OT: Driver's licenses for illegals - just to bizarre

[Ron Ruff]

On Nov 13, 9:14 am, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Not to
> mention a decimated military, both in man power and equipment.

"Decimating" the military was the path to a much better economy. Un-
needed military spending is a complete waste... and it still is.

> Then 9-11
> hit, and the only (or at least best) way to revcover quickly was to spend a
> LOT of money. Which he did. (And then some.)

Recover from what? Any real economic impact from 9-11 was small and
brief.

> Then the tax cuts took full effect, and revenues rose to record levels and
> the deficit has declined to less than the average of the previous
> "rose-colored glasses" decade.

Wow... that was creative. What do "average deficits" have to do with
anything? Clinton inherited a huge deficit from Bush 1 and it was
turned into a *surplus* before the end of the decade. Bush 2 quickly
turned that into huge deficits by spending more and cutting taxes.
Yes, it isn't quite as huge as it was a couple years ago. Yes, there
was a recession, so I can cut him a little slack for that.

> The rich pay a higher proportion of taxes
> than ever; the poor pay virtually nothing

You have to cite your sources for whoppers like that. I remember Rush
stating a couple years ago that the top 5% was paying a higher
percentage of the total taxes than they were 10 years ago. What he
failed to mention was that the top 5% had doubled their income in 10
years, while the income of the rest of the population was stagnant.
So... you would have needed to cut their tax *rate* in half to keep
them from paying a higher percentage.

> businesses have hired and people
> have invested; inflation has stayed low; employment has reached statistical
> fullness;

Yes, plenty of low paying "servant" jobs around... and since the
alternative is living on the streets, people have to take what they
can get.

> home ownership (including among minorities) is at record highs.

That was 3 years ago... and now we know why. Since then it's been on a
sharp decline.

Why don't you cite a more meaningful number like the percentage of
gross income needed to purchase a home?

> Now if the US would just be allowed to explore for and secure ENERGY SOURCES

"Secure" as in occupy a few middle eastern countries? That has done
wonders for the price of oil... Bush et al have done everything in
their power to make the oil industry rich. Remember his big speech
about how we were going to convert to hydrogen? What happened? Of
course hydrogen was and is stupid. It is hardly a source of energy
since it takes much more energy to produce it than what you get out.
Nuclear isn't that attactive since it is more expensive than wind or
solar-thermal.

 

[Bill Sornson]

Ron Ruff did a complete hatchet on my post, so I'll just reply to one little
dishonest remnant:
> On Nov 13, 9:14 am, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote (in very small
> part):

>> Now if the US would just be allowed to explore for and secure ENERGY
>> SOURCES

> "Secure" as in occupy a few middle eastern countries?

Any honest person who read what I wrote in context (a foreign concept to
you, I know) would know that I meant "at home". We could end dependence on
foreign (esp. Middle Eastern and Valenzuelan) oil in a very short time if US
companies were allowed to, gee, how should I express it, /explore for and
secure ENERGY/ (where have I read that before? Oh, yeah! LOL ). I also
followed up with a brief argument for "clean green" nuclear, which you also
nuked.

Bill "cut to pieces (by Ruff Mouse, not argument)" S.

 

[Ed Pirrero]

On Nov 13, 3:57 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ron Ruff did a complete hatchet on my post, so I'll just reply to one little
> dishonest remnant:

The dishonest remnant of your post? Since most of your post was spin,
ad hominem and/or distortion, almost *any* remnant of your post could
be called "dishonest".

Ron did quote the portions of your post to which he was responding - I
can't find where context was even partially distorted. Maybe you
could point those distortions out?

Unless you expect full-quoting of your posts (nearly as rude as top-
posting, BTW), trimming is the polite thing to do.

Unless, of course, the trimming leads to the crying of "Wolf!" about
non-existent context-change. A lovely red herring to avoid a
discussion of substance.

E.P.

 

[Tim McNamara]

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> On Nov 8, 11:42 am, Jay Beattie <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>> Having nations is a failure of human society. Forgive my
>>>> idealism.
>>> A few years in an anarchist's nirvana such as Somalia or
>>> Waziristan might cure you of that.
>
> Nirvana? No. But no one who isn't practicing vulgar ideology says
> that -- it is a straw man argument. There is no perfect arrangement
> -- there is only less and more bad.
>
>> Why is it that humans get these idiodic philosophical constructs
>> that entirely ignore reality? Nations are a failure of human
>> society?
>
> Talk about nuttified philosophical constructs: There is no such
> thing as "human society" as some sort of wholistic blob. It is a
> silly notion.

Ditto "economy" as has already been discussed. But this is also a
matter of scale. There is no such thing as a society from the
individual human perspective. There's just me and the people around me.
But look farther away, and the farther the distance the clearer
"society" and "economy" become and the less clear individuals- and
individual differences- become. In this regard it's exactly like trees
and forests.

> "Socius" is from latin meaning companion. It is "someone you know"
> and "society" is a voluntary association/group of people who know
> each other.

That's incorrect. People are also involuntarily placed in relationships
with each other all the time. "Society" exists as a set of shared
values and trends in shared ideas, typically imperfectly shared since
each individual's perspective is unique.

> Comte, Rosseau, and then Marx (the worst) promoted the
> deliberate deception of turning arbitrary and disconnected
> populations into "societies" and conflating "society" with
> government. Thus the government became "the friend," as if there is
> a nice, kind, and gentle way to coerce people. The government is not
> "a friend."

Nor is government "an enemy," despite the equally loud claims to the
contrary.

> If you can poison the language, you can accomplish nearly anything.

Just ask the Republicans, who thoroughly mastered this a couple of
decades ago and who- through the Bush Administration- introduced a level
of doublespeak into American political life that would have stunned Orwell.

> Language is the abstraction/symbolism humans use to reason. Reason
> can thus be corrupted at the root of abstraction.

Ehhh, only partially true. We can also reason without abstraction and
symbols. We can reason before we develop language (even being able to
do arithmetic); and other animals also demonstrate behaviors consistent
with reasoning to solve novel problems. As far as the "corruption" of
language, given that human language does not have absolute meaning it is
difficult to corrupt it. Language evolves constantly through daily use
and modification to express new experiences.

>> You have to go with what works. Anarchy does not work.
>
> Better Off Stateless: Somalia Before and After Government Collapse.
> Peter T. Leeson. Department of Economics. West Virginia University.
> http://www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf
>
> The Enterprise of Law: Justice Without the State by Bruce L. Benson
> http://www.amazon.com/Enterprise-Law-Justice-Without-State/dp/0936488298/

Do you accept these as accurate and factual statements, without
reservation or exception?

>> Tribal societies work poorly (at least in the modern world).
>
> They were collectivist. Amusingly and ironically enough, the modern
> prototypical "progressive" yearns for the "brotherhood" society
> (collectivism) of the tribe, and is perhaps is the most arch-
> reactionary human alive. Why call them "progressive?" Dunno -- I
> just assume it is another deliberate deception of language.

LOL. Nah, call them "progressives" because they believe that
cooperative action is the key to both group and community progress. The
value of cooperation is such that people working together will virtually
always progress further and faster than will the dogged individualists
(who almost always people blindly seduced by the Romantic myth of the
noble savage and are dependent on the collective work of others, but
just won't admit it).

>> I don't think there is any fundamental right to live anywhere I
>> want, but then again, I haven't cross-checked that in the
>> "Fundamental Rights of Man" book.
>
> Well this just shows the poverty of modern legal "education." Modern
> lawyers are simply trained in the case method. That is a way of
> saying they only know how judges and the courts will act (legal
> positivism), but never really /why/. (As you well know, modern
> lawyers and judges have to take an oath to "protect the
> constitution." They don't -- as a profession they are more anti-
> constitutional than constitutional. Of course, this is because
> modern lawyering/judgery is a near perfect example of regulatory
> capture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture)
>
> According to the lockean homestead principle, a human has "a right"
> to homestead any unused/unclaimed resources. That States have
> illegitimately siezed lands is no barrier to the fundamental
> principle. Thus a person can live anywhere based on either consent
> of property owners or by homesteading.

Except they can't. Bummer.

 

[still just me]

On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 08:14:03 -0800, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Tim McNamara wrote:

>Not to let facts interfere with the template, but GWB inherited a
>/recession/ from Saint Bill. Dot com busts, corporate scandals (real ones,
>not just Hillaryesque straw men), severe market corrections, etc.

Highly debatable. Let's not forget that the Bush and team argued for
almost two years that there was no recession. When the hard facts
proved them otherwise, they then sought to put the blame on Clinton.
There was no numerical evidence for any recession until the second
quarter of Bush II. What "caused" this is still debatable.

> Not to
>mention a decimated military, both in man power and equipment.

A popular pile of BS. More like "let's spend a lot of money because it
helps our military industry buddies".

>Then 9-11
>hit, and the only (or at least best) way to revcover quickly was to spend a
>LOT of money. Which he did. (And then some.)

Afghanistan was legitimate and not all that much money. $600B in Iraq,
OTOH for an illegitimate purpose...

>He also had social program spending that normally Dems would favor and
>Repubs would oppose: No Child's Left Behind, Medicare Prescription Drug
>Benefit, etc. But because these programs came from /Bush/, they were
>"reckless and excessive" (or if critics were honest, TOO LITTLE).

Yawn. No Child is a flop. The Medicare program sends seniors to non-
gov't insurers and was a bonus for the insurance industry, more
neo-con friends of Bush. Let's not forget that Bush II also refused to
allow Medicare to negotiate with suppliers for lower drugs prices.
(Please try and defend that, I want to be amused).

>Then the tax cuts took full effect, and revenues rose to record levels and
>the deficit has declined to less than the average of the previous
>"rose-colored glasses" decade. The rich pay a higher proportion of taxes
>than ever; the poor pay virtually nothing; businesses have hired and people
>have invested; inflation has stayed low; employment has reached statistical
>fullness; home ownership (including among minorities) is at record highs.

Total BS. You're confusing the Bush years with the Clinton years in
terms of revenue and growth. Growth under Bush has been abysmal. We're
in a serious financial crisis right now: Property is tanking and the
credit markets are falling apart, taking the stock market with them.
Please place the blame on the right President this time.

>Things /are/ bumpy right now -- mostly from the sub-prime lending mess (same
>people criticized for not extending credit to the poor now crucified for
>over-doing it) -- but actually quite predictable and necessary. Some things
>/are/ too good to last.

Yawn. See above. Your idol is in office. You had no problem blaming
similar problems on Clinton (above), so put the blame where it belongs
now.

>Now if the US would just be allowed to explore for and secure ENERGY SOURCES
>and invest in clean technologies like nuclear (safe with zero emissions),
>the economy could become and stay bullet-proof for decades. Won't happen
>with a Democrat Congress, of course, and God knows with a Dem Prez; or
>enviromental activists effectively blocking virtually anything positive for
>the country, but there ya go.

So you're thinking that Mobil, a company that gouged $40B in extra
profits last year (along with similar results from the other major oil
companies), is going to sell oil that we give away to them on US
property for any less than the "gouge" rate? That's amusing. Hey, may

Maybe we need Cheney and Bush to hold another secret Energy Policy
meeting where they can properly plan our screwing. Perhaps they can
find another buddy like Kenny Boy to help them screw an entire state
like CA all at once.

 

[Bill Sornson]

still totally clueless wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 00:25:53 -0000, Ed Pirrero <[email protected]>
> wrote (ABOUT???):

>> Unless, of course, the trimming leads to the crying of "Wolf!" about
>> non-existent context-change. A lovely red herring to avoid a
>> discussion of substance.

Recap: I made a statement about exploring for energy to end dependence on
foreign oil.

Ruff trims all surrounding context and says I'm advocating invading a
"middle eastern" (sic) country or two.

I point out that that is ridiculous, and invite anyone to read what I
actually wrote (AKA "my post").

Then Plonked Eddie says my claim of dishonest trimming is a red herring.
(Talk about non-existent! LOL )

And then still clueless, who CHANGED HIS USER NAME YET AGAIN TO GET PAST
FILTERS, offers this pearl of wit:

> A most popular technique from the previous poster!

RE-PLONK. (I despise liars, hypocrites and bullies. still clueless is too
weak for the third one, but makes up for it with almost pathological
dishonesty.)

Buh-bye...again. BS

 

[Ed Pirrero]

On Nov 14, 9:34 am, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> still totally clueless wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 00:25:53 -0000, Ed Pirrero <[email protected]>
> > wrote (ABOUT???):
> >> Unless, of course, the trimming leads to the crying of "Wolf!" about
> >> non-existent context-change. A lovely red herring to avoid a
> >> discussion of substance.
>
> Recap: I made a statement about exploring for energy to end dependence on
> foreign oil.

The first true statement made by Bill in some time.

> Ruff trims all surrounding context and says I'm advocating invading a
> "middle eastern" (sic) country or two.

Which is a false claim on it's face, just by reading Ron's post.
NOWHERE does Ron claim you advocate for anything.

> I point out that that is ridiculous, and invite anyone to read what I
> actually wrote (AKA "my post").

Right. The "pointing out" is a logical fallacy - "straw man". It's a
way to avoid having a discussion of substance.

> Then Plonked Eddie says my claim of dishonest trimming is a red herring.
> (Talk about non-existent! LOL )

It is exactly that, since no such dishonest trimming was done.

> RE-PLONK. (I despise liars, hypocrites and bullies. ...)

Then you must despise yourself. You are most definitely a hypocrite,
almost pathological in your repeating of GOP lies (AKA "spin"), and
somehow think that pouting and taking your ball home is taking the
higher road.

My very serious suggestion is that you learn how to apply logic to
your rhetoric. Real logic, not the spun kind you get from Rush and
the other AM radio blowhards.

E.P.

 

[still just me]

On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 17:46:19 -0000, Ed Pirrero <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Then you must despise yourself. You are most definitely a hypocrite,
>almost pathological in your repeating of GOP lies (AKA "spin"), and
>somehow think that pouting and taking your ball home is taking the
>higher road.

Brainwashed. He doesn't even realize he's parroting. It just happens
and his brain tells him he's right.

>My very serious suggestion is that you learn how to apply logic to
>your rhetoric. Real logic, not the spun kind you get from Rush and
>the other AM radio blowhards.
>

Not likely to happen anytime soon. He's incapable of actual thought.
Logic and fact never enter into it (unless the facts have been spun).
Refer to brainwashing, above.

 

[Bill Sornson]

Since I plonked both MENSA-truants Eddie Pea-brain and still a clueless
moron, AND RR's hiding under his keyboard apparently (?), some kind
interested party sent me this "draft reply" to what I did not see. Funny
enough to leave as is...

*********

Ed Pirrero <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Nov 14, 9:34 am, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> still totally clueless wrote:
>> > On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 00:25:53 -0000, Ed Pirrero <[email protected]>
>> > wrote (ABOUT???):
>> >> Unless, of course, the trimming leads to the crying of "Wolf!" about
>> >> non-existent context-change. A lovely red herring to avoid a
>> >> discussion of substance.
>>
>> Recap: I made a statement about exploring for energy to end
dependence on
>> foreign oil.
>
>The first true statement made by Bill in some time.

Not TOTALLY blind, I guess...

>> Ruff trims all surrounding context and says I'm advocating invading a
>> "middle eastern" (sic) country or two.
>
>Which is a false claim on it's face, just by reading Ron's post.
>NOWHERE does Ron claim you advocate for anything.

Oops - reading comprehension issue... when I wrote "Now if the US would
just be allowed to explore for and secure ENERGY SOURCES"...

"Ruff" replied:

>>"Secure" as in occupy a few middle eastern countries?

So it looks like Ed's wrong yet again. BIG surprise! LOL. {Note: LOL }

>> I point out that that is ridiculous, and invite anyone to read what I
>> actually wrote (AKA "my post").
>
>Right. The "pointing out" is a logical fallacy - "straw man". It's a
>way to avoid having a discussion of substance.

See above. It's nothing more than you two refusing to acknowledge what
I actaully wrote, or to admit you're both wrong.

>> Then Plonked Eddie says my claim of dishonest trimming is a red herring.
>> (Talk about non-existent! )
>
>It is exactly that, since no such dishonest trimming was done.

Then why was the portion I reinserted above missing from the discussion
when both of you were "done editing"? Hmmmmm?

{I'll add: good one! LOL }

>> RE-PLONK. (I despise liars, hypocrites and bullies. ...)
>
>Then you must despise yourself. You are most definitely a hypocrite,
>almost pathological in your repeating of GOP lies (AKA "spin"), and
>somehow think that pouting and taking your ball home is taking the
>higher road.

You're saying that the higher road belongs to the two sock puppets who
are actively lying about what they said in previous posts, and whinging
when I mention it? LOL.

{Proof it's not me; I spell whine the way God intended! LOL }

>My very serious suggestion is that you learn how to apply logic to
>your rhetoric. Real logic, not the spun kind you get from Rush and
>the other AM radio blowhards.

Talk about your red herring... the facts are part of the historical
record on r.b.t.'s (unfortunately for you...) permenent record. It was
a trivial matter to go back and prove you both absolutely, positively
wrong as a result. And I'm not sure about what kind of "logic" you
claim to emulate, but pretending that you're right in the face of
black-and-white evidence to the contrary is laughable. The two of you
carrying on a "tsk-tsk-tsk sock puppet critique" of what I never said is
beyond sad

{This is where it ended. My server's acting up so if there was more,
"Concerned Observer", feel free to furnish it!}

Better yet, any pathetic person with nothing better to do can scroll up a
ways and see what I actually posted and how Ron Ruff distorted it, and then
the two lying morons piled on. Funny...yet REALLY SAD all at once.

ROTFL LOL ROTFL
B*S*

 

[Ed Pirrero]

On Nov 14, 8:36 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Since I plonked both MENSA-truants Eddie Pea-brain and still a clueless
> moron,

Logical fallacy - ad hominem. When your post starts with an ad
hominem, really, what value could it possibly have after that?

>
> Ed Pirrero <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Nov 14, 9:34 am, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> still totally clueless wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 00:25:53 -0000, Ed Pirrero <[email protected]>
> >> Ruff trims all surrounding context and says I'm advocating invading a
> >> "middle eastern" (sic) country or two.
> >
> >Which is a false claim on it's face, just by reading Ron's post.
> >NOWHERE does Ron claim you advocate for anything.
>
> Oops - reading comprehension issue... when I wrote "Now if the US would
> just be allowed to explore for and secure ENERGY SOURCES"...
>
> "Ruff" replied:
>
> >>"Secure" as in occupy a few middle eastern countries?

Exactly right. It's called a "question". See the little punctuation
at the end?

The question is not one of attribution, to you or anyone else.

I'm not sure how even a liberal reading can come to the conclusion
that you have advocated anything.

> So it looks like Ed's wrong yet again.

Wrong about what? Where does he claim you advocate for ANYTHING? He
asked a QUESTION, Bill.

> >> I point out that that is ridiculous, and invite anyone to read what I
> >> actually wrote (AKA "my post").
> >
> >Right. The "pointing out" is a logical fallacy - "straw man". It's a
> >way to avoid having a discussion of substance.
>
> See above.

Yes, do see above. Look up the logical fallacy of the straw man, and
kindly explain why it doesn't apply.

> It's nothing more than you two refusing to acknowledge what
> I actaully wrote, or to admit you're both wrong.

Unlike you, I can and do admit when I am wrong. In this case, you're
making an inference that is not justified either by the writing or the
tone.

> >> Then Plonked Eddie says my claim of dishonest trimming is a red herring.
> >> (Talk about non-existent! )
> >
> >It is exactly that, since no such dishonest trimming was done.
>
> Then why was the portion I reinserted above missing from the discussion
> when both of you were "done editing"? Hmmmmm?

Because it has nothing directly to do with my comments. You'll notice
Ron's reply wasn't included, either. Full-quoting is rude. And
unnecessary.

> >> RE-PLONK. (I despise liars, hypocrites and bullies. ...)
> >
> >Then you must despise yourself. You are most definitely a hypocrite,
> >almost pathological in your repeating of GOP lies (AKA "spin"), and
> >somehow think that pouting and taking your ball home is taking the
> >higher road.
>
> You're saying that the higher road belongs to the two sock puppets...

Sock puppets? Of whom? That's a nice accusation that of course
cannot be backed up with fact. You *do* know what a sock-puppet is,
right, Bill?

Here would be a good place to acknowledge that you're wrong. Sauce
for the goose and all that, right?

> who
> are actively lying about what they said in previous posts

Really? Where have I lied about what I said in previous posts?

> >My very serious suggestion is that you learn how to apply logic to
> >your rhetoric. Real logic, not the spun kind you get from Rush and
> >the other AM radio blowhards.
>
> Talk about your red herring... the facts are part of the historical
> record on r.b.t.'s (unfortunately for you...) permenent record.

Of which "facts" do you speak? The right-wing spin machine "facts",
or the actual truth unspun by people motivated by political gain?

> It was
> a trivial matter to go back and prove you both absolutely, positively
> wrong as a result.

It would be great if you could do that. I'm actually looking forward
to it.

Please, begin any time.

> And I'm not sure about what kind of "logic" you
> claim to emulate, but pretending that you're right in the face of
> black-and-white evidence to the contrary is laughable.

I'm right about the logic presented here. I may not be right about
some other as-yet-unmentioned issue, but about this one I'm correct,
logically and semantically.


>
> Better yet, any pathetic person with nothing better to do can scroll up a
> ways and see what I actually posted and how Ron Ruff distorted it

Since there was no actual distortion presented by you, only the claim
thereof, I can only guess that the distortion exists solely in your
mind.

If distortion happened, PROVE it.

> and then
> the two lying morons piled on.

Logical fallacy - ad hominem.

Again, get some logic on your side before you make yourself look any
more foolish. Name-calling and unsupported accusations are nothing
more than the internet equivalent of the playground "did too! did
not!" exchange.

Another hint - third-party sniping from behind a killfile is very
cowardly.

Finally, you have succeeded yet again in moving a discussion from one
of substance to one of style. Amusing the forty-third time, but now
growing old.

E.P.

 

[Ed Pirrero]

On Nov 14, 8:36 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Since I plonked both MENSA-truants Eddie Pea-brain and still a clueless
> moron,

Logical fallacy - ad hominem. When your post starts with an ad
hominem, really, what value could it possibly have after that?

>
> Ed Pirrero <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Nov 14, 9:34 am, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> still totally clueless wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 00:25:53 -0000, Ed Pirrero <[email protected]>
> >> Ruff trims all surrounding context and says I'm advocating invading a
> >> "middle eastern" (sic) country or two.
> >
> >Which is a false claim on it's face, just by reading Ron's post.
> >NOWHERE does Ron claim you advocate for anything.
>
> Oops - reading comprehension issue... when I wrote "Now if the US would
> just be allowed to explore for and secure ENERGY SOURCES"...
>
> "Ruff" replied:
>
> >>"Secure" as in occupy a few middle eastern countries?

Exactly right. It's called a "question". See the little punctuation
at the end?

The question is not one of attribution, to you or anyone else.

I'm not sure how even a liberal reading can come to the conclusion
that you have advocated anything.

> So it looks like Ed's wrong yet again.

Wrong about what? Where does he claim you advocate for ANYTHING? He
asked a QUESTION, Bill.

> >> I point out that that is ridiculous, and invite anyone to read what I
> >> actually wrote (AKA "my post").
> >
> >Right. The "pointing out" is a logical fallacy - "straw man". It's a
> >way to avoid having a discussion of substance.
>
> See above.

Yes, do see above. Look up the logical fallacy of the straw man, and
kindly explain why it doesn't apply.

> It's nothing more than you two refusing to acknowledge what
> I actaully wrote, or to admit you're both wrong.

Unlike you, I can and do admit when I am wrong. In this case, you're
making an inference that is not justified either by the writing or the
tone.

> >> Then Plonked Eddie says my claim of dishonest trimming is a red herring.
> >> (Talk about non-existent! )
> >
> >It is exactly that, since no such dishonest trimming was done.
>
> Then why was the portion I reinserted above missing from the discussion
> when both of you were "done editing"? Hmmmmm?

Because it has nothing directly to do with my comments. You'll notice
Ron's reply wasn't included, either. Full-quoting is rude. And
unnecessary.

> >> RE-PLONK. (I despise liars, hypocrites and bullies. ...)
> >
> >Then you must despise yourself. You are most definitely a hypocrite,
> >almost pathological in your repeating of GOP lies (AKA "spin"), and
> >somehow think that pouting and taking your ball home is taking the
> >higher road.
>
> You're saying that the higher road belongs to the two sock puppets...

Sock puppets? Of whom? That's a nice accusation that of course
cannot be backed up with fact. You *do* know what a sock-puppet is,
right, Bill?

Here would be a good place to acknowledge that you're wrong. Sauce
for the goose and all that, right?

> who
> are actively lying about what they said in previous posts

Really? Where have I lied about what I said in previous posts?

> >My very serious suggestion is that you learn how to apply logic to
> >your rhetoric. Real logic, not the spun kind you get from Rush and
> >the other AM radio blowhards.
>
> Talk about your red herring... the facts are part of the historical
> record on r.b.t.'s (unfortunately for you...) permenent record.

Of which "facts" do you speak? The right-wing spin machine "facts",
or the actual truth unspun by people motivated by political gain?

> It was
> a trivial matter to go back and prove you both absolutely, positively
> wrong as a result.

It would be great if you could do that. I'm actually looking forward
to it.

Please, begin any time.

> And I'm not sure about what kind of "logic" you
> claim to emulate, but pretending that you're right in the face of
> black-and-white evidence to the contrary is laughable.

I'm right about the logic presented here. I may not be right about
some other as-yet-unmentioned issue, but about this one I'm correct,
logically and semantically.


>
> Better yet, any pathetic person with nothing better to do can scroll up a
> ways and see what I actually posted and how Ron Ruff distorted it

Since there was no actual distortion presented by you, only the claim
thereof, I can only guess that the distortion exists solely in your
mind.

If distortion happened, PROVE it.

> and then
> the two lying morons piled on.

Logical fallacy - ad hominem.

Again, get some logic on your side before you make yourself look any
more foolish. Name-calling and unsupported accusations are nothing
more than the internet equivalent of the playground "did too! did
not!" exchange.

Another hint - third-party sniping from behind a killfile is very
cowardly.

Finally, you have succeeded yet again in moving a discussion from one
of substance to one of style. Amusing the forty-third time, but now
growing old.

E.P.

 

[still just me]

On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 20:36:50 -0800, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Since I plonked both MENSA-truants Eddie Pea-brain and still a clueless
>moron, AND RR's hiding under his keyboard apparently (?), some kind
>interested party sent me this "draft reply" to what I did not see. Funny
>enough to leave as is...


Funny way to "plonk". You now have achieved the credibility level of
your savior, GWB. Congrats.

 

[still just me]

On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 21:11:08 -0600, Tom Sherman
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> LEARN TO FxxxING EDIT.
>
>When did you get appointed moderator?

Last week. Did you miss the vote? We held it in Texas using Diebold
machines. He got around 18,000 votes. (As did our other nominees who
won previous elections. Funny coincidence, eh?)

Anyway, I never learned to "FxxxING EDIT", but I have learned to edit
"FxxxING".

 

[Bill Sornson]

still just me wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 20:36:50 -0800, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Since I plonked both MENSA-truants Eddie Pea-brain and still a
>> clueless moron, AND RR's hiding under his keyboard apparently (?),
>> some kind interested party sent me this "draft reply" to what I did
>> not see. Funny enough to leave as is...
>
>
> Funny way to "plonk". You now have achieved the credibility level of
> your savior, GWB. Congrats.

And he changes his user name yet again! LOL

Buh-bye...#3

 

[still just me]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 08:27:12 -0800, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>>
>> Funny way to "plonk". You now have achieved the credibility level of
>> your savior, GWB. Congrats.
>
>And he changes his user name yet again! LOL
>
>Buh-bye...#3

No, I didn't. You're losing track of your phony plonkings.

 

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On Nov 13, 5:04 pm, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
> SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
>
> > On Nov 8, 11:42 am, Jay Beattie <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>>> Having nations is a failure of human society. Forgive my
> >>>> idealism.
> >>> A few years in an anarchist's nirvana such as Somalia or
> >>> Waziristan might cure you of that.
>
> > Nirvana? No. But no one who isn't practicing vulgar ideology says
> > that -- it is a straw man argument. There is no perfect arrangement
> > -- there is only less and more bad.
>
> >> Why is it that humans get these idiodic philosophical constructs
> >> that entirely ignore reality? Nations are a failure of human
> >> society?
>
> > Talk about nuttified philosophical constructs: There is no such
> > thing as "human society" as some sort of wholistic blob. It is a
> > silly notion.
>
> Ditto "economy" as has already been discussed. But this is also a
> matter of scale. There is no such thing as a society from the
> individual human perspective. There's just me and the people around me.
> But look farther away, and the farther the distance the clearer
> "society" and "economy" become and the less clear individuals- and
> individual differences- become. In this regard it's exactly like trees
> and forests.

You exemplify my complaint.

> > "Socius" is from latin meaning companion. It is "someone you know"
> > and "society" is a voluntary association/group of people who know
> > each other.
>
> That's incorrect. People are also involuntarily placed in relationships
> with each other all the time.

An "involuntary relationship" is not being "in society" with someone.

> "Society" exists as a set of shared
> values and trends in shared ideas, typically
> imperfectly shared since each individual's
> perspective is unique.

Imagine that, "involuntary" means values are shared; it means
"fellowship." Who knew? You exemplify my complaint.

> > Comte, Rosseau, and then Marx (the worst) promoted the
>
> > deliberate deception of turning arbitrary and disconnected
> > populations into "societies" and conflating "society" with
> > government. Thus the government became "the friend," as if there is
> > a nice, kind, and gentle way to coerce people. The government is not
> > "a friend."
>
> Nor is government "an enemy," despite the equally loud claims to the
> contrary.

If you rightfully defend your property against "the takings," they
will kill you. What a nice "friendly" companion.



"The history of the present [UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT] is a history of
repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the
establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these [People]."

"[It] has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms
of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance."

"[It has] impos[ed] Taxes on us without our Consent"



> ...
>
> > Language is the abstraction/symbolism humans use to reason. Reason
> > can thus be corrupted at the root of abstraction.
>
> Ehhh, only partially true. We can also reason without abstraction and
> symbols. We can reason before we develop language (even being able to
> do arithmetic); and other animals also demonstrate behaviors consistent
> with reasoning to solve novel problems. As far as the "corruption" of
> language, given that human language does not have absolute meaning it is
> difficult to corrupt it. Language evolves constantly through daily use
> and modification to express new experiences.

Your definition of "reason" is so broad that it ends as not being
"reason" at all. You exemplify my complaint.

> >> You have to go with what works. Anarchy does not work.
>
> > Better Off Stateless: Somalia Before and After Government Collapse.
> > Peter T. Leeson. Department of Economics. West Virginia University.
> >http://www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf
>
> > The Enterprise of Law: Justice Without the State by Bruce L. Benson
> >http://www.amazon.com/Enterprise-Law-Justice-Without-State/dp/0936488...
>
> Do you accept these as accurate and factual statements, without
> reservation or exception?

Now what the hell kind of stupid question is that? Sure Tim, I got on
a plane and put my feet on the ground in Somalia, and discovered all
the truth for myself. I did that, just like everyone does with every
single article and bit of data ever published.

They are academic works. Judge them for *yourself*. That is why I
linked them, so you or anyone interested could do exactly that. I am
not asking you to be uncritical. In fact, I wish you were more
critical.

My only point in posting the links was that cartoon claims that
"anarchy does not work" are disputed and not taken without
reservation. There is one interesting thing about anarchies: they
don't tend to leave monuments and script as testimonies to their
failures and successes, which is a reason to take under criticism the
cartoon statement. They are unlike The State, which invariably, by
the nature of its construction, glorifies "itself" at the expense of a
populace.

> >> Tribal societies work poorly (at least in the modern world).
>
> > They were collectivist. Amusingly and ironically enough, the modern
> > prototypical "progressive" yearns for the "brotherhood" society
> > (collectivism) of the tribe, and is perhaps is the most arch-
> > reactionary human alive. Why call them "progressive?" Dunno -- I
> > just assume it is another deliberate deception of language.
>
> LOL. Nah, call them "progressives" because they believe that
> cooperative action is the key to both group and community progress. The
> value of cooperation is such that people working together will virtually
> always progress further and faster than will the dogged individualists
> (who almost always people blindly seduced by the Romantic myth of the
> noble savage and are dependent on the collective work of others, but
> just won't admit it).

"Dogged individualism" is a stupid strawman argument, or maybe more
accurately, a bold faced lie. No one accepting the concept of free
exchange among individuals -- freedom of contract -- is promoting any
such thing as "Dogged individualism." It is in fact, just the
opposite: freedom of contract promotes exchange and thus
interdependance. It incentivizes division of labor, and thus peaceful
cooperation and interdependence.

Protectionists and isolationists are far more aligned with "dogged
individualism" than any free marketeer. The reasons should be
obvious, but these basic facts are obscured because of a general lack
of critical thinking, and a lot of lies. Your claims are upside
down. You exemplify my complaint.

> >> I don't think there is any fundamental right to live anywhere I
> >> want, but then again, I haven't cross-checked that in the
> >> "Fundamental Rights of Man" book.
>
> > Well this just shows the poverty of modern legal "education." Modern
> > lawyers are simply trained in the case method. That is a way of
> > saying they only know how judges and the courts will act (legal
> > positivism), but never really /why/. (As you well know, modern
> > lawyers and judges have to take an oath to "protect the
> > constitution." They don't -- as a profession they are more anti-
> > constitutional than constitutional. Of course, this is because
> > modern lawyering/judgery is a near perfect example of regulatory
> > capture.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture)
>
> > According to the lockean homestead principle, a human has "a right"
> > to homestead any unused/unclaimed resources. That States have
> > illegitimately siezed lands is no barrier to the fundamental
> > principle. Thus a person can live anywhere based on either consent
> > of property owners or by homesteading.
>
> Except they can't. Bummer.

Whatever they cannot do, it is because of The State.


"SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave
little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only
different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our
wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our
happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY
by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other
creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher." --
Thomas Paine, _Common Sense_

 

[Ed Pirrero]

On Nov 15, 10:50 am, still just me <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 08:27:12 -0800, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >> Funny way to "plonk". You now have achieved the credibility level of
> >> your savior, GWB. Congrats.
>
> >And he changes his user name yet again! LOL
>
> >Buh-bye...#3
>
> No, I didn't. You're losing track of your phony plonkings.

Hmm, I had wondered about that myself. He "forgot" that he had me
plonked about a month ago - I had just assumed that he'd cleared his
killfile.

Your explanation makes more sense.

E.P.

 

[Ron Ruff]

On Nov 14, 9:36 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> AND RR's hiding under his keyboard apparently (?)

Actually just have better things to do.

> >> Recap: I made a statement about exploring for energy to end
> dependence on
> >> foreign oil.
> >> Ruff trims all surrounding context and says I'm advocating invading a
> >> "middle eastern" (sic) country or two.

Just so we can be clear, this is the full sentence:

"Now if the US would just be allowed to explore for and secure ENERGY
SOURCES
and invest in clean technologies like nuclear (safe with zero
emissions),
the economy could become and stay bullet-proof for decades."

> "Ruff" replied:
>
> >>"Secure" as in occupy a few middle eastern countries?

I would suppose that exploring for energy could mean what... looking
for oil and uranium deposits? But I'm still waiting for an explanation
of what it means to *secure* an energy source... if it is not via some
military intervention. Why would we need to *secure* energy sources on
our own land? Isn't it already secure... or is someone going to come
along and take it from us if we don't secure it? As for the exploring,
US oil companies have thoroughly explored and used up most of the oil
that is economical to get in this country. Furthermore there is no
good economic reason to hurry up and deplete what is left. Any oil
that is still here is an excellent thing to *preserve* since the price
will only go up in the years ahead.

The sensible thing to do is *research* and implement alternative
energy technologies if we wish to become energy indepedent. Wind and
solar energy are viable now for producing electricity. Nuclear? Maybe.
As for cars there should be a sliding-scale tax that makes high-
efficiency vehicles more affordable (and inefficient vehicles more
expensive). Small electric cars could also be very viable for city
driving. The shameful thing is that we aren't moving towards any of
these alternatives but rather have policies which encourage dependence
and scarcity and skyrocketing oil prices... to the delight of the oil
companies. Occupying a couple of middle eastern countries is another
thing that our administration actually *is* doing.

 

[Ed Pirrero]

On Nov 15, 11:59 am, Ron Ruff <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Nov 14, 9:36 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > AND RR's hiding under his keyboard apparently (?)
>
> Actually just have better things to do.

LOL. Bill will take that as an implication that he *does not* have
better things to do.

> "Now if the US would just be allowed to explore for and secure ENERGY
> SOURCES
> and invest in clean technologies like nuclear (safe with zero
> emissions),
> the economy could become and stay bullet-proof for decades."
>
> > "Ruff" replied:
>
> > >>"Secure" as in occupy a few middle eastern countries?
>
> I would suppose that exploring for energy could mean what... looking
> for oil and uranium deposits? But I'm still waiting for an explanation
> of what it means to *secure* an energy source... if it is not via some
> military intervention. Why would we need to *secure* energy sources on
> our own land?

My guess is that the "and" after the "for" in Bill's comments wasn't
originally meant to be there.

But it'll be a cold day in Hades before he admits he screwed up either
in his writing or his interpretation of your reply.

And it would have to be an extended cold spell there before he
apologizes for his name-calling and false accusations.

But what the heck - this is usenet. Electronic courage is easy to
come by, and mostly anonymous, faceless "personalities" only have to
insist they are correct and leave it at that. You'll also have to
give Bill a bit of a break - his usenet "contributions" consist mostly
of off-color quips and rabid defenses of his GOP heroes. I'm not sure
if I remember the last time Bill submitted useful cycling content...

FWIW, reducing or eliminating our reliance on foreign energy sources
would be one of the best ways to improve national security. It would
also improve our balance of trade and possibly our contributions to
greenhouse gas emissions, but with oil men in the halls of power, that
scenario is not likely anytime before Jan '09. Or after, either.

E.P.

 

[still just me]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 12:15:57 -0800 (PST), Ed Pirrero
<[email protected]> wrote:

>But it'll be a cold day in Hades before he admits he screwed up either
>in his writing or his interpretation of your reply.
>
Or maybe outright fibbed?

Here's a gem he posted recently that you might have missed among the
clutter: "

:Also, if someone called me a year ago and asked are
:you satisfied with the way Bush is handling the war in Iraq,
:I'd've said "No." "

Should we pull his posts from a year ago ?

>And it would have to be an extended cold spell there before he
>apologizes for his name-calling and false accusations.

You mean like this recent post from him?:

:RE-PLONK. (I despise liars, hypocrites and bullies. still
:clueless is too weak for the third one, but makes up for it
:with almost pathological dishonesty.)

Must be an odd existence for him... living in bizzaro-land.