Show Comments That Contain...
  • On 30 Jan 2015 in Why religion (particularly Christianity) is vile, evil, narcissistic & dangerous, marcus said:

    Dan8267 says

    This has been proved.

    Dan thinks he's proven that God doesn't exist.

    Of course to do this he takes a straw man fundamentalist or childs version of what God is. Even then, it's silly.

    I still say this. Being an atheist is beyond understandable. I respect atheists, and would never try to convert them. But those who crusade against all types of belief, even pantheism or panentheism, are basically stuck in an adolescent stage in their development.

    There's an arrogance to it. That is, having the position that others need to be like them, for the their own good, and for the good of the world. Sound familiar ?

    Get over it man ! Be an atheist. But move on.

  • On 30 Jan 2015 in Republicans rape and molest children at a rate of 10 to 1 compared to Democrats, marcus said:

    iwog says

    The odd thing about Republicans is how frequently they prove their own dishonesty.

    I agree. This is very true.

    ALthough I think it was Peter P who has shared some Jack Handy sort of profound insight about this. It goes something like:

    "You're not really being dishonest, if you can prevent yourself from realizing that your lying."

    I know it's weird, but I think it's something like "a person gets to decide what's true, and then it is." We have several people here that live very interesting lives with these deviant ideas of what truth is.

    Let's face it. Those right wingers have some very special skills.

  • On 28 Jan 2015 in American doctors still highest paid in the world, marcus said:

    I didn't try to say that Engineers make as much as doctors. I was saying they probably make more than people in those fields in other countries.

  • On 28 Jan 2015 in Blue States lead the nation in mental disorders, marcus said:

    "Why Smarter People Are More Likely To Be Mentally Ill"

  • On 28 Jan 2015 in American doctors still highest paid in the world, marcus said:

    Aren't American Lawyers and Engineers and Managers the highest paid in the world too ?

  • On 25 Jan 2015 in Another Obozocare-taxing the middle class to pay for the 300# lazy critters, marcus said:

    In my opinion, these would be the two biggest benefits of higher taxes on the rich and corporations. Nobody has explianed to me why this is wrong.

    1) With more skin in the game (taxes paid) the powerful, who usually have substantial wealth, have more incentive to fight corruption. In other words if some other rich interest is seeking government largess, they will want to fight it, rather than simply saying "it's cool, as long as I get taken care of too."

    When all the rich powerful folks are paying low taxes, they are perfectly happy to see borrow and spend policies that enrich them and their friends.
    With higher taxes, the entire model is turned upsde down. It's one of the reasons things worked so well back in 1955 - 198?.

    2) The other thing is slightly higher corporate rates, that all corporation actually have to pay, makes spending on pretax items such as employees and research less costly. This actually encourages corporations to invest here in themselves and or other AMerican companies.

    I will grant you that I'm not a corporate finance or accounting person, so I might be a little naive about #2, but if so, I have yet to hear a legitimate argument as to why, other than "we can't have higher taxes and compete well with the rest of the world." But I'm only suggesting a small inrease, and that corposations actually pay their taxes.

  • On 25 Jan 2015 in Another Obozocare-taxing the middle class to pay for the 300# lazy critters, marcus said:

    drew_eckhardt says

    There are too few "obscenely wealthy" and too many "grunt workers" for the wealthy's share to make a real difference.

    Again. Not really the point. I understand your point about redistribution of all the income of the rich not solving anything, relative to the wealth of the rest of us. But I don't think you understand my point, about all of the other affects of income inequality. Even many of the wealthy are starting to get it.

    Have you ever read any of B Bills posts about the parasitical rents that the wealthy extract from everyone else ? Or his discussion of Georgism.

    OR have you considered the recurring point that Iwog makes, about the endgame of monopoly, and how there is now literally too much capital in the hands of the idle rich, looking for a way to be invested, essentially making profits, that grow exponentially off of the rest of us, essentially taxing everyone else with the rents that we pay to their trust fund accounts. Maybe we aren't there yet (too much capital in the hands of the idle rich) but it is where this leads.

    Do you understand the concept of exponential growth ? That wealth gap can not continue growing in sustained way without either leading to fascism, or revolution, or financial collapse, or perhaps some combination of these.

  • On 25 Jan 2015 in Another Obozocare-taxing the middle class to pay for the 300# lazy critters, marcus said:

    lostand confused says

    I really feel sorry for the kids you teach

    Another sorry ass excuse for a republican asshole who says he feels sorry for the kids I teach. So, that's the best way you can think to express your hatred for me, and what a low level excuse for a human you are ? Why ? Simply because I have a hard time dealing with this kind of disgusting slippery slope nonsense ?

    marcus says

    lostand confused says

    Hating the 1% has been a major theme in the far left of our country. That is going to spread-from 1% to the 40% is not a stretch.

    What ? You didn't think your asshole credentials had been validated yet ? OR you feared that there were still people on this forum that thought you had an IQ over 85 ?

    I teach Mathematics. Mathematics is about logic and truth (given certain primitive axioms, and definitions we accept). You want to suggest that I'm not capable of helping students progress with their Math or point them towards interesting insights, just because I"m not an extremist right wing asshole ?

    If I make a mistake with my teaching, it could be a simple arithmetic mistake, or an error writing down one thing wrong, but that would show itself quickly. And it's Math. I don't hold on to being wrong with Math. I can't. In fact, when it happens, I have to set an example of being wrong gracefully. It's usually over a silly error. But sometimes over something bigger, like making incorrect assumptions or taking a less than optimal or elegant approach to a problem that students want me to do. I have to admit I'm wrong very quickly when I am. And it happens occasionally, usually over silly sort of syntactical mistakes. But in those situations, I'm only modeling for kids what it is to do Mathematics. Occasionally one is barking up the wrong tree and it's okay to be wrong. That's part of problem solving. As long as one figures that out and finds a correct, or in some cases just nicer approach.

    (I"m talking about high level (AP) courses - not Algebra, or Geometry)

    In Math, just like in my previous life as a trader in the pits in Chicago, I have to admit when I'm wrong. One can't afford to let their ego attached when they are wrong, because that would just make it worse. Besides, as a matter of pride, I always want students to know that I found a nicer way to show them. OR in the case of trading, there's money on the lines. One can not afford the luxury of allowing their pride or ego attach them to a wrong position.

    A more likely mistake I can make, with my teaching, large classes, with compressed pacing plans relative to every thing I am supposed to cover, is that I don't do a good enough job of getting students involved in discovering things, and problem solving practices, and talking to each other, explaining things to each other, because I'm too rushed, driven to keep the pace I have to follow to cover everything. But these are the trials and tribulations of being a teacher.

    You assholes who want to say you feel sorry for my students ? That's the ultimate expression of hatred and inhumanity you can throw at me. Sadly you don't understand that. But you understand it well enough to almost know the degree to which it's hitting below the belt. I will assume that you either don't fully comprehend what it's like to have a job that is service to others, or that you do know, and are envious.

    Rather than saying any more of what I want to say, I'll just say this. Fuck you. And welcome to ignore. Have fun spouting all your right wing bullshit. I hope your getting paid well by the Koch brothers. Not that that makes you any less of a scumbag.

  • On 25 Jan 2015 in Another Obozocare-taxing the middle class to pay for the 300# lazy critters, marcus said:

    lostand confused says

    Would this be you marcus??

    Keep in mind, I said there is no far left. I didn't say there is no constituancy for a far left if it did exist. What Bernie Sanders ? Maybe a few others.

    You're doing a good job of living down to my perception of your feeble intelligence.

  • On 25 Jan 2015 in Another Obozocare-taxing the middle class to pay for the 300# lazy critters, marcus said:

    drew_eckhardt says

    1% of the people only have 18.7% of the income and it's not enough to make the rest of our lives better.

    What you're missing is, that it isn't a simple matter of redistributing income. It's putting the breaks on a current system that rapidly increases the gap between the obscenely wealthy and the regular working folks.

    And that in turn has multiple bad affects. One of the worst is that it increases the political dysfunction in this country, as it becomes harder and harder to define what's best for us all. How do we figure out what's best for us all, and get what's best for us all, when the levers of government are controlled by an entitled super rich minority and corporations ?

  • On 25 Jan 2015 in Another Obozocare-taxing the middle class to pay for the 300# lazy critters, marcus said:

    WEll, there is no far left in this country, to speak of. So yes, as a typical Obama hater, who makes outlandish statements implying he is far left, and who talk about a slippery slope of what we should fear the far left doing, of course I assume you also place me in that non existent grouping.

    Only a right wing moron who soaks up every stupid bit of propaganda from the far right (which very much does exist) could buy in to the idea that there even is a far left in this country (to speak of).

  • On 25 Jan 2015 in Another Obozocare-taxing the middle class to pay for the 300# lazy critters, marcus said:

    lostand confused says

    Hating the 1% has been a major theme in the far left of our country. That is going to spread-from 1% to the 40% is not a stretch.

    YEs it is. It's an absurd stretch. IT's totally nonsensical gibberish.

    The very fact that you would say something as stupid as "the far left: (that's my favorite part) "hates" the 1%, shows how out of touch you are, and paints you as a right wing defender of the unfair preferential treatment the 1% feels entitled to.

    I don't hate the 1%. I just think they should be taxed more, as do some 1%ers.

    Look, I guess in your warped view of reality I'm far left. But newsflash: I do not like the idea of taxing all college savings accounts. I have a big problem with it. Opening the subject for discussion though ? I don't have a problem with that. And yes, the idea that this is a slippery slope, to even consider it ? Wtf man ? Is your name Koch ?

    MAybe even a far right wing defender of the interests of super-rich and corpations such as yourself can see that it's just one more tax break for some. For example, the 1% folks. They already get tax breaks on real estate, and on IRAs and 401Ks or other vehicles for which they can sock money away lowering their taxable income and which grow in value tax free. And even on their other capital gains, they are not taxed nearly as high as income.

    The 529 savings accounts not only grow tax free, but the gains are not taxed when spent on college. This is quite a deal, and not something I would want to see taken away from the middle class. But the truth is, that for some, this is just another place to put money and have it grow tax free.

    Within rich communities, the people that are set for life, even if they don't work ? For those people they or their parents can afford to put enough away for a child at the time of the childs birth that it will grow to more than pay for a 50K per year college funding.

    THat's not who the 529 benefits were even intended for. So I think discussing taxing that growth for people with a net worth above a certain level makes a lot of sense. Maybe they could put the cut off at 1.5 million in net worth above housing equty or above 3 million including housing equity.

    It's worth discussing.

  • On 25 Jan 2015 in Another Obozocare-taxing the middle class to pay for the 300# lazy critters, marcus said:

    lostand confused says

    Blame the 1% for everything and slowly that attitude will grow to include any middle class who is successful and lives without a handout.

    You're losing it man. Get a grip.

  • On 24 Jan 2015 in Another Obozocare-taxing the middle class to pay for the 300# lazy critters, marcus said:

    lostand confused says

    Everybody does not have to go to college-the poor merit kids already get scholarships.

    Actually, in my opinion free college with his proposal pays for itself. We're just talking about tuition at junior colleges. It's pretty hard to imagine that the cost of this would not come back to the government in the form of tax revenues later.

    These days, for a variety of reasons (especially in the poorest neighborhoods) students get behind in school. For many of those students, call them late bloomers, those first two years of junior college are critical to getting them up to where the average to slightly above average students are in middle class neighborhood public schools, when they graduate HS.

    I can see that taxing college savings accounts isn't an ideal way to pay for this. But at least he believes in trying to pay for spending, rather than the typical right wing idea of starving the beast, by not paying for things like tax cuts to upper incomes and corporations.

    HydroCabron says

    Wouldn't another tax cut, plus a weapons program like the F-35, and doubling Iowa corn ethanol subsidies put rhis right?

    Yes, exactly.

  • On 24 Jan 2015 in Obama Howls at the Moon, marcus said:

    zzyzzxx can you share the names of other sites you go to for that kind of dishonest crap ?

    We all know that the economy was in freefall when he started. So the 1st, second and 4th items are hard to pin on Obama. I agree he didn't fix them or turn them around well enough. That's because even though he's virtually a republican, he is considered the enomy by today's right wing dimbulbs.

    Gasoline cost + 79% ? Hmmm, that number might be alittle old. Is this from 2010 ?

  • On 24 Jan 2015 in I'm liquidating all my stocks and going to cash, marcus said:

    iwog says

    Cash = bonds or at the very least an interest bearing money market account in the investment world.

    The word bond has a long term connotation, and is WAY WAY different than cash. But IWOG uses the term loosely so he sometimes means money market funds (usually comprised mostly with short term low risk securities) or T-Bills.. If you are talking about cash, it means short term stuff only. ESPECIALLY THESE DAYS.

    Although many people make that mistake since bonds have mostly gone up for a very very very long time, and must seem an awful lot like cash to a lot of folks.

    Bonds can't possibly go in to a strong downtrend where they lose 5 to 10 percent of their value in a year (or more).

    Oh wait. Yes they can. And one year they will. But probably not soon.

  • On 23 Jan 2015 in Obama Howls at the Moon, marcus said:

    finehoe says

    Why the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement is a Pending Disaster

    Okay, I fully accept that it looks like a bad deal, and also I always said Obama (like Clinton ) is basically just a decent republican (using 30 years ago as a model of what a republican is).

    But as for Obama's motivation ? His reasons ? still questioning whether it's being slimy.

    Maybe someone or some groups simply convinced him that it's better than not being in the deal (while all the other Pacific countries are). Not defending it. Just rying to understand. Is it realy what Reich said, that Obama's tryigng to contain China ?

  • On 22 Jan 2015 in Obama Howls at the Moon, marcus said:

    In any case, I'll try to learn more when I get time. But not from you.

    When a lot of people in congress are agaisnt something, I can't tell whether it's because they are acting in good faith, or whether it's because all of their lobbyists don't like it.

    Looking at it, I can see that you're probably right that it's not good for us in the long run. But we already knew what long term trends in global capitalism meant for us. American level consumption, is not sustainable for the whole world. The developing worlds standard of living goes up, and ours goes down (in some ways), no matter what. I also understand why it is that when a bunch of countries make a trade deal, the US wants to be in it. (Europe is noticeably absent - but I guess that's because they don't have borders on the Pacific).

    But yeah, I can see that it would be better if this thing is never ratified.

    I would need to be convinced that whoever was President now, would not be doing what Obama is doing with this before I would agree that he is slimy in this instance.

  • On 22 Jan 2015 in Obama Howls at the Moon, marcus said:

    lostand confused says

    is proposing it and so it must be correct-that is your expertise.

    Yeah, right. I'm all about knowing something when I dont know what it is yet.

    marcus says

    Then again, I don't know.

    marcus says

    I just don't know.

    marcus says

    Might be a little soon to call him slimy over this.

    lostand confused says

    he is asking for congress to give up their power of debate-over an agreement that will give up many local laws and have corporations-oh well, no point in debate

    I don't know whether rthat's true. THey are going to debate it before they vote on it. And if they did vote yes, according to one of the little (not enough) I did read about it.

    Trade promotion authority requires Congress to vote on trade agreements negotiated by the president with an up or down vote, not allowing for amendments.

    Meaning OBama and future Presidents would be able to propose trade deals to congress, that they would debate and which they would vote on, up or down without amendments.

    Maybe you and those who are against this are correct, that it's against our interest and only benefitting corporations. I was only saying that I don't know, but also I don't see how "slimy "applies. DO you think he owes corporations and has agreed to let them fuck over AMerican workers and consumers, because he's just that evil ? Or that stupid.

  • On 22 Jan 2015 in Obama Howls at the Moon, marcus said:

    lostand confused says

    The slimy critter is negotiating in secret a giant free trade deal that dwarfs NAFTA and he wants total trade promotion authority to protect American workers. idjit wants to be dictator and open up the world to the corporations.

    I know a lot of democrats are opposed to it. But all I hear from you is a is a bunch of name calling. Why wouldn't you understand what he even means before leveling that kind of criticism. IF you're right that it's this scary and terrible thing that has the single purpose of defining Obama's slimyness, could you at least post some links, explaining where you obtained your expertise on this ?

    Seems like food producers like it. But I understand their motives aren't necessarily in American consumers interest. Then again, I don't know.

    I just don't know. I get that some democrats are outright opposed. Others are just concerned that they don't fully understand how this deal works.

    Might be a little soon to call him slimy over this. But then again, you did start your comment by saying something like you were almost starting to hate Obama a little less than before, or something to that effect. So it's not like you were claiming objectivity.

  • On 21 Jan 2015 in Obama Howls at the Moon, marcus said:

    The 2014 definition of "conservative" is: radical right wing defenders of the interests of corporations and the super rich. (this is transparently masked with propaganda about family values, gay marriage, Guns, etc)

    Since the word "conservative" has evolved to have its current meaning, a lot of otherwise conservative policies (by the traditional definition) are partisan I guess.

    Back in the day, lowering taxes when we are already running deficits, was not conservative.

    Back in the day, preserving our environment for future generations was conservative.

    Back in the day, paying for good public education, and ensuring that we have a competent and productive future citizenry was conservative.

  • On 20 Jan 2015 in In the Philippines........, marcus said:

    Okay, Ill ask since nobody else did. Is surgery the reason you went ? If so I'm guessing dental implants or something like that that would be far cheaper there, and not covered by insurance here.

    Maybe too personal a question, in which case obviously just say so (and then many people here will assume penile enhancement of some kind (jk)).

  • On 20 Jan 2015 in Fox "News" losing containment on it's idiot parade, marcus said:

    Good commentary on the ongoing cluelessness of America's right wing.

    iwog says

    Fox "News" losing containment on it's idiot parade

    Sadly, I doubt it. More than half of the republican base, eats this stuff up. The other half have a Machiavellian appreciation of how the first half are kept in the republican tent with this BS.

  • On 20 Jan 2015 in Fox "News" losing containment on it's idiot parade, marcus said:

    iwog says

    About half the republicans I know, and certainly most of the wingnuts here on, will just think this is funny (and true).

    And of course next time they're given a chance to comment on race relations in the US, they'll talk about how black folk need to quit whining or they will share how THEY are color blind and only judge people by the content of their character.

  • On 18 Jan 2015 in 2014 warmest year on record -- NOAA, marcus said:

    turtledove says

    Every single thing I said attacked not the existence of climate change, but the reason why it occurs

    Again, anthropogenic climate change or anthropogenic global warming refers not only to the warming trend, but also to the cause.

    I'm not arguing for any particular mandated change. I'm just saddened that our government is so fucked up that it probably won't legislate anything meaningful as if AGW is real in my lifetime.

    turtledove says

    Why is the solution to climate change, money?

    You answered this. Because money is a strong motivator.

    We will eventually have energy sources that are not only cleaner, but also cheaper than oil. But only after decades of scaling up. You know, economies of scale.

    By doing things like having high taxes on gasoline, and taxing entities that pollute, we expedite the change. That crossover point where the newer and cleaner sources of energy become cheaper than fossil fuels arrives sooner.

    Yes, money makes the world go round.

Home   Tips and Tricks   Questions or suggestions? Mail   Thank you for your kind donations

Page took 92 milliseconds to create.