patrick.net

Bap33 says

She’s a challenge. Too old to spank, to young to toss out head first.

somebody needs to be collecting this material....

shrekgrinch says

elliemae says
I’m willing to bet that she loves you when she needs something, tho.
Are we talking about Bap’s daughter or my cat? Sounds the same to me. It’s why I learned what I know about women from observing cat psychology (seriously).

Wow, comparing a teenage girl to a cat is magic! They're both moody, haughty and demanding. I'd say that my daughter never brought me a dead thing, but there was that one young man with tattoos and a tongue stud who lacked the ability to formulate a complete sentence.

shrekgrinch says

Ah…there you go. Another screw up on your part. You are describing YOUR BELIEFS as to what I must be and what I must be thinking despite having zero proof of either.

Really? Again, since 99% of my time is simply displaying how totally horked the things people say and maintain on here I rarely have time for advocating anything, like I said. So, which particular ‘conservative ideas’ are you referring to that I keep advocating?

Alright then, Take the time. I'll wait. Everyone will. I for one am really curious to hear what you do believe... aside from that there must be occasional random precise definitions.

You can be brief, like maybe just give a couple examples of the political theorists you like or what systems you think work well. You can even just name a couple politicians you think represent your thinking. No need to write a tome, just lay it out quick.

I think I asked you this the other day in a thread and also where you scholarly knowledge comes from but this is a good enough thread to get it out.

Here's my imitation of Shrek:

shrekgrinch says

I like reading historical analysis of FDR and the New Deal by current researchers who aren’t biased like all the ones in the past 50 years who can be summed simply as “I wanna write another book that totally kisses FDR’s ass too!”

Ah, another programmed can't think for himself right winger. Always basing his reads on what he wants the conclusions to be.

shrekgrinch says

It’s an implementation of Binary Economics.

Very theoretical sounds impressive. Let me know when you figure out what it really means.
shrekgrinch says

Behavorial economics is something I’m getting into really big. Between that, my understanding of how money works, and hard historical data, this is where I get hard assed about Baumol’s Cost Disease, Say’s Law and Hauser’s Law with certain fools on here who think we can actually squeeze more revenue blood from the income tax turnip.

In other words he thinks taxes can never be too low. Again replacing basic logic with academic theories that aren't even relevant to whether taxes are too low or not (on high incomes).

shrekgrinch says

I do, however…throw my lot in with the Reps because I have no other choice in the matter.

Emotion and self interest before logic. Classic.

shrekgrinch says

BS in Computer Science with a minor in Economic History.

Impossible that you can program your way out of a paper bag.

Now, tell me the truth did I just own Shrek or what ? I powned this fool, see my fancy critical thinking. Did you notice the care that I took to understand what he was saying (NOT).

Again this was just an imitation of Shreks style. He's not a total idiot. But he needs to put his ego on a leash. Maybe start with the assumption that others are as smart or smarter than him, until truly proven otherwise.

kentm says

shrekgrinch says

Ah…there you go. Another screw up on your part. You are describing YOUR BELIEFS as to what I must be and what I must be thinking despite having zero proof of either.
Really? Again, since 99% of my time is simply displaying how totally horked the things people say and maintain on here I rarely have time for advocating anything, like I said. So, which particular ‘conservative ideas’ are you referring to that I keep advocating?

Alright then, Take the time. I’ll wait. Everyone will. I for one am really curious to hear what you do believe… aside from that there must be occasional random precise definitions.
You can be brief, like maybe just give a couple examples of the political theorists you like or what systems you think work well. You can even just name a couple politicians you think represent your thinking. No need to write a tome, just lay it out quick.
I think I asked you this the other day in a thread and also where you scholarly knowledge comes from but this is a good enough thread to get it out.

You have a history of refuting liberal ideas and/or anything Obama thats all I can say without looking back on your threads. Specifically, I do know that you refute anything the other guys cite as facts. I dont plan on ignoring you as I do value everyones opinion on this site, I learned a lot debating on these threads and am looking forward to learning more. So it would be silly to delete an opposing view which could potentially ad value to the debates I engage in.

Ask BAP33 how much my views have changed over the past year. I am not stuck on one party or one idea any longer.

What are your views on the topics I posted?

shrekgrinch says

Ah…there you go. Another screw up on your part. You are describing YOUR BELIEFS as to what I must be and what I must be thinking despite having zero proof of either. Also, you are making very clear that you HAVE to believe those things about me and ascribe the motives you say I have to me (by pulling them straight out of your ass, apparently) to support your worldview. Notice the pattern, Clarence?

Yes, I do...you love to have a debate based on angry retaliation which is no longer my style....what are your views based upon my points above.

marcus says

shrekgrinch says
I do, however…throw my lot in with the Reps because I have no other choice in the matter.

What leaves you no other choice in the matter? Is Obama not centrist enough for the nation?

shrekgrinch says

Not into the Credentialism BS simply because I am ashamed to be associated with the overwhelming idiots out there with degrees, but I have a BS in Computer Science with a minor in Economic History.

So with all your education you choose to associate yourself with bigots within the Republican party that left the democratic party after the passing of Civil Rights act of 1964?

My main reason for not voting Republican is that they are insensitive to the needs of poor people, primarlily Blacks who have for 400 years been push aside and not permitted to participate in business. Now that Blacks have been free for 150 years the Republican party expects everyone to just jump on in and start participating as if no mental and social effects (Resentment, Fear, Mental Illness, etc) have resulted from the Blacks being pushed aside. Shit most of the grandparents of the kids today were not even able to eat at the same fuckin lunch counter as whites yet we expect their grandchildren to be excited about spending time in the business community with the descendants as if nothing even occured. The insensitive statements made by Republicans are indicative of the nature of the people within the group. They are careless about the social welfare of the weak and underpriviledged. This is not to say that every piece of legislation a Democrat puts out is pure hearted and aimed at assisting blacks because I do not believe in using the welfare system as a crutch nor do I believe 8K tax credits and Healthcare reform were the answer to my prayers. A college education and a good understanding of business have become my answer.

I have a few questions for you:

1. Wouldnt you equate the Republican approach toward Blacsk to the United States expecting a soldier to go to Iraq for 10 years and come home without being shellshocked? Some within the black community is shell shocked and doesnt know where to go as a whole.

2. Why should I support a party who has known bigots within its ranks? Would you support the Republican party if its constituency primarily consisted of members of the Nation of Islam or Black Israelites?

3. Why should I support a party of priveledged rich people who hold no concern for the poors mental welfare?

Engage me, I am curious to hear you educated answers but this time stick to the topic without going into why you are being ignored by others because that is not my focus here.

shrekgrinch says

But since you are in cheap shot mode backed up by your vast ideological bias in defiance of reason and facts, you chose to make that cheap shot anyway

The whole point was to give you a taste of your pointless responses to people. Yes, cheap worthless response very much intended (the entire post).

shrekgrinch says

For starters, you use the word ’smart’ when you mean to refer to ‘education’ or ‘knowledgeable’

No, I meant smart. Although I understand that your frequent unwillingness to be respectful and polite in a discussion, is because once you introduce a concept which you feel you have more knowledge (or psuedo knowlege) of, it gives you some emotional justification for being a jerk, and basically not even bothering to consider the other point of view, because you feel you laid down parameters that aren't being followed.

This is pure simple ego. Get over yourself man.

shrekgrinch says

Do you realize what an idiot you are presenting yourself to be, Marcus? Do you even care?

I would like to think that when I respond to someone in this forum, in addition to presenting myself (or heaven forbid, my thoughts and ideas) to others, I might also be truly taking some care to respond to them. The exception might be when dealing with those whose intent is that of a troll.

shrekgrinch says

Then you need to see a shrink to deal with your problems with distinguishing reality from fantasy

Maybe you're right. What can I say, the truth hurts.

Do you think with a little honest reflection I can grow and change, or is it probably going to require as you say professional help ?

Well sg, thanks for the post explaining your positions, its an interesting read and is a lot more than the others I'd group you with here have done. It helps me to understand partially where you're coming from though I have to admit much of what you've outlined comes as a bit of a surprise when compared to what you've posted previously. I guess either I'm an idiot or its because you're sending mixed messages & don't understand your own material...

At any rate based on the info above I've changed my mental image of you from this:

To this:

I think that would be a better icon image for you, rather than the pseudo 50's Fallout3 game boy cartoon.

So anyway, I think: You're disposed by temperament toward Republicans - thats clear enough - but its the conservative emotional storyline that you respond to rather than an actual philosophical or intellectual set of reasoning, but you're unwilling to admit it because you think of yourself as the 'smart' person, and you feel that you've at least always had your 'smart' memory of facts to fall back on where emotional connections have failed, and you read because you're a clever person and like to read but its done so with an eye toward gleaning facts that support your disposition rather than toward understanding contexts or relational structures.

All of this reading in history is really an attempt to understand your own feelings and place them into some context but I think you actually have trouble placing facts into context and understanding relationships such as cause & effect. So the problem here is that you've been reading extensively in an attempt to prove something that you feel emotionally, not to try to understand or discover and evaluate. Its okay, I think its what most people do, the problem is that you're staunchly adamant that its not so, that you're the detached evaluator.

My guess is that you're smart - oops, educated - but socially unsteady, and the frustration at your inability at not being able to communicate your points - or have them accepted - face to face with people is whats driving into this weird aggressive online crazy-person demeanor.

Regarding Green vs Rep vs Dem, I do believe that no opinion stated is wasted when you support what you believe in, and that if you vote for the least worst choice you're still getting from among the worst. Did you vote for Nader when he was running? As it ended up working somewhat against the Democratic party it would have been a perfect time to do so and get that point in without working against the Republicans.

But my guess is that you didn't though, and again, this simple item is what gives the lie to all of your posturing. And here's my point: After all the reading and all of the history and all of the books what your position & arguments usually come down to is an emotional position thats only partially supported by your facts. Its also why I tend to not 'refudiate with you' on facts but instead look for the logic flaws you present*, almost always - because you're arguing from an emotional standpoint and trying to fit or omit the facts to match.

(*For example, on the Capital Homesteading thing (and I haven't read through it thoroughly yet), how would you propose to get a bank thats run as a 'for profit' venture to give out loans to every single person that banks with them what would clearly be a money-losing venture for them? I guess it would have to take regulation/gov intervention at the very least...)

And that is my guess at why people here refuse to take you seriously - because they see you arguing an emotion-based position while pretending its not - and its why you're getting frustrated with us idiots, because, once again, people refuse to take you seriously. Its the disconnect. That, and the fact that you come across as a belligerent and insulting prick, immediately dropping into crassness whenever someone disagrees with you.

Another way this plays out is in the way you relentless attack the Democratic party to a fault for minor and invented issues but let glaring missteps by the Republicans swoosh by - like this one:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_01/027383.php

Crickets.

Anyway, 2 cents. I realize I'm a bit out of line with this post, but as I say its the apparent disconnects that prompt me in this direction.

Thanks for the lengthy positional statement. I suppose I ought to do the same in return...

shrekgrinch says

And now it is my time to ask you a question: WHAT WILL MAKE BLACKS HAPPY? I mean, what? I am looking for a concrete, definitive answer. ‘Reparations’ for slavery? I believe someone once said that would only make Cadillac the #1 car dealer in America….oh yes, Cedric the Entertainer in ‘The Barbershop’ (I love those Barbershop movies).

Reparations can come in many forms, but mostly should be provided in terms of education.

Black families want what every family wants....security in the form of jobs, home ownership (not debtorship) and financial freedom (income outside of a 9-5). Now, the only way we or any other poor person are going to get their is through education, resiliency and legislative changes like the ones you mentioned above and a few others (Welfare Reform, Education Reform, Parenting Reform).

That being said, not every black person is out for the same thing. Some are thugs, some are professionals...you find this in every community. So I wouldnt go basing your opinions of the black community on what Snoop, Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson want....but the scholars who have done the research like WEB Dubois or Booker T. Washington.

In the end, the issues facing black people are the same issues facing poor people around the world.

kentm says

you’ve been reading extensively in an attempt to prove something that you feel emotionally

I agree with KentM that you get overly emotional when debating, like where you claimed I called you a bigot or above where you overtly attacked me on issues that I was attempting to get your views on.

I am not calling all whites bigots just because a group of individuals left the Dems in 1964 based on the Civil Rights act or how the Christian Right has no solutions to poverty other than to go to Mexico and build missions to make themselves feel good.

kentm says

Another way this plays out is in the way you relentless attack the Democratic party to a fault for minor and invented issues but let glaring missteps by the Republicans swoosh by

...and again here, I agree with Kentm in that you blast Obama for his attempts to repair society. Even where he may be failing, he is at least using pragmatism to make those decisions or at least it seems. Where as George Bush put us into a 10 year 1T war that benefitted no one, at least Obama spent 1T on infrastructure.

Do you also blast Bush for the fact that his team mis-managed the war?

shrekgrinch says

But frankly, Obama doesn’t deserve much. He’s not the ’smartest guy in the room’ and when evaluating him against his OWN WORDS and PROMISES (which were way over the top for any politician), he’s a guaranteed target.

Try visiting http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/ to see what he has accomplished. I am not saying that all of these pieces of legislation were the best so read em and formulate your own opinion.

shrekgrinch says

And now it is my time to ask you a question: WHAT WILL MAKE BLACKS HAPPY? I mean, what? I am looking for a concrete, definitive answer. ‘Reparations’ for slavery? I believe someone once said that would only make Cadillac the #1 car dealer in America….oh yes, Cedric the Entertainer in ‘The Barbershop’ (I love those Barbershop movies).
I submit to you that blacks themselves don’t even know the answer to that one themselves. But I’d like to hear your view, for sure.

I'd dare say that blacks would like to be viewed as individuals who have some commonalities, and many differences. And, shekgingrich, believe it or not many black people don't think that Cedric is the funniest guy in the world. Many do. There are black geeks and black intellectuals and all sorts of black people.

The one thing about which most black people (and white people ) that I know share a common opinion: the civil rights movement began in 1950 (approx) and it's sad that it took another 55 plus years to have a black president elected.

So many people dislike our president - but it takes some major balls to run for president these days - especially if you're not one of the insider good ol' boys. I hope many things for my kids - prosperity, wisdom, the ability to travel and most of all good health - but I wouldn't wish a presidency on them.

I like President Obama, and respect him and his wife & kids for the life they're living and example they're setting for all Americans.

elliemae says

The one thing about which most black people (and white people ) that I know share a common opinion: the civil rights movement began in 1950 (approx) and it’s sad that it took another 55 plus years to have a black president elected.

It's sad, but also very surprising that we have a black president SO SOON. My guess is that most people thought we would have a woman president before a black president. It might be 2350 before we have a jewish or asian president. 3350 before we see a gay president.

We've come a long way baby.

Actually, as I think about it more, I think we will have an asian american president within the next 50 years.

elliemae says

The one thing about which most black people (and white people ) that I know share a common opinion: the civil rights movement began in 1950 (approx) and it’s sad that it took another 55 plus years to have a black president elected.

I dont know if SAD is the right word here, because the political power will push the community forward. Black people and poor people need financial power moreso....so that we can influence decisions made in Hollywood. The owners of radio, tv and cable networks are popularizing the stupidity of the ghettos across the world, making it cool to sag, gang bang, talk ignorantly...

....while the educated masses (Bill Cosby, Cornel West, etc.) amongst the black community protest
....while the deaf, dumb and blind (followers of Snoop, Ice Cube) amongsts the black community shuck and jive
....while the children within the community latch on to the cultures of stupidity represented in the music and television shows.
....while the sellouts (Snoop, Ice Cube, Jay Z, Beyonce) of our community get rich off selling stupidity to our people.

We only thought that achieving political power would be the solution, Obama has proven that no help is coming in the near future for the poor....so they will have to strap up their boots and educate themselves if they want to improve their lot in life.

shrekgrinch says

marcus says

The whole point was to give you a taste of your pointless responses to people.

My responses aren’t pointless. That’s your problem.

And…you STILL didn’t do a good job of it. (nice try, though…I can see you put some effort into it)

Actually I put about 40 seconds of effort into it (plus maybe 3 minutes to see whether I thought Binary Economics is a well thought out Model.)

Kent on the other hand clearly did put a lot of care in to a very thoughtful analysis. Kent, I thought you were right on the money.

Maybe from a manipulation standpoint we can understand Shrek. He wants to say what he wants to say, and he hates having it challenged. For him a conversation isn't about a back and forth, which might lead to mutual agreement on the truth. (this is why his referring to his competence as an engineer at finding bugs is so fascinating).

No he does not want to ever reach agreement, nor does he want to disagree with a lack of emotion in a way that might overturn or at least amend your viewpoint (see Troy). He wants to hold forth on whatever topic, and if you challenge him, he would like to make you regret that you tried (but not because you are wrong). He wants you to see it as futile.
Even he says:
shrekgrinch says

If I am SUCH an asshole, then why do you bother to respond to me or even engage me in this discussion at all?

As I said it's manipulation. If you think about how tough a time this guy is going to have, you should feel for him. I'll leave it at that.

shrekgrinch says

Scott Adams the other day dropped a nice Dilbert cartoon that totally backs me up. It’s so close to what is going on on this thread it is scary. I wonder if he is a patrick.net forum participant?

Maybe you're right. I guess the reason that people give up arguing with you long before getting to the heart of the matter is because of your towering and intimidating intellect. It's not because you for some reason(via insults and obnoxiousness) cause them to quit it, before we are able to drill down to the truth.

My mistake.

I didn't get the last square of the cartoon. Is it your clarity that makes you so angry ? OR should it be my clarity making me angry. I mean it, I actually didn't get that part. Is it your clarity that makes me angry ?