Jauronimo Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 Yes, I'm a part of an entrenched political platform Does the name Dick Armey ring a bell? A corporatocracy is a form of government that serves the interests of, and may be run by, corporations. Yeah, he was Darrin on Bewitched. What the hell does that have do with anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 Does the name Dick Armey ring a bell? Is he married to Vagina Coastguard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 Yes, I'm a part of an entrenched political platform Does the name Dick Armey ring a bell? A corporatocracy is a form of government that serves the interests of, and may be run by, corporations. Just checking. So then it's the TEA party you know nothing about. You seem like a smart guy; you should probably flip the station from Jon Stewart occasionally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 Just checking. So then it's the TEA party you know nothing about. You seem like a smart guy; you should probably flip the station from Jon Stewart occasionally. Flip to what channel? Jon Stewart is about good as it gets with American Media. Have you ever read Chomsky? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 Is he married to Vagina Coastguard? No, you're thinking of Dick Sergeant. He was in congress and married to vagina coastguard, but he was strangely replaced mid-term by Dick York. Dick Armey was on a that TV show with the hot witch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 (edited) Only from you... In the case of the Illinois pensions being very bloated... It is about taking, God knows they didn't earn it... Even their salaries when they were working. So you agree with me that your use of the word "take" in the context of your comment above, is both ironic and moronic? OK. Glad we cleared that up. Let me help you out: the smart response was to say that there are corporate people who take what is given them as well. You being you...well.... Only the weak "take" what's given to them. They may earn their first job, but from then on, they are in cruise control, and simply exist to protect their pay check by showing as little initiative as possible. Risk takers that create jobs don't only exist in small businesses. There are a lot of them in major corporations as well, and they "earn" what they get, because they usually risk a lot more than the little guy, and there's a heavy price to pay if they are wrong. Nobody can accuse them of "taking" anything. The problem for your post above is: you are giving Carter credit for blaming ALL Americans for the weakness of SOME Americans, and taking none of the blame for himself. Flip to what channel? Jon Stewart is about good as it gets with American Media. Have you ever read Chomsky? Where to begin with this one. John Stewart is wrong, all the time, and when you point that out he says: "it's comedy, of course we are going to be wrong, exaggerate, misrepresent". But, when he's right, oh, of course, he's a trusted source for news! How many reporters does John Stewart employ? How many of his people have been to Iraq and seen it for themselves? How about Afghanistan? Why is it that John Stewart gets every story he talks about from somebody else, and therefore, has no idea whether it is accurate? How many stories has John Stewart's show broken? How many national polls cite John Stewart as a trusted media source(Uh, the most trusted name in news, in every poll, is Bill O'Reilly, and the last time O'Reilly had Stewart on, he destroyed him) As good as it gets? This is patently retarded, not one shred of evidence backs up that statement. Conclusion: you are a unmitigated moron. Chomsky? Yes using Noam Chomsky as a response on a message board. Here, of all places? Now that I think about it, the better question is: have YOU ever read Chomsky? You bring your self-contradicting "anarchist" to the fight, and I'll bring James Madison. I'll tell you right now Chomsky loses, and not just because he is an intellectual lightweight in comparison. Yes Chomsky hates ALL authority, except when that authority is over-taxing people, invading their businesses and telling them how to run them, picking winners and losers in markets, and on and on. Massive hypocrite. He is 10x the megalomaniac he accused Bush of being. The best example: his support of Obamacare. NO REAL anarchist would ever support something like this. Chomsky is a F'ing communist, who has been trying to hide it since the Berlin wall fell, by calling himself a "libertarian socialist"....whatever the F that means. If we are to take Chomsky and his ethos seriously, then by HIS definition, the Department of Education should be shut down tomorrow. How much do you want to bet he doesn't support that? Chomsky. I almost spit out my iced tea when I read this. Edited October 15, 2011 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 So you agree with me that your use of the word "take" in the context of your comment above, is both ironic and moronic? OK. Glad we cleared that up. Let me help you out: the smart response was to say that there are corporate people who take what is given them as well. You being you...well.... Only the weak "take" what's given to them. They may earn their first job, but from then on, they are in cruise control, and simply exist to protect their pay check by showing as little initiative as possible. Risk takers that create jobs don't only exist in small businesses. There are a lot of them in major corporations as well, and they "earn" what they get, because they usually risk a lot more than the little guy, and there's a heavy price to pay if they are wrong. Nobody can accuse them of "taking" anything. The problem for your post above is: you are giving Carter credit for blaming ALL Americans for the weakness of SOME Americans, and taking none of the blame for himself. Where to begin with this one. John Stewart is wrong, all the time, and when you point that out he says: "it's comedy, of course we are going to be wrong, exaggerate, misrepresent". But, when he's right, oh, of course, he's a trusted source for news! How many reporters does John Stewart employ? How many of his people have been to Iraq and seen it for themselves? How about Afghanistan? Why is it that John Stewart gets every story he talks about from somebody else, and therefore, has no idea whether it is accurate? How many stories has John Stewart's show broken? How many national polls cite John Stewart as a trusted media source(Uh, the most trusted name in news, in every poll, is Bill O'Reilly, and the last time O'Reilly had Stewart on, he destroyed him) As good as it gets? This is patently retarded, not one shred of evidence backs up that statement. Conclusion: you are a unmitigated moron. Chomsky? Yes using Noam Chomsky as a response on a message board. Here, of all places? Now that I think about it, the better question is: have YOU ever read Chomsky? You bring your self-contradicting anarchist to the fight, and how about I bring James Madison. I'll tell you right now Chomsky loses, and not just because he is an intellectual lightweight in comparison. Yes Chomsky hates ALL authority, except when that authority is over-taxing people, invading their businesses and telling them how to run them, picking winners and losers in markets, and on and on. Massive hypocrite. The best example: his support of Obamacare. NO REAL anarchist would ever support something like this. Chomsky is a F'ing communist, who has been trying to hide it since the Berlin wall fell, by calling himself a "libertarian socialist"....whatever the F that means. If we are to take Chomsky and his ethos seriously, then by HIS definition, the Department of Education should be shut down tomorrow. How much do you want to bet he doesn't support that? Chomsky. I almost spit out my iced tea when I read this. Would you like to have an articulate discussion based on facts and not emotion? What are you basing your opinion of Chomsky on? Have you read any of his works? I myself have read plenty of Milton Freeman, William Buckley, George Will. What media do you recommend? I suppose that is not hyperbole to suggest my IQ is under 70. “...first they ignore you, then they make fun of you, then they fight you, and then you win.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 Would you like to have an articulate discussion based on facts and not emotion? What are you basing your opinion of Chomsky on? Have you read any of his works? I myself have read plenty of Milton Freeman, William Buckley, George Will. What media do you recommend? I suppose that is not hyperbole to suggest my IQ is under 70. “...first they ignore you, then they make fun of you, then they fight you, and then you win.” It's one thing to read and quite another to understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 Would you like to have an articulate discussion based on facts and not emotion? What are you basing your opinion of Chomsky on? Have you read any of his works? I myself have read plenty of Milton Freeman, William Buckley, George Will. What media do you recommend? I suppose that is not hyperbole to suggest my IQ is under 70. "...first they ignore you, then they make fun of you, then they fight you, and then you win." I gave you a clear point, and you haven't refuted it. I am all about keeping an open mind, but not so open that my brain falls out. You should try that. Resolve Chomsky and the Dept. of Education, or Obamacare, or Welfare. Go ahead, try. I will be right here for the next hour awaiting your response. You go right ahead and try to "win" with Chomsky, right now, today. It will be highly entertaining for me, and for many on this board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 Looks like Pete is gonna struggle with Chomsky's default position that all authority is illegitimate unless proven otherwise, and that the burden of proof is on those seeking to claim the authority....and trying to resolve that against Obama's relentless power grab until he was stopped by the 2010 elections. How does having the most Czars by far in history = proving legitimate authority? When and where was the authority handed to them proved? By whom? Where does the authority for Obamacare come from? How does the manner in which Obamacare was passed = proving the authority to force people to buy insurance? Why isn't Chomsky standing on a street corner in Cambridge screaming bloody murder decrying this unproven authority? Answer: because he is a f'ing communist in anarchists' clothing. End of story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 It's one thing to read and quite another to understand. You got that right. When George Will hard sells an Iraq war(the US media banged the war drum loudly leading up to "shock and awe"- can any tea party member state the Iraq war was justified?), writes an article titled “What Makes the U.N. Legitimate?”, refers to anti-Iraq war people as "anti-nationalist" and the Europeons as "tar babies", etc...... I just don't understand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 You got that right. When George Will hard sells an Iraq war(the US media banged the war drum loudly leading up to "shock and awe"- can any tea party member state the Iraq war was justified?), writes an article titled "What Makes the U.N. Legitimate?", refers to anti-Iraq war people as "anti-nationalist" and the Europeons as "tar babies", etc...... I just don't understand Yes, the Iraq war justifies Chomsky. That's funny, I bet according to you, the Iraq war justifies Obama too. Blaming Bush for Obama's failures in 5....4....3.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 and speaking of the media and Chomsky. Don't criticize without watching. Enjoy! http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5631882395226827730 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 and speaking of the media and Chomsky. Don't criticize without watching. Enjoy! http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5631882395226827730 I will do no such thing until you respond. This is not some dopey board where saying "well, your only saying that because you didn't read X" qualifies as a argument. I am quite familiar with the material, as evidenced by my replies above. Now, you are in the same boat as Chomsky, and the "burden of proof" you love so much, is upon you. So let's hear it. Or, haven't you actually read Chomsky? I am thinking of asking you some "prove you read Friedman" questions as well, but, let's just stick with what we have, shall we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 "I am all about keeping an open mind" "I will do no such thing until you respond." Don't have time now-heading to a hottie's dirty 30 party. Take your ball and go home for now. I will respond whenever I have free time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 Don't have time now-heading to a hottie's dirty 30 party. Take your ball and go home for now. I will respond whenever I have free time OK. I don't blame you. Whenever you respond will be highly entertaining for me. Now I have something to look forward to. Make sure you read up before you do though, fair warning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 Chomsky's ringing endorsement of Obama's healthcare bill "If I were in Congress," he said, "I’d probably hold my nose and vote for it, because the alternative of not passing it is worse, bad as this bill is. Unfortunately, that’s the reality." "If it fails, it wouldn’t put even limited constraints on insurance companies," he explained, noting that the bill is "at least has some steps towards barring the withholding of policies from people with prior disabilities." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 exactly. It blows my mind how much media coverage the Tea Party gets and how they are portrayed juxtaposed to the occupy Wall Street movement Those in power don't like people who challenge the status quo. That's why you hear bad things about both groups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 (edited) Chomsky's ringing endorsement of Obama's healthcare bill Can always count on lybob to provide an easy way to crush him. I had this lined up for Pete, but using it on you is fine: The central tenet of Chomsky's work is: no authority w/o proof of it's legitimacy. If we use the vehicles available, then, clearly the proof is in the people and how they vote. IF there is some other way to prove legitimacy, Chomsky doesn't provide it. The truth is: Chomsky believes only he can determine proof, since he is in the intellectual class, like the communist he is. Only a communist, and not an anarchist, would draw the conclusions you posted above, so, thanks for proving me right. "We should hold our nose and vote for it" = "Some animals are more equal than others" because only a communist, or a tyrant, claims sole determination of what is right, and the right to contradict himself as a matter of convenience by virtue of being in the intellectual class. An anarchist believes in none of that. The anarchist is consistent, the communist is not, by definition. So, again, thanks for proving my point ---------------------------------- And, I can argue it the other way too. If we are to stay in line with Chomsky, and let's set aside the massive indictment of his entire ethos I just landed cleanly, let's assume he isn't a communist megalomaniac, and sincerely believes that the will of the people/people's vote is the proof. (Look, there has to be some vehicle for "proof", or Chomsky is just an idiot who just throws around theories. And, his crying about the media, when we have Dan Rather making up news, is ludicrous. We also have the internet, Noam.) Then, when the people vote to give Republicans full control of government, and they proceed to repeal Obamacare, Chomsky must be for that. And, if the SCOTUS rules against the constitutionality of the mandate before that, Chomsky must also be for that as well. After all, both are clear indications of the legitimacy of the authority of Obamacare: it's unproven. So, let's see how he responds if that happens. That will be the final proof of whether he truly is anarchist, and, whether he actually believes in his own ethos. How much $ do you want to be me that he doesn't contradict himself? I'll take anything up to $10k, because I don't want to hurt you. Edited October 15, 2011 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted October 15, 2011 Share Posted October 15, 2011 Can always count on lybob to provide an easy way to crush him. I had this lined up for Pete, but using it on you is fine: The central tenet of Chomsky's work is: no authority w/o proof of it's legitimacy. If we use the vehicles available, then, clearly the proof is in the people and how they vote. IF there is some other way to prove legitimacy, Chomsky doesn't provide it. The truth is: Chomsky believes only he can determine proof, since he is in the intellectual class, like the communist he is. Only a communist, and not an anarchist, would draw the conclusions you posted above, so, thanks for proving me right. "We should hold our nose and vote for it" = "Some animals are more equal than others" because only a communist, or a tyrant, claims sole determination of what is right, and the right to contradict himself as a matter of convenience by virtue of being in the intellectual class. An anarchist believes in none of that. The anarchist is consistent, the communist is not, by definition. So, again, thanks for proving my point ---------------------------------- And, I can argue it the other way too. If we are to stay in line with Chomsky, and let's set aside the massive indictment of his entire ethos I just landed cleanly, let's assume he isn't a communist megalomaniac, and sincerely believes that the will of the people/people's vote is the proof. (Look, there has to be some vehicle for "proof", or Chomsky is just an idiot who just throws around theories. And, his crying about the media, when we have Dan Rather making up news, is ludicrous. We also have the internet, Noam.) Then, when the people vote to give Republicans full control of government, and they proceed to repeal Obamacare, Chomsky must be for that. And, if the SCOTUS rules against the constitutionality of the mandate before that, Chomsky must also be for that as well. After all, both are clear indications of the legitimacy of the authority of Obamacare: it's unproven. So, let's see how he responds if that happens. That will be the final proof of whether he truly is anarchist, and, whether he actually believes in his own ethos. How much $ do you want to be me that he doesn't contradict himself? I'll take anything up to $10k, because I don't want to hurt you. I am for repealing the affordable health care act, but they need to refuse the dirty money of the health care lobby at that point and open state lines to create competition. Also, the money needs to pay the debt- not added to national defense (which should be cut also) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts