TheRPGSite

Since that other thread has derailed so frakking much, thought I'd start this one for those curious about the original story.

Here is the latest :
http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080820/NEWS01/80820104

QuoteKNOXVILLE — The man accused in a fatal church shooting that left two people dead and six wounded has been indicted on murder charges.

A Knox County grand jury on Wednesday indicted Jim Adkisson on two charges of first-degree murder and six counts of attempted first-degree murder.

The 58-year-old Powell man is being held on $1 million bond. His public defender has said he plans an insanity defense.

A gunman walked into the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church sanctuary July 27 and fired three lethal blasts into the congregation of about 200 before being wrestled to the floor.

Killed were 60-year-old Greg McKendry and 61-year-old Linda Kraeger.

And also this story :
http://www.wbir.com/news/breaking/story.aspx?storyid=62461&catid=29

QuoteJim Adkisson, the man accused of shooting eight people in a West Knoxville church, is facing new charges.

A ten-count indictment was released Wednesday afternoon that includes charges of first degree murder, felony murder and attempted first degree murder.

The grand jury said there was enough evidence suggesting Adkisson intentionally killed church member Greg McKendry with premeditation, as well as Linda Kraeger, and that he attempted to kill six others.

Adkisson was previously charged with McKendry's murder, but the grand jury added first degree murder charges in Kraeger's death.

Police say Adkisson walked into the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church during a service on July 27 and opened fire.

No date has yet been set for an arraignment.  

Several of the victims are now recovering:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25902884/

Appears MSNBC put a slight slant on the news , but this part I believe is most relevant:

QuoteAdkisson's ex-wife once belonged to the church but hadn't attended in years, said Ted Jones, the congregation's president. Police spokesman Darrell DeBusk declined to comment on whether investigators think the ex-wife's link was a factor in the attack.

Adkisson, who had been on the verge of losing his food stamps, remained jailed Tuesday on $1 million bond after being charged with one count of murder. More charges are expected.

The attack Sunday morning lasted only minutes. But the anger behind it may have been building for months, if not years.

My opinion, he went off on people because he had too much anger in him and made bad choices in his life that he wouldn't own up to. The failure of his marriage swayed him to pick a church that she was once associated with

- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;237643My opinion, he went off on people because he had too much anger in him and made bad choices in his life that he wouldn't own up to.

Which made him the perfect target for the right wing hate machine's "blame liberals, blame minorities, blame women, blame jews, blame Clinton, blame everyone but yourself" rhetoric.

ETA:  Insanity defense?  Highly unlikely to work.  Being depressed and lashing out in hatred may be signs of mental distress and generally poor mental health, but that's a far cry from the insanity defense.

I would seriously fear for the future of this country if buying into the right wing rhetoric of blaming liberals and gays and allowing oneself to be extolled into violence becomes a justifiable defense.  That will make the twinkie defense look like nothing.

Quote from: Jackalope;237650Which made him the perfect target for the right wing hate machine's "blame liberals, blame minorities, blame women, blame jews, blame Clinton, blame everyone but yourself" rhetoric.

Jackalope,
 You ruined/derailed one thread.
Pease don't do so a second time.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;237652Jackalope,
 You ruined/derailed one thread.
Pease don't do so a second time.

Hey, I have an idea:  If you don't want to hear about it, stop posting about it!

I know you want to delude yourself into believing that this act somehow had nothing to do with politics, but -- and listen carefully, dickcheese -- I DON'T CARE TO SUPPORT YOUR DELUSIONS AND I WILL NOT BE PARTY TO PERPETUATING THEM.  I am not going to pretend politics had nothing to do with this, because politics have everything to do with it, and ignoring that element ONLY SERVES TO ENSURE THAT IT HAPPENS AGAIN.

You can call it derailing the thread, or ruining it, but you're a fatheaded idiot, and I won't limit my analysis to only that which your feeble pinhead can accept.

I mean what the fuck do you want Ed?  A big pathetic public pity party, where we all Boo Hoo Hoo in public, rend our garments, rub ashes on our face, and beg Mighty Cheesus to explain why bad things happen to good people?  

OH WHY LORD WHY DO MENTALLY DISTURBED WHITE MEN KEEP TARGETING LIBERALS AND GAYS FOR VIOLENCE?  YOUR SERVANT ED HAS EXPLAINED THAT THE HATE LITERATURE FOUND IN HIS CAR AND THE LONG RANTING NOTE THAT MIRRORED THE HATRED IN THOSE BOOKS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS TRAGIC EVENT OR HIS SELECTION OF TARGETS, AND SO LORD SINCE WE HAVE BLINDED OURSELVES TO THE FUCKING OBVIOUS EXPLANATION WE ARE AT A LOSS TO EXPLAIN THIS TRAGEDY!!!  BUT WE FEEL BAD, SO VERY BAD, LOOK AT US IN OUR PUBLIC SYMPATHY AND PITY, ARE WE NOT GOOD PEOPLE?  ARE WE NOT PROPERLY SADDENED WHEN STRANGERS DIE?

Dude, Here's something that will rock your world:  I don't give a fuck about those two people who died, or the six who were wounded.  their lives are meaningless, and certainly of no greater consequences than the lives of all the other people who died that day (the ones we aren't crying over in public).

Ah fuck it.  You're a sick, pathetic piece of shit who is too stupiud to ever understand fucking ANYTHING ABOUT ANYTHING.  I hope you die of a heart attack Ed, you DISGUST me, you miserable sack of shit.

What a waste of human life you are.

PS: And stop using your icon to remind us that you perv on girls way to young for you.

Poor dumb bastard.

I really feel bad for the families involved.

Quote from: shewolf;237686Poor dumb bastard.

I really feel bad for the families involved.

Hey, give Jackie a break. ;)

Quote from: Werekoala;237688Hey, give Jackie a break. ;)

Holy bleep!
You just almost made me fall on the floor laughing, you silly Koala.

Thank you.


- Ed

Of course the guy was insane. It's generally the insane that butcher people. What I'll never get is why that is a valid defense. Seems to me that if you are insane you are more of a danger to people around and should more likely be kept away from the rest of us.

Quote from: CavScout;237717Of course the guy was insane. It's generally the insane that butcher people. What I'll never get is why that is a valid defense. Seems to me that if you are insane you are more of a danger to people around and should more likely be kept away from the rest of us.

He would be put into a mental institution for life, more than likely.

Quote from: jswa;237719He would be put into a mental institution for life, more than likely.

Not necessarily. If you are found "not guilty by reason of insanity" you can be released when your are "cured". AFAIK, there is no minimum term of confinement if found "not guilty by reason of insanity", it's basically an acquittal once you are found to be sane again.

At this point, its now up to a jury or judge to decide at a later time. Jeff told me in a PM that the town is pretty much healing and all that .
 Good to know.

Generally speaking, all the Unitarian Universalist churches I've been to have had really nice welcoming people.

- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;237725Generally speaking, all the Unitarian Universalist churches I've been to have had really nice welcoming people.

Unitarians don't look at me funny when I say things like, "I'm a secular humanist," so they get points in my book.

Quote from: jswa;237728Unitarians don't look at me funny when I say things like, "I'm a secular humanist," so they get points in my book.

Probably because both of those groups include people who try to have an open mind.

- Ed C.

Quote from: CavScout;237717Of course the guy was insane. It's generally the insane that butcher people. What I'll never get is why that is a valid defense. Seems to me that if you are insane you are more of a danger to people around and should more likely be kept away from the rest of us.

Insanity is only a defense when the person is so delusional that they cannot be expected to make decisions as a normal person would.

The insanity defense was first used in defense of Daniel M'Naghten in 1843.  M'Naghten suffered from paranoid delusions, and believe sincerely that Robert Peel -- who organized the first London Metropolitan Police Force (and from whom we get the term "Bobbies") -- had created an organized police force for the sole purpose of hunting down and killing M'Naghten himself, so in an entirely rational act of self-defense, he attempted (spectacularly unsuccessfully) to kill Robert Peel.  The court decided that justice would not be served by imprisoning M'Naghten for an act that would (by 19th century standards)

Likewise, if "John Smith" is a shut-in who covers his windows with tinfoil to keep the mind control rays from scrambling his brain, and you're an EMT who breaks into his house on an emergency call, and he shoots you because he cannot imagine a reality where you are NOT a lizard-beast from Subterra come to harvest his liver, then it's really not fair to send him to jail (where he'll surely die).

Consider events from John Smith's perspective.  If an alien creature with some wicked organ harvesting tool busted down your door, and you had a gun, wouldn't you shoot it?  I sure as hell would.  That is exactly what a reasonable person would do in those circumstances.   So how do you judge the actions of a man who reacts in a reasonable way to a delusional reality that he cannot be convince out of by any amount of evidence?  He should go to a mental institution, as he's clearly a schizophrenic who hasn't received treatment of any sort.

Adkisson was not living in a delusional reality.  He knew who he was shooting, and he knew why he was shooting them.  He also knew that shooting them was wrong.  That's not criminally defensible insanity.

The title of this thread was referring to the possible defense strategy - not whether the OP agrees with it or not.

Zheesh!


- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;237733The title of this thread was referring to the possible defense strategy - not whether the OP agrees with it or not.

Zheesh!


- Ed C.

Sure. But folk got words where folk got words. And folk got words about this, so they're gunna weigh in with their opinions on the issue.

Quote from: jswa;237728Unitarians don't look at me funny when I say things like, "I'm a secular humanist," so they get points in my book.

Unitarians are that far from being secular humanists. I think the only reason they have a church at all is for the get togethers...

I overstate of course. A little.

Quote from: CavScout;237717Of course the guy was insane. It's generally the insane that butcher people. What I'll never get is why that is a valid defense.

It's a very difficult defense to pull off succesfully. Odds are he'll crash and burn using it.

Quote from: gleichman;237740Unitarians are that far from being secular humanists. I think the only reason they have a church at all is for the get togethers...

I overstate of course. A little.

Maybe, maybe not.

 One of the UU Churches that I went to, I discovered that many of them were 'spiritual' or philosophical refigees from more mainstream churches. They could no longer go to those churches - but they wanted the social function of going to something on Sundays and being part of a group.

The need to belong to a group and believe in something can be a pretty strong motivator and desire in people. Also noticed they were pretty intelligent and witty folks for the most part.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;237744Maybe, maybe not.

One of the UU Churches that I went to, I discovered that many of them were 'spiritual' or philosophical refigees from more mainstream churches. They could no longer go to those churches - but they wanted the social function of going to something on Sundays and being part of a group.

The need to belong to a group and believe in something can be a pretty strong motivator and desire in people. Also noticed they were pretty intelligent and witty folks for the most part.

Yeah, I actually think you're right, gleichman (I'm not sure I ever expected to type that - granted, I've only really been active starting a few days ago), and Koltar sums it up nicely.

The insanity defense is going to be extraordinarily difficult to maintain in this case. Even with all the fuckwit rhetoric about the influence of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy on the shooter, he has not made any claim that an outside influence caused him to pull the trigger.

The feeling around here is that people want this man made an example of. I'd bet that it will happen that way.

Quote from: CavScout;237723Not necessarily. If you are found "not guilty by reason of insanity" you can be released when your are "cured". AFAIK, there is no minimum term of confinement if found "not guilty by reason of insanity", it's basically an acquittal once you are found to be sane again.

That being said, places that house the criminally insane tend to be reeeeeeaaaaaal careful about deciding it is OK to let them out again, if nothing else, no institution wants to be the institution that lets out the guy who thinks the TV and his Guinea Pig will kill him unless he feeds hearts to the dumpster down the street.  

Also, that defense almost never works.

Well here's hoping that both sides of the case of fair and honest lawyers, then things might work out for the best jusatice-wise.

That might be a pipe-dream, but hey - this place is supposed to be friendly to things related to pipes.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Jackalope;237662Hey, I have an idea:  If you don't want to hear about it, stop posting about it!

I know you want to delude yourself into believing that this act somehow had nothing to do with politics, but -- and listen carefully, dickcheese -- I DON'T CARE TO SUPPORT YOUR DELUSIONS AND I WILL NOT BE PARTY TO PERPETUATING THEM.  I am not going to pretend politics had nothing to do with this, because politics have everything to do with it, and ignoring that element ONLY SERVES TO ENSURE THAT IT HAPPENS AGAIN.

You can call it derailing the thread, or ruining it, but you're a fatheaded idiot, and I won't limit my analysis to only that which your feeble pinhead can accept.

I mean what the fuck do you want Ed?  A big pathetic public pity party, where we all Boo Hoo Hoo in public, rend our garments, rub ashes on our face, and beg Mighty Cheesus to explain why bad things happen to good people?  

OH WHY LORD WHY DO MENTALLY DISTURBED WHITE MEN KEEP TARGETING LIBERALS AND GAYS FOR VIOLENCE?  YOUR SERVANT ED HAS EXPLAINED THAT THE HATE LITERATURE FOUND IN HIS CAR AND THE LONG RANTING NOTE THAT MIRRORED THE HATRED IN THOSE BOOKS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS TRAGIC EVENT OR HIS SELECTION OF TARGETS, AND SO LORD SINCE WE HAVE BLINDED OURSELVES TO THE FUCKING OBVIOUS EXPLANATION WE ARE AT A LOSS TO EXPLAIN THIS TRAGEDY!!!  BUT WE FEEL BAD, SO VERY BAD, LOOK AT US IN OUR PUBLIC SYMPATHY AND PITY, ARE WE NOT GOOD PEOPLE?  ARE WE NOT PROPERLY SADDENED WHEN STRANGERS DIE?

Dude, Here's something that will rock your world:  I don't give a fuck about those two people who died, or the six who were wounded.  their lives are meaningless, and certainly of no greater consequences than the lives of all the other people who died that day (the ones we aren't crying over in public).

Ah fuck it.  You're a sick, pathetic piece of shit who is too stupiud to ever understand fucking ANYTHING ABOUT ANYTHING.  I hope you die of a heart attack Ed, you DISGUST me, you miserable sack of shit.

What a waste of human life you are.

PS: And stop using your icon to remind us that you perv on girls way to young for you.

Be careful, Ed.

Jackalope is obviously one step away from tracking you down and throwing shit at you.

Unfortunately for the fuckwit, he won't be able to use the Insanity Defense either afterwards.

Quote from: NotYourMonkey;237779That being said, places that house the criminally insane tend to be reeeeeeaaaaaal careful about deciding it is OK to let them out again, if nothing else, no institution wants to be the institution that lets out the guy who thinks the TV and his Guinea Pig will kill him unless he feeds hearts to the dumpster down the street.  

Also, that defense almost never works.

It is floated to a jury something like 5% of the time, and it works about 5% of the time it is tried, or something like that.

John Hinkley Jr, for example, will probably never get out of the institution.

Quote from: StormBringer;237788It is floated to a jury something like 5% of the time, and it works about 5% of the time it is tried, or something like that.

That is about the same figure I've heard.

Quote from: NotYourMonkey;237779if nothing else, no institution wants to be the institution that lets out the guy who thinks the TV and his Guinea Pig will kill him unless he feeds hearts to the dumpster down the street.

I just have to say: :rotfl:

Quote from: StormBringer;237788It is floated to a jury something like 5% of the time, and it works about 5% of the time it is tried, or something like that.

John Hinkley Jr, for example, will probably never get out of the institution.

No, he just gets unsupervised visits where he can leave the facility with no supervision. So he can hang with mom and dad amongst the rest of us. Not exactly prision.

Lorena Bobbitt was found "not guilty by reasons of insanity" and spent a whole three months in a facility before being released.

Quote from: StormBringer;237788It is floated to a jury something like 5% of the time, and it works about 5% of the time it is tried, or something like that.

It actually is successful about 25% of the time that it is used.

Americans have different and weird standards for the insanity defense. Up here in Canada for the insanity defense to work you have to be so crazy that you can no longer recognise the action was wrong, or be unable to appreciate the "quality and nature of the act". There's no such thing as "temporary insanity" - anyone who uses the defense of insanity successfully used to be indefinitely confined to the Penetanguishene institute for the criminally insane, and now is normally committed to Penetang for the length of their sentence had they been found guilty (at least), and then released with monitoring comparable to parole or probation.

This makes people much less likely to claim the defense frivolously.

Quote from: CavScout;237867Lorena Bobbitt was found "not guilty by reasons of insanity" and spent a whole three months in a facility before being released.

That must've really fucked with your male pride.

She cut off some dude's dick, so she should've been jailed for fucking life!!!

Also: She called 9-11 and told 'em where to find the man's little buddy and they sewed it back on real nice.

I'm making a call for better examples to illustrate posts from e'erybody!

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;238020Americans have different and weird standards for the insanity defense. Up here in Canada for the insanity defense to work you have to be so crazy that you can no longer recognise the action was wrong, or be unable to appreciate the "quality and nature of the act". There's no such thing as "temporary insanity" - anyone who uses the defense of insanity successfully used to be indefinitely confined to the Penetanguishene institute for the criminally insane, and now is normally committed to Penetang for the length of their sentence had they been found guilty (at least), and then released with monitoring comparable to parole or probation.

This makes people much less likely to claim the defense frivolously.

Temporary insanity IIRC is more along the lines of something happened that puts a person so far over the edge that a response like murder becomes logical at the time. Like a crime of passion.

Wikipedia : Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 17, states that a person accused of a crime can be judged not guilty by reason of insanity if "the defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts."

Quote from: CavScout;237867No, he just gets unsupervised visits where he can leave the facility with no supervision. So he can hang with mom and dad amongst the rest of us. Not exactly prision.

Maybe.  Again, no institution wants to be the one that lets the guy on an unsupervised visit where he goes and does something horrible.

Quote from: CavScout;237867Lorena Bobbitt was found "not guilty by reasons of insanity" and spent a whole three months in a facility before being released.

How many wangers has she snipped off since then?  Also, anecdote does not equal data.

Quote from: shewolf;238084Temporary insanity IIRC is more along the lines of something happened that puts a person so far over the edge that a response like murder becomes logical at the time. Like a crime of passion.

Wikipedia : Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 17, states that a person accused of a crime can be judged not guilty by reason of insanity if "the defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts."

It's temporary insanity in particular I'm thinking of. No such defense exists in Canadian law. It is referred to as "losing one's temper".

Quote from: shewolf;238084Temporary insanity IIRC is more along the lines of something happened that puts a person so far over the edge that a response like murder becomes logical at the time. Like a crime of passion.

A crime of passion is not an example of temporary insanity.

Your doctor prescribes three different medications for you, and forgets to check their interactions, and the combination of two causes crushing despair and depression.  Convinced that life is not worth living, and that all of your children are the devil, you drown your infant baby in the sink before making a failed attempt at suicide.  As you recover in the hospital, doctors realize the cause of your intense depression and clear the drugs from your system.  Finally thinking clearly for the first time in weeks, you are struck by the terribleness of your crimes and you plead temporary insanity.

That's why the defense exists.

Quote from: jswa;238064That must've really fucked with your male pride.

She cut off some dude's dick, so she should've been jailed for fucking life!!!

Also: She called 9-11 and told 'em where to find the man's little buddy and they sewed it back on real nice.

I'm making a call for better examples to illustrate posts from e'erybody!

Impressive rant; you really beat the crap out of those straw men you set up for yourself. Congratulations.

Quote from: CavScout;238101Impressive rant; you really beat the crap out of those straw men you set up for yourself. Congratulations.

I think straw man is CavScout's favorite phrase.

Quote from: NotYourMonkey;238088Maybe.  Again, no institution wants to be the one that lets the guy on an unsupervised visit where he goes and does something horrible.

He is on unsupervised visits...

QuoteHow many wangers has she snipped off since then?

Relevant how?

QuoteAlso, anecdote does not equal data.

Is that how you dismiss data that does jive with your perception?

Quote from: jswa;238110I think straw man is CavScout's favorite phrase.

Just calling it as I see it. Maybe you should work on responding to what people actually say and not what you simply want to respond to.

Quote from: CavScout;238114Just calling it as I see it. Maybe you should work on responding to what people actually say and not what you simply want to respond to.

This is the internetz, my friend. People only respond to what they want to respond to.

I was just refuting your example as irrelevant to the overall point is all. There are people here better qualified to do the rest.

Quote from: jswa;238119This is the internetz, my friend. People only respond to what they want to respond to.

I was just refuting your example as irrelevant to the overall point is all. There are people here better qualified to do the rest.

You didn't refute anything. You ranted about something that wasn't even said.

Quote from: CavScout;238134You didn't refute anything. You ranted about something that wasn't even said.

Holy shit. If that isn't doublespeak I don't know what is.

(The topic being someone who shot up a church using the insanity defense)
CS: People who use the insanity defense can be released
Me: Well he shot up a church, so it's not likely
CS: Lorena Bobbit was released after two months
Me: WTF!? How is that even relevant!?
CS: Psh. Straw men or whatevr.
Me: !?!?
CS: I didn't even say anything about Lorena Bobbit.

Quote from: CavScout;238134You didn't refute anything. You ranted about something that wasn't even said.

You can chant that mantra as much as you want, the point is you are a stupid douchebag that refuses to understand that you make virtually unsupportable points, then back them up with anecdotes.

Even if you were to stumble upon a vaild point by accident, it would be drowned out by the unadulterated pile of stupid and bad argument you bury it under.

You two lovers or something?

Seriously.

Quote from: CavScout;238288You two lovers or something?

Seriously.

Oh, a homosexual joke!  Does your wit ever begin?

Quote from: StormBringer;238293Oh, a homosexual joke!  Does your wit ever begin?

Was it? I figured at least one of you was dickless. :hatsoff:

Quote from: CavScout;238295Was it? I figured at least one of you was dickless. :hatsoff:

Man, that one has to be a winner in 3rd period Biology class.

Quote from: StormBringer;238297Man, that one has to be a winner in 3rd period Biology class.

Someone's feathers ruffled?

Quote from: StormBringer;238142You can chant that mantra as much as you want, the point is you are a stupid douchebag that refuses to understand that you make virtually unsupportable points, then back them up with anecdotes.

Even if you were to stumble upon a vaild point by accident, it would be drowned out by the unadulterated pile of stupid and bad argument you bury it under.

Are you describing CavScout, or every conservative on this site?  Because I honestly can't tell.

Except John Morrow.  John Morrow makes solid points and backs them up.  They just never have anything to do with the topic at hand, and always served to change the subject to something else so that he doesn't have to defend his side.

But yeah, other than John, you just described every right leaning person on this board.

Quote from: CavScout;238334Someone's feathers ruffled?

No, just demonstrating that I am better at any tack you choose than you will ever be.

Quote from: StormBringer;238354No, just demonstrating that I am better at any tack you choose than you will ever be.

You must be an interweb god!

:respect:

Thank you CavScout for muddying up what was meant as an infornative thread for the first few pages.

 And for the first few pages it mostly succeeded.


- Ed  C.

Quote from: Koltar;238376Thank you CavScout for muddying up what was meant as an infornative thread for the first few pages.

 And for the first few pages it mostly succeeded.


- Ed  C.

Did you miss the 2nd post in this thread? Seriously....

Quote from: CavScout;238355You must be an interweb god!

And yet, you remain a douchebag.

Quote from: StormBringer;238418And yet, you remain a douchebag.

But, I love you too.

Quote from: CavScout;238460But, I love you too.

As do all.

Quote from: StormBringer;238580As do all.

You are my hero.

Quote from: CavScout;238605You are my hero.

I am the wind beneath your wings.

Quote from: StormBringer;238621I am the wind beneath your wings.

Always on your knees, eh?

Quote from: CavScout;238640Always on your knees, eh?

You must be thinking of your mom.

Quote from: StormBringer;238643You must be thinking of your mom.

You're both women, that's where you should be.

Quote from: CavScout;238686You're both women, that's where you should be.

CavScout just said his mom should be on her knees, because she's a woman.

I just want to make sure everyone catches that.

Quote from: Jackalope;238727CavScout just said his mom should be on her knees, because she's a woman.

I just want to make sure everyone catches that.

It was only a matter of time.

The power of those two; it's so underwhelming.

Quote from: CavScout;238754The power of those two; it's so underwhelming.

Not so much as your sagacity, however.

Quote from: StormBringer;238767Not so much as your sagacity, however.

I don't know what makes you so stupid, but it really works!

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;238090It's temporary insanity in particular I'm thinking of. No such defense exists in Canadian law. It is referred to as "losing one's temper".

Truth be told though, any of the insanity defenses are applied significantly less than is commonly believed, and certainly far rarer than media and TV would like to make it out.

It's incredibly hard to actually succeed in one, and the resulting alternative really isn't the cushy alternative to jail time it's portrayed as.

Quote from: CavScout;238773I don't know what makes you so stupid, but it really works!

Yes, it looks like you need Snappy Comebacks, Vol II.

Quote from: J Arcane;238779Truth be told though, any of the insanity defenses are applied significantly less than is commonly believed, and certainly far rarer than media and TV would like to make it out.

It's incredibly hard to actually succeed in one, and the resulting alternative really isn't the cushy alternative to jail time it's portrayed as.

Actually, according to a 1991 eight-state study commissioned by the National Institute of Mental Health, the defense is succesful 25% of the time.

Quote from: StormBringer;238789Yes, it looks like you need Snappy Comebacks, Vol II.

You've got to check out the revised edition.

Quote from: CavScout;238791Actually, according to a 1991 eight-state study commissioned by the National Institute of Mental Health, the defense is succesful 25% of the time.

You should trade in that comebacks book for a primer in math (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_g2699/is_0005/ai_2699000509):

QuoteSuccessful NGRI defenses are rare. While rates vary from state to state, on average less than one defendant in 100-0.85 percent-actually raises the insanity defense nationwide. Interestingly, states with higher rates of NGRI defenses tend to have lower success rates for NGRI defenses; the percentage of all defendants found NGRI is fairly constant, at around 0.26 percent.

Which is just under 1% to about a quarter of a percent.

But at least we can see where you got your "25" number.

Quote from: StormBringer;238798You should trade in that comebacks book for a primer in math (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_g2699/is_0005/ai_2699000509):

Which is just under 1% to aboua a quarter of a percent.

But at least we can see where you got your "25" number.

You do know, that when a specific study is referenced finding another unrelated study to say the numbers referenced were wrong is... well... idiotic.

"The study showed that only 26 percent of those insanity pleas were argued successfully."1 (http://www.healthyminds.org/insanitydefense.cfm)

"...court cases involved the insanity defense, and that of those, only around one in four was successful. Ninety percent of the insanity defendants had been diagnosed with a mental illness. About half of the cases had been indicted for violent crimes; fifteen percent were murder cases."2 (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/crime/trial/faqs.html)

"A 1991 state survey funded by the National Institute of Mental Health reportedly found that the insanity defense....and that such a defense was successful only 26 percent of the time"3 (http://www.newsaic.com/ftvlo15-24i.html)

But hey... hey don't let that deter you.

Quote from: CavScout;238806"A 1991 state survey funded by the National Institute of Mental Health reportedly found that the insanity defense....and that such a defense was successful only 26 percent of the time"3 (http://www.newsaic.com/ftvlo15-24i.html)

But hey... hey don't let that deter you.

Out of the roughly 1% of the instances where they were invoked.  Giving us a final number of successful Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity cases of...

.26%!  One quarter of one percent!  So throwing around 25% like it is some huge number of insanity defences is really, really dumb.  Especially when people with basic math skills are present.

Could you find an older report, though?  If you could cite a report from the early 80s, you might strengthen your case.

An did you really just cite a page called FootnoteTV?  I mean, that explains a lot.

Quote from: StormBringer;238831Out of the roughly 1% of the instances where they were invoked.  Giving us a final number of successful Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity cases of...

.26%!  One quarter of one percent!  So throwing around 25% like it is some huge number of insanity defences is really, really dumb.  Especially when people with basic math skills are present.

Could you find an older report, though?  If you could cite a report from the early 80s, you might strengthen your case.

An did you really just cite a page called FootnoteTV?  I mean, that explains a lot.

I cited three sites that reference the same report. That you ignored the others to "make fun" of one is telling.

We won't mention you are looking to make a number something it isn't.

Besides, you claimed "and it works about 5% of the time it is tried (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=237788&postcount=25)". This is utter bullshit. A number invented by you out of thin air it seems.

As for the study's age, you have a newer one? If you do, please share.

Again, the defense is succesful about 25% of the time it is used.

Quote from: CavScout;238881I cited three sites that reference the same report. That you ignored the others to "make fun" of one is telling.

We won't mention you are looking to make a number something it isn't.

This from the one who is challenged by basic math.  You go ahead and tell me what 25% of 1% is, then.

QuoteBesides, you claimed "and it works about 5% of the time it is tried (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=237788&postcount=25)". This is utter bullshit. A number invented by you out of thin air it seems.

More or less.  But, for bonus points, you can tell me what 5% of 5% is.

QuoteAs for the study's age, you have a newer one? If you do, please share.

I linked to a newer one, douchebag.

QuoteAgain, the defense is succesful about 25% of the time it is used.

And how often is it used?

wow...

SB - you were wrong because you said it worked 5% of the time and then claimed it was tried 5% of the time; both figures appear to be incorrect. However, your number of combing how often it is tried times how often it's successful appears to be in line with using the numbers from the study - the same as if you took 1% and 25%, respectively.

CS - you're right that the studies appear to indicate it is successful 25% of the time, but you're wrong if you think if those studies show any more than SB's combined figure. EDIT: Which appears to be what you were implying back in post..what...73...when you originally challenged the success rate. EDIT2: Sorry, post 29.

So you were both right, and you were both wrong.

Quote from: James J Skach;238903wow...

SB - you were wrong because you said it worked 5% of the time and then claimed it was tried 5% of the time; both figures appear to be incorrect. However, your number of combing how often it is tried times how often it's successful appears to be in line with using the numbers from the study - the same as if you took 1% and 25%, respectively.

So you were both right, and you were both wrong.

Oh, yeah, I totally guesstimated the numbers I used originally, because I knew the success rate was very small.  At that point, it wasn't necessary to have the exact figures at hand, but it would have saved a good deal of headache, looking back.

Quote from: StormBringer;238897This from the one who is challenged by basic math.  You go ahead and tell me what 25% of 1% is, then.


More or less.  But, for bonus points, you can tell me what 5% of 5% is.


I linked to a newer one, douchebag.


And how often is it used?

Like I said, studies showed it to be successful about 1 in 4 times it was used. To dispute this number you tried using an unrelated number. Funny, you actually think that cases that don't involve an insanity defense count towards lowering the success rate when it is used. You've latched onto a number that includes cases where it's not even being used.

You link has no reference to a study's date nor does it actually break down the success rate against the times it is actually used.

Arguing against my statement that apples are red by pointing out that oranges are orange is rather sad on your part.

Holy Frakking Kahleess!!

My faith of sorts has been restored.

 You guys got the thread back on topic!1?! (There is a God, this is a shallow proof)


- Ed C.

Quote from: James J Skach;238903CS - you're right that the studies appear to indicate it is successful 25% of the time, but you're wrong if you think if those studies show any more than SB's combined figure. EDIT: Which appears to be what you were implying back in post..what...73...when you originally challenged the success rate. EDIT2: Sorry, post 29.

"It actually is successful about 25% of the time that it is used." (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=237870&postcount=29)

That's what I said in that post. Nothing more and nothing less. When it is used, it is succesful about 1 in 4 times.

I am not worried about how successful or unsuccessful it is when it is not used as defense.

Quote from: CavScout;238930Like I said, studies showed it to be successful about 1 in 4 times it was used. To dispute this number you tried using an unrelated number. Funny, you actually think that cases that don't involve an insanity defense count towards lowering the success rate when it is used. You've latched onto a number that includes cases where it's not even being used.

Comedy gold.

QuoteYou link has no reference to a study's date nor does it actually break down the success rate against the times it is actually used.

Gale Encyclopedia of Psychology, 2nd ed. Gale Group, 2001.

QuoteArguing against my statement that apples are red by pointing out that oranges are orange is rather sad on your part.

Comedy platinum.

I take it you concede then.

Quote from: CavScout;238938"It actually is successful about 25% of the time that it is used." (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=237870&postcount=29)

That's what I said in that post. Nothing more and nothing less. When it is used, it is succesful about 1 in 4 times.

I am not worried about how successful or unsuccessful it is when it is not used as defense.

Hey, look, it's no skin off my nose if a disinterested third party offers an olive branch to both sides and you want to be the one to ignore it. So let it be known that I'm not saying this out of spite...

CS, your point, while true, is meaningless. What does it matter how many times it's successful independent of how many times it's tried? It's as if while debating the effect of water vapor on climate change with SB I said the sky was aqua, and you cut in to let us know that studies actually showed the sky was blue.

And perhaps that was what SB was trying to point out. But I'm aware that you two have a bit of a history already (amazing!) and appear to be diametrically opposed ideologically. So the slightest disagreement immediately escalates into 6th grade name-calling. Perhaps it would just be best to put each other on ignore?

I don't want to come across as the post police (like some folks here), I'm just looking to help....

I wasn't trying to be the Post Police.

 I'm just the guy that started the thread.

Then I saw 2-3 guys go into a surreal back & forth about which one could do the bigger putdown on the other for 4 or 5 pages.


- Ed C.

Quote from: James J Skach;238950Hey, look, it's no skin off my nose if a disinterested third party offers an olive branch to both sides and you want to be the one to ignore it. So let it be known that I'm not saying this out of spite...

CS, your point, while true, is meaningless. What does it matter how many times it's successful independent of how many times it's tried? It's as if while debating the effect of water vapor on climate change with SB I said the sky was aqua, and you cut in to let us know that studies actually showed the sky was blue.

And perhaps that was what SB was trying to point out. But I'm aware that you two have a bit of a history already (amazing!) and appear to be diametrically opposed ideologically. So the slightest disagreement immediately escalates into 6th grade name-calling. Perhaps it would just be best to put each other on ignore?

I don't want to come across as the post police (like some folks here), I'm just looking to help....

Response to the bold: I think you need to re-read what I said, and what I have cited. I am not citing anything "independent of how many times it's tried". In fact, the 1 in 4 is tied directly to "how many times it's tried".

Exercise:
10,000 felonies trials
100 use insanity as a defense
25 get NGBRI acquittals
If I ask you how effective insanity is as a defense, does it matter is the other 9,500 trials didn't even bother to use the defense? No, it doesn't. Just like if I ask you want your baseball batting average is, I don't need to know how many times other players on your team where in the batter's box. It's irrelevant to the question.

Koltar is right.  Shouldn't have got sucked into that mess however briefly.

Quote from: Koltar;238958I wasn't trying to be the Post Police.

 I'm just the guy that started the thread.

Then I saw 2-3 guys go into a surreal back & forth about which one could do the bigger putdown on the other for 4 or 5 pages.


- Ed C.

You need to boost your posts per page, Ed; I'm still on page one.

Quote from: CavScout;238988Just like if I ask you want your baseball batting average is, I don't need to know how many times other players on your team where in the batter's box. It's irrelevant to the question.

Yes, but you won't have an average unless you know how many times someone is at bat the whole season, not just at Wrigley Field.

On top of that, you have repeatedly said "...the defense is succesful about 25% of the time it is used."  So you know very well that is a measure of the success rate in regards to the total number of cases.

I mean, for God's sake, Mr Skach came in here to give you an out, and you basically told him to fuck off.  What's next on your little tour of self-destruction?  Or are you going straight for the meltdown after this?

Quote from: CavScout;238988Response to the bold: I think you need to re-read what I said, and what I have cited. I am not citing anything "independent of how many times it's tried". In fact, the 1 in 4 is tied directly to "how many times it's tried".

My bad - let me restate what I meant to say: when discussing the impact of NGBI, it's somewhat meaningless to cite effectiveness without reference to how many times it's tried. Otherwise, you can't understand its overall impact. In a more focused discussion, specifically about the effectiveness of the defense in those cases its tried, it's a very important number.

Quote from: CavScout;238988If I ask you how effective insanity is as a defense, does it matter is the other 9,500 trials didn't even bother to use the defense? No, it doesn't. Just like if I ask you want your baseball batting average is, I don't need to know how many times other players on your team where in the batter's box. It's irrelevant to the question.

It is if you're trying to figure out the team batting average. Why you decided to bound the discussion in the way you did is the unknown here...

Quote from: James J Skach;239004It is if you're trying to figure out the team batting average. Why you decided to bound the discussion in the way you did is the unknown here...

Because 25% is a much scarier number than reality.

Quote from: StormBringer;239002Yes, but you won't have an average unless you know how many times someone is at bat the whole season, not just at Wrigley Field.

On top of that, you have repeatedly said "...the defense is succesful about 25% of the time it is used."  So you know very well that is a measure of the success rate in regards to the total number of cases.

I mean, for God's sake, Mr Skach came in here to give you an out, and you basically told him to fuck off.  What's next on your little tour of self-destruction?  Or are you going straight for the meltdown after this?

How succesful a specific defense is is based on how many times it is used. Not on how many total court cases there are. A case where the defense wasn't used is not an indication that the defense failed in that case.

But hey, keep trying.

Quote from: James J Skach;239004My bad - let me restate what I meant to say: when discussing the impact of NGBI, it's somewhat meaningless to cite effectiveness without reference to how many times it's tried. Otherwise, you can't understand its overall impact. In a more focused discussion, specifically about the effectiveness of the defense in those cases its tried, it's a very important number.
It is if you're trying to figure out the team batting average. Why you decided to bound the discussion in the way you did is the unknown here...

We are discussing the impact of NGBI in a case it has been invoked in. Tying in cases where NGBI has not been invoked is pure folly.

Quote from: StormBringer;239006Because 25% is a much scarier number than reality.

Except it is reality.

Quote from: StormBringer;239006Because 25% is a much scarier number than reality.

See, this is where I pull back a bit. I don't try to assign too many motivations.

So I went back and look and I've got to call you out a bit, SB. Because if you go back and look, this is all in response to a statement by NotYourMonkey - who says "Also, that defense almost never works." To which you, Stormbringer, respond:

Quote from: StormBringer;237788It is floated to a jury something like 5% of the time, and it works about 5% of the time it is tried, or something like that.

So I can see a bit more validity than I thought in CavScout correcting that particular portion of your assessment.

So I go back to my original olive branch and leave it at that...and I'm out...

Quote from: James J Skach;239025So I can see a bit more validity than I thought in CavScout correcting that particular portion of your assessment.

Which, you will note, I haven't denied.  The original numbers were a guess extrapolated from the end result, which was around a quarter of a percent success rate.

Quote from: CavScout;239020We are discussing the impact of NGBI in a case it has been invoked in. Tying in cases where NGBI has not been invoked is pure folly.

And how, exactly, do you discuss the impact of NGBI in a case where it hasn't been invoked?

If you want to know how many cases where NGBI has been successful, you first need to know in how many cases it was invoked.  1%.  You can then talk about how many of those cases it was successful.  25%.  If you then calculate how many cases that is, you will find that it is (magically) .25%, and has remained more or less constant for a number of years.

So, if you want to guesstimate the number of defendants who were ruled NGBI for a given year, you can apply that final number to the total cases and arrive at the figure you want.

For example:  10,000 cases for the year, .25% could be expected to be ruled NGBI, giving us a whopping 25.  Out of 10,000.

You have disingenuously ignored the percent at which it is invoked specifically to make the numbers look bigger, likely because most people would skip the part where they would want to figure out how many of those 10,000 cases even had the defence invoked.  You have failed to even once mention how many cases have the defence invoked, to the pont that it appears you are purposefully avoiding it.  Almost as though that line of argumentation would increase the odds that people skip right to the 25% number you keep harping on and think there were 2,500 of those cases that were ruled NGBI.

Of course, that kind of thing would be fear-mongering propaganda, in the most generous of definitions.  Others might call it malicious disingenuity.  Some might even call that line of reasoning wilful and intentional lying.

My guess is that you are not smart enough to pull off that kind of calculated manipulation, so you are probably getting your strategy and talking points right out of a guide of some kind; online or dead tree.

Quote from: CavScout;239021Except it is reality.

I know you think you are clever and all, but it would behove you to step back and re-consider your strategy.

Quote from: StormBringer;239053And how, exactly, do you discuss the impact of NGBI in a case where it hasn't been invoked?

If you want to know how many cases where NGBI has been successful, you first need to know in how many cases it was invoked.  1%.  You can then talk about how many of those cases it was successful.  25%.  If you then calculate how many cases that is, you will find that it is (magically) .25%, and has remained more or less constant for a number of years.

So, if you want to guesstimate the number of defendants who were ruled NGBI for a given year, you can apply that final number to the total cases and arrive at the figure you want.

For example:  10,000 cases for the year, .25% could be expected to be ruled NGBI, giving us a whopping 25.  Out of 10,000.

You have disingenuously ignored the percent at which it is invoked specifically to make the numbers look bigger, likely because most people would skip the part where they would want to figure out how many of those 10,000 cases even had the defence invoked.  You have failed to even once mention how many cases have the defence invoked, to the pont that it appears you are purposefully avoiding it.  Almost as though that line of argumentation would increase the odds that people skip right to the 25% number you keep harping on and think there were 2,500 of those cases that were ruled NGBI.

Of course, that kind of thing would be fear-mongering propaganda, in the most generous of definitions.  Others might call it malicious disingenuity.  Some might even call that line of reasoning wilful and intentional lying.

My guess is that you are not smart enough to pull off that kind of calculated manipulation, so you are probably getting your strategy and talking points right out of a guide of some kind; online or dead tree.

NGBRI success rate is calculated by NGBRI Wins / Total NGBRI Attempts. It is not NGBRI Wins / (Total NGBRI Attempts + all the other cases where it wasn't used).

Instead of owning up to you made up numbers and false assumption that it is rarely effective, you've attempted to change the discussion to another topic.

But I guess the tactic has worked for you before...

Quote from: CavScout;239150NGBRI success rate is calculated by NGBRI Wins / Total NGBRI Attempts. It is not NGBRI Wins / (Total NGBRI Attempts + all the other cases where it wasn't used).

Instead of owning up to you made up numbers and false assumption that it is rarely effective, you've attempted to change the discussion to another topic.

But I guess the tactic has worked for you before...

Keep this tactic up, so I won't need to respond at all in the future.

Quote from: StormBringer;239159Keep this tactic up, so I won't need to respond at all in the future.

Don't make promises you won't keep.

Quote from: CavScout;239187Don't make promises you won't keep.

no u

Quote from: StormBringer;239189no u

I think your keyboard broke....

Quote from: CavScout;239192I think your keyboard broke....

No.  No, it really didn't.

Quote from: StormBringer;239195No.  No, it really didn't.

So, just your mind then?

Quote from: CavScout;239199So, just your mind then?

No.  I know you want to think your clever argumentation is Byzantine in its logic and Machiavellian in its subtlety, but you honestly cast aspersions like a 13 year old, and your ability to raise and defend a point isn't even as sophisticated as that.

So, you can continue on with this, if you so choose, but I think I have done more than my part to demonstrate your all-encompassing inability to function on even a basic level.

As far as the insanity defence goes, I have a feeling that conservative caricatures like Coulter and O'Reilly would be better off if he didn't, as perceptions of their uncharitable views on liberals might not come off well in the court of public opinion.   If he does claim insanity, there will be extensive digging around in his background, and that includes why he condemned liberals after his arrest.

Quote from: StormBringer;239203No.  I know you want to think your clever argumentation is Byzantine in its logic and Machiavellian in its subtlety, but you honestly cast aspersions like a 13 year old, and your ability to raise and defend a point isn't even as sophisticated as that.

So, you can continue on with this, if you so choose, but I think I have done more than my part to demonstrate your all-encompassing inability to function on even a basic level.

I see someone needs a nap.

Quote from: CavScout;239211I see someone needs a nap.

no u

Quote from: StormBringer;239212no u

I knew you couldn't walk away.

Quote from: CavScout;239213I knew you couldn't walk away.

It's too much fun slapping you around.

Quote from: StormBringer;239216It's too much fun slapping you around.

You and Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf are alike. You both like to say you are winning.

Quote from: CavScout;239227You and Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf are alike. You both like to say you are winning.

Ah, I am a terrorist now.  Nice Godwin.

Quote from: StormBringer;239310Ah, I am a terrorist now.  Nice Godwin.

Only a true bigot would assume the name Mohammed means terrorist. I suppose I over-reached by assuming you had, at least, a 6th grade education.

Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf was just a dumb ass like you; one who liked to declare victory when facts simply didn't support it.

Okay - I'm calling a "foul" on that last post. Not every American school system teaches the same stuff in 5th grade and 6th grade. Thats a hell of an assumption that most schools would teach that name - let alone assume an adult would retain knowledge of him 20 years later. (as an adult. )

Most people, even well-educated ones do not remember perfectly stuff they learned in 5th grade, 6th grade and 7th grade.  They DO remember the stuff that they use day to day and week to week. If you are in an academic career  - then History and the like shows up nin your daily conversation more often. If you are a manager or assistant manager at a reatil store - then it doesn't . (of course, depends on what the store sellls - many of our regular customers are history buffs, so it actually comes up in conversation where I work)

I'm just saying - let's be fair about other people's level of education.  A person may have been a GREAT A+ student all the time when they were a teenager - but they are not going to recall names, historical figures, and the like perfectly 15 to 20 years later.

Also, some people may be perfectly eloquent in person - but lousy typists when at a keyboard.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;239321kay - I'm calling a "foul" on that last post. Not every American school system teaches the same stuff in 5th grade and 6th grade. Thats a hell of an assumption that most schools would teach that name - let alone assume an adult would retain knowledge of him 20 years later. (as an adult. )

Most people, even well-educated ones do not remember perfectly stuff they learned in 5th grade, 6th grade and 7th grade.  They DO remember the stuff that they use day to day and week to week. If you are in an academic career  - then History and the like shows up nin your daily conversation more often. If you are a manager or assistant manager at a reatil store - then it doesn't . (of course, depends on what the store sellls - many of our regular customers are history buffs, so it actually comes up in conversation where I work)

I'm just saying - let's be fair about other people's level of education.  A person may have been a GREAT A+ student all the time when they were a teenager - but they are not going to recall names, historical figures, and the like perfectly 15 to 20 years later.

Also, some people may be perfectly eloquent in person - but lousy typists when at a keyboard.


- Ed C.

How educated does one have to be to make use of Google? Besides, we're talking 2003, not 1980 or 1990...

Besides... a middle-eastern sounding does not make one a terrorist.

Quote from: CavScout;239317Only a true bigot would assume the name Mohammed means terrorist. I suppose I over-reached by assuming you had, at least, a 6th grade education.

Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf was just a dumb ass like you; one who liked to declare victory when facts simply didn't support it.

And why, exactly, are we in Iraq?  Who were Iraq allegedly supporting to provoke us to invade?  Puppies?  Teddy bear picnics?

Your feeble attempts to impugn me are laughable.  You knew exactly what you were saying and how it would be perceived.  There are hundreds of examples you could have used.  This one requires something of that 6th grade education you speak of:

(http://www.therpgsite.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=45&stc=1&d=1219586476)

Or, perhaps you could have used an aphorism:

(http://www.fotosearch.com/bthumb/DGV/DGV045/72983839.jpg)

Naturally, that would require a level of coherence on your part that is sorely lacking.  Also, you would have to know the meaning of 'aphorism'.

You could also use a sports metaphor.

(http://www.nba.com/media/warriors/crash_agony.jpg)

Again, that would require something more than that primary school education you mentioned.

No, your ploy to associate me with terrorist activity is quite transparent.  It's still a Godwin, you are still not good at presenting a point, and with this latest stunt, have earned your promotion from douchebag to shitbag.

For my part, I think I have sufficiently demonstrated that you are utterly incapable of participating in a normal discussion, and I apologize to Ed for my part in derailing the thread.  In that light, allow me to re-print my earlier attempt to get back on-topic:

As far as the insanity defence goes, I have a feeling that conservative caricatures like Coulter and O'Reilly would be better off if he didn't, as perceptions of their uncharitable views on liberals might not come off well in the court of public opinion. If he does claim insanity, there will be extensive digging around in his background, and that includes why he condemned liberals after his arrest.

Man, you'll still on the terrorist angle, eh? I'd suggest reading what was posted. Lookinig up who you were likened to and do something you haven't done yet in this thread, think.

I'll help you out, this is what I said:
"You and Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf are alike. You both like to say you are winning."

Figure out who he is, and what he is famous for (and being a terrorist is not it). That, my slow-witted friend, is the key.

That you flail about now trying to explain away your bigotry is quite amusing.

Quote from: CavScout;239424Man, you'll still on the terrorist angle, eh? I'd suggest reading what was posted. Lookinig up who you were likened to and do something you haven't done yet in this thread, think.

I'll help you out, this is what I said:
"You and Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf are alike. You both like to say you are winning."

Figure out who he is, and what he is famous for (and being a terrorist is not it). That, my slow-witted friend, is the key.

That you flail about now trying to explain away your bigotry is quite amusing.

I know what you were referring to.  It was stupid.  It's still stupid.  You specifically chose that example, when there were hundreds of others to use.  You were trying to associate me with it for a very specific reason.  You can repeat your flat out lies as often as you like.  In fact, the more you do so, the worse you look, so keep at it.  You will prove my point for me.

Quote from: StormBringer;239428I know what you were referring to.  It was stupid.  It's still stupid.  You specifically chose that example, when there were hundreds of others to use.  You were trying to associate me with it for a very specific reason.  You can repeat your flat out lies as often as you like.  In fact, the more you do so, the worse you look, so keep at it.  You will prove my point for me.

It is very true I chose the association for a very specific reason. Of course, it's not the reason you are jumping through hoops to try and fabricate.

(http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/968/baghdadbobquoteln2.jpg)

I am fairly certain only the most ardent of bigots would assume terrorism. For everyone else, that line of thinking does not even track. That you are sticking to it is amusing. Again, just having a middle-eastern sounding name does not make one a terrorist.

Quote from: CavScout;239431I am fairly certain only the most ardent of bigots would assume terrorism. For everyone else, that line of thinking does not even track. That you are sticking to it is amusing. Again, just having a middle-eastern sounding name does not make one a terrorist.

The more you say that, the more obvious it becomes that is the exact reason you used that example.

Your 'trap' was ineffective, because you forgot to cover your tracks after you sprang it far too early.  Also, try to be a bit less obvious next time.  I mean, honestly, you yap about a '6th grade education', when anyone in 6th grade at the time would be about 17 or 18 now.  While it may come as a surprise to you, there was a bit of world history before that.  Of course, that lack of a sense of history tracks fairly well with the solipsism you consistently demonstrate, which is usually most evident in people who are 18-25 or so.

(http://www.thetick.ws/images/thehumantonandhandy.jpg)

Read a book.

Quote from: StormBringer;239439The more you say that, the more obvious it becomes that is the exact reason you used that example.

Your 'trap' was ineffective, because you forgot to cover your tracks after you sprang it far too early.  Also, try to be a bit less obvious next time.  I mean, honestly, you yap about a '6th grade education', when anyone in 6th grade at the time would be about 17 or 18 now.  While it may come as a surprise to you, there was a bit of world history before that.  Of course, that lack of a sense of history tracks fairly well with the solipsism you consistently demonstrate, which is usually most evident in people who are 18-25 or so.

Keep flailing about my bigoted friend. You should have just said you thought he was someone else, or got the name mixed up. That you continue to try and defend your untenable position betrays you.

(http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/7259/baghdadbob1jk0.jpg)

Just like good old Baghdad Bob, you can't admit defeat.

PS: I hope those with a 6th grade education can make use of search engines to find information on things they are not certain of. It's best to just admit you had no idea who the guy was, just assumed some Arabic terrorist and made a dumb comment and got called on it.

Getting Back to what this thread was intended as....

There is now a wikipedia page about this event that looks like it tries to sort out facts surrounding the shooting;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Tennessee_Unitarian_Church_Shooting

By-the-way, the investigators singling out books by "right-wing" authors reminds me how in the 1980s if a reporter or police investigator found any evidence of Dungeons & Dragons book or RPGs at a home or crime secene - they would immediately mention. This may just be a new 'boggey-man' or hook for press stories to lead with...and yet probably have nothing to do with the real cause of the crime or event.

The guy wasn't much of a 'conservative', he was worried about food stamps...but I digress....

There was a hero or two involved in this story, here is one example:

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/jul/27/church-shooting-leaves-several-injured/

QuoteMcKendry confronted the gunman during a children's presentation of the musical, "Annie Jr!"

"He was the first person he encountered," according to Owen.

"Greg McKendry stood in the front of the gunman and took the blast to protect the rest of us," witness Barbara Kemper said.

"Make sure everyone knows that Greg McKendry was a hero, a total hero," Taylor Bessette said of the man who has been his foster father just a few months.

- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;239590By-the-way, the investigators singling out books by "right-wing" authors reminds me how in the 1980s if a reporter or police investigator found any evidence of Dungeons & Dragons book or RPGs at a home or crime secene - they would immediately mention. This may just be a new 'boggey-man' or hook for press stories to lead with...and yet probably have nothing to do with the real cause of the crime or event.

That's ridiculous.

Dungeons & Dragons in no way extorted the reader to commit real violence, or to become involved in the occult, or to practice the worship of demons and devils.  Right-wing literature does actually promote the hatred of liberals, gays and minorities.

Quote from: Koltar;239590By-the-way, the investigators singling out books by "right-wing" authors reminds me how in the 1980s if a reporter or police investigator found any evidence of Dungeons & Dragons book or RPGs at a home or crime secene - they would immediately mention. This may just be a new 'boggey-man' or hook for press stories to lead with...and yet probably have nothing to do with the real cause of the crime or event.

Or like, with school shootings, they would focus on what video games the kids may have accessed. "OMG, they played DOOM! That's what caused it."

Exactly.

Those 3 books in all likelihood had no bearing on what this guy was going to do. If he actually read and followed what was said in one of those books - he would have found some kind of job and gotten himself out of his financial hole.

Its a red herring for investigators and members of the press looking for an angle.

The "McGuffin" or 'red herring' that the press like to hang things on changes each decade.
In the past 30 years we've had similar press/investigator hooks of : D&D, Satan worship cults, Star Trek fan clubs, Vampire clubs, left-wing hate books, al-Quaeda pamphlets,  right-wing hate books,...etc...


- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;239590Getting Back to what this thread was intended as....

There is now a wikipedia page about this event that looks like it tries to sort out facts surrounding the shooting;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Tennessee_Unitarian_Church_Shooting

By-the-way, the investigators singling out books by "right-wing" authors reminds me how in the 1980s if a reporter or police investigator found any evidence of Dungeons & Dragons book or RPGs at a home or crime secene - they would immediately mention. This may just be a new 'boggey-man' or hook for press stories to lead with...and yet probably have nothing to do with the real cause of the crime or event.

Yeah, I called it in post 106 (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=239208&postcount=106).

In some respects, it's nonsense.  On the other hand, if they do invoke insanity, then what he was reading could be quite relevant to his state of mind.

If those are the only three books from 'conservative' writers they find, and the rest of his library is all Paul Klugman,  then the data is irrelevant.  If the police released those as an example of what he was reading,  with the rest being Anne Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, then they are going to have a bit of a problem on their hands with the public.

Quote from: Koltar;239602Those 3 books in all likelihood had no bearing on what this guy was going to do. If he actually read and followed what was said in one of those books - he would have found some kind of job and gotten himself out of his financial hole.

Have you ever actually read anything written by a right-winger pundit?  There is no advice, except on who to blame for everything wrong in your life.

QuoteIn the past 30 years we've had similar press/investigator hooks of : D&D, Satan worship cults, Star Trek fan clubs, Vampire clubs, left-wing hate books, al-Quaeda pamphlets,  right-wing hate books,...etc...

What the fuck man, you are truly insane.

Quote from: Jackalope;239614There is no advice, except on who to blame for everything wrong in your life.

And that's different from left-wing pundits, how?

Quote from: CavScout;239616And that's different from left-wing pundits, how?

A short explanation of the fundamental differences between left and right critique:

Leftist critique is a critique of power: who has power, how they use that power, and what the consequences of that use of power is.  Thus leftists critique focuses on the effects of the racism of the white majority on minorities, on the effects of the sexism of the male dominant culture of women, the effects of classism on the perpetuation of poverty, the effects of imperialism on international policy, so on and so forth.  Leftist critique is based primarily on the interests of underclasses in oppressive power structures, and what can be done to change those structures to minimize what are perceived as negative outcomes.  Leftist critique is essentially middle-class.

Right critique is a counter-critique of leftist critique, and invariably suits the needs and interests of the current dominating class.  Right critique always minimizes the negative consequences of the use of power by elites, while justifying the right of those elites to have and abuse power.  Right critique is fundamentally fascist in that it celebrates a non-existence heroic human ideal in the form of power elites.  It is reflexively defensive of the white male heteronormative power structure.  It seeks to impugn the left as a threat to society, by which it invariably means the current status quo.  When the right does make recommendations, they do so in support of the agendas of power elites.

Thus angry leftists hate those who abuse power in a tyrannical fashion while angry right-wingers hate those who are abused by power and have the temerity to complain, and hate those who would dare to speak on the behalf of those victims of power abuse.

Leftists hate the oppressors, right-wingers hate the oppressed.

Thus: leftists are GI Joe, right-wingers are COBRA.  Leftists are Superman, right-wingers are Lex Luthor.  Leftists are Robin Hood, right-wingers are the Sheriff of Nottingham.  heroes of the oppressed, heroes of the oppressors.

Only because right wingers are moral relativists, or ammoral sociopaths, do they convince themselves that those who seek to do good for others could possibly be evil.  And thus do right-wingers find themselves on the losing side of every great political, religious, cultural or spiritual debate of the last..well, basically forever.

Seriously, the whole concept of "the bad guys" was created to represent your side.  You may think I'm "radical" or an "idoelogicla leftist" or whatever, but the reality is that I've read enough heroic fiction, enough spiritual writings, and run enough villains in D&D games to recognize bad guys when I see them, and I've tossed my lot in with the left because if the world has villains, it is definitely you guys.

Don't mess with Cobra bitch. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKv_hKr4iGY)

On a more serious note, it appears good old Jackalope has got himself stuck in an indefensible corner that all he has left is that hope that by acting completely batshit insane people will forget about his racist fear mongering rants from earlier in the thread. It is somewhat humorous to watch someone so publically implode.

Quote from: CavScout;239827Don't mess with Cobra bitch. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKv_hKr4iGY)

On a more serious note, it appears good old Jackalope has got himself stuck in an indefensible corner that all he has left is that hope that by acting completely batshit insane people will forget about his racist fear mongering rants from earlier in the thread. It is somewhat humorous to watch someone so publically implode.

No, it actually looks like once again CavScout has no intelligent rebuttal of the points made, and so is once again lying about what the opposition has said and done, and substituting personal attacks for an argument.

Popular heroic fiction invariably portrays those who defy conventional thinking, challenge authority, and use their power if defense of the powerless as the heroic good guy, while portraying those who victimized the less powerful as evil.

Conservatives talk about liberal media bias, which many liberals will insist does not exist.  I think it does, it's just not where conservatives say it is.  It's not in the news -- which has an establishment/sensationalist bias -- it's in everything else.  It's in the cartoons, the cop shows, the sitcoms, the comic books, the movies, everywhere that stories about good guys againt bad guys are told, there you can find a liberal bias.

That's because you can't tell a heroic story about a right-winger that isn't morally repugnant.  Consider The Turner Diaries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Turner_Diaries), a right-wing fantasy in which the oppressive liberal-jew-black-United Nations-federal government conspiracy that controls the world (the same conspiracy that is featured, sometimes expressly, sometimes implied, in the writings of all right wing pundits) is destroyed, leaving a perfect world of 50 million white people.  Only by lumping all of the oppressed minorities and those who seek justice for them into one evil conspiracy is the author able to portray his racist terrorist a hero, and the average American would find the tale revolting and disturbing.

That's your side.  Your side is the one that gets portrayed as the bad guys in every  historical drama.  The Three Musketeers?  They fought for liberty, solidarity, and equality.  Liberal values.  They fought against?  Cardinal Richelieu, the embodiment of right-wing, conservative elitism.  And that's from 1844!

Come on CavScout, do something other than mock me and call me crazy.  Cite some examples from popular fiction of heroes who defended the elite from the downtrodden, the majority from the revenge of a minority group, the forces of repression triumphing over the forces of liberation.

Hell, find me examples of popular fiction featuring misguided leftist groups that engage in terrorism that aren't portrayed in a sympathetic manner.  I bet you can't, because that's how pervasive the bias is.

And the reason the bias exist is, simply, because we're on the side of angels, and you're on the side of selfish greed, amoral exploitation, tyranny and repression.  We're good, you're bad, and only because there is no God do we have to deal with you.

Now, you'll have to excuse me for the evening.  I'm off to play my heroic sorceresses Aishwara, who is attempting to save a city of peaceful farmers and craftsmen from the depredations of an evil horde of undead.  Saving the oppressed from their oppressors, that's what it's all about.

QuoteNo, it actually looks like once again CavScout has no intelligent rebuttal of the points made..

Dude, you are claiming you are GI Joe.... how can that possibly be "intelligently rebutted"? One doesn't "rebutt" the insane. They hope they get locked up in a ward.

Quote from: Jackalope;239845No, it actually looks like once again CavScout has no intelligent rebuttal of the points made, and so is once again lying about what the opposition has said and done, and substituting personal attacks for an argument.

Popular heroic fiction invariably portrays those who defy conventional thinking, challenge authority, and use their power if defense of the powerless as the heroic good guy, while portraying those who victimized the less powerful as evil.

Conservatives talk about liberal media bias, which many liberals will insist does not exist.  I think it does, it's just not where conservatives say it is.  It's not in the news -- which has an establishment/sensationalist bias -- it's in everything else.  It's in the cartoons, the cop shows, the sitcoms, the comic books, the movies, everywhere that stories about good guys againt bad guys are told, there you can find a liberal bias.

That's because you can't tell a heroic story about a right-winger that isn't morally repugnant.  Consider The Turner Diaries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Turner_Diaries), a right-wing fantasy in which the oppressive liberal-jew-black-United Nations-federal government conspiracy that controls the world (the same conspiracy that is featured, sometimes expressly, sometimes implied, in the writings of all right wing pundits) is destroyed, leaving a perfect world of 50 million white people.  Only by lumping all of the oppressed minorities and those who seek justice for them into one evil conspiracy is the author able to portray his racist terrorist a hero, and the average American would find the tale revolting and disturbing.

That's your side.  Your side is the one that gets portrayed as the bad guys in every  historical drama.  The Three Musketeers?  They fought for liberty, solidarity, and equality.  Liberal values.  They fought against?  Cardinal Richelieu, the embodiment of right-wing, conservative elitism.  And that's from 1844!

Come on CavScout, do something other than mock me and call me crazy.  Cite some examples from popular fiction of heroes who defended the elite from the downtrodden, the majority from the revenge of a minority group, the forces of repression triumphing over the forces of liberation.

Hell, find me examples of popular fiction featuring misguided leftist groups that engage in terrorism that aren't portrayed in a sympathetic manner.  I bet you can't, because that's how pervasive the bias is.

And the reason the bias exist is, simply, because we're on the side of angels, and you're on the side of selfish greed, amoral exploitation, tyranny and repression.  We're good, you're bad, and only because there is no God do we have to deal with you.

Now, you'll have to excuse me for the evening.  I'm off to play my heroic sorceresses Aishwara, who is attempting to save a city of peaceful farmers and craftsmen from the depredations of an evil horde of undead.  Saving the oppressed from their oppressors, that's what it's all about.

Dude, you forgot Star Wars.

Did someone REALLY just compare the Turner Diaries and the Three Musketeers?

Hey, Jackie. I own a book by Ann Coulter. And one by Bill O'Reilly. And TWO by Rush Limbaugh. I haven't turned on CNN except by mistake for over 5 years now - yup, Fox News for me!

And yet... strangely ... I haven't killed anyone. YET, I'm sure you'll note. I have toyed with the idea of tracking someone down and dumping a bucket of shit on them, but they do a good enough job of that themselves.

But I do luv ya, man. Really.

Quote from: CavScout;239853Dude, you are claiming you are GI Joe.... how can that possibly be "intelligently rebutted"? One doesn't "rebutt" the insane. They hope they get locked up in a ward.

Obviously, moron, I am not claiming I am literally GI Joe.  Are you really so dense that a simple analogy using a cartoon is lost on you?  Really?


All you have to do is present a reasoned argument that illustrates that heroic fiction does in fact supports right wing values as a rebuttal of my argument that heroic fiction is rooted in left wing values, becaus eonly left wing values are actually enobling to the human heart (i.e. good).

Here are some assertions of fact that can be intelligently rebutted, that you have made no effort to rebut:

1A) Popular heroic fiction invariably portrays those who defy conventional thinking, challenge authority, and use their power if defense of the powerless as the heroic good guy, while portraying those who victimize the less powerful as evil.

1B) To defy conventional thinking, challenge authority, and use one's power in the defense of the powerless is to embody liberal values.

2A) A pervasive liberal bias exists in popular heroic adventure media, from movies to comics to literature.

2B) This bias exists because it is necessary to tell appealing tales: one can't tell a heroic story about the defense of right-wing values that isn't morally repugnant.

You have no rational or reasonable argument in rebuttal of these assertions.  You literally have no recourse except ad hominen attacks.  I have already won the argument on the basis of fact.  All that is left for you to do is make some lame mocking joke and run away with tail tucked between your leg.

You cannot win this argument, you can only derail it and pray no one notices you've lost.

Don't worry, when you derail it, Koltar will believe you won.

Quote from: Werekoala;239891Did someone REALLY just compare the Turner Diaries and the Three Musketeers?

Care to cite another (in)famous book espousing a right-wing heroic ideal?  I really couldn't think of another one.  Maybe Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, both of which are ridiculously stupid and bad.

You ever read The Turner Diaries?  I got a copy of it as part of a huge box of conspiracy literature many years ago. It's pretty wacky.  Sad to say though, as pulp fan, I've read worse prose.  But its very much right wing heroic fiction.

QuoteHey, Jackie. I own a book by Ann Coulter. And one by Bill O'Reilly. And TWO by Rush Limbaugh. I haven't turned on CNN except by mistake for over 5 years now - yup, Fox News for me!

Jesus, and people tell me I read crap.

QuoteAnd yet... strangely ... I haven't killed anyone. YET, I'm sure you'll note.

Did you vote for George W. Bush?  If so, you've killed a lot of people.

Quote from: StormBringer;239884Dude, you forgot Star Wars.

Oh shit, my bad.

Yes, for the record:


Lucas sort of made that painfully clear in prequels.  Rather ham-fisted, really.

Quote from: Jackalope;239985You have no rational or reasonable argument in rebuttal of these assertions.

Here is a very reasonable and rational rebuttal: You are not GI Joe. You are not Superman. You are not one of The Three Musketeers. You are not Robin Hood.

Quote from: Jackalope;239986You ever read The Turner Diaries?  I got a copy of it as part of a huge box of conspiracy literature many years ago. It's pretty wacky.  Sad to say though, as pulp fan, I've read worse prose.  But its very much right wing heroic fiction.

Nope, because I'm not steeped in the  - well, whatever it is YOU are soaking in. I didn't need to read it to know what it was.

Quote from: Jackalope;239986Did you vote for George W. Bush?  If so, you've killed a lot of people.

Nope, neither time. Nice try though.

The funny thing is....Jackie probly has those examples all backwards.

G.I.Joe = Military-loving, Doing your duty type conservatives.
Cobra = Liberals who didn't get their way, turned into whiners that became Terrorists.

The Empire = started with too much government, interfering in people's lives, trying to do and say anything to get ahead, using violence when nothing else works  liberals.
Rebel Alliance = Freedom loving group that is trying to re-establish a democratic republic, in other words , conservatives.


See? that game can be done belieavably in both directions. Thats why it never quite works when bringing your own personal poltical baggage into viewing a fictional universe - you're never really going to be sure that you are right, you can make it bend almost however you like, and someone else might come along and show you where you were wrong.

- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;240119The funny thing is....Jackie probly has those examples all backwards.

G.I.Joe = Military-loving, Doing your duty type conservatives.
Cobra = Liberals who didn't get their way, turned into whiners that became Terrorists.

The Empire = started with too much government, interfering in people's lives, trying to do and say anything to get ahead, using violence when nothing else works  liberals.
Rebel Alliance = Freedom loving group that is trying to re-establish a democratic republic, in other words , conservatives.


See? that game can be done belieavably in both directions. Thats why it never quite works when bringing your own personal poltical baggage into viewing a fictional universe - you're never really going to be sure that you are right, you can make it bend almost however you like, and someone else might come along and show you where you were wrong.

- Ed C.

I have to agree with Koltar on that one.  If Star Wars were politics Rush Limbaugh wouldn't be Darth Vader or the Emperor because he strongly advocates that government have less power over people's lives and that is decidedly un-imperial (although he probably would have applauded when the emperor disbanded the senate).  I think the popular definitions of what is conservative and what is liberal have gotten a bit skewed in the last decade or so.

I noticed that as a teen-ager . The poress called what was 'right-wing/conservative' in other countries what we might think of as the goal of democrats/liberals here.  When I mentioned this to my Dad at the time ( I must've been 16 or 17) he just said "Its the press, I gave up on them being fair years ago."


- Ed C.





P.S.: My Dad is 'famous' in a very minor way - he used to write a column for HUNTING DOG magazine called "Ask Bob About Guns" back in the 1970s.

Quote from: Koltar;240119See? that game can be done belieavably in both directions. Thats why it never quite works when bringing your own personal poltical baggage into viewing a fictional universe - you're never really going to be sure that you are right, you can make it bend almost however you like, and someone else might come along and show you where you were wrong.

As a side note...

The main reason it doesn't work is that the authors know about as much as politics as the typical person- which is basically nothing. Or if they do- they toss it out of the window before it gets in the way of a good story.

Same with science.

And with Star Wars, same with good story. Which leaves us with lightsabers and not much more.

Quote from: Jackalope;239987Oh shit, my bad.

Yes, for the record:

Rebel Alliance:Liberals::The Empire:Conservatives

Lucas sort of made that painfully clear in prequels.  Rather ham-fisted, really.

Wait: This is the same rebel alliance that relied on a princess and a hero of one very special bloodline to save the day? YOu know, no real common men are capable of leading a Liberal rebellion...

But Greg Bear said it better (who's got the link?)

Quote from: Spike;240136Wait: This is the same rebel alliance that relied on a princess and a hero of one very special bloodline to save the day? YOu know, no real common men are capable of leading a Liberal rebellion...

But Greg Bear said it better (who's got the link?)

Greg Bear?
  I thought it was David Brin in an article for Salon.com years ago.

Of course we BOTH might be right.

George Lucas was once quoted as aaying his ideal government would be some sort of benevolent monarchy. Some of those stranger bits of political commentary said by Annakin Skywalker might be what Lucas actually thinks...but he could never admit publicly.

- Ed C.

Quote from: Spike;240136Wait: This is the same rebel alliance that relied on a princess and a hero of one very special bloodline to save the day? YOu know, no real common men are capable of leading a Liberal rebellion...

But Greg Bear said it better (who's got the link?)

Wasn't it Brin?

http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/1999/06/15/brin_main/

Quote from: gleichman;240145Wasn't it Brin?

http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/1999/06/15/brin_main/

Thanks puppy-dog avatar man!, That was the article I was thinking of.


 Tho, Spike may still be right and Greg Bear might also have written an article or essay talking on this topic.


- Ed C.

Gah! No wonder I need people to find links for me!  Where is my alzhiemer's medication, dagnabbit!

Quote from: Koltar;240119G.I.Joe = Military-loving, Doing your duty type conservatives.

Love of the military is hardly a conservative trait.  The vast majority of conservative leaders have no military experience and sought deferments when called upon to fight for their country.  My dad -- a liberal -- volunteered.  My uncle -- a liberal -- was drafted and could have recieved a deferment, but went because it was his duty and he knew that someone else would be sent for him if her defer, and he couldn't accept that.  Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, Rush Limbuagh, all of them weaseled their way out of doing their duty.

Furthermore, GI Joe was a total celebration of diversity, with the various members disparaging uniforms and wearing their own designs.  While they certainly had differing ranks, they generally spoke as equals -- never acting like an authoritarian hierarchy.  

Or consider the GI Joe PSAs (http://www.joeheadquarters.com/joeendings.shtml).  While most were simple safety tips -- don't jump over downed power line son your bike! -- every season featured a few PSA that were not safety related, but rather value related:

S1 - Gung-Ho- Girls can skateboard better too.  Don't judge people 'til you give them a chance.
S2 - Spirit- Blind kids can find lost kittens too. Having a handicap doesn't mean you're helpless.

Tolerance and diversity are liberal values.

QuoteCobra = Liberals who didn't get their way, turned into whiners that became Terrorists.

COBRA is a right-wing organization.  They have corporate sponsors, work with right-wing politicians, and seek to dismantle the federal government and replace it with an American empire.

Furthermore, COBRA is clearly based on real right-wing organizations such as the Nazi party (uniform design) and the Klu Klux Klan (masks to blur individual identity).

QuoteThe Empire = started with too much government, interfering in people's lives, trying to do and say anything to get ahead, using violence when nothing else works  liberals.

Congratulations, you have just completely failed to describe liberals.   You did, however, describe every conservative movement ever.

QuoteRebel Alliance = Freedom loving group that is trying to re-establish a democratic republic, in other words , conservatives.

Except that conservatives are not a freedom loving group, and have historical opposed democracy, the republic and other forms of anti-authoritarianism.

QuoteSee? that game can be done belieavably in both directions.

Um, no.  It can be done in both directions, and is easiest when you only look at individual pieces and misconstrue them, as you've done here.  It also helps if you believe all of the right's bullshit about who they are and who liberals are -- like the nonsense belief that the right loves the military (they love military contractor kickbacks, and use the military irresponsibly), or that liberals (pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-secular) want to interfere in people's lives but conservatives (anti-choice, anti-gay, dominionist) don't.

QuoteThats why it never quite works when bringing your own personal poltical baggage into viewing a fictional universe - you're never really going to be sure that you are right, you can make it bend almost however you like, and someone else might come along and show you where you were wrong.

Perhaps in an internet parlor where the audience is already prejudiced towards a certain viewpoint, you can baffle the crowd with bullshit and confuse the issue to a high degree, but any serious review of media will support my contention.

I really don't think recourse to fictional metaphor is a meaningful or useful manner of addressing the real, at least not in these contexts. Perhaps we should simply omit the conversation that attempts to discern which over-hated caricature of some American political position represents the bad guy in some movie/comic/cartoon?

Quote from: Engine;240188I really don't think recourse to fictional metaphor is a meaningful or useful manner of addressing the real, at least not in these contexts. Perhaps we should simply omit the conversation that attempts to discern which over-hated caricature of some American political position represents the bad guy in some movie/comic/cartoon?

I think I'd rather play games with movies/comics/cartoons than attempt to find something meaningful in Jackalope's hate-filled postings.

At least the movies/comics/cartoons have some entertainment value.

You know... reading Jackalope's posts I'm reminded of a word.  You know, one that describes people who ascribe motivations to others based entirely on labels, who apparently know more about what it is to be something than the people who actually claim to be that something...

... what's that word again?

Prejudiced?

If I replaced the word 'Conservative' with 'Jewish',  in his latest rant it reads one hell of a lot like the Anti-Zionist screeds that I've had the misfortune to see.

Quote from: Engine;240188I really don't think recourse to fictional metaphor is a meaningful or useful manner of addressing the real, at least not in these contexts. Perhaps we should simply omit the conversation that attempts to discern which over-hated caricature of some American political position represents the bad guy in some movie/comic/cartoon?

Understand the dilemma good ol' Jack finds himself in. He had painted himself into a corner and reveled to the world what kind of bomb-throwing, racist radical he was. To cover this, he has resorted to an almost comical, but batshit crazy, mode where he is portraying himself as some kind of hero from pretty much every medium known to man. He wants us to remember him as the loon who thought of himself as GI Joe and not as the rabid racist bomb-thrower he revealed to us.

Quote from: CavScout;240197He wants us to remember him as the loon who thought of himself as GI Joe and not as the rabid racist bomb-thrower he revealed to us.

There is almost a certain value to him being GI Joe, at least the cartoons I saw. Those nitwits couldn't hit the side of a barn and never killed a single bad guy.

GI Joe == ineffective.

I hated that show.

But yeah, he does rearrange the world so as to see himself as the hero instead of the whatever passes for his actual life. So your point is valid.

I think I'll restrict myself to objecting to technique, rather than let myself speak to personality and behavior; if I did not, Jackalope would surely not be the only person to whom I would object, nor even the first in priority. Some very intelligent, well-spoken, otherwise-reasonable people have descended to the level of utter douchebags, for no reason I can discern other than their desire to triumph over the other douchebags who are present. Spike's sig always strikes me as possessed of wisdom, but in relation to some recent behavior here, it's positively prescient.

Quote from: Engine;240204I think I'll restrict myself to objecting to technique, rather than let myself speak to personality and behavior; if I did not, Jackalope would surely not be the only person to whom I would object, nor even the first in priority. Some very intelligent, well-spoken, otherwise-reasonable people have descended to the level of utter douchebags, for no reason I can discern other than their desire to triumph over the other douchebags who are present. Spike's sig always strikes me as possessed of wisdom, but in relation to some recent behavior here, it's positively prescient.

Yeah, this shit is poisoning the forums. Let's go talk about RPGs.

So, anyone know if they actually are planning on using the Insanity defense?

Seriously, Jackalope, don't argue with CavScout, he exists purely to be a an internet cocksmock.  He's the only one on here who is on my IL.

Quote from: Grimjack;240124If Star Wars were politics Rush Limbaugh wouldn't be Darth Vader or the Emperor because he strongly advocates that government have less power over people's lives and that is decidedly un-imperial (although he probably would have applauded when the emperor disbanded the senate).

You are correct that Rush would not be Vader or the Emperor.  The "Emperor" is corporate America, and "Darth Vader" is the Republican President (Reagan, Bush, Bush).  The spectre of fascism is the "phantom menace."

Seriously dude, as Bush is consolidating power in the presidency with popular support, Lucas has Amidala say "And this how democracy dies, to thunderous applause."  Obi-Wan saying "A Jedi does not deal in absolutes." in response to Vader's "You're with me or you're against me."

Lucas is a supporter (http://www.newsmeat.com/billionaire_political_donations/George_Lucas.php) of the Democratic party.  He's clearly a liberal, and most reasonable people recognize that the prequels were completely ham-fisted in their attempt to make the point that America is slipping into a fascist regime under Bush.

You kind of have to be obtuse to not see it.  It's like watching V for Vendetta and not recognizing it as what it is: a moral argument for the legitimacy of leftist violence in the face of right wing oppression.

I mean seriously, you could not make a right wing V for Vendetta.  it would not be a blockbuster, and would not be popular.  You would be reviled if you were to produce a movie that made a moral argument for the legitimacy of right-sponsored violence in the face of leftist existence. And for good reason.

QuoteI think the popular definitions of what is conservative and what is liberal have gotten a bit skewed in the last decade or so.

They have, mostly because of right-wing rhetoric since the 80's, which is designed to obfuscate and confuse issues, and make politics more divisive and contentious.  Right-wingers benefit more from voter confusion over the relevant issues more than the liberal establishment does.

So there is total confusion between the word liberal and leftist.  Technically liberals are moderate.  Barack Obama is a liberal, Ralph Nader is a leftist.  Liberals get accused of being leftists (by right wingers) because, being liberal, they are willing to listen to leftists.  That doesn't mean that all leftists are liberals, or that all liberals are leftists.  Nader, for example, showed his leftist stripes when he described the debate over gay marriage as "gonadal politics" -- proper leftists don't care about anything except the relationship between workers and capital.   Seriously, I've read the hardcore leftists, stuff like Kropotkin and Rothbard.  These guys don't give a shit about the politics of race and gender.  Those are liberal issues originating in the Christian liberal tradition, which is the basis of liberal secular humanism.

Also, not all "liberals" are really liberals.  A lot of people who get called liberals are not liberals.  Robert Byrd is not a liberal.  He was a liberal forty years ago, but not anymore.  Bill Clinton is a liberal circa 1980, which means he's actually an establishment moderate.  Most Democrats are establishment moderates.

The late and great Robert Anton Wilson said it best when he said "It only takes 20 years for a liberal to become a conservative without changing a single idea."

I don't really know what the term conservative means.  Conservatives confuse the issue a great deal.  No one who identifies themselves as a conservative -- Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, George Bush, Dick Cheney -- supports any of the things conservatives claim to support.  Conservative presidents and congresses have never brought us smaller government, or reduce spending, or used the military responsibility (and I don't just mean Iraq.  Let's not forget Grenada, Panama, Iran-Contra, etc.), or made any serious attempt to achieve their various promise social agendas.  If the right actually over-turned Roe v Wade and outlawed abortion, they would be handing the next four elections to the left, and they know that.

If one ignores their claims as to what they represent, and simply looks at their actions, they do seem to adhere to a fascist ideology.  If you accept that the American fascist movement disguises itself with terms like conservative, neoconservative and right-wing, then it's pretty easy to see why there is so much confusion over

To a fascist, any compromise with the left is surrender, thus liberals become leftists in the eyes of right wingers.  It's why when someone brings up the right's slide into fascism, they start going on as if a vote for a liberal was a vote for the Reds.  Ann Coulter wrote a whole book about it ("Traitors").  So the confusion over liberal and leftist is a result of fascist pundits like Rush Limbaugh promulgating their ideology to the masses.

And of course, if the conservatives are fascists, then the last thing they want is for people to recognize that.  Most conservatives are just Useful Idiots for fascism, and think stupid things like "Fascists are socialists, therefore conservatives cannot be fascist, because we hate socialism."  So the fascists call themselves conservatives and neo-conservatives and whenever you catch one of them saying something decidedly fascist, they've trained their followers to obfuscate the issue, generally by playing the Not a True Scotsman card.

I think CavScout has, in various places and at various times, said many things of worth or of note; it appears to be friction with certain personalities that transmutes his reason into douchebaggery. For that matter, the same can easily be said of StormBringer, although it appears to require less stimulus to alter his reason.

Jackalope's just crazy, but like gleichman, I rather like his brand of crazy, even when I disagree with it, which is almost always. No accounting for my taste in people.

Quote from: NotYourMonkey;240227So, anyone know if they actually are planning on using the Insanity defense?

Seriously, Jackalope, don't argue with CavScout, he exists purely to be a an internet cocksmock.  He's the only one on here who is on my IL.

Dude you siding with a guy who thinks he's GI Joe... What's that say about you?

Quote from: Engine;240188I really don't think recourse to fictional metaphor is a meaningful or useful manner of addressing the real, at least not in these contexts. Perhaps we should simply omit the conversation that attempts to discern which over-hated caricature of some American political position represents the bad guy in some movie/comic/cartoon?

I agree, to a point.  Arguing over the specific details of any particular piece is just a way to get bogged down in ridiculous minutia, and ends with someone actually having to go back and re-watch every episode of GI Joe, and that would surely spoil one's memory of it.  So let's not go there.

But my point, that the popular canon of western literature, has always favored liberal virtues over conservative virtues and liberal causes over conservative causes, and that the modern concept of the hero is a fundamentally liberal character, is sound and valid.  Read some Joseph Campbell.

I mean liberal in the sense of:
a) favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
b) favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
c) favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
d) of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
e) free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
f) open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
g) characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
h) given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
i) not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.

There is a freaking reason they are called the liberal arts.

And by conservative, I mean someone who is
1.   disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

Doesn't sound so bad, until you realize that throughout history conservatives have been the defenders of aristocracy, monarchy, slavery, segregation, tyranny, and pretty much every horrible thing in history we now congratulate ourselves for having recognizing as totally bullshit.

In one hundred years, when everyone is benefiting from socialized medicine, free college education, and gay marriage is no big deal, people aren't going to look back on the contemporary conservative movement as the good guys.  They'll be the bad guys.  They'll be the cautionary tale, the example of primitivism, of our wayward past.  Just like they always are.

Quote from: Spike;240195You know... reading Jackalope's posts I'm reminded of a word.  You know, one that describes people who ascribe motivations to others based entirely on labels, who apparently know more about what it is to be something than the people who actually claim to be that something...

... what's that word again?

Prejudiced?

If I replaced the word 'Conservative' with 'Jewish',  in his latest rant it reads one hell of a lot like the Anti-Zionist screeds that I've had the misfortune to see.

Bullshit.  Totall bullshit.

I mean here is my rant, with the substitution you called for.  It has completely ceased to make sense with those alterations, and becomes pure rubbish:
   Popular heroic fiction invariably portrays those who defy conventional thinking, challenge authority, and use their power if defense of the powerless as the heroic good guy, while portraying those who victimized the less powerful as evil.

Jews talk about liberal media bias, which many liberals will insist does not exist. I think it does, it's just not where Jews say it is. It's not in the news -- which has an establishment/sensationalist bias -- it's in everything else. It's in the cartoons, the cop shows, the sitcoms, the comic books, the movies, everywhere that stories about good guys againt bad guys are told, there you can find a liberal bias.

That's because you can't tell a heroic story about Jewish values that isn't morally repugnant. Consider The Turner Diaries, a right-wing fantasy in which the oppressive liberal-Jew-black-United Nations-federal government conspiracy that controls the world (the same conspiracy that is featured, sometimes expressly, sometimes implied, in the writings of all right wing pundits) is destroyed, leaving a perfect world of 50 million white people. Only by lumping all of the oppressed minorities and those who seek justice for them into one evil conspiracy is the author able to portray his racist terrorist a hero, and the average American would find the tale revolting and disturbing.

That's your side. Your side is the one that gets portrayed as the bad guys in every historical drama. The Three Musketeers? They fought for liberty, solidarity, and equality. Liberal values. They fought against? Cardinal Richelieu, the embodiment of right-wing, Jewish elitism. And that's from 1844!

Come on CavScout, do something other than mock me and call me crazy. Cite some examples from popular fiction of heroes who defended the elite from the downtrodden, the majority from the revenge of a minority group, the forces of repression triumphing over the forces of liberation.

Hell, find me examples of popular fiction featuring misguided leftist groups that engage in terrorism that aren't portrayed in a sympathetic manner. I bet you can't, because that's how pervasive the bias is.

And the reason the bias exist is, simply, because we're on the side of angels, and you're on the side of selfish greed, amoral exploitation, tyranny and repression. We're good, you're bad, and only because there is no God do we have to deal with you.

I swear to god, I think the sole reason you mention that is because I had mentioned earlier the introductory chapter to Ann Coulter's Treason is indistinguishable from anti-semitic hate literature promulgated by the Nazis.  The problem Spike, is that when you make the substitutions to Coulter's text it still reads the same, it makes the same amount of "sense."  When you make those alterations to my text, you have ridiculous claims like "The Jews talk about the liberal media" and a Jewish hero overthrowing the evil Jewish conspiracy to control the world.

Don't use my tricks against me when you don't understand how the trick works.

Dance, monkey, Dance.

Quote from: Spike;240267Dance, monkey, Dance.

Oh, you got me!  You got me good.  I was totally fooled.  For a brief second there, I actually thought you had a shred of intellectual honesty.

I won't make that mistake in the future, fuckweasel.

Quote from: CavScout;237723Not necessarily. If you are found "not guilty by reason of insanity" you can be released when your are "cured". AFAIK, there is no minimum term of confinement if found "not guilty by reason of insanity", it's basically an acquittal once you are found to be sane again.

Going back to the OP and getting away from politics, Cav is right.  In the U.S. the insanity defense varies by State so this is a bit of an oversimiplification but generally if you can prove that a mental defect either caused a person to be unable to control their actions or made them unable to comprehend that the nature of their actions then you can get a "not guilty by reason of insanity" verdict.   That in effect declares the person insane and puts them under the jurisdiction of the court which can order their confinement in a mental institution and force the administration of psychotropic drugs until the treating physician declares them "cured" and no longer a threat to society.  In my experience once they are declared "insane" then the doctors really have all the power.  I haven't handled any cases this severe (my last client was just going around waving his wang at people) but in the cases I do get I've never successfully been able to get a client out until the doctor says they are cured regardless of how good an argument I make.
I do have to agree with the sentiment that the insanity defense is overused.  You can argue anyone is insane just due to the fact that the acts they commit wouldn't be committed by a sane person.  But it takes more than just that to successfully argue insanity.
In this case, I'm sure he has filed his intent for an insanity defense since basically he has no other viable defense.

Quote from: Jackalope;240230You are correct that Rush would not be Vader or the Emperor.  The "Emperor" is corporate America, and "Darth Vader" is the Republican President (Reagan, Bush, Bush).  The spectre of fascism is the "phantom menace."

Seriously dude, as Bush is consolidating power in the presidency with popular support, Lucas has Amidala say "And this how democracy dies, to thunderous applause."  Obi-Wan saying "A Jedi does not deal in absolutes." in response to Vader's "You're with me or you're against me."

Lucas is a supporter (http://www.newsmeat.com/billionaire_political_donations/George_Lucas.php) of the Democratic party.  He's clearly a liberal, and most reasonable people recognize that the prequels were completely ham-fisted in their attempt to make the point that America is slipping into a fascist regime under Bush.

You kind of have to be obtuse to not see it.  It's like watching V for Vendetta and not recognizing it as what it is: a moral argument for the legitimacy of leftist violence in the face of right wing oppression.

I'm not saying that Lucas isn't a liberal, I agree that you would have to be obtuse not to see that.  My point is that unfortunately Hollywood liberals tend to have a make-believe view of what liberalism and conservatism is these days and that is why I said the terms are almost meaningless.  Hollywood generally loved Bill Clinton, who they considered liberal, and they vote primarily democrat, the acknowledged home of liberalism, but at the same time the democrats are into big government, forced union membership, and consolidation of power at the Federal level, which IMO are definitely not classic liberal positions.  I'll never believe that arguing against tax cuts because people might not spend the money on the right things is a true liberal position but it is one both Clinton and the democrats have used repeatedly.  They use the same argument against privatizing part of social security because "we can't trust the people to invest the money wisely".  The same thing with socialising the healthcare industry in this country and putting it under government control.  That sounds more on the facist side of the fence then anything I've ever heard Bush argue.  On the other hand, JFK, who I do consider a liberal, actually proposed tax cuts to let people keep more of what they earned.  

So while Lucas may have this idealistic view of the rebellion as being a metaphor for liberalism he is hopelessly naive if he thinks that the democrat party is fighting for the freedom of anyone.  And if this sounds republican I would have to also comment that both parties seem committed these days to grabbing as much power and money as they can so there is plenty of guilt to go around.

The argument that conservative=fascist seems to be based primarily on Bush's conduct of the war but at the same time liberal icon FDR took away more freedoms away during WWII and is not accused of being fascist except by the libertarians.

Now if you want to define liberalism as the belief that government should control more of its citizens lives and money in order to take better care of them then they could do themselves, then I would agree.  If you want to define conservatism as the belief that free market and captilalism should be the overriding mechanism and government should have a very limited role regardless of the fact that some people will inevitably do better than others, then I would agree with that definition as well.  But under those definitions your Star Wars analogy seems to fall apart which again brings me back to the point that Lucas was deluded if he thinks the liberals would be manning the X-wings and counting on the force to help them.

Quote from: Jackalope;240421Oh, you got me!  You got me good.  I was totally fooled.  For a brief second there, I actually thought you had a shred of intellectual honesty.

I won't make that mistake in the future, fuckweasel.

Your mistake is asuming that, after I've already pointed out your primary purpose on this site is to be our pet Crazy for our amusement, that I would ever bother to to attempt to engage YOU in intellectual discourse.

You don't reason with insanity.

Quote from: Grimjack;240557...Bill Clinton, who they considered liberal, and they vote primarily democrat, the acknowledged home of liberalism, but at the same time the democrats are into big government, forced union membership, and consolidation of power at the Federal level, which IMO are definitely not classic liberal positions.  I'll never believe that arguing against tax cuts because people might not spend the money on the right things is a true liberal position but it is one both Clinton and the democrats have used repeatedly.  They use the same argument against privatizing part of social security because "we can't trust the people to invest the money wisely".  The same thing with socialising the healthcare industry in this country and putting it under government control.  That sounds more on the facist side of the fence then anything I've ever heard Bush argue.  On the other hand, JFK, who I do consider a liberal, actually proposed tax cuts to let people keep more of what they earned.

Okay, that is a whole lot of stuff to sort through.  You're saying that the Democrats/liberals:
* are into big government
* forced union membership
* consolidation of power at the Federal level
* argue against tax cuts because people might not spend the money on the right things
* argue against privatizing any part of social security  because "we can't trust the people to invest the money wisely". (a quote I can find no attribution for)
And finally, you interpret these items as being fascist.

This leads me to two conclusions: everything you know about Democrats comes from the right, and you don't really know anything about fascism.  So, let's break these down:

Democrats are into big government
The term "big government" is a piece of right-wing rhetoric.  Its a pejorative term for bureaucratic wastefulness and excess.  No one is "into" big government.  There are no Democrats sitting around calling for more pointless bureaucracy, more pencil pushers, and more paperwork.  It would be fair to say that liberals are willing to use the government to address social needs that have no historically been the domain of government.

The right wing claim is that Republicans/conservatives desire smaller government (small enough to "drown in a bathtub"), and that Democrats desire larger government.  Under Reagan, the number of workers on the federal payroll rose by 61,000. Under Clinton, the number fell by 373,000.  In Bush's first year, when he had a Republican congress, he became the biggest spending President in 30 years -- that's after adjusting for inflation, and after excluding spending on defense and homeland security.  Republicans only care about spending when Democrats are controlling the purse strings.  When they have control, they go whole hog.

Democrats desire forced union membership
Taken literally, this is entirely untrue.  No Democrat politician is calling for forced union membership.  Democrats do support unions, but not forced unions.  This may be an attempt to distort certain issues such as the Employee Free Choice Act, or the attempts to address free rider problems in "right to work" states, but in that case it's a simple straw man argument.

Also, unions are a liberal institution.  That the Democrats support unions -- real unions, worker owned and ran -- is one of the surest signs they are not fascist.  The first people fascist have always gone after when in power is unionized workers.  The Nazis disbanded all of the German worker unions and replaced them with state-controlled unions that were essentially loyalty tools for the owners.  Union-busting is a major concern of fascists, as unions give the working class the ability to organize effectively against the

Consolidation of power at the Federal level
This is an old conservative plank, relating to state's rights.  Unfortunately, conservatives embraced this plank when it meant the right of states to enforce segregation.  In reality, the consolidation of power at the Federal level was begun by Abraham Lincoln with the passage of the 14th amendment to ensure that state respect the rights of citizens.

Also, the Bush administration -- supposedly conservative -- has done more to consolidate power in the single office of the President than any Democratic administration before it.

Though honestly, I'd need specific examples of what you consider consolidation of power at the Federal level by Democrats.

Democrats argue against tax cuts because people might not spend the money on the right things

That sounds like another straw man.  Can you cite an example of this happening?

Democrats argue against privatizing any part of social security  because "we can't trust the people to invest the money wisely".

As I mentioned, I can't find any attribution for that quote, which is no surprise since no Democrat would actually argue that.  The simple fact is that Republicans know that private social security accounts would do nothing to fix the accounting problems with Social Security: the real goal is to force workers to invest some portion of their income into corporations.  It transforms Social security into a form of corporate welfare, and a dangerous form at that.

Consider the track record that privatization and deregulation have had.  ENRON energy schemes, the Savings & Loan scandal and subsequent bailout, the consolidated mortgage  scandal and subsequent bail-out. Or look at Halliburton and the privatization of traditional military functions (such as meal preparation): multiple scandals, kickbacks, billions in lost money, and the most costly war in history.  Dick Cheney concocted the plan to privatize certain aspects of the military when he was in the DoD

Privatizing social security will mean handing over huge gobs of money to brokers that have a proven track record of investing irresponsibly and provoking massive public bail-outs.  Seriously, think about what Bush's plan really did:  it forced the average American to invest in an approved list of corporations, with no guarantee that their investment wouldn't be completely lost.  It did nothing to address the solvency issue (and in fact exacerbated it), and would have ultimately broke the system and left an entire generation with no retirement benefits.  It would have funneled tons of money into the pockets of Bush's supporters, and created a whole new class of corporate entitlement (who gets to be on that list) for lobbyist to bribe politicians to get access to.

How can you not see this is nothing but a scam that some rich guys paid some think-tank to cook up for them to make even more money off the American people?  It's just a huge cash heist that will cause nothing but additional problems for us in the future.

The people who came up this scheme do not care if your mom, or my mom, or anybodies mom, ends up eating cat food while squatting in a condemned tenement.  They don't care if the streets end up choked with the disabled holding out tin cans begging for change.  None of that figures into their plan.  They aren't trying to fix social security -- which may or may not be necessary, and could be done in many different ways -- they just see a big gob of money and they want a slice.

QuoteThe argument that conservative=fascist seems to be based primarily on Bush's conduct of the war but at the same time liberal icon FDR took away more freedoms away during WWII and is not accused of being fascist except by the libertarians.

It actually has very little to do with Bush's conduct of the war, though that is certainly part of the equation.  The modern conservative movement is fascist because it is:
* anti-democratic, seeking to limit the voice of working people in government by artificially limiting the government's role to protecting their property.
* morbidly concerned with people's private lives: who they marry, who they have sex with, etc.
* anti-scientific, constantly seeking to prevent education of scientific facts instead of religious beliefs
* emotionally manipulative rhetoric
* rabidly anti-union and anti-liberal
* racist, sexist, and homophobic

Fascism is an authoritarian nationalist political ideology and mass movement that is concerned with notions of cultural decline or decadence, and which seeks to achieve a millenarian national rebirth by exalting the nation or race, as well as promoting cults of unity, strength and purity.

The "you're with us or you're with the terrorists" language, the "gay marriage is an assault on the traditional family" nonsense, the fear-mongering of Muslims and Mexicans, the hand-wringing over the decadence of the Hollywood liberal elite.  None of this has spit to do with economic liberalism, or classic liberalism.  Many of the ideas promoted by the right are not conservative at all, but quite reactionary and new (privatize social security? preemptive war? privatization of military)

Seriously, I could go all night long drawing comparisons between the goals and means of the conservative movement over the last thirty years, and show how it mirrors all other fascist movements.

But rather than do that, I'd like to invite you to read Communism with the Mask Off (http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb58.htm), a powerful and very well written essay attacking the idea that National Socialism is at all like Soviet Communism.  It exposes Communism as a fundamentally anti-human ideology that denies human freedom, and any right winger will be well familiar with the arguments the author presents against Soviet communism.  It will be comfortable rhetoric to someone who has read Traitor, covering much of the same ground.  There is one notable difference, best illustrated by this quote:
   Swept clear of internal enemies and united under the National Socialist standard, Germany placed herself at the head of the groups marshalled in the fight against the international bolshevisation of the world. Herein she is quite aware that she is fulfilling a world mission which reaches out beyond all national frontiers. On the successful issue of this mission depends the fate of our civilised nations. As National Socialists, we have seen Bolshevism through and through. We recognise it beneath all its masks and camouflages. It stands before us derobed of its trappings, bare and naked in its whole miserable imposture. We know what its teachings are, but we know also what it is in practice.
Unlike Coulter, the author of "Communism with the mask Off" lived in a society that had purged all it's "traitors," all those who would weaken the country by negotiating with organized labor.  The author is Joseph Goebbels, chief propagandist for the Nazis.

Just for laughs, I'll copy his list of the terrible "sex crimes" of the secular, atheist Bolsheviks.  These should all be familiar, as opposition to these forms the basis of the conservative social platform:
1. The complete abrogation of those paragraphs of the law dealing with the crime of abortion, and the right to have abortion procured free of charge in State Hospitals.
2. Non-interference with prostitution.
3. The abrogation of all bourgeois-capitalistic regulations in regard to marriage and divorce.
4. Official registration to be optional and the children to be educated by the community.
5. Abrogation of all penalties for sexual perversities and amnesty to be granted to all persons condemned as "sexual criminals".

QuoteNow if you want to define liberalism as the belief that government should control more of its citizens lives and money in order to take better care of them then they could do themselves, then I would agree.

That would be a ridiculous way to define liberalism.  

Try reading this. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism)

QuoteIf you want to define conservatism as the belief that free market and captilalism should be the overriding mechanism and government should have a very limited role regardless of the fact that some people will inevitably do better than others, then I would agree with that definition as well.

I would not define that as conservatism.  That would be classic economic liberalism.  No one actually subscribes to that sort of theory any more, as history has proven that it leads to an unstable society that cannot help but collapse on itself.

The problem with such laissez-faire economic policies is that those with wealth inevitably use their wealth to corrupt the government towards their ends, and you end up with massive class division, which leads ultimately to violence.  Ultimately the liberty of the many is sacrificed for the property of few.  Left unchecked, capitalist institutions can be every bit as tyrannical as government institutions.

If you believe these ideas are "Marxist," then you know far less about classical liberalism than you imagine.

Quote from: Jackalope;240955SNIP RANT

(http://img27.picoodle.com/data/img27/3/8/28/f_Cobram_8cfc49f.jpg)

Quote from: Jackalope;240955Okay, that is a whole lot of stuff to sort through.  You're saying that the Democrats/liberals:
* are into big government
* forced union membership
* consolidation of power at the Federal level
* argue against tax cuts because people might not spend the money on the right things
* argue against privatizing any part of social security  because "we can't trust the people to invest the money wisely". (a quote I can find no attribution for)
And finally, you interpret these items as being fascist.

This leads me to two conclusions: everything you know about Democrats comes from the right, and you don't really know anything about fascism.  So, let's break these down:

If you believe these ideas are "Marxist," then you know far less about classical liberalism than you imagine.

Sorry I had to clip this a bit since I've never been able to figure out how to put portions of a quote into a reply.  I guess I'm a novice at internet debating.  I'm going to try to address some of the points though.

First, I don't recall using either "facist" or "Marxist" and you have done an admirable job of mischaracterizing my argument.  What I was doing was pointing out that the definitions of liberal and conservative may not really be all that useful in defining the position of either major political party these days and that Lucas was naive if he thought most democrats and self-described modern liberals would really be the rebels in his Star Wars trilogy.

As to your statement that everything I know about democrats comes from the right wing, condescension aside that is just flatly untrue.  I was raised in western Kentucky in a democrat family, I worked for a government agency where a vast majority of my co-workers were die hard dems (and union members) and half of my inlaws are teachers who are hard core democrat supporters.  So the old "discredit the messenger by claiming he is a right wing shill" doesn't really fly here.

I will concede that I shouldn't have used quotation marks when discussing the democrats positions because they were a synthesis of quotes rather than direct quotes which I did to save time.  To clarify therefore:

On Social Security Privatization:

Here are Democrat quotes on a plan to have government invest social security funds in stock market to increase returns:

 Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV[/B]): "[M]ost Of Us Have No Problem With Taking A Small Amount Of The Social Security Proceeds And Putting It Into The Private Sector." (Fox's "Fox News Sunday," 2/14/99).  Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND): "I Was At The Social Security Summit At The White House, Along With 40 Of My Colleagues, Republicans And Democrats. And There Was Virtual Unanimity Of Opinion That We Simply Have To Get A Higher Return From The Social Security Investments." (Fox News' "Special Report," 1/20/99). ) Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-MA): "I Am An Advocate For Investing A Portion Of The Surplus In The Private Sector ..." (Rep. Edward J. Markey, Committee On Commerce, U.S. House Of Representatives, Testimony, 2/25/99) Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY): "t's A Way Of Getting More Money – A Higher Return On The Trust Fund, And Is A Prudent And Good Thing To Do." (Rep. Jerrold Nadler, Press Conference, 1/21/99) Former Rep. Dick Gephardt (D-MO): "Why Should Social Security Recipients Be Disadvantaged By Not Getting To Be Able To Have Higher Returns Out Of The Stock Market?" (Rep. Dick Gephardt, Press Conference, 1/21/99) Clinton: President Clinton: "[Investing] Will Earn A Higher Return And Keep Social Security Sound For 55 Years." (President Bill Clinton, State Of The Union, 1/19/99) President Clinton: "[W]hat I Believe We Should Do Is To Invest A Modest Amount Of This In The Private Sector, The Way Every Other Retirement Plan Does. The Arizona State Retirement Plan Does; Every Municipal Retirement Plan Does; Every Private Plan Does." (President Bill Clinton, Remarks To The Citizens Of Tucson On Medicare And Social Security, Tucson, AZ, 2/25/99) President Clinton: "[E]ven After You Take Account Of The Stock Market Going Down And Maybe Staying Down For A Few Years, Shouldn't We Consider Investing Some Of This Money, Because, Otherwise, We'll Have To Either Cut Benefits Or Raise Taxes To Cover Them, If We Can't Raise The Rate Of Return."

Now, contrast that to Democrats almost unanimous opposition when Bush proposed letting individuals invest a portion of their social security in private markets absent government control.  Some additional quotes:

"But maybe most of all, the Bush plan isn't really Social Security reform. It's more like Social Security roulette. Democrats are all for giving Americans more of a say and more choices when it comes to their retirement savings. But that doesn't mean taking Social Security's guarantee and gambling with it. And that's coming from a Senator who represents Las Vegas."
Harry Reid – 2005 Democrat Response to State of the Union Address

and

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Durbin, if you're trying to fix a problem, why would you say, "We will not sit down and talk to the president until he meets our demand by taking off the table private and personal accounts"?

SEN. DURBIN: .....The privatization proposal of the president is going to destroy Social Security as we know it.....
 
MR. RUSSERT: So you're suggesting that private personal accounts are a secret plan to get rid of Social Security?

SEN. DURBIN: Look what it does. It takes money out of the Social Security Trust Fund, $2 to $5 trillion, to be gambled in the stock market. There are winners and losers.

Senator Dick Durbin (D) on "Meet the Press" 03/06/05

So essentially if government invests the money it is a great idea but if individuals invest their own money it is a gamble.

As far as my alleged "straw man" about liberals not wanting people to control their own money, just look at the freakin IRS code if you want evidence.  It is all about giving tax breaks for the right kind of spending and behavior by way of manipulating deductions and credits, so that if you buy an electric car or something the government wants to promote they will give you money back but when it comes to blanket tax cuts or flat tax forget it.  That isn't just a democrat problem though because plenty of politicians of either party enjoy spending other people's money.

I won't bore the readers with much else but briefly on your other points:

If taking government control of the health care sector isn't "big government" and consolidating power at the federal level I don't know what would satisfy your definition. If you need more examples of democrat consolidating power at the federal level then study up on FDR and the New Deal.  And sorry, but having studied a lot of constitutional law, your statement that the states' rights versus federal control argument is all about conservatives opposed to segregation is just too ridiculous to merit a serious response.

Say what you will, the democrats' support of "closed shops" and opposition to "right to work" laws would force people to join unions and pay dues.  I can find you plenty of democrat quotes on those points as well.  And for the record I'm fine with Unions as long as workers have the choice to join them or not.

I've never said that true liberals or even democrats are fascist or Marxist.  And I've never read a book by Ann Coulter and don't have time to listen to Rush Limbaugh so your absurd statement that I get all my facts from the right wing doesn't hold up well.   You on the other hand slap the labels of homophobic, racist, fascist, etc. on anyone even identified as conservative and trot out the same tired old canards from "Air America" and Al Franken and try to pass them off as original thoughts while at the same time discounting any real debate by attacking the messenger and mischaracterizing the argument.  For the record I consider myself conservative and my political position and that of other conservatives I know is that I want the government to stay the hell out of my wallet and personal life as much as possible and stick to the constitutional authority it was intended to have.  Now tell me how that would lead to fascism.

Thing being, there are a few kinds of conservatives floating around these days.

One kind is sorta libertarian.  They want the government to Stay the Fuck Out of their lives, economically and socially.

The other kind wants the government to make sure everyone is only sleeping with the correct people, in the correct manner, for the correct reasons, while having the correct kind of religion, and would kinda prefer that the government mostly stay out of their wallets.  Oh, and the government should spy on us to keep us safer.

Liberals usually want the government to stay out of our personal lives, and have come to the conclusion that some projects are best done as group projects because they are an expensive pain in the ass to try and pull off individually.  They also have decided that there is nothing magic about Corporations that make them a good choice, or Government that makes it a bad choice.  Also, any great power should be viewed with suspicion, whether it is an economic power (such as a corporation), or the government.  The best thing you can do is control the one you can (government), and use it to keep the one you can't in line.

Democrats are not universally liberal.  They tend to run off on tangents a lot.

Your analysis would have been better without the cheap shots, NYM.

Of course I think it would have been better without the uncritical praise too... but the cheap shots are what really kill it for me.

Quote from: NotYourMonkey;241146Thing being, there are a few kinds of conservatives floating around these days.

One kind is sorta libertarian.  They want the government to Stay the Fuck Out of their lives, economically and socially.

The other kind wants the government to make sure everyone is only sleeping with the correct people, in the correct manner, for the correct reasons, while having the correct kind of religion, and would kinda prefer that the government mostly stay out of their wallets.  Oh, and the government should spy on us to keep us safer.

Liberals usually want the government to stay out of our personal lives, and have come to the conclusion that some projects are best done as group projects because they are an expensive pain in the ass to try and pull off individually.  They also have decided that there is nothing magic about Corporations that make them a good choice, or Government that makes it a bad choice.  Also, any great power should be viewed with suspicion, whether it is an economic power (such as a corporation), or the government.  The best thing you can do is control the one you can (government), and use it to keep the one you can't in line.

Democrats are not universally liberal.  They tend to run off on tangents a lot.

I agree that there are numerous types of conservatives and liberals running around these days and they aren't a monolithic group.  I think that is why I have issues with Jackalope's (or Hollywood) attempt to paint conservatives as evil and liberals as good.  I was trying to point out, that JFK and FDR are considered liberal by many but they engaged in activities that some would consider conservative whereas George Bush is called conservative and has done things commonly associated with liberals.  This idea that conservatives are all fascists and liberals are all hippies is simplistic and naive, as is blind loyalty to any one political party on the assumption that the other party is evil.  So I oversimplified a bit and labled democrats as big government loving tax junkies but I don't honestly believe all of them are like that.  

The shooter in the OP was a deranged asshole who wanted to become famous by shooting at innocent people. Labeling him as a "right winger" and making this political serves no purpose IMO.

Oh and I agree democrats aren't universally liberal, in fact, I'm not sure democrats are universally anything these days.  I think their biggest problem is that their base is so diverse that they can't have strong opinions on anything without offending someone.

Quote from: Grimjack;241098For the record I consider myself conservative and my political position and that of other conservatives I know is that I want the government to stay the hell out of my wallet and personal life as much as possible and stick to the constitutional authority it was intended to have.  Now tell me how that would lead to fascism.

A politician lies, claims to represent your position, you vote for him despite the fact that no politician could ever possibly deliver on those sorts of promises, they get into office, and suddenly we have fascism.  Seriously man, the "conservative" position as you describe it does not exist in real politics.  It's simply not a viable option.  Anyone who claims it is is lying to you.

And seriously, do you really want to live in the 19th century?  You really want to go back to a society before the New Deal, when class mobility was non-existence, where wealthy elites got far superior educations to the masses, to communities increasingly segregated by income and class?

Have you ever been out of the country, traveled to third world countries where these sort of lassiez-faire economic policies are used?  Desperate crushing poverty right next to palatial mansions, with horribly corrupt police forces, brutality, riots in the streets, revolutions, etc.

I seriously don't understand how you could be willing to trade living in a nice, safe and diverse society for living in a world full of squalor and crushing poverty.  

What do you do for a living GrimJack?

Ah... only conservative politicians lie to get into office. How refreshing, now I know who to vote for... thank you, Jackalope, thank you!

Why do liberals automatically assume that less government would lead to plantations and child labor? Seriously - do they think that all of America is so stupid that they would really allow such wholesale rollbacks?

(of course not, only the half that dosn't agree with them)

Quote from: Jackalope;241404And seriously, do you really want to live in the 19th century?  You really want to go back to a society before the New Deal, when class mobility was non-existence, where wealthy elites got far superior educations to the masses, to communities increasingly segregated by income and class?

Also, I thought you folks thought this is the world we live in TODAY - based on the rhetoric spewing from Denver this week and every other day of the year, you'd think its all robber-barons vs. plainative waifs.

Now, a GOVERNMENT living in the 19th century in terms of budget and intrusiveness is fine by me, thanks.

To break up text into smaller quotes, highlight the text and hit the little speech button icon on the editing panel.

Quote from: Grimjack;241188I think that is why I have issues with Jackalope's (or Hollywood) attempt to paint conservatives as evil and liberals as good.

What you seem to be missing is that when you dramatize the struggles between liberals and conservatives, it's impossible to make the conservative position look admirable.  The conservative position is inevitably a defense of the powerful over the powerless, the elites over the masses.  The stories of conservative champions, of the strident defenders of conservative values -- Joe McCarthy, Bull Connors, Rush Limbaugh -- are not exactly heroic stories.

QuoteI was trying to point out, that JFK and FDR are considered liberal by many but they engaged in activities that some would consider conservative whereas George Bush is called conservative and has done things commonly associated with liberals.

Yeah, it's all very fuzzy and complicated.

QuoteThis idea that conservatives are all fascists and liberals are all hippies is simplistic and naive, as is blind loyalty to any one political party on the assumption that the other party is evil.

Conservatives aren't all fascists.  The conservative movement as a whole is fascist.  As I've already said many times, many conservative supporters are simply mislead, mistaken, or deeply confused about political realities.

QuoteThe shooter in the OP was a deranged asshole who wanted to become famous by shooting at innocent people. Labeling him as a "right winger" and making this political serves no purpose IMO.

If it helps highlight the hatemongering that has been going on with the right for several years now, then something good will have come out of it.

Jackalope's word view:

Conservatives:
(http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/1714/cobracs5.jpg)

Liberals:
(http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/1161/ponydq2.jpg)


Seriously, that his view.

CavScout,

 So you're saying that Jackalope thinks liberals created the Planet Unicorn?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=7W0DXUJUZJk

Either that , or Jackalope is going to be re-incarnated in 2117 as a gay boy named Shannon.


- Ed

Quote from: Koltar;241449CavScout,

 So you're saying that Jackalope thinks liberals created the Planet Unicorn?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=7W0DXUJUZJk

Either that , or Jackalope is going to be re-incarnated in 2117 as a gay boy named Shannon.


- Ed

Who knows, but I bet he thinks Unicron (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=oHRbgUwPXo8) is a conservative.

Quote from: Werekoala;241421Why do liberals automatically assume that less government would lead to plantations and child labor?

Because when conservatives talk about reducing government, they invariably mean reducing the parts of the government that were created in the post-industrial age to correct gross inequities.

The logic is fairly simple:
P: Gross inequities are a natural function of capitalism.
P: Liberal social programs correct for these gross inequities.
C: Removing liberal social programs will result in the remergance of naturally occurring gross inequities.

Example:  It is economically more efficient to discriminate against the disabled than to accommodate them.  This is why, historically, being disabled was an extremely high predictor of poverty.  

The Social Security Act provides a living allowance for the disabled, sparing them the degradations of a discriminatory market that has historically left them homeless and unemployable -- in the third world, disabled street beggers are common.

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 makes it illegal for businesses to discriminate against disabled people in public accommodations.  While Title I is important, as it makes it far more possible for disabled Americans to find employment, it is Title 3 -- which requires public accommodations to be accessible to the disabled -- that has really impacted the lives of    This has had a tremendous effect on the quality of life and mobility of disabled people.  Enforcement of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, amongst many other acts, requires government oversight in business licensing and new construction.  Enforcement requires bureaucracy.

Conservatives have argued that Title 3 is an egregious government intrusion on business owner's right to property, and sought to prevent the passage of the ADA.  The "negative right" to discriminate against disabled people in public accomodations is, in the conservative ideological worldview, an essential liberty more valuable than the "positive right" of disabled Americans to participate in society.

Thus it seems reasonable to assert that an America with a government that only defends negative rights, as conservatives propose, would be an America where business owners made the economically efficient decision to discriminate against the disabled.

The same logic can be applied to most of the government agencies that conservatives would reduce: OSHA, the Department of Labor, etc.

For example, it is more efficient to bust union building efforts and prevent your workers from organizing than it is to let them organize.  Organized labor means higher wages, more vacation time, and all sorts of other concessions to workers.  So corporations invest millions in discrediting unions, in weakening labor laws, etc. Historically, businesses owners have found it more efficient to kill some portion of their workers, to hire spies to monitor them, to bribe the state into supporting their property rights at the cost of worker's lives, etc.

QuoteSeriously - do they think that all of America is so stupid that they would really allow such wholesale rollbacks?

No, liberals are more concerned that American workers will radicalize and plunge into either Communism or Fascism in the face of the threat of such rollbacks.  I mean, what exactly is to prevent such rollbacks if you reduce the size of the government to the point where it is incapable of defending these rights?  How are unorganized American workers supposed to compete with powerful capitalists?

People need work.  If the only work offered to them is dangerous, poorly paid, and without benefits, then they have to take it.  Stupidity has nothing to do with it.

QuoteAlso, I thought you folks thought this is the world we live in TODAY - based on the rhetoric spewing from Denver this week and every other day of the year, you'd think its all robber-barons vs. plainative waifs.

Well, if you look at any part of the world that has capitalism but not the sort of worker's safeguards we have in the West, what you see is all robber-barons vs. plainative waifs.

QuoteNow, a GOVERNMENT living in the 19th century in terms of budget and intrusiveness is fine by me, thanks.

You really, really want to live in a world where corporations rule everything, and where the average person is a powerless serf in the face of tyrannical economic institutions?

Yes, but again, there is a wholesale attitude that seems to reek of "They're too stupid to know what's best; if we don't control things, it'll all turn into "Song of the South" again" permeating the Liberal side of the debate. Yet I don't see ONE conservative saying "Why yes, it'll be grand, let's do it".

So again, why do you think the American People would let such things happen, especially now that we know better? If corporations dump all healthcare and start paying pennies an hour for life-threatening work - you honestly think they'd attract any employees? For that mater, how does government ensure businesses can attract them?

Again, of course, except for the fact that according Biden et. al. say we ARE living in such dark and dreary times. He practically had to rake the coal soot from his hair during his speech last night.

Man, those freedom loving folks. I wonder why they are trying to stop speech  (http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/08/obama_campaign_confronts_wgn_r.html)on the radio? Wierd... they must not have gotten Jack's memo about being GI Joe or someting.

Quote from: Werekoala;241461Again, of course, except for the fact that according Biden et. al. say we ARE living in such dark and dreary times. He practically had to rake the coal soot from his hair during his speech last night.

You have to ask how did Obama make all his cash in such god-awful economic times?

The extraction of coal in China is far more dangerous than in America.

Quote from: WikipediaChina, in particular, has the highest number of coal mining related deaths in the world, with official statistic 6,027 deaths in 2004. To compare, the USA reported 28 deaths in the same year. Coal production in China is twice that of the United States, while the number of coal miners is around 50 times that of the USA, making deaths in coal mines in China 4 times as common per worker (108 times as common per unit output) as in the USA. (Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_mining#Dangers_to_miners))

Coal is extracted much more efficiently in America, using much more sophisticated technology.

Quote from: WikipediaTechnological advancements have made coal mining today more productive than it has ever been. To keep up with technology and to extract coal as efficiently as possible modern mining personnel must be highly skilled and well trained in the use of complex, state-of-the-art instruments and equipment. Future coal miners have to be highly educated and many jobs require four-year college degrees. Computer knowledge has also become greatly valued within the industry as most of the machines and safety monitors are computerized.

In the United States, the increase in technology has significantly decreased the mining workforce from 335,000 coal miners working at 7,200 mines fifty years ago to 104,824 miners working in fewer than 2,000 mines today. As some might see this as a sign that coal is a declining industry its advances has reported an 83% increase of production from 1970 to 2004.

One of the primary differences between the American and Chinese coal mining industries is the difference in labor rights.  "Chinese style Socialism," which is essentially fascism, features the following labor restrictions:
• a legal ban on trade unions, except a single "captive union" controlled by the leaders of the Communist Party as a means of disciplining workers rather than asserting their rights and interests.
• a legal ban on strikes and every other form of "planned worker action" or protest.
• police harassment, arrest, detention, lengthy imprisonment, assault, and torture against workers (and the wives, husbands, and children of workers) who assert their rights of association, attempt to organize unions independent of government control, or strike.
• a system of controls on internal migration that imposes fines, exactions, punitive threats, arbitrary detention, violence, and forced repatriation against tens of millions of workers who temporarily migrate from the Chinese countryside to work in export factories -- creating an enormous subclass, often working in bonded labor and even less able to exercise rights of association and assert other basic workers' rights.
• willful failure to enforce minimum wage, maximum hours, and occupational
health and safety standards, producing a workforce that routinely earns as little as 12 to 50 cents per hour, often works twelve to eighteen-hour days and seven-day weeks, and suffers staggering rates of injuries, illness, and death.
• willful failure to enforce child labor standards, creating a population of child laborers that may be larger than the entire manufacturing workforce of the United States.
• imposition of forced labor by violent means throughout China's vast penal system, where working conditions are even worse than in other enterprises.

America used to look much like this, in the 19th century, and there is no reason why America couldn't return to such a state.  If conservatives succeed in demonizing liberal accomplishments and liberals, and reduce the size of liberal institutions to the point where they "can be drown in a bathtub" (i.e. cannot effectively enforce laws), American corporations can force American workers to compete on the international market with workers in states like China and India, where worker's rights are minimal to non-existent.

It's not like American corporations have shown any sort of fundamental respect for worker's rights:

QuoteAccording to the report (http://laborstrategies.blogs.com/global_labor_strategies/files/behind_the_great_wall_of_china.pdf), U.S.-based global corporations like Wal-Mart, Google, UPS, Microsoft, Nike, AT&T, and Intel, acting through U.S. business organizations like the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai and the U.S.-China Business Council, are actively lobbying against the new labor legislation. They are also threatening that foreign corporations will withdraw from China if it is passed. China's Draft Labor Contract Law would provide minimal standards that are commonplace in many other countries, such as enforceable labor contracts, severance pay regulations, and negotiations over workplace policies and procedures. The Chinese government is supporting these reforms in part as a response to rising labor discontent.

Corporate opposition to the law is designed to maintain the status quo in Chinese labor relations. This includes low wages, extreme poverty, denial of basic rights and minimum standards, lack of health and safety protections, and an absence of any legal contract for many employees. (Source (http://www.alternet.org/story/43051/))

Seriously, reduce the government to the role it played in the 19th century, and you are handing control of the world over to institutions that are fundamentally selfish -- even sociopathic  (http://www.amazon.com/review/RAF8IGRQOON0E)-- and beyond democratic control.

Quote from: Jackalope;241428What you seem to be missing is that when you dramatize the struggles between liberals and conservatives, it's impossible to make the conservative position look admirable.  The conservative position is inevitably a defense of the powerful over the powerless, the elites over the masses.  The stories of conservative champions, of the strident defenders of conservative values -- Joe McCarthy, Bull Connors, Rush Limbaugh -- are not exactly heroic stories.

Any of those three are a helluva lot better than good old lefty Bernie Ward, the "Lion of the Left (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Ward)", and his radio show. I bet you were one of the "supporters [who] wrote letters to the judge, extolling the talk show host and urging leniency." (http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_10326294?source=most_viewed)

I mean, shit, he may have like screwing little kids but he was on the side of GI Joe and Luke Skywalker, right?

Quote from: Werekoala;241461So again, why do you think the American People would let such things happen, especially now that we know better?

I don't know.  You want to recreate the conditions that allow such things to happen, yet you supposedly know better.  Why?

QuoteIf corporations dump all healthcare and start paying pennies an hour for life-threatening work - you honestly think they'd attract any employees?

Yes.  People need to work.  People need money, and they'll take work even if it sucks, just so they can survive.

If Wal-Mart (largest employer in America, rabidly anti-worker) started by slashing employee wages and benefits, and turned that directly into consumer discounts, they would make quick profits.  Similar retailers would quickly follow in their path.  This would affect other industries, and very quickly wages and benefits would start dropping across the board, all the way up into lower management.

Of course, without welfare the number of people in desperate poverty will increase, and crime will become rampant, which will keep the small but necessary middle class cowed.

QuoteFor that mater, how does government ensure businesses can attract them?

By criminalizing the alternatives to working for the owners of land property and capital, and by defending the property rights of the wealthy over the human rights of the masses.  Basically the government defines anyone who doesn't work according to terms negotiated solely by the capital owners as an enemy of the state, thus making prison or death the alternative to seeking employment.

Quote from: CavScout;241466Any of those three are a helluva lot better than good old lefty Bernie Ward, the "Lion of the Left (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Ward)", and his radio show. I bet you were one of the "supporters [url] who wrote letters to the judge, extolling the talk show host and urging leniency." (http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_10326294?source=most_viewed)

Who?  I've never heard of the guy.

Why not try real liberal heroes: like Martin Luther King Jr..  Or John Dewey.  Or Abraham Lincoln.

Quote from: Jackalope;241474Who?  I've never heard of the guy.

You must have heard about the liberal Don Siegelman, he only had a speaking gig at this week's DNC convention. Forget that he was convicted of "one count of bribery, one count of conspiracy to commit honest services mail fraud, four counts of honest services mail fraud and one count of obstruction of justice". I am sure he is a good liberal.

Quote from: Jackalope;241474Who?  I've never heard of the guy.

Why not try real liberal heroes: like Martin Luther King Jr..  Or John Dewey.  Or Abraham Lincoln.  

Abraham Lincoln - huh?

 He was a Republican and a conservative.

HISTORY SAYS:

Quote1858 June 16: In a speech in Springfield, Illinois, Senate candidate Abraham Lincoln said the slavery issue had to be resolved, declaring, "A house divided against itself cannot stand".

.....also :

Quote1860 May 18: The Republican Party convention in Chicago nominated Abraham Lincoln for president.

Quote from: CavScout;241476You must have heard about the liberal Don Siegelman, he only had a speaking gig at this week's DNC convention. Forget that he was convicted of "one count of bribery, one count of conspiracy to commit honest services mail fraud, four counts of honest services mail fraud and one count of obstruction of justice". I am sure he is a good liberal.

You really, really want to bring up Don Siegelman?  Really?  The guy Karl Rove had framed by Alberto Gonzales in order to subvert the democratic process?

Quote from: Jackalope;241481You really, really want to bring up Don Siegelman?  Really?  The guy Karl Rove had framed by Alberto Gonzales in order to subvert the democratic process?

You mean, who you say was "framed", right? I guess the left doesn't accept jury convictions unless they agree with them.

Quote from: Koltar;241478Abraham Lincoln - huh?

 He was a Republican and a conservative.

HISTORY SAYS:



.....also :

Hey, don't tell him about how Lincoln's suspend habeas corpus. It makes it hard to demonize Bush for what he's done while he hero-worships Lincoln who took steps that make Bush look quite the libertarian.

Heck, I worship Lincoln too, but he certainly wasn't a liberal.

Quote from: Koltar;241478Abraham Lincoln - huh?

 He was a Republican and a conservative.

Abraham Lincoln was a Republican at the time when the Republican party was the party of progressive liberalism.  He was a major abolitionist.

I have no idea why you think that a radical reformer and progressive like Lincoln was a conservative.  Actually, I have an idea: you're a moron.

Quote from: CavScout;241485You mean, who you say was "framed", right? I guess the left doesn't accept jury convictions unless they agree with them.

The fact that he is not currently in a cell, after serving less than a year of his sentence, speaks volumes about what the criminal justice systems thinks about his conviction.

And yeah, when a Republican lawyer testifies under oath that she heard a Republican operative name the judge who would eventually prosecute Siegelman, and claimed that judge promised to "hang him," and the head of the justice department steps down in a blizzard of controversy over politically motivated prosecutions -- including the one in question-- than yeah, I think it's reasonable to not accept a jury conviction as proven fact.

But what the fuck do I know!? I only have a bachelor's degree in criminal justice.  I clearly know less about the court system and how to interpret events in it than your dumb ass.

Quote from: Jackalope;241490The fact that he is not currently in a cell, after serving less than a year of his sentence, speaks volumes about what the criminal justice systems thinks about his conviction.

And yeah, when a Republican lawyer testifies under oath that she heard a Republican operative name the judge who would eventually prosecute Siegelman, and claimed that judge promised to "hang him," and the head of the justice department steps down in a blizzard of controversy over politically motivated prosecutions -- including the one in question-- than yeah, I think it's reasonable to not accept a jury conviction as proven fact.

But what the fuck do I know!? I only have a bachelor's degree in criminal justice.  I clearly know less about the court system and how to interpret events in it than your dumb ass.

Oh noes, now he is going to claim "but I am an internet lawyer! I know all!" Claiming it to be a political conviction is about as convincing as those who say the same thing about Libby.

I bet you still think Ollie North is guilty, regardless that his convictions were overturned.

Quote from: CavScout;241492Oh noes, now he is going to claim "but I am an internet lawyer! I know all!" Claiming it to be a political conviction is about as convincing as those who say the same thing about Libby.

I bet you still think Ollie North is guilty, regardless that his convictions were overturned.

How is Sen. Ted Stevens doing these days?

Amidst the blizzard of other Republican financial, sexual, and corruption scandals, getting a local contractor to build an addition to your house may be small potatoes, but it is the latest in a long, long line of Republicans getting caught with their hand in the cookie jar.  

I am pretty sure you don't want to start pointing fingers at Democratic public officials.

Quote from: CavScout;241486Hey, don't tell him about how Lincoln's suspend habeas corpus. It makes it hard to demonize Bush for what he's done while he hero-worships Lincoln who took steps that make Bush look quite the libertarian.

Heck, I worship Lincoln too, but he certainly wasn't a liberal.

Is this the same Lincoln that went to war over 'states rights'?  As I recall, he was on the 'not so much' side.

Not much of a conservative, that.

Quote from: StormBringer;241528How is Sen. Ted Stevens doing these days?

Amidst the blizzard of other Republican financial, sexual, and corruption scandals, getting a local contractor to build an addition to your house may be small potatoes, but it is the latest in a long, long line of Republicans getting caught with their hand in the cookie jar.  

I am pretty sure you don't want to start pointing fingers at Democratic public officials.

You can bet he won't be headlining the GOP convention like the Dem's own collection of felons.

It's not that there is a Dem who is a felon, it's there's a Dem who is a felon and is speaking (or spoek rather) at their convention.

Quote from: StormBringer;241532Is this the same Lincoln that went to war over 'states rights'?  As I recall, he was on the 'not so much' side.

Not much of a conservative, that.

Thinking the Civil War was about "states rights" is generally what southern sympathizers claim. You're not one of those southern apologists are you?

Heck, Lincoln was far more "right" on suspending rights, like habeas corpus, than the current Bush. He certainly wasn't a liberal. Say what you want about Gitmo... it wasn't like Andersonville or the federal equivalents.

Quote from: CavScout;241535You can bet he won't be headlining the GOP convention like the Dem's own collection of felons.

It's not that there is a Dem who is a felon, it's there's a Dem who is a felon and is speaking (or spoek rather) at their convention.

Just to illustrate how CavScout twists reality to suit his own delusional worldview, when he first mentioned Siegelman, he said "You must have heard about the liberal Don Siegelman, he only had a speaking gig at this week's DNC convention. (emphasis added)"  Now he's implying that Siegelman is headlining at the convention.

He didn't actually speak at the convention.  You can check the schedule of speakers (http://www.demconvention.com/schedule/).  He's nowhere on it.  You can even search the site, and there isn't a single mention of him.  

He spoke to a group of Colorado delegates to the convention at a breakfast meeting that was unconnected to actual convention.

Not headlining.  Not featured.  Not a keynote speaker.  He spoke at a breakfast to a group of Colorado delegates.  And apparently, he asked to be given the opportunity to address them.

Every time a right winger pulls one of these gothca bullshit things on me, and I start poking around, and doing some digging, it turns out it's a lot of bullshit and hot air.

Quote from: CavScout;241538Thinking the Civil War was about "states rights" is generally what southern sympathizers claim. You're not one of those southern apologists are you?

Don't worry, child, I know what the civil war was about.  Your conservative friends seem determined to fight over 'state's rights' 150 years later, though.  Are you saying you don't want more federal power transferred to the states?  Or are your buddies hiding behind a code word that means "those blacks are too uppity'?

QuoteHeck, Lincoln was far more "right" on suspending rights, like habeas corpus, than the current Bush. He certainly wasn't a liberal. Say what you want about Gitmo... it wasn't like Andersonville or the federal equivalents.

I love it when someone does a backhanded revision of history.

"On April 27 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_27), 1861 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1861), habeas corpus was suspended by President Abraham Lincoln (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln) in Maryland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland) and parts of midwestern states, including southern Indiana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana) during the American Civil War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War). Lincoln did so in response to riots, local militia actions, and the threat that the border slave state of Maryland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland) would secede from the Union, leaving the nation's capital, Washington, D.C. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_D.C.), surrounded by hostile territory...  His action was challenged in court and overturned by the U.S. Circuit Court in Maryland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland) (led by Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_B._Taney))... In the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Davis) also suspended habeas corpus and imposed martial law. This was in part to maintain order and spur industrial growth in the South to compensate for the economic loss inflicted by its secession. On March 3, 1863, Congress passed the Habeas Corpus Act of 1863. This bill suspended Habeas Corpus across the nation and was passed to rectify Taney's objections in Ex Parte Merryman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Merryman), that Congress and not the President has the power to suspend Habeas Corpus."
Wow, Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus in two limited areas, which was immdediately challenged by the Supreme court.  Two weeks later, Congress suspended it nation wide, as a demonstration that the President was not permitted to do so.

It's almost as if Lincoln wanted to perpetuate slavery, he was such a tyrant.

Quote from: Jackalope;241557Just to illustrate how CavScout twists reality to suit his own delusional worldview, when he first mentioned Siegelman, he said "You must have heard about the liberal Don Siegelman, he only had a speaking gig at this week's DNC convention. (emphasis added)"  Now he's implying that Siegelman is headlining at the convention.

He didn't actually speak at the convention.  You can check the schedule of speakers (http://www.demconvention.com/schedule/).  He's nowhere on it.  You can even search the site, and there isn't a single mention of him.  

He spoke to a group of Colorado delegates to the convention at a breakfast meeting that was unconnected to actual convention.

Not headlining.  Not featured.  Not a keynote speaker.  He spoke at a breakfast to a group of Colorado delegates.  And apparently, he asked to be given the opportunity to address them.

Every time a right winger pulls one of these gothca bullshit things on me, and I start poking around, and doing some digging, it turns out it's a lot of bullshit and hot air.

So you defense is not that he wasn't invited to speak at the Dem's convention, it's that it wasn't that important of a speech?

Getting a speaking spot during a party's convention is a big thing. Allowing a convicted felon, for being a corrupt politician, one is telling of the party as a whole.

I like how we've gone from "he a political prosecution and was framed" to "he spoke but it wasn't an important spot!".

Quote from: StormBringer;241605Don't worry, child, I know what the civil war was about.  Your conservative friends seem determined to fight over 'state's rights' 150 years later, though.  Are you saying you don't want more federal power transferred to the states?  Or are your buddies hiding behind a code word that means "those blacks are too uppity'?

Is this one of those "ah shit, I am losing on the merits, I better toss out a racism accusation" moments? Seriously, you and Jack reading the same debate tactics manual?

States do have certain rights that the federal government can't trump, but the individual has rights that neither the state nor the federal government can't trump. Southern ashamed at the south's fight to keep slavery try to make it a "state's rights" issue but it was not. Just because these apologists want to make the Civil War a "state's rights" issue doesn't then mean anytime a legitimate state's right issue is brought up it is about slavery or racism.

Quote from: StormBringer;241605I love it when someone does a backhanded revision of history.

"On April 27 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_27), 1861 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1861), habeas corpus was suspended by President Abraham Lincoln (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln) in Maryland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland) and parts of midwestern states, including southern Indiana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana) during the American Civil War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War). Lincoln did so in response to riots, local militia actions, and the threat that the border slave state of Maryland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland) would secede from the Union, leaving the nation's capital, Washington, D.C. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_D.C.), surrounded by hostile territory...  His action was challenged in court and overturned by the U.S. Circuit Court in Maryland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland) (led by Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_B._Taney))... In the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Davis) also suspended habeas corpus and imposed martial law. This was in part to maintain order and spur industrial growth in the South to compensate for the economic loss inflicted by its secession. On March 3, 1863, Congress passed the Habeas Corpus Act of 1863. This bill suspended Habeas Corpus across the nation and was passed to rectify Taney's objections in Ex Parte Merryman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Merryman), that Congress and not the President has the power to suspend Habeas Corpus."
Wow, Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus in two limited areas, which was immdediately challenged by the Supreme court.  Two weeks later, Congress suspended it nation wide, as a demonstration that the President was not permitted to do so.

It's almost as if Lincoln wanted to perpetuate slavery, he was such a tyrant.

So, I said Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, you in effort to show me I was wrong, pointed out that Lincoln had indeed suspended Habeas Corpus. Then declared yourself the winner.... you just had another Al-Sahhaf moment.

Quote from: CavScout;241671Is this one of those “ah shit, I am losing on the merits, I better toss out a racism accusation” moments? Seriously, you and Jack reading the same debate tactics manual?

No, that is your gig, because you have never had merits of any kind to fall back on.

QuoteStates do have certain rights that the federal government can’t trump, but the individual has rights that neither the state nor the federal government can’t trump. Southern ashamed at the south’s fight to keep slavery try to make it a “state’s rights” issue but it was not. Just because these apologists want to make the Civil War a “state’s rights” issue doesn’t then mean anytime a legitimate state’s right issue is brought up it is about slavery or racism.

Uh huh.  Spin away.  They are the exact same state's rights issue.  Although, I am sure Strom Thurmond would wholly endorse your explanation.  Now you are a state's rights apologist, too.

QuoteSo, I said Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, you in effort to show me I was wrong, pointed out that Lincoln had indeed suspended Habeas Corpus. Then declared yourself the winner.... you just had another Al-Sahhaf moment.

Wow.  Just, wow.

Quote"On April 27 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_27), 1861 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1861), habeas corpus was suspended by President Abraham Lincoln (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln) in Maryland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland) and parts of midwestern states, including southern Indiana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana) during the American Civil War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War). Lincoln did so in response to riots, local militia actions, and the threat that the border slave state of Maryland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland) would secede from the Union...

For specific reasons in limited areas.  Congress then suspended it nationwide.  The culprits you are looking for are in Congress.  Your attempt to impugn one of our finest presidents to further your own agenda is offensive.

Two bright guys with slight tendencies toward the histrionic walk into the same room and just fucking explode, spraying the rest of us with viscera. It burns.

Quote from: StormBringer;241709For specific reasons in limited areas.  Congress then suspended it nationwide.  The culprits you are looking for are in Congress.  Your attempt to impugn one of our finest presidents to further your own agenda is offensive.

CavScout: You do know that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, right? So calling him a liberal seems a bit off-target.
Stormbringer: No he did not! Lies!
CavScout: Actually he did.
Stormbringer: No he didn't. He suspended in only in some places. Then Congress suspended it everywhere!
CavScout: So... ummm... he did suspend it?
Stormbringer: NOOOOOO!
CavScout: But you even acknowledge that he did...
Stormbringer: You racist, communist, right-wing, bigot, fascist, nazi, slave owner, murderer, rapist, criminal, vote stealer, conservative, Limbaugh, Coulter, state's rights lovin'......

Quote from: CavScout;241725Stormbringer: You racist, communist, right-wing, bigot, fascist, nazi, slave owner, murderer, rapist, criminal, vote stealer, conservative, Limbaugh, Coulter, state's rights lovin'......

Seriously?  This is what you have?

Quote from: StormBringer;241729Seriously?  This is what you have?

(http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/6934/baghdadbobhabjn7.jpg)

Quote from: CavScout;241730picture

That's it?

Stormbringer was all seen working for the Confederacy.
(http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/8359/iimgettysburgen0.jpg)

Quote from: Jackalope;241404A politician lies, claims to represent your position, you vote for him despite the fact that no politician could ever possibly deliver on those sorts of promises, they get into office, and suddenly we have fascism.

True of any politician.  I agree that a healthy dose of skepticism is lacking in the electorate these days and it is almost like the public memory is too short to remember after an election that the politician lied to them.  

Quote from: Jackalope;241404Seriously man, the "conservative" position as you describe it does not exist in real politics.  It's simply not a viable option.  Anyone who claims it is is lying to you.

I'll concede it is probably more of a libertarian position although I don't agree with them totally either.  For instance I know a lot of areas where government intervention can be a benefit so I wouldn't cut them out entirely.  There are also areas where IMO going to the private sector and introducing competition would improve on a service the government provides.  I don't believe either a totally market driven or totally government provided society is ideal.  There needs to be a balance.  I just tend to favor less government control as a rule since they are a monopoly and often unaccountable.

Quote from: Jackalope;241404And seriously, do you really want to live in the 19th century?  You really want to go back to a society before the New Deal, when class mobility was non-existence, where wealthy elites got far superior educations to the masses, to communities increasingly segregated by income and class?

Not necessarily, but at the same time I don't think the New Deal has lived up to its hype and I've seen the effects of an entitlement mentality  first hand.  If you believe the government's own statistics then the war on poverty has been a disaster or at least hasn't accomplished what it was supposed to do.  At the same time, I do concede that I've seen cases where a safety net is needed but whether that is public or private is open to debate.

Quote from: Jackalope;241404Have you ever been out of the country, traveled to third world countries where these sort of lassiez-faire economic policies are used?  Desperate crushing poverty right next to palatial mansions, with horribly corrupt police forces, brutality, riots in the streets, revolutions, etc.

No, I'm not much of a traveler (I would like to see Australia some day) and that is a fair point, but at the same time aren't a lot of those places you mention heavy into government control of everything?  Using China as an example, while not perfect, by all accounts the lives of many citizens have improved with the relax of some government control.  Again, I think there needs to be balance.

Quote from: Jackalope;241404I seriously don't understand how you could be willing to trade living in a nice, safe and diverse society for living in a world full of squalor and crushing poverty.

No sane person would but the debate is how best to achieve that society and that is where we disagree.  

Quote from: Jackalope;241404What do you do for a living GrimJack?

I'm a lawyer.  Used to be a corporate lawyer, now private practice so I've seen both sides.  I represent indigent clients and I can see the good the safety nets and government agencies do but at the same time I have seen people who become over reliant on those mechanisms.  By contrast, I've seen corporations screw people over but at the same time they are made up of individuals, many of which are good people and I happen to believe that the free market and competition can achieve great things.

Oh and by the way, that was an excellent analysis of the insanity defense and M'Naughten you did back before the thread derailed.  Thanks for the tip on breaking up the quotes that makes it much easier.

Quote from: CavScout;241733Stormbringer was all seen working for the Confederacy.

Yeah, I guess it was kind of silly, after all, to respond to even one of your posts.

For giving anything you say even a patina of legitimacy, you are welcome.  To everyone else, I apologize for allowing this go on far too long.

Quote from: StormBringer;241741Yeah, I guess it was kind of silly, after all, to respond to even one of your posts.

For giving anything you say even a patina of legitimacy, you are welcome.  To everyone else, I apologize for allowing this go on far too long.

Your only regret is that you were exposed as the hollow, shrill liberal that you are. But, curiously, what hurts you more? That exposure or the fact that your usual "lies. no u" response didn't carry the day for you?

Quote from: CavScout;241744Your only regret is that you were exposed as the hollow, shrill liberal that you are. But, curiously, what hurts you more? That exposure or the fact that your usual "lies. no u" response didn't carry the day for you?

I regret that I didn't have clever pictures that had nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Quote from: CavScout;241665So you defense is not that he wasn't invited to speak at the Dem's convention, it's that it wasn't that important of a speech?

No, as I just pointed out, he wasn't invited to speak at the convention.  You made that up.  You're a lying sack of shit.

Quote from: StormBringer;241760I regret that I didn't have clever pictures that had nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

You should regret the lack of anything clever, be it pictures or words.

Quote from: Jackalope;241765No, as I just pointed out, he wasn't invited to speak at the convention.  You made that up.  You're a lying sack of shit.

/facepalm

Quote from: Jackalope;241765No, as I just pointed out, he wasn't invited to speak at the convention.  You made that up.  You're a lying sack of shit.

Save yourself some time (http://www.slate.com/id/2165980/pagenum/all/#page_start).

Quote from: StormBringer;241770Save yourself some time (http://www.slate.com/id/2165980/pagenum/all/#page_start).

Wow, some of those I'd yet to hear of.

This one in particular makes me laugh:

QuoteBushies in NASA With the Weird Science
NASA scientist James E. Hansen accused Bush appointees of censoring global-warming info and limiting press access to top climate experts. George C. Deutsch, a 24-year-old writer and editor for NASA who had worked for Bush's 2004 campaign, resigned for lying on his résumé. Deutsch also made NASA Web masters add the word theory to every mention of the big bang.

Oh Bushies, will you ever learn.

Also, they're going to find it hard to find any speakers at all without making Cavvie into a hypocrite.  Though, since he's already a lying sack of shit that mindlessly repeats right wing propaganda, I guess adding hypocrite wouldn't mean much.

I thought the Big Bang WAS just a theory, more and more so these days with things like n-space, membranes, etc.

That's one thing I DO keep up on.

Quote from: Werekoala;241848I thought the Big Bang WAS just a theory, more and more so these days with things like n-space, membranes, etc.

That's one thing I DO keep up on.

As I understand it, the Big Bang gets more and more evidence for it all the time, but its exact nature (what expanded, and how and what exactly happened when during that expansion) is getting more and more complicated.

IANAPhysicist, but a couple of buddies of mine are, and that's the gist of what they say when I ask them.

Quote from: Werekoala;241848I thought the Big Bang WAS just a theory, more and more so these days with things like n-space, membranes, etc.

That's one thing I DO keep up on.

Koala,

That sounds pretty interesting to be honest - could you start a new thread on that?

Creation of the Universe stuff can sometimes be fun to read.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Werekoala;241848I thought the Big Bang WAS just a theory, more and more so these days with things like n-space, membranes, etc.

That's one thing I DO keep up on.

Gravity is "just a theory."

People who are anti-science for religious reason have this looney idea that an idea looks less credible if you establish that it's "just a theory."  Hence the demands that students be reminded that evolution is "a theory, not a fact."

And it's not like I'm even saying that Big Bang is the best theory (I don't keep up on astrophysics).  But it's not like n-space, membranes, etc. are going to be more palatable to people who basically want there to be two possible theories: whatever science says, and whatever they think their magic book tells them is true.

I mean hell, the kind of people who want books to say "evolution is a theory" or "the gradual formation of the Grand Canyon by years of river action is just a theory" are the kind of people who think that macro-evolution is a real term that refers to a real thing, or that the possibility of a world encompassing "hydrosphere" that collapsed creating the Great deluge and carving out the Grand Canyon in a flash is a reasonable theory (because it's supported by the bible!).

Jackalope is "just a theory".

Wow! I feel better already!

Quote from: jeff37923;241912Jackalope is "just a theory".

Wow! I feel better already!

Jack eloping?  
Just a theory ?
With Ianto?
 Man, those TORCHWOOD plots just get more and more interesting - don't they?

What?

- Ed C.

Quote from: jeff37923;241912Jackalope is "just a theory".

Wow! I feel better already!

Jackalope doesn't rise to such heights.

Why are you guys still talking to him?

Quote from: gleichman;241921Jackalope doesn't rise to such heights.

Why are you guys still talking to him?

Not so much talking to him as, just mocking him.

Quote from: jeff37923;241924Not so much talking to him as, just mocking him.

Ah. He's certainly fun to mock.

Quote from: jeff37923;241924Not so much talking to him as, just mocking him.

You mock GI Joe? You communist!

I have something in common with Goethe, "Wir sind gewohnt dass die Menschen verhohnen was sie nicht verstehen."

Quote from: Jackalope;242003I have something in common with Geothe, "Wir sind gewohnt dass die Menschen verhohnen was sie nicht verstehen."

Who the fuck is Geothe, fuckwit?

Quote from: jeff37923;242004Who the fuck is Geothe, fuckwit?

I think he means Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.

Quote from: CavScout;242008I think he means Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.

In that case he's still wrong, because we mock him out of an understanding of his positions.

Quote from: jeff37923;242057In that case he's still wrong...

That, sir, was a given.

Quote from: jeff37923;242057In that case he's still wrong, because we mock him out of an understanding of his positions.

Bullshit you do. You haven't even expressed the dimmest understanding of my positions.  You fling poo like a monkey, because that's about how bright you are.

You don't understand my positions Jeff. You're an idiot.

Quote from: Jackalope;242128Bullshit you do. You haven't even expressed the dimmest understanding of my positions.  You fling poo like a monkey, because that's about how bright you are.

You don't understand my positions Jeff. You're an idiot.

Take it easy GI Joe. We know you positions. You're good, everyone disagreeing with you is bad. Believe me, you've made that clear to everyone on this forum.

You and your beliefs are this:
(http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/4268/smurf1hd1.gif)

Those not you or agreeing with your beliefs are this:
(http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/6711/gargamelandazraelfromthhi1.jpg)

We mock you because we do understand you. We also understand that you are a tool.

Quote from: CavScout;242131Take it easy GI Joe. We know you positions. You're good, everyone disagreeing with you is bad. Believe me, you've made that clear to everyone on this forum.

That the values I uphold are morally defensible, and the values you uphold are morally indefensible, is a position I hold, but far from the sum of my positions.  You fail to understand why I hold that position, and mock the position without understanding it.  That is the very point I'm making.

This is why you're incapable of making a serious rebuttal of the argument, you can only post examples that support it: The Smurfs was thinly veiled leftist propaganda, and hugely successful.

Consider:
* The Smurfs' community generally takes the form of a cooperative, sharing and kind environment based on the principle that each Smurf has something he or she is good at, and thus contributes it to Smurf society as he or she can. In return, each Smurf appears to be given their necessities of life, from housing and clothes to food.  This is the liberal utopian ideal.  If you really want to put a fine point on it, they were lead by a benevolent dictator, a philosopher-king, who wore the only red suit in the village, and looked suspiciously like Karl Marx.
* Gargamel's goal is to capture the Smurfs and transform them into gold.  His desire for gold blinds him to recognizing the inherent value of the Smurf community, he will destroy everything to become rich.  He is a capitalist.  He is aided by his abused and maligned minion Azrael, a dumb beast that cannot speak.  Not coincidentally, Azrael is brown, like a brownshirt.

The Smurfs cartoon was essentially a highly repetitive moral drama that presented liberal values in an entertaining fashion.  It was wildly successful, spawning a feature film, massive toy lines, theme parks, and more.  Why?

Because people like liberal values.  Even conservatives like liberal values.  That is, when they aren't seeing them through the distorted lens of conservative ideological brainwashing.

I love it when they actually reinforce your point.

Quote from: Spike;241164Your analysis would have been better without the cheap shots, NYM.
but the cheap shots are what really kill it for me.

I would agree that there are cheap shots in the description of the type II conservatives.  I think that, in the final analysis, they want to impose things on people that are harmful.  They have good intentions, but they are badly, badly wrong on a universal policy level.

I don't think sorta libertarian is a cheap shot, because being sorta libertarian is a stance I can sympathize with.  Sometimes they are right.  Sometimes there is too much government interference, sometimes the government is doing something dumb,  or is corrupt, and sometimes a company can do it better.  Sometimes the market really is the best way to go.  The problem that I see is that they sometimes forget that some problems really are systemic and need cohesive, systemic solutions.  Sometimes they get so freaked out by the government, that they forget that corporate entities are just as capable of ruining your life.  Sometimes the thing that makes the most money is not the best thing.  

As for the description of liberals, this is what I believe, and more or less what most of the liberals I talk to seem to believe.  When liberals go wrong, it seems to me, it is when they get focused on some tiny piece of something and go nuts, or end up coming from a screwed up secular version of the first type of conservative.  They hear swearing or see sex, and it becomes "OMG!!! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!" and some liberals see violence or see ice on a playground and it becomes "OMG!!!! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!".

Quote from: NotYourMonkey;242259I would agree that there are cheap shots in the description of the type II conservatives.  I think that, in the final analysis, they want to impose things on people that are harmful.  They have good intentions, but they are badly, badly wrong on a universal policy level.

-snip for length-

As for the description of liberals, this is what I believe, and more or less what most of the liberals I talk to seem to believe.  When liberals go wrong, it seems to me, it is when they get focused on some tiny piece of something and go nuts, or end up coming from a screwed up secular version of the first type of conservative.  They hear swearing or see sex, and it becomes "OMG!!! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!" and some liberals see violence or see ice on a playground and it becomes "OMG!!!! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!".

See, but cheap shots sets you up to be a blindly one sided ideolog, not far removed from Jackalope.  When you couple that with a pretty blase acceptance of a 'perfect view' of the other side... well presto, you've just confirmed that your analysis is self serving rather than insightful.

Which is tragic when the actual analysis has insightful points to make.

It IS better than the hollow points made by career politicians in the news recently. Despite spending 8+ hours a day with the news on at work, I had to tune out the convention coverage when I realized that nobody involved was saying anything real... with too few exceptions to note.


As for your ending paragraph: I, personally, don't want anyone screaming 'OMG, won't anyone think of the CHILDREN', for any real reason. Children eventually will be adults, and they need to slip on ice or hear swear words in order to make that transition. Stop fucking coddling the little leeches.

Quote from: Spike;243754See, but cheap shots sets you up to be a blindly one sided ideolog, not far removed from Jackalope.  When you couple that with a pretty blase acceptance of a 'perfect view' of the other side... well presto, you've just confirmed that your analysis is self serving rather than insightful.

Which is tragic when the actual analysis has insightful points to make.

Which is the difference between, say, a job interview and a research paper or and an internet chat room.  It would be fare to say that I find the second type of conservatives described to be pretty loathsome right out of the gate.

Quote from: Spike;243754As for your ending paragraph: I, personally, don't want anyone screaming 'OMG, won't anyone think of the CHILDREN', for any real reason. Children eventually will be adults, and they need to slip on ice or hear swear words in order to make that transition. Stop fucking coddling the little leeches.

There we agree, at least in principle.  I think we generally need to protect kids from harm that stands a really good chance of being crippling or lethal.  I get irritated when something killed someone once, and now it must be banned forever (hence I see this as a place where liberals sometimes go wrong).  I get irritated and offended when the decision to protect kids is from things that aren't actually going to hurt or cripple them, and where parental guidance is really the best sort of protection there is.  Usually this is the sort of things that conservatives seem to want to protect kids from (though liberals do a little of this to with the violent video game/movie thing).

All this agreement is not entertaining....

...

Thus, I must say you are a poopyhead and your arguements are made up of fail, epic fail and statistics.  


The problem really is that you've decided to hold up this 'second type of conservative' without really making it clear that you are talking about a made up construct that you can lump in people who's politics you don't like. (guh... ugly sentance....)... while presenting it as 'all conservatives', if only by implication and reader laziness.

Likewise you seem to give a pass to the liberals... bias if you will. 'Well, their inappropriate moralizing is more acceptable, less harmful'.

Bah.

These constructs... left, right, liberal, conservative... they do nothing.

Quote from: Spike;243754See, but cheap shots sets you up to be a blindly one sided ideolog, not far removed from Jackalope.

That's about the most unfair characterization of me you could possibly make.

There is no one  ideology that matches up with my thoughts and opinions.  I'm all over the map.  I'm a libertarian-socialism who supports a strong police and military.  I'm a liberal who supports free market solutions to social problems over government intrusion.  I'm pro-choice, pro-gun, pro-pacifism, anti-PC, and pro-reparations.

If you're going to call me an ideologue, I demand you name my ideology.  Since you can't, you may feel free to retract the accusation.

Quote from: Jackalope;243826If you're going to call me an ideologue, I demand you name my ideology.

Fuck-nut, lefty-liberals who identify with GI Joe.

Quote from: CavScout;243835Fuck-nut, lefty-liberals who identify with GI Joe.

All of the above fits, but the term fuckwit is more succinct.

Quote from: jeff37923;243845All of the above fits, but the term fuckwit is more succinct.

My apologies.

Quote from: Jackalope;243826That's about the most unfair characterization of me you could possibly make.

There is no one  ideology that matches up with my thoughts and opinions.  I'm all over the map.  I'm a libertarian-socialism who supports a strong police and military.  I'm a liberal who supports free market solutions to social problems over government intrusion.  I'm pro-choice, pro-gun, pro-pacifism, anti-PC, and pro-reparations.

If you're going to call me an ideologue, I demand you name my ideology.  Since you can't, you may feel free to retract the accusation.

Sadly the Internet ate my first response, so I'll save myself some heartache and sum up.

Point one: If you read the last line of my qouted post you'll see I feel labels are not constructive means of establishing belief structures. That's a more detailed eloquent way of stating it, rather than the succinct and vaguely humorous tone I originally used.

Point two:  Being able to label a particular ideology is not a necessary attribute of an ideolog.  You are an ideolog by virtue of the fact you refuse to open your mind even so far as to allow any one who disagree's with you as having a valid perspective. They are evil, stupid, misled or otherwise lacking in your finer points of goodness and righteousness. That makes you an ideolog, not being able to label your belief structure succintly is not even an issue.  

Since you have a closed mind, since anyone who disagrees with you is automatically evil, facist or incapable of reason it is impossible to engage in a reasoned debate with you. Thus your only value to the site is to caper and dance for our amusement.

Don't like it? Quit being a Jackass.

Quote from: Spike;243869Sadly the Internet ate my first response, so I'll save myself some heartache and sum up.

Point one: If you read the last line of my qouted post you'll see I feel labels are not constructive means of establishing belief structures. That's a more detailed eloquent way of stating it, rather than the succinct and vaguely humorous tone I originally used.

Point two:  Being able to label a particular ideology is not a necessary attribute of an ideolog.  You are an ideolog by virtue of the fact you refuse to open your mind even so far as to allow any one who disagree's with you as having a valid perspective. They are evil, stupid, misled or otherwise lacking in your finer points of goodness and righteousness. That makes you an ideolog, not being able to label your belief structure succintly is not even an issue.  

Since you have a closed mind, since anyone who disagrees with you is automatically evil, facist or incapable of reason it is impossible to engage in a reasoned debate with you. Thus your only value to the site is to caper and dance for our amusement.

Don't like it? Quit being a Jackass.

:hatsoff:

Quote from: Spike;243869Point two:  Being able to label a particular ideology is not a necessary attribute of an ideolog.  You are an ideolog by virtue of the fact you refuse to open your mind even so far as to allow any one who disagree's with you as having a valid perspective. They are evil, stupid, misled or otherwise lacking in your finer points of goodness and righteousness. That makes you an ideolog, not being able to label your belief structure succintly is not even an issue.

You've clearly misunderstood my arguments.  There are plenty of people I disagree with that I recognize as having a valid perspective.  That's what makes me a liberal, i.e. open-minded.  My own position is a constantly growing and evolving, and my ideas derive from a synthesis of a huge range of perspectives.

What you are failing to consider is that maybe I'm right.  See, you're actually the one being close-minded, because you aren't even engaging with my ideas, you're simply rejecting them out of hand because they don't appeal to your existing biases.

I have considered the conservative position.  I do not consider it a valid perspective.  It is fundamentally mired in superstition, fear of change, stagnation, and corruption.  I find that when one looks at history, and identifies the conservatives -- those attempting to preserve their imaginings of the past, to save tradition from progress, to resist growth and change -- they are inevitably the side that lost in whatever struggle you look at.

Consider the Civil War.  The liberals were the Republicans and the abolitionists, who wanted to see an end to slavery and expansion of political enfranchisement to men of all races.  The conservatives were those who defended the practice of slavery.  Each side in the struggle used art, literature and science to fight for hearts and minds.  In the end, as it usually does, it came to violence.  The conservatives lost.

So they regrouped, and came back, and we had the Civil Rights struggle.  And you had heroes on each side: Martin Luther King Jr. vs Bull Connor.  If you don't remember Bull Connor, it's because he was a pro-segregationist.  His side lost, and when history remembers him, they remember him as the horrible guy who used firehoses and police dogs to prevent black people from voting.

All of history follows this pattern:   Some people want more freedom.
Some people are threatened by this.
They fight.  (This can take awhile.)
The people who want more freedom win.
History, art and literature remembers the losers as the bad guys.

You can even see it in the development of communism.  Lenin is seen as far less evil than Stalin, and is even seen as a heroic figure by many (especially in Eastern Europe).  Lenin lead a popular revolution against the horrible Czarist authority, and brought a golden age to the Russian people.  But then he died, and a new struggle emerged, between the liberal Trotsky faction and the conservative Stalin faction.  Trotsky lost, which would seem to contradict my point, but Trotsky was in favor of democracy, and Stalin's defeat of the Trotskyites brought the communist sphere into conflict with the international movement towards democracy.  And the commies lost that one.

QuoteSince you have a closed mind, since anyone who disagrees with you is automatically evil, facist or incapable of reason it is impossible to engage in a reasoned debate with you. Thus your only value to the site is to caper and dance for our amusement.

It's entirely possible to engage in reasonable debate with me.

It's just that few do.

Quote from: Jackalope;243900It's entirely possible to engage in reasonable debate with me.

Cobra disagrees.

Quote from: CavScout;243903Cobra disagrees.

You've never tried to have a reasonable conversation with anyone on this forum.

Jackalope: This is call 'Proving my point for me'.  Quotes will follow, they are all yours, and all from your last post as I type.  

First: I defined your position as that of an ideolog. You are, by nature of your beliefs, superior to everyone else, and anyone who disagrees with your beliefs is wrong, stupid or evil. That is the essence of how I defined your closed minded world view.

QuoteThat's what makes me a liberal, i.e. open-minded

See what you just did? You defended the charge of being closed minded by referenceing your belief system. 'I'm good because I'm christian!', or in your case 'I'm open minded because I'm liberal'.  Of course, you are an ideolog, that is exactly what you would say.  You follow this with:

QuoteI have considered the conservative position. I do not consider it a valid perspective. It is fundamentally mired in superstition, fear of change, stagnation, and corruption

You paint everyone who opposes you as conservative, and post this about conservatives.  That is not an open minded evalutation of their perspective. Your further comments about historical studies shows just how far you missed my point.  You have not taken the point of view that a person might have a conservative belief because they find valid reasons behind it, its because they are mired in superstition or afraid of change, or later that they support rich slavemasters lording over poor serfs.  


You further confound this by retroactively painting those you agree with as liberals and those you dislike as conservatives... just as you did with G.I. Joe, and as you do here:

QuoteConsider the Civil War. The liberals were the Republicans and the abolitionists, who wanted to see an end to slavery and expansion of political enfranchisement to men of all races. The conservatives were those who defended the practice of slavery

The problem is, at the time, and continuing today, no one really framed the debate using conservative and liberal.  I don't doubt they existed as terms at the time.  I also don't doubt, as you obviously do, that there were people who supported a conservative agenda that happened to identify with conservative politics and those who supported segregation and slavery that had more liberal agendas outside those single issues.  

You also do this with Dr. King. I will admit that many inheritors of the Civil Rights movement have sided with the Democrats, can be identified as Liberals... but in my study of history (strictly amature...) I've never seen that Dr. King ever identified himself as a politician or politically aligned with either party. He was a single issue guy in some regards. We can, if we wanted, point out his credentials as a minister and suggest that leaving aside the Civil Rights struggle, that he'd come down on the conservative side of many hot button issues of the day, like prayer, abortion and so forth.  I won't speak for him, myself, though you obviously have no such compunctions.

QuoteIt's entirely possible to engage in reasonable debate with me.

It's just that few do

.

This is the laughable point here, above all else you said. Consistently when anyone has disagreed with you, no matter how reasonably, you've accused them of lying, being disingenious or just outright evil. The only 'reasonable debate' in your world view... and provable just by your actions since you got here, is agreement with your politics.  That, sadly, doesn't lead to debate at all.

Of course few people engage in reasonable debate with you. Not only are you an ideolog incapable of tolerating opposing viewpoints, but your own collection of views are scattershot and extreme enough that eventually everyone you talk to will eventually have some issue they must disagree with you on, and suddenly they are Cobra, sociopaths or treacherous betrayers of all that is good.

Quote from: Jackalope;243905You've never tried to have a reasonable conversation with anyone on this forum.

Hyperbole is not your strong suit. I've have plenty of reasonable conversations on this site.

Spike, everyone on this site is an ideologue.

Quote from: Spike;243813Likewise you seem to give a pass to the liberals... bias if you will. 'Well, their inappropriate moralizing is more acceptable, less harmful'.

If it helps, I find liberals going nuts over violent video games precisely as obnoxious over conservatives going nuts about swearing because it is the same thing.

Quote from: NotYourMonkey;243998If it helps, I find liberals going nuts over violent video games precisely as obnoxious over conservatives going nuts about swearing because it is the same thing.

Right Wing Lunatic Snaps (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=11340)

And the circle is now complete. Thank you for playing your hand at Hypocrisy Poker, but you definitely got to learn when to fold em'.

See, by being the OP of the above thread, you showed that you were more than willing to promote the idea that conservative pundits can cause a man to commit a heinous crime because it makes conservatives look bad. That is your bias. However, you still are using the same shallow thinking that led Patricia Pauling to blame the "satanic" influence of D&D for the suicide of her son.

Quote from: Spike;243915First: I defined your position as that of an ideolog. You are, by nature of your beliefs, superior to everyone else, and anyone who disagrees with your beliefs is wrong, stupid or evil. That is the essence of how I defined your closed minded world view.

Again, this is not an accurate representation of my beliefs.

You say that I believe I am superior to everyone else, when in fact I only think I am superior to a small group of people united by their common adherence to an ideology that is superstitious, irrational and fundamentally anti-human.  An ideology, I might add, that would wipe me off the face of the earth given a chance.

You say that I think anyone who disagrees with me is wrong, stupid or evil, when in fact I only think that a small group of people united by their common adherence to an ideology that is superstitious, irrational and fundamentally anti-human are wrong, stupid or evil.

QuoteSee what you just did? You defended the charge of being closed minded by referenceing your belief system. 'I'm good because I'm christian!', or in your case 'I'm open minded because I'm liberal'.

liberal –adjective
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.

When I said "I'm open minded because I'm liberal," I was being somewhat toungue-in-cheek.  What I really mean is that because I'm open minded, I'm liberal.  See, you defining open-minded in a very peculiar way that makes it impossible to be a thinking person and be open-minded.

Consider the full meaning of "open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc."  Not bound by tradition or convention.

One could hardly claim I am "bound by traditional or conventional ideas."  I recognize that most people perceive me as a kook or nutcase because my ideas are very radical and unconventional.

And one can hardly be consider close-minded for rejecting traditional or conventional ideas, yet this is exactly what you are doing.  You make the entirely unreasonable assumption that I could not possibly reject those ideas for entirely sound and rational reasons, or worse, that rejecting bad ideas for entirely sound and rational reasons is being close-minded.

Refusing to reject any idea, no matter how clearly flawed, doesn't make you open-minded!  It makes you dumb!

QuoteYou paint everyone who opposes you as conservative, and post this about conservatives.  That is not an open minded evalutation of their perspective.

Well I respectfully disagree.

QuoteYour further comments about historical studies shows just how far you missed my point.  You have not taken the point of view that a person might have a conservative belief because they find valid reasons behind it, its because they are mired in superstition or afraid of change, or later that they support rich slavemasters lording over poor serfs.

It is possible that someone could have a conservative belief with a logical and valid rational, but a conservative belief does not make one.  It's when a person becomes actively dedicated to conserving institutions that are rooted in superstition,

QuoteYou further confound this by retroactively painting those you agree with as liberals and those you dislike as conservatives... just as you did with G.I. Joe, and as you do here:

I am not "painting" anyone as anything.  The words liberal and conservative have meanings.  They have definitions that allow them to be used to communicate things.  Liberals seek progress, conservatives seek to preserve or recreate the institutions of society.

So I am not "painting" the sides in historical events in a certain way.  I'm just applying the definitions of the terms in a rational and consistent manner.  A logical manner.  I'll demonstrate:

Abolitionists and Republicans sought to abolish the institution of slavery.
Abolishing the institution of slavery is a progressive step for a society.
Therefore Abolitionists and Republicans took a liberal position.

The Confederacy sought to preserve the institution of slavery.
Abolishing the institution of slavery is a progressive step for a society.
Therefore the Confederacy took a conservative position.

It's elementary, my dear Spike.

QuoteThe problem is, at the time, and continuing today, no one really framed the debate using conservative and liberal.

That's because I think outside the box. I'm unconventional.

QuoteI don't doubt they existed as terms at the time.  I also don't doubt, as you obviously do, that there were people who supported a conservative agenda that happened to identify with conservative politics and those who supported segregation and slavery that had more liberal agendas outside those single issues.

A "liberal agenda" when you support an institution as fundamentally anti-human as slavery seems a case of "lipstick on a pig."

QuoteYou also do this with Dr. King. I will admit that many inheritors of the Civil Rights movement have sided with the Democrats, can be identified as Liberals... but in my study of history (strictly amature...) I've never seen that Dr. King ever identified himself as a politician or politically aligned with either party. He was a single issue guy in some regards. We can, if we wanted, point out his credentials as a minister and suggest that leaving aside the Civil Rights struggle, that he'd come down on the conservative side of many hot button issues of the day, like prayer, abortion and so forth.  I won't speak for him, myself, though you obviously have no such compunctions.

Possibly, but then again it only takes twenty years and no new ideas for a liberal to become a conservative.  At his peak, he was most definitely representing a liberal, or progressive, position relative the rest of society.

And Dr. King was a Republican, as were most black Americans.  That was, of course, before the mass desertion of the "dixiecrats" to the Republican Party after Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act and split the Democrats in two.

Since that point, the Democrats have been the party that was willing to consider progressive political change, while the Republicans have slowly slid deeper and deeper into a confused morass of superstition, voodoo economics, divisive politics and fascism.

QuoteThis is the laughable point here, above all else you said. Consistently when anyone has disagreed with you, no matter how reasonably, you've accused them of lying, being disingenious or just outright evil. The only 'reasonable debate' in your world view... and provable just by your actions since you got here, is agreement with your politics.  That, sadly, doesn't lead to debate at all.

Of course few people engage in reasonable debate with you. Not only are you an ideolog incapable of tolerating opposing viewpoints, but your own collection of views are scattershot and extreme enough that eventually everyone you talk to will eventually have some issue they must disagree with you on, and suddenly they are Cobra, sociopaths or treacherous betrayers of all that is good.

The problem here is that you're simply not accurately reporting the truth.  For example, when Kyle accused me of being a misogynist, I didn't call him a conservative, or evil, or a treacherous betrayer of all that is good.  I called him a self-whipping pussy.

So hah.

Quote from: jeff37923;244008Right Wing Lunatic Snaps (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=11340)

And the circle is now complete. Thank you for playing your hand at Hypocrisy Poker, but you definitely got to learn when to fold em'.

See, by being the OP of the above thread, you showed that you were more than willing to promote the idea that conservative pundits can cause a man to commit a heinous crime because it makes conservatives look bad. That is your bias. However, you still are using the same shallow thinking that led Patricia Pauling to blame the "satanic" influence of D&D for the suicide of her son.

::headdesk::

Look jackhole, I said toward the beginning of this giant clusterfuck that as fucked in the head as this guy is, any ideology or thing to identify with a scapegoat attached would have provided a target for him.

Lets go with a hypothetical list, of things he could have been into, and the targets they would have provided, had they been his thing.

PETA: A lab.
Right to Life Movement: An abortion clinic
Early 1990's hip hop: Cops
The Environmental Movement: A GM dealership
Atheism: A church
Pentecostal Religion: Whomever the visions told him to shoot.

But, no, none of those were his thing, it was, apparently, right wing talk radio.  I never said any of this shit should be banned.  I find right wing talk radio to be fucking irresponsible as all hell, particularly Anne Coulter, because she walks right up to the edge of advocating violence against liberals, and sometimes pokes a toe over.  My opinion is not enough to get someone censored, and it shouldn't be.

Personally, I'd not let my kid listen to those guys, particularly if he/she had problems.  But then, that would be my responsibility as a parent.  Which is very different than the OMG THINK OF THE CHILDREN response, which is to use the censorship banhammer.

Quote from: NotYourMonkey;244068::headdesk::

 I said toward the beginning of this giant clusterfuck that as fucked in the head as this guy is, any ideology or thing to identify with a scapegoat attached would have provided a target for him.

And this pithy disclaimer that you are indeed, "fair and balanced", didn't stop you from pushing your bias as an agenda with the very title of your OP, did it?

But he did happen to be both right wing and a nutjob, didn't he?

He's not crazed because he's a right winger, but his choice of targets was influenced, in part, because of his ideological beliefs, or so his manifesto would have us believe.

Quote from: NotYourMonkey;244293But he did happen to be both right wing and a nutjob, didn't he?

And your bias shows in that you claim Adkinson to be right wing first and a nutjob only second. Its pretty obvious which label is predominant in your mind.

Quote from: NotYourMonkey;244293He's not crazed because he's a right winger, but his choice of targets was influenced, in part, because of his ideological beliefs, or so his manifesto would have us believe.

How can you use Adkinson's manifesto as evidence of anything when it hasn't been released yet? If you've gotten a copy of it, then you are doing better than the Knoxville News-Sentinel reporters who are actually covering the story instead of repeating it second hand with a biased slant.

Continue on, you teflon clad monkey, your beliefs make you impervious to harm...

Or did you forget that you've managed to align yourself explicitely with GI Joe, the 'Rebellion' in Star Wars (I'm surprised you haven't called yourself a Jedi yet...) and the faakin' Smurfs

I mean, you claim its only a 'small group' of people you find... where's that quote...

Quotewhen in fact I only think that a small group of people united by their common adherence to an ideology that is superstitious, irrational and fundamentally anti-human are wrong, stupid or evil.

Yet that small group consists of at least half a dozen people on this site alone. I mean you called John Morrow a sociopath just because he had the audacity to continue debating you! I mean... Gasp!... he couldn't see the obvious RIGHTEOUSNESS of your beliefs? HE MUST BE EVIL!!!!  Never mind that once we move away from the confines of this tiny corner of the internet you obviously feel that the half of the voting public that elected, and re-elected Bush must be either evil or deluded or... well, let me put it in your own words again...

Quotecommon adherence to an ideology that is superstitious, irrational and fundamentally anti-human are wrong, stupid or evil.

Of course, you have yet to actually ever demonstrate that conservatives are actually fundamentally anti-human. I mean, yeah, you've managed to use the term 'conservative' with a pretty broad brush on actions that others have performed, under different auspices, as 'conservative'... but most of the time that's wishful thinking.  

If, for some reason, I chose to define liberal and conservative with the eighth fucking definition in your own unattributed dictionary reference.... as you do complete with bolding...

Then at their starts nazi-ism, stalinism and facism were all, at one time, liberal ideals! They were new, fresh, untried!  They were a change!!!! Woot! We're all liberals here, we're all for change and new ideas, right?

Which makes your later use of those examples as prime examples of conservativism in action very fucking disingenious.

But that won't even register to you.

I'll skip to the end, since I've already stated, repeatedly, the futilty of attempting to engage you in meaningful discussion with a last rebuttal of sorts.

QuoteRefusing to reject any idea, no matter how clearly flawed, doesn't make you open-minded! It makes you dumb!

Leaving aside the fact that this puts you in good company with William F. Buckley...

And no one would disagree that failing to reject bad ideas is a good idea.

You have repeatedly stressed how utterly open minded you are, how very liberal and decried everyone else (that is, everyone not as liberal as you...) as closed minded. It is somewhat hypocritical that you respond to charges that you are in fact incredibly closed minded with a defense that it's okay to be closed minded.

I don't have to disagree with the sentiment expressed to find it amusing, hypocritical or even a damning statement of your own smug self assurance that you are right and good and can do no wrong.

Quote from: Spike;244404Or did you forget that you've managed to align yourself explicitely with GI Joe, the 'Rebellion' in Star Wars (I'm surprised you haven't called yourself a Jedi yet...) and the faakin' Smurfs

I did identify myself with the Rebel Alliance, and the Jedi are part of the Alliance, so yeah, I actually did.  The real question is: do you understand why I did that?

QuoteYet that small group consists of at least half a dozen people on this site alone. I mean you called John Morrow a sociopath just because he had the audacity to continue debating you!

No, I called him a sociopath because of the reasoning implicit in his argument, which was sociopathic.

QuoteOf course, you have yet to actually ever demonstrate that conservatives are actually fundamentally anti-human. I mean, yeah, you've managed to use the term 'conservative' with a pretty broad brush on actions that others have performed, under different auspices, as 'conservative'... but most of the time that's wishful thinking.

There are institutions in world society that create and perpetuate vast inequalities between people.  There exists across the world a broad tapesty of movements dedicated to addressing and correcting these injustices, and to supporting human values (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_values).  There also exists a wide tapestry of groups that actively works to stop these progressive movements, and thus oppose human values, and are thus anti-human.

The conservative movement brings together several of these movements, combing pro-poverty measures (conservatives seek to preserve the institution of poverty, claiming it is inevitable), pro-corporate measures (the corporation being one of the single most destructive forces in world society), ant-egalitarian movements (oposition to affirmative action, anti-gay measures, anti-gay marriage measures), and anti-woman movements (the pro-life movement, which simply seethes with misogyny).

QuoteIf, for some reason, I chose to define liberal and conservative with the eighth fucking definition in your own unattributed dictionary reference.... as you do complete with bolding...

Then at their starts nazi-ism, stalinism and facism were all, at one time, liberal ideals! They were new, fresh, untried!  They were a change!!!! Woot! We're all liberals here, we're all for change and new ideas, right?

By that definition, the conservative movement is liberal.  School vouchers?  Department of Homeland Security?  Faith-Based Initiatives?  But in reality, none of the movements you name were liberal, as none of them were for progress -- each seeked to preserve historical imbalances in power, and seek to preserve anti-human institutions: religious fanaticism, corporate capitalism.  No thought is given to the future.  The new ideas introduced by these movements were intended to secure and protect their power over others, and to preserve or recreate the past as they imagine it.

QuoteWhich makes your later use of those examples as prime examples of conservativism in action very fucking disingenious.

Only if we accept your rather ludicrous notion that stalismism attempt to preserve the absolutist authoritarian power of the Czarist governments in the face of Trotsky's attempt to democratize the Soviet Union a progressive, liberal agenda.  Or if we accept your implication that the Nazi Party's rhetoric of a return to ancient Aryan ideals and a strong German state, repression of the liberal arts, and the recreation of ancient empires progressive.  Or your rather bizarre implication that Mussolini's attempt to recreate the Roman Empire (fasces, from which the term fascism derives, were the symbol of Imperial power in ancient Rome) was a forward looking rejection of tradition.

But that won't even register to you.

I'll skip to the end, since I've already stated, repeatedly, the futility of attempting to engage you in meaningful discussion with a last rebuttal of sorts.

QuoteLeaving aside the fact that this puts you in good company with William F. Buckley...

And no one would disagree that failing to reject bad ideas is a good idea.

You have repeatedly stressed how utterly open minded you are, how very liberal and decried everyone else (that is, everyone not as liberal as you...) as closed minded. It is somewhat hypocritical that you respond to charges that you are in fact incredibly closed minded with a defense that it's okay to be closed minded.

I never did that Spike.  You're being disingenuous.  No surprise, since I'e been doing an excellent job of rebutting your argument.  The temptation to prop up a straw-man and attack that is hard to resist.

I never argued that it's okay to be close-minded.  I argued that I am not close-minded, that I am open-minded.  I argued that rejecting bad ideas does not make one close-minded.  You have agreed with this assertion.

Thus, if you wish to prove that I am close-minded, you must prove that my belief that the American conservative movement is founded on bad ideas is wrong, and that the American conservative movement is founded on good ideas.

Or, if you wish to let me control the conversation, you can demand I cite evidence for my assertion that conservatism is a collection of bad (superstitious, irrational, and fascist) ideas.   I can just start listing all of the truly horrible ideas that conservatives promote, the practices they engage in, and show how even their seemingly reasonable ideas are -- when viewed in the context of the other ideas they support and the actual actions of their leadership -- in fact only a smokescreen for a fundamentally anti-human and fascist movement.

Please do!  I want to talk about how Karl Rove intentionally provoked the polarization of the American people, leaving us in the current mess were in now.

For some reason, I don't think this guy (http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/09/03/shooting.rampage.ap/index.html) was listening to Limbaugh or Coulter when he went on his shooting spree.

Quote from: CavScout;244951For some reason, I don't think this guy (http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/09/03/shooting.rampage.ap/index.html) was listening to Limbaugh or Coulter when he went on his shooting spree.

You can tell because his targets were random, and not determined by whom the right-wing spews the most hatred at.

All of the people who want to believe politics had nothing to do with Adkisson's actions, CavScout here has just provided us a clear example of what random, unfocused violent craziness looks like.

Quote from: Jackalope;244954You can tell because his targets were random, and not determined by whom the right-wing spews the most hatred at.

All of the people who want to believe politics had nothing to do with Adkisson's actions, CavScout here has just provided us a clear example of what random, unfocused violent craziness looks like.

Columbine and the V-Tech shootings weren't "random", as they targeted the schools, which one of those was a right-wing loon?

Quote from: CavScout;244955Columbine and the V-Tech shootings weren't "random", as they targeted the schools, which one of those was a right-wing loon?

Neither.  Both were cases of social outcasts lashing out at the society the rejected them.

Quote from: jeff37923;244332And your bias shows in that you claim Adkinson to be right wing first and a nutjob only second. Its pretty obvious which label is predominant in your mind.

So if I say I have a black cat, is it more important to me that the critter is black, or that it is a cat?  Come the fuck on.

Quote from: jeff37923;244332How can you use Adkinson's manifesto as evidence of anything when it hasn't been released yet? If you've gotten a copy of it, then you are doing better than the Knoxville News-Sentinel reporters who are actually covering the story instead of repeating it second hand with a biased slant.

The whole thing has not been released, true.  The fact that it said he was looking to kill some gays and liberals was.

I still think the more relevent detail is that his ex-wife went to that Church at one time.

Crimes like this have people or persons involved in the mind of the shooter - not ideology.


- Ed C.

Sorry it took so long to get back to you, Jacka.. I've been pretty busy lately.

I'ma keep it short and to the point.

QuoteNo, I called him a sociopath because of the reasoning implicit in his argument, which was sociopathic.

See, this is called supporting my arguement.  Let me sum up: I say you are incapable, as an ideolog, a fanatic even, of accepting that others might have valid reasons to believe in ways that are in opposition to your own, and I bring up John Morrow as an example.

Instead of, say, suggesting it was hyperbole or some other rational reason for suggesting a poster is a sociopath, you reiterate that... because he believes something you are opposed to he MUST be a sociopath.  Let me isolate the key words here.

Quotebecause of the reasoning implicit

In other words: John didn't actually ACT or even SPEAK as a sociopath, but you believe that the reasons must oppose you must come from a sociopathic mind.  Right there, that... that is blanket, closed minded, condemnation of an opposed viewpoint.

Given the current fad of the site: Its bigotted behavior against an opposed set of ideas.

Quotecombing pro-poverty measures (conservatives seek to preserve the institution of poverty, claiming it is inevitable), pro-corporate measures (the corporation being one of the single most destructive forces in world society), ant-egalitarian movements (oposition to affirmative action, anti-gay measures, anti-gay marriage measures), and anti-woman movements (the pro-life movement, which simply seethes with misogyny).

Here is the challenge that you will spectacularly fail at: Find an organization that is 'pro-poverty'. Not, mind you, and organization that YOU BELIEVE will cause greater poverty, but one that is explicitely, beyond a doubt, for Poverty... and of course link them to mainstream conservative thought.

Prove that corporations are one of the most destructive forces etc.  I'll even be lenient here, I rather dislike corporations myself.  I'm absolutely certain, however, unlike you that a very strong, logical, rational case could be built...with little effort... that shows that corporations have given us things we wouldn't otherwise have... things that make our lives better.  

Prove also that opposition to providing special protections for select elements of society is in fact Anti-Egalitarian.   Show me how any group, or even selections of groups, can be "More Equal" than others in a truely egalitarian society.  

Show how Pro-Life, which is very popular among women as well, is explicitely anti-woman.  Don't imply it, don't show how there are a few results that are hardships imposed on women... show how the intent is explicitely anti-woman.

You are very fast with accusations of all sorts and excessively thin on 'making your case'. Stating something does not make it so. Make your case without resorting to the 'because I say so' that you normally use.

QuoteI'll skip to the end, since I've already stated, repeatedly, the futility of attempting to engage you in meaningful discussion with a last rebuttal of sorts.

Of course its futile, even when I engage you, because you don't want a debate. That would imply challenging your ideas, it would imply having to think about what I might say and why I might say it.  It would mean that.. if it were meaningful... that your ideas might actually be less than perfect. And you can't accept that.  Your little comment might have been meaningful if I were merely 'dance monkey, dance' with you, but it's less so when I am actually talking you.  Futile though it might be.

QuoteI never did that Spike. You're being disingenuous. No surprise, since I'e been doing an excellent job of rebutting your argument. The temptation to prop up a straw-man and attack that is hard to resist

.

No. I win. I'm totally dominating you.:rolleyes:  Read my sig again, give it a couple of reads before you say that again.  I suggest that utterly misunderstand the point here: Its not debate your philosophies but to draw out of you the very behavior I'm accusing you of. I do this not because I want to teach you the glories of conservative thought, but because I have some vague hope that you'll take a moment to consider your behavior, not just in presenting your case (badly) but in how you got there.   And it amuses me every time you open your mouth and prove to me how right I am about you. Note that: About YOU. Not, about your beliefs. I could care less about your beliefs. Ask anyone here, I'm the Insane Pika of Doom. I am an asexual fuzzball that smites motherfuckers and eats the corpses of the slain.  What use have I for your petty beliefs?

QuoteI argued that I am not close-minded, that I am open-minded

And I'm dead sexy and the smartest motherfucker in the room.  Its a brilliant counterarguement. Prove you are open minded.  I've given evidence to the contrary that you have only reinforced rather than rebutted.

QuoteThus, if you wish to prove that I am close-minded, you must prove that my belief that the American conservative movement is founded on bad ideas is wrong, and that the American conservative movement is founded on good ideas.

Why would I have to do that???  Leaving aside the silliness of equating closed mindedness with a single set of political ideas... it doesn't matter if the 'conservative movement' is founded on bad ideas or good ideas. What matters is how you react to people that agree with it in general.

For example: I think that the prohibition was a terrible idea.  I meet Joe and he tells me he's a teetotaler. Now, a NORMAL person might engage Joe in a conversation about why he doesn't drink, if he thinks alcohol is bad, and even maybe what his personal ideas are about prohibition. Jackass's on the other hand will simply assume (subsituiting conservativism and prohibition as necessary) that teetotallers are trying to bring back prohibition, that Joe's desire not to drink means he wants to take my booze away and will shout him down in any conversation at all, even calling him a facists, a sociopath... maybe even mired in superstition...

See: Being closed minded is a state of being unrelated to any specific set of ideas, good or bad.  If you were open minded you would be curious why John Morrow thinks, say, smaller government is good. You, for example, think that this will lead back to serfdom. Its a pretty extreme, stark, view, but in an honest OPEN MINDED conversation you could understand that John doesn't believe that it would, why he thinks it would be good for him personally, and the country... even if you disagreed. Instead you say his reasoning is implicitely sociopathic, you have denied that he might have any valid reasoning behind his beliefs at all.  Close minded.

QuoteOr, if you wish to let me control the conversation, you can demand I cite evidence for my assertion that conservatism is a collection of bad (superstitious, irrational, and fascist) ideas. I can just start listing all of the truly horrible ideas that conservatives promote, the practices they engage in, and show how even their seemingly reasonable ideas are -- when viewed in the context of the other ideas they support and the actual actions of their leadership -- in fact only a smokescreen for a fundamentally anti-human and fascist movement.

Please do! I want to talk about how Karl Rove intentionally provoked the polarization of the American people, leaving us in the current mess were in now.

Oh, we all know what you believe, we've even got a great edition of the Jackass Malleus Conservativeom to set on our shelves by now.  You, however, have continuously, even spectacularly, failed to actually lay out your case. You level accusations with the best of them. You back them up with hollow rhetoric and tired histrionics.  Occasionally, yes, you DO regale us with a selective reading of actual facts that illustrate some tiny portion of your point, ignoring anything at all that could be a valid rebuttal or even valid requests to look at the bigger picture.

Which is fine and dandy, lots of people act that way. Politicians act that way. Of course, you are louder and more obnoxious than most, and somewhat thicker skulled... and, of course, you are here.

If I REALLY REALLY wanted to cut your arguements apart I'd go straight to the core of the matter. Why would I bother trying to refute the thousand tiny cuts you'd try to inflict by laying the blame at my feet for every stupid act of every stupid man or woman who has ever declared themselves conservative out of my control?  Find me the smoking gun, find me, in the words of the conservatives themselves, where they want to do all the evil things that you claim they want to do.

But I won't bother. You would miss the point entirely. Even if I were to lay it down in beautiful, simplistic terms beyond all doubt you'd close your ears to them.   I have nothing to gain, no one here has ever publicly managed to articulate my particular belief structure with any measure of accuracy, many specifically getting it backwards, and I'm fine with that. I'm not here to proselytize my beliefs anyway.  This converstation isn't Jackass's vs Spike's belief structure... its Spike vs. Jackass's closed mind.  Or even, if you like, Spike's entertainment value vs. Jackass's ability to bore with the teflon armor plated skull/repetetive nonsense.

Eh, longer than I intended.

Quote from: CavScout;244951For some reason, I don't think this guy (http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/09/03/shooting.rampage.ap/index.html) was listening to Limbaugh or Coulter when he went on his shooting spree.

I assume we soon be hearing about his note regarding hatred for gays and liberals.

Or did you think an admittedly mentally ill drug abuser was some kind of actual comparison to the case at hand?  I am guessing you are actually trying to make the other correlation, that the Knoxville shooter was just mentally ill.  Which shows the vanishingly small level of your knowledge on mental illness.

Of course, I am guessing like most with your mindset, if a condition doesn't directly affect you, it is some sort of invention.  I am more and more of the opinion that a lack of empathy is strongly correlated with conservative leanings.  On the other hand, I am about thirteen years late catching that boat (http://www.wwcd.org/issues/Lakoff.html).

Quote from: StormBringer;245305I assume we soon be hearing about his note regarding hatred for gays and liberals.

Or did you think an admittedly mentally ill drug abuser was some kind of actual comparison to the case at hand?  I am guessing you are actually trying to make the other correlation, that the Knoxville shooter was just mentally ill.  Which shows the vanishingly small level of your knowledge on mental illness.

Of course, I am guessing like most with your mindset, if a condition doesn't directly affect you, it is some sort of invention.  I am more and more of the opinion that a lack of empathy is strongly correlated with conservative leanings.  On the other hand, I am about thirteen years late catching that boat (http://www.wwcd.org/issues/Lakoff.html).

A professor from Berkeley saying the right is evil... SHOCKED! SHOCKED! SHOCKED I tell you!

Quote from: CavScout;245311A professor from Berkeley saying the right is evil... SHOCKED! SHOCKED! SHOCKED I tell you!

That's not what he says at all actually.

That's what I say.

Quote from: Jackalope;245330That's not what he says at all actually.

That's what I say.

I agree, on both counts, but I think it's not much of a mystery that our little comrade has severe reading comprehension problems.

Quote from: StormBringer;245354I agree, on both counts, but I think it's not much of a mystery that our little comrade has severe reading comprehension problems.

It's not fair to call it a comprehension problem.  I suspect Cav's problem goes far beyond that.  I don't think he reads period.  I think he's like 18, has listened to a bunch of Rush and Fox News, and is completely unwilling to educate himself further.

Quote from: Jackalope;245416It's not fair to call it a comprehension problem.  I suspect Cav's problem goes far beyond that.  I don't think he reads period.  I think he's like 18, has listened to a bunch of Rush and Fox News, and is completely unwilling to educate himself further.

That is a good point.

It's lovely watching two monkey's sling shit and then act as though they are superior.

Quote from: CavScout;245452It's lovely watching two monkey's sling shit and then act as though they are superior.

Yes, you are fun to watch sometimes.

Quote from: StormBringer;245468Yes, you are fun to watch sometimes.

Just imagine if that made sense.

Do you two need me to get room keys again?  A glass of warm milk? Condoms?

Quote from: Spike;245477Do you two need me to get room keys again?  A glass of warm milk? Condoms?

:o

:p

Quote from: CavScout;245475Just imagine if that made sense.

Just imagine if you could read.

Quote from: StormBringer;245489Just imagine if you could read.

I am using my magical powers of mind-reading to see what you intend to type and can't actually make out what you have put out there on the interweb. In the end, you still don't make sense.

Quote from: CavScout;245492I am using my magical powers of mind-reading to see what you intend to type and can't actually make out what you have put out there on the interweb. In the end, you still don't make sense.

Yeah, your little gambit of yelling 'nonsense' isn't going to work, either.  I suppose your next mimic will be to tell me I only use falsehoods?

Seriously, you need to come up with your own arguments at some point.  If you were to use mine correctly, it wouldn't matter so much, but you can't even manage that.

I suppose this will be the part where you start up with either the sockpuppet routine, or the spiel where you claim to be in charge of the conversation.

Quote from: StormBringer;245509Yeah, your little gambit of yelling 'nonsense' isn't going to work, either.  I suppose your next mimic will be to tell me I only use falsehoods?

Seriously, you need to come up with your own arguments at some point.  If you were to use mine correctly, it wouldn't matter so much, but you can't even manage that.

I suppose this will be the part where you start up with either the sockpuppet routine, or the spiel where you claim to be in charge of the conversation.

Oh dear. Stormie just can't not be the last one to post. It's a shame (or is it sham, or both?) that you actually think that you are in some superior position to me. The question is, do you really believe it?

Quote from: CavScout;245514Oh dear. Stormie just can't not be the last one to post. It's a shame (or is it sham, or both?) that you actually think that you are in some superior position to me. The question is, do you really believe it?

Oh, a new tactic!  Joy!

Quote from: StormBringer;245518Oh, a new tactic!  Joy!

Not really. It's still, post one and watch Stormie come back.

Quote from: CavScout;245538Not really. It's still, post one and watch Stormie come back.

There is the old "I'm in control" line.  I thought we may have had a new game on our hands, but alas.

Quote from: StormBringer;245546There is the old "I'm in control" line.  I thought we may have had a new game on our hands, but alas.

On time like an atomic clock.

/ring

Quote from: CavScout;245551On time like an atomic clock.

Yes, your predictability is quite constant.  Followed up with the old Pavlov bit, just like always.

Are you sure you aren't developing a behaviour, with all that bell ringing you so enjoy?

Quote from: StormBringer;245560Yes, your predictability is quite constant.  Followed up with the old Pavlov bit, just like always.

Are you sure you aren't developing a behaviour, with all that bell ringing you so enjoy?

Just like a boomerang, Stormie returns.

A room. Get one. Both of you. Now.

Don't make me use my awesome powers of evil to rain destruction and despair upon both your houses.

Quote from: CavScout;245563Just like a boomerang, Stormie returns.

Oooooh.  Boomerang.  We have been reading, haven't we?

I consider it a public service to continually point out how much of a useless douchebag you are.  Keep bringing the faux bon mots little one, you are practically doing my job for me.

The judges, however, suggest that neither one of you can be said to be winning. If anything you two are struggling mightily for last place.

Quote from: Spike;245686The judges, however, suggest that neither one of you can be said to be winning. If anything you two are struggling mightily for last place.

And I give two shits for your opinion because...?

Quote from: StormBringer;245701And I give two shits for your opinion because...?

I dunno, why should you? Why should I give two shits about the little lover's quarrel you have with cavscout? Because its there.

Or you could try this tack: Its not just my opinion, but commonly accepted thought that declaring yourself the winner of a conversation is stupid on the face of it. I'm just calling you on it.

Quote from: Spike;245717I dunno, why should you? Why should I give two shits about the little lover's quarrel you have with cavscout? Because its there.

Because you keep bitching about it.

QuoteOr you could try this tack: Its not just my opinion, but commonly accepted thought that declaring yourself the winner of a conversation is stupid on the face of it. I'm just calling you on it.

Where have I declared myself winner?  I think you have the same reading comprehension problem as the little man there.

Quote from: StormBringer;245719Because you keep bitching about it.

Because. you. keep. doing. it.

QuoteWhere have I declared myself winner?  I think you have the same reading comprehension problem as the little man there.

And you tend to work from abnormally restrictive literalism.  Then you accuse others of reading comprehension problems.

Virtually every post you make to Cavscout reeks with smug superiority and the assurance that you are pwning him.  He does the same thing, but he doesn't bother to respond when its pointed out to him, perhaps he understands, perhaps he only has eyes for you.   I swear, in some ways you are as bad as Jackalope, neither one of you could possibly accept that others aren't basking in your greatness.

Quote from: Spike;245734Because. you. keep. doing. it.

And...?

QuoteAnd you tend to work from abnormally restrictive literalism.  Then you accuse others of reading comprehension problems.

:rolleyes:

QuoteVirtually every post you make to Cavscout reeks with smug superiority and the assurance that you are pwning him.  He does the same thing, but he doesn't bother to respond when its pointed out to him, perhaps he understands, perhaps he only has eyes for you.   I swear, in some ways you are as bad as Jackalope, neither one of you could possibly accept that others aren't basking in your greatness.

Ah, so you are CavScout's fanclub.

Quote from: StormBringer;245847And...?

And it sucks. You can't enjoy your bullshit with CavScout; at least, you must enjoy more productive conversation more, right? I understand that there's some appeal for you in needling him on what you perceive as his errors, but wouldn't that time be better spent talking with people who you don't think are stupid and wrongheaded?

I've had a lot of adversarial relationships with other posters of styles and opinions wildly differing from my own, and I used to play this back-and-forth thing with them every bit as much as you do with CavScout. [Okay, rather more, given the durations involved.] But eventually I realized that it was pointless; I was never going to change them, and if I was going to convince anyone else that this moron was wrong, I was probably going to do it in the first couple posts of the exchange, or else not at all.

So don't engage that guy. Disagree once or twice, then just let it go. Find a way of saying, "Yeah, I don't agree, and you don't convince me," that lets you keep your pride. And then go talk with those you don't hold utter contempt for.

A suggestion only, of course. Well do I know the attraction of tilting at moronic windmills; it's just that I think it's probably a waste of your intellect.

Quote from: Engine;245851And it sucks. You can't enjoy your bullshit with CavScout; at least, you must enjoy more productive conversation more, right? I understand that there's some appeal for you in needling him on what you perceive as his errors, but wouldn't that time be better spent talking with people who you don't think are stupid and wrongheaded?

I've had a lot of adversarial relationships with other posters of styles and opinions wildly differing from my own, and I used to play this back-and-forth thing with them every bit as much as you do with CavScout. [Okay, rather more, given the durations involved.] But eventually I realized that it was pointless; I was never going to change them, and if I was going to convince anyone else that this moron was wrong, I was probably going to do it in the first couple posts of the exchange, or else not at all.

So don't engage that guy. Disagree once or twice, then just let it go. Find a way of saying, "Yeah, I don't agree, and you don't convince me," that lets you keep your pride. And then go talk with those you don't hold utter contempt for.

A suggestion only, of course. Well do I know the attraction of tilting at moronic windmills; it's just that I think it's probably a waste of your intellect.

I certainly appreciate the complements and the concern.  At some point, I am likely to become quite disinterested with the tilting, and it will probably be rather soon.  I think I have sufficiently made the point I was trying to make with him, so there is little point in continuing.

Hey StormBringer, recognize that Spike and Engine are giving you the advice and not CavScout because they recognize that he is a lost cause, but they think you are at least intelligent enough to attempt to warn.

I'd mostly ask you stop it with CavScout because no information comes from the exchange, and it's just boring to read.

To be clear, I don't engage Cavscout after the fact because he generally shuts up when I call him out on it.

though if you think that's high praise....

Quote from: Jackalope;245857Hey StormBringer, recognize that Spike and Engine are giving you the advice and not CavScout because they recognize that he is a lost cause, but they think you are at least intelligent enough to attempt to warn.

I'd mostly ask you stop it with CavScout because no information comes from the exchange, and it's just boring to read.

They're not "giving me the advice" because I am not trying to make the "tit for tat" anything more than it is. I suppose you and Stormie might take it as some divine fight, but I see it for it is. When someone posts, "you two stop acting like knuckleheads" there is no point it trying to portray yourself as not a knucklehead.

You really can't argue your righteous when you accept it for what it is. Seriously, if either of you two actually think it is more than it is, it is sad, really, really sad.

I am not going to argue with Spike or Engine when they say stop poking the monkey because well, I am poking the monkey. It would be stupid to claim otherwise.

Quote from: CavScout;245876They're not "giving me the advice" because I am not trying to make the "tit for tat" anything more than it is. I suppose you and Stormie might take it as some divine fight, but I see it for it is. When someone posts, "you two stop acting like knuckleheads" there is no point it trying to portray yourself as not a knucklehead.

You really can't argue your righteous when you accept it for what it is. Seriously, if either of you two actually think it is more than it is, it is sad, really, really sad.

I am not going to argue with Spike or Engine when they say stop poking the monkey because well, I am poking the monkey. It would be stupid to claim otherwise.

Gotcha.

Quote from: Jackalope;245857Hey StormBringer, recognize that Spike and Engine are giving you the advice and not CavScout because they recognize that he is a lost cause, but they think you are at least intelligent enough to attempt to warn.

I'd mostly ask you stop it with CavScout because no information comes from the exchange, and it's just boring to read.

Oh, yeah, I know.  As I mentioned to Engine, I think I have this about wrapped up anyway.  My apologies for the drawn out process, but I didn't want to leave any doubts.

Quote from: StormBringer;245902Oh, yeah, I know.  As I mentioned to Engine, I think I have this about wrapped up anyway.  My apologies for the drawn out process, but I didn't want to leave any doubts.

LOL. I doubt you did.

Quote from: CavScout;237723Not necessarily. If you are found "not guilty by reason of insanity" you can be released when your are "cured". AFAIK, there is no minimum term of confinement if found "not guilty by reason of insanity", it's basically an acquittal once you are found to be sane again.

Some stats here:

The insanity defense is tried in less than 1% of cases. it is successful about 1% of the time.

On average, it's often used in cases of violent crime, assaults, etc.

Again, on average, a person found not guilty by reason of insanity will spend MORE time in a "hospital" with bars on the windows that he would have spent in prison if convicted of the original crime, assuming it wasn't a "die in prison" crime.

Very few people plead insanity, get off and are out in a short time. The media hypes the few that happen but they are incredibly few and far between.

By and large, an insanity defense is a loser as it fails 99% of the time and when it "succeeds" the defendant spends more time locked up than he would have if he'd just plead out.

If someone who commits a violent assault wants to try an insanity defense, let them, it likely won't work and it if does he will be locked up longer than he would have otherwise.

Quote from: Demonoid;245914Some stats here:

The insanity defense is tried in less than 1% of cases. it is successful about 1% of the time.

Read the thread and see why you are wrong. Really.

Quote from: Demonoid;245914The insanity defense is tried in less than 1% of cases. it is successful about 1% of the time.

It is invoked about 1% of the time, and is successful in somewhere around a quarter of those.  90% of the successful cases involve a defendant with a previously diagnosed mental illness.

So, crime to sentencing, any given criminal has about a .25% chance of getting a verdict of Not Guilty by Reason of insanity.  One in four hundred.

And they aren't released on parole or upon completion of a sentence.  They are released when mental health professionals determine they are no longer unwell.  Which is typically much longer than if they had served a normal sentence for their offence.

Quote from: CavScout;245928Read the thread and see why you are wrong. Really.

Ah, another member of "Since I'm right and you disagree you must be wrong" club.

Have a look at this: http://www.healthyminds.org/insanitydefense.cfm

Then, lick my balls.

BTW, in most cases where an insanity defense is successful, it's because the prosecutor and the defense agreed to it and the defendant was allowed by the prosecution to make the plea.

I looked up the insanity defense on wikipedia and ended up with a laugh: Some guy used it, "won" and after spending 10 years in a state mental hospital, fought to get his original plea vacated, managed to do so, was tried on the original charge, convicted and sentenced to 40 years, with no credit for the 10 he'd already done!

An issue I have with the insanity defense (Can of worms, here comes the opener!) is that now the state is using insanity to keep people locked up forever after they were found competent, tried, convicted and did their time.

I call bullshit on that as it's saying "You were competent to be tried, convicted and sentenced, but now are not competent to be released." as a sneaky pete way of extending sentences to infinity and beyond.

It was a black day for america when the supreme court ruled that was legal.

Yeah, they did it to "sexual predators" first, as it's always easiest to establish a precedent with an unpopular group.

Quote from: Demonoid;246243Ah, another member of "Since I'm right and you disagree you must be wrong" club.

Have a look at this: http://www.healthyminds.org/insanitydefense.cfm

Then, lick my balls.

Follow your link. Go to the 3rd paragraph and then read this line:
   "The study showed that only 26 percent of those insanity pleas were argued successfully."

Then, compare that with your claim:
   "The insanity defense is tried in less than 1% of cases. it is successful about 1% of the time."

Then ponder the idiocy of posting a link that refutes your point at the same declaring yourself the winner.

Quote from: StormBringer;246056It is invoked about 1% of the time, and is successful in somewhere around a quarter of those.  90% of the successful cases involve a defendant with a previously diagnosed mental illness.

So, crime to sentencing, any given criminal has about a .25% chance of getting a verdict of Not Guilty by Reason of insanity.  One in four hundred.

And they aren't released on parole or upon completion of a sentence.  They are released when mental health professionals determine they are no longer unwell.  Which is typically much longer than if they had served a normal sentence for their offence.

Your last paragraph was basically the same thing I'd said.

As to the above, there's a problem with it: In many cases where an insanity defense is used, the prosecutor agrees to it and allows the defense to use it without fighting the case.

So in many cases where it's successfully used there wasn't really a trial as a plea was worked out involving it.

Now, in cases where the prosecutor doesn't agree and the case is fought and goes to a jury, I.E. where the defense is used in an actual trial and not a plea agreement, it's successful less than 1% of the time.

So the argument that it's successful 25% of the time is a bit misleading if you consider a successful use to be having a trial and getting a not guilty verdict from a jury or a judge hearing the case. If you exclude the plea deals where the prosecutor agrees and there is no actual trial, it's far less than 25% successful.

I'm being more polite to you than I was to cavscout because you were more reasonable and less "I'm right you're wrong!" that he was.

Remember this: Jeffrey Dahmer, AKA jeff the chef" wasn't found not guilty by reason of insanity. If he didn't qualify as insane, who does?

Quote from: Demonoid;246243An issue I have with the insanity defense is that now the state is using insanity to keep people locked up forever after they were found competent, tried, convicted and did their time.

I call bullshit on that as it's saying "You were competent to be tried, convicted and sentenced, but now are not competent to be released." as a sneaky pete way of extending sentences to infinity and beyond.

It was a black day for america when the supreme court ruled that was legal.

I think this is actual a positive advancement for the cause of rehabilitation.

Here are some things to think about: Symptoms of untreated male depression mirror behavior that we call criminally minded.  Symptoms of male depression often include uncontrollable anger and frustration, violent behavior, dangerous risk takings, such as reckless driving and extramarital sex, loss of concentration and fatigue leading to poor decision making, and alcohol or substance abuse.  These are all predicators of criminal behavior.  Men who become involved in a life of crime frequently suffer from untreated depression, manic-depression and bi-polar disorders.

The current prison model does little to identify or address untreated male depression and similar forms of poor mental health.  A more pro-active process that addressed these issues might be best for society.

After all, there is no actual social advantage to releasing an unrehabilitated criminal back on the streets after serving a stint in prison, which only really prepares them for a further life of crime.  But if said criminal was identified in prison as suffering from depression was was, on release, sent to a counselor, that might help to reduce recidivism.

Quote from: Demonoid;246248Your last paragraph was basically the same thing I'd said.

As to the above, there's a problem with it: In many cases where an insanity defense is used, the prosecutor agrees to it and allows the defense to use it without fighting the case.

So in many cases where it's successfully used there wasn't really a trial as a plea was worked out involving it.

Now, in cases where the prosecutor doesn't agree and the case is fought and goes to a jury, I.E. where the defense is used in an actual trial and not a plea agreement, it's successful less than 1% of the time.

So the argument that it's successful 25% of the time is a bit misleading if you consider a successful use to be having a trial and getting a not guilty verdict from a jury or a judge hearing the case. If you exclude the plea deals where the prosecutor agrees and there is no actual trial, it's far less than 25% successful.

I'm being more polite to you than I was to cavscout because you were more reasonable and less "I'm right you're wrong!" that he was.

Remember this: Jeffrey Dahmer, AKA jeff the chef" wasn't found not guilty by reason of insanity. If he didn't qualify as insane, who does?

That is because I share the same opinion.  I hadn't calculated the 90% rate for previous mental illnesses before, but the rounds have been gone about the .25% bit, and if you take that up again, prepare for a long discussion with someone that doesn't understand statistics.

So, I would say that the odds of someone who is not actually mentally ill getting away with murder on a NGRI verdict are sitting at .025%.  I am happy with those odds.

Quote from: StormBringer;246280...prepare for a long discussion with someone that doesn't understand statistics.

Says the one who thinks success rate shouldn't be (success/attempts) but rather should be (success/(attempts+non-attempts)).

Quote from: CavScout;246308Says the one who thinks success rate shouldn't be (success/attempts) but rather should be (success/(attempts+non-attempts)).

As I said, you have no clue about statistics.

Quote from: StormBringer;246318As I said, you have no clue about statistics.

I have enough to see when someone wants to skew them, as you do.

Quote from: CavScout;246319I have enough to see when someone wants to skew them, as you do.

What you call 'skewing' is what everyone else calls 'reading correctly'.

Quote from: CavScout;246319I have enough to see when someone wants to skew them, as you do.

It's not skewing the data to say that the insanity defense is very rarely successful when it is used in a trial and excluse the times it's "successful" without being used in a trial because there was no trial due to a plea bargain with the prosecutor.

A defense is only successful if it withstands an offense, in a plea  agreement there is no offense as there is no trial.

If you're going to say that it's successful in 25% of the cases it's an issue, that may be true because most of those successes are the result of agreements with the two sides and no trial.

if you're going to say it's successful 1% of the time it's used as a defense you're right because in the cases where there is a trial and a verdict, not a plea deal, it's successful 1% of the time.

Quote from: StormBringer;246320What you call 'skewing' is what everyone else calls 'reading correctly'.

If everyone means you, Jack and Demon...

Otherwise, you were corrected by other posters than just me in this thread.

Quote from: Demonoid;246321It's not skewing the data to say that the insanity defense is very rarely successful when it is used in a trial and excluse the times it's "successful" without being used in a trial because there was no trial due to a plea bargain with the prosecutor.

A defense is only successful if it withstands an offense, in a plea  agreement there is no offense as there is no trial.

If you're going to say that it's successful in 25% of the cases it's an issue, that may be true because most of those successes are the result of agreements with the two sides and no trial.

if you're going to say it's successful 1% of the time it's used as a defense you're right because in the cases where there is a trial and a verdict, not a plea deal, it's successful 1% of the time.

I am saying that when the defense is actually used, it is successful about 25% of the time.

Quote from: CavScout;246326I am saying that when the defense is actually used, it is successful about 25% of the time.

How often is the defense invoked?

Quote from: StormBringer;246334How often is the defense invoked?

When it's invoked, how often is it successful?

Quote from: CavScout;246339When it's invoked, how often is it successful?

I understand, you are backed into the corner, and everyone knows you refuse to admit the numbers.  That's fine, too.

Quote from: StormBringer;246340I understand, you are backed into the corner, and everyone knows you refuse to admit the numbers.  That's fine, too.

What corner? I corrected a false stat and you seem to refuse to acknowledge it.

When used, NGBRI is effective about 1 in 4 times.

Quote from: CavScout;246377What corner? I corrected a false stat and you seem to refuse to acknowledge it.

When used, NGBRI is effective about 1 in 4 times.

How often is it used?

Quote from: StormBringer;246380How often is it used?

Stormy, you should know by now that CS isn't going to answer that. Tsk tsk.

I will reassert that it is used in about 1% of cases according to the stats, and when it is raised there is maybe a 25% chance it will result in a final decision of "not guilty by reason of insanity".

However, the vast majority of these decisions are the result of the prosecutor and the defender making a plea agreement that avoids a trial altogether.

When it is used in a trial it is successful about 1% of the time. it's more useful to get a DA to agree to a plea, often by dimwitted or ignorant defendants, than it is to win a case.

Both sides tend to agree to an insanity plea in certain cases. The defender who is often representing a poor person he's assigned to (Who could not afford treatment for a mental illness.) basically gets to claim he "won" the case because his client was found not guilty.

The prosecutor gets someone locked up in a mental hospital, usually for longer than they would have been imprisoned and without the time and effort of a trial.

The defendant avoids actual prison, and feels like a winner until they realize they'll probably be locked up longer than they would have been if they'd plead guilty.

In some cases the defense has nothing to lose with an insanity plea as the defendant is facing LWOP or the DP if convicted, but in those cases the prosecutor often doesn't go for a deal and there's a trial where the defense loses 99% of the time.

Quote from: Demonoid;246384Stormy, you should know by now that CS isn't going to answer that. Tsk tsk.

Oh, I know.  I was shooting for that three denials before the rooster crows or something.  :)

Quote from: StormBringer;246385Oh, I know.  I was shooting for that three denials before the rooster crows or something.  :)

Oh, Ok then. ;)

My last comment here will be this: The insanity defense is raised about 1% of the time.

IF the prosecutor and judge agree to it and do not fight it, it has a 25 or so percent success rate. So in about 25% of the cases it's raised in, the court agrees the perp is insane and doesn't fight it.

In cases where the prosecutor decides to fight it and the defense actually has to do battle in the court, it works about 1% of the time.

You could say that instead of the insanity defense winning 25% of the time the prosecutor agrees that the defendant is whacko about 25% of the time and lets the defense enter a plea which he agrees to.

When the prosecutor doesn't agree, the defense gets a not guilty verdict 1% of the time.....

Quote from: Demonoid;246389Oh, Ok then. ;)

My last comment here will be this: The insanity defense is raised about 1% of the time.

IF the prosecutor and judge agree to it and do not fight it, it has a 25 or so percent success rate. So in about 25% of the cases it's raised in, the court agrees the perp is insane and doesn't fight it.

In cases where the prosecutor decides to fight it and the defense actually has to do battle in the court, it works about 1% of the time.

You could say that instead of the insanity defense winning 25% of the time the prosecutor agrees that the defendant is whacko about 25% of the time and lets the defense enter a plea which he agrees to.

When the prosecutor doesn't agree, the defense gets a not guilty verdict 1% of the time.....

And as I said before, in 90% of the cases where it is successful, the defendant has a previous history of mental illness, usually schizophrenia.

To illustrate how foolish you guys are being:

1990:
   San Diego Padres as a team had 5,554 at-bats and had 1,429 hits. The team average was .257.

Tony Gwynn had 573 at-bats and had 177 hits.

   I claim that, "Gwynn was really effective at the plate as he hit .309 (177 hits to 573 at-bats)."

Stormie and gang jump in and say, "Hardly! He wasn't that effective. He was only effective .032 of the time!"

I say, "Come again, that makes no sense at all. He hit just under .310... 573 at-bats and 177 hits."

Stormie and gang, "HAHAH! You don't know statistics! The total at-bats for the team is 5,554! Gwynn only hit 177 times. He suck with a .032 average! HAHAH!"

I say, "Dude, that makes no sense. The only at-bats that count, are the one he actually took... the 573."

Stormie and gang: "HAHAHA! Loser!!!! What percentage did come up to bat? .103 of the time! And then he only hit .310, clearly he was only effective .032 of the time! HAHAH!"

I say, "Dude, you don't count the times he wasn't up at bat when trying to determine his effectiveness. That just plain stupid."

Stormie and gang: "HAHA! You don't know stats!"

I say: "Man... he was effective .309..."

Stormie and gang: "HAHAH! Loser... what percent did he come up to bat for the team?"

I say: "Who cares... we are determining his effectiveness. When he is not batting it doesn't really matter."

Stormie and gang: "HAHAH! Loser! I've trap you with my intellectual powers!"

I say: "Ummm... sure you have."

Stormie and gang: "Look, I've won!!!! He responded."

I say: "Your still wrong."

Replace Gwynn with the insanity plea and we have what this conversation has become.

Stormie and company insist on using the total number of trials when the question being asked is how effective is a NGBRI plea. Instead of using the number of times NGBRI is invoked as a defense and how many times it works (roughly 25%) they insist on using the total number cases, even the ones where NGBRI is not being used.

Like the example of Gwynn, if we want to know how effective he was at the plate, we look at his attempts and his successes. In 1990, Gwynn had an effective batting average of .309. He didn't have an effective batting average of .032 because there were a total 5,554 total team at-bats. The total team attempts is useless for this measure, Gwynn didn't have all those at-bats.

Effectivness is the number of success over the number of NGBRI attempts (success/NGBRI attempts). It is not success over the NGBRI number of attempts + the number of attempts in all trials not using NGBRI (success/(NGBRI attempts + all other attempts).

Quote from: StormBringer;246392And as I said before, in 90% of the cases where it is successful, the defendant has a previous history of mental illness, usually schizophrenia.

And a lot of people who use it are poor, so they couldn't afford treatment for their illnesses or a good defense attorney.

Sometimes rich people use it, with much more success, of course, because they can afford much better defense lawyers and experts to come in and bury the jury under an avalanche of bullshit.

Quote from: CavScout;246396To illustrate how foolish you guys are being:

1990:
   San Diego Padres as a team had 5,554 at-bats and had 1,429 hits. The team average was .257.

Tony Gwynn had 573 at-bats and had 177 hits.

   I claim that, "Gwynn was really effective at the plate as he hit .309 (177 hits to 573 at-bats)."

Stormie and gang jump in and say, "Hardly! He wasn't that effective. He was only effective .032 of the time!"

I say, "Come again, that makes no sense at all. He hit just under .310... 573 at-bats and 177 hits."

Stormie and gang, "HAHAH! You don't know statistics! The total at-bats for the team is 5,554! Gwynn only hit 177 times. He suck with a .032 average! HAHAH!"

I say, "Dude, that makes no sense. The only at-bats that count, are the one he actually took... the 573."

Stormie and gang: "HAHAHA! Loser!!!! What percentage did come up to bat? .103 of the time! And then he only hit .310, clearly he was only effective .032 of the time! HAHAH!"

I say, "Dude, you don't count the times he wasn't up at bat when trying to determine his effectiveness. That just plain stupid."

Stormie and gang: "HAHA! You don't know stats!"

I say: "Man... he was effective .309..."

Stormie and gang: "HAHAH! Loser... what percent did he come up to bat for the team?"

I say: "Who cares... we are determining his effectiveness. When he is not batting it doesn't really matter."

Stormie and gang: "HAHAH! Loser! I've trap you with my intellectual powers!"

I say: "Ummm... sure you have."

Stormie and gang: "Look, I've won!!!! He responded."

I say: "Your still wrong."

Replace Gwynn with the insanity plea and we have what this conversation has become.

Stormie and company insist on using the total number of trials when the question being asked is how effective is a NGBRI plea. Instead of using the number of times NGBRI is invoked as a defense and how many times it works (roughly 25%) they insist on using the total number cases, even the ones where NGBRI is not being used.

Like the example of Gwynn, if we want to know how effective he was at the plate, we look at his attempts and his successes. In 1990, Gwynn had an effective batting average of .309. He didn't have an effective batting average of .032 because there were a total 5,554 total team at-bats. The total team attempts is useless for this measure, Gwynn didn't have all those at-bats.

Effectivness is the number of success over the number of NGBRI attempts (success/NGBRI attempts). It is not success over the NGBRI number of attempts + the number of attempts in all trials not using NGBRI (success/(NGBRI attempts + all other attempts).

Zzzzzzzzzzzz! Zzz! Zzzzzzzz!

Quote from: Demonoid;246400Zzzzzzzzzzzz! Zzz! Zzzzzzzz!

Is that your logic circuits overloading?

Quote from: CavScout;246404Is that your logic circuits overloading?

No, that's me snoring because trying to get anything thru to you is such an ultimately boring task as one must repeat the same things over and over and over...Zzzzz! Zzzz! Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!