find it hard to see how automation will ever replace investment services or any of the disciplines that have not already been done away with, to quote that genius Obama, by those job killing computers and ATMs. And software development is going strong at banks. I got a call from one just the other day. It’s the whole “cars are going to put the horse buggy whip makers out of work” argument from almost 100 years ago.

    you, being the dumbass shitbird that you are, is trying to apply 20/20 hindsight to life.

    Nice straw man dude, Let me tell you what’s really going on however: you, being a pretend conservative, are trying to make like people never had to deal with the consequences of their choices, good or bad, ever, ever, before, and that somehow these types that predominantly made the bad choices are unique, because then you can keep arguing they, and by indirection you, need a bailout paid by others.

    How great for you to know which degrees will matter in the next ten years.

    It’s all straw men with you isn’t it? Whatever high school system and college you went to ripped you off dude. Your ability to reason & use logic is below 10th grade level. Yes, the degrees I mentioned hold more security – notice that doesn’t imply either a guarantee of a job or higher pay, but a better return for the investment based on what employers will find valuable – than the ones you keep defending. Doubly so in a depressed economy. Despite your attempt to pretend otherwise, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure any of that out.

    How about I challenge you to something, sport.

    It sure as hell would be some improvement to having to reply to the low brow unintelligent you hope caries weight because of some lame ass personal attacks you have been spewing so far.

    Much like the five dollar fee you got wrong and t-bagged by me over,

    Excuse me? Which post is that, and how did I get it wrong? I would like to link to it to make you look even dumber than you are making yourself look.

    let me ask you a challenge for a post.

    This ought to be good.

    Why don’t you, Fred Flinstone,

    Its spelled Flintstone there genius. Maybe you should back off the whole “I am a far superior writer” thing you started up above when you were trying to denigrate my writing skills. Yours seem to be just as bad, if not worse, and you don’t even have the luxury of some other valuable skills to fall back on like I do.

    use your dinosaur to tell all us what jobs you should get degrees for? I’d be interested to see what kind of herp derp you come up with for that. I would actually laugh my ass off to see what DERP you squirt out your ass from that.

    Well if I felt obligated to tell people what degrees to get, I might waste my time with that. What I could do is write a post about which degrees have historically, you know, with data and shit been worthless or are a better return on investment. Or you could Google that stuff like I, the dinosaur did. My guess is that if I did write this post I would then get to watch you make a bigger ass out of yourself. That is powerful motivation there.

    So, put up or shut up, oh genius one.

    Oooh! Child psychology your major? You think this infantile shit will make me feel obligated to do what you tell me to? And if I do not, do you think that somehow makes you the winner of this whole argument? I bet you are dumb enough to do just that. I just picked up an extra contract that’s supposed to give me a fat check, and I might actually do just this when it is over. Then again I might do nothing of the sort, just to show you I am not going to let some puerile 35 year old loser with the brain power of a 12 year old, think he can make me do anything.

    Twirling around in your computer chair and solving the world’s problems with 20/20 hindsight, huh? Let’s see what you can actually predict that all the stupid people can’t..

    I can predict I will keep making you look like a retard without much effort, because you seem more than willing to serve your stupid up all on your own. Like I already sad, I sometimes feel guilty taking you down, but you just know how to motivate me to stop feeling sorry for you. Keep it up.

    Thumb up 0

  50. CM

    You can keep pretending like I am the issue

    You are. The proof is in the fact that there are conservatives in real life and online that I can discuss topics with and they don’t rely on making shit up, being dishonest, and ignoring the inconvenient questions. They are intelligent and make good arguments and it makes for thought-provoking discussion. I’ve had years of good discussions with people who think very differently, on a whole host of subjects. However the opposite applies to you because you seemingly can’t get by without making shit up, being dishonest, and ignoring the inconvenient questions. It’s clear that you’ve never actually been able to hold an adult discussion with anyone centrist or left of centre because it’s not long until you start comparing them to Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot etc.

    You’re not an adult yet. Maybe one day huh.

    Thumb up 0

  51. CM

    To pretend otherwise is to act like the AGW proponents that claim there is an optimal temperature and deviations from it mean they are right.

    Who has claimed that?
    Come on, you state you don’t rely on making shit up. Prove it.

    Thumb up 0

  52. ilovecress

    I’ve been away for the weekend, so I’m just trying to get my head around this conversation. So lets see what we’ve learned….

    1. There is high unemployment. This is because small businesses aren’t hiring, bacuase of the Democrat policies. Damn Obama causing such high unemployemnt!
    2. Small Businesses are blaming democrats – except they still prefer the democrats over the republicans – although we shouldn’t beleive that poll.
    3. There is high unemployment – but this is because most of the people who don’t have jobs don’t actually want them, and sit playing PS3 all day. The reasons for unemployement are actually the fact that they don’t want jobs, and have terrible degrees. Although I thought that the unemployment problem was Obamas fault.
    4. Alex is teh awesome and if people were more like him they would be better off.
    5. Although if everyone got engineering qualifications – wouldn’t that make Alex’s qualification worth less?
    6. The days of working your way up from a menial job have been gone for 30 years. Unless you work in the trades.
    7. Bill Gates and Steve jobs prove you don’t need a degree to succeed. But then again, the Bill Gates story isn’t exactly one of rags to riches. More of riches to a lot more riches.
    8. ‘Studies’ or ‘sociology’ degrees only make you qualified to flip burgers. A quick google search shows that the ‘most employable’ degrees to get are Psychology and Geography. Degrees in IT have the bleakest prospects, worse than Media Studies. (This is a UK study) In fact, another study I found (again in the UK) showed ‘Computer Science’ as the least employable degree – with 10% of graduates unable to find work. ‘Engineering’ was at 7% unemployment, compared to ‘Social Studies’ which was at 6%. Looking at the stats in the UK – you would be telling your kids that having an Engineering degree gives you a 7% chance of flipping burgers,
    9. OWS is about kids with degrees whingeing that they are ‘owed a job’, and nothing to do with lopsided wealth distribution and corporate cronyism.
    10. CM likes a driveby

    So to sum up. Obama has caused massive unemployment – but on the other hand there are plenty of jobs, it’s just the kids today don’t want to work. And having a ‘studies’ degree is worthless, but at least it’s not an engineering degree, which is less employable.

    Let me know if there’s anythign I missed. Cress (BA, MA hons)

    Thumb up 1

  53. Manwhore

    7. Bill Gates and Steve jobs prove you don’t need a degree to succeed. But then again, the Bill Gates story isn’t exactly one of rags to riches. More of riches to a lot more riches.

    Nevermind that the condition that Steve Jobs was adopted was that the adopting parents had to guarantee that Jobs would be able to go to college. Then Steve Jobs, like a true PS3 playing dipshit, up and dropped out.

    Thumb up 0

  54. AlexInCT *

    1. There is high unemployment. This is because small businesses aren’t hiring, bacuase of the Democrat policies. Damn Obama causing such high unemployemnt!

    Well, despite the fact that 3 years of dumb democrat policies on steroids have been going on, on Obama’s watch, it is unfair to blame only him. What is fair is to point out that the people that voted disproportionally for him are the ones impacted in the worst way.

    2. Small Businesses are blaming democrats – except they still prefer the democrats over the republicans – although we shouldn’t beleive that poll.

    First off, where did you get that they prefer democrats over republicans from? I seem to have missed that. And one should point that when it comes to protecting your business, every business, from small to large, or squashing competition, everyone knows that you go to democrats for that. From rules to prevent competition to exclusions to onerous provisions, you pay off a democrat to get the leg up. The last three years have all but erased any doubt about that. Is that what you where talking about when you said small businesses preferred democrats over republicans?

    3. There is high unemployment – but this is because most of the people who don’t have jobs don’t actually want them, and sit playing PS3 all day. The reasons for unemployement are actually the fact that they don’t want jobs, and have terrible degrees. Although I thought that the unemployment problem was Obamas fault.

    That’s just you being a fucking ass and setting up a weak strawman. Yes, there is high unemployment. And yes, there is a considerable group of chuckleheads that do not want to work, but want others to pay for them. These chuckleheads exist even when the economy is great and there are plenty of jobs to go around. They are the “X” that never get employed because of whatever. They seem the ones screaming the loudest for government to take from others to pay them.

    4. Alex is teh awesome and if people were more like him they would be better off.

    Don’t set standards for others they can never achieve. That’s unfair. What a douche.

    5. Although if everyone got engineering qualifications – wouldn’t that make Alex’s qualification worth less?

    The fact morons refuse to understand/acknowledge is that not everyone is qualified to study for everything or do every job, and that going to college itself is no guarantee of employment, good economy or otherwise, doesn’t surprise me, just like this straw man you erect in order to knock it down and pretend you have a point leaves me cold.

    I am under no illusion that everyone can do an engineering program. I saw plenty of people wash out. The same applies to other difficult disciplines. That’s why engineers, doctors, pilots, lawyers, and so on get paid more: fewer people can do the work. Busboys are a dime a dozen. Supply and demand. The problem is too many people refuse to accept this basic fact, and worse, believe getting a sheepskin should guarantee them a high paying job. It’s the “everyone gets a trophy for playing” bullshit coming to bite us in the ass.

    6. The days of working your way up from a menial job have been gone for 30 years. Unless you work in the trades.

    Says who?

    7. Bill Gates and Steve jobs prove you don’t need a degree to succeed. But then again, the Bill Gates story isn’t exactly one of rags to riches. More of riches to a lot more riches.

    Your straw man skills are strong. If you still don’t get this then there is no explaining things to you.

    8. ‘Studies’ or ‘sociology’ degrees only make you qualified to flip burgers. A quick google search shows that the ‘most employable’ degrees to get are Psychology and Geography. Degrees in IT have the bleakest prospects, worse than Media Studies. (This is a UK study) In fact, another study I found (again in the UK) showed ‘Computer Science’ as the least employable degree – with 10% of graduates unable to find work. ‘Engineering’ was at 7% unemployment, compared to ‘Social Studies’ which was at 6%. Looking at the stats in the UK – you would be telling your kids that having an Engineering degree gives you a 7% chance of flipping burgers,

    Wow, a lot of stuff there. First off, I am discussing the US. I could outright dismiss your claims, however, there are some nuggets of wisdom worth addressing. Lets take a crack at it.

    My point that “studies” and “sociology” degrees only qualify you to flip burgers is correct even in the UK. How much money do the employed “social studies” people, likely working for government, make? I understand Psychology – which requires a PHD probably to practice and could make you decent money – but wonder if you have a huge deficit of Geography teachers there, because I am not sure what else you do with it (and that comes from someone that loves the subject). I never mentioned IT as a good employment career. It is a cutthroat business, where buyers have been conditioned to go with the lowest bidder, quality be damned. In fact, I would discourage it for beginners unless they are doing throwback Mainframe technology where the old fogies are dying off and nobody is around to replace them. I am not surprised to see engineering tanking in the UK either. But if you did get the 7% chance of not getting a job in engineering correct that tells me that these people either aren’t that good at what they do, or don’t not have the wherewithal to put their skills to work elsewhere, like I & many other engineers did when times got lean.

    9. OWS is about kids with degrees whingeing that they are ‘owed a job’, and nothing to do with lopsided wealth distribution and corporate cronyism.

    As I have repeatedly said, only to have it ignored by the people that don’t like the truth: it’s actually both. The problem is with the spoiled OWS kids and those that complain about things being bad all telling us that solution is to let the people responsible for the problems in the first place do the “fixing”, which to sane people, is like asking a rapist to moderate the rape prevention class.

    10. CM likes a driveby

    Does he?

    So to sum up. Obama has caused massive unemployment – but on the other hand there are plenty of jobs, it’s just the kids today don’t want to work.

    That’s what the people, like you, that don’t want to acknowledge the facts are, are saying, so they can then ignore the real issues and keep pretending the problem needs to be addressed with more wealth transfers. I never said anything like that. There are 3 separate issues here, but by lumping them together like you did you think you can confuse people into thinking they should ignore what I am saying. Again:

    Yes, there is 9% unemployment – which is far higher if you count the people that have given up looking for jobs or are only able to work part time – and the policies of the current administration have exacerbated the situation, but the fundamental issues date back to the bullshit nanny state instituted by FDR’s policies and stacked upon by subsequent big government types predominantly in the democrat party. There are also many employers that WOULD hire if the current administration wasn’t as hostile to business and had not stuck us with so much uncertainty.

    Where way too many kids today go wrong is the expectation that a college degree guarantees employment and high pay. Nothing guarantees employment. Some degrees historically give higher pay than others, and then because they inculcate skills employers want/need. Too many degrees are worthless and basically mean that the employer has to teach you everything, which is costly to the employer.

    There has, and there always will be, a bunch of people that do not want to work and are quite content to suckle at the government’s teat to avoid that. That’s why you never have 100% unemployment. These tend to be the most vocal ones about the need for more wealth transfers, because they are the biggest beneficiaries. These are also the ones right now using the though economic conditions as an excuse to push for more of the same from the very people that gave us the dismal economic situation in the first place.

    You can put as much lipstick as you want on that pig but them are the facts.

    And having a ‘studies’ degree is worthless, but at least it’s not an engineering degree, which is less employable.

    How many straw men is this for you now? Are you trying to beat out Manwhore and CM, because you sure are giving them all a run for their money?

    You claim to have found and use a single specific studies degree discipline with low numbers, in the UK of all places, which isn’t what we are discussing – and I am not even bothering to ask you when those numbers where compiled and for what period, because your nonsense straw man doesn’t need that to be debunked – then lump all engineering degrees together to get a bad score, all so you can pretend studies degrees are better employment record? I bet if I wanted to waste my time I could find an engineering discipline with lower numbers. Even more important are the numbers. I would also not be surprised at all to find out that that 6% of “social studies” types that are unemployed are numerically far larger than the number of engineers – all of them – in that 7%. I believe it would be best for you to leave the comparison of statistics alone, or stick to doing this with people that don’t understand statistics – like engineers – since you seem to not grasp the concept too well and depend on slight of hand to fool people.

    But to stress the point I keep making and you leftists keep ignoring: you do understand the concept that your degree is only as good as the value a prospective employer feels it offers them, right? Outside of academia, the occasional HR department complying with some PC standards, and big government – which we know the UK has for sure and likely is where tons of tax payer cash is wasted on your social studies types – studies degrees, like the one you reference, are worthless.

    Let me know if there’s anythign I missed. Cress (BA, MA hons)

    You tell me, I am sure you had at least a couple of other straw men in you considering your degree.

    Thumb up 0

  55. AlexInCT *

    Prove it?

    That’s all the cultists keep saying CM: the earth is warming up, and we are all going to die. Warming up compared to WHAT??? If any warming is bad, then there HAS to be a temperature that is optimal, right?

    Fuck, it’s like I am talking to mentally disabled people that are not able to follow the logic of their own beliefs. Oh, wait. You are a liberal. Never mind.

    Thumb up 0

  56. CM

    If any warming is bad, then there HAS to be a temperature that is optimal, right?

    So what is the optimal temperature then, according to these mystery people?
    And where do they state that ANY warming is bad?
    And who are they.
    Come on, if it’s so obvious that I’d have to be mentally disabled to not see it, there should be nothing simplier than providing names and quotes and the stated optimal temperature.

    Fuck, it’s like I am talking to mentally disabled people that are not able to follow the logic of their own beliefs. Oh, wait. You are a liberal. Never mind.

    Sorry Alex but you consistently demonstrate that you have no clue whatsoever on this issue. You’re doing it again now. I’m just wanting you to support what you claim with evidence. If you can’t do it, just say so.

    Thumb up 0

  57. CM

    Are you trying to beat out Manwhore and CM, because you sure are giving them all a run for their money?

    Where have I set up strawmen?
    Come on, you state you don’t rely on making shit up. Prove it.

    Thumb up 0

  58. CM

    It must be like when you’re drunk and so everyone else seems drunk. He can post absolute garbage and doesn’t expect anyone to notice. If only we could show him what he writes in a sober moment. Unforunately, he appears to be a raging alcoholic with no sober moments.

    Thumb up 0

  59. ilovecress

    First off, where did you get that they prefer democrats over republicans from?

    From CMs conclusion from his link. Hence the ‘CM likes a driveby’ comment later on.

    That’s just you being a fucking ass and setting up a weak strawman.

    All I’m pointing out is that within the same thread you’re criticising Obama for having such high unemployment figures. Then later on, you’re claiming that in fact lots of people could have jobs if they wanted to, it’s just that they are lazy. Which is it? If the answer is ‘both’ then why mention ‘the chuckleheads’. I mean if they choose not to get a job, then theres more to go round for the productive people aren’t there?

    The days of working your way up from a menial job have been gone for 30 years. Unless you work in the trades.

    Says who?</

    AlexinCT : November 10, 2011 4.27pm

    Well, let me answer it then.

    Alex, I really do think that the days where you got a menial job and worked your way up the ranks are gone.

    These days were long gone by the time I entered the job market some 3 decades ago already, and some might argue that it happened even before that…..Unless you are in the trades

    Says you.

    My point that “studies” and “sociology” degrees only qualify you to flip burgers is correct even in the UK

    How come? My sources seemd to show that it got you a pretty good job. (I admit my figures are UK ones, but those are the only ones I have access to – if you have some facts about the US employmentmarket I’d be keen to see them)

    But if you did get the 7% chance of not getting a job in engineering correct that tells me that these people either aren’t that good at what they do, or don’t not have the wherewithal to put their skills to work elsewhere, like I & many other engineers did when times got lean.

    Again, nothing to back this up. But then again, to follow your logic – if you are right – then that means that getting an engineering degree isn’t as hard as you might think. I mean if people who ‘aren’t that good at what they do’ are able to get it, then it can’t be that hard to qualify can it?

    I’m being facetious and obviously this is not what I beleive, but pointing out how crazy your arguments are sometimes.

    CM likes a driveby

    Absolutely. Single line posts claiming someone has a mental disorder. I think we can all agree thats not exactly the height of intelligent debate.

    but the fundamental issues date back to the bullshit nanny state instituted by FDR’s policies and stacked upon by subsequent big government types predominantly in the democrat party.

    That is under dispute, you know. I mean, I’m not saying you are wrong, but you could at least acknowledge that this is your opinion, and that it may differ from a lot of other peoples opinion.

    But to stress the point I keep making and you leftists keep ignoring: you do understand the concept that your degree is only as good as the value a prospective employer feels it offers them, right?

    This point is not in question. I mean you could make the argument that learning poetry enriches the soul, but thats not what we’re talking about now. No one is arguing that some degrees will get you a better job than others. To pretend that people are, would be, for want of a better phrase – a Strawman.

    studies degrees, like the one you reference, are worthless.

    This is where we differ. I showed (yes, I know in the UK) that social studies degrees are actually a pretty good bet. The low unemployment figures would suggest that employers actually do find it valuable. In fact, more valuable than Engineering. I’ll give you an example – the social studies subjects (sometimes we call them humanities) are all about predicting, and influencing human behaviour. As such, the people with these skils and outlook are really quite useful to businesses for strategy. And for product development. And, yes, for HR – a good HR strategy can really influence productivity.

    So while, yes, we may need engineers to build a thing, or to work on the systems that make that thing possible – there are other skills needed in the chain.

    I realise that these numbers are in the UK, and are all quite generalised and sweeping – so I’m absolutely willing to concede that only generalisations can be made. But can we both agree that the comment “studies degrees are worthless” is a ridiculous statement. There are plenty of people who have got a studies degree, and have found it very useful indeed. It doesn’t guarantee you a job, but then nothing does. The best advice is to study somethign you’re really good at, because you’ll get even better. Even if you study performing arts and pottery – if you’re the best in the world at it, you’ll make a good living. You can have all the actuarial qualifications in the qworld, but if you suck because you have the heart of a poet, you’ll not find work.

    Thumb up 0

  60. CM

    I actually just concluded:

    I assume from what Alex is saying that those 28 percent are the small business-owners…..

    I’m not sure what you mean by ‘driveby’. How does Alex claiming that liberalism is amental disorder indicate that I like a ‘driveby’?

    Alex’s main problem with this continuing narrative of his is the same problem he always has. It’s just a hunch. He can’t back it up. He thinks he is, but his ‘evidence’ never really says what he thinks it says. In this case, most small business owners aren’t looking to hire any more employees because of the state of the US economy. It doesn’t get more specific than that. However Alex thinks that proves that they’re not hiring because of Obama’s anti-small business policies.

    He doesn’t want to provide a link like this one, because it reveals that Obama is still favoured (easily)among small business owners despite the impacts of his policies on small businesses. And the Democrats have almost as much support as the Republicans amongst small business owners (only 2% behind). The Tea Party is a further 5% behind,

    But because he won’t like it, he’s dismiss it.

    Thumb up 0

  61. Manwhore

    God, you need to re-read this. What a lick spittle dipshit.

    Nevermind that the condition that Steve Jobs was adopted was that the adopting parents had to guarantee that Jobs would be able to go to college.

    Thumb up 0

  62. AlexInCT *

    Bringing this out. And also, II took the liberty of fixing your post’s formatting problem for you. let me know if I got it wrong.

    All I’m pointing out is that within the same thread you’re criticising Obama for having such high unemployment figures. Then later on, you’re claiming that in fact lots of people could have jobs if they wanted to, it’s just that they are lazy.

    Erm, again: I did no such thing. My post was about how unemployment was bad and that despite many small businesses being at a point that they would/could hire employees, they chose not to because they where uncertain of the future AND worried about the hostility by the class warriors.

    A discussion then broke out about some people not wanting to work. I pointed out that those capable of working but not interested in doing that were there even in good times when the unemployment dropped to 4 or so percent. That’s why unemployment is never zero. In a GOOD economy these people COULD have jobs but choose not to. In a bad one they will be doing much of the same. How hard is this concept? Do I need to draw a diagram or something?

    I think I understand why some here chose to blur the distinction however, and it is because I pointed out that the OWS crowd sure seemed to be dominated by the type that didn’t work, in good OR bad times, but wanted to use the “crisis” to push for more wealth redistribution, to benefit themselves. And that kind of pissed them off because they are all for the redistribution and where hoping this would take.

    Which is it? If the answer is ‘both’ then why mention ‘the chuckleheads’. I mean if they choose not to get a job, then theres more to go round for the productive people aren’t there?

    Now I get it! You seem stuck on the jobs issue/angle, instead of what is obviously the real problem, and I wonder why. I sure hope you don’t think that the OWS crowd is about jobs. As I have said repeatedly the proof that they are backing the very politicians and their wealth redistribution policies that have destroyed the jobs market and economy, by demanding even more of the same so they can get rid of their obligations, is indisputable. The OWSers say they are pissed there are no jobs, that they have been lied to about how a college degree guarantee them a job (a stupid thing to begin with) which also came from these same people they now want to “solve” the problem, but they are not asking for changes that would spur job growth. They are asking the nanny state to do even more of the same.

    So to answer you: the chuckleheads need to be mentioned because they are the face of OWS, and they are the ones advocating more wealth redistribution under the guise of wanting jobs.

    Says you.

    The fact that I said that in response to someone else means I am the only one saying that? OK….

    How come? My sources seemd to show that it got you a pretty good job. (I admit my figures are UK ones, but those are the only ones I have access to – if you have some facts about the US employmentmarket I’d be keen to see them)

    You seem to have missed me pointing out that cherry picking the numbers for a very specific studies degree that gets you a job with government then comparing it to other fields in general as a percentage is a waste of time right? Or that I seriously doubt that the pool of “studies” people, even if you look at the single one you chose to bring up, and the pool of engineers, all of them combined, are the same size. When I went to school my entire engineering school – all disciplines – had fewer students than just the English school did, and most engineers where foreigners. If anything that disparity has grown even more pronounced in the last 25 years.

    And I would love the definition of what is a good job. I know working for government here in the US means huge benefits at very little cost, higher pay than your private sector counterparts (if they even exists, because government sure has a lot of make work jobs), early retirement, big pensions, and in general that you don’t do anything of value or that produces much value whenever you actually do whatever little work is necessary to keep the illusion up. If that’s a good job, then yeah they are good jobs, but as we are seeing, the gravy train is going off a cliff, and soon they will be goners.

    I however think again that you are not looking at this correctly and by focusing on statistics that don’t even do an “apples to apples” comparison rather than using the raw numbers, are getting an incorrect picture. How many engineers are there in that pool? I doubt there are that many compared to even just the social studies degreed ones.

    Let me do some looking for US numbers, recent ones, and maybe I will do a post on that.

    Absolutely. Single line posts claiming someone has a mental disorder. I think we can all agree thats not exactly the height of intelligent debate.

    Even his longwinded posts are devoid of anything of substance IMO.

    Again, nothing to back this up.

    I am going from my personal experiences and what kind of people get attracted to engineering. That might not be a good barometer of things, I concede, but in my experience engineers are thought to think and solve hard problems. Those skills are valuable in any discipline, which is why most people that lose their passion or interest quickly go elsewhere and do quite well.

    But then again, to follow your logic – if you are right – then that means that getting an engineering degree isn’t as hard as you might think.

    It wasn’t as hard as I expected it to be, even when having to compete with Asians. Now I might be totally wrong about that, at the risk of coming across as an ass I do have to point out I was blessed with decent brains, and considering how many people struggle with math & sciences. Then again, maybe you are reading something into this that isn’t there at all.

    I mean if people who ‘aren’t that good at what they do’ are able to get it, then it can’t be that hard to qualify can it?

    Get what? Engineering? Translating their education into a paying job? I am not sure I understand where this is going.

    That is under dispute, you know. I mean, I’m not saying you are wrong, but you could at least acknowledge that this is your opinion, and that it may differ from a lot of other peoples opinion.

    Actually this is the opinion of many economists that have forever pointed out the system was unsustainable, not just mine. Yes there are many that disagree. But the fact is that social systems in both Europe and the US are on the verge of collapse because they cost too much and even if governments are willing to take even more from the private sector, as they are now saying they should, exacerbating the fundamental underlying problems even more while doing this, we are heading for an economic collapse and a dark age. There simply IS NOT enough of other people’s money to keep this thing rolling.

    This point is not in question. I mean you could make the argument that learning poetry enriches the soul, but thats not what we’re talking about now. No one is arguing that some degrees will get you a better job than others. To pretend that people are, would be, for want of a better phrase – a Strawman.

    That is precisely what I am arguing though! That and the fact that nothing guarantees you a job. NOTHING. Maybe we need a college prospectus and language like the SEC makes investment firms put on their prospectuses to make that sink in.

    This is where we differ. I showed (yes, I know in the UK) that social studies degrees are actually a pretty good bet. The low unemployment figures would suggest that employers actually do find it valuable. In fact, more valuable than Engineering. I’ll give you an example – the social studies subjects (sometimes we call them humanities) are all about predicting, and influencing human behaviour. As such, the people with these skils and outlook are really quite useful to businesses for strategy. And for product development. And, yes, for HR – a good HR strategy can really influence productivity.

    So while, yes, we may need engineers to build a thing, or to work on the systems that make that thing possible – there are other skills needed in the chain.

    6% of 10 million people is going to mean more people out of work than 7% out of 200K people. Can we agree on that? The company I am working for has a few Social Studies grads. They all work in HR or as Personal Assistants (that’s the PC term for secretary). The other people I know with these degrees work in government. I see a few at the DMV every time I have to spend a full day there to do something a private company would allow me to do in 5 mins.

    Maybe I am being harsh when I say the degree is worthless, and not making my point correctly. I guess what I am saying is that in practice any field that is saturated will yield far less remuneration. You pay a busboy and dishwasher minimal wage because you can get any shlob off the street to do so. You pay a doctor a lot more, because not everyone can do what it takes to get there and practice.

    If you pay $200K to become a doctor while steep, it is a wise investment. Well it was in the past before Obamacare. It might still be even after. But if you paid $200K for a studies degree and land a job paying you $30K, you have been had, and had bad. Now the point I am arguing is that this should have been obvious to everyone., and that the people claiming otherwise are not garnering my sympathy, just like people claiming they didn’t know smoking was dangerous do when they get cancer.

    Thumb up 0

  63. AlexInCT *

    That you ask shows me you know you have no answer. How hard is the concept that if you say it is too warm it means that you believe some other temperature is the norm? Or are the cultists simply pulling shit out of their ass then? Neither looks good.

    Thumb up 0

  64. AlexInCT *

    So is your point that he worked hard and did this on his own regardless of a degrre, without thinking anyone owed him anything? I guess we agree then dude.

    Thumb up 0

  65. CM

    So what is the optimal temperature then, according to these mystery people?
    And where do they state that ANY warming is bad?
    And who are they.
    Come on, if it’s so obvious that I’d have to be mentally disabled to not see it, there should be nothing simplier than providing names and quotes and the stated optimal temperature.

    Or are you just pulling shit of your ass?

    Thumb up 0

  66. Manwhore

    Now I get it! You seem stuck on the jobs issue/angle, instead of what is obviously the real problem, and I wonder why. I sure hope you don’t think that the OWS crowd is about jobs. As I have said repeatedly the proof that they are backing the very politicians and their wealth redistribution policies that have destroyed the jobs market and economy, by demanding even more of the same so they can get rid of their obligations, is indisputable.

    Prove this.

    Thumb up 0

  67. ilovecress

    The company I am working for has a few Social Studies grads. They all work in HR or as Personal Assistants (that’s the PC term for secretary).

    That may be the case in your profession – but I’m just trying to point out that you can’t take your personal experience, in a very narrow field, and apply it generally. Of course an engineer wouldn’t see many (lets just call them Liberal Arts) graduates. It doesn’t mean that there aren’t very good employment opportunities for them. Just not at your firm. – I don’t employ anyone with an engineering degree, and don’t ever need anyone with those skills. That doesn’t mean I assume that the only successful people I see are the only successful people period.

    But if you paid $200K for a studies degree and land a job paying you $30K, you have been had, and had bad.

    But you could say the same about Engineering Degrees. Listen, I agree with you – if you pay 200k for a performing arts and pottery degree – expecting to land a 200k job straight away, then you’re an idiot. But I’d also say that about any degree. Like I said – choose the education that is most likely to make you the best in the world at something.

    Perhaps where we are agreeing, and maybe is what you are assuming about ‘studies’ degrees is that specialisation (at least in the current market) is probably the way to go. Make sure that you’re the only person that can do the thing you do as well as you do it.

    ps – thanks for the formatting. I guess there are some skills that don’t come with a liberal arts education… :-)

    Thumb up 1

  68. CM

    …..despite many small businesses being at a point that they would/could hire employees, they chose not to because they where uncertain of the future AND worried about the hostility by the class warriors.

    Where does it say that? Quote the section.

    In a GOOD economy these people COULD have jobs but choose not to.

    If unemployment drops to 4% because the economy is booming, what percentage of that 4% choose not to work when they could?

    I pointed out that the OWS crowd sure seemed to be dominated by the type that didn’t work, in good OR bad times

    Evidence?

    As I have said repeatedly the proof that they are backing the very politicians and their wealth redistribution policies that have destroyed the jobs market and economy, by demanding even more of the same so they can get rid of their obligations, is indisputable.

    Of course it’s disputable. That’s your opinion.

    The OWSers say they are pissed there are no jobs, that they have been lied to about how a college degree guarantee them a job

    Quotes/evidence to support this?

    which also came from these same people they now want to “solve” the problem

    Quotes/evidence to support this?

    The fact that I said that in response to someone else means I am the only one saying that? OK….

    No it’s the fact that you’re just saying it as though it’s fact. Like you do about everything.

    Even his longwinded posts are devoid of anything of substance IMO.

    Alex, you were the one who said it.

    just like people claiming they didn’t know smoking was dangerous do when they get cancer.

    What?! I thought that was just a conspiracy so that the government could control it/us? Are you suggesting that the government scientists weren’t just being political, and the cigarette companies were lying??! Surely not! Say it ain’t so!

    Thumb up 0

  69. CM

    Of course an engineer wouldn’t see many (lets just call them Liberal Arts) graduates.

    I deal with engineers constantly. They operate in their own little world. Colleagues who work in multi-discplinary firms (who did Geography type degrees) are constantly bitching about it. The engineers working on a project with them often seem to forgot all the other considerations (such as planning). Many of them can’t seem to comprehend anything beyond a narrow technical binary world. It drives them nuts.

    There are a ridiculous amount of jobs available for Geography type degrees. I know many people who have great jobs. One of my best friends (who has a Masters in Geography) has been working on the new rail link through central London (he’s a GIS expert) for the past few years or so and has now moved to Bahrain with an awesome contract.

    Thumb up 0

  70. Manwhore

    That may be the case in your profession – but I’m just trying to point out that you can’t take your personal experience, in a very narrow field, and apply it generally. Of course an engineer wouldn’t see many (lets just call them Liberal Arts) graduates. It doesn’t mean that there aren’t very good employment opportunities for them. Just not at your firm. – I don’t employ anyone with an engineering degree, and don’t ever need anyone with those skills. That doesn’t mean I assume that the only successful people I see are the only successful people period.

    this is why I believe he is a civil engineer, and not anything in consumer products (therefore suckling the teat of the government). In almost every other engineering scenario, a designer is coupled with an engineer. everything from cars to toys works his way. An engineer in these instances tries to preserve the integrity of the design while maintaining the structural integrity and durability of the product.

    Alex’s disdain for that other part eludes to an idea that he’s working on roads or bridges (exclusively government money). Should he come clean about this, it would be an eruption, as he would have to admit his entire life was due to tax payer money. I have a feeling that there is a reason we haven’t heard an answer yet.

    We need an AMENTAL DISORDERZ meme to accompany any bullshit Alex writes.

    Thumb up 0

  71. CM

    Should he come clean about this, it would be an eruption, as he would have to admit his entire life was due to tax payer money.

    Just as well he’s just so amazing in every other area of his life then (as he keeps telling us).

    Thumb up 0

  72. Manwhore

    Now the point I am arguing is that this should have been obvious to everyone., and that the people claiming otherwise are not garnering my sympathy, just like people claiming they didn’t know smoking was dangerous do when they get cancer.

    The HERP DERP just flows off you like a water fall. Genius, if no one told you that getting any other degree than medicine would make money, I’ve got two paper bags for you to unsuccessfully fight your way out of.

    1.) How would anyone know (to use the smoking analogy) what they could or could not do with their lives? It was THE GOVERNMENT that told people smoking would give them cancer you “rolling on the floor dipshit moron”. Do you want a warning on what careers to choose too?

    Are you sure you’re not unemployed? If not I wish I knew your employer. Your incompetence should be exposed. I surely hope I am not driving over any bridge you designed.

    2.) If your lickspittle dipshit thoughts made a connection from one rotten core to the next, wouldn’t it then prove that the minute everyone signed up to be a doctor the market would be saturated and therefore worthless?

    Thumb up 0

  73. AlexInCT *

    Erm, CM. Are we discussing what jobs provide better pay and better prospects based on their degrees, or are we going to focus on whom has problems with whom? I never said engineers where sane. Just like I find business types so driven by the bottom line that they often make dubious decisions. Then there are the feel good types. Each clique has problems with the other. It’s high school dynamics all over. None of that is relevant to the discussion about people that feel they are owed a job because they got a college degree or that they should be able to make six figure salaries, just like lawyers & doctors, with their degree in w2omyn studies, yet that’s what you contribute? Sigh.

    And can you tell me some of these jobs geography types can get? Cause for he life of me I can’t seem to think of any outside of education. Not being a dick. Just seriously curious.

    Thumb up 0

  74. CM

    …yet that’s what you contribute? Sigh.

    Wasn’t even responding to you Alex. Just following on from the non-Alex comment:

    That may be the case in your profession – but I’m just trying to point out that you can’t take your personal experience, in a very narrow field, and apply it generally. Of course an engineer wouldn’t see many (lets just call them Liberal Arts) graduates. It doesn’t mean that there aren’t very good employment opportunities for them.

    The more you write, the more apparent it becomes that you’re living in a very tiny world which doesn’t reflect the rest of it. Which is typical of an engineer (in my experience, and the experience of professional colleagues of mine). Dealing with them for 16 years on a weekly basis, they noticably seem to operate under some sort of silo mentality where they don’t seem to be able to acknowledge or recognise other external inputs. They’ve got their engineering solution and for the life of them they can’t understand why any other considerations would matter.

    And can you tell me some of these jobs geography types can get? Cause for he life of me I can’t seem to think of any outside of education. Not being a dick. Just seriously curious.

    As already noted, a good friend is a GIS specialist and recently has been working on detailed mapping for large infrastructure projects.

    Here is a list of some jobs.
    http://geography.about.com/od/careersingeography/a/jobsgeography.htm

    I do the first one. And no, that doesn’t necessarily working for government. And even if it does, it can be cost-recoverable via consent fees (user-pays).

    Thumb up 0

  75. AlexInCT *

    Where does it say that? Quote the section.

    How about you read the second paragraph in the quote I put on the post? Heck, so you don’t need to scroll up:

    Most shocking of all in the survey of small and medium sized business owners is that many would like to hire more workers but can’t, and new financing rules imposed by hurting banks have made getting loans sharply more difficult than in the past.

    That’s the lame ass LSM losers trying to put lipstick on a pig to make it pretty. Where you really expecting them to say it as blunt as I did when it would hurt their ideological fellow travelers? The bottom line is exactly what I have been hearing from every small business owner I talk to: they will not hire anyone until these assholes now in charge are gone and order has been returned to the economy.

    If unemployment drops to 4% because the economy is booming, what percentage of that 4% choose not to work when they could?

    I would think in a booming economy that translates to almost 100% of them. Booming economies means that employers have far more need of employees than there are employees available. Enough so that they would even take unskilled people and train them to do the work. It’s when those both south & north of our border come storming in to find jobs because they are so abundant. People that want to work but can’t find jobs in booming economies must have some serious baggage, especially with employers so desperate that they sometimes even turn a blind eye to criminal records

    Evidence?

    Look at them? Have you watched the numerous videos and the news? These people are all morons. Hippies, hobos, drum bangers, pot heads, and so on. They are the types you see at protests even in booming economies. See that response above about who doesn’t work in booming economies for reference. If you want I can give you some awesome blogs that have done their due diligence getting visual proof of this.

    Of course it’s disputable. That’s your opinion.

    No CM. That’s the facts. You are the one that is letting your ideology color your perception of the truth because you can’t admit this shit doesn’t work. We have a world nearing economic collapse because the last 5 decades of the left in power and their unsustainable socialist system which under the pretense of doing good did more harm than anything. We either acknowledge that and change, or we do more of the same, and watch the western world plunge into a nasty depression. Play ostrich if you want, but I don’t have to.

    Quotes/evidence to support this?

    Isn’t this what you & Manwhore are both riding me about? That the OWSers have been duped into thinking going to college was what was needed to guarantee them jobs, and now with huge debts, they find out there are no jobs? Oh, that was me being facetious. I know that you know damned well this is the case, but this is how you think you are being clever. It’s why the only person bothering to reply to you remains me.

    Quotes/evidence to support this?

    Let me play along. How about we look at which party supports OWS? The unions which are in bed with that same party are actually the ones paying people to be part of this OWS thing. And last I recall, all the democrats, and even Obama, have all stepped up to not just lend their support to the OWSers but to tell them they will “help them”.

    No it’s the fact that you’re just saying it as though it’s fact. Like you do about everything.

    Actually no, with you, it is just more of the same childish bullshit. I was not the one to make the original statement, Manwhore was. Of course your bone is just with me, huh? Oh Com, you are just too easy.

    Alex, you were the one who said it.

    Said what?

    What?! I thought that was just a conspiracy so that the government could control it/us?

    Where did you get that from? Let me guess! From the same people that say that ridiculous government regulation that doesn’t ban something they tell us is beyond toxic, so they can collect big cash in the form of taxes, seem suspect? Or from those that are accused of wanting to poison all air & water as if they either have their own hidden supplies and do not have to breathe or drink too, by those that do not like people pointing out government has gone too far?

    Are you suggesting that the government scientists weren’t just being political, and the cigarette companies were lying??! Surely not! Say it ain’t so!

    Actually CM, people knew tobacco was bad back in WWI. They didn’t call cigarettes coffin nails for nothing. There was no need for scientists controlled by a callous government out for a big pay day to make that obvious to anyone. I never defended tobacco companies because I thought cigarettes where good for you. I was against government because I knew those crooks where not trying to protect people but to just steal fucking money. BTW, after government proved these tobacco companies where “lying” did they ban the product? Nah, they took trillions of dollars from them, then put ridiculous taxes on the products, leaving them all legal – to limit use they tell you, but that’s not happening – while leaving the stuff around. Frankly I find the behavior of the tobacco companies far less despicable than your adored big government. With friends like those government types, who needs fucking enemies?

    Thumb up 0

  76. AlexInCT *

    this is why I believe he is a civil engineer

    If you had paid attention you would know I am an Aerospace and Electrical engineer. I have said so many times. Do I also have to disclose I am fluent in 7 languages, including an obscure language spoken by only 400K people world wide because I lived there for a stint? And I worked as an engineer for only 2 years, for a major aircraft engine company, before going into software development. I then worked for several top 50 companies, both as a consultant and as an employee, all in the private sector. Oh, I also hold 14 software patents in my name. I even have the marble “Inventor award” GE gave me and cpies to three of the 14 $400 checks I got to my name. The company made millions of off them BTW, and I am fine with that.

    and not anything in consumer products (therefore suckling the teat of the government).

    Not only do you make an ass out of yourself once with this idiotic thing, you do it again. You are desperate to make a connection that doesn’t exist so you can then justify the fact you are hoping to profit from government’s wealth redistribution schemes As I said before: yu are no conservative. You are fucking ass..

    In almost every other engineering scenario, a designer is coupled with an engineer. everything from cars to toys works his way. An engineer in these instances tries to preserve the integrity of the design while maintaining the structural integrity and durability of the product.

    You google that so you could pretend you have a clue what you are talking about? Or is this one of your phantom engineering family members talking to you?

    Alex’s disdain for that other part eludes to an idea that he’s working on roads or bridges (exclusively government money).

    Actually when I did my engineering work I was paired with a senior engineer and several designers. Would it surprise you to know all had engineering, MIS, or other technical degrees? Not a single one of them had a BA. The only people with Bas I interacted in was the senior engineer’s secretary.

    Should he come clean about this, it would be an eruption, as he would have to admit his entire life was due to tax payer money. I have a feeling that there is a reason we haven’t heard an answer yet.

    An answer about what Yosemite Sam?

    We need an AMENTAL DISORDERZ meme to accompany any bullshit Alex writes.

    Just comment on whatever I write and everyone will know someone with a mental disorder is stalking me.

    Just as well he’s just so amazing in every other area of his life then (as he keeps telling us).

    I feel the jelousy CM. It tastes sweet. :)

    Thumb up 0

  77. CM

    I feel the jelousy CM. It tastes sweet. :)

    If I did even half the boasting you did I would hope someone would punch me in the head.
    You do realise of course that the more you boast the less likely the reader considers it to be true. Don’t you?

    Thumb up 0

  78. AlexInCT *

    Manwhore do you just like to make yourself look like an ass? Seriously, the saying that it is the fool that opens their mouth to remove applies to your posts.

    The HERP DERP just flows off you like a water fall. Genius, if no one told you that getting any other degree than medicine would make money, I’ve got two paper bags for you to unsuccessfully fight your way out of.

    Spoken like a true angry 5 year old caught doing somethign worng. You on the other hand have dispelled any illusion that you are either a conservative or intelligent life.

    1.) How would anyone know (to use the smoking analogy) what they could or could not do with their lives? It was THE GOVERNMENT that told people smoking would give them cancer you “rolling on the floor dipshit moron”. Do you want a warning on what careers to choose too?

    Oh fuck you are a stupid lib. I knew cigarettes where bad for you long before government EVER said it was. In fact my father quit smoking back in the early 60s and then government pushed the shit.

    Are you sure you’re not unemployed? If not I wish I knew your employer. Your incompetence should be exposed. I surely hope I am not driving over any bridge you designed.

    If you had served in the military you might have flown on a plane that had engines or avionics I worked on. I never did a bridge. You might even have used other products for which i wrote software. What have you done other than try to make me pay for your stupidity?

    2.) If your lickspittle dipshit thoughts made a connection from one rotten core to the next, wouldn’t it then prove that the minute everyone signed up to be a doctor the market would be saturated and therefore worthless?

    Do you have brain damage or are you simply this misinformed? Here is some advice: tell the school you borrowed all that cash to attend that they did a piss poor job preparing you for anything and that they need to be reimbursed or you will sue them. You can use this poorly thought out posts of your as proof you are incapable of simple logical thinking.

    Now to explain how things work to you. If it was simply a question of signing up as you imply, don’t you think that everyone would have already done it? Even if everyone could sign up to become a doctor, how many do you think would actually complete it? Last I heard med schools have some wicked hard requirements to get into. So hard that it is but a fraction of the people that think they think they are qualified that get in. Med schools are full as is too. Your saturation example is impossible precisely because as I put before in my examples it only a very few will ever meet the requirements to make it into the high paying professions. That’s why they pay high.

    But thanks for validating my point that your problem is that you think all people need to do is sign up & show up to then be guaranteed whatever outcome you think it is. Seriously, call a lawyer and sue your school. They robbed you dude.

    Thumb up 0

  79. Kimpost

    It’s not about anything being “too warm”. It’s about possible implications of the climate changing because of human activity. The change is what’s troubling. The rapid change, I should add.

    A rapid change of the climate, would most likely be costly for mankind – financially and geo-politically. That’s what’s at stake. It’s not about The Day After Tomorrow-scenarios. And it’s certainly not about “optimum temperatures” (seriously WTF)…

    Thumb up 0

  80. AlexInCT *

    If I did even half the boasting you did I would hope someone would punch me in the head.

    So you guys call me out and demand I give details, I tell you about it, and I am now accused of boasting? I was right about the whole jealousy angle wasn’t I? Besides, I think you need a punch in the head regardless. It might get rid of some of your stupid.

    You do realise of course that the more you boast the less likely the reader considers it to be true. Don’t you?

    Like I said: first you demand it, then, when I post far more details than I am comfortable sharing, you accuse me of boasting, and then to the point that people will not believe me. Fuck, you libs are insane tools. I guess I should not point out that there is a lot more that I didn’t even put out there. Frankly I could give a rat’s ass what you believe or not. You are not the one paying my bills, sucking my dick, nor writing my obituary.

    Have a good evening.

    Thumb up 1

  81. CM

    That’s the lame ass LSM losers trying to put lipstick on a pig to make it pretty. Where you really expecting them to say it as blunt as I did when it would hurt their ideological fellow travelers?

    Loon alert.
    Alex, you don’t get to invent your own facts because you don’t like your own source.

    Thumb up 0

  82. CM

    I would think in a booming economy that translates to almost 100% of them. Booming economies means that employers have far more need of employees than there are employees available.

    But the number of specific vacancies in each place can never match up with the relevant available labor market, so it can never actually be 100%. Workers are “left behind” due to costs of training and moving (e.g., the cost of selling one’s house in a depressed local economy), plus inefficiencies in the labor markets, such as discrimination or monopoly power.
    It’s called ‘structural unemployment’.
    So in boom times the number of those who ‘don’t want to work’ is, say, 4%, less structural unemployment, less any other reasons why an individual can’t get a job. So it may be as low as 1% or 2%. Which is why I always respond to those who constantly complain about those ‘who don’t want to work’ with ‘how meaningful actually is it’. Honestly, how much impact to the entire economy do these (relatively) few people have?

    Look at them? Have you watched the numerous videos and the news? These people are all morons. Hippies, hobos, drum bangers, pot heads, and so on. They are the types you see at protests even in booming economies. See that response above about who doesn’t work in booming economies for reference. If you want I can give you some awesome blogs that have done their due diligence getting visual proof of this.

    I want actual evidence, not cherry-picking narrative-supporting anecdotes. Why can you not tell the difference?
    Honestly, you’d never get away with cherry-picking in engineering analysis, why do you think you should so blatantly be able to get away with it here?

    No CM. That’s the facts. You are the one that is letting your ideology color your perception of the truth because you can’t admit this shit doesn’t work.

    Um, sorry, but it’s CLEARLY just your opinion. You haven’t provided evidence to conclude it as fact, therefore it remains your opinion. My ideology, or lack of, is neither here nor there. You’ve either demonstrated it as ‘fact’ or you haven’t. And quite clearly you haven’t.

    We have a world nearing economic collapse because the last 5 decades of the left in power and their unsustainable socialist system which under the pretense of doing good did more harm than anything. We either acknowledge that and change, or we do more of the same, and watch the western world plunge into a nasty depression. Play ostrich if you want, but I don’t have to.

    Again, that’s your opinion. I would certainly agree that there are elements of truth there, but it’s far from the entire explanation.
    Do you have any reputable economists you can quote which directly supports your contention?

    Isn’t this what you & Manwhore are both riding me about? That the OWSers have been duped into thinking going to college was what was needed to guarantee them jobs, and now with huge debts, they find out there are no jobs? Oh, that was me being facetious. I know that you know damned well this is the case, but this is how you think you are being clever. It’s why the only person bothering to reply to you remains me.

    I’ve been ‘riding’ you about pretending your opinion is The Truth. It might be ‘Alex Truth’ ™ but that doesn’t mean it’s truth as the rest of us define it. Which is by the usual meaning of the word.
    But anyway, no, that’s not really what OWS is about.

    Let me play along. How about we look at which party supports OWS? The unions which are in bed with that same party are actually the ones paying people to be part of this OWS thing. And last I recall, all the democrats, and even Obama, have all stepped up to not just lend their support to the OWSers but to tell them they will “help them”.

    These ‘answers’ of yours are all in response to requests for evidence. Clearly you have none or you’d respond with it instead of this diversionary crap. How the hell you think you’re ‘playing along’ is anyone’s guess. What is that, some sort of an attempt at a ‘double bluff’?

    Actually no, with you, it is just more of the same childish bullshit.

    Ah, yet another 7 year old “no, no, YOU are” response. How ironic.

    I was not the one to make the original statement, Manwhore was. Of course your bone is just with me, huh? Oh Com, you are just too easy.

    Com? WTF is that? A technical engineering term?

    Where did you get that from?

    I’m following your moon-beam logic that scientists are easily corruptable and just follow the money. Their results are determined by their political leanings, or political pressure, and they falsify everything to assist the government from controlling everything. When working in areas that have political ramifications, they become completely unprofessional. That’s what you argue with climate change, why should cigarettes and cancer be any different (there are many many parallels, so much so that there’s even a book about it.

    BTW, after government proved these tobacco companies where “lying” did they ban the product? Nah

    Yeah, exactly. Which doesn’t exactly help your argument that the government just wants to control everyone’s life. If they did, they’d have banned them.

    to limit use they tell you, but that’s not happening

    Evidence?

    Frankly I find the behavior of the tobacco companies far less despicable than your adored big government.

    Of COURSE you do Alex. But then you are sneeze away from being legally brain-dead.

    More of the same garbage Alex. You’ve done NOTHING to prove any of your nonsense. Just existing in your brain doesn’t make it fact. How many times do you need that explained to you?

    Thumb up 0

  83. CM

    So you guys call me out and demand I give details, I tell you about it, and I am now accused of boasting?

    I’m sorry, I don’t recall anyone asking you about your dick size, how well you please women, how intelligent you are running rings around people, how amazing you are at your job, or all the other cringey crap you keep harping on about.
    As I say, usually people only mention those things because they’re trying to make up for a lack of them. Fairly basic inferiority complex psychology.

    Besides, I think you need a punch in the head regardless. It might get rid of some of your stupid.

    After posting back and forth with you I sure feel like punching myself in the head (and no that’s not an excuse for you to suggest it’s because you’re so amazing, it’s because you’re that perfect mix of arrogance and ignorance that makes everything so very painful).

    Still waiting on all that evidence Alex. Including which people claim an optimal temperature and what that temperature is. And I also went back and (pointlessly) pointed out all that dishonesty (in a single post, it’ll take some beating that’s for sure) of yours in the ‘Personing’ thread.

    Thumb up 0

  84. CM

    But even worse is how we now have rogue agencies like the EPA doing what the left couldn’t by law, and coming up with their own business crushing rules.

    We’ve been through this Alex. Repeating nonsense doesn’t stop it being nonsense.

    The Clean Air Act is a United States federal law enacted by Congress, and signed by President Richard Nixon on December 31, 1970 to control air pollution on a national level. It requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop and enforce regulations to protect the general public from exposure to airborne contaminants that are known to be hazardous to human health.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Air_Act_(United_States)

    In the Clean Air Act, Congress established limitations on EPA’s regulatory power, requiring it to consider the cost of regulation and its other impacts. Federal courts have, in turn, applied the Constitution to impose a standard of reasonableness on EPA. In other words, EPA is required by law to be reasonable and to act within the bounds Congress established.

    http://www.wri.org/stories/2010/11/what-are-limits-epa-clean-air-act-holds-answers

    Thumb up 0

  85. Manwhore

    If you had served in the military you might have flown on a plane that had engines or avionics I worked on. I never did a bridge. You might even have used other products for which i wrote software. What have you done other than try to make me pay for your stupidity?

    With that you go fuck yourself you OWS support big government liberal. i can’t believe that you tried to hide yourself (well, I can, but here we are). You are a lickspittle dipshit for the republican party, even though you have survived your whole life off government money..

    And you have the audacity to come here and tell these kids that being a bootscrappy individualist, ignoring their degrees, or outright questioning getting an education is what they should do. Fuck you. You know what? Fuck you and the horse that you rode in on.

    To try and explain to the youth (while taking my tax dollar on government contract–you sick and vile reptile) that they should only be getting the education that you approve of…All the while being a fucking welfare recipient.

    Yup. I figured that shit out good. Fuck you, asshole. How many articles can you write about being a conservative, while being just another fucking welfare recipient trying to explain economics.

    Thumb up 0

  86. AlexInCT *

    We’ve been through this Alex. Repeating nonsense doesn’t stop it being nonsense.

    No, CM, what we have had is you doing much of the same you did just now: link bullshit from wiki and parrot the bullshit defense the left is using to justify the destructive & illegal actions by the EPA. The EPA has abrogated powers it doesn’t have, using that Clean Air act as cover, to circumvent a congress that had democratic super majority and a president that would have rubber stamped that other part of the left’s bullshit green agenda we correctly refer to as “Cap & Tax”. There is a reason congress tried but could not pass that pile of shit. If the EPA already had that authority under the Clean Air Act, the “Cap & Tax” bill would not have been needed. And there is a reason that everything this administration does requires the circumvention of the US system. Just like there is a reason that the EPA is trying to get as much of this damage done now before next years election, when it will definitely be told to cease & desist or dragged into court when both houses of congress for sure, and very likely the presidency as well, no longer are in the hands of the kleptocrats.

    You can keep linking that clean air act bullshit all you want, but it only fools people that do not understand that the EPA is going far beyond its legal authority, and with consent of the fucking assholes that have screwed the US tax payer out of hundreds of billions of dollars pushing their stupid green agenda. This is exactly what I predicted the left was going to do from the start: drastically raise the cost of energy for all Americans, impacting the poor the hardest, while enriching their friends positioned to take advantage of the fact the biggest crooks ever hold the levers of power in this country.

    Don’t worry, when things play out exactly like I predicted they would, I will post about it and rub your stupid ass in it. And as you did every other time, like with Solyndra, Fast & Furious, the original “Cap & Tax” discussion, the myriad of other scandalous things from these leftards, and so on -where you accused me of not having facts and lying, vehemently defending the indefensible – I expect you to then not say anything.

    Thumb up 0

  87. AlexInCT *

    With that you go fuck yourself you OWS support big government liberal. i can’t believe that you tried to hide yourself (well, I can, but here we are).

    .

    Oh Manwhore, you are making Murgy look sane buddy. Keep it coming though. The more you post, the less doubt there is about what a moron you are.

    And hide what? Let me guess. You are now somehow trying to equate government defense spending with sucking at the government’s teat, so you can then pretend that what you are asking for is not so bad? Dude you are priceless. Please, hire a lawyer and sue whatever institution you paid to educate you, because if this display of illogic is what they did for you they robbed you blind.

    Need I remind you that defense spending is constitutionally mandated unlike the other shit the big nanny state is comprised off? Or that the left is ALWAYS the one deriding that it is a waste of cash and needs to be cut to the bone, despite the fact that defense spending actually goes to create some of the highest tax paying jobs out there and benefits people that actually do something of value for the country unlike the members of the welfare state?

    Need I also point out that I worked for a private entity and not the government (as a civilian I should add) and that it is quite a stretch to go from there to accusing me of sucking on the government’s teat? What’s next? You will accuse people that work for any entity or company that has any kind of contract with any government entity, or even just pays taxes to the government, of also sucking at the government’s teat? Is this like that game where you can link everyone, to Kevin Bacon, or in your case government, by their employment of all things, and then through some seriously weak & insane logic, claim they are sucking on the government’s teat. Do you hear how insane and desperate you are sounding?

    BTW, I actually worked and produced something of value for the company in question, which sold it to the military, which happens to be part of the US government, and as I already mentioned, a constitutionally recognized expense. What you are asking for is a bailout, much like the other people you malign for the same? Yeah, those are equal.

    Shit, I do not know whether to laugh or cry that you are this deranged and easy to beat down. I am feeling like I have crossed the line into abuse.

    You are a lickspittle dipshit for the republican party, even though you have survived your whole life off government money..

    I am a conservative. I vote republican because I won’t vote ever for communists, wealth redistributionists, and class warriors. If there was a better choice than the republican party, I would vote for them. You on the other hand are a fucking greedy tool that wants others to pay for your stupidity but doesn’t even have the courage of conviction to admit that’s what you are & want.

    And you have the audacity to come here and tell these kids that being a bootscrappy individualist, ignoring their degrees, or outright questioning getting an education is what they should do.

    What I am doing is making you look like the greedy idiot you are. Scratch that. You are doing most of the work, and I am just organizing your jumbled incoherency into something that is easy to follow.

    Fuck you. You know what? Fuck you and the horse that you rode in on.

    The feeling is mutual.

    To try and explain to the youth (while taking my tax dollar on government contract–you sick and vile reptile) that they should only be getting the education that you approve of…All the while being a fucking welfare recipient.

    I am pretty sure that unless you lived in a state with child labor, you never paid a cent in taxes when I worked as an engineer over 23 years ago. But, hey, it is part & parcel of your insane ranting and another display of that enormous wit whatever institution you attended armed you wit. More power to you.

    Yup. I figured that shit out good. Fuck you, asshole. How many articles can you write about being a conservative, while being just another fucking welfare recipient trying to explain economics.

    ROFLMAOL. Yeah, being employed by a private entity that does business with government is welfare, and hence, justifies assholes like you that now want me to pay off your school loan debt and guarantee you employment, because after all, they are just the same.

    PRICELESS!

    Thumb up 0

  88. AlexInCT *

    I’m sorry, I don’t recall anyone asking you about your dick size, how well you please women, how intelligent you are running rings around people, how amazing you are at your job, or all the other cringey crap you keep harping on about.

    Ah this. So you took a joke or two, which I remind you others also participated in, and by your logic then where also bragging, and the fact that I point out that you aren’t very bright even when you think you are, to call me a braggart? See why I keep saying I run circles around you?

    As I say, usually people only mention those things because they’re trying to make up for a lack of them. Fairly basic inferiority complex psychology.

    Are we talking about the joking, or the fact that I point out that you think you are clever but are not and I like pointing that out? Or are we back to the stuff I posted AFTER you and Manwhore demanded I do so? Basic liberal psychology is what it is: you project your own insecurities, behaviors, and lack of moral character on others. That running circles thing would fit very appropriately right here.

    After posting back and forth with you I sure feel like punching myself in the head (and no that’s not an excuse for you to suggest it’s because you’re so amazing, it’s because you’re that perfect mix of arrogance and ignorance that makes everything so very painful).

    Please do. Repeatedly. And then keep your repeated but constantly broken promise to finally quit it.

    Still waiting on all that evidence Alex. Including which people claim an optimal temperature and what that temperature is.

    Not surprised you missed or ignored it and make the claim yet again. Also sure that nothing will ever qualify, that it will be dismissed, as it was right here and has been in the past, so not bothering to waste time when I already provided you with the logic that makes it very obvious that when you argue that temperatures are changing away from what is good, you basically have conceded the point that you believe that there is a good or optimal temperature.

    And I also went back and (pointlessly) pointed out all that dishonesty (in a single post, it’ll take some beating that’s for sure) of yours in the ‘Personing’ thread.

    Huh? I need to go correct your stupidity on another thread too? Shit, you must work for government or be unemployed if you have all that time, cause you aren’t too bright.

    Thumb up 0

  89. sahrab

    And can you tell me some of these jobs geography types can get? Cause for he life of me I can’t seem to think of any outside of education. Not being a dick. Just seriously curious.

    GIS Careers and jobs are multi faceted. Everything from asset management, resource managment, marketing even to The Census Bureau using them to determine where to send an enumerator.

    Thumb up 0

  90. sahrab

    I am a conservative. I vote republican because I won’t vote ever for communists, wealth redistributionists, and class warriors.

    Alex, just to correct you

    You vote republican because one you agree more with one Party of communist, wealth redistributionist, class warriors over the other one.

    When you break the two parties down, there really isnt a spits difference between the two.

    At what point, after spending gajillions of Tax Payer funded money to design, test, build the Joint Strike Figher project (that hasnt even been used in 3 sustained “kinetic” action events over 10 years) does it become the same type of Tax Payer funeded social engineering project you dont agree with?

    Thumb up 0

  91. AlexInCT *

    Alex, just to correct you

    You vote republican because one you agree more with one Party of communist, wealth redistributionist, class warriors over the other one.

    Actually I do not, and I call out the republicans that are that way. My biggest beef with Bush was that he was one of those but I couldn’t get rid of him because the alternative was fucking insane shitheads that would destroy the country. Case in point Obama. But you are welcome to your opinion about why I vote for one party over another, even if it is wrong.

    When you break the two parties down, there really isnt a spits difference between the two.

    That might be your opinion, I find enough of a difference that I have some refuge. Would I like better? Yes, that’s why I pointed out that the republicans are far from what I would prefer as a conservative, but not as insane as the democrats.

    At what point, after spending gajillions of Tax Payer funded money to design, test, build the Joint Strike Figher project (that hasnt even been used in 3 sustained “kinetic” action events over 10 years) does it become the same type of Tax Payer funeded social engineering project you dont agree with?

    Shows me you do not understand why they built it in the first place. We also have ballistic missile subs that carry nuclear armed Trident missiles, B2s that could carry nuclear armed cruise missile but have not needed to do so, and land based ICBMs we never used. I guess they are all dumb things too. Maybe you are right that it is a social engineering project, but that gajillion spent, along with most defense dollars, went to Americans working in American companies that paid taxes to the American government. About the last things, high tech or otherwise, still being made in America are those done by the defense industry. Maybe we should make all of it go offshore. No skin off my back I guess. And at least we got something from it, unlike the welfare dollars that pay people to stay home & make babies, with as many different fathers as possible, which can then perpetuate that cycle of dependency. It’s not like defense dollars ever result in the creation of things with great commerical use either. Shrug.

    BTW, historically we have never needed any combat platform until we find ourselves in some conflict and don’t have it. Then when people die needlessly, we will have the very people that think defense spending is a waste, while welfare spending is good – leftists primarily, if you go by what happened when the war started in Iraq and they all complained how our soldiers where being wounded or dying because they didn’t have the proper equipment, while ignoring that it was them that forced the defense cuts of the decade before and Bill Clinton that signed them into law – complaining the loudest.

    Seriously though, cut defense spending. I do not mind a sizeable cut. Right now it is way too high. Not as high as I feel the other nanny state spending is compared for the benefit it provides (or doesn’t). Just don’t act surprised when we lose the associated high paying jobs, whole manufacturing industries, a lot of the brain power, and worse, when the next conflict comes, and we are ill prepared and people die. Then again, your average lefty feels that only idiots joing the military anyway, and its the price they pay for doing somthing so dumb, while these people die to keep that lefty safe.

    Thumb up 0

  92. AlexInCT *

    So government jobs to be had with a geography degree with a focus better suited for those with business, marketing, or accounting degrees? Some Census Bureau jobs I understand, but that’s government too.

    OK. Thanks for letting me know man. Appreciate that. Have to agree that’s interesting.

    Thumb up 0

  93. sahrab

    No not just Government Jobs (though Census is). Asset and Resource Management are business practices that also rely upon GIS. Need gadget at this location, and the nearest is at this one (admittedly this is a REALLY simplistic overview)

    Thumb up 0

  94. AlexInCT *

    It’s not about anything being “too warm”. It’s about possible implications of the climate changing because of human activity.

    Really? So if I point out how warmer times mean things will be far better for those of us up in the northern climes and that the negative impacts have massively been exaggerated – that’s not in dispute BTW as the IPCC has itself had to retract a whole slew of lies about how bad things where going to be – this discussion is all but over? Why didn’t anyone tell me it was that easy?

    And when are they going to provide definite proof that it is human activity and not just the regular cycle of things? So far I have seen a lot of hot air and not much else. Those that claim the science is settled certainly have no clue. From what I see they don’t enough of one of the most complicated systems ever, ignore what they don’t like, and, as we already know, in the best case have not produced a reliable model and more likely than not falsified their modeling to create the desired effect.

    A rapid change of the climate,

    Define rapid. Realize that to do so you would have to know what the historical trending for a lot more than the last couple of hundred years, quite often gathered from imprecise measurements and a few other processes, like tree rings, that have been the basis of all the bunk, but for which the original data conveniently is gone (and I should add that but for a hacker we wouldn’t have the e-mails indicating they would rather destroy than share that data), was. And even when it is rapid, the case for humans doing it, while hyped by those that claim consensus is the best kind of science, is so thin you need a microscope to see it.

    would most likely be costly for mankind – financially and geo-politically.

    I see far more damage – orders magnitude of it – from the supposed remedy, which itself is nothing but a dubious and purely ideological one we all got to see play out in countries like the USSR, Cuba, and North Korea. Besides, whose finances are you talking about? The global elite that form most governments?

    It’s not about The Day After Tomorrow-scenarios. And it’s certainly not about “optimum temperatures” (seriously WTF)…

    Then why is all this all we get from these people to push their global government?

    Thumb up 0

  95. AlexInCT *

    Actually I didn’t invent anything CM. I pointed out how the LSM manipulates words when they want to protect their side, and can’t just ignore the story. Are you seriously telling me this doesn’t happen constantly after me pointing it out so many times here?

    Do I have to rehash Solyndra, Fast & Furious, Holder, Gitmo, and the slew of other stories where the LSM played defense for these people in their pretend reporting?

    Don’t bother bud. It’s obvious what your problem is.

    Thumb up 0

  96. CM

    Sorry, you don’t get to fills in the gaps with your grand narrative and call it fact. Nobody does.

    Although I assume it’s pointless to keep telling you because I doubt you can even see the difference anymore.

    Thumb up 0

  97. AlexInCT *

    Bringing this out because it needs addressing:

    But the number of specific vacancies in each place can never match up with the relevant available labor market, so it can never actually be 100%. Workers are “left behind” due to costs of training and moving (e.g., the cost of selling one’s house in a depressed local economy), plus inefficiencies in the labor markets, such as discrimination or monopoly power.

    Oh, its discrimination and monopolies that keep the working man down, not the fact that some people simply don’t want to work! I guess that guy that told me he didn’t want to work and was hoping for government to control healthcare so he could get it for free and quit working, cause working is for morons, really was doing so because he felt discriminated and was against the monopoly.

    See the problem I have with this nonsense is that it is NEVER the lazy people. That sound familiar? Well Obama just called people lazy here. Frankly I am not surprised to hear this coming from the statists. Having read quite a bit of history, especially about the USSR, this is exactly what comes as the nanny state starts seeing the pool of moochers grow while the productive ones shrink. For all it’s power the USSR couldn’t plant enough food to feed its own people. That was simply because under any system that punishes those that work harder to earn more, like communism, and all these crony capitalism socialist western systems, those that produce dwindle and disappear and the rest will do the bear minimum to stay out of trouble. It’s called human nature.

    It’s called ‘structural unemployment’.

    Yeah, I am familiar with it. Never figured out that it was caused by discrimination and monopolistic practices. Considering that when we have a 4% unemployment here that translates to some 4 million people out of work, I find it hard to believe that with so many incidents of such illegal behavior and that many people impacted, that not every company in this country is in court and being sued. After all, that is the new American dream.

    So in boom times the number of those who ‘don’t want to work’ is, say, 4%, less structural unemployment, less any other reasons why an individual can’t get a job. So it may be as low as 1% or 2%. Which is why I always respond to those who constantly complain about those ‘who don’t want to work’ with ‘how meaningful actually is it’. Honestly, how much impact to the entire economy do these (relatively) few people have?

    Erm, did I say everyone that was part of that 4% was a slacker or that a big majority was? I think it was the later. I scrolled up and it looks like I did make that distinction. But even if I stick to your numbers, when you have well over a 100 million employable people, that 1 or 2 percent translates to one or two million people that should be working but are sucking at the government’s teat. Note that I am not counting in people that don’t want to work and do not care to bother pretending they are looking for work so they can collect money, because those people suck on that teat far less.

    I want actual evidence, not cherry-picking narrative-supporting anecdotes. Why can you not tell the difference?

    Maybe it is that you dismiss evidence, facts, and any logic that you don’t like, CM? I can again go into how we had these exact same battles on numerous other posts. You accused me of saying shit without facts to back it up, we went back and forth, I pointed out I was using the facts I did have and logic & reasoning to come to conclusions I presented, but you, since you didn’t like those, dismissed them outright, then accused me of not just not having facts, but lying. Then time went bye, and not only did my logic bear out, but often it was even worse. By now I would figure you would see a pattern and avoid this. Or at least concede you had it wrong. Instead I still get told I lied even when time has proven me correct.

    Honestly, you’d never get away with cherry-picking in engineering analysis, why do you think you should so blatantly be able to get away with it here?

    See above.

    Um, sorry, but it’s CLEARLY just your opinion.

    It looks like my “opinions” have a far better track record of turning into facts than yours, but you still seem unable to admit that.

    You haven’t provided evidence to conclude it as fact, therefore it remains your opinion.

    There is the call for me to provide a dissertation on every post yet again. As others already pointed out this is a blog. My bet is that even so we have a far better record of accuracy than the LSM.

    My ideology, or lack of, is neither here nor there.

    That gave me a real hearty laugh. After I have been proven right this often in the past you would at a minimum be more carful with your accusations that I lie. That you don’t and continue to pretend I lie is that ideology you deny influences you talking.

    You’ve either demonstrated it as ‘fact’ or you haven’t. And quite clearly you haven’t.

    Sigh. Considering you think AGW bullshit is a factual, you shouldn’t be judging others. Read my response above. I might need to start copying & pasting these.

    Again, that’s your opinion. I would certainly agree that there are elements of truth there, but it’s far from the entire explanation.

    The coming economic collapse I am talking about, opinion or not, is based on more facts and logic than AGW. Yet you have faith bordering on the fanatical for AGW, and dismiss the economic disaster 5 decades of socialisms have brought us as my opinion. That’s ideology talking.

    Do you have any reputable economists you can quote which directly supports your contention?

    Ah, yes. Nice qualifier there, “reputable”. That leaves Krugman and all the Keynesians out in the cold. I guess that the barrage of articles like this one isn’t enough to satisfy your need for “facts”. Is it so hard to understand that the fiscal obligations of the nanny states of the big western economies have grown to the point that there simply isn’t enough of other people’s money to take?

    Here in the US our obligations are over $165 trillion. Our annual GDP is something around $16 trillion. It’s worse in Europe man. The EU is dead. They are keeping the corpse on life support, but the longer the Eurocrats in Brussels drag this out, the more painful the collapse will be. Check out Arthur Laffer (that’s an economist). The old “government will spend a ton of money to get things back on track” solution failed. It will never work again. Not that it really worked in the first place if you ask me.

    I’ve been ‘riding’ you about pretending your opinion is The Truth. It might be ‘Alex Truth’ ™ but that doesn’t mean it’s truth as the rest of us define it.

    Gotcha. You are saying your “opinion” carries more weight than mine. Because a few links to real biased tools that say what you like to hear certainly does not make your opinion facts. Go back up to your claim about not being ideologically driven.

    Which is by the usual meaning of the word.
    But anyway, no, that’s not really what OWS is about.

    HAH! This is based on what? OWS itself is unable to articulate what it is about. Short of some people putting up lists that sound an awful lot like the same shit collectivists & anarchists have been demanding for the last 5 decades, the constant news, that despite the LSM’s best effort can not wash clean the cesspool that these gatherings are, the videos I see where these people act no different from your usual anarchist bunch, destroying property and stealing things, the rapes and murders, and the fact that they all want people to give them things, there isn’t much to go by. So you tell me your opinion of what you think OWS is about.

    These ‘answers’ of yours are all in response to requests for evidence. Clearly you have none or you’d respond with it instead of this diversionary crap.

    As I already pointed out: we have not got more than these things you refer to as “diversionary crap” to go bye. Since you seem to be part of that super secret inner circle, and so in the know of things, how about you provide me with the facts of what OWS is about. Two can play at this game.

    How the hell you think you’re ‘playing along’ is anyone’s guess. What is that, some sort of an attempt at a ‘double bluff’?

    So you will provide me with the facts you asked me to produce then?

    Actually no, with you, it is just more of the same childish bullshit.

    Ah, yet another 7 year old “no, no, YOU are” response. How ironic.

    So you will provide me with the facts then? I didn’t see any of them here. If you really wanted to make me look bad you could have presented them. I wonder why you didn’t and then resorted to the lame attack? Hmmmmmm?

    Com? WTF is that? A technical engineering term?

    Ah, the refuge of the one that has lost the argument. That was actually me misspelling “Come on, You are too easy”. I could do the same to you but I actually prefer to argue on the facts you infer are only opinions, when all you have is opinions too.

    I’m following your moon-beam logic that scientists are easily corruptable and just follow the money. Their results are determined by their political leanings, or political pressure, and they falsify everything to assist the government from controlling everything. When working in areas that have political ramifications, they become completely unprofessional. That’s what you argue with climate change, why should cigarettes and cancer be any different (there are many many parallels, so much so that there’s even a book about it.

    Considering a lot of the “scientists” we get told are for AGW that are neither scientists, nor motivated by science, I am not sure where to take this. I know you do not consider the information we got from the hacked East Anglia system to be valid – talk about your ideological blinkers there BTW – but I found precisely what I had been saying was going on all along. Ideologues, and many that where just riding the money train, colluded with governments that wanted to increase their power, in manipulating, fabricating, and proliferating data, models, and bullshit so they could scare people into giving up their freedoms. That’s not my opinion either, that’s the facts. You can refuse to accept the, but they are there and undeniable. And the solution is ALWAYS ideological/political, never technological. That green energy shit isn’t going to ever be able to produce enough energy to meet the growing demand of a modern society. Once the economies of the world collapse though and the wars that follow kill off most of humanity, we might not need that much energy though.

    And the parallels between tobacco and AGW is simple since it involves government using both “crisis” to make itself more powerful and confiscate more wealth. Thanks for acknowledging that. Other than that we have Tobacco being bad, but somehow still being sold, and AGW being made up.

    Thumb up 0

  98. CM

    Ah this. So you took a joke or two, which I remind you others also participated in, and by your logic then where also bragging, and the fact that I point out that you aren’t very bright even when you think you are, to call me a braggart? See why I keep saying I run circles around you?

    Nah, these are pretty much always stand-alone comments, so, sorry, you can’t fall back on the old “Everyone else was doing it” excuse. It’s clear that you hope people believe it to be true. But hey, you continue to knock yourself out doing it. Maybe some will fall for it. All I was saying is that I’d hope someone punches me

    in the head if I ever stoop to that level and come across as sad and desperate.

    I dunno, maybe it’s a mid-life crisis or something. Exactly how old are you?

    Are we talking about the joking, or the fact that I point out that you think you are clever but are not and I like pointing that out?

    All of it. It’s all part of the same pathology. I’ve never suggested I was clever or otherwise. I’m not sure I’ve ever come across anyone who is so stubborn that they refuse to see their errors when staring them in the face, and then keep digging. And then in an entirely different thread go through the entire thing again. And then again. It’s quite remarkable. And at the same time fascinating. Like watching car accidents in slow motion.

    Or are we back to the stuff I posted AFTER you and Manwhore demanded I do so?

    Which stuff was that exactly? Where you simply repeated your narrative with more Alex Facts?

    Basic liberal psychology is what it is: you project your own insecurities, behaviors, and lack of moral character on others. That running circles thing would fit very appropriately right here.

    Ah yes, well that’s because I’m amental.
    Alex this is one of the main things that holds you back from being one of the adults and being able to partake in adult discussions. You’re so absolutely obsessed with political ideology that it’s like having a straitjacket on your brain. You’ve created and then locked-in such a warped filter.

    And then keep your repeated but constantly broken promise to finally quit it.

    Where did I say I would quit it? I’m far too fascinated by it. Sure, I might have given up on having a discussion with any substance with you, but I’m always up for attacking stupid arguments, or intellectual dishonesty. There are plenty of other conservatives that I can have intelligent discussions with. I’ve done so for years, no reason I won’t continue to.

    Not surprised you missed or ignored it and make the claim yet again.

    Alex, it’s YOU who has made the claim. We’re asking for you to support your claim. I see you’ve added another post where you YET AGAIN FAIL to provide names and quotes and the optimum temperature. So here we go again. Digging your hole deeper and deeper. So deep we’ll never be able to see you running in those circles you love so much.

    Huh? I need to go correct your stupidity on another thread too?

    I’d be fascinated to see how you spin it all to claim you weren’t being dishonest.

    Shit, you must work for government or be unemployed if you have all that time, cause you aren’t too bright

    This in the very thread were I say what I do and confirm that I don’t work for the government. Genius. You’re SO awesome!

    Thumb up 0

  99. CM

    Sorry Alex but Cap and Tax died in the US over 2 years ago (it got no further after June 26, 2009). And the EPA couldn’t do anything about that. So it’s an example of the OPPOSITE of what you’re tying to say. And the current round is completely different to Cap and Trade. It’s not about the same thing at all. Which is what I pointed out recently to you. Additionally Cap and Tax clearly wasn’t what you were referring to when you said:

    But even worse is how we now have rogue agencies like the EPA doing what the left couldn’t by law, and coming up with their own business crushing rules.

    Moving the goalposts and going on yet another ideological and partisan rant isn’t going to work for you. Especially when you give an example of the opposite of what you’re trying to argue. Why would you even waste your time?

    Again, the EPA is legally required to enact the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Nothing to do with circumvention or nasty Democrats. If you don’t like it, you need to work on having the Clean Air Act changed,

    You can keep linking that clean air act bullshit all you want, but it only fools people that do not understand that the EPA is going far beyond its legal authority

    Where are they doing that? Demonstrate it by explaining the details of exactly what they are trying to do, and why that goes beyond their mandate and responsibility in terms of the Clean Air Act. For one of the first times in your life, wrap some actual detail around your claim.

    This is exactly what I predicted…

    Yes, yes, your cock is so very very large etc etc. I get it.

    Don’t worry, when things play out exactly like I predicted they would, I will post about it and rub your stupid ass in it.

    Whatever happens you’ll pretend what you predicted has come true. You’ll simply fill in all the inconvenient gaps with your Alex Facts.

    And as you did every other time, like with Solyndra, Fast & Furious, the original “Cap & Tax” discussion

    Where did you rub my stupid ass in any of that? Are you living on a different planet? I didn’t even post about Fast & Furious for fuck’s sake. I pointed that out already just recently when you claimed it. And in the original “Cap & Trade” I pointed out that you had no idea what you were talking about and you just abused me for it. And then presumably took it as a ‘win’. Anyway, this is just more embarassing “please think that my cock is really big” nonsense.

    Thumb up 0

  100. CM

    Hang on, so government DOES create substantial jobs and wealth,and indirectly employs a lot fo brain power. All those small (largely service) towns that exist because of bases are effectively alive because of constant government stimulus.
    Damn, it must have been someone else going on and on and on about how the opposite is true.

    Thumb up 0

  101. mikedomi39

    LOL….thanks for defending me, Balthy;) We should get together and argue some;)

    I still contend the mikedomi39 is a ‘nom ge guerre’ of an ivory tower liberal.

    It’s the internet handle of a 36 year old NJ born and raised guy who makes 55k a year and switched from being a registered D to I in 2008 after watching the Democratic party make a mockery of the primary process. I found this website after watching Farenhiet 9/11 and wanted to know more about Michael Moore. I linked here from Moorewatch. I lean left…but a lot less than I used to.

    Actually what I do is lay blame where it belongs: with the people that have the power to regulate and use that power to try and warp reality and economics while making money from the process. People like you however want to pretend that the problem is with the victims of that regulation, because then it absolves the politicians that share your politics and gives those that made bad choices a group to fleece, to then pay for the consequences of those bad choices these people do not want to have to deal with.

    Wow…I really dont get why I have to say the same thing over and over and over and over to you about the same half-truth you try to peddle every time you post about the collapse.

    I AM NOT absolving ANY politician of the blame. I am just smart enought to know that they WERE NOT THE ONLY FACTOR.

    Thumb up 0

  102. CM

    Bringing this out because it needs addressing:

    What you really mean to say is:

    Bringing this out because there is insufficient dishonesty.

    Oh, its discrimination and monopolies that keep the working man down, not the fact that some people simply don’t want to work!

    You’re unbelievable. That’s not even remotely close to what I said. That’s just blatant and chronic and rampant dishonesty. Why do you even bother Alex? What the fuck is the point of so blatantly making shit like that up? Come on, let’s explore this. Why do you think for a second that would benefit you?

    I guess that guy that told me he didn’t want to work and was hoping for government to control healthcare so he could get it for free and quit working, cause working is for morons, really was doing so because he felt discriminated and was against the monopoly.

    Dishonest. Anecdotal evidence doesn’t invalidate the fact that structural employment makes sense and exists. As do other factors.

    If you want to pretend you understand economics, you should probably do some work on understanding the employment/unemployment part.

    See the problem I have with this nonsense is that it is NEVER the lazy people.

    What is (“never the lazy people”)?

    Well Obama just called people lazy here. Frankly I am not surprised to hear this coming from the statists. Having read quite a bit of history, especially about the USSR, this is exactly what comes as the nanny state starts seeing the pool of moochers grow while the productive ones shrink.

    You’re misrepresenting what he actually said, and the context in which he said it. Again, dishonesty. Your stock in trade. But you do it so badly that I really don’t know why you bother.

    For all it’s power the USSR couldn’t plant enough food to feed its own people. That was simply because under any system that punishes those that work harder to earn more, like communism, and all these crony capitalism socialist western systems, those that produce dwindle and disappear and the rest will do the bear minimum to stay out of trouble. It’s called human nature.

    Isn’t it rather funny then that Obama’s comment was in relation to the FREE TRADE DEAL (on which an agreed outline has been reached, which would make the other combined countries the US’s fifth largest trading partner) he’s been working on, which he hopes will create more jobs in the US.
    You’re awesome Alex. It takes some special skill to get so much so wrong so often.
    Yeah, I am familiar with it. Never figured out that it was caused by discrimination and monopolistic practices. Considering that when we have a 4% unemployment here that translates to some 4 million people out of work, I find it hard to believe that with so many incidents of such illegal behavior and that many people impacted, that not every company in this country is in court and being sued. After all, that is the new American dream.

    Yeah, I am familiar with it.

    Bit strange that you’ve ignored it then.

    Never figured out that it was caused by discrimination and monopolistic practices.

    Again, dishonesty. Nobody has claimed it’s caused by just those to factors. Again, why do you even bother with this shit?

    Considering that when we have a 4% unemployment here that translates to some 4 million people out of work, I find it hard to believe that with so many incidents of such illegal behavior and that many people impacted, that not every company in this country is in court and being sued. After all, that is the new American dream.

    Again, your premise is flawed as a result of your dishonesty. So naturally everything that follows is shit.

    Erm, did I say everyone that was part of that 4% was a slacker or that a big majority was?

    No, and I never claimed you did.

    But even if I stick to your numbers, when you have well over a 100 million employable people, that 1 or 2 percent translates to one or two million people that should be working but are sucking at the government’s teat. Note that I am not counting in people that don’t want to work and do not care to bother pretending they are looking for work so they can collect money, because those people suck on that teat far less.

    Yes, they are. Sucking at the government’s teat. Which is why I would agree with people that say there should be strict conditions that come with welfare. But, again, how meaningful is the impact of that 1 or 3 percent on the economy? About as close to negligible as you can get is the correct anwer. Even if we invented a serum which turned them immediately into motivated ‘i want a job right now, any job will do’ workers, it would make no noticeable difference to any measurable statistic. In which case, why do people expend so much time and energy compaining about this these people and what a drain on the country they are?

    Maybe it is that you dismiss evidence, facts, and any logic that you don’t like, CM?

    For example?
    But that would be turning this back on me, when I’m asking YOU where YOUR supporting evidence is.

    I can again go into how we had these exact same battles on numerous other posts. You accused me of saying shit without facts to back it up, we went back and forth, I pointed out I was using the facts I did have and logic & reasoning to come to conclusions I presented, but you, since you didn’t like those, dismissed them outright, then accused me of not just not having facts, but lying.

    Wrong wrong wrong. You take something like a news story and you concoct a story around it, and then pretend your story is fact. Your source never actually says what you claim it does. Logic and reasoning is great, but without relevant and sufficient facts and evidence it can easily just be entirely an internal narrative invented to try and justify your own ideology. Why can’t you see the difference?

    but you, since you didn’t like those, dismissed them outright, then accused me of not just not having facts, but lying.

    Having an opinion is one thing. Making shit up to fill in gaps and passing it off as ‘fact’ is quite another. You should be old enough to know the difference.
    And if they are actual facts then nobody can “dismiss them outright”. They can demonstrate that those facts are wrong, but then by doing so they’ve not dismissed them ‘outright’, they’ve demonstrated it to a sufficient degree. So what you suggest doesn’t even make internal sense.

    By now I would figure you would see a pattern and avoid this. Or at least concede you had it wrong. Instead I still get told I lied even when time has proven me correct.

    You mean I’d let you get away with being dishonest, and pretending that your narrative is sufficiently supported made up of facts and evidence.
    Yet again what you say isn’t even internally consistent – if only time proves you correct then you that’s an admission that you had insufficient evidence earlier, even though you were claiming it to be The Truth.

    See above.

    I can only conclude that you apply very different standards (in all respects).

    It looks like my “opinions” have a far better track record of turning into facts than yours, but you still seem unable to admit that.

    Wow, I think this is the first time you’ve admitted that they are just your opinions (and based on your wider narrative).
    I don’t have a ‘track record’ of “my opinions turning into facts” because I don’t pretend something is true before the facts are established. If I speculate, I make sure that’s clear. I don’t claim facts that aren’t in evidence. And that’s just not me. That goes for almost all people.

    There is the call for me to provide a dissertation on every post yet again. As others already pointed out this is a blog. My bet is that even so we have a far better record of accuracy than the LSM.

    If it requires a dissertation to prove, then that should be a good indication that you’re claiming an entire narrative as fact. I’ve never once asked for a dissertation. Anything you claim as fact should be able to be confirmed with a link or two (with reputable sources, even if indirectly).

    It’s not particularly relevant what term is used to describe the place. If you want to engage in discussion, and you want to establish facts for the basis of discussion, those facts need to be in evidence.

    That gave me a real hearty laugh. After I have been proven right this often in the past you would at a minimum be more carful with your accusations that I lie. That you don’t and continue to pretend I lie is that ideology you deny influences you talking.

    Again, as I said, your ongoing chronic inability to establish necessary facts is irrelevant to whether I adhere to an ideology or not. That’s just logic, whether you want to laugh about it or cry about it.
    I don’t accuse you of lying. I demonstrate it. I would never accuse anyone of lying without providing the evidence. I would expect anyone calling me a liar to provide the evidence right there and then.

    Sigh. Considering you think AGW bullshit is a factual, you shouldn’t be judging others. Read my response above. I might need to start copying & pasting these.

    Sigh. Considering I think AGW bullshit factual? That doesn’t even make sense. What specific AGW bullshit are you talking about? You can’t mean AGW as a theory, because a theory can’t be factual. Honestly, when you can’t even be internally consistent it’s time to give up writing words on the internets.

    The coming economic collapse I am talking about, opinion or not, is based on more facts and logic than AGW. Yet you have faith bordering on the fanatical for AGW, and dismiss the economic disaster 5 decades of socialisms have brought us as my opinion. That’s ideology talking.

    There’s a difference between assessing it on all the facts, and just picking and choosing the facts that suit. Logic is only worthwhile if it’s based on all the available information/facts. I could come up with a logical narrative as to why 9/11 was an inside job, but I’d need to exclude and ignore a lot in order to make that logic work. I could come up with a narrative about how AGW is deeply flawed, but I’d need to ignore and exclude a significant amount of evidence and prefer reams of unsubstantiated claims of fraud and unprofessionalism.

    When you’re ready I’d be quite happy to get deeply into discussing the details of AGW. Just let me know, and start a thread where we can contain it.

    Ah, yes. Nice qualifier there, “reputable”.

    Well yeah, I mean someone not straight out of school. Or from a partisan think-tank. Nothing wrong with that. It still leaves 95%+ of economists I’m sure.

    I guess that the barrage of articles like this one isn’t enough to satisfy your need for “facts”.

    Not when it doesn’t say what you claim, no. And when it’s about a specific issue, not the reasons behind a potential great economic collapse.
    You can have 10,000 articles that you misrepresent and it would be the same thing. Numbers are irrelevant, it’s what you’re claiming that’s at issue. But then that should go without saying.

    Is it so hard to understand that the fiscal obligations of the nanny states of the big western economies have grown to the point that there simply isn’t enough of other people’s money to take?

    Not hard to understand at all. If I was disputing that specific issue in isolation you’d have a great point there. Unfortunately though, I’m saying that there are more factors at work. Again, can you find a reputable economist or two who supports your contention that we’re heading for an economic collapse solely because of the nanny states.

    Gotcha. You are saying your “opinion” carries more weight than mine.

    Not even remotely. This time I don’t know if you’re being thick or dishonest.

    Because a few links to real biased tools that say what you like to hear certainly does not make your opinion facts.

    Of course it doesn’t. It does provide support for an opinion though. You can’t even get that far though. Your supporting evidence usually doesn’t even support what you claim. And when you claim it, you claim it as fact rather than opinion.

    Go back up to your claim about not being ideologically driven.

    Why? What does ideology have to do with what I just explained a few lines about this sentence?

    HAH! This is based on what? OWS itself is unable to articulate what it is about. Short of some people putting up lists that sound an awful lot like the same shit collectivists & anarchists have been demanding for the last 5 decades, the constant news, that despite the LSM’s best effort can not wash clean the cesspool that these gatherings are, the videos I see where these people act no different from your usual anarchist bunch, destroying property and stealing things, the rapes and murders, and the fact that they all want people to give them things, there isn’t much to go by. So you tell me your opinion of what you think OWS is about.

    The Wiki says – “the participants are mainly protesting social and economic inequality, corporate greed, corruption and influence over government – particularly from the financial
    services sector – as well as lobbyists and the jobless rate”. That’s pretty consistent with what I have seen.

    Since you seem to be part of that super secret inner circle, and so in the know of things, how about you provide me with the facts of what OWS is about. Two can play at this game.

    All I did was say that OWS isn’t about “That the OWSers have been duped into thinking going to college was what was needed to guarantee them jobs, and now with huge debts, they find out there are no jobs?”. Where is your evidence for that, other than one of two anecdotes, and the contents of your own brain? I’m not the one making grand statements about the group is REALLY about and who it’s made up of.

    So you will provide me with the facts you asked me to produce then?

    Why would I provide you with facts? You made claims, I asked if you could support them with evidence. If it’s just your ‘feeling’ then you can just admit it.

    So you will provide me with the facts then? I didn’t see any of them here. If you really wanted to make me look bad you could have presented them. I wonder why you didn’t and then resorted to the lame attack? Hmmmmmm?

    You’re trying to say that when YOU make unsupported claims and are asked for actual support for the claims it’s MY responsibility to provide facts? LMAO. What planet are you on now? This is the new tactic?
    If you don’t want to be shown up then try supporting your claims from the outset.

    Ah, the refuge of the one that has lost the argument.

    How have I “lost the argument”?

    Considering a lot of the “scientists” we get told are for AGW that are neither scientists, nor motivated by science, I am not sure where to take this.

    If this is the case I would stop getting all your information from right-wing blogs. The fact that you use the term “are for AGW” tells us a great deal by itself. Also, who are “we”? I can only assume you mean people who go to right-wing blogs for their climate science information. Because it sure as hell doesn’t apply to anyone else. And who are these supposed scientists who are not actually scientists? And where is your evidence that they are “not motivated by science”? Just because you think so, doesn’t make it so.

    I know you do not consider the information we got from the hacked East Anglia system to be valid – talk about your ideological blinkers there BTW – but I found precisely what I had been saying was going on all along.

    What specific information are you talking about? What specific information from those emails confirmed exactly what you said was happening all along?
    Come on, let’s get specific. Start a thread on it and we’ll go through it all, piece by piece. We’ll then see exactly how “motivated by science” you are. I’ll bet it won’t be an eye-opener at all. I’ll bet you’ll just throw out a whole lot of long-debunked nonsense that nobody takes even remotely seriously.

    Ideologues, and many that where just riding the money train, colluded with governments that wanted to increase their power, in manipulating, fabricating, and proliferating data, models, and bullshit so they could scare people into giving up their freedoms.

    Where is your evidence? You’re all accusations and no evidence. Same yet again. Do you have no personal standards at all?

    That’s not my opinion either, that’s the facts.

    Saying they are the facts doesn’t come even close to demonstrating it. So go on, demonstrate it. Or are you all talk?

    That green energy shit isn’t going to ever be able to produce enough energy to meet the growing demand of a modern society.

    You’ve said this before I’ve provided information which suggested it can, and you weren’t able to say why it was wrong.

    And the parallels between tobacco and AGW is simple since it involves government using both “crisis” to make itself more powerful and confiscate more wealth. Thanks for acknowledging that. Other than that we have Tobacco being bad, but somehow still being sold, and AGW being made up.

    Smoking causing death was a “crisis” (inferring the health issues were made up)?
    Your imagination isn’t the same as the world Alex.
    I’d recommend that book, it’s highly illuminating. You need a break from your imagination because it’s doing you no favours.

    Thumb up 0

  103. CM

    In reality many with an undergraduate Geography degree use it to get into one of a large number related specialised fields. Sometimes with a Masters degree speciality, or sometimes just by using Geography as a way into the field.
    e.g. Biogeography, Climatology & Meteorology, Coastal geography, Environmental management, Geodesy, Geomorphology, Glaciology, Hydrology & Hydrography, Landscape ecology, Oceanography, Pedology, Palaeogeography etc etc

    There are similar examples when it comes to human geography. If the undergraduate degree is on the physical geography side, it often has a large component of science-related papers.

    Thumb up 0

  104. CM

    To pretend otherwise is to act like the AGW proponents that claim there is an optimal temperature and deviations from it mean they are right.

    You’re no closer to providing any evidence to support this accusation. Where has the claim been made, by whom, and what is the exact optimal temperature they seek?

    Not only that but you’ve doubled down on displaying your ignorance with more gobbledy-gook.

    Really? So if I point out how warmer times mean things will be far better for those of us up in the northern climes and that the negative impacts have massively been exaggerated – that’s not in dispute BTW as the IPCC has itself had to retract a whole slew of lies about how bad things where going to be – this discussion is all but over? Why didn’t anyone tell me it was that easy?

    What has the IPCC retracted? Evidence? Links? Sorry Alex but you can’t just throw out random accusations and then declare the discussion over. Where is your evidence?

    This sets out the positives and negatives of a global temperature rise. It’s fully referenced to the published literature. What you need to do is demonstrate how and why this is wrong. And, just as a reminder, that doesn’t just consist of you saying it’s wrong.
    Honestly, anyone trying to make a case that a warmer climate will come with benefits that outweigh the negatives is a walking example of a cherry-picking intellectually-bankrupt denier.

    And when are they going to provide definite proof that it is human activity and not just the regular cycle of things?

    It’s science, not mathematics. Proofs are in mathematics. If you’d done any science or mathematics as part of your qualifications you’d know that.

    You should try and educate yourself before writing such basic-level rubbish.

    So far I have seen a lot of hot air and not much else.

    What on earth do you expect if all your information is from right-wing blogs??! DUH!

    Those that claim the science is settled certainly have no clue.

    Who is that? (Bet you won’t provide any names, maybe Al Gore, but then we’ll go down the road of what he actually said and you’ll be forced to be dishonest to get out of it)

    From what I see they don’t enough of one of the most complicated systems ever, ignore what they don’t like, and, as we already know, in the best case have not produced a reliable model and more likely than not falsified their modeling to create the desired effect.

    All completely unsubstantiated nonsense. Got any evidence?

    Realize that to do so you would have to know what the historical trending for a lot more than the last couple of hundred years,

    Who has suggested otherwise?

    quite often gathered from imprecise measurements and a few other processes, like tree rings, that have been the basis of all the bunk,

    Provide evidence that it’s bunk. I’m willing to bet you rode high and mighty on the “temperature isn’t increasing” bandwagon until recently too.

    but for which the original data conveniently is gone (and I should add that but for a hacker we wouldn’t have the e-mails indicating they would rather destroy than share that data), was.

    The data isn’t gone. It wasn’t even their data. You’re still grimly sticking with denialist memes that were debunked long ago.
    The email about destroying data was from 1 person and was after an orchestrated campaign to overwhelm his office with requests. The data couldn’t be destroyed anyway because they were using data held elsewhere. Again, you’re dimly falling for long debunked nonsense.

    And even when it is rapid, the case for humans doing it, while hyped by those that claim consensus is the best kind of science, is so thin you need a microscope to see it.

    And now you’re mispresenting what is meant by ‘consensus’. And no, the evidence that human’s are largely to blame for the increase is very strong. In addition to there being no other plausible explanation.

    Honestly Alex, if you did any independent research these are the kind of ridiculous statements you’d stop making after the first few hours. Let alone weeks. Let alone months, or years. It’s Denier 101 level shit. You’re the sort that pretends to be a ‘skeptic’ but doesn’t come even remotely close because you demonstrate repeatedly that you have little understanding of the most basic aspects. And that’s because you’re putting all your effort into simply repeating conspiracy theory memes from elsewhere. It’s obvious that you’ve put no actual thought of your own into any of this.

    I see far more damage – orders magnitude of it – from the supposed remedy,

    And again that makes perfect sense that you’d conclude that, because it’s illogical and irrational that it would cost less to address the issue when the issue is more pressing.

    When your car starts to fall apart you can do nothing and just get another car when it finally does and falls apart. But where do we get another planet from?

    which itself is nothing but a dubious and purely ideological one we all got to see play out in countries like the USSR, Cuba, and North Korea.

    This is why you find yourself in these intellectually bankrupt positions. It’s because you work backwards from your hatred of a particular ideology. You end up clinging to nonsense and trying to make it sound reasonable and rational.

    Then why is all this all we get from these people to push their global government?

    Yet another woeful load of bollocks. It’s not “all we get” from “these people”. Who are “these people”? Again, you should look further afield than right-wing blogs. And you try to not work backwards.

    All a waste of time of course because you’ve got your conspiracy theory and you’re sticking to it. Like a good little conspiracy theorist.

    Thumb up 0

  105. AlexInCT *

    You’re unbelievable. That’s not even remotely close to what I said.

    I guess I need to repost it then:

    But the number of specific vacancies in each place can never match up with the relevant available labor market, so it can never actually be 100%. Workers are “left behind” due to costs of training and moving (e.g., the cost of selling one’s house in a depressed local economy), plus inefficiencies in the labor markets, such as discrimination or monopoly power.

    That’s just blatant and chronic and rampant dishonesty. Why do you even bother Alex? What the fuck is the point of so blatantly making shit like that up?

    So you are now accusing me of adding that bolded item there to not just my quote, but your post too? If you said it, it means that you believe it is a major contributor right? We are discussing millions of people here when talking unemployment in a booming economy where employers literally lower their standards to none existetn, so unless you have many tens thousands of cases of monopolistic practices and discrimination affecting people and the effect of these isn’t more than noise, why the fuck bring them up? Let me tell you why: they are liberal bullshit talking points. You figured you could sneak them in and they would go unaddressed. When I did address them you acted all indignant like you always do.

    Come on, let’s explore this. Why do you think for a second that would benefit you?

    You chose to include what at best amounts to insignificant statistical noise and I pointed that oddity out by stressing it. That seemed to piss you off enough to again accuse me of being a liar. The CM debate rules that restrict the other side by requiring insurmountable and ever shifting bars be met, while having no such thing on your side, strikes again.

    Dishonest. Anecdotal evidence doesn’t invalidate the fact that structural employment makes sense and exists. As do other factors.

    Nice straw man CM. First off, I recommend you go back above and reread what I said, because I did not dismissed the concept of structural unemployment. What I did was point out that you attempted to dishonestly explain away the fact that there is a very sizable group of the population that doesn’t want to work and loves sucking at the government’s teat in good or bad times, and that is always demanding more. When I then pointed out that there were even people that currently had employment but hoped the nanny state would grow enough to make that possible fort them, with a personal experience, you not only dismissed it outright, but accused me of being dishonest, yet again. I know that your strategy is to dismiss anything that isn’t accompanied by a link to a LSM article and quoted word for word as dishonest or a lie, but shit, it’s getting old.

    If you want to pretend you understand economics, you should probably do some work on understanding the employment/unemployment part.

    If you want to pretend the left understand economics, you will have to keep hoping you can dismiss all the evidence that the nonsense they spout and have been practicing for the last five decades that now has the western world on the verge of an economic collapse by falsely calling it opinion, despite the facts that prove the house of cards is falling down.

    You’re misrepresenting what he actually said, and the context in which he said it. Again, dishonesty. Your stock in trade. But you do it so badly that I really don’t know why you bother.

    Funny how context only matters when it affects what liberals say huh CM? Lets look at how you are going to work this one and actually what I really did say but you ignore.

    Isn’t it rather funny then that Obama’s comment was in relation to the FREE TRADE DEAL (on which an agreed outline has been reached, which would make the other combined countries the US’s fifth largest trading partner) he’s been working on, which he hopes will create more jobs in the US.

    So whom did he call lazy then? Let me tell you: it was the union people opposing this deal. And like I pointed out, when I talked about why the failure of collectivist model used in the USSR that these unions are based on, sooner than later, the intelligential running the state, will accuse the working class of being lazy rather than point out that the model is broke. That’s what Obama just did.

    And if he really wants to create more jobs he should sign that XL Pipeline deal before the Canadians get tired of waiting and run it to the coast so the Chinese & Japanese can get it and create the 300K plus jobs that are predicted to come from that.

    You’re awesome Alex. It takes some special skill to get so much so wrong so often.

    Coming from you that’s a real funny joke.

    Again, your premise is flawed as a result of your dishonesty. So naturally everything that follows is shit.

    So let me take a page right out of your play book: is that your opinion, or do you have something I can dismiss in the end, so I can continue to say it’s your opinion or an outright lie, anyway, to back it up?

    No, and I never claimed you did.

    No, what you did try was to dismiss me pointing out that there is a large number of people that do not want to work, even when the economy is booming, by claiming that it was caused by “structural unemployment”, which you said was primarily caused by people not living where the jobs are, discrimination, and monopolistic practices. Then you accused me of lying for pointing out that if discrimination and monopolistic practices, which at best, if you are incredibly generous, amount to nothing but insignificant noise, factor into the equation, dismissing those that do not want to work out of laziness, like you have been doing becomes seriously suspect.

    Yes, they are. Sucking at the government’s teat. Which is why I would agree with people that say there should be strict conditions that come with welfare.

    There are people currently saying that the conditions are way too strict. And this comes AFTER the Obama administration not only rolled back practically every single one of the welfare rules that the republican Congress dragged Clinton into signing, but added some of their own to make it even laxer. So “saying” we need stricter rules to make this morass work, is like saying “nobody should commit crimes” to stop crime. It is meaningless

    But, again, how meaningful is the impact of that 1 or 3 percent on the economy?

    When your welfare rolls are in the very high hundreds of billions of dollars range, and these people form a sizable chunk of those getting money, in a good economy to boot, the economic impact might not be as large, but it is there. Fast forward to an abysmal economy we now have, which you say that I have an incorrect opinion of the reasons for, but which is playing out all across the globe exactly as my “opinion” predicts it will, and that number, while smaller as a percentage of the unemployed, in my opinion is far more damaging since it consumes money that could have gone to legitimate people, and does so in a time when money is scarce. And as the nanny state grows and more people are forced to join the ranks of those that can’t or wont work, and the number of producers declines – re. my example of the failure of the Soviet collective system – this will keep getting worse. And the nanny state government will start accusing more and more people of being “lazy” when what many of them are doing is just human nature.

    About as close to negligible as you can get is the correct anwer.

    Is that your opinion? And then one driven by serious ideological and person reasons? Because to me it is wrong. Notice I did not accuse you of lying like you do to me BTW.

    Even if we invented a serum which turned them immediately into motivated ‘I want a job right now, any job will do’ workers, it would make no noticeable difference to any measurable statistic.

    It struck me as funny how close you come to the truth that without a magical serum being needed to get people on their best behavior so the societal assumptions that the collectivist liberal state is premised on can work. The biggest beef people like me have with the left is that it is based on the rosy prediction that man will overcome his instincts & prejudices, behave like angels, and thus create heaven on earth. It is a pipe dream doomed to failure. The job angle notwithstanding.

    In which case, why do people expend so much time and energy compaining about this these people and what a drain on the country they are?

    For example?
    But that would be turning this back on me, when I’m asking YOU where YOUR supporting evidence is.

    As I have repeatedly pointed out the problem is with you, not me. You only consider LSM provided fluff pieces that say what you want to hear, as evidence. When I scoop something before the LSM, which isn’t too hard these days considering that they don’t even bother to pretend they are burying stories with angles they don’t like anymore, logically work it out to a conclusion, and post on it, I get accused of no supporting evidence. Time goes by, others force the LSM to report on the story, they manipulate the language and go so far out of their way to give their fellow ideologues the most leeway and the benefit of the doubt – and they never seem to extend that courtesy to the enemy – and when I point that out, you move the goal post and defend the indefensible, usually by telling me that because my language doesn’t match the LSM fluff piece that blatantly is spinning the story to cover for the fucking leftards, word for word, I am still in the wrong. Finally the dam breaks, we find out I was right and my predictions bear out, and I still get called a liar and told by you that I do not provide enough evidence even though the problem is with you and your ideological blinkers. From Fast & Furious to Solyndra, to the real reason that we experienced the collapse of the housing market and the economy, to this OWS bullshit, you have done the same.

    Wrong wrong wrong. You take something like a news story and you concoct a story around it, and then pretend your story is fact.

    First off, I have actually written about things that the LSM refused to cover but that eventually, when they were forced to, bore out. You conveniently forget those. Secondly, me pointing out the bias with which the article is posted might not be palatable to you, but unlike you I have been subjected to over 4 decades of bullshit from leftard reporters and can not only read between the lines but see the blatant hypocrisy in their reporting. That doesn’t make me wrong, especially when the point I am making is still there, albeit buried and softened to the point that ideologues like you can pretend it wasn’t made forcefully enough to matter.

    Your source never actually says what you claim it does.

    That’s because as I already pointed out repeatedly the LSM goes to great lengths to sanitize bad news for the left. But hey, you eat it up, so that makes me wrong.

    Logic and reasoning is great, but without relevant and sufficient facts and evidence it can easily just be entirely an internal narrative invented to try and justify your own ideology. Why can’t you see the difference?

    If the facts are me basically saying what I have heard people talking about and/or other bloggers saying what they have found out, you dismiss it. You did it with Fast & Furious, not once but for weeks at a time until the LSM had to report on it. You did it with the Solyndra story. You did it and are still doing it with this OWS story. Demanding evidence which has to come from the pedigreed sources you know damned well know will either try their best to bury unfavorable stories or take weeks or months to take it up, on a fucking blog that doesn’t portend to be a newspaper of all places, smacks to me of nothing but desperation. If I was writing for the NYT you might have a case. Then again, if real conservatives were writing for the NYT, they would actually not bury these stories or sit them until they no longer can ignore them and pretend to be unbiased, and I would have them to source, without them using language to paint the bad in the best possible light. The NYT would not be constantly losing circulation either.

    Having an opinion is one thing.

    Blogs are about opinions douchebag. So far my opinions have a far better track record than leftists facts.

    Making shit up to fill in gaps and passing it off as ‘fact’ is quite another. You should be old enough to know the difference.

    So why is it then that when you accuse me of “making shit up”, and then later that shit bears out to be true, that you continue to pretend it is made up shit CM? Think hard about that.

    And if they are actual facts then nobody can “dismiss them outright”.

    LOL! Are you trying to be funny? Leftists dismiss anything they don’t like outright, then accuse those pointing things out of being liars or peddling opinions? Sound familiar? I just again saw Pelosi do a whole lot of it just this, this morning, when she was asked about the fact that she used her position as an influential law maker and the speakership to land herself and her husband some incredibly lucrative investments that individually raked in hundreds of thousands of dollars and, millions in the aggregate, accuse the people that exposed her of being liars. Then when cornered, finally saying that it was still not a true because the to everyone else obvious fact that anyone not a member of congress would be looking at an insider trading trial, was to her an opinion. Let me ask again? Sound familiar?

    They can demonstrate that those facts are wrong, but then by doing so they’ve not dismissed them ‘outright’, they’ve demonstrated it to a sufficient degree. So what you suggest doesn’t even make internal sense.

    Or they can do what you do and dismiss them until they come from a source you like, then say they are just opinions.

    You mean I’d let you get away with being dishonest, and pretending that your narrative is sufficiently supported made up of facts and evidence.

    No, I mean that you have dismissed what I post first by saying I have no evidence, then when the evidence does come along, infer that it is all opinion or saying I am misrepresenting the blatant misrepresentations done by the LSM source of the truth, to cover for leftist stupidity.

    Yet again what you say isn’t even internally consistent – if only time proves you correct then you that’s an admission that you had insufficient evidence earlier, even though you were claiming it to be The Truth.

    Insufficient evidence? Are we playing dumb here? If I tell you that I am hearing evidence from others that are working on presenting it that the world is a globe, and you are a flat earther, that then dismisses the premise, because there is insufficient evidence, that still doesn’t change the facts or truth that the earth is a globe. And the standard practice when the facts finally do come along, the logical response, is to acknowledge that the facts bore out. Not to accuse the person of being a liar or presenting just opinion, because they didn’t meet an artificially high standard in an environment where stories and facts that hurt leftists consistently get ignored & buried. Know what I mean?

    I can only conclude that you apply very different standards (in all respects).

    I on the other hand am certain that your high standards of evidence that for some odd but blatant reason seem to only apply one way, on a discussion blog of all places, are there to help bury the stories you don’t like.

    Wow, I think this is the first time you’ve admitted that they are just your opinions (and based on your wider narrative).

    Opinions that turn out to be right tend to be the truth, regardless of when the facts you can no longer deny finally come out, don’t they? And this is a blog: it’s about opinions. What you just wrote is your opinions. That you link to a lot of bullshit leftists sites doesn’t suddenly turn blatantly dishonest leftist propaganda into facts, but you expect us to take that. If we don’t we are accused of being anti science.

    I don’t have a ‘track record’ of “my opinions turning into facts” because I don’t pretend something is true before the facts are established.

    Now I am going to call you a liar. And that’s because you are full of shit when you say you do not offer opinions as facts. See your comment above that people that don’t want to work don’t have an impact or a negligible impact. The facts are that they siphon away money from those that truly need it and contribute to massive waste and inefficiency that is the welfare state.

    If I speculate, I make sure that’s clear.

    Could have fooled me.

    I don’t claim facts that aren’t in evidence. And that’s just not me. That goes for almost all people.

    No you just present leftists propaganda as fact, dismiss anything you don’t like as opinion or lies, then pretend you are arguing in good faith.

    If it requires a dissertation to prove, then that should be a good indication that you’re claiming an entire narrative as fact.

    Again, I am writing on a blog, not for the NYT or some publication that requires any of that. But you can keep hiding behind that façade of having higher standards when it is blatantly obvious that your problem, despite your assertion that it is not, is not with how I say things, but instead with what I am saying, which you do not like.

    I’ve never once asked for a dissertation. Anything you claim as fact should be able to be confirmed with a link or two (with reputable sources, even if indirectly).

    You are making me write one, for the umpteenth time, on this post alone, while you keep ignoring the obvious, spinning things so you can dismiss them, based on a standard that nobody in the LSM ever follow when they write, either about things they think can hurt the right or in the opposite direction, when it is something they need to say in such a way to soften the blow to the left, and then it’s either with lame links to propaganda or irrelevant shit, or simply an accusation that since you do not like it, it is a lie. The fact that you demand even the most obvious thing be sourced, in minutia, or then accuse the writer of lying, in my opinion so you can avoid having to deal with the gist of the post because you don’t like it, is asking for a dissertation.

    It’s not particularly relevant what term is used to describe the place. If you want to engage in discussion, and you want to establish facts for the basis of discussion, those facts need to be in evidence.

    Maybe, but when you are doing it on a blog – let that word sink in a blog – that has the scoop, long before the media finally publicizes the facts so they can be in evidence, that is hard to do. Demanding that the facts be in evidence sounds good, but when that only seems to happen around things that make the left look bad, to me it sets off a warning that what I am really being asked to do is not post anything on stories the LSM is ignoring or burying, which will basically let them get away with it. I will let you know that Fast & Furious, Solyndra, the real reason behind the economic distress, the fact that Obamacare is disaster and numerous such other huge stories with massive implications and consequences for the left are only seeing the light of day because the came out on blogs that got people talking about them and created the momentum to have others with more time and the right sources get the facts and eventually force the LSM to However, once those facts are out, then at a minimum an apology is owed when you accuse the writer of being a liar. Know what I mean?

    Again, as I said, your ongoing chronic inability to establish necessary facts is irrelevant to whether I adhere to an ideology or not.

    Your demand that any post meet a standard of evidence that nobody in the LSM bothers to do, on a blog that deals with the stupidity on the left, tells me that you either just presented a poor opinion, which you were not clear about I stress, or outright are lying.

    That’s just logic, whether you want to laugh about it or cry about it.

    My opinion, and I am willing to bet the farm on that, is that you are full of shit when you talk about any kind logic when you seem to dismiss the stuff you don’t like without addressing the logic.

    I don’t accuse you of lying. I demonstrate it.

    That gave me a belly laugh, cause so far, I have been right on pointing out how corrupt, inept, stupid, and blatantly moronic leftists are.

    I would never accuse anyone of lying without providing the evidence.

    I call bullshit squared.

    I would expect anyone calling me a liar to provide the evidence right there and then.

    I wish you returned the favor. For real, not in your mind.

    Sigh. Considering I think AGW bullshit factual? That doesn’t even make sense. What specific AGW bullshit are you talking about? You can’t mean AGW as a theory, because a theory can’t be factual. Honestly, when you can’t even be internally consistent it’s time to give up writing words on the internets.

    The whole thing CM. The earth is warming yes, there is a lot of manipulated and manufactured evidence by people with a political agenda to blame man. Most people are figuring this out. You continue to hold strong to your faith. And have no doubt that it is faith, when we have incident after incident, like this one showing that it is all based on a pack of fucking lies.

    There’s a difference between assessing it on all the facts, and just picking and choosing the facts that suit.

    Tell me, what facts have I ignored or cherry picked? You gonna tell me that it wasn’t regulation that tried to thwart the laws of economics in the name of “social engineering” that caused the housing collapse, is driving the student loan debacle, and is behind a myriad of problems, both economic and social, we now find ourselves with? Or do you have an issue with the fact that the politicians are the ones that control all the levers in an unholy alliance between them and select businesses, the ones they pick because of their “social engineering” to win, that now have grown too big to fail, in another wealth transfer scheme? Maybe I am ignoring the fact that it is stupid to go to the very same politicians that caused the problem in the first place to fix it?

    I was being facetious. I know that what you think I am ignoring is the Marxist bullshit about the evils of capitalism, but I am not ignoring them. I dismiss it because we have proof it none of it works. You are welcome to tell me that’s my opinion if you want. However, the facts that collectivism is doomed are indisputable. I outright dismiss those idiots that claim it just hasn’t been done right by the right people, when it is so blatantly obvious that the right people would have to have the abilities & morals of the divine, to make it work. And we are seeing the big western nanny states implode. There are plenty of facts to back that up, and as the elites in Brussels keep doing more of the same, there will be even more evidence. Of course, by your impossible standard, that means I am lying.

    Logic is only worthwhile if it’s based on all the available information/facts. I could come up with a logical narrative as to why 9/11 was an inside job, but I’d need to exclude and ignore a lot in order to make that logic work.

    Your example isn’t a very good one. The 9/11 conspirators don’t pick and choose what to use to come up with their conspiracies: they make up whole cloth bullshit that helps them get their narrative in line, to help them get there. Kind of like was done by those that didn’t like the obvious facts and the implications of them which fell back on the usual pseudo-marxist, big government, blame-capitalism stuff you accuse me of ignoring.

    I could come up with a narrative about how AGW is deeply flawed, but I’d need to ignore and exclude a significant amount of evidence and prefer reams of unsubstantiated claims of fraud and unprofessionalism.

    And there we have “Exhibit A” of how you ignore what you don’t like and keep what you do. The East Anglia revelations are only “unsubstantiated” or “had no impact” on either the data collection or cleansing, the models, the peer review process, and the validity of the whole cult, because you don’t like what they say. Notice you don’t even say that’s your opinion but outright state so.

    When you’re ready I’d be quite happy to get deeply into discussing the details of AGW. Just let me know, and start a thread where we can contain it.

    I would rather get ass raped by Coach Sandusky from Penn State. Especially after you so cavalierly dismissed whatever evidence you don’t like but, spend so much time on this post pointing out how the standard you want me to adhere to for evidence is.

    Well yeah, I mean someone not straight out of school. Or from a partisan think-tank. Nothing wrong with that. It still leaves 95%+ of economists I’m sure.

    No, you meant the people that say what you like.

    Not when it doesn’t say what you claim, no.

    Let me basically summarize what I have claimed. I have pointed out that on the rare occasion that we have had someone put up a list of demands that the OWS people are for, or had someone interviewed about what they wanted, it has been the same tired and true marxist drivel that the left has been regaling us with for the last 5 decades. That is unless the person being asked was too high to formulate any coherent thought. I have claimed that unions and other leftist organizations have been paying people to show up for these things. Now you might say I do not meet your high bar for evidence, especially since the LSM has gone out of its way to ignore or burry this, but many other bloggers have videos or other proof that says this was the norm these freakshows across the country. I have said that the crowd is comprised of hobos, hippies (that cross over into the hobo), paid people, and a lot of rich white kids that have been thoroughly indoctrinated by Marxist drivel. Again, your high standard might dismiss the evidence because the LSM has tried to do serious damage control, but even they had to report it. Finally, I pointed out that it was quite obvious that the people that now claim to have been screwed over seem totally committed to asking the people that caused the economic downturn and the continued anemic economy of the last 3 years to provide a solution. A solution that basically no matter how you cut it means someone else pays for their stupidity.

    You are welcome to correct any of that.

    You can have 10,000 articles that you misrepresent and it would be the same thing.

    AGW in a nutshell! Of course, me pointing out that the LSM is manipulating language of all reasons to cover for the left, is misrepresentation, but the LSM doing a whole lot of that to protect the left, well that’s solid stuff.

    Numbers are irrelevant, it’s what you’re claiming that’s at issue. But then that should go without saying.

    Barring the fact that I disagree with you that this is what I am doing, I do want to point out that I wish that you would apply this same standard to the concept of “scientific consensus” for example.

    Not hard to understand at all. If I was disputing that specific issue in isolation you’d have a great point there.

    Erm, what specific issue is that? That the obligations of a nanny state, fiscally and by assumed responsibility, as time go by and the number of people that are sucking at the government teat grows while the wealth they need to take from ever dwindling productive sector – no matter the reason for either – is unsustainable, since you sooner than later run out of other people’s money as every single collectivist experiment carried to its logical conclusion has done? Because that is the only relevant issue and everything else is noise, which I admit can be used to try and manipulate when the whole thing collapses, but the collapse will happen and the longer it takes the worse it will be.

    Unfortunately though, I’m saying that there are more factors at work.

    It’s like buying a car with a cracked engine block. But instead of admitting it is cracked and doing away with it, you go about replacing all the parts, constantly replacing the fluids, tinkering with the carburetor, electronics, or replacing the other parts of the care, until you run out of money, parts, fluids, and so on, and the thing burns down while you are still driving it

    The single most important problem isn’t that there are a ton of parts, it’s that the damned thing is broke.

    Again, can you find a reputable economist or two who supports your contention that we’re heading for an economic collapse solely because of the nanny states.

    You need a “reputable economist” to tell you that when you have a government that has massive debt obligations, because of the social structure it has put in place, runs deficits because it doesn’t want to live within it’s means, thinks that taking even more from the productive sector by saying it is only targeting the really rich, sees the economy tank worse every time it increases what it takes from the productive, is the answer to the deficit problem, or, if you are in Europe, where they already are taxing people too much, implements lame austerity measures that simply won’t do enough of anything other than make it worse, it’s unsustainable? Economists that are not fooled by government slight of hand and factor in all relevant expenditures put our debt obligations over the next decade here in the US at over $165 trillion, CM. Others say that is wishful thinking. Our GDP is at around $15 trillion, the same as our outstanding debt, and with the collectivists rigging the game, if we are lucky will stay steady, not go down as is far more likely. Nobody talks about it growing fast except for the people that are delusional. Even if they took ALL of the money for the next decade they would still be short.

    The Wiki says – “the participants are mainly protesting social and economic inequality, corporate greed, corruption and influence over government – particularly from the financial
    services sector – as well as lobbyists and the jobless rate”. That’s pretty consistent with what I have seen.

    So basically it is the same old tired marxist drivel about how evil capitalism is and how government should rob the rich and transfer the wealth, I point out. Then they ask the people in government, which are the ones that created and benefit from the crony capitalist system none of us like, to fix it? I would not ask a child molester to council a child that is traumatized by child molestation, so why are they asking the very crooks that created and benefit from the system to address the issue. And by address the issue they, this is not me, are saying that their loans need to be forgiven, meaning someone else picks up the tab.

    Why would I provide you with facts? You made claims, I asked if you could support them with evidence. If it’s just your ‘feeling’ then you can just admit it.

    Because, using your standards of evidence rules, the correct way to dismiss what you are telling me is wrong is to provide evidence that backs what you believe to be right. Instead you challenge me to provide proof which you then can dismiss, the real objective of your debating style. So again I say, if you are going to dismiss what I said and demand I provide proof to back it up, I want you to provide me with the evidence you used to determine I lacked evidence. So far all I got was a link to a silly Wiki page that basically does exactly what I do: demand more marxism, that others pay for their lack of vision, and a bigger nanny state to do the wealth redistribution. How did I get anything wrong?

    Thumb up 0

  106. AlexInCT *

    Wow…I really dont get why I have to say the same thing over and over and over and over to you about the same half-truth you try to peddle every time you post about the collapse.

    Mike, it is a half truth to you only so you can then pretend we need to go back to government to do more of the same. The problem is government. As long as people do not see or accept this we are going to have more of what we have right now. And to the left it all is happening “unexpectedly” every single time.

    I AM NOT absolving ANY politician of the blame. I am just smart enought to know that they WERE NOT THE ONLY FACTOR.

    THE POLICIANS AND THE POWER THEY HAVE ABROGATED THEMSELVES ARE THE ONLY FACTOR WHICH CAN BE ADDRESSED TO STOP THIS FROM HAPPENING AGAIN.

    How hard is that to grasp? Do you seriously think that the Dodd-Frank bill or some wealth redistribution scheme will fix this? Are you unable to see that we will be having the same discussion at some point later when another one of these bubbles bursts? As long as the politicians control the means to force anyone to come to them for favors, the favors will go on. Ask Pelosi.

    Thumb up 0

  107. CM

    So you are now accusing me of adding that bolded item there to not just my quote, but your post too? If you said it, it means that you believe it is a major contributor right? We are discussing millions of people here when talking unemployment in a booming economy where employers literally lower their standards to none existetn, so unless you have many tens thousands of cases of monopolistic practices and discrimination affecting people and the effect of these isn’t more than noise, why the fuck bring them up? Let me tell you why: they are liberal bullshit talking points. You figured you could sneak them in and they would go unaddressed. When I did address them you acted all indignant like you always do.

    I’m glad you reposted it. See the first word you bolded? It’s the word ‘plus’. Look it up in a dictionary. It means ‘in addition to’. And that means there’s stuff before it. Usually the more important stuff. Which is what you decided to ignore. Which is why I said you were dishonest. You decided to be dishonest and then you went down a road based on that dishonesty.

    You chose to include what at best amounts to insignificant statistical noise and I pointed that oddity out by stressing it. That seemed to piss you off enough to again accuse me of being a liar.

    You chose to ignore the primary part of what ‘structural unemployment’ is. Because you’re dishonest. You went down a path based on that dishonesty, and now you’re doubling up on it. So, no, I didn’t ‘accuse’ you of being a liar. I pointed out that you lied. Very different.

    The CM debate rules that restrict the other side by requiring insurmountable and ever shifting bars be met, while having no such thing on your side, strikes again.

    Non-sequitor. You were dishonest, I pointed it out. Simple as that. No restrictions, no bars. No special debate rules.

    Nice straw man CM. First off, I recommend you go back above and reread what I said, because I did not dismissed the concept of structural unemployment.

    No straw man. Anecdotal evidence doesn’t invalidate the fact that structural employment makes sense and exists. I re-read it and it’s exactly how I recalled it.

    What I did was point out that you attempted to dishonestly explain away the fact that there is a very sizable group of the population that doesn’t want to work and loves sucking at the government’s teat in good or bad times, and that is always demanding more.

    More dishonesty. I acknowledged that there is a group that doesn’t want to work. But I also acknowledged that there is what is known as ‘structural unemployment’ and listed some of the main factors. The fact that ‘strucutral unemployment’ exists isn’t even close to trying to ‘explain away’ anything.

    When I then pointed out that there were even people that currently had employment but hoped the nanny state would grow enough to make that possible fort them, with a personal experience, you not only dismissed it outright, but accused me of being dishonest, yet again.

    No, that’s simply not true. I noted that anecdotal evidence doesn’t invalidate the fact that structural employment makes sense and exists. One example doesn’t invalidate it. And that’s not my opinion, that’s fact.

    I know that your strategy is to dismiss anything that isn’t accompanied by a link to a LSM article and quoted word for word as dishonest or a lie, but shit, it’s getting old.

    Non-sequitor. You were dishonest, I pointed it out. Simple as that. No dismissals required. No media citation needed. No strategy. A single example of someone who doesn’t want to work, or who wants to give up work, doesn’t invalidate the concept or reality of ‘structural unemployment’.

    If you want to pretend the left understand economics,.

    This is another one of your fundamental misconceptions: I don’t speak for ‘the left’. I only speak for myself. And I’m far more centrist than left.

    Funny how context only matters when it affects what liberals say huh CM?

    No idea, I don’t speak for ‘liberals’ either. Context matters when it matters. I don’t see how ideology is relevant.

    Lets look at how you are going to work this one and actually what I really did say but you ignore.

    Sure.

    So whom did he call lazy then?

    Those bureaucrats and others tasked with attracting foreign investment to the US. Fairly obvious if you take the context into account. How can Mr Joe Bloggs who cleans the toilets at the local Burger King be responsible for the US not doing enough to attract sufficient foreign investment?

    Let me tell you: it was the union people opposing this deal.

    How do you conclude that from what he question that was asked and the answer given? Are you just inventing more shit?

    And like I pointed out, when I talked about why the failure of collectivist model used in the USSR that these unions are based on, sooner than later, the intelligential running the state, will accuse the working class of being lazy rather than point out that the model is broke. That’s what Obama just did.

    Where did he mention the working class? Honestly Alex, this is just woeful. Please stop before you embarrass yourself any further. It’s very obvious who he was talking about. Nobody else makes sense IN THE CONTEXT OF THE QUESTION AND THE ANSWER.

    So let me take a page right out of your play book: is that your opinion, or do you have something I can dismiss in the end, so I can continue to say it’s your opinion or an outright lie, anyway, to back it up?

    Nope, it’s fact. I explained your dishonesty and how you continued down a road based on that initial dishonesty. It’s right there, clear as day. No opinion needed. In this instance it comes out when you state that you“find it hard to believe that with so many incidents of such illegal behavior and that many people impacted, that not every company in this country is in court and being sued”. You’re ignoring the main part of structural unemployment and then mocking ME because YOU were dishonest.

    No, what you did try was to dismiss me pointing out that there is a large number of people that do not want to work, even when the economy is booming, by claiming that it was caused by “structural unemployment”,

    Jesus, the dishonesty continues unabated. Do you ever take a break? I most certainly did not attempt to claim that when the economy is booming all unemployment is structural. Again, why do you bother trying to get away with this dumb shit? I honestly don’t understand what you hope to achieve??

    which you said was primarily caused by people not living where the jobs are, discrimination, and monopolistic practices.

    Hey look! It’s back. The primary reason I put forward! Workers are “left behind” due to costs of training and moving (e.g., the cost of selling one’s house in a depressed local economy). That’s a welcome return. Weird, why are you suddenly deciding to bring it back now?

    Then you accused me of lying for pointing out that if discrimination and monopolistic practices, which at best, if you are incredibly generous, amount to nothing but insignificant noise, factor into the equation, dismissing those that do not want to work out of laziness, like you have been doing becomes seriously suspect.

    Ah crap, it’s gone again. Back to just discrimination and monopolistic practices. And again, I have not dismissed the fact that some people don’t want to work out of laziness. I dismissed the fact that YOU seemed to think your anecdote invalidated the concept and reality of structural unemployment. Please try and keep up.

    And this comes AFTER the Obama administration not only rolled back practically every single one of the welfare rules that the republican Congress dragged Clinton into signing, but added some of their own to make it even laxer.

    Ah ok, so I guess the right wrote Clinton’s campaign promise in 1992 to “end welfare as we know it” did they? Amazing. Nice revisionism. Makes perfect sense. Not.
    I’d also be interested in delving into exactly what Obama has done to roll back the entire Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, and then some. When was that Act repealed? If it wasn’t what Act was put into force that added it all back, and then some?

    So “saying” we need stricter rules to make this morass work, is like saying “nobody should commit crimes” to stop crime. It is meaningless

    What is the alternative to welfare with stricter rules? No welfare at all?

    When your welfare rolls are in the very high hundreds of billions of dollars range, and these people form a sizable chunk of those getting money, in a good economy to boot, the economic impact might not be as large, but it is there.

    No doubt it is there, what I’m talking about is the gap between how significant the financial ramifications are and the amount of anguish and horror and anger about the issue. If I believed the numbers who don’t want to work were significant, I would change my opinion on the matter.

    ….which you say that I have an incorrect opinion of the reasons for……

    No, I’ve acknowledged that as a reason. I’m just far from convinced that it’s the only reason. It’s far far too simplistic. Which is why you won’t find any economists supporting your view. But then that’s what I keep saying and you keep misrepresenting.

    …..money that could have gone to legitimate people…..

    Should I even ask what constitutes a ‘legitimate’ person? I suspect it’s not people who’s parents were married when they were conceived/born……

    And the nanny state government will start accusing more and more people of being “lazy” when what many of them are doing is just human nature.

    This is another example of your premise being flawed. You do seem to do that a lot.

    Is that your opinion? And then one driven by serious ideological and person reasons? Because to me it is wrong. Notice I did not accuse you of lying like you do to me BTW.

    Then it’s a bit strange that you agreed that it’s not a lot. And no, I can’t have been lying. 1% (or even 3%) on the economy is a negligible amount. No way around that. Sorry. It’s fact.

    It struck me as funny how close you come to the truth that without a magical serum being needed to get people on their best behavior so the societal assumptions that the collectivist liberal state is premised on can work.

    Not sure why it struck you as funny. I’m not here to defend the “the societal assumptions that the collectivist liberal state is premised on”. I’m not the one doing anything I can think of to prop up an ideology, no matter how ridiculous it is. I’ve never doubted that some people are too lazy to work. I’ve mentioned it more than once on this blog. I’ve freely acknowledged that some people have no conscience when it comes to using other people’s money. Whether they are too lazy to work, or whether they steal money in financial scams (or when their finance company goes bust and they hang on to what they can). Some people just don’t give a shit.

    The biggest beef people like me have with the left is that it is based on the rosy prediction that man will overcome his instincts & prejudices, behave like angels, and thus create heaven on earth. It is a pipe dream doomed to failure. The job angle notwithstanding.

    Well all ideology is based on ridiculous assumptions that fail to reflect reality. That’s why ideology (or any stripe) is for idealists not paying any attention to the world around them. Ideology is absurd.

    As I have repeatedly pointed out the problem is with you, not me.

    And as I continue to point out in response, that’s simply not the case.

    You only consider LSM provided fluff pieces that say what you want to hear, as evidence.

    What absolute garbage. I’ve never said anything of the sort. Why you’d now try and open up yet another avenue of dishonesty is just bizarre.

    When I scoop something before the LSM, which isn’t too hard these days considering that they don’t even bother to pretend they are burying stories with angles they don’t like anymore, logically work it out to a conclusion, and post on it, I get accused of no supporting evidence.

    When did you ever ‘scoop’ anything? Project Gunwalker was discussed way back at MW forums before I even registered here. And you’d only be accused of having no supporting evidence if you inferred that something was fact when it was clearly just an opinion.

    Time goes by, others force the LSM to report on the story, they manipulate the language and go so far out of their way to give their fellow ideologues the most leeway and the benefit of the doubt – and they never seem to extend that courtesy to the enemy –

    In your opinion. But they have different standards to you. Or, to be more accurate, they have standards. Which is something that you don’t seem to understand.

    and when I point that out, you move the goal post and defend the indefensible, usually by telling me that because my language doesn’t match the LSM fluff piece that blatantly is spinning the story to cover for the fucking leftards, word for word, I am still in the wrong.

    Your language doesn’t match??!!! That’s awesome! Try – your facts don’t match. At all. E.g. you claim that small business owners can’t hire people because of Obama and the uncertainy that results from his handling of the economy. However the poll you’re relying on says NO SUCH THING. From the report on the poll, it appears that it’s the economy in general that is given as the reason. How is that ME moving the goalposts? WTF are you talking about? And how is it an example of me defending the indefensible? You make no sense. You’re not even internally consistent.

    Finally the dam breaks, we find out I was right and my predictions bear out,

    Such as where?

    and I still get called a liar and told by you that I do not provide enough evidence even though the problem is with you and your ideological blinkers.

    Where did I call you a liar in that situation? Again, my ideology or lack of ideology is completely irrelevant to whether you’re basing your statements on fact, or basing them on your ideology. Sorry, but nothing is going to change that. I’m not relevant to the equation, other than in pointing it out when I choose to (more often I don’t bother).

    From Fast & Furious to Solyndra, to the real reason that we experienced the collapse of the housing market and the economy, to this OWS bullshit, you have done the same.

    For the third time, I haven’t even entered into the non-debate about Fast & Furious. Seriously, why on earth do you keep bringing that up as an example? And as for Solyndra, you were totally inventing reasons and rationales and presenting them as factual. No question about it. Same as for your narrative about the economy and OWS.

    First off, I have actually written about things that the LSM refused to cover but that eventually, when they were forced to, bore out.

    Did you ever stop to consider the fact that those working in the actual media are expected to adhere to certain standards of professional? That means they can’t just go pretending that whatever their ideology tells them is true, can be printed. Their standards require them to be pretty sure before they go to press. You, on the other hand, have absolutely no professional standards in what you claim as facts. You have no personals standards either. And I totally acknowledge, before you go down that predictable road, that some journalists sometimes fail to adhere to the professional standards. But so what? That doesn’t mean you get a pass. Otherwise you’re simply advocating a race to the bottom.

    You conveniently forget those.

    No I didn’t. They are examples of where you presented narrative as fact.

    Secondly, me pointing out the bias with which the article is posted might not be palatable to you, but unlike you I have been subjected to over 4 decades of bullshit from leftard reporters and can not only read between the lines but see the blatant hypocrisy in their reporting.

    Ah yes, you have special powers. You can turn opinion into fact. Of course. Obviously. DERP.

    What. Ever. Get your hand off it Alex. Reading between lines is exactly what I’m talking about. Anyone can do that. But most people don’t present it as fact.

    That doesn’t make me wrong, especially when the point I am making is still there, albeit buried and softened to the point that ideologues like you can pretend it wasn’t made forcefully enough to matter

    .

    No, it doesn’t necessarily make you wrong, but it also doesn’t necessarily mean you’re right. It means it’s still just your narrative. It’s your opinion, invariably borrowed from someone else. Doesn’t mean it can’t turn out to be correct. But it’s only facts that can ultimatelyprove it correct. And yet you’re trying to claim you were privy to those facts in the beginning. Pull the other one mate.

    That’s because as I already pointed out repeatedly the LSM goes to great lengths to sanitize bad news for the left. But hey, you eat it up, so that makes me wrong.

    Again, doesn’t matter what I believe. Simple FACT is – if what you claim doesn’t match what’s in the source, you’ve either failed to provide the actual source, of it’s your opinion.

    If the facts are me basically saying what I have heard people talking about and/or other bloggers saying what they have found out, you dismiss it.

    DING DING DING. Simply repeating what others have said on a right-wing blog doesn’t necessarily make them facts. There are ZERO standards of reporting on those sites. ZERO objectivity. They’re looking for WHATEVER dirt they can lay their hands on. There is as at least as much chance what you read is shit as it is correct. But, man, I can see why you’ve gotten yourself into such a pickle when it comes to climate change. If someone on a right-wing denier site says they have a fact, you’ll take it as fact. Yikes.

    You did it with Fast & Furious, not once but for weeks at a time until the LSM had to report on it.

    For the fourth time now, I didn’t even enter into that discussion. Let alone for weeks. So what the fuck do you keep going on about that for? Insanity.

    You did it with the Solyndra story.

    I did what? Point out that what you’re saying isn’t supported by your source? Yep, then I’m guilty as charged.

    You did it and are still doing it with this OWS story.

    You mean your own personal story about the guy who wants to be able to give up work? No, sorry, Alex, all I did was point out that having one story like that doesn’t invalidate the fact that ‘structural unemployment exists both as a concept and as a reality. You made up the rest.

    Demanding evidence which has to come from the pedigreed sources you know damned well know will either try their best to bury unfavorable stories or take weeks or months to take it up, on a fucking blog that doesn’t portend to be a newspaper of all places, smacks to me of nothing but desperation.

    Ah I see. You’re allowed to claim anything as truth because this is a ‘blog. There are no standards, there is no need to be accurate. I see. If you say 9/11 was an inside job, then it was. Simple as that.
    DERPY DERP.

    Nah, sorry. And any source would be preferably to none at all. Because at least then we can see it. Reputable sources are best though. That should be obvious.

    If I was writing for the NYT you might have a case.

    Unless you believe that the term ‘blog’ means pretending opinion is fact, I still do.

    Then again, if real conservatives were writing for the NYT, they would actually not bury these stories or sit them until they no longer can ignore them and pretend to be unbiased, and I would have them to source, without them using language to paint the bad in the best possible light.

    You mean the standards of journalism would be even lower, because they’d have done away with their standards entirely and just printed whatever hearsay they came across on ideological blogs? That’s harsh. I certainly don’t consider conservatives to be that bad. That WOULD be lame.

    Blogs are about opinions douchebag.

    Sure, but if you start presenting opinions as facts, you should be prepared to be questioned about it. Unless you blog somewhere where nobody can comment.

    So far my opinions have a far better track record than leftists facts.

    The fact that you state “my opinions have a far better track record” says it all really. And the second half is just silly. Facts are facts, they’re not ‘owned’ by an ideology.

    So why is it then that when you accuse me of “making shit up”, and then later that shit bears out to be true, that you continue to pretend it is made up shit CM? Think hard about that.

    You’d have to give me some examples. But think about this: if it takes ‘bearing’ for it to be determined that something is true, then prior to that it was just an opinion. You’re just guessing. And why is it that you’d NEVER guess (but put if forward as fact) if it was inconsistent with your fundamental narrative. Why is that?

    LOL! Are you trying to be funny?

    No.

    Leftists dismiss anything they don’t like outright, then accuse those pointing things out of being liars or peddling opinions? Sound familiar?

    I don’t speak for ‘leftists’. But, again, if something is determined to be fact then it’s inherently incapable of being dismissed outright. People can try, but if it’s established as fact then it’s no longer opinion or speculation or accusation.

    Let me ask again? Sound familiar?

    If they’ve sufficiently established what they claim to the point where it can be considered fact, then it’s no longer just an opinion. In your case though, you constantly fail to establish your opinion as fact. You present it as fact, but don’t even come close to doing anything sufficient to support it.

    Or they can do what you do and dismiss them until they come from a source you like, then say they are just opinions.

    Huh? You’re not even making internal sense again.

    No, I mean that you have dismissed what I post first by saying I have no evidence, then when the evidence does come along, infer that it is all opinion or saying I am misrepresenting the blatant misrepresentations done by the LSM source of the truth, to cover for leftist stupidity.

    Where have I done this? Your main problem is a complete lack of sources, or where you provide a source but it doesn’t actually say what you claim it says.

    Insufficient evidence? Are we playing dumb here? If I tell you that I am hearing evidence from others that are working on presenting it that the world is a globe, and you are a flat earther, that then dismisses the premise, because there is insufficient evidence, that still doesn’t change the facts or truth that the earth is a globe.

    So why not reveal your initial source? If it’s so ironclad that you trust it to be truth and not just rumour or speculation, then you should be able to provide the source. Really, you should be linking to all sources where it’s not your personal thoughts anyway. Otherwise you’re actively participating in the very standard-less Chinese Whispers system that you seem to think is so robust and reliable.

    And the standard practice when the facts finally do come along, the logical response, is to acknowledge that the facts bore out. Not to accuse the person of being a liar or presenting just opinion, because they didn’t meet an artificially high standard in an environment where stories and facts that hurt leftists consistently get ignored & buried. Know what I mean?

    Totally. So where did I do that? Link to it. Otherwise it’s a baseless allegation, like all the rest.

    I on the other hand am certain that your high standards of evidence that for some odd but blatant reason seem to only apply one way, on a discussion blog of all places, are there to help bury the stories you don’t like.

    Where is your evidence that they apply only one way? Or are you just repeating something you read elsewhere?

    Opinions that turn out to be right tend to be the truth,

    Genius. I think the correct response to that is HERP DERP.

    regardless of when the facts you can no longer deny finally come out, don’t they?

    When I challenge you I’m not denying facts. I’m asking you for facts.

    And this is a blog: it’s about opinions. What you just wrote is your opinions.

    And if you’re going to claim something as more than just your opinion, then you need to do a little more.

    That you link to a lot of bullshit leftists sites doesn’t suddenly turn blatantly dishonest leftist propaganda into facts, but you expect us to take that. If we don’t we are accused of being anti science.

    Which “bullshit leftists sites”? What do I put forward from them as fact that hasn’t sufficiently been demonstrated as fact? I accuse people of being anti-science because they say things that strongly show that they are anti-science – that they don’t accept the scientific method itself.

    Now I am going to call you a liar. And that’s because you are full of shit when you say you do not offer opinions as facts. See your comment above that people that don’t want to work don’t have an impact or a negligible impact. The facts are that they siphon away money from those that truly need it and contribute to massive waste and inefficiency that is the welfare state.

    In the context of the entire US economy welfare payments to between the 1% and 3% who refuse to work when they could during a boom time (if we assume 4% unemployment as a whole and between 1% and 3% of that is ‘structural’) is a negligible amount. What is the total GDP of the US economy during boom times? How much in unemployment welfare would go to that 1% or 3%. Even if you took the best possible numbers to try and make it look as large as possible, it’s a drop in the ocean. That’s a fact. So I wasn’t lying, at all.

    Could have fooled me.

    You seem permanently fooled. It’s like a default setting.

    No you just present leftists propaganda as fact,

    For example?

    dismiss anything you don’t like as opinion or lies,

    Nope, there are plenty of facts that I don’t like. There is plenty of opinion I don’t like too. They aren’t the same thing.

    then pretend you are arguing in good faith.

    I believe that I am, yes. Sometimes I slip up, sure. People can point it out when it happens. But it needs to be based on reality, not all this hopeless and easily countered rubbish you cobble together. I don’t recall ANY conservative at Moorewatch Forums being this dense.

    Again, I am writing on a blog, not for the NYT or some publication that requires any of that.

    Again, you seem to be suggesting that it doesn’t matter whether you make shit up or not. Which would seem to make the whole exercise a bit pointless. If it doesn’t matter whether it’s crap or not, what’s the point? And do you not have any personal standards?

    But you can keep hiding behind that façade of having higher standards when it is blatantly obvious that your problem, despite your assertion that it is not, is not with how I say things, but instead with what I am saying, which you do not like.

    It’s no façade. I’ve explained it fully. And you’re not saying anything that makes any difference to me. Almost all of it is meaningless ideological narrative garbage anyway.

    You are making me write one, for the umpteenth time, on this post alone,

    I’m not making you do anything. You chose to continue to be dishonest, and you’re still doing it. You just keep repeating your dishonesty and I’ll keep pointing it out and explaining why it’s dishonest. And I’ll keep asking you to support your accusations you make about me. Feel free to stop being dishonest and making accusations at any time. And this isn’t a dissertation anyway. It’s devoid of fact. It adds to your dishonesty.

    while you keep ignoring the obvious,

    Obvious = stuff you read on a right wing blog elsewhere and pass off as your own and pretend is fact.

    spinning things so you can dismiss them,

    What have I spun? Give me an example. All your examples so far have been wrong.

    based on a standard that nobody in the LSM ever follow when they write, either about things they think can hurt the right or in the opposite direction, when it is something they need to say in such a way to soften the blow to the left, and then it’s either with lame links to propaganda or irrelevant shit, or simply an accusation that since you do not like it, it is a lie. The fact that you demand even the most obvious thing be sourced, in minutia, or then accuse the writer of lying, in my opinion so you can avoid having to deal with the gist of the post because you don’t like it, is asking for a dissertation.

    Wrong again, I don’t accuse them of lying. If someone puts something forward as their opinion, I wouldn’t accuse them of anything. Why would I? And it’s me that’s complained lately about you ruining the actual topic in a thread with blatantly and chronic dishonesty. So you’re wrong about that to.

    It’s not particularly relevant what term is used to describe the place. If you want to engage in discussion, and you want to establish facts for the basis of discussion, those facts need to be in evidence.

    Maybe, but when you are doing it on a blog – let that word sink in a blog – that has the scoop,

    You claim you have the scoop, but then you also claim you’ve gotten it from elsewhere. Which is it? And if it’s from elsewhere, why are you pretending it’s yours?

    long before the media finally publicizes the facts so they can be in evidence, that is hard to do.

    Don’t claim it as fact then. That’s easy to do. And cite your source unless you personally got the scoop.

    Demanding that the facts be in evidence sounds good, but when that only seems to happen around things that make the left look bad, to me it sets off a warning that what I am really being asked to do is not post anything on stories the LSM is ignoring or burying, which will basically let them get away with it.

    There will be equivalents of you on the far left, who find nuggets on lefty-blogs and present them as facts elsewhere. What do you make of that? Sound reasonable? And don’t just say “if they’re lefties then I hate them and so the rest is pointless”. Try and provide an intellectual response, rather than an anti-intellectual one. And the whole “the media is left, so it doesn’t happen” doesn’t wash either. There were a whole lot of ‘facts’ during the Iraq War drumbeat that the media stayed well away from. But, according to your logic, extreme lefties were almost duty-bound to disseminate them as facts (unsourced, but that doesn’t matter) on lefty blogs, to get the word out about what was REALLY happening.

    I will let you know that Fast & Furious, Solyndra, the real reason behind the economic distress, the fact that Obamacare is disaster and numerous such other huge stories with massive implications and consequences for the left are only seeing the light of day because the came out on blogs that got people talking about them and created the momentum to have others with more time and the right sources get the facts and eventually force the LSM to

    Thanks for letting me know. You might have a point on Fast & Furious, but none of the others. I was reading about Solyndra at the same time it was posted about here. And how much comes out on blogs as ‘the truth’ that ends up being a load of shite?

    However, once those facts are out, then at a minimum an apology is owed when you accuse the writer of being a liar. Know what I mean?

    You still don’t understand. Pointing out that someone has an opinion and it’s not fact (as they claim) isn’t calling them a liar. Where I have called you dishonest is where you are actually dishonest in what you say in your posts back to me, where you clearly and intentionally misrepresent what I’ve said because you clearly lack the ability to respond to what I actually said. There are numerous examples in this thread. Multiple examples in the same posts even. There is a HUGE difference. And your credibility in presenting ‘facts’ to this forum about what the ‘LSM’ isn’t reporting is somewhat shot to bits when you repeatedly demonstrate that you can’t be honest in your own personal posts.

    Your demand that any post meet a standard of evidence that nobody in the LSM bothers to do, on a blog that deals with the stupidity on the left, tells me that you either just presented a poor opinion, which you were not clear about I stress, or outright are lying.

    Not any post, just those claiming facts. Again, you STILL don’t even seem to understand.

    My opinion, and I am willing to bet the farm on that, is that you are full of shit when you talk about any kind logic when you seem to dismiss the stuff you don’t like without addressing the logic.

    HERP DERP. Yes, I am full of shit when I talk about any kind logic. WTF?
    I don’t accuse you of lying. I demonstrate it.

    That gave me a belly laugh, cause so far, I have been right on pointing out how corrupt, inept, stupid, and blatantly moronic leftists are.

    Well I do demonstrate it. Each time. That should make you try harder to be honest. It’s a little sad to hear that it makes you laugh. Presumably I can expect much more dishonesty going forward from there then. Sounds like you’re just warming up.

    I call bullshit squared.

    Can you back that up with an example? Or is it just another lazy accusation (you seen to have a never-ending supply)?

    I wish you returned the favor. For real, not in your mind.

    Again, where did I only explain where you were being dishonest ‘in my mind’? And where did you ever support an accusation that I was lying with evidence? Ah shit, there I go, asking for you to support an accusation yet again. Silly me.

    The whole thing CM. The earth is warming yes,

    Good start (not). AGW theory relies on the earth warming. You now seem to accept it. Most deniers (like Watts) have spent the last decade refusing to accept it. So the “whole thing” being bullshit is immediately wrong isn’t it Alex, if you accept that the earth is warming. Fuck, you fall at the first hurdle. How surprising.

    there is a lot of manipulated and manufactured evidence by people with a political agenda to blame man.

    Yes, you’ve typed that same thing out 1000 times. Rather than simply repeating it, I’m asking you to support that with evidence. But you refuse to. You just repeat it. You’re full of shit.

    Most people are figuring this out.

    Are they? How do you figure that? Did someone tell you on a right-wing blog?

    You continue to hold strong to your faith.

    No faith involved. I’m going with the balance of evidence. Going against that would require faith. But I’ve explained that to you before. You’ll ignore it again because that point is obvious and inarguable.

    And have no doubt that it is faith, when we have incident after incident, like this one showing that it is all based on a pack of fucking lies.

    Oh Jesus H Christ. Your example is Anthony Watts (who has spent most of his recent life trying to show that the earth hasn’t been warming because some people took some photos) trying to show how Al Gore did a poor job in demonstrating an experiment (the science of which Watts doesn’t even dispute, but accepts as “well established by science”)? Really??! That, to you, shows that it’s “all based on a pack of fucking lies”.

    That’s hilarious. It’s even worse than I imagined. Way worse. Hilarious though. I can see why you run away from ANY detail on this topic, and just keep repeating accusations and dismissing the whole theory. Gore isn’t even remotely relevant to the science of climate change. You stupid dumbfuck. Honestly, go beat yourself with a stick for an hour for being so pathetic.

    Thumb up 0

  108. CM

    Tell me, what facts have I ignored or cherry picked? You gonna tell me that it wasn’t regulation that tried to thwart the laws of economics in the name of “social engineering” that caused the housing collapse, is driving the student loan debacle, and is behind a myriad of problems, both economic and social, we now find ourselves with?

    Yes, I’m certainly going to tell you that it wasn’t ONLY that. Particularly when CRA-related loans appear to have performed comparably to other types of subprime loans, and that only 6% of subprime loans were handed out by CRA-covered lenders to lower income people. For example it was de-regulation (e.g via the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act) that allowed many risky products to exist (such as Adjustable-rate mortgages) which contributed to the housing bubble and easy credit.
    But you ignore everything that doesn’t directly assist your idealogial fixation. Even though you’ll not find any reputable economists agreeing with you.

    Or do you have an issue with the fact that the politicians are the ones that control all the levers in an unholy alliance between them and select businesses,

    Yes I do have a problem with that. As does OWS, apparently.

    the ones they pick because of their “social engineering” to win, that now have grown too big to fail, in another wealth transfer scheme?

    As if politicians on the right aren’t EXACTLY the same in terms of their relationships.

    I was being facetious. I know that what you think I am ignoring is the Marxist bullshit about the evils of capitalism, but I am not ignoring them. I dismiss it because we have proof it none of it works. You are welcome to tell me that’s my opinion if you want. However, the facts that collectivism is doomed are indisputable. I outright dismiss those idiots that claim it just hasn’t been done right by the right people, when it is so blatantly obvious that the right people would have to have the abilities & morals of the divine, to make it work.

    Your problem is that you take a completely one-sided ideological binary approach. As evidenced by your inability to consider that ANYTHING could possibly be wrong with regulation, or getting in the way of capitalism. (Well aside from your insistence that a market failure in carbon should be allowed to continue, you’re very very strict on allowing chronic subsidies on that front). When a problem is brought up, you immediately fly off into some extremist rant about Marxism and pretending it’s all about the evils of capitalism. You don’t even let yourself assess the specific issue on it’s own merits. Which is consistent with someone who follows a “means to an ends” philosophy. Which actually makes you a bed-fellow of those you despise. But that’s what you get when you’re an ideologue. The people you most resemble are those at the extreme opposite end of the spectrum.

    And we are seeing the big western nanny states implode. There are plenty of facts to back that up, and as the elites in Brussels keep doing more of the same, there will be even more evidence. Of course, by your impossible standard, that means I am lying.

    All I’ve said on that is that I believe there are more factors and that you’re taking a very simplistic approach.

    Your example isn’t a very good one. The 9/11 conspirators don’t pick and choose what to use to come up with their conspiracies: they make up whole cloth bullshit that helps them get their narrative in line, to help them get there.

    No different to what you do on certain issues, e.g. climate change. So it’s a good example. You think you’ve got a logical narrative on it, but it all depends on so much ridiculous garbage, the second you start factoring that in your logical narrative immediately becomes illogical and irrational.

    Kind of like was done by those that didn’t like the obvious facts and the implications of them which fell back on the usual pseudo-marxist, big government, blame-capitalism stuff you accuse me of ignoring.

    You’re no less simplistic as they are. You’re cut from the same cloth as the idiot blind ideologues on the left.

    And there we have “Exhibit A” of how you ignore what you don’t like and keep what you do.

    Precisely the opposite. I’ve ignored nothing. I’ve assessed it on the merits of each of the issues raised. I’ve looked at the accusations and the possible explanations/reasons.

    The East Anglia revelations are only “unsubstantiated” or “had no impact” on either the data collection or cleansing, the models, the peer review process, and the validity of the whole cult, because you don’t like what they say.

    As I say, I’ve looked into it in detail. The people still claiming that the East Anglia emails revealed anything of consequence are people who get their climate science information from right wing blogs and never do any actual independent research of their own (obviously I mean internet research, not scientific research). Happy to go through the ‘relevations’ if you like.

    Notice you don’t even say that’s your opinion but outright state so.

    The FACT is that the ‘revelations’ had ZERO impact on the science. If there was ever a chance of this all being a massive fraud and conspiracy, there would be smoking gun evidence in those emails. There was none. They didn’t even show that a single person involved had committed any fraud or anything similar.

    I would rather get ass raped by Coach Sandusky from Penn State.

    No suprise there. You are completely and utterly reliant on accusations and repeating what you’ve read on right wing blogs. On the rare occasions that you’ve accidently allowed things to get into any detail you’ve immediately demonstrated you’ve got absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.

    Especially after you so cavalierly dismissed whatever evidence you don’t like but, spend so much time on this post pointing out how the standard you want me to adhere to for evidence is.

    Never dismissed any science. Just pseudo or junk science. E.g. taking photos of weather stations and pretending that’s science.

    No, you meant the people that say what you like.

    That doesn’t even make sense.

    Let me basically summarize what I have claimed. I have pointed out that on the rare occasion that we have had someone put up a list of demands that the OWS people are for, or had someone interviewed about what they wanted, it has been the same tired and true marxist drivel that the left has been regaling us with for the last 5 decades. That is unless the person being asked was too high to formulate any coherent thought. I have claimed that unions and other leftist organizations have been paying people to show up for these things. Now you might say I do not meet your high bar for evidence, especially since the LSM has gone out of its way to ignore or burry this, but many other bloggers have videos or other proof that says this was the norm these freakshows across the country. I have said that the crowd is comprised of hobos, hippies (that cross over into the hobo), paid people, and a lot of rich white kids that have been thoroughly indoctrinated by Marxist drivel. Again, your high standard might dismiss the evidence because the LSM has tried to do serious damage control, but even they had to report it. Finally, I pointed out that it was quite obvious that the people that now claim to have been screwed over seem totally committed to asking the people that caused the economic downturn and the continued anemic economy of the last 3 years to provide a solution. A solution that basically no matter how you cut it means someone else pays for their stupidity.

    You’ve claimed a lot more than just that.

    AGW in a nutshell!

    Meaningless intellectually-bankrupt ideological drivel unless you can adequately back it up.

    Of course, me pointing out that the LSM is manipulating language of all reasons to cover for the left, is misrepresentation, but the LSM doing a whole lot of that to protect the left, well that’s solid stuff.

    Provide evidence of how they’re not covering it accurately. Just saying it is just repeating a narrative directly from your brain. Your brain don’t mean shit. And where did I claim it as “soild stuff”. If you’ve got a source that’s reputable (i.e. adheres to some sort of standard so we can at least put SOME stock in it) then link to it.

    Barring the fact that I disagree with you that this is what I am doing, I do want to point out that I wish that you would apply this same standard to the concept of “scientific consensus” for example.

    And I wish you’d do even the smallest bit of independent thinking and consider what ‘scientific consensus’ actually means. You don’t seem to understand the concept. Again, try varying where you go for your climate science information.

    Erm, what specific issue is that? That the obligations of a nanny state, fiscally and by assumed responsibility, as time go by and the number of people that are sucking at the government teat grows while the wealth they need to take from ever dwindling productive sector – no matter the reason for either – is unsustainable, since you sooner than later run out of other people’s money as every single collectivist experiment carried to its logical conclusion has done? Because that is the only relevant issue and everything else is noise, which I admit can be used to try and manipulate when the whole thing collapses, but the collapse will happen and the longer it takes the worse it will be.

    I don’t agree that the rest is “just noise”. There are many other aspects to consider.

    Unfortunately though, I’m saying that there are more factors at work.

    You need a “reputable economist” to tell you that when you have a government that has massive debt obligations, because of the social structure it has put in place, runs deficits because it doesn’t want to live within it’s means, thinks that taking even more from the productive sector by saying it is only targeting the really rich, sees the economy tank worse every time it increases what it takes from the productive, is the answer to the deficit problem, or, if you are in Europe, where they already are taxing people too much, implements lame austerity measures that simply won’t do enough of anything other than make it worse, it’s unsustainable?

    So no then.

    Economists that are not fooled by government slight of hand and factor in all relevant expenditures put our debt obligations over the next decade here in the US at over $165 trillion, CM.

    Ah yes, Alex is onto those economists. He knows better than them.

    The Wiki says – “the participants are mainly protesting social and economic inequality, corporate greed, corruption and influence over government – particularly from the financial
    services sector – as well as lobbyists and the jobless rate”. That’s pretty consistent with what I have seen.

    So basically it is the same old tired marxist drivel about how evil capitalism is and how government should rob the rich and transfer the wealth, I point out.

    No because, YET AGAIN, you cherry-pick.

    Then they ask the people in government, which are the ones that created and benefit from the crony capitalist system none of us like, to fix it?

    I would not ask a child molester to council a child that is traumatized by child molestation, so why are they asking the very crooks that created and benefit from the system to address the issue. And by address the issue they, this is not me, are saying that their loans need to be forgiven, meaning someone else picks up the tab.

    They’ve been in Wall Street, not in Washington. I think they probably realise that protesting in Washingtonis old-hat and pointless. Protesting in Wall Street is something quite new. Obstructing the system was the main idea I believe.

    Why would I provide you with facts? You made claims, I asked if you could support them with evidence. If it’s just your ‘feeling’ then you can just admit it.

    Because, using your standards of evidence rules, the correct way to dismiss what you are telling me is wrong is to provide evidence that backs what you believe to be right.

    No, the correct way is to ask for the basis on which the statement or statements have been presented as fact and not opinion. Nothing new, unfair, ridiculous, novel, strange or untoward about that.

    Instead you challenge me to provide proof which you then can dismiss, the real objective of your debating style.

    I ‘dismiss’ very little, because ‘dismiss’ infers that I don’t even consider it. If it can be ‘dismissed’ it must be irrelevant. It mustn’t actually be proof of what you are claiming. Which is your style. You provide something that isn’t actually evidence and you claim that it is. E.g. small business owners blaming Obama’s policies.
    What the fuck debating style just accepts everything as fact without a shred of evidence (let alone sufficient evidence)? Would YOU accept a claim from someone on the left that you didn’t think sounded right? Or would the reasonable approach be to ask for evidence? Actually, you’d just dismiss it outright like you constantly do. But if you were being reasonable you’d ask for evidence first.

    So again I say, if you are going to dismiss what I said and demand I provide proof to back it up, I want you to provide me with the evidence you used to determine I lacked evidence.

    That’s just ridiculous.
    1. Can’t prove a negative Alex.
    2. I’m not the one making the initial claim. I’m asking for evidence of the claim.
    3. I’m not necessarily claiming the opposite to be true.

    So far all I got was a link to a silly Wiki page that basically does exactly what I do: demand more marxism, that others pay for their lack of vision, and a bigger nanny state to do the wealth redistribution. How did I get anything wrong?

    You got a specific quote from a Wiki entry which summarised what the OWS issues were. You didn’t just get a link to a silly Wiki page. You asked and I answered. And now you’re being dishonest about it. Good grief.

    You got it all wrong.

    Thumb up 0

  109. AlexInCT *

    Yes, I’m certainly going to tell you that it wasn’t ONLY that. Particularly when CRA-related loans appear to have performed comparably to other types of subprime loans, and that only 6% of subprime loans were handed out by CRA-covered lenders to lower income people. For example it was de-regulation (e.g via the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act) that allowed many risky products to exist (such as Adjustable-rate mortgages) which contributed to the housing bubble and easy credit.
    But you ignore everything that doesn’t directly assist your idealogial fixation. Even though you’ll not find any reputable economists agreeing with you.

    Are you f-ing serious? This bullshit about deregulation again? Your point basically is that social engineering WOULD have worked if they had just not allowed lenders to do what the basic laws of economics required to mitigate their risk. I understand that as a leftist you actually believe this social engineering nonsense would work if but the right people ran it and the right rules where in place, but this shit has never, ever, showed sustainability in the real world. That’s because you can’t have it both ways, no matter how much you want it.

    I also need to point out that NOBODY had a gun put to their heads to use any of these products you claim – erroneously, I will add – caused the problem. They HAD to use these vehicles you pretend are the problem to buy a house, because they lacked the income, bought too much house, or did both. Even worse was how most of them then immediately took a second mortgage out, basically ending up in debt by as much as 125% of the value of the home they couldn’t afford in the first place, and squandered the cash on bullshit. Now they blame the banks for not stopping them from making ridiculously stupid decisions. Again, nobody forced them to do this. The banks however were forced to loan money to people they never should have given a penny to.

    And that bill you & the usual lefty propagandists blame for the 2007 crisis – by saying it allowed banks to create adjustable mortgages – actually was about breaking down barriers between lending institutions and banks, happened in 1999, and was signed by Bill Clinton. And are you telling me that those that complained, long before 1999, that the housing market was heading for a calamity, because the feds where pushing lenders to give bad loans to people that should never have had them, where fortune tellers?

    Yes I do have a problem with that. As does OWS, apparently.

    Right, that’s why they are going right back to the politicians to fix things? When the crack addict goes back to the dealer to fix things, we all know how that works out.

    As if politicians on the right aren’t EXACTLY the same in terms of their relationships.

    Ah yes, the left’s favorite “they do it too” defense. Tell me again: why is it that when they need government favors those people go straight to democrats to buy them? Not saying there are no bad apples on the republican side, but that there is no doubt that democrats are the ones that promote the practice the most, as the revelations of the last three years, which I think are just the tip of the iceberg, show.

    BTW, my solution – to shrink government and remove the ability of politicians to actually sell us out, in return for special favors that get them campaign money, that allows them to keep perpetual and ever growing power – is the ONLY way to address this problem. Everything else will fail, because for this social engineering shit to work, we have to live under a tyrannical system, where government completely removes any freedoms, treats us like slaves, and makes all decisions for us. You need drones and a queen. Barring that, the system will implode, like happened with the USSR, and like will happen with each and every other quasi-tyrannical nanny state.

    Your problem is that you take a completely one-sided ideological binary approach.

    No, what I do, is point out that the only solution, the one that stops the politicians and crony capitalists from screwing us all over again and again, is one that limits their power by limiting and shrinks government. That means you need to end the nanny state, because that is where they can create those dependant voter blocks and favors become power.

    You obviously don’t like that because you are one of those idiots that thinks government is the answer to all problems. And please don’t fucking waste my time denying that CM, because that is what your ideology is totally about. The collectivists killed the old religions, replaced an all mighty, benevolent god, with government, which in the old religion was associated with the devil, and continue to fail miserably at recreating heaven on earth. And whenever things go wrong, as they indubitably must, they claim the problem was we didn’t have enough government.

    As evidenced by your inability to consider that ANYTHING could possibly be wrong with regulation, or getting in the way of capitalism. (Well aside from your insistence that a market failure in carbon should be allowed to continue, you’re very very strict on allowing chronic subsidies on that front).

    The difference between you and me is that I am not stupid enough to believe that government, and especially government regulation of any kind, solves problems. In fact, the regulation you leftists so like, practically always creates problems, huge ones, totally unforeseen, because it is always trying to bend reality and goes against the way things work naturally. Then instead of rolling it back they try to fix it with even more fucking idiotic regulation. Rinse & repeat. Human nature is a bitch, but you leftists insist in pretending it doesn’t matter. That’s why, to give but a few examples, we subsidize so many people and reward them when they make babies they can’t take care off, pay many more to not work, and have all these people that think government should be giving them things like healthcare and college degrees, all for free. No amount of regulation in the damned world will fix any of that, and as history has proven, eventually leads to tyrannies of the elite.

    When a problem is brought up, you immediately fly off into some extremist rant about Marxism and pretending it’s all about the evils of capitalism.

    That’s because I am tired of letting people tied to the ideology with the longest and most distinguished string of abysmal failures, or their political masters, the ones that have caused all the problems, pretend that what is wrong is really them not doing more of the same. When you, like you did above, blame deregulation or some other peripheral, you basically are saying that big government social engineering can work, and nothing is further from the truth. The end result is more bullshit and problems. There is a reason that after decades of the “War on poverty” in America we still have poor people. The people fighting that war are out of a job if they solve the problem. None of them plans to lose that gravy train.

    You don’t even let yourself assess the specific issue on it’s own merits.

    You are wrong, but I expect that from a liberal. What I do not do is let them do Cm is distract me by focusing on minutia that are the result and not the cause, or dazzle me with bullshit, so they can do more of the same. You on the other hand continue to want more, and not only that, you defend the very people ass raping you.

    Which is consistent with someone who follows a “means to an ends” philosophy.

    From a lib, whose ideology is all about that, this is priceless.

    Which actually makes you a bed-fellow of those you despise.

    Only in your twisted mind, but I do understand why you want to pretend that’s the case.

    But that’s what you get when you’re an ideologue. The people you most resemble are those at the extreme opposite end of the spectrum.

    Coming from the guy that’s so far on the opposite side of the spectrum I am accused to be on, that’s sure to carry a lot of weight.

    All I’ve said on that is that I believe there are more factors and that you’re taking a very simplistic approach.

    It’s more of the same nonsense about deregulation you bring up above.

    You’re no less simplistic as they are. You’re cut from the same cloth as the idiot blind ideologues on the left.

    The fact that you think you are a moderate and not part & parcel of the most ideological left is telling.

    Precisely the opposite. I’ve ignored nothing. I’ve assessed it on the merits of each of the issues raised. I’ve looked at the accusations and the possible explanations/reasons.

    What a pile of bullshit CM. Merits? You dismissed evidence that finally proved that the AGW hoaxsters where making up shit, on manipulated data, had a high school clique that barred anyone they felt was not on of them, and destroyed evidence in order to prevent those that would expose them when they got their hands on it, as “unsubstantiated”, even after the people that these things came from acknowledged they were real. Or are you pretending that the circle jerks that followed, done by partisan hacks with a lot to lose, and that then basically did what your friends in the LSM constantly do – use language to present a shit sandwich as a gourmet meal – that you accuse me of lying for pointing out every time, cleared them? Cause that’s fucking hilarious.

    The East Anglia revelations are only “unsubstantiated” or “had no impact” on either the data collection or cleansing, the models, the peer review process, and the validity of the whole cult, because you don’t like what they say.

    The only people that can say that materials that were hacked of a system – mind you even the people in East Anglia agreed that the material was real and uncompromised and only argued that the people discussing the findings were taking things “out of context”, lefty code for they are telling the truth and not giving us the benefit of the spin – are unsubstantiated, and only partisan hacks, like you, can then pretend they had no impact.

    As I say, I’ve looked into it in detail. The people still claiming that the East Anglia emails revealed anything of consequence are people who get their climate science information from right wing blogs and never do any actual independent research of their own (obviously I mean internet research, not scientific research). Happy to go through the ‘relevations’ if you like.

    This is just like you vehemently fought me when I pointed out Obama, in a taped speech of all things, said he planned to do what the greens wanted and that the result would definitely mean drastically higher cost for energy, even when shown the video, and the moves they have been making have reduced access to energy, cost jobs, and despite a depressed economy that has drastically dropped the price of oil, electricity and heating bills are up. This goes beyond opinion and is exactly that blind partisan shit you accuse me off. Only difference is that your side has never done anything but fuck up.

    The FACT is that the ‘revelations’ had ZERO impact on the science.

    Yeah, the “consensus” stayed strong. The IPCC had to retract a whole bunch of shit, the models were proven to be rigged to produce the desired results, we now know that the data was destroyed, and only leftists believe that happened by accident, and all but the hardest ideologues have realized this whole thing is bullshit, but at least the political solution has remained the same. ZERO impact from any of that. That’s cause you are not really looking at science but are driven by a quasi-religious fervor. But I am the ideologue…

    If there was ever a chance of this all being a massive fraud and conspiracy, there would be smoking gun evidence in those emails. There was none. They didn’t even show that a single person involved had committed any fraud or anything similar.

    Oh, there was plenty there, as usual you are ignoring it because you don’t like it. And there was far more than e-mails. The models, a lot of the data, the methodology, and the indisputable evidence that they had compromised the peer review process to only allow those that were pro-AGW access, all were there. You however dismissed it all. Then you have the fucking gall to bust my balls about evidence or lack there off? Right.

    Never dismissed any science. Just pseudo or junk science. E.g. taking photos of weather stations and pretending that’s science.

    You certainly did if you still believe in this AGW shit and continue to try so hard to convince others that the East Anglia revelations had no consequences or effects.

    You’ve claimed a lot more than just that.

    And you can’t provide me with an example so the facts are in evidence unless I ask? Yeah, I am asking for proof.

    Meaningless intellectually-bankrupt ideological drivel unless you can adequately back it up.

    AGW in a nutshell!

    Provide evidence of how they’re not covering it accurately. Just saying it is just repeating a narrative directly from your brain. Your brain don’t mean shit. And where did I claim it as “soild stuff”. If you’ve got a source that’s reputable (i.e. adheres to some sort of standard so we can at least put SOME stock in it) then link to it.

    How about you check out the story about journolist. That’s a bunch of liberal propagandists that were not just content doing the “messaging” and controlling the news each on their own, but banded together to coordinate the “messaging” at a national level. They elected Obama. The members of the LSM are not even pretending anymore that they are objective, and when they can not ignore or burry something they are outright rigging stories. And yet you seem to feel I am the one making up stuff when I basically point out what I am doing is actually deconstructing the bullshit.

    BTW, if you want another huge example of the blatant bias, contrast coverage of Tea Party events, where the media could not have made up more lies and painted them in a more negative light than they did, with the way they cover up for when they are covering anything OWS. Unlike the bullshit they accused Tea Partiers of doing, there has been real violence, rape, and even murder at these OWS events.

    It’s not like anyone but hyper-partisan leftists, that keep pretending that the real story isn’t always what you need to read between the lines of whatever the LSM DNC propaganda machine produces, isn’t aware of the bias. Especially since I have repeatedly shown examples of it in posts right here on this blog.
    But yeah, you are being “objective”, by which I mean you are full of shit.

    And I wish you’d do even the smallest bit of independent thinking and consider what ‘scientific consensus’ actually means. You don’t seem to understand the concept. Again, try varying where you go for your climate science information.

    It is precisely BECAUSE I have read the ridiculous bullshit about AGW, oh sorry “climate science”. Where political ideology and a leftists end goal drive the “science” that I am as disgusted with the lot of you.
    And “scientific consensus” means exactly what I said it means: that ideological tools are pretending that somehow the hackery and disservice to science, driven by popular opinion of a group of profiteers and government hacks, trumps real science and makes their bullshit legitimate. As someone that respect the scientific process this assault on the integrity of science by the big government cultists disgusts me. It would do so even if I was brain damaged or liberal, which seems to be equivalent.

    I don’t agree that the rest is “just noise”. There are many other aspects to consider.

    Of course you don’t. That’s the same partisanship you accuse me of being blinded of affecting you.

    Unfortunately though, I’m saying that there are more factors at work.

    And I am telling you that’s only so because you start from the false premise that government can somehow regulate reality out of the picture, and then, social engineer utopia. I am not stupid enough to think that the best these idiots have to offer, especially since all they do is try to regulate reality out of existence, is the economic crisis we are now in.

    So no then.

    The stupid is strong with you. I guess you are going to keep insisting that what is happening all around us is not, and then because I will not provide you with a name. Well, here you go: Arthur Laffer.

    Ah yes, Alex is onto those economists. He knows better than them.

    Take Krugman for example. I think the guy running the 7-11 in my town, a foreigner without any serious education, understands economics, real economics, not that Keynesian bullshit you are enamored with, better. I would trust economic advice from him over anything Krugman tells you. Then again, I would take advice from a beer bottle over Krugman considering how stupid and wrong he is.

    No because, YET AGAIN, you cherry-pick.

    How can I be cherry picking when I point out that it is precisely what I said it was, the usual laundry list of marxist demands, if they have it posted on their own fucking Wiki? I mean shit, if I take that tired dumb list, stick one or two other things randomly in , to fool idiots like you, doesn’t it still make it the usual marxist nonsense? Or are you telling me that when marxists do this I am no longer allowed to point out I am not fooled by that slight of hand? Because I am not playing that game.

    They’ve been in Wall Street, not in Washington. I think they probably realise that protesting in Washingtonis old-hat and pointless. Protesting in Wall Street is something quite new. Obstructing the system was the main idea I believe.

    You are wrong. At least one of them was in DC. Doesn’t look like what he did was pointless, but it is exactly what the rest of them are doing. It’s the Alinsky rules at play, the same shit they did in the 60s, and calling this “protests” is an insult to my intelligence.

    Why would I provide you with facts? You made claims, I asked if you could support them with evidence. If it’s just your ‘feeling’ then you can just admit it.

    What you did CM is dismiss what I said, without providing evidence to prove your points, then double down by demanding I meet an even higher burden of proof. This shit might make you think you are clever, but as I told you before I am onto you. I am telling you that you are full of shit, and unless you provide evidence to show why I am wrong, you have no business dismissing me or demanding I provide even more evidence you will just dismiss anyway.

    No, the correct way is to ask for the basis on which the statement or statements have been presented as fact and not opinion. Nothing new, unfair, ridiculous, novel, strange or untoward about that.

    You forgot to add that you would then just dismiss what you didn’t like, on the grounds that it was “unreliable” or that since the LSM hadn’t said exactly that yet, it wasn’t a fact or the truth, because unless the LSM deigns to tell the story it didn’t happen. Thanks BTW for doing exactly what I expected you would do.

    Instead you challenge me to provide proof which you then can dismiss, the real objective of your “debating style”. that’s in quotes for a reason.

    I ‘dismiss’ very little, because ‘dismiss’ infers that I don’t even consider it.

    I say that’s exactly what you do: you dismiss what you don’t like. You just did it with the East Anglia information because you didn’t like it, and with such a lame-ass, weak, bullshit excuse – there is no science! – that it smacks of condescension.

    If it can be ‘dismissed’ it must be irrelevant.

    Or something you don’t like.

    It mustn’t actually be proof of what you are claiming. Which is your style.

    Funny how often you have dismissed me, called me a liar, pretended I was wrong, only to then have it turn out exactly like I said huh? Doesn’t that gall you even a little bit. Yeah, I am sure it does.

    You provide something that isn’t actually evidence and you claim that it is. E.g. small business owners blaming Obama’s policies.

    So you are saying they didn’t say they are not hiring because of the unpredictability of the times? And why do you think they feel things are unpredictable? Is it because they too can’t figure out what OWS is about other than the usual marxist nonsense? Or is it why Obama keeps talking about creating jobs but then doing stupid things like giving a billion dollars of tax payer money to a company that goes bankrupt and leaves 1100 people unemployed? Or stalls the approval of an oil pipeline that would create, at the low end of the estimates mind you, some 300K jobs here in the US and lower energy costs to boot? Maybe it’s the fact that they can’t wait for Obamacare to come online, because that’s sure as hell going to give them some serious security: it will put them all out of business. that’s some certainty there.

    What the fuck debating style just accepts everything as fact without a shred of evidence (let alone sufficient evidence)?

    I never asked you to take anything without evidence, despite the fact that this is a blog, and not the NYT. You on the other hand have set a standard of evidence that is so high that you can practically dismiss anything and everything, no matter what is provided as evidence. When the evidence is hard to show because the media is burying or spinning the story, and I am pointing out that’s the case, and you still demand it, and then dismiss what is being said, only to then have it turn out true, not once but numerous times, the problem is with you. Shit, you are even fighting me when I point out you need to read between any story reported by the LSM because of the bias, when nobody, not even the fucking members of the LSM themselves, pretend they aren’t a bunch of fucking propagandists for the democrats.

    When you still refuse to even acknowledge that I was right, when the evidence does present itself finally, your defense that you are just asking for evidence comes across as thin. Very thin. You may pretend that what you are doing is legit, but I am not fooled. What you are doing is actually helping the people that want to burry a story they don’t like by dismissing it and hoping it goes away. There is the word dismiss again, and that’s because I mean you want to burry it and make it go away.

    Would YOU accept a claim from someone on the left that you didn’t think sounded right?

    Loaded question there. The problem is that you feel everything that makes the left look bad sounds bad, despite the fact that they ARE bad. I have had people on the left tell me many things that did not sound right. I did not assume they where lying to me and did my work. Especially when the story is breaking and there is very much a chance that. And if I dismissed them and later it turned out they where right, I would for sure apologize and acknowledge that. Not call them a liar and pretend I was just debating in earnest with a partisan hack.

    Or would the reasonable approach be to ask for evidence?

    Absolutely the right way to go. Where you break down is in the impossible to reach bar of evidence you demand others live by. When you do no such thing yourself, and hide behind the sorry excuse that you are not the one posting so you have all the leeway you want. Even more telling is the speed with which not only dismiss evidence you don’t like, but how you then pretend the onus is on others to disprove that too.

    Actually, you’d just dismiss it outright like you constantly do.

    There are very few things I dismiss outright. I can not help it that both are religious matters to you. AGW is a hoax perpetrated by the new marxists. And everything that the “Social engineers” do eventually lead to far more pain than any temporary benefit or success they produce. History bears these out in spades.

    But if you were being reasonable you’d ask for evidence first.

    Then dismiss what you don’t like, like you do?

    That’s just ridiculous.
    1. Can’t prove a negative Alex.

    No, you ask me to do so.

    2. I’m not the one making the initial claim. I’m asking for evidence of the claim.

    You are the one however that demands an impossible evidentiary bar be met, dismisses the claim as false if you don’t get it immediately or when you get proof you don’t like, by saying it doesn’t meet the bar, drops accusations of lies, then when the facts bear out, you don’t even have the decency of admitting you are the one in the wrong. If this happened only once you might have a case, but it has happened several times. Instead of adjusting your attitude, you have escalated your attacks, to the point where you argue and demand facts on things that are blatantly obvious to others. On one of the other posts you even are accusing me of posting something false because I pointed out people needed to filter through the horrible bias in everything the LSM reports, to actually figure out what was going on.

    3. I’m not necessarily claiming the opposite to be true.

    Really? Then why bother? And sorry but I call bullshit. Because even when the facts are finally revealed you continue to harp on minutia, like you have done on this post. I should thank you however for giving me the post with the largest number of comments. Thanks for that.

    You got a specific quote from a Wiki entry which summarised what the OWS issues were. You didn’t just get a link to a silly Wiki page. You asked and I answered. And now you’re being dishonest about it. Good grief.

    And when I pointed out that is sounded awfully like the same shit the hippy marxists said back in the 60s, you got bent out of shape. You provided and I commented. Good grief indeed.

    You got it all wrong.

    That’s your opinion. Right?

    Thumb up 0

  110. CM

    Jesus, I went to answer this but you’ve actually avoided every single thing I said. Every single thing. And you’ve weaved more dishonesty through it all. It’s quite an astonishing effort. I’m not sure I’ve seen anything like it.

    And you’ve still provided ZERO evidence to back up any of your AGW accusations. Precisely ZERO. You’re an evidence free zone or, as you like to call it, “minutia” – even while pointing out that an OWS was in DC). It’s entirely a bunch of unfounded accusations on stuff that’s all been long debunked by anyone paying even the smallest amount of attention. You’re the walking, talking posterboy for denier stupidity and intellectual dishonesty. What a tool. A dishonest, evidence-free, tool.

    Thumb up 0

  111. CM

    Picking out the AGW stuff out just to reiterate your ongoing chronic dishonesty and avoidance of all detail.

    What a pile of bullshit CM. Merits? You dismissed evidence that finally proved that the AGW hoaxsters where making up shit,

    What specific evidence are you referring to? What ‘shit’ was made up?

    on manipulated data,

    What data was manipulated? How was it manipulated?

    had a high school clique that barred anyone they felt was not on of them,

    How did it ‘bar’ anyone from doing anything? The Independent Climate Change Email Review investigated the CRU scientists’ actions as IPCC authors. Official records, Review Editors, and even the emails themselves suggest the CRU scientists acted in the spirit if not the letter of the IPCC rules. Anyway, the relevant texts were team responsibilities.

    and destroyed evidence in order to prevent those that would expose them when they got their hands on it,

    The raw data is still available at the meteorological services where they obtained it. So it was impossible to ‘destroy’. I’ve already pointed that out. Phil Jones said the CRU simply did not keep copies for “less than 5 percent of its original station data” in its database because those “stations had several discontinuities or were affected by urbanization trends.”

    as “unsubstantiated”,

    They more than “unsubstantiated”, they’re been debunked long ago. But again, if you only go to right-wing blogs for your climate science information you might not realise.

    even after the people that these things came from acknowledged they were real.

    You mean they acknowledged that the emails were real? So?

    Or are you pretending that the circle jerks that followed, done by partisan hacks with a lot to lose, and that then basically did what your friends in the LSM constantly do – use language to present a shit sandwich as a gourmet meal – that you accuse me of lying for pointing out every time, cleared them? Cause that’s fucking hilarious.

    Spoken like a true conspiracy theorist (as only a conspiracy theorist could believe it).
    What crucial evidence did those investigations leave out? What did they get wrong.

    Come on, answer these questions. Back up your accusations with evidence. The only reason you wouldn’t is because you know you can’t.

    The only people that can say that materials that were hacked of a system – mind you even the people in East Anglia agreed that the material was real and uncompromised and only argued that the people discussing the findings were taking things “out of context”, lefty code for they are telling the truth and not giving us the benefit of the spin – are unsubstantiated, and only partisan hacks, like you, can then pretend they had no impact.

    “Out of context” is actual English language in response to people being deliberately dishonest. You are a prime example.

    This is just like you vehemently fought me when I pointed out Obama, in a taped speech of all things, said he planned to do what the greens wanted and that the result would definitely mean drastically higher cost for energy, even when shown the video, and the moves they have been making have reduced access to energy, cost jobs, and despite a depressed economy that has drastically dropped the price of oil, electricity and heating bills are up. This goes beyond opinion and is exactly that blind partisan shit you accuse me off. Only difference is that your side has never done anything but fuck up.

    That was another perfect example of your blatant dishonesty. And you’re repeating it yet again. He was talking specifically about Cap and Trade. You pretended he wasn’t. You also failed to address all the information I presented about affordable renewable energy. You also demonstrated your incredible ignorance about what Obama had actually done on non-renewable energy, and also your astounding ignorance about what effects the cost of oil at the pump. Your recap is pure revisionism.

    Yeah, the “consensus” stayed strong. The IPCC had to retract a whole bunch of shit,

    What did they need to ‘retract’ as a result of the East Anglia emails? Come on, provide some details.

    the models were proven to be rigged to produce the desired results,

    Which models? How were they rigged?

    we now know that the data was destroyed,

    Nonsense. Not even possible.

    and only leftists believe that happened by accident, and all but the hardest ideologues have realized this whole thing is bullshit,

    That what happened by accident?
    Only a complete moron (i.e. an ideologue) would continue to argue something that’s NOT EVEN POSSIBLE.

    but at least the political solution has remained the same. ZERO impact from any of that. That’s cause you are not really looking at science but are driven by a quasi-religious fervor. But I am the ideologue…

    You are. And like a good little ideologue you rely fully on accusations, assertions, dishonesty, cherry-picking, and making shit up. You run away from detail. You revise previous discussions so they bear no relationship at all to what was said. And you blatantly ignore questions that call attention to all of this.

    Thumb up 0

  112. CM

    Only because you can’t address anything I said. You can’t back up your accusations and you can’t argue that you weren’t being blatantly dishonest over and over and over again through the entire exchange. All you have is vague mindless ideological garbage and insults.

    Thumb up 0

  113. CM

    ;-)

    MARX HILTER STALIN POL POT KIMS DERP DERP DERP MARX HILTER STALIN POL POT KIMS DERP DERP DERP MARX HILTER STALIN POL POT KIMS DERP DERP DERP MARX HILTER STALIN POL POT KIMS DERP DERP DERP MARX HILTER STALIN POL POT KIMS DERP DERP DERP MARX HILTER STALIN POL POT KIMS DERP DERP DERP MARX HILTER STALIN POL POT KIMS DERP DERP DERP MARX HILTER STALIN POL POT KIMS DERP DERP DERP MARX HILTER STALIN POL POT KIMS DERP DERP DERP MARX HILTER STALIN POL POT KIMS DERP DERP DERP MARX HILTER STALIN POL POT KIMS DERP DERP DERP

    Thumb up 0

  114. AlexInCT *

    Only because you can’t address anything I said.

    You mean I keep addressing it and you keep ignoring or dismissing it because it is inconvenientt? I thought so.

    Every time I have predicted we would cath these leftist scumbags you defend with their pants around their ankles and their dicks up some little dead boy’s ass, it has borne out. You defended them and accused me of lying. You still do the same despite me being right.

    Spin it however you want, but the problem you have is with me not playing the game by the rules you leftists want to be used so you can kill stories you don’t like. Not going to happen. I will post about it, you will dimiss it, call me a liar, demand evidence you will then dismiss too, and in general confuse the issue as much as you can. Then the story will come out, and I will be proven right. and that’s the best part of this. I don’t even have to rub your face in it.

    Thumb up 0

  115. CM

    You mean I keep addressing it and you keep ignoring or dismissing it because it is inconvenientt? I thought so.

    Answer my questions, back your accusations. You’ve answered none and backed up none. “Addressing” doesn’t mean repeating the same vague ideological garbage you said in the first place.

    Every time I have predicted we would cath these leftist scumbags you defend with their pants around their ankles and their dicks up some little dead boy’s ass, it has borne out. You defended them and accused me of lying. You still do the same despite me being right.

    Meaningless vague accusations. Support your vague accusations with detail and supporting evidence.

    Everytime I’ve accused you of lying I’ve explained why. If you like you can pick an example and I’ll explain it again.

    Spin it however you want

    No spin required. You’re either able to answer my questions asking for evidence (i.e stop being such an intellectually dishonest lazy accuser and back up your allegations), or you can’t. You keep proving you can’t, while at the same time inexplicably suggesting you have.

    but the problem you have is with me not playing the game by the rules you leftists want to be used so you can kill stories you don’t like.

    Requesting evidence and facts and support for wide-ranging serious allegations and accusations is a ‘game’?
    You’re insane.

    Not going to happen.

    Clearly. You’re one of those people constantly out of your depth who relies on constant allegations and accusations and starts crying like a little baby when asked to back it up.

    I will post about it, you will dimiss it, call me a liar, demand evidence you will then dismiss too, and in general confuse the issue as much as you can.

    There’s nothing here to justify any confusion. You’ve made various vague but serious allegations and accusations, and I’ve asked you to provide evidence and you keep refusing to. I’ve called you dishonest when you’ve been dishonest and explained why. How can I dismiss your evidence when you never provide any?

    Then the story will come out, and I will be proven right. and that’s the best part of this. I don’t even have to rub your face in it.

    What could you possibly “rub my face in”?! I’d love to hear it. Dollars to donuts it involves you being dishonest.

    I’d also bet a large amount of money that if you reply you’ll AGAIN ignore my questions and AGAIN refuse to produce any evidence whatsoever to back up any of your vague allegations and accusations. Because you’re not even remotely interested in reality.

    Thumb up 0