Why didn't I live-blog the GOP convention last night? I'd thought I would, and I think I live-blogged every day of both parties' conventions in 2004 and 2008. I watched part of the afternoon roll call and all of the evening show. But I didn't want to say something about each of the speeches as I listened, though this morning I wish I had.
I watched on C-SPAN. I cannot tolerate the channels that have people who talk about what is going on while it's going one. They are obviously not listening, so what are they doing — other than getting in the way? But when you watch on C-SPAN, it's just a bunch of speeches. Speeches are speeches. There's a sameness to them. A good line now and then. A nice line reading. Themes emerge. It seemed to me that the main theme was that Americans work hard and construct their own families' economic well-being. There were a lot of "We Built It" signs (playing off the Republican's favorite Obama quote, "You didn't build that").
Chris Christie, the keynote speaker, was the main speaker who had his own distinctive theme: Truth. Americans are ready to hear the truth about government and economics. He told the truth in New Jersey, and he got elected, and he fixed things, and now this truth thing is going national. Without checking the text, I'm not sure how directly Christie associated Obama with not telling the truth, but I note that Obama was always the "dreams" guy. Talking tough about truth may be the perfect counterbalance to Obama's supremely — unfairly! — effective "hope" theme.
Who was the best speaker last night? Maybe it wasn't Christie. Maybe it was Rick Santorum. What am I saying? All that hands-touching-hands business. It got to me, and I am not a social conservative. I cried when he talked about Bella. Santorum was off the "we built it" theme. He was the one speaker — as I remember it — who talked about caring for people. But who votes based on caring? Don't those people vote Democrat?
I say that to Meade, and he goes on about how fixing the economy is the best way for government to care for people. That's not my point. Of course, that's true. That's rational. But I'm talking about the voters who imagine suffering children and feel the importance of love as they arrive at an emotion-based decision. Those people vote Democratic, don't they?
ADDED: Ann Romney carried the main "We Built It" theme by portraying Mitt as building his own wealth, starting out from nothing... basement apartment... ate a lot of pasta and tuna.... And her grandfather was a coal miner. In Wales.
But did she humanize him? I read in the press about a thousand times that it was her job to humanize him. Isn't it racist and sexist to portray Mitt Romney as inhuman?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
582 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 582 of 582crack--I deleted my comment as irrelevant and ad hominem--but thanks for your commentary
Marshal,
Weren't you just yesterday asking why regulars don't stick up for you? This is your answer.
Oh, I see - it's because you guys are so CHILDISH you focus on how a thought is expressed, rather than the thought itself. I got it.
And I also have news for you:
This is a big country, with lots of different cultures and ways of talking, and until you can come to terms with that, you're going to stay an ignoramus when it comes to acquiring ideas.
Remember Christie last night?
My mom didn't suffer fools at all - she couldn't afford to.
I guess you just hated that, didn't you?
A smart man would say "I don't trust Mitt Romney as far as I can throw him, but I'm voting for him to beat Obama,"
I don't think smart men vote for Mittens, and they certainly don't admit it or try to rationalize it.
@Jack Diamond,
You're absolutely right, I should have said "horse ballet" instead of "dance."
So, by your own standard, you lied.
Why should we listen to a liar like you trying to claim someone else is a liar, hm? You have proven yourself untrustworthy to speak on the topic of honesty.
Pragmatist said--"1) the degree that Republican policies (not just Republican certainly) lead to the economic meltdown, 2) the degree that Republican opposition has lead to the failure of any real reform of the mess they helped to create, 3) denouncing the extremist, racist elements in the so called Tea Party, 4) acknowledging that Bush is the one that began the current round of deficit spending (remember the Clinton surplus?) with the full support of most of the people who are currently criticizing government spending."
Answers:
1)I agree. R's are in my book even more culpable than D's in this problem because they brand themselves as fiscally conservative. But at least the emergance of he Tea Party means that the base gets it, and is fed up with it. We're still waiting for the light to come on for the D's.
2)The opposition that stopped Bush from reforming Fannie and Freddie? That opposition? Strictly D. Or do you meran the opposition Zero had in his first 2 years in office? You remember...the Supermajority. Again, strictly D. Try harder.
3)Because it's extremist, and racist to only spend what you can afford? How little you think of black people. Do they need their diapers changed too? Maybe since blacks are so poor at managing money we could make you king of them and you could take over their finances.
4)"Bush started it" This is the funniest argument liberals can make...EVER! You didn't like Bush. Hell! I didn't like Bush. But you didn't like him so much you not only keep his programs in place, but you expand them! That is irony of such a high order it can't be written. It would lack verasimilitude.
Not very pragmatic.
He told the true story on national TV.
He's on record saying "I didn't inherit money from my parents." That makes him a liar.
SomeoneHasToSayIt,
It's amazing - I come to you guys in good faith
Good one. Thanks for the laugh.
Oh yeah - like you've proven ANYTHING, ever - or have any of that "assigned authority" Alex is so bothered by.
Talk about being a joke,...
Nathan-
You don't have to read or respond to anything I post. In fact, I'd prefer it if you didn't.
Mittens: "I didn't inherit money from my parents."
I love how Crack follows this:
Racist? Sexist? I don't get that. Inhuman, I get. I mean, look at how he looks at Ann Romney, and then find pictures of him meeting other world leaders in photo ops - it's the same look. He probably looks at her horse the same way. It's all learned behavior with him - not a real bone in his body. He's playing on a dual track - what he's thinking vs. what he wants you to THINK he's thinking - and once that dam breaks, which separates the two, we'll be stuck with whoever it is that's really in there.
With this:
See, I don't do that - imagine I'm inside another person's head and can determine what he's "really talking about" better than his words. That way lie dragons:
Like blacks and liberals claiming whites and conservatives are REALLY speaking in racist code.
You don't want to be one of THEM, do you?
Do YOU want to be one of those people Crack?
Why should I get offended by Ann Romney's dressage instead of some rich IPO clown driving around a Ferrari?
Diamond: So, what should we make about the Obama gaffe about his Muslim faith? Honest mistake that happens when people speak, or is he a horrendous liar? It's like... you have two different standards or something.
Note: I think he clearly misspoke. But, hey, I'm not the one being weird here.
You see Crack is really one of those tyrants who want to dictate what "emotions" you have to show at any one time to be considered "human". So Romney is stoic - so was Cicero.
Jake Diamond,
I don't think smart men vote for Mittens, and they certainly don't admit it or try to rationalize it.
And that's where we part, Jake:
There's no reason to keep Obama in. He's been a disaster, and another 4 years would be our death knell.
There's just ample reason to put a boot on Romney's neck and keep him there for the next 4 years.
That should be the plan,...
Jake Diamond said...
I've tried to explain this to you. He explained what he did with his inheritance. So, he acknowledges he got one, he just chose to give it all away.
And that explains why he said "I didn't inherit money from my parents?"
----------------
Diamond - When my grandmother died, my Mom and Uncle and Aunt all inherited an equal share of the estate including the house. My Aunt, who was a semi-disabled RN, lived there.
My Mom and Uncle quit-claimed.
If you want to play your semantic game, yes, my Mom inherited 1/3rd of a house by the language of the will.
But she really didn't, because she gave it away.
As for Romney - by his late 30s, he was worth many times what George and Lenore Romney were worth. And he had discussed with both parents, leaving nothing to him when both had passed. So George, through Lenore as survivor, left nothing to Mitt except a part of the estate devised to him but stating it was George's understanding Mitt would donate it to the Church and George Romneys volunteerism organizations.
But George did leave something directly for Mitt and his other 3 kids grandkids. College education money.
That is how Mitt's 5 kids got some inheritance money. Not from Mitt Romney, but directly from their Grandpa and Grandma.
So Jake Diamond--following up on Colonel Angus' question up thread. I assume you will be voting for Mr Obama. Why? Surely you can provide a precis of your reasons.
"I can't believe how many people here have assigned authority status to Crack. He's just another troll, ignore him."
Nah. Crack's peculiar, and he's currently a little obsessed about this Mormon thing, but he's not a troll.
@ Jake Diamond,
Nathan-
You don't have to read or respond to anything I post. In fact, I'd prefer it if you didn't.
You don't have to spread your lies about Romney and conservatives. In fact, I'd prefer it if you didn't.
Since there isn't much chance of you fulfilling my preferences, expect me to remind you often that you don't meet your own standards of truthfulness.
"Our jobs are being sent overseas by the tens of thousands because it's cheaper to employ workers overseas. Lower labor costs means higher profit margins for the companies sending their jobs away."
Or it could mean keeping companies solvent so that everyone doesn't lose their jobs.
@Jake Diamond,
You were on record of saying it was "dance". Now you are on record saying it is "horse ballet".
Why would anyone trust a liar like you on anything?
Alex,
So Romney is stoic - so was Cicero
You dumbshit, this is stoicism.
This is Romney looking at his wife.
This is Romney looking at another dude.
I can see how a faggot like you would be confused,...
The Crack Emcee said...
Marshal,
Weren't you just yesterday asking why regulars don't stick up for you? This is your answer.
Oh, I see - it's because you guys are so CHILDISH you focus on how a thought is expressed, rather than the thought itself. I got it.
No, it's because you've lost the ability to express yourself in a reasonable way. That plus the sheer volume of your vomitus equals "skip".
Jake Diamond said...
He told the true story on national TV.
He's on record saying "I didn't inherit money from my parents."
I found the other quote that he gave the funds to BYU in 4 seconds. Why are you lying?
@chicklit
Hey! I love Crack! In a platonic, "I like to hear his view point of things" way. Not a "let's take our shirts off and get sweaty" Titus kinda way.(As the horse /deer loving 'connie would say"there are limits)
;-)
"Thank you" to Bryan C and Carnifex.
Much appreciated.
Whoa, we can't have people being nice to each other. Like, say something about the other's mom or something.
Marshal,
No, it's because you've lost the ability to express yourself in a reasonable way. That plus the sheer volume of your vomitus equals "skip".
That's fine. Until now, I hardly knew you existed,...
Wow! So much sound and fury over something that signifies so little.
Matthew: dont know how old you are, but the interactions on blogs are absolutely vanilla compared to the old Usenet flame wars--in that sense we must be becoming a more mellow bunch. Now Usenet was pure vitriol and hatred. Blogs are tame by comparison.
"Wow! So much sound and fury over something that signifies so little."
-- It IS the Internet.
The Crack Emcee said...
Marshal,
No, it's because you've lost the ability to express yourself in a reasonable way. That plus the sheer volume of your vomitus equals "skip".
That's fine. Until now, I hardly knew you existed,...
Taking insult suggestions from Lindsey? My how you've shrunk.
Matthew Sablan,
Whoa, we can't have people being nice to each other. Like, say something about the other's mom or something.
That's the spirit! (And the point I was making.)
And preferably with a LINK!
"Well, when government makes America safe again for sweatshop working conditions and slave wages, we'll return to full employment..."
Because every time we eliminate a single one of those local, state, or federal licenses, taxes, certifications, regulations, or fees, an adorable little ragamuffin with phossy-jaw dies in a tenement fire.
Can you imagine no middle ground between over-regulation and anarchy? Is it so hard to imagine a government competent enough to efficiently prioritize their own regulations? Statists really do live in a very black-and-white world.
I'm referring specifically to the Convention coverage and what one mediocre politician or another said or how any of them came across.
@Crack
As I said waaaaaay waaaaaaaay waaaaaaaaaaaay upthread, all this back and forth arguing is just shits and giggles. Ain't but a few ever admit that the other guy might have a point. The ones that do are really the only ones worth following.
Conventions are inside baseball, really. I said it earlier: Undecideds aren't watching this. This is purely base pleasing. Not even really base pleasing; it's for not just the active base. It's like Turner Classic Movies: It has a specific audience to please.
Crack...
I can see how a faggot like you would be confused,...
Wow - just wow. You just fucked up Crack, and badly.
Crack. Even the moonies give links. All cult members are ready with the proof.
Carnifex,
@Crack
As I said waaaaaay waaaaaaaay waaaaaaaaaaaay upthread, all this back and forth arguing is just shits and giggles. Ain't but a few ever admit that the other guy might have a point. The ones that do are really the only ones worth following.
I know, I know - that's why only a handful really matter to me.
But I always get the Alex's, Fen's, and jr565's following me around - because I'm good at what I do, I figure - so it becomes a trial.
Oh well, it's nice to know SOMEBODY gets it:
Thanks again for speaking up:
It gets lonely out here,...
"No one believes in "Trickledown" any more."
Then they are idiots, and the fact that they think you can grow the middle class without making rich people richer is the thinking that got us where we are: the trickle up theory. You take money from the productive and give it to the unproductive hoping they will spend it and that will support American jobs. Of course it doesn't because they buy cheap Chinese goods more than average. The drug, and alcohol suppliers do OK though.
You want American jobs, you need people willing to pay more for goods than they have too. That means rich people. You want American jobs, you need a market here that is wealthy with more disposable income. Jobs making the cheapest products are never coming back here, and you can't make it happen. You want to restrict trade and make everything even more expensive and people will need even more assistance, and the spiral goes down to depression. It's just Jurassic thinking.
Come on Mr Cook: I think you and I agree that conventions do little to contribute to informed discussion; their coverage is primarily to get ad revenue. If one wants to look at conventions, CSPAN remains the best outlet.
I for one advocate eliminating conventions and "presidential debates" which are neither presidential nor debates, moderated by blithering idiots. But again, they keep the punitocracy in materal.
Oh well--aint going to happen because networks arent about to give up ad revenue.
All this talk of what is or isn't a cult, makes you realize that the term cult is very often in the eye of the beholder.
Wiki has interesting info on
major branches within Christianity with dates, and
major branches and movements within Protestantism with dates.
When these movements broke with the establishment they must have been considered radical and cultish but overtime have become part of the mainstream.
An uncle and aunt of mine who were missionaries in the middle east (Jerusalem and Lebanon) during the 1930’s and the war years were Pentecostal, a movement that begin in the early 20th century.
"No one believes in "Trickledown" any more."
My employer has more money than I do; he gives some of it to me in exchange for work.
Sounds like trickle-down to me. :)
"No one believes in "Trickledown" any more."
No, there are plenty of idiots that still believe it. Or pretend that it works, even though the evidence is smacking them right in the face.
Crack wrote:
This is Romney looking at his wife.
This is Romney looking at another dude.
I can see how a faggot like you would be confused,...
The two aren't even that close. One has his mouth closed the other is showing his teeth. And both are pretty nondescript pictures of him smiling.
Re trickledown: werent the various stimuli packages a form of trickledown? Pump a lot of money into solandrya and GM and hope it trickles down to the sweat hogs? Seems to me trickledown has some basis in classical microeconomic theory.
lemondog,
Wiki has interesting info on
major branches within Christianity with dates, and
major branches and movements within Protestantism with dates.
When these movements broke with the establishment they must have been considered radical and cultish but overtime have become part of the mainstream.
One of the main problems I have around here is the lack of knowledge surrounding the issue - you guys focus on religious cults, like that's all there is. There are political cults, self-help cults, medical cults, corporate cults - all kinds of cults - because The Age Of Cults (namely the '70s) gave us this "no one can't judge" nonsense that's allowed them to flourish. I explained the phenomena here.
It goes a LOT farther than merely religion, which is why many people - who swear they'd never join a cult - are already in one and don't know it, and/or swear I see them everywhere, when I merely know them when I see them because I've studied the subject so thoroughly and recognize the outlines immediately.
I think it's something everyone, today, should know,...
garage:
Has a poor person ever given you a job?
jr565,
The two aren't even that close. One has his mouth closed the other is showing his teeth. And both are pretty nondescript pictures of him smiling.
Alex and jr, sitting in a tree,...
Stanley Smith,
garage:
Has a poor person ever given you a job?
I can't speak for garage but yes - several over the years.
What? You think only rich people need work done?
My Dear Lady....it appears that you have lost control of the asylum. You fans are turning and rendering each other like rabid squirrels caught in a drainpipe.
I think it is time you passed out the sweat suits and the Nike sneakers.
Heaven awaits your acolytes.
Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha!!!!!!
Crack, my friend--it isnt a question of whether poor people need work done; its a question if they can afford to have it done. Having work done requires some sort of exchange transaction.
Has a poor person ever given you a job?
I've never been given a job by a poor, or rich person. And rich people don't create jobs, average people with money in the their pockets buying things create jobs.
My Dear Crack....I do not think that he was referring to a blow job.
garage - oh jesus man you're utterly clueless as to how jobs are created. They don't appear magic *poof* out of thin air just because government put money in your pocket.
Garage, my friend--it doesnt matter whether the person seeking work done has money in their pocket. If you have the money you can get the work done. Clearly people with lots of money can get more work done. Folks with less money can get less work done. Its all about the ability to pay for the work and willingness of a supplier to agree to a price for the work (called the equilibrium point in classic supply and demand theory)
Clearly people with lots of money can get more work done.
If there is no demand for the work to be done, there is no work to be done.
garage - you erroneously subscribe to a demand-side economy. That's not how it works. If I start up a business it may be introducing a new product that has no demand at the beginning and it's up to me to convince the market to buy it. Think of the first automobiles, what demand was there? Horse & buggy was just fine.
@ Crack, I was FOCUSING on religion.
Obviously anything new or not mainstream or than religion can be labeled as a cult.
Garage: think about what you said--more money in one's pocket can clearly create more jobs. Money creates demand; demand increases supply--graph out a classic supply and demand curve and see what happens to the Q and D curves and what happens to the equilibrium point.
Everyone seems to enjoy piling on poor Mr Mahal and it is not just or decent.
He reminds so of my dear old friend Meyer and our days in Carinhall.
Rotund and righteous is a very difficult way to go through life.
Krugmanism subscribes to "priming the pump" for existing products and by starving the private sector of funds it causes innovation to cease. Think about it - to get the level of stimulus Krugman proposes you'd have to suck out the existing investment cash to fund it. So you get more dollars chasing existing goods. No innovation. Any other country that does not subscribe to Krugmanism would get the leg up.
This is comment #459. It's going to be a long night.
I've never been given a job by a poor, or rich person.
I can then assume you've never held a job.
no what garage is saying is he's gotten jobs from mid-level managers who are middle-class.
Rotund and righteous is a very difficult way to go through life
And you're a completely useless idiot with a stupid avatar who everyone here hates.
Isn't a $700+ billion taxpayer funded stimulus the definition of trickledown?
Roger J.,
Crack, my friend--it isnt a question of whether poor people need work done; its a question if they can afford to have it done. Having work done requires some sort of exchange transaction.
I don't get your point - I got paid.
Colonel Angus: asking the hard questions that no lefty has yet answered. Jake Diamond: you clearly arent voting for Mr Romney, but what are your reasons for voting for Mr Obama? You remain remarkably silent here.
Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha!!!
It seems you can press through an immense amount of flesh to touch a nerve.
Baron Zemo,
My Dear Crack....I do not think that he was referring to a blow job.
Well, you'd know all about that, wouldn't you, man wearing tights?
Garage: think about what you said--more money in one's pocket can clearly create more jobs
My point is re: trickledown, we've been under the Bush tax cuts for over a decade. The rich have gotten spectacularly richer. And it hasn't created the jobs or helped the economy as advertised.
Colonel Angus - Krugman believes that investment isn't done correctly unless government directs it. He has no faith in the private sector to innovate.
Now we can define what the proper role of government is.
To me federal government should uphold our Constitutional rights, provide for the national defense, uphold patent & contract law and maintain national parks.
That's it.
garage - explain how a 1000 more Solyndras are the answer.
And you're a completely useless idiot with a stupid avatar who everyone here hates.
Pot, meet kettle.
garage & Crack: You guys are just phoning it in. "Average people with money in their pockets" create jobs? Right. They're the people who start businesses and employ people? Right.
And "poor people" need "work done"? Right. Lawn mowing and babysitting were not what I was talking about.
Nice try, though, Crack. You mostly have interesting things to say, but your hangups on Mormonism really sully your rep.
Crack: you got paid because the person wanting the work done was willing to meet your offer. You agreed to a mutually agreeable price (the equilibrium point in a microeconomic transaction). Does that help?
Crack should stick to what he knows - psychotic women.
"Average people with money in their pockets" create jobs? Right.
They buy the products/services. Who did you think does? Only other business owners?
My point is re: trickledown, we've been under the Bush tax cuts for over a decade. The rich have gotten spectacularly richer. And it hasn't created the jobs or helped the economy as advertised
On the contrary, following the cuts, we enjoyed a rebounded economy from 9/11 and 5% unemployment. Economies have cycles, this one is just worse than others.
But if you think raising taxes is the solution, run with it. I haven't heard a coherent argument from the left aisle all day so won't be unique.
lemondog,
@ Crack, I was FOCUSING on religion.
Obviously anything new or not mainstream or than religion can be labeled as a cult.
No they can't - there are parameters. And then you have whether it's an "open" cult or a "closed" cult, or is someone actually "in" a cult or has just accepted cultish thinking (ideas derived from actual cults that have spread to the larger culture)?
Just because the nature of cults have been allowed to evolve doesn't mean the word has lost all meaning,...
Garage: precisely. demand which can only be actualized by money in one's pockets creates demand. As demand increases, suppliers enter the market place to increase supply and the equilibrium point shifts accordingly.
I didn't watch it. I was busy but I would not have watched it if I had time. Last election was the only time I ever watched a convention and I would like to keep it that way.
This afternoon, I logged into reddit as usual and it was down. Barack Obama is apparently doing an IAMA - unless it's fake - and the traffic broke the server. I'll give his pr guys credit. It was a good move in a pr sense - going to them/us instead of waiting for them to come to you.
Crack,
with respect to cults, what's your take on yoga?
Stanley Smith,
garage & Crack: You guys are just phoning it in. "Average people with money in their pockets" create jobs? Right. They're the people who start businesses and employ people? Right.
You like pretending there's no poor communities with small businesses in them, don't you?
And "poor people" need "work done"? Right. Lawn mowing and babysitting were not what I was talking about.
Me either - I started off as an illustrator for fast food businesses. This was one of them.
Nice try, though, Crack. You mostly have interesting things to say, but your hangups on Mormonism really sully your rep.
No more than yours regarding how "the other half lives",...
"Trickle down" is a loaded, inaccurate term. It's a cycle, it goes up when purchases are made and it goes down in the form of wages, but if you short circuit it by taking the money directly from the rich and giving it to the unproductive, through welfare or theft, then just like in an electricity circuit, it doesn't produce any productive work, just wasted heat, like from a crack pipe, and that money on that lap around the circuit was wasted like the citizen on the pipe, and he actually lost the most in the deal.
Chris Christie's speech about TRUTH, tough love and respect was the perfect lead in for Paul Ryan's appearance tonight.
Ryan's been the heavy lifter on all things financial, and there is no "good news" in our federal deficit ballooning out of control.
Pain me now, or pain me a LOT more later.
bagoh - the left doesn't want to deal with the real complexity of economics, so they appeal to base emotions like envy, greed, hate.
Alex,
Crack should stick to what he knows - psychotic women.
You're right, Debbie, I know you very well.
Damn, you stepped right into THAT one again,...
Roger J.,
Crack: you got paid because the person wanting the work done was willing to meet your offer. You agreed to a mutually agreeable price (the equilibrium point in a microeconomic transaction). Does that help?
Not exactly - maybe I've missed the point of this particular discussion:
People needed work done, I got paid, and everybody was happy.
I was under the impression someone was claiming that didn't happen because all the participants were poor,...
Okay, Crack...define "poor".
The job generally comes from someone who is rich relative to you in terms of what you value. You have labor which they value, and they have a little more money which you value more than they do. The deal is made.
In a way, you could say the worker is labor rich and money poor, but nobody considers having extra labor on your hands as being rich.
Some of us are even bullshit rich, so we just give it away for free.
My Dear Mr. Crack such a witty riposte.
It is no wonder so many follow your every utterance and hang on your ever so brilliant harangues.
You are a true performance artist.
Your performance here today has served an important function in that you have convinced so many here of an vital truism.
Never listen to a black man.
Especially when they are talking about jobs.
Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha!!!!!!!!
mccullough,
Crack,
with respect to cults, what's your take on yoga?
Cult bait. There almost isn't a cult in existence today that doesn't use it as a lure - and nobody talks about the downside of it, or meditation, because they want to "believe" so badly it's exercise or something.
Unfortunately, once New York decided they were going to tax yoga studios, then the yogis admitted it was a "spiritual practice" in an effort to avoid the tax. (I chose that linked article because it addressed the issue directly, while others make you search within the columns for someone admitting it.)
The faddish nature of yoga - the way it came on strong once the '00s started - should've told everyone something was up when nothing's ever been wrong with P.E..
Here's an example of one cult I discovered in San Francisco that openly used yoga as a lure,...
Stanley Smith,
Okay, Crack...define "poor".
Now what are you trying to pull?
You define it,...
Baron Zemo,
Never listen to a black man.
Especially when they are talking about jobs.
At least I had one.
Except in comic books, I've NEVER seen an employed super villain,...
If you want to play your semantic game, yes, my Mom inherited 1/3rd of a house by the language of the will.
But she really didn't, because she gave it away.
It's not a "semantic game." If you don't get an inheritance, you can't give it away. Mittens can't simultaneously claim not to have received any money from his parents in inheritance and also claim credit for giving it to charity.
This is a typical pattern of behavior for Mittens. Whether it's related to policy positions he's taken, his history at Bain, or his personal life, he constantly changes his story to try to suit his audience. He's a fiboholic.
I assume you will be voting for Mr Obama.
Incorrect assumption. Next?
You don't have to spread your lies about Romney
Oh, I'm just quoting Mittens. I'm sorry it upsets you so much.
Mittens: "I didn't inherit money from my parents."
You define it,...
Nope. You don't get off so easily. You're the one who said "poor" people gave you work. In what way were they "poor"?
I'm guessing that anyone who can afford to start and maintain a small business and employ someone to do graphic design work for them is somewhat above the poverty line.
Another example from the fiboholic:
Mittens: "I'm Mitt Romney and yes, Wolf, that's also my first name,"
Jake Diamond,
Mittens can't simultaneously claim not to have received any money from his parents in inheritance and also claim credit for giving it to charity.
And BYU is some "charity" - a university ran by his cult.
Let me ask you guys something:
Can you point to anything Mitt's done that wasn't bolstered by his participation in the cult?
Bain Capital? Filled with Mormons.
Governor of Massachusetts? He got "advice" from the prophets on how to run things.
The 2002 Utah Olympics? Mormonism from top-to-bottom.
Anything?
You were on record of saying it was "dance". Now you are on record saying it is "horse ballet".
Oh goodie, I have another stalker.
Jake, please. It's just pitiful now.
No one believes in "Trickledown" any more.
Really. Who signs your paycheck?
I found the other quote that he gave the funds to BYU in 4 seconds. Why are you lying?
Hey, don't blame me for inconsistencies in Mittens' statements on the subject. I'm just the messenger, Mittens is the liar.
My point is re: trickledown, we've been under the Bush tax cuts for over a decade. The rich have gotten spectacularly richer. And it hasn't created the jobs or helped the economy as advertised.
Wrong on all counts.
1) Trickledown does work. In fact, it is the only thing that works. More on that in a second.
2) Bush's tax cuts resulted in the extremely good economy of 2003-2006. It took until late 2004 for the jobs to catch up, but the tax cuts got unemployment down to 4.7%.
It isn't the fault of Bush or the tax cuts that the economically-illiterate Democrats made all sorts of anti-business and anti-commerce signals and statements after they took control of Congress in 2006.
3) You are being way too ambiguous on who "the rich" are. Corzine's clients didn't get richer, they were the victims of massive theft. Corzine didn't do to badly, and Obama seems to have kept him out of jail. In fact, all of Obama's campaign contributors have done spectacularly well on taxpayer money.
4) But when you get down to brass tacks, there is nothing wrong with the rich getting richer via good business practices. There is something wrong with getting it from govt policy.
5) There is nothing wrong with the rich getting richer, because when you have a good economy, the rich will always get richer.
Why? Because a good economy means there are lots of transactions. People are spending money they earn to get the things they want. Those receiving the money for those goods/services then put the money back in circulation for the things they want.
And entrepreneurs and other innovators decide that in a good commercial environment, they can introduce new products to the market, or find ways to make existing products cheaper. But there is always an owner that sits at the top of the pyramid, getting rich.
6) and it has to be that way. There are very, very, very few employee-owned companies. "Getting a job" means taking on a huge responsibility: unemployment insurance, worker's comp, medical insurance, lawsuit risk for firing, etc...no job is permanent, but hiring someone is an indefinite prospect...the owner/hirer would like it to be as close to permanent as possible, because that means he's still in business, making money.
But a hiring only happens when someone invests enough money to start up a business that needs employees.
I would wager that in these days, no one starts a company with an IPO...only companies that have good prospects offer stock to be able to grow.
But otherwise, it is still an individual with his own money (or a loan he is risking his own assets to get) that creates all jobs in the US.
7) Yes: all. Because without the private companies, there would be no taxes to pay for govt salaries.
That's how the world works. Time to face up to it.
Baron Zemo vs. Crack, I love it!
Stanley Smith,
You don't get off so easily. You're the one who said "poor" people gave you work. In what way were they "poor"?
I hardly ever worked in South Central, Los Angeles for someone who didn't require bartering, while they begged, borrowed, and stole - literally - until their business got it's legs underneath it.
I did a lot of things for-and-with them, legal and illegal, to make sure those places survived. And I was always amazed at the sacrifice they were willing to make for their operations - working when sick as a dog (vomiting in buckets underneath the counter) going without food to make sure a bill got paid, sneaking out at night to steal the frier, or conveyer belt, of a business that went under down the block.
These people were poor by anyone's definition.
Here's a picture of another one - now, if that ain't "poor," then you tell me what is,...
Jake, please. It's just pitiful now.
I didn't vote for the fibber and I can't undo his nomination. I agree with you, though, that Mittens' fibs and attempts to excuse them are pitiful.
I've never been given a job by a poor, or rich person. And rich people don't create jobs, average people with money in the their pockets buying things create jobs.
Because, of course, rich people don't actually buy things. They just keep their money in a big Scrooge McDuck vault and swim in it.
Of course, the popular alternative to trickledown is just confiscating someone's earnings and
redistributing it. Why wait for it to trickle down?
AllieOop,
Baron Zemo vs. Crack, I love it!
Yeah, you two should hook up:
Since he started off mentioning blowjobs, I'm sure he'll give you some "wurst"...
Crack-
I'm with you on the troubling aspects of Mormonism and Mittens' incredibly close and of course secretive relationship with the cult.
My point is re: trickledown, we've been under the Bush tax cuts for over a decade. The rich have gotten spectacularly richer.
Less so than they got during the 1990s, when the Clinton tax rates were in effect.
Indeed, what the last 32 years have taught us is that regardless of whether you believe in "trickle down" or not, tax rates do fuck-all to eliminate wealth disparity.
Yoga is a cult thing, as is tai chi, as probably is karate and kung fu.
And here's a link to counterbalance Crack curmudgeonism about pretty much anything he doesn't like (though in the case Yoga).
http://www.webmd.com/balance/guide/the-health-benefits-of-yoga
Seriously, if anyone needs the benefits of meditation it's Crack. Because he needs to RELAX and stop listening to the voices in his head and stop with the persecution complex.
There are millions of people in America practicing Yoga, who probably are getting some benefit out of it and have not joined cults.
Mittens can't simultaneously claim not to have received any money from his parents in inheritance and also claim credit for giving it to charity.
Why not? Democrats claim credit for "helping the poor" even though they're doing it with other people's tax money.
Crack-
I'm with you on the troubling aspects of Mormonism and Mittens' incredibly close and of course secretive relationship with the cult.
So now we can lump you in with Jake Diamond Crack. Enjoy the company.
Point taken, Crack. How's this?
Have you ever gotten a permanent job from a "poor person"?
Bush's tax cuts resulted in the extremely good economy of 2003-2006. It took until late 2004 for the jobs to catch up, but the tax cuts got unemployment down to 4.7%
Since the unemployment rate was 4.2% when Bush took office, giving the Bush tax cuts credit for lowering the unemployment rate is pretty preposterous.
Seriously, if anyone needs the benefits of meditation it's Crack.
Spelling error; that first "t" should be a "c". :)
Charming as ever Crack, at least Baron Zemo is a "gentleman", heh.
"Wow! So much sound and fury over something that signifies so little."
Hey, mittens is Althouse cons great white hope!
I yield back the balance of my time to mitten sycophants trying to say Romney isn't a compulsive liar and other conservative fairy tales!
Revenant-
That's not a rebuttal, it's just a bit of crap you pulled out of your ass.
mitten sycophants trying to say Romney isn't a compulsive liar
He's a politician, sweetie. They're all compulsive liars. :)
Starting out from nothing? Wasn't his father the CEO of an auto company who sent Mitt to a ritzy all boys school?
George Romney never went to college. Barack Obama's father went to Harvard.
You guys like to talk about being the "CEO of an auto company" because you'd rather not mention that the auto company that G. Romney ran was American Motors, the Big 3's weak sister. I've seen his salary figures. In her make-work job at the University of Chicago hospital, Michelle Obama made about $350,000 year. AMC never paid George Romney more than $250,000/yr. We're the Romney's affluent by the standards of their day? Undoubtedly but Mitt was nowhere near the richest kid in his class at Cranbrook and there were VPs at Ford and GM that were making a lot more money than George Romney did as CEO of AMC.
Life isn't about getting dealt a good hand of cards, it's about playing the hand you're dealt well. Mitt made his own money, unlike Howard Dean (inherited money) and John Kerry (married money), two guys you would vote for in a second.
who sent Mitt to a ritzy all boys school? And then he met Ann because she was at a ritzy all girls sister school?
Cranbrook (and the affiliated Kingswood school for girls - it's now pretty much one school) has an endowment worth $191 million. The Punahou school, where Obama went to high school, has an endowment worth almost $700 million.
And at that time Mitt's father was a governor?
And at that time Barack Obama's grandmother was a bank vice president. And at that time Barack's father was a bigamist.
Obama's is a much more impressive success story.
Only to those who believe in bedtime stories. For Obama to have had a much more impressive success story, to begin with he'd have to have had some kind of success in life. Outside of politics and a ghost written book, what has Obama succeeded at? Going to school? Obama's never had a real job in his life.
BTW, why should the advantages that Obama has enjoyed due to affirmative action (or by claiming to be foreign born) be any less significant that the advantages that Mitt enjoyed by having an affluent father? A leg up is a leg up.
It's always fun when Shiloh stops by except for the fact that edutcher won't be far behind.
Revenant- That's not a rebuttal, it's just a bit of crap you pulled out of your ass.
And "that" refers to...? :)
"They're all compulsive liars. :)"
Then Revenant, please inform your con brethren in this thread who are totally confused lol.
Oh hell, don't bother as "they" are compulsively confused!
Obama's never had a real job in his life.
As I recall, Obama had a job teaching courses in constitutional law at the University of Chicago. I'm sure Althouse will be interested to learn that teaching constitutional law isn't a "real job."
Jr656,
Crack said that yoga was a cult lure, not a cult.
I like some of the stretches and exercise aspect of it to mix up my workouts once in a while but only do it maybe 5 times a year because of some of the New Age bullshit aspects of it.
I've never been given a job by a poor, or rich person. And rich people don't create jobs, average people with money in the their pockets buying things create jobs.
Really? Then just how did those things that they buy get made?
So now, anyone's business success is due to only the combination of government and consumers. The entrepreneurial idea has no value, right?
So tell me, oh wise one, what was it that convinced that consumer to buy one product instead of another?
You are so busy trying to keep successful people from taking credit for their own success that you end up effectively saying that there really isn't any difference between successful enterprises and those that fail.
Just wondering, what do you do for a living?
"edutcher won't be far behind."
And I do sincerely apologize for Althouse's lapdog. :-P
ok, ok, apologies to lapdogs as well!
@Jake Diamond
Oh goodie, I have another stalker.
Why don't you live up to your own standards of honesty?
Until you align your standards to your own behavior, no one cares what you say.
IIs this one be of the weirdest threads ever? Jake agreed with Crack, Baron Zemo and Crack sparring, Jr. kicking Crack's butt, Revenant called Shiloh "sweetie".
Stanley Smith,
Point taken, Crack.
WOW!
Someone who can concede a point!
I LIKE YOU!
How's this?
Have you ever gotten a permanent job from a "poor person"?
It depends on what you mean by "permanent" - a year or more? Sure. I genuinely liked the people I worked for. The problem was the crime they and I faced while trying to build something in a sea of desperation.
Constant hold-ups (I don't know how many lectures I got to "don't risk your life - just give them the money") shootings between customers, etc., that would shut the place down while the police did their thing - it was BEYOND HARD. I know what people's brains look like.
And I've had every possible arrangement - free food plus cash under-the-table, sleeping in the back, a room in their homes, a motor home, you name it - anything to keep me there helping out.
Take my word for it - I know poor, and I know what it takes to start a "small business"....
@ Jake Diamond,
I didn't vote for the fibber and I can't undo his nomination. .
Yes you did vote for the fibber/liar.
Unless you think that Obama was telling the truth when he said he had been in 57 or so states.
Or unless you think Obama was telling the truth when he said "You didn't build that" to small business owners.
Why are you still lying about Romney?
Then Revenant, please inform your con brethren in this thread who are totally confused lol.
Shiloh, if you paid a little bit more attention you'd have noticed I'm not a conservative.
Oddly enough, it is possible to recognize that Obama is a complete waste of sperm without either being right-wing or liking Mitt Romney. :)
My Dear Boy!
Unlike most Negros who cannot play basketball.....super villains are always employed and have day jobs.
Norman Osborne, Lex Luthor and Victor Von Doom are all entrepreneurs and investors in Bain capital. Selina Kyle was the CEO of Randolf Industries and Two Face was a lawyer.
In fact the most odious of all is employed as a law professor as you well know.
I will grant that there are very few black Super Villains.
They just don't like to get up early in the morning.
"no one cares what you say."
Except Nathan A ... apparently.
There's no reason to keep Obama in. He's been a disaster, and another 4 years would be our death knell. There's just ample reason to put a boot on Romney's neck and keep him there for the next 4 years. That should be the plan,...
Yes.
Crack MC; I respect your opinion to sit out the election, even if I disagree. Not voting for Romney ensures that Obama wins. I can't be a part of that. Obama is scary incompetent as a leader and an executive. Four years of blaming his predecessor, and his inability to successfully engage the opposition party is embarrassingly amateurish and inept. He would've been fired in the private sector by now.
Obama has no respect for Congress, the constitution, and the concept of checks and balances. He is a divider who expresses contempt for Americans who disagree with his policies, and encourages violence against his opposition.
Whereas, as gov. of MA, Romney showed that he respects that his role as chief executor means not getting to dictate his demands by fiat. He knows he has to work with the legislature he is dealt, and respects the will of his constituency.
If Romney gets elected and tries to initiate any Mormon voodoo on us, he would be excoriated in the press. During a Republican presidency you can be sure that the liberal media will perform as investigative journalists and actual watchdogs for the public trust. Romney would not succeed in any efforts to install Mormon ideology as public policy, and would probably be impeached if he tried. He would certainly not get reelected.
It's that simple for me; namely, Obama must go. The rest is irrelevant.
@Jake Diamond
Since the unemployment rate was 4.2% when Bush took office, giving the Bush tax cuts credit for lowering the unemployment rate is pretty preposterous.
And nothing happened between 2001 and 2003?
Nothing at all?
You can't be honest if someone spots you the first four letters and 10 guesses.
"it is possible"
Then your conveying the wrong impression. btw, most cons despise mittens so you'd fit right in, eh.
As I recall, Obama had a job teaching courses in constitutional law at the University of Chicago. I'm sure Althouse will be interested to learn that teaching constitutional law isn't a "real job."
Okay, so he's never had a real full-time job. He's certainly never had a job outside of the academic and political worlds. With all due respect to the hostess here, academics have a pretty cushy life. If there's a professor in America that works 9 to 5, five days a week that isn't in the hard sciences, I'd be shocked. Of course those in the humanities consider reading to be working. If that's the case, I write about cars, so reading Car & Driver is "work". And somehow we're supposed to believe that Obama's more in touch with the average American than Romney, who grew his own business.
Prof. Althouse is a full professor with a full teaching load. Obama was a part-time lecturer. I'm quite sure that Prof. Althouse would agree that a part-time job teaching a single course on a very limited topic is not as physically or intellectually demanding as being a full professor teaching a normal load.
Can anyone imagine either Barack or Michelle Obama doing manual labor to support their family? It's easy to imagine them standing their telling experts how to do their jobs, though.
Revenant,
Seriously, if anyone needs the benefits of meditation it's Crack.
Some "benefits":
• 76% of long-term meditators experience psychological disorders -- including 26% nervous breakdowns.
• 63% experience serious physical complaints.
• 70% recorded a worsening ability to concentrate.
• Researchers found a startling drop in honesty among long-term meditators.
"The judgment of the married partners group (i.e. the non- meditator's judgment of the meditating partner) was very close to that of the parents. The item "perception of reality" had decreased,...the view of reality,...was now a source of great conflict. The second greatest change given by the married partners group was openness. This decreased.
The meditation reduced openness in its being a communicative quality. As a non-verbal attribute of understanding and the ability to communicate one's thoughts, it transformed into the opposite. Through this lack of openness, honesty shows a startling drop,...ability to make contacts changes,...politeness,...warmth and sympathy,...A distinct cooling in the relationship is indicated, on the commencement of the [meditating] practice by one of the partners,...In the area of performance, therefore, [meditating] does not cause an improvement, rather a disimprovement[sic] and accordingly fails in its promises.
Ex-meditators, parents and married partners are all united in this aspect, with some individual differentiations. Even ability to make contacts and dependability as well as warmth and sympathy were reduced in the opinion of the parents.
The ex-meditators were careful in their self-evaluation,...They ascertained the general development of their personality during the,..meditation phase to be negative,...
You'll have to excuse me if I don't choose to be bonkers
AllieOop,
Charming as ever Crack, at least Baron Zemo is a "gentleman", heh.
Yeah - he opened the dialogue talking about blowjobs.
Some gentleman.
You're going to learn I'm one of the only real guys around here - no BS, etc. - and you're going to come to respect that.
Right now, you want to mold me into your vision of what a man should be - but you're fucked up, and I know it:
That's because I'm a man already,...
"You'll have to excuse me if I don't choose to be bonkers"
8/29/12 5:35 PM
o_O !!
Be careful Miss Oop.
Black men will tell you anything to get with you.
Before you know it you end up a murderous fugitive instead of remaining simply an insipid
narcissist with anal warts.
I fear for you!
JL,
Obama must go. The rest is irrelevant.
Ahh - you had me until that last line, but I hear ya,...
Baron Zemo,
Be careful Miss Oop.
Black men will tell you anything to get with you.
Before you know it you end up a murderous fugitive instead of remaining simply an insipid
narcissist with anal warts.
I've got to hand it to you, Baron:
You don't stop and you're even becoming funny!
Salute,...
Crack's a passionate man.
How absolutely cool would it be if he met a woman who could teach him a bit about temperance?
He'll poo poo that! But I am going to wish that for him anyway.
AllieOop,
Be careful Miss Oop,...
Before you know it you end up a murderous fugitive instead of remaining simply an insipid
narcissist with anal warts.
He just called you "an insipid narcissist with anal warts."
You never mentioned the anal warts - Ewwww!
Baron is funny, but I am preferring Revenant's humor even more.
Different strokes and all.
And "Hi, Allie!".
Until you align your standards to your own behavior, no one cares what you say.
Hello Stalker. Whether or not people care what I say is up to them, not you. I'm sorry to say, though, that you obviously care quite a bit about what I say. No need to continue to lie about that fact.
Enjoy your stalking!
Penny,
Crack's a passionate man.
How absolutely cool would it be if he met a woman who could teach him a bit about temperance?
He'll poo poo that! But I am going to wish that for him anyway.
Thanks, Penny. I was married for 20 years. If there was some way to insure that level of commitment would be rewarded by going the long-haul, I might consider a relationship, but I just don't think it's possible in this cultural environment. Not for me anyway:
My trust of other human beings is GONE.
A wife committing adultery (that you discover by listening to a cassette of her talking to a psychic) AND MURDER - while you're grieving over her mother's death - will do that,...
Oh what's a few anal warts shared amoungst Althouse friends?
I've always thought the two main distinguishing characteristics of a cult (as opposed to a legitimate religion - of course, I know there are people like hatman who lump them all together) are:
1. You can leave or not practice a religion. I didn't darken the door of a church for many years and the Jesuits did not turn up at my door to drag me to Mass. I have known a few ex-Mormons and they simply stopped practicing. Their parents weren't happy about it, but nobody came after them. Of course, the village atheist in a small town or an ex-Mormon in Utah might undergo a lot of social pressure to conform, but I'm not talking about Mrs. Jones down the block disinviting you to her party, but harassment and threats. My ex-boss was a Scientologist in California for a few years in the 70's when she was young and stupid and she had a hell of a time getting away from those people. A few disenchanted individuals managed to make it out of Jonestown before the kool-aide drinking, which is how we know what Jim Jones was up to down there. They didn't walk out - they escaped through the jungle. Similiarly, your life is in danger in Muslim countries if you convert to another religion. At one time, of course, the same was true of Christianity, but that is not the case anymore.
2. You have to give most of your worldly goods to The Leader or the cult. I'm not talking about titheing, but basically handing over your bank account. The lower level Scientologists had to pony up, and so did the followers of the Maharishi. In contrast, you can take up pew space in a Catholic church for years without dropping a dime in the collection plate. Indeed, I think Catholics are probably the stingiest of all Christians when it comes to weekly collections. Around here, many consider themselves munificent when they toss $20 in the basket at Christmas and Easter.
As far as believing weird things - well, so what? Every religion has tenets and rituals that seem bizarre to others, and nonbelievers think they're all bizarre. (And of course, nonbelievers can have beliefs that are even more nonsensical - like the idea that Obama is a success and socialism will work if we just give it one more go.)
Yes you did vote for the fibber/liar.
Stalker-
Who did I vote for in your fantasy about me? Please tell me all about it because nothing interests me more than your obsession with me.
Some people think stalkers are creepy, but I'm absolutely thrilled that Nathan is dedicating many hours of his day following me around the internet, daydreaming about me, and writing about me in his diary. I'm the reason his life has meaning.
Thanks for caring, Stalker!
Hi ya Penny, I bet you could tame the shrew in Crack.:)
Jake Diamond said...
Obama's never had a real job in his life.
As I recall, Obama had a job teaching courses in constitutional law at the University of Chicago. I'm sure Althouse will be interested to learn that teaching constitutional law isn't a "real job."
==============
Obama's 2 times a week Con Law lecture was all his assigned duties were. Unlike full, assistant, associate profs, he had no other obligations or duties. Never had to publish for tenure or take on all the collateral duties new profs on the tenure track are expected to GLADLY jump to, as assigned.
Would you call some employee that puts in perhaps 5 hours a week in a "full time job"??
His sinecure was set up by his patrons in the Crown and Pritzker Family, who controlled the Board of Trustees. (And also why Michelle got a cushy highly paid part-time job years after dropping her law license.) It was an odd one. "Law lecturer" is usually a spot reserved for visiting academics or retired distinguished law firm partners and jurists that get the "lecturer" spots to help orient law students into the real world of law, as practiced.
Mccullough wrote:
I like some of the stretches and exercise aspect of it to mix up my workouts once in a while but only do it maybe 5 times a year because of some of the New Age bullshit aspects of it.
And that's the point. You can do those things with things like tai chi, or yoga (or reiki, or karate or kung fu, or mediation) where you can get a benefit from it and not worry about the mumbo jumbo spirituality of it, BECAUSE there is a utilitarian function to it that is beneficial.
Even one of the links provided by Crack himself about the dangers of Yoga (the one from Time) makes the point that in one of the problems with yoga is that in this country most people aren't doing it right. It's suposed to be a mind, body, spirit connection type thing but in this country most people simply concentrate on the body aspect of it. BUt obviously, if a Yoga stretch is a good stretch, it's a good stretch whether the movement that came up with it is based on mideastern philosophy or designed by Jack Lallane.
Mediation is simply relaxing. I dont profess to think that somehow people are travelling to different astral planes. But I don't have to. Calming your mind is simply beneficial because it calms your mind. So then Crack railing against things like Reiki or Tai Chi or Yoga as if it's some sinister thing is just ludicrous.
DO you feel like you've somehow have to join a cult now that you've done some yoga stretches? No? Then whats the problem again?
For this, I'll be branded a cult apologist.
Carrie asked: "I still don't understand how conservatives are viewed as uncaring. Most conservatives also belong to churches and do their caring and charity through their churches which doesn't count with the national media."
The messiah has talked about how individualism is a "John Wayne" myth and how American should be more collective. That's also the meaning of his "you didn't build it" line. Individuals caring is irrelevant; the collective is the only thing that counts.
But don't call him a socialist.
AllieOop said...
Oh what's a few anal warts shared amoungst Althouse friends?
=============
An odd thing to have on your mind, Allie.
My advice?
Consider stopping having butt sex with men with Herpes.
And I hope your facial and rectal warts go away!
And nothing happened between 2001 and 2003?
Well, Stalker, you implied that the unemployment rate is a function of tax policy. If other events and policies can lead to changes in the unemployment rate, then your premise that the Bush tax cuts are responsible for the unemployment rate declining from 2002 to 2006 is hogwash. Clever how you undermined your miserably stupid argument.
Speaking of which, what effect did the Bush tax cuts have on the huge deficits of the Bush years?
academics have a pretty cushy life.
I'll wait for Althouse to confirm this if you don't mind.
Crack is letting his marriage experiences turn him into a curmudgeon. Come on Crack, you have to start trusting SOMEBODY.
Welcome for sure, Crack, but we both know that there's no "insurance" on relationships.
Here's what I liked seeing in your response to me...
That you "MIGHT consider a relationship", and that you "just don't THINK it's possible".
Both show a crack of light, pun intended.
Cedarford, it was not I that brought up the subject of anal warts, it was our dear Baron Zemo. Then the adorable Crack glommed onto it, now you. Hmmm, perhaps all three of you have had such growths and can relate.
For the record, I have neither facial nor anal warts. I'm sure the same cannot be said for yourselfs.
Oh what's a few anal warts shared amoungst Althouse friends?
I just want to make it absolutely clear that I have NO Althouse friends.
exiledonmainst wrote:
I've always thought the two main distinguishing characteristics of a cult (as opposed to a legitimate religion - of course, I know there are people like hatman who lump them all together) are:
1. You can leave or not practice a religion.
Except in Islam apostasy is death. THere is no religion or cult even in existense that is as tough on people who want to leave it. If that definition of a cult were accurate then surely Islam would be a cult (a death cult) rather than a religion. Only, it's been around for more than a thousand years, and is practiced by more than a billion people. Can you call something like that a cult?
Any definition of cult gets bogged down with contradictions to any definitions you can come up with.
I think a lot of what defines a cult is the duration of it as a religion and how mainstream it is more than anything.
Don't worry Jake, it is a shared afflication amongst Baron and Crack and now Cedarford wants in on the action.
We are safe.
That light may be coming through a keyhole, or maybe the door is slightly ajar.
Doesn't matter which, really.
See how either suits you at the end of an exhausting, passionate day.
What Crack needs to do is date someone who takes Yoga and/or Tai Chi (homeopathy might be a stretch) and is still a decent person and not part of a cult, and then get over the fact that she might be doing something that he doesn't see the value of. And learn to live with it. (and she should do the same with his quirks).
If Mary Matalin can marry James Carveille despite their differences, there's hope for Crack yet.
jr565,
If Mary Matalin can marry James Carveille despite their differences, there's hope for Crack yet.
They're both political players - people determined to manipulate you - they have no differences,...
Crack wrote:
• 76% of long-term meditators experience psychological disorders -- including 26% nervous breakdowns.
• 63% experience serious physical complaints.
• 70% recorded a worsening ability to concentrate.
• Researchers found a startling drop in honesty among long-term meditators.
Crack, I seriously question those numbers. Those strike me as much bogus science as you say transcendental meditation is. You should be as skeptical of those numbers as you are of the benefits of TM. How are they determining that someone is less honest after going through TM. The idea that you coudl even test that strikes me as silly. You talk about the fraudulent claims of the alternative movement, this strikes me as the same. And 25% of people who did TM had nervous breakdows? Because of TM? Again, how are they determining that? DId they go into TM then come out and start raving? Or is it an incidental statistic like the fact that they smoked or ate red meat. What other things did they do that might have caused them to have nervous breakdowns?
To echo Penn & Teller, I call bullshit.
jr565,
To echo Penn & Teller, I call bullshit.
Yeah, but the last time I checked, you weren't Penn or Teller.
Fuck off, jr,...
You'll have to excuse me if I don't choose to be bonkers
I wouldn't dream of implying you chose to be bonkers.
Jr565?
Just a guess?
Those statistics seem more likely for MEDIATORS than meditators.
Revenant,
I wouldn't dream of implying you chose to be bonkers.
Since you're so aware of the "benefits," I can assume you did?
Hmmm, it looks like I picked up a stalker who is obsessed with me because I point out his dishonesty and hypocrisy.
If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
"I wouldn't dream of implying you chose to be bonkers."
Since you're so aware of the "benefits," I can assume you did?
I didn't say you need "the benefits of meditation", Crack. Jr565 said that.
What *I* said was that jr565 misspelled "medication". :)
I enjoy a good speaker. Forgive me for being impartial to both candidates for i shall try not to rock the boat in this heated debate. I merely want to applaud someone who has the talent to go up on stage and sway, or fail to capture the attention of a room and share himself with them. I for one have no talent for public speaking but my college professor has been at it for years. He is really a very interesting speaker that was a star in his own right. He says that good guest speakers are hard to come by but are a breath of fresh air when they captivate a room.
Post a Comment