Opinion of Darius_Addicus_Gaius

[mondale84]

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?action=profile;u=9367;sa=showPosts;start=0

[MilesC56]

He certainly hasn't given me a reason to vote FF...

[Governor Scott]

Seems to have a weird obsession with toilet humor and parodying conservative radio trash commentators.  Half the time, I can't tell if he's being serious or if he's just fooling around.

HP.

[Senator Kalwejt]

His posts contain even less rational thought than belief of flat earth. This is quite an accomplishment.

[True Federalist]

His posts contain even less rational thought than belief of flat earth. This is quite an accomplishment.

What do you expect from Derek?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

HP.

[Senator Kalwejt]

His posts contain even less rational thought than belief of flat earth. This is quite an accomplishment.

What do you expect from Derek?

I was naive to hope that, perhaps, getting his ass banned before would cause him to be little less obvious. The only obvious thing was me being naive.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Who is this Derek you speak of?

[Darius_Addicus_Gaius]

This is interesting that I'm being debated. What do you all want to know about me? No one said that people have to agree with me.

[Darius_Addicus_Gaius]

Seems to have a weird obsession with toilet humor and parodying conservative radio trash commentators.  Half the time, I can't tell if he's being serious or if he's just fooling around.

HP.

I'm trying to have a fun time with things. People need to be able to laugh about things. I don't listen to talk radio though.

[Simfan34]

His name makes no sense by Roman naming conventions, by any standard...

Signed,
Gaius Antonius Messala

[True Federalist]

Who is this Derek you speak of?

He was banned before you joined and has made several socks since.  Not generally considered to be one of the sharpest knives in the drawer.  I'm surprised he didn't post more in the religion board while he was here, but there is no longer a jmfcst for him to aggravate.  He's muted for now until Nym can make the final decision on wielding the banhammer again.

[Lief]

His name makes no sense by Roman naming conventions, by any standard...

Signed,
Gaius Antonius Messala

Yes, I also find this very annoying. And he misspelled Atticus. And Darius isn't a Roman name! Argh.

But beyond that he's a dumb troll. I don't know who suggested it, but someone made a post in one of his threads calling for a forum moratorium on new registrations until after the election to keep this sort of riffraff out.

[Hashemite]

Ah, he's a sock. Makes sense.

Otherwise he was a retarded but otherwise unremarkable conservatroll quite similar to all other similar morons of the type we've had. Election season is really awful because it brings out the worst people.

[Vosem]

Otherwise he was a retarded but otherwise unremarkable conservatroll quite similar to all other similar morons of the type we've had.

I wonder if I'm one of the 'conservatrolls' you speak of?

[white trash heroes]

Otherwise he was a retarded but otherwise unremarkable conservatroll quite similar to all other similar morons of the type we've had.

I wonder if I'm one of the 'conservatrolls' you speak of?

looking over that post count i got the impression it was the hoff, back for another performance. but i guess derek is another possibility.

[Big Wiggly Style]

Derek is getting less and less creative with his socks.

[Hashemite]

Otherwise he was a retarded but otherwise unremarkable conservatroll quite similar to all other similar morons of the type we've had.

I wonder if I'm one of the 'conservatrolls' you speak of?

No, you're kind of annoying and your views are quite despicable, but you're not a 'troll' in the Derek et al sense. You can at least write in legible and coherent English, defend your views and act in a far more mature manner than the conservatrolls (but that isn't hard).

[oakvale]

Otherwise he was a retarded but otherwise unremarkable conservatroll quite similar to all other similar morons of the type we've had.

I wonder if I'm one of the 'conservatrolls' you speak of?

I'm not Hash - although that kind of post is one of the reasons I love Hash! - but I wouldn't classify you as a troll, but I do see your avatar, think muon's posted, and get disappointed. That's not really a judgement of you so much as an acknowledgement that muon's a terrific contributor.

This thread's a good a place as any to give my unsolicited opinion - I think you're pretty clearly sincere in your beliefs, but your youth - you're 13/14, right? - becomes fairly apparent sometimes, especially when you try and argue with someone like Al about the NHS. The beliefs you're sincere about are also utterly ridiculous and reprehensible, but, again, you're 14 (?). I hope this doesn't sound condescending, although it clearly is, but you'll grow out of them. Grown adults - at least those who have the self-awareness and intelligence to post on a forum discussing their beliefs - don't go around thinking that corporations being able to spend billions upon billions to control the political process is the definition of freedom () or that a society where poor people can't afford to get healthcare and thus have shorter and worse lives is perfectly okay.

Those aren't reasonable positions to hold, and you can't argue for them - especially the latter, which is frankly disgusting, since you're literally saying that you'd prefer rich people to live more than the poor  - without starting from such bizarre moral assumptions that debating anyone at all would be futile.

[Vosem]

Since this post has already been graced with entry into the Good Post Gallery, I'll have to put particular effort into my reply.

Otherwise he was a retarded but otherwise unremarkable conservatroll quite similar to all other similar morons of the type we've had.

I wonder if I'm one of the 'conservatrolls' you speak of?

I'm not Hash - although that kind of post is one of the reasons I love Hash! - but I wouldn't classify you as a troll, but I do see your avatar, think muon's posted, and get disappointed. That's not really a judgement of you so much as an acknowledgement that muon's a terrific contributor.

Oh, no, muon's great. I sometimes get the same reaction when I read something very old and see myself

This thread's a good a place as any to give my unsolicited opinion - I think you're pretty clearly sincere in your beliefs, but your youth - you're 13/14, right? - becomes fairly apparent sometimes, especially when you try and argue with someone like Al about the NHS.

14. Will be 15 within two weeks, though. And, yes, my performance in my exchange with Al about the NHS was subpar.

The beliefs you're sincere about are also utterly ridiculous and reprehensible, but, again, you're 14 (?). I hope this doesn't sound condescending, although it clearly is, but you'll grow out of them.

Well, of course. I'm well aware of the fact that as people physically and emotionally mature they also politically mature, and that it's unlikely I'll have the same beliefs when I am 24 and not 14. I don't like saying I'll grow out of them so much as saying I'll refine them, but my beliefs are already markedly different than when I first joined the forum in 2009, and it's likely by 2015 the difference will be just as great.

Grown adults - at least those who have the self-awareness and intelligence to post on a forum discussing their beliefs - don't go around thinking that corporations being able to spend billions upon billions to control the political process is the definition of freedom

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. First off, we have grown adults doing so on this forum who are also certainly self-aware (muon, who you praised above, comes to mind, as well as Torie). While it's not the definition of freedom -- America was not exactly a repressive society before Citizens United -- I think it's reasonable to say people (corporations are only people in the strictly legal sense, but they are certainly composed of people) should be able to spend their money to buy what they want (ad space) without government interference. Ad campaigns are not always successful; corporations can no more 'buy' an election, as some like to say, than they could before; they can simply run a bigger ad campaign. People choose what they listen to.

or that a society where poor people can't afford to get healthcare and thus have shorter and worse lives is perfectly okay.

There's no easy solution to the healthcare debate, but turning healthcare into a government monopoly is not a good idea because a) nationalization always causes quality and efficiency to drop precipitously, and b) the system we have had has attracted doctors from around the world to the US (to the extent that in Canada people were proposing weakening their system to stop the medical brain drain)! The solution, at least the way I see it, is to provide healthcare for everyone, but then to have poor people who have jobs slowly pay off the debt over the course of many years. (For the elderly, the disabled, veterans, or very young children with poor parents, it may nevertheless be reasonable for the government to pay all or some of the amount). Nobody would live shorter if they still get the quality care yet have to work to pay for it, and I would argue 'worse' is wrong as well; obviously they are in debt, but can take advantage of quality care (as opposed to the alternative, where they are not in debt but the care is worse). Health is more important than wealth.

Those aren't reasonable positions to hold, and you can't argue for them - especially the latter, which is frankly disgusting, since you're literally saying that you'd prefer rich people to live more than the poor  - without starting from such bizarre moral assumptions that debating anyone at all would be futile.

As I just illustrated, that isn't what I'm literally saying.

[© Tweed the Younger]

Who is this Derek you speak of?

He was banned before you joined and has made several socks since.  Not generally considered to be one of the sharpest knives in the drawer.  I'm surprised he didn't post more in the religion board while he was here, but there is no longer a jmfcst for him to aggravate.  He's muted for now until Nym can make the final decision on wielding the banhammer again.

you could be a good writer under certain circumstances.

[white trash heroes]

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. First off, we have grown adults doing so on this forum who are also certainly self-aware (muon, who you praised above, comes to mind, as well as Torie). While it's not the definition of freedom -- America was not exactly a repressive society before Citizens United -- I think it's reasonable to say people (corporations are only people in the strictly legal sense, but they are certainly composed of people) should be able to spend their money to buy what they want (ad space) without government interference. Ad campaigns are not always successful; corporations can no more 'buy' an election, as some like to say, than they could before; they can simply run a bigger ad campaign. People choose what they listen to.

this election it's estimated over $7 billion dollars is going to be spent. over a billion in ads. you don't see a massive problem there? the severe conflicts of interest? democracy is bad enough when it comes to people voting themselves benefits regardless of the ability of the state and tax payers to actually pay for them, but modern lobbying is even worse.

There's no easy solution to the healthcare debate, but turning healthcare into a government monopoly is not a good idea because a) nationalization always causes quality and efficiency to drop precipitously, and b) the system we have had has attracted doctors from around the world to the US (to the extent that in Canada people were proposing weakening their system to stop the medical brain drain)! The solution, at least the way I see it, is to provide healthcare for everyone, but then to have poor people who have jobs slowly pay off the debt over the course of many years. (For the elderly, the disabled, veterans, or very young children with poor parents, it may nevertheless be reasonable for the government to pay all or some of the amount). Nobody would live shorter if they still get the quality care yet have to work to pay for it, and I would argue 'worse' is wrong as well; obviously they are in debt, but can take advantage of quality care (as opposed to the alternative, where they are not in debt but the care is worse). Health is more important than wealth.

what??? most americans are drowning in debt. over 23% have no savings at all, nothing. in this depression americans lost 40% (!) of their wealth on average between 2007-2010 alone. you seriously expect people to pay down their health bills? the us should be adopting single payer imho. yes it's not perfect, yes adjustments will have to be made but its a million times better than what the us has now and its an easy sell to the public. i wouldn't even particularly mind if taxes went up in that scenario for once although obviously the us spends far too much on useless special interests (i.e. the military industrial complex, wall street, etc.).