http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/07/28/balkin.obama.options/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
DOes this make sense to anyone else?
I found this another line of gibberish designed to justify another end run around the constitution (not that I think the constitution is worth two squirts).
Has anyone else ever heard of this "statutory limit on the amount of money in circulation?"
HAHAHAHA
"Ironically, there's no similar limit on the amount of coinage. A little-known statute gives the secretary of the Treasury the authority to issue platinum coins in any denomination. So some commentators have suggested that the Treasury create two $1 trillion coins, deposit them in its account in the Federal Reserve and write checks on the proceeds."
hahahahhahah
What I also would like to know is that if the government has $2 trillion in platinum laying around to make those two coins with, why not just sell the platinum and pay down the debt?
"What I also would like to know is that if the government has $2 trillion in platinum laying around to make those two coins with, why not just sell the platinum and pay down the debt?"
They don't. They would make two platinum coins and denominate it as a trillion dollar coin.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Andrew is right. The constitution still says that a "dollar" is defined as a weight in gold, silver, nickel, and copper. We all know they ignore these laws. All this would mean is that timmy G. at the treasury would take a platinum halfouncer and stamp a giant number on it, then give it to the fed so they can collateralize more loans.
TANSTAAFL:DOes this make sense to anyone else?
No, you're right. It's total gibberish. I couldn't read anymore after about 2/3rds through. Once he got to "If the president reasonably believes that the public debt will be put in question for either reason, Section 4 comes into play once again" I couldn't take any more. The moron talks with such authority but is so confused on the Constitution (let alone economics) that it's just not worth it. And when I get to the bottom after skimming the rest, and notice over 10,000 people have recommended it on facebook, it makes me sad.
Yea, i'm getting really disillusioned with people's priorities.
In my english class (fiction lit) we went over 'snow crash' and 'promethea' and 'the matrix' and 'truman show' and the only thing people wanted to relate any of them to was reality tv shows..."Cause it makes them feel better aboujt themselves" AKA it lowers ambitions. I had to tell them that reality tv shows are literally televised skinner boxes
One of my friends here majored in journalism, but does nothing related to it. He takes pictures and all of the girls he has introduced me to majored in some kind of 'art' field. Cause i know most "artists" get ALL of thier inspiration from other artists art.
But everyone wants their political opinion. Which, to my estimation, is why we hear democracy plugged all of the time. It is simply the politically correct way to let people think that they matter, no matter how fu^king stupid and ignorant they are.
I don't think reality tv is so much a skinner box as it is simply a reflection of what people find entertaining. It's mindless stimulation. It doesn't require any real thought or consideration to enjoy. It's like Jackass. I think this is appealing to people because it's become so difficult (i.e. it takes so much effort) for most people to exert any sort of mental energy to assess virtually anything...or for that matter enjoy something that isn't basically slapstick. (I think Neil Tokar offers an excellent theory as to why this is in his recent Mises Daily.)
I think this is why you can so often hear someone say "you're too serious" anytime a conversation gets deeper than the weather. I think it's too taxing for people of low thinking skill and low information to engage in activity that requires even a minimal amount of those things. In other words, things like reality TV and Michael Bay films have evolved out of a desire to be entertained, and an inability to be engaged in—let alone entertained by—anything much more than appeals to basic primal instincts...namely sex and violence. And fart jokes. Even a small amount of thinking is so difficult and/or exhausting, that people who work all day don't have any interest in doing it...because few people are interested in doing more work in their discretionary time. (And of course people who don't work tend to not have the skill or the ability to do enough thinking to hold down a job...so of course they aren't going to be doing it).
So what you end up with is a largely ill-infomed, uninterested populous...or in other words, a "don't know, don't care" society. It's far easier to be told what to believe than to have to think for yourself...especially when you aren't very good at thinking to begin with. I think this is why you see such an extreme gullibility and willingness to believe the easiest, least complicated story. I also think people are uncomfortable talking about things they don't believe they know much about. And if you combine that inability to think critically with the discomfort of feeling ill-informed, you start to understand why it's so easy for people to buy into obvious nonsense...whether it's the notion that spending money gets you out of debt, or that a jumbo jet and all it's passengers can disintegrate after crashing into a field, leaving literally no trace of man or machine...aside from a bandana, three driver's ID cards and a hotel card...all completely intact.
And ironically, after being enticed (and possibly even having a need) to believe whatever an authority says, it seems people actually begin to believe they do know what they are talking about, and feel the need to not only loudly defend the "official" assessment, but also to attack those that question it.
the producers on some of the reality shows (eg. Jersey Shore) withhold the participants from food and sleep. That is why it is a skinner box.
watch this. There is an ad for Soma in the middle of it, hilarious.
Here is an explaination of the OP's concern
Nice find Mark. If that is what this clown is advocating then why not just stamp a hubcap or man hole cover with $10 trillion on it and borrow against that?
I also found out that this limit on money in circulation the clown is refering to is the limit on the total value of federal reserve notes in circulation. Which has nothing to do with the actual money supply.
How is it that smart people can be swayed by idiots that write this kind of rubbish?
Mark:the producers on some of the reality shows (eg. Jersey Shore) withhold the participants from food and sleep. That is why it is a skinner box.
Really. And why have these producers not been imprisoned?
probably because they signed contracts and will put up with the abuse because they are paid millions of dollars in return for their wretched behavior...'people' like to watch that stuff.
Oh so you mean the people on those shows are willing participants, voluntarily choosing to be there, and could leave at any time to go eat whatever they want or sleep as long as they want?
well, you are missing the point. Most people will sacrifice well being for money. It's called prostitution.
Be careful justifying ANY actions simply through contractual arrangements. Chomsky makes good points around this issue; people like Paul and Rothbard are simply optimistic in these situations.
You likened human beings engaging in voluntary activity to rats in a box, with virtually zero justifying support...and I need to be more careful?
and could leave at any time to go eat whatever they want or sleep as long as they want?
This is not true, either. They are forced into the behavior because of the signature.
You are not making the same inference as me you are thinking in terms of law. I am thinking in terms of human nature. Anyone can be tricked into signing a contract if that number at the bottom is large enough. That is what Chomksy says and what Rothbard is , imo, too optimistic about
Think if you're oin "survivor" and cannot (or do not know how) to find or clean water for drinking and cannot get help from anyone, but the producers will not let you have a water bottle or do anything outside of the parameters that you signed a contract saying you'd do...
Here's one example: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90406338
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVFzT18sOrs - "Blindfolded and led onto a plane, 12 contestants are dumped in a house in Berlin. Deprived of food or money, they must use their initiative to survive. Yet they don't even know which country they are in. With no prospect of food, the contestants are reduced to begging or stripping in seedy clubs. The producers claim it's a useful social experiment depicting the migrant experience. But outraged German politicians have called for the programme to be banned. "It is absolutely terrible and disgusting," complains politician Heidemarie Fischer. And inside the house the pressure quickly becomes too much. "You take our souls and torture us," cries one tearful contestant. But it seems that the public has a taste for torture and the show is a big hit." - This is a little bit different cause it sounds like the show is about food and sleep deprivation. The woman makes a joke that harkens to "Network" - people dying for ratings.
I'll post more as i find them. Open your eyes. What is wrong than putting people in situations where you can legally deny them food and sleep based on a signature because someone didn't read the fine print? (sarcasm) It's like singing away two of your natural rights based on a property contract hahahahah. The are prioritized Life, Liberty, then property. Just like the Bill of Rights tells a story of jurisdiction for someone in trouble...
Mark:Think if you're oin "survivor" and cannot (or do not know how) to find or clean water for drinking and cannot get help from anyone, but the producers will not let you have a water bottle or do anything outside of the parameters that you signed a contract saying you'd do...
So lemme get this straight. You're asserting that if a contestant on Survivor complained of thirst and feelings of nausea or other symptoms of dehydration and demanded a bottle of water or something outside the parameters of the contract they signed, it would be denied them? The producers would say: "Sorry. You signed a contract"?
A woman was awarded $2.86 million by an American court jury after spilling coffee on herself and subsequently suing the company that sold her the beverage for gross negligence because the coffee was allegedly "unreasonably dangerous" and "defectively manufactured".
A 27 year old man from Michigan was involved in a rear-end collision and four years later sued the owners of the truck that was responsible for the accident, citing a deterioated sexual relationship with his wife, stating the accident turned him into a homosexual. He was awarded $200,000 (and his wife received $25,000).
Two carpet layers sued the manufacturer of a carpet adhesive that ignited after they placed it near a hot water heater that eventually turned on. They claimed the warning label containing words like "flammable" and "keep away from heat" didn't prepare them adequately for the danger. They were awarded $8 million.
And you're telling me a tv production studio would willingly deny a contestant water on the grounds that "she signed a contract."
And I need to open my eyes?
haha you are simply over looking my point IN THIS CASE. to make your own ideology feel well foundated. Yes i do think hollywood producers would say that. The Devil's Advocate?
Did you even look at those links? That is exactly what the video shows that they did. They tricked them in all kinds of ways.
And what do those cases have to do with the point i made? You are throwing red herrings.
No, your point is that people on reality shows are equivalent to rats in a box. And while I'm fully aware of the idiocy of the people who end up getting on those shows, as well as the fishbowl nature of the programming, I'm arguing that people are not rodents. I don't care how dumb you are. And the lush pads the casts of Jersey Shore and The Real World and the like, are not prison cells. The people come and go as they please.
And the point I was making with the frivelous lawsuits (that were all won by the plaintiff, btw) was to show what companies are up against in terms of liability. If a company can be sued and have to pay out millions of dollars and be dragged through the media for months because some idiot spilled coffee on themself, it affects the way the owners of the company behave, and the way they instruct their subordinates to run their departments.
Heidi Montag was a contestant on a Survivor-like tv show. The whole point of the show is for the contestants to survive in a Costa Rican jungle without modern world comforts. The minute she began vomiting she was put in a jeep and rushed to a hospital.
Survivor contestants Michael Skupin, Paschal English, and Bruce Kanegai have all been evacuated to hospitals. Probably would have made for more compelling television had they been left to fend for themselves. I wonder why the medical team that provides "over 1500 medical consultations for each show" would be so apt to break the namesake of the show, and treat people with the best medical care available.
Justin Sebik was expelled from the Big Brother house after he held a knife to a girl's throat (with her encouragement) and they continued kissing. That doesn't seem like a smart move on the producer's part according to you. They claim the man "violated the rules", but it could easily have been argued she wasn't genuinely threatened. She did encourage it...and continue kissing him, after all. That certainly makes for good tv. But instead the show's producers stretched the incident in the complete opposite direction, saying he threatened her with physical violence so that they could justify kicking him off the show.
Another Big Brother houstguest Scott Weintraub was expelled after angrily tosseing furniture around the House and ranting in expletives. Sounds like exactly the kind of behavior they're going for. He didn't hurt anyone. He was just "irritable" and "screaming". Perhaps "on the edge." Didn't hurt anyone. Didn't even threaten anyone. Just threw a temper tantrum. Makes for good TV. Why in the world would they deprive him of sleep to "make people crazy", "put people on edge" "make them irritable. Screaming" to "heighten the drama" and then the minute they get the drama they need to make for good tv, they remove the source?
These show producers don't seem to be acting in the way you claim the should be.
well would it be easier for you to digest if i don't say that not every single one will act as brazen as others. Of course things that i described do not happen ALL the time, but certainly someone dying on survivor would not be good when trying to get other contestants...so yes they would prevent that behavior. I think i hit a personal chord with you cause you watch those stupid tv shows and took my skinner box reference personally.
Read a little about Wilhelm Wudnt and Skinner. They moved psychology from philosophically driven research to physiologocial based research. Reactions rather than thoughts. This moved the point of it out from under perception of things around them to perception of the way things interact with them. It personallizes everything that is perceived to be important. And when money precedes food and sleep, or....understanding,...people will be prevented from making the choice that is in their best interest. They will be usurped based on their perception.
I never said "people are like rats" ... i made an allusion to skinner because people seem to enjoy others pain (HOSTEL is allegedly satire on this) and there ARE undeniable examples of this being acted on. You are attacking my point by saying that it is not universal...DUH, the principle of competition would prevent that (although cartels of businesses are prevelant) But, since you said it, i will too, people are the equivelant of animals. The establishment can create a maze (the world's systems) for them to scurry through, all the while never understanding the bigger scheme of things. Time is distorted, reality, being, etc. Linguistics is the equivelant of building perception and when people succumb to that mindset (the one that reality TV keeps people in) they start to lose touch with humanity. THAT is why people watch Jersey shore and 16 and pregnant. They try to make their squaller behavior seem better by watching people who essentially make whores of themselves on TV. Cuase...haha, somehow that is better?
you also claimed that Michael Bay and reality TV grew out of people's want to be unenganged intellectually.. i agree to an extent, but think the forces behind the corporate world want people that way. They inculcate that mindset of Idiocracy because it allows them to get away with their crimes. Reality Tv has existed for a while...it used to be called "news".
It means 'relief' today. Relief from the hassle of complex world society. Reality is being made to mean the opposite of reality. I don't think this is an accident of human wants or desires... Human wants come from 'light'; what ever caused the big bang is what causes people to want to create. When their ambitions are lowered far enough people will cease to want that and will literally be mind slaves of the people who know how to manipulate the lower minded folk out there in la la land. Which from the evidence is pretty simple.
Mark:I think i hit a personal chord with you cause you watch those stupid tv shows and took my skinner box reference personally.
Ah yes, clearly. I suppose that was made obvious by the way I described the kind of people those shows appeal to.
I never said "people are like rats" ... i made an allusion to skinner because people seem to enjoy others pain (HOSTEL is allegedly satire on this) and there ARE undeniable examples of this being acted on.
I'm beginning to wonder if you even know what a Skinner box is. You said "reality tv shows are literally televised skinner boxes." A Skinner box is a lab apperatus used to study behavior and conditional responses. When someone says a reality show "is literally a televised skinner box", what that implies is that the box itself is the set of the reality show, and the cast of the show are the subjects in the box (usually lab rats). The televised part implies the rest of the world gets a view inside the conditioning chamber.
If this doesn't imply that people (i.e. cast members of a reality show) are like rats in a box from which there is no escape, I don't know what does.
(This would also make one wonder how someone who watches such a show would be offended by such a comparison, as a viewer would simply be akin to the scientist (or at least an apprentice observer) to the experiment being conducted. I'm curious as to why you would think a "personal chord" would be struck by this analogy...especially considering the way I spoke of the type of people who find such a show entertaining. My assessment was much more damning to the viewer.)
And finally I in no way see how the fact that people find entertainment in watching (what you claim) is simply an experiment in conditioning and behavioral responses, points to a confirmation of schadenfreude.
But, since you said it, i will too, people are the equivelant of animals.
I said this?
When i think of the skinner experiments i do not think of rats i think of pigeons. Do not try and argue by calling into my understanding of things such as this. You are comparing the people who watch those shows to scientists......................................................puh leeze
The reason why we are taught skinner in psychology (rather than phiolosophy) is to show people that their physiology is more powerful than their thoughts. The pedagoogy is faulty; or i should say it is purposely misleading people from thoughts to actions. Your surroundings are what shape your behavior. It is used in terms, of perception. Which is what reality shows do; they shift perceptions. Words and the thoughts that people have from hearing them in specific orders change their perceeptions of things related past, present, and future.
Example: "We are occupying Iraq." or "We are liberating Iraq." The perception of the words used literally holds millions of lives. justification before and after the start are completely altered.
what i meant by "skinner box being on TV" is twofold,
The people inside have their perceptions controlled and conditioned. Hence, their physiological reactions to their surroundings altering their concsious behavior.
And the people who watch it generally do not know it. ie. calling it "reality" tv. The effect of this, is that people have advertisements to reinforce their "better" behavior and the "purchase" is that confirmation.
i meant, you said it = you said that i said it
haha
Mark:what i meant by skinner box being on TV is twofold, The people inside have their perceptions conditioned. Hence their physiological reactions to their surroundings altering their concsious behavior.
...like lab rats in a conditioning chamber?
And the people who watch it generally do not know it. ie. calling it "reality" tv. The effect of this, is that people have advertisements to reinforce their "better" behavior and the purchase is that confirmation.
Now we're resorting to the Chomsky "idiot consumer" worldview? Why didn't I see this coming.
:EDIT:
I see you've gone back and added a bunch of other junk in front of the parts I quoted here, but it really does nothing to refute anything I've said, so I see no need to add more here.
The constitution still says that a "dollar" is defined as a weight in gold, silver, nickel, and copper.
It says no such thing.
faber est suae quisque fortunae
The constitution still says that a "dollar" is defined as a weight in gold, silver, nickel, and copper. It says no such thing.
You're right, that should be "the US Code" says that.
"Most people will sacrifice well being for money. It's called prostitution."
Who are you to judge if another is sacrificing their own well being?
What if a woman becomes a prostitute because she absolutely loves sex more than anything else in the world and she feels happpy that she can satisfy her clients? What about a stripper that really enjoys having men watch and look at her?
TANSTAAFL: Who are you to judge if another is sacrificing their own well being? What if a woman becomes a prostitute because she absolutely loves sex more than anything else in the world and she feels happpy that she can satisfy her clients? What about a stripper that really enjoys having men watch and look at her?
Oh you didn't hear? That's not possible. People are "tricked" into prostitution. They don't willingly choose to be paid for services. They also don't know what's good for them. They don't know what they want. They are consumed with desire for "created wants"...as in, not things they actually want, but things they were "tricked" into wanting by people who wanted to sell it to them.
Dude, nice poison in the well there.
People who do not read fine print in contracts ARE "tricked" into things. Look at banks and politicians how can you even deny it? Prostitution is not an example i used. You are attacking my post with somone else's posit, man. Get a life. Aaaand you avoid the points I make, why should i not ignore your posts?
Chomsky is not dumb, and the difference is you have a closed mind to new ideas. Rothbard is not a god.
By not reading the fine print are you being tricked/duped/taken advantage of or are you bing negligent?
That is a good distinguishment that could be debated with context and parameters, but probably not with "JJ always right"...
Watch this.
EDIT: Negligence can be called into question because if you are never exposed to what is necessary to inform your signature then you have no perception of the issue. In this case, you can be "tricked" into signing a contract. Now under the legal system, ignorance is no excuse....
He says in that video "starvation and violence" push people into standard wage labor. Rothbard disagrees and thinks that, as a given, people should have all information required for acting. Information asymmetry will prevent people from having the correct perceptions to make rational decisions. It is tough to deny.
Mark:Dude, nice poison in the well there.
Wikipedia:
"Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a logical fallacy where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say."
Please show me where I stated anything about you. In fact, not only did I say nothing about you, all I did was restate what you have said. I mean, if what you have to say "poisons the well", uh, I'd say that's on you pal. (People really should learn what the logical fallacies really are before they start accusing people of committing them. Another user was just commenting the very same thing (about the very same fallacy) in fact.)
1) Chomsky's presenting new ideas? All I've ever heard him spout are the same ones that have been debunked for centuries. Like when he said if the Venezualan socialists are successful "they would be seeds of a better world." Or when he said "The consistent anarchist should be a socialist" and that he [the consistant anarchist] will "oppose alienated and specialized labor and look forward to the appropriation of capital by the whole body of workers". Or when he said that when Thomas Jefferson argued that dependence will lead to "subservience and venality", and will "suffocate[s] the germs of virtue", Jefferson was talking about was talking about "wage labor"...which (according to Chomsky) was considered an abomination under classical liberal principles.
Or how about when he said "we'd be a lot better off if we were higher taxed, and it was used for proper purposes." What is a "proper purpose?" Apparently we know what that is. Chomsky says we do: "We know what those [purposes] are. I mean, for example, for women taking care of children. You know, it makes sense to pay them for that work, they're doing important work for the society."
Take a lot of money (even more than you already do) from everyone by force, and hand it over to women to have children and "take care of them." We'd "be a lot better off" if that happened. Yes. Smart man indeed. Amazingly novel, insightful ideas. I've never heard anything like this before. Must be just "close-minded".
I especially like when he defended the Khmer Rouge and refused to believe reports that Cambodian communists would genocide 30 percent of their nation's population...when in fact that's exactly what they were doing at that very moment. The very intelligent man "didn't know" this was going on. (Hey maybe he was "tricked". I mean, not into physical prostitution, but intellectual. Ever heard the term "useful idiot"? ...oh, but that would mean...uh..)
2) Who the hell said anything about Rothbard?
I never used any of those arguments. That is the poison in the well. You are setting up false testimony on my part and saying that because i endorse one thing Chomsky says i must endorse all of it. All i meant with Rothbard is that they both have decent ideas, but they both follow their own subjective ideology. You even avoided responding to the most direct point i made in my previous post.
You restated what i said with invective. That is why i accused yo u of it. You're a tool anyway, dude. i'm, done with you.
Mark:Most people will sacrifice well being for money. It's called prostitution.
Mark:They are forced into the behavior because of the signature.
Mark:Anyone can be tricked into signing a contract
Mark:They tricked them in all kinds of ways
Mark:people are the equivelant of animals
Mark:people will cease to want that and will literally be mind slaves of the people who know how to manipulate the lower minded folk
Mark:people have advertisements to reinforce their "better" behavior and the "purchase" is that confirmation.
John James:People are "tricked" into prostitution. They don't willingly choose to be paid for services. They also don't know what's good for them. They don't know what they want. They are consumed with desire for "created wants"...as in, not things they actually want, but things they were "tricked" into wanting by people who wanted to sell it to them.
Mark:I never used any of those arguments.
You are setting up false testimony on my part and saying that because i endorse one thing Chomsky says i must endorse all of it.
Where did I do this again? You said "Chomsky is not dumb, and the difference is you have a closed mind to new ideas." No, I mean you literally said that. Right here.
So I replied asking about Chomsky's ideas actually being something new. I provided many quotes from Chomsky himself, illustrating his ideas pertaining to political economy, showing how they are indeed quite the opposite of "new". The quotes I gave also served another purpose, as you also made the assertion that Chomsky is not dumb....and I think Chomsky's words alone do a pretty good job of pointing to quite the opposite of that too.
Next you said "Rothbard is not a god"...implying that I or anyone else said that, believes that, or even implied that...when in fact the only person who has even mentioned that name in this discussion is you. Of course I can only guess as to the reasoning behind this projection.
And finally you claim I avoided responding to "the most direct point you made". You'll have to inform me of what that is because I thought I pretty much covered everything. But by all means, state your "most direct point" and I'll address it for you.
You restated what i said with invective. That is why i accused yo u of it.
You didn't accuse me of using an insulting or abusive word or expression...you accused me of pre-emptively presenting adverse information about you, in hopes that no one would listen to you. (1) I didn't pre-emptively present anything. I think you've pretty well said what you had to say. (2) I said absolutely nothing about you. (3) All I did was articulate your position.
Again, find another fallacy to accuse. And learn the definition of that one.
John James:[linked to this in the very post being replied to below...]
Mark:You're a tool anyway, dude. i'm, done with you.
EDITED: So, JJ knows...why is there an edit button?
"1) Chomsky's presenting new ideas? All I've ever heard him spout are the same ones that have been debunked for centuries. Like when he said if the Venezualan socialists are successful "they would be seeds of a better world." Or when he said "The consistent anarchist should be a socialist" and that he [the consistant anarchist] will "oppose alienated and specialized labor and look forward to the appropriation of capital by the whole body of workers". Or when he said that when Thomas Jefferson argued that dependence will lead to "subservience and venality", and will "suffocate[s] the germs of virtue", Jefferson was talking about was talking about "wage labor"...which (according to Chomsky) was considered an abomination under classical liberal principles. Or how about when he said "we'd be a lot better off if we were higher taxed, and it was used for proper purposes." What is a "proper purpose?" Apparently we know what that is. Chomsky says we do: "We know what those [purposes] are. I mean, for example, for women taking care of children. You know, it makes sense to pay them for that work, they're doing important work for the society." Take a lot of money (even more than you already do) from everyone by force, and hand it over to women to have children and "take care of them." We'd "be a lot better off" if that happened. Yes. Smart man indeed. Amazingly novel, insightful ideas. I've never heard anything like this before. Must be just "close-minded". I especially like when he defended the Khmer Rouge and refused to believe reports that Cambodian communists would genocide 30 percent of their nation's population...when in fact that's exactly what they were doing at that very moment. The very intelligent man "didn't know" this was going on. (Hey maybe he was "tricked". I mean, not into physical prostitution, but intellectual. Ever heard the term "useful idiot"? ...oh, but that would mean...uh.."
I especially like when he defended the Khmer Rouge and refused to believe reports that Cambodian communists would genocide 30 percent of their nation's population...when in fact that's exactly what they were doing at that very moment. The very intelligent man "didn't know" this was going on. (Hey maybe he was "tricked". I mean, not into physical prostitution, but intellectual. Ever heard the term "useful idiot"? ...oh, but that would mean...uh.."
This is what i meant dipshit. You put words in my mouth with all of those.
What do you think it is when you "preempt" (which is not actually what you did you did it ex post) with the intention of others not paying attention. That is invective. I stand by my statement that you are a loser troll who dispareges other points of view to make yourself feel better. You avoid the main points to try and de foundate them with other statements.
Are you running for office soon?
Mark:[all of Chomsky's quotes that show his ideas are in fact not new, and do a lot to point ot the notion that he is in fact dumb] This is what i meant dipshit. You put words in my mouth with all of those.
Ah more name-calling. I see we've upgraded to curse words too. Excellent form.
But I think you've overlooked an important point of chronology. See, you accused me of poisoning the well before I even quoted Chomsky. So, when I ask you how I poisoned the well, it doesn't exactly work to quote the post I made after you made the accusation for your proof that your accusation is justified. In other words, you claim I poisoned the well by putting words in your mouth...and then quote something I said after you claimed I poisoned the well as proof I poisoned the well. Do you see the issue here, Dr. Brown?
But what's more, again, I presented Chomsky's quotes not to imply you agreed with them, but as evidence to refute your claims that (a) "Chomsky is not dumb" and (b) that his ideas are new. And as I said, I think it's pretty clear they did a pretty good job of that. (Which is supported by your adamancy in announcing your lack of support for them.)
when your purposely misrepresnt someone's opinion and call it simpy "articluating" that is invective.
You were not refuting my claims........you picked chomsky's and refuted them then attributed them to me. Again when are you getting the campaign together machiavelli? Op, is that name calling? Sorry, ill tell my mom and put the nickel in the jar.
People are "tricked" into prostitution.
That is where you poisoned the well, dude. I never used that as a defense for my position. You brought it up and pretened like that was my point, when in reality it is yours.