Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Political mumbojumbo (Score 1) 231

arrogance to claim that you know someone's opinion better than they do ... You claim to know me better than I know myself

You're lying. I did no such thing. I am not saying you don't know your opinion, I am saying you are knowingly and intentionally lying about what your opinion is.

You know that I gave you a reasonable response

That response was not reasonable.

You're a liar.

tidal wave of half-truths, and occasionally peppered in utter bullshit

You're a liar. The fact that you cannot address, let alone rebut, my arguments doesn't make them false.

You then closed with ... more insults.

You're a liar. There was not a single insult in there.

You are also wrong that I offered any arrogance, but you could actually believe that. But you cannot believe I insulted you, unless you think "you're lying" -- a true statement, since I said it in regard to the false claim that we "rolled back every regulation we possibly could" under Bush (which I charitably interpreted as a reduction in regulation) was either the result of intentional dishonesty, or reckless disregard for truth or falsity, and either way I hold you responsible for the claim sufficient to justify a claim of lying -- is an insult. But even if you want to claim that as an insult, that would be the only one. Nothing else even refers to you except to identify you as the person I am talking to.

and that you responded with pure ad hominem back, whining about a disagreement over what began as your ad hominem directed at me.

That was not an ad hominem attack

I didn't say it was. I said it was pure ad hominem. Whether it was an "attack" is uninteresting: the point is that you responded to my comment, which was all about the topic of discussion, and instead talked about me, personally. That is the definition of "ad hominem."

You hadn't written a single comment here on slashdot in over three months

You probably don't know this (if you do, you would be lying), but the comment history doesn't actually show all the comments you've posted on your account. Take a guess what comments aren't shown!

You then chose to take it personally when I pointed out that you were gone for three months.

You're a liar. I made no such choice: it literally and explicitly was personal. It was nothing but personal. It was all about me, and not at all about the discussion.

You certainly haven't demonstrated any reason to expect that you are here to have an actual discussion.

You're a liar. I just provided the evidence: I posted a reasonable reply to your arguments. You then replied with pure ad hominem.

Comment Re:Political mumbojumbo (Score 1) 231

I am not sure it is unreasonable to think that the more stable parts of the system, the "deep government" and the big donors and lobbying complexes, collectively bear the same sort of relationship to the US President that the Supreme Ayatollah bears to the President of Iran.

That wasn't what I said though. He was the one saying my view -- that, in essence, the President is essentially indistinguishable from the "deep government" -- is unreasonable. If the "deep government" were that powerful, wouldn't they want one of their own in charge, rather than a puppet that had the power to do things they didn't like?

His argument is that the moneyed powers are distinct from the people with the actual legal authority. I am saying there's no reason to assume a difference exists.

Comment Re:Political mumbojumbo (Score 1) 231

I am leaning more and more towards the conclusion that someone is just coming around to waste my time, which means I have repeatedly been feeding a troll.

You're lying.

I stated that to be my opinion.

Yes, you dishonestly stated it to be your opinion.

My opinion cannot be a lie if I state it to be my opinion.

It can be if it is not your opinion. But I'm on to you. You know what you're doing. You know that I gave you a reasonable response to your comment to me, and that you responded with pure ad hominem back, whining about a disagreement over what began as your ad hominem directed at me.

I don't believe you are self-deluded enough to believe that I am the one who took this conversation sideways, that I am the troll, that I am the one out to waste your time. I think this is not your opinion, but that you are lying when you say that it is.

Comment Re:Political mumbojumbo (Score 1) 231

You enter into a discussion with the attitude that your opinion is god's own truth and wholly irrefutable.

You're lying. I never, ever, do that. I do nothing less than you: I make assertions that I believe are true. Of course, my assertions are more often backed by facts and reason, but that's beside the point.

That suggests that you did not read my reply to your reply, where I showed those things to be the case with your reply.

False. I read that, and responded to you with more arguments, mostly refuting your claims. Then you replied with no more arguments, but went full frontal ad hominem, and then dishonestly claimed that I was the one who was not wanting to have a discussion.

How do you explain your insistence on putting me on your perma-hate list, then?

I have no such list. Please stop lying. I have a list of people who repeatedly demonstrate the inability to have reasonable discussions, and yes, you're on it (for reasons you're proving again).

You were more than a little angry when you added me to it and you tend to get angry every time I ask you about it.

You're a liar.

Hell, you are angry right now

You're a liar.

You have lied multiple times in this very conversation.

You're a liar, as evidenced by the fact that -- as usual -- you don't back up this claim.

I have exposed numerous lies from you.

You're a liar, as evidenced by the fact that -- as usual -- you don't back up this claim.

I have provided many.

You're a liar, as evidenced by the fact that -- as usual -- you don't back up this claim.

That is clearly a declaration of winning.

You're a liar. I never said I won. I said I beat you up. Not the same thing. I don't see it as a contest at all, but I do see it as opposing sides battling, not for victory, but for shared enlightenment. Unfortunately, sometimes -- as happened here -- one side is dishonest or otherwise abusive to the discussion, and gets its ass handed to it in due course.

you have shown repeatedly you don't want to have a discussion with me

You're a liar. Now truth be told, I do not want to have a discussion with you; but I do want to have reasonable discussions, with whomever else wishes to engage in them; but you demonstrate a lack of ability to do so, as proven by your rejection of my reasonable replies to you with ad hominems and obviously false claims that I was the one who was rejecting reasonable discussion.

I had started a discussion that you injected yourself into

Um. Smitty started it. And you replied, and then I replied to your confused and false statements with corrections. Are you new to the Internet? That's how it works, and it is not evidence of trolling.

I have asked you several questions that you have (as per your usual) refused to answer

You're a liar. I was the one who was responding to your arguments with arguments, and you are the one who ended the actual discussion to make it purely personal.

the slasdhot definition of trolling fits your behavior here almost entirely and mine pretty well not at all

Again: says the guy who refused to respond to my arguments and then resorted to pure ad hominem. You can't simply ignore that fact and hope that no one will notice. We all noticed. You took a disagreement over what categorized a "long dry spell" as proof that I don't "actually want to have a conversation with" you. Come on. No one takes a garbage claim like that seriously, especially given that I had just written a significant reply with many serious claims in it. You were the one bowing out of the discussion, not me, and to protect your ego you said I was the one with the problem.

Everyone knows what you did. You can stop pretending.

Comment Re:Political mumbojumbo (Score 1) 231

De facto, I suspect there is some truth to what he is telling you.

De jure, you are clearly right of course. Congress created the Fed, quite possibly exceeding its own authority in the process, and Congress may undo them.

I agree there is some truth to what he is saying, but the part that is bizarre is that he assumes the moneyed interests controlling things are necessarily distinct from the people with the legal authority, that the President is necessarily a puppet rather than the master. There's no reason to assume that.

How the Fed would deal with a Congress which represented their constituents actively here is an interesting question.

Not to me, since the Congress would necessarily have to bend to the shared will of the Congress and President, if they asserted it upon the Fed.

Have you watched the public hearings?

Only a few clips.

Comment Re:Political mumbojumbo (Score 1) 231

I am the one who made serious arguments to you

No, you did no such thing.

You're a liar.

You replied with a few half truths, a laundry list of partisan lies, and a collection of insults as well.

You're a liar. I replied with not a single instance of any of those things.

You have followed this same pattern of condescension, arrogance, and ignorance for years whenever you have found yourself in a conversation with me here on slashdot.

You're lying.

If you were actually capable of honesty, I would recommend you to ask yourself the honest question of what you are trying to accomplish by entering into a discussion where I am present.

This is where you are deluding yourself: my replies to you do not take you into account. They have nothing to do with you. You are not the center of my world. You're barely on its periphery, and I do not do or say anything in particular regards to you. I am simply responding to your comments as they are.

It seems to anger you when I expose your lies

You're a liar on both counts. I rarely if ever get angry on Slashdot, and I don't recall that I've ever lied near you, nor that if I had, you'd exposed any such lie.

But the other way around? Hell, I regularly expose your lies. You're lying throughout this conversation, as usual. The difference is that I actually identify your lies and point them out to the point where you cannot rebut my identification. The opposite doesn't actually happen.

... based on the fact that you always respond to that exposure by insisting that down is up rather than actually participating in a discussion of anything meaningful.

Provide a single example of me lying, or insisting that "up is down." Just one.

And -- again, you realize this, don't you? -- that you are the one who sidetracked this discussion. Anyone reading along knows this. I responded with a series of reasonable comments, and you responded with nothing but ad hominems, as you continue to do now.

Even this latest trick - you declaring yourself the "winner" after I show that you are not here to have an actual discussion with me

Dude, who do you think you are convincing with your lies? I didn't declare myself a "winner," and you never even attempted to "show" that I am not here to have an actual discussion, you merely asserted it.

I don't generally call people trolls, because I don't care why they say what they say, as long as they are making somewhat rational arguments ... but the lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Comment Re:Political mumbojumbo (Score 1) 231

I, for one, hope the two of you have the breakthrough that damn_registrars and I did, and seek minimize the talking past each other. Neither of you are dummies, in my estimation.

I respond to what is in front of me. That's all I can do. He chooses to go off on personal-attack tangents.

Comment Re:Political mumbojumbo (Score 1) 231

I can't force you to acknowledge reality

Yes, but that is not the problem. The problem is you are incapable of actually presenting an argument that backs your view of reality. (ProTip: this is a sign that maybe your view of reality needs adjustment).

You can choose to be petty and hateful

I am neither. Please stop lying. Thanks!

why do you even bother to write messages to me when you don't want to have a discussion? I have never seen someone who wanted to have an actual honest discussion respond in the way that has been your standard M.O. towards me for years now.

You do realize -- don't you? -- that I am the one who made serious arguments to you, and you're the one who responded with ad hominem ... right? I mean, anyone looking at this knows that I am the one engaging in honest conversation, and you're the one who isn't.

Comment Re:Political mumbojumbo (Score 1) 231

Three months is a long dry spell in comparison to the frequency with which you used to post.

False.

Being as you couldn't even be honest with your first word in this most recent reply

False.

I don't see any reason to expect that you actually want to have a conversation with me.

Translation: "I got my ass handed to me. Again. And I have no rebuttal that won't sound stupid, so I'll resort, as usual, to ad hominem."

Comment Re:Political mumbojumbo (Score 1) 231

You're wagging the dog. Money controls government, not the other way around.

You're confused: I never said or implied it was the other way around. You're just saying that the people who control the money, control the government; I didn't contradict that, I am just saying that the President and Congress control the Fed, which controls the money.

Comment Re:Political mumbojumbo (Score 1) 231

Monarchists can be either left or right. While Arker is correct about the aristocrats being on the right, so too were many merchants, just like today: those that wanted the government to be the servants of capitalists and grant favors or be generally activist were on the left, while those that wanted a more laissez-faire model were on the right. And yes, they were all opposed to centralized monarchical power. But that said, a monarchist could be in favor of more or less activism in the government, more or less power to the people, and so on.

To put it more briefly: the form of government is largely, though not wholly, distinct from its political leanings.

Comment Re:Political mumbojumbo (Score 1) 231

your first comment after a long dry spell here

False.

placing it as being rooted in Marxism in any real way is dishonest at best

Nonsense. The movement, begun over 100 years ago, was heavily rooted in a Marxist understanding of the economy and labor. Wilson certainly held those views. Despite your protestations, this continues today. Obama believes -- or claims he does -- in the fundamental conflict between labor and owners, that owners primary gain wealth through exploitation of labor, and that government has all authority and responsibility to regulate owners in any way they see fit, without regard to morality or liberty.

Are you trying to suggest that only reason the republicans left the democratic-republican party was because they were alone and united in their opposition to slavery?

You're a bit confused. First, they didn't leave the Democratic-Republican Party, which had ended 30 years before the Republican Party began. Mostly, they left the Whig Party, but many of them were Democrats or came from other third parties.

But yes, the one unifying position they shared was opposition to slavery.

If so I would like to know where you get that idea from.

The words and deeds of the founders of the party, including their first platform in 1856, which was dominated by anti-slavery language.

[The Fed] was created by the government

Only partially true.

I'm not familiar with this new meaning of "partially" that you are applying here. The Fed was created by an Act of Congress, signed into law by the aforementioned Woodrow Wilson. Period.

it is regulated by the government

Not true at all.

So according to you, there aren't many laws on the books governing the behavior of the Fed. OK. I don't know why you are expressing such an obviously false position, but OK.

it's within the Executive Branch

What does that have to do with anything? They don't bend to the will of the president or anyone else.

Unless the President demands them to. In fact, all executive authority belongs to the President. Therefore, all the power the Fed has, belongs to the President. That's what the Constitution very clearly says.

Being as there is no meaningful case of that happening, your argument holds no water.

Nonsense. The original point was that "un-elected knobs" are granted the power. The criticism of that point was that the Fed is outside government. I pointed out that this is false, and further, that government could step in if it wanted to, because it is under the authority of the President and Congress, regardless of what anyone wants to pretend. All you are saying is that they are not usually overruled by the President, which isn't arguing against any point being made.

Further, no less than JFK himself wrote an executive order asserting control over the Fed, and the assertion isn't controversial: he literally did have power over the Fed. (I do not hold to any Fed involvement in any conspiracies to kill JFK; I agree with those that claim the executive order ultimately enhanced the power over the Fed, but it did so through asserting that the Fed is under the authority of the President.)

What happened, happened because we were so certain that wall street could self police and that we should roll back every regulation we possibly could.

Please stop lying. In fact, the amount of regulation significantly increased during the Bush years, including financial regulation.

The federal government was involved only in so much as to say "we don't know what you want to do, so just go ahead and go for it".

On the contrary, the federal government was explicitly saying what the financial institutions should do, and the increased regulation contributed to moral hazard, which was the real cause of the collapse. There was nothing inherently wrong with what most of these financial institutions did, other than the dishonesty: the problem was that people trusted that the investments were sound because they thought that if government allowed it, it must be sound. Government created the problem.

If the government was deeply involved as you claim, then why didn't the federal government hold anyone responsible for it?

It seems to me that you answered the question.

Slashdot Top Deals

Work smarter, not harder, and be careful of your speling.

Working...