Show Comments That Contain...
  • On 18 Apr 2014 in It's not the fed, marcus said:

    iwog says

    The fed is primarily a psychological manipulation machine that assures people things will be okay during bad times and assures they will not allow the economy to overheat during good times.

    I think you overstate the Feds irrelevance. For one thing they are an integral cog in the complex banking machinery that gives us our money. The psychological manipulation you refer to when the fed tries to engineer "soft landings" and so on has a very real aspect to it, which is the pricing money (ST interest rates) for the big financial market players, among others.

    The argument is an interesting one. For my part I'm agnostic, but I think that you overstate the feds irrelevance almost as much as some of the
    Austrians overstate their fiat currency versus gold backed dollar arguments in the opposite direction.

    When we eventually "pay the piper" so to speak, the games the fed has played to effectively postpone this , will I think have been a major contributor to the magnitude of our problems. In a sense, they have been at the helm during the biggest global credit bubble in modern history.

    Ever notice how much people used to talk about the so called "carry trade" back when Japanese interest rates were so much lower than all the other countries. People would borrow yen to buy securities in other countries, only having to more than cover the near zero interest rates ?

    I haven't heard nearly as much about the "carry trade" in more recent years when it was US interest rates that were so very low. But wasn't the carry trade still here? How hard is it to figure out a way to earn over 1.5% on money when you are deeply capitalized with all of the modern tools and technology ?

    I just don't know Iwog. I agree with your thesis about too much capital looking to be invested, and tax rates being too low in some quarters, but I see the system as being broken in other ways as well. That is in ways that are facilitated by the Fed.

    If it can be said that we are addicted to debt in an unhealthy way, then it might also be said that the Fed (not all by itself) is an enabler.

    iwog says

    The fed didn't bail out the banks, the treasury did.

    But the Fed has propped up (maybe overstatement) the treasury in unprecedented ways in the past 6 years.

  • On 17 Apr 2014 in Rapper Cuts Off Penis then Attempts Suicide, marcus said:

    I read that an attempt to reattach his penis failed.

    Just a wild guess,...that drugs were involved. Either that or he didn't do it to himself.

    Remember Lorena Babbit ?

  • On 17 Apr 2014 in Tell me anything that you hate about Republicans the most., marcus said:

    Paralithodes says

    How would Kennedy do in today's Democratic party re. taxes?

    If the top rate was 90% as it was back then, then I'm sure he would do fine.

    Some "conservatives" at that time were against lowering taxes then because of the risk of deficits, which we had fought to overcome (WW2 deficits).

    I guess we can both agree that a lot has changed. But I find it fascinating that with the exception of certain social issues, the interests of the wealthy and corporations are now practically the one and only definition of "conservative."

    As far as I can tell, the only purpose of the social issues is to get the Christianists on board so that they stand a chance of winning elections.

    Chalk it up to demographics ?

  • On 17 Apr 2014 in Tell me anything that you hate about Republicans the most., marcus said:

    Paralithodes says

    I don't think it's easy at all to argue that not creating a federal definition of marriage is actually the same as intervention. Where is the federal definition of marriage now?

    What if the federal government had NOT given women the vote? What if the federal government had not inserted itself into public school integration questions? Yes, every so often, when public opinion gets to a certain place on an issue, not intervening is (maybe not the same as intervening) might as well be an implicit form of meddling to prevent the natural (good) progress that is inevitable.

    Paralithodes says

    The Reps have moved to the right, and the Dems have moved to the left.

    This is just wrong. IF it were true, there would be a hole in the middle.

    The truth is that both have been moving to the right for decades.

    Only a blind insane person could disagree with this:

    The typical republican in today's govt is far to the right of the typical republican in 1975. Most honest republicans will acknowledge that Bob Dole, even Ronald Reagan would be labelled Rinos today if they did not march more in step with the hard right. Although I will acknowledge that also the definition of conservative has changed a lot since then! In 1975, taxes being too low, was not a "conservative" position.

    Likewise, there are far less "liberals" in the democratic party today than there were in 1975. Even you seem to define a liberal, only by what right wing social issue positions they reject.

    Look no further than talk radio and fox news, and all the number of retards out there who claim that Fox is no more biased than CBS, PBS, or CNN, to understand where things are at.

  • On 17 Apr 2014 in Tell me anything that you hate about Republicans the most., marcus said:

    But clarifying or codifying the definition of marriage is only about preventing people from using the law to prevent gay marriage. IT's easy to argue that not doing this is a form of intervention in to social issues (that is at this point, since a lot of gays are asking for this symbolic, but also very real form of acceptance).

    MY point was that your original argument that dems are more extreme than republicans was ridiculous.

    marcus says

    Regardless of whether you agree with the following, you have to agree that if it is true, then your point is absurd.

    You must admit that it can be argued that the fundamentalist religious backed side of these issues is the more extreme side.

    Besides, I'm sure you can find plenty of pro-life democrats in the south.

  • On 17 Apr 2014 in Tell me anything that you hate about Republicans the most., marcus said:

    Paralithodes says

    Sure. "Tolerant" of gay marriage means nothing less than having the federal government create a definition of "marriage" as a social construct. Anything less than that is intolerant.

    To not even particularly care about this issue (my position), is what I call tolerance. And what's more middle of the road then not caring about an issue ?

    If gays can get married and have all that marriage legally entails, I don't mind at all. I could give a fuck. Yeah, that's what I call tolerance.

    Only if you make me choose, for or against gay marriage, do I choose for. But then that's only because I'm not against it. I see no reason to deprive people of what I see as rights, that benefit them and harm nobody.

    Maybe you can see why I frame it as tolerance.

  • On 17 Apr 2014 in Tell me anything that you hate about Republicans the most., marcus said:

    Paralithodes says

    They may not be the majority of Republicans, but a Republican politician can be pro-choice and pro-gay marriage.

    Now... What would happen to a Democrat today who ran for office but was openly pro-life and anti-gay marriage?

    Answer that question honestly and you'll see which side is sliding more to the extreme than the other. It might not be what you thought it was.

    This refers to what many moderates call "tolerance."

    Pro-choice isn't about being for abortion, it's only about not being so against it that you believe in taking away the individual's choice.

    Similarly being what you call pro-gay marriage isn't as much about thinking homosexuality and gays getting married is great, as it is about not imposing my preferences or beliefs on these people who have preferences I can not necessarily relate to.

    So suggesting that since some republicans can have these (basically libertarian views) and be accepted, where as democrats having the opposite views ("pro-life" (ie wanting to outlaw abortion), and against giving gay couples marriage rights) are therfore more extreme, is ludicrous.

    You assume that the two sides of these coins are equally extreme. Why? Just because they are opposite positions on issues ? Do you have any idea how silly that is?

    Regardless of whether you agree with the following, you have to agree that if it is true, then your point is absurd.

    I would hold that being tolerant regarding "choice" and regarding gay marriage are both moderate middle of the road points of view. Whereas the opposite views are more extreme (and are both associated primarily with fundamentalist religious crowd).

  • On 17 Apr 2014 in Tell me anything that you hate about Republicans the most., marcus said:

    No, that's not what I meant. I meant pretty much what I said.

    If Hillary gets elected President, it won't be because she's a woman.

    Because close to as many will vote against her for that reason as will vote for her.

    If by chance I'm wrong and there are more voting for her because she's a woman, that won't be about feminism per se.

  • On 16 Apr 2014 in Bay Area Obamacare mystery: Where are the patients?, marcus said:

    I've had health care for many years, but rarely go to the doctor.

  • On 16 Apr 2014 in Tell me anything that you hate about Republicans the most., marcus said:

    CaptainShuddup says

    Liberals have been running around the country creating the worst pieces of Legislation in History

    Again, we get it. You want to have Sean Hannity's children. Well, why don't you go ahead and make your move.

  • On 16 Apr 2014 in Is this Romney's 47%?, marcus said:

    clambo says

    So now we have the claims that the reason Hillary, Biden, and Kerry voted to invade Iraq was the oil companies forced them to? That's interesting but baloney.

    If they did it to prove that democrats aren't weak on national security, it doesn't mean that the real reasons for the war weren't mostly about oil.

    There is some subtlety to this, because I'm sure you had high level "academics" on the right (mostly the neocons), arguing that having sufficient oil to meet our energy needs in coming decades is a national (economic) security issue.

    Prioritizing sustainable alternative energy ? That's for those pansy "progressives."

  • On 16 Apr 2014 in Tell me anything that you hate about Republicans the most., marcus said:

    Nothing has changed with women's issues. With the exception of debates about health care covering birth control.

    And if you're thinking that democrats play political games with women's issues, to try to get more of the female vote, guess what ? It's true. They do.

    Because the republicans can be counted on to say really stupid stuff about women and women's issues.

    You can't blame democrats for exploiting this. That's playing politics fair and square. Unlike what republicans are willing to do to win elections.

  • On 16 Apr 2014 in Is this Romney's 47%?, marcus said:

    CaptainShuddup says

    Oh here comes Marcus to keep the topic on track.

    What topic is that ?

    How much you hate Obama ?

    How much you love Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh?

  • On 16 Apr 2014 in Tell me anything that you hate about Republicans the most., marcus said:

    CaptainShuddup says

    Where should we send the "Thank You" flowers?

    I didn't think so. The biggest political risk republicans want to take is the risk of lowering taxes. That's bound to get them unelected. But hey, sometimes you just have to do the right thing.

    They're the "borrow and spend Republicans."

  • On 16 Apr 2014 in Tell me anything that you hate about Republicans the most., marcus said:

    Tell me the last time the republicans risked taking on a huge issue like health care in the way the democrats have?

    Specifically I'm asking this:

    When was the last time the republicans took the kind of risk the democrats have taken with the ACA? That is, the risk that it would be unpopular in the short run, possibly hurting themself politically in the short or medium term, but based on the belief it was for the longer term good of the country?

    (prediction: you will use this question to rant about Obamacare or to suggest that democrats only motivation was to help the insurance companies. You know that's a lie).

    MY perception is that the degree to which republicans are all about gaining power by obstructing the other side, gerrymandering districts, making it harder for certain groups to vote, is beyond anything we've seen in the past.

    Both sides are guilty for making our politics more polarized than ever, but republicans are now so far to the right, that they literally in crazy town. It's truly laughable how far to the right the entire spectrum is. Even you (CaptainSU) constantly remind us that Obama and the democrats are wholly owned by the banks and corporations just as much as the republicans.

    IT seems that even you can't deny that the democrats are right wing, and the republicans are FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR right wing. And yet you defend the republicans, evidently because you enjoy the emotion that the Fox news lies stimulate.

  • On 16 Apr 2014 in Is this Romney's 47%?, marcus said:

    CaptainShuddup says

    He's not only the Liberal's description of Romney, he's been Palin, McCain, Perry, Bush, you name it. There's not one Republican boogieman that Obama hasn't topped.

    How does a person get to be THIS intellectually dishonest ?

    I wouldn't think being an illiterate dimbulb, who gets a boner every time Sean Hannity blasts some dishonest nonsensical emotion out his pie hole would be enough to do it, but apparently I'm wrong.

    THe Captain is living proof of the damage that's done to this country by the likes of Fox news and talk radio.

    He will respond that its no worse than the marxist dogma spewed by PBS, CBS, and CNN.

    And he thinks he's being honest and objective when he says that.

  • On 15 Apr 2014 in Is this Romney's 47%?, marcus said:

    CaptainShuddup says

    When you stop pretending that Obama hasn't exhibited and announced on several occasions that he would govern alone with his pen. So anything at this point, and I do mean anything, about this administrations short Cummings, would rest squarely on Obama's shoulder for not giving a good greasy crank about it.

    If you're butt hurt because those big ole corporations did do this and they didn't pay that, just consider who really could do the most in Washington to stop it.

    And if you're dirty liberal filthy blame finger is still pointing at Mitt Romney.

    Then it would appear that Mitt Romney really did win the 2012 elections, and Obama is just playing Token at this point.

    THis is some vintage captainSU.

  • On 14 Apr 2014 in Obama has Proposed 442 Tax Hikes Since Taking Office, marcus said:

    clambo says

    Unless the Democrats lose more power in those elections. Then it's harder to raise taxes.

    True, how can republicans get the tax increases they want, when democrats aren't in power to blame it on ?

  • On 14 Apr 2014 in Obama has Proposed 442 Tax Hikes Since Taking Office, marcus said:

    There's spin, there's propaganda and there's facts.

    You decide.

    MEanwhile you might want to consider facts, regarding the tax rate that Romney and other parasites on our economy, sorry, I mean "job creators" pay.

  • On 13 Apr 2014 in "Cosmos" irritates the God-botherers, marcus said:

    Dan's usual response to my saying that he should have more of a "live and let live" attitude about religion, is something like,...

    "Marcus says that when I see women being beaten for not covering their
    faces, or being murdered for being raped, I should "live and let live " "

    And then he wonders (out loud) why I don't even respond to such arguments.

    The implication being that he thinks it's a sound argument. That the most offensive example he can come up with of fundamentalist craziness, that's offensive to us all, is an indictment of all religions, and further all spiritual belief. Yes, Dan is at times that intellectually dishonest (or is it stupid ? Not sure).

    As I said earlier in this thread.

    "I said that since religion will always be around, or certainly for the critical next few hundred years, why not focus on having better religions rather than no religion. A battle that can be won, or at least where inroads could be made.

    It's a fact that as people leave established moderate religions such as Presbytarians or Catholics, you are increasing the percentage of fundamentalists. This has been the trend in recent decades.

    So why don't you and the other genius adolescent children go on r/atheists and talk more Catholics and moderate protestants into becoming atheists. That's really going to improve the world. "

  • On 13 Apr 2014 in "Cosmos" irritates the God-botherers, marcus said:

    If Dan were half as intelligent as he constantly claims he is, he would be more concise.

    Instead what I see is his distracting himself and everyone else with kinds of nonsensical adolescent ramblings.

    Not once has he addressed the concise and simple point I have made several times that addresses the core flaw of his argument.

    He claims religion is evil. That it has done more harm than good for humanity. He claims that spiritual beliefs, belief in GOd hold us back in our moral development.

    This claim is obviously faulty, or certainly nothing more than an assertion (he confuses his assertions with proofs constantly).

    B-b-but if I write 2 thousand words, with pictures and videos, certainly I've proven it !!"

    Right Dan.

    The only real argument I've made in this thread (concisely - a few times) addresses the core flaw.

    marcus says

    What's lacking is that you presuppose that religion is holding morality back. My point was that the kind of religion we have (and the type of politics and govt we have) are a reflection of how evolved (unevolved) we are.

    Not the other way around.

    It's easy to find historical examples of humans doing evil, even on a mass scale at times. And yes, religion has at times been used to rationalize evil.

    Dan claims that this is proof that religion is inherently evil, that is that all religion at all times is evil. And further more, even though we all know that religion is primarily a human construct, Dan takes it a step further, and claims that therefore any type of belief in god, is evil, or at least detrimental to humanity.

    I've noted many times before (and he's never responded to this) - arguing that evil done by religion is proof that all religion and all belief in God is inherently bad, is no different than arguing that humanity is inherently evil and should be ended, simply because humans do evil so often.

    Two points I'll make, and I'm done.

    1) Dan's core argument that religion and belief in God are inherently evil or that it holds back our evolution, is a hand waving argument. Dan, you've never come close to proving what claim you have here.

    (when I make assertions - I don't claim they are proofs)

    MY response, has been to assert the opposite is true, that in fact our religious institutions and governments only reflect where we are at in our evolution. I expect that even when we are far more evolved, we can and surely will still have spirituality.

    2) Dan's need to proselytize his atheism is fascinating. It has its parallel with the worst type of fundamentalist religious types. The ones who are so sure that they are right (insecurely know they might not be) and who constantly and desperately try to "save souls" by converting others to their beliefs.

    What incredible arrogance to think and promote that everyone needs to be like him. He can envision a better world where everyone has come to the awesome realizations he has. You need to come up with a name for those who don't get it (heathen and infidel are already taken). Maybe you can get an atheism jihad going.

    Gosh Dan. You're like a prophet of atheism.

    Final note: as I have shared in the past, I respect atheists, who simply don't believe. They are grounded enough to know, "my beliefs are my beliefs." Live and let live etc.

    I'm not sure whether Dan's incredible off the charts arrogance is a part of a bigger pattern (possibly narcissistic personality disorder) or some other condition that leads to his bellicose proselytizing for atheism.

    Live and let live Dan. Get over yourself. You aren't any better than those Catholics or those Presbyterians or those Buddhists or those Jews. We are all just people. We have different beliefs.

  • On 12 Apr 2014 in "Cosmos" irritates the God-botherers, marcus said:

    Dan8267 says

    As soon as you define god, you lose all your power and all your ability to bullshit.

    Ironically, the only kind of person that would try to define god explicitly is the kind of person who sees everything in black and white, that is the kind of person that needs to have all of the answers.

    This is one of the reasons that people talk about how religious Dan's type is with their atheism. Dan's need to have all the answers to everything (or to think he does) is behind his "proving that god doesn't exist."

    Part of what's interesting is that Dan's not stupid, and yet his need to have all the answers is so strong that he repeatedly shares embarrassingly weak arguments. Sometimes they are hundreds or thousands of words long, while at the core so weak, that if Dan was more honest with himself, he would clearly see their weakness. Although, introspection and evaluation of his own thinking is not one of Dan's strengths.

    Just like the person of religious faith, Dan's desire to be right is so strong that he will lie to himself and others with these adolescent arguments.

    And then, on some deep level, Dan knows, that he hasn't proven anything, and that he doesn't really know. So he goes about preaching and selling us on this supposed wisdom, when in fact he's just trying to be more secure in his faith that he's right.

  • On 12 Apr 2014 in "Cosmos" irritates the God-botherers, marcus said:

    Dan8267 says

    Basically, if you are a pussy who refuses to define god or define it in a meaningful way such that we can communicate on what constitutes that god, then the very question of god's existence is meaningless. So you don't get to even participate in the discussion.

    That's a convenient way out. I guess that would mean that all monks and mystics and people like the Dali Lama aren't qualified to talk about spiritual matters. Maybe they shouldn't even be entitled to their own beliefs and experiences if they can not explain them is a simple ways that Dan can relate to.

  • On 12 Apr 2014 in "Cosmos" irritates the God-botherers, marcus said:

    Dan8267 says

    marcus says

    THat's the core of your adolescent confusion. Nothing more than an assertion.

    Assertions, by definition, don't have supporting points. In every thread, I have firmly supported the conclusion that religion is inherently bad and have explained in exquisite detail about exactly why it is. You just never listen because it contradicts your small world view. Nonetheless, I'll repeat some of the key points just to make you look like a fool.

    All you had to do, is read the next sentence. Nice touch with the "exquisite detail." That's classic Dan right there.

    Here it is in context. Not that you take the time to comprehend what I'm saying ( as concise as it is)

    marcus says

    Dan8267 says

    Ultimately religion is evil.

    THat's the core of your adolescent confusion. Nothing more than an assertion.

    The proof you would cite, is no different than proof that humans are inherently evil. And it can be argued that they are at times.

    Again, my point ? We get religion that reflects who we are and how evolved we are. It's an absurd fallacy to suggest that who we are, that is our morals, and how 'good' we are is a refection or an effect (primarily) of our religion

  • On 12 Apr 2014 in "Cosmos" irritates the God-botherers, marcus said:

    Dan8267 says

    Marcus constantly brings up my intelligence. I never do.

    Ironoinic you've been talking about morality. Look no further than this thread, to see the first time I've talked directly or inderectly to Dan or about Dan in a long time.

    Not only is Dan the one that brought up his supposed intelligence in this thread, I've seen him doing it constantly over the years with me and others.

    I could find dozens of times that Dan has touted his own intelligence explicitly, and dozens more where it's was obvious he has something to prove in this area.

    Unlike Dan, being the honest person I am, I can assure you, that like most normal people I have NEVER stated in this forum how intelligent I think I am. NEVER ! Sure, from time to time I mock Dan's arrogance and obvious insecurity about his own intelligence. But that's always after he brings it up. Look no further than this thread to see how true this is.

    I only hope for Dan's sake, that the sniveling and dishonest little prick that Dan portrays himself as in this forum isn't who he is in real life.

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

Page took 357 milliseconds to create.