The Al Realpolitik Institute of Sulfur Mining & Extraction

[Gustaf]

Not the best, but n00b pwns JJ

I would see parallels with 1980 and 1932.

Of course you would. I'm sure Obama supporters can find comfort in your prognostications of doom for their candidate.

He's not a n00b, he's an old poster.

[Gustaf]

I find restricting comparisons to Nazis more repugnant than the comparisons to Nazis themselves. But then again I love freedom and hate fascism, so maybe it's just me?

Eh...I would compare you to a ham-handed incompetent authoritarian that drove one of the best countries in Latin America into the ground, but you put him in your sig so you appear to be proud of that.

[Gustaf]

That's a possibility.

Then question is, however, why should we give a sh*t ?

He'll be a lot more friendly for civil liberties at home many on the left clamor about. Quit buying what the mainstream media says about him.

I was responding to the thread title.

This goes to show why it is a bad idea to obsess about a politician.

[Gustaf]

More from the same thread as Gustaf's.

If Romney wins in 2012, he will be reelected in 2016. All presidents who defeated an incumbent have gone on to serve full terms.  In 2020, the youngest "50's kids" would be 61--pretty old to be president.  

Carter? Benjamin Harrison?

Carter isn't a good example, he was running against Nixon's ghost, not Ford.  As for Benjamin Harrison, I am referring to only post-WWII elections.

Here's another relationship that will blow your mind - no President with a "J" in his name has ever served two full terms.

Well, I am only referring to the post-Jacksonian era. Jackson and the five preceding Presidents were all Js, and four of them including Jackson himself served two full terms. But ever since, the letter has been cursed.

And in case you cite William Jefferson Clinton - I'm only referring to first and last names.

It's weird that I didn't post that, because I read it and found it funny.

[Gustaf]

That article made me want to throw-up.  Can anyone say "brash ignorance"?

I mean, since the Senate's only self-described socalist is from Vermont I guess that makes socialism a political movement rooted in the history of the Northeast, no?

#absurd

You seem to have attempted to use a hashtag. Hashtags do not work there. You may be looking for Twitter.

Xahar wants to be the new Al soooo badly you can almost see it.

Yeah. Not working.

[Gustaf]

Can some more embarass himself than by arguing in the sulfur mine?

I think you just answered your question.

[Gustaf]

Can some more embarass himself than by arguing in the sulfur mine?

I think you just answered your question.

Touche.

Couldn't resist.

[Gustaf]

I am visibly disabled...

What is your disability?

He was hit in the head with a gold brick while on a field trip to the Dow Jones building as a child. 

Really? We're making fun of someone in a wheelchair now?

[Gustaf]

Not surprising if true. Newt's focusing on the South.

At this point, he'd do better to focus on Christmas.

[Gustaf]

Wait, are people here claiming that vengeance is not a valid foundation of the justice system? I would argue it is the only sensible (and, yes, rational foundation).

What else would be the purpose of the justice system?

Maintaining a civilized society where everybody is treated equally?

Seriously, this is one of the most reactionary posts I've ever read. And coming from Gustaf that says a lot.

Because I'm obviously so reactionary...px has that very sad quality of always trying to be a smartass without grasping what the discussion is actually about. Well, it's more amusing than sad I guess.

[Gustaf]

Wait, are people here claiming that vengeance is not a valid foundation of the justice system? I would argue it is the only sensible (and, yes, rational foundation).

What else would be the purpose of the justice system?

Maintaining a civilized society where everybody is treated equally?

Seriously, this is one of the most reactionary posts I've ever read. And coming from Gustaf that says a lot.

Because I'm obviously so reactionary...px has that very sad quality of always trying to be a smartass without grasping what the discussion is actually about. Well, it's more amusing than sad I guess.

You're not reactionary, but your comment clearly was.

I'll be gracious and assume you've read the same philosophical dissertations on this subject that I have and will soon post your reasons for disagreeing with them then.

The only alternative would be that you're an arrogant teenager with a lot less knowledge than you think and a lack of awareness of that situation.

[Gustaf]

Wait, are people here claiming that vengeance is not a valid foundation of the justice system? I would argue it is the only sensible (and, yes, rational foundation).

What else would be the purpose of the justice system?

Maintaining a civilized society where everybody is treated equally?

Seriously, this is one of the most reactionary posts I've ever read. And coming from Gustaf that says a lot.

Because I'm obviously so reactionary...px has that very sad quality of always trying to be a smartass without grasping what the discussion is actually about. Well, it's more amusing than sad I guess.

You're not reactionary, but your comment clearly was.

I'll be gracious and assume you've read the same philosophical dissertations on this subject that I have and will soon post your reasons for disagreeing with them then.

The only alternative would be that you're an arrogant teenager with a lot less knowledge than you think and a lack of awareness of that situation.

Do you have a point apart from the usual ad hominems ?

The idea that justice is only a veiled vengeance ? Yeah, I think one can reasonably deem it reactionary even without having read all the philosophical essays on the issue.

My point was to give you a chance to show that you weren't just being arrogant about something you didn't really know anything about. A pity you didn't take it.

I apologize to px for being less of a hack than he is.

Now, if the two of you are done with ad hominems it'd be greatly amusing to see you struggle with actually trying to prove your case. I'm defending the actual existing justice system and making a point about what is its guiding principle. It can't be reactionary since I'm not arguing for a return to any past system.

[Gustaf]

Wait, are people here claiming that vengeance is not a valid foundation of the justice system? I would argue it is the only sensible (and, yes, rational foundation).

What else would be the purpose of the justice system?

Maintaining a civilized society where everybody is treated equally?

Seriously, this is one of the most reactionary posts I've ever read. And coming from Gustaf that says a lot.

Because I'm obviously so reactionary...px has that very sad quality of always trying to be a smartass without grasping what the discussion is actually about. Well, it's more amusing than sad I guess.

You're not reactionary, but your comment clearly was.

I'll be gracious and assume you've read the same philosophical dissertations on this subject that I have and will soon post your reasons for disagreeing with them then.

The only alternative would be that you're an arrogant teenager with a lot less knowledge than you think and a lack of awareness of that situation.

Do you have a point apart from the usual ad hominems ?

The idea that justice is only a veiled vengeance ? Yeah, I think one can reasonably deem it reactionary even without having read all the philosophical essays on the issue.

My point was to give you a chance to show that you weren't just being arrogant about something you didn't really know anything about. A pity you didn't take it.

I apologize to px for being less of a hack than he is.

Now, if the two of you are done with ad hominems it'd be greatly amusing to see you struggle with actually trying to prove your case. I'm defending the actual existing justice system and making a point about what is its guiding principle. It can't be reactionary since I'm not arguing for a return to any past system.

I believe it is habitual to clearly state one's case before inviting the opposition to launch a counter-attack.

I'm not sure what your point is? If you mean that I should in this exchange have clearly stated my case earlier on, I think you miss my point. Antonio and Px jumped on a chance to try and ridicule me. I have had this discussion many times before so I know roughly what they are thinking and why they are wrong. I suspect the same is not true of them, since if it was they couldn't be so disdainful of a position that is quite strong on the merits.

And it always amuses me when someone is so conceited in their position so as to make fun of someone for disagreeing with them when it soon becomes obvious they are completely ignorant of the debate on the issue.

Besides, I don't think I have to respect any decorums of debate with people like them, especially given their behaviour in this instance. You may think of it as retributivist justice - I'll give them the respect they deserve, which right now is not very much.

[Gustaf]

You three need to either shut up or take it elswhere.

No, there isn't really any need to respect this thread since it's mostly a stupid phenomenon to begin with.

I think all of my detractors seem to have gone silent anyway - turns out they had nothing, beyond quoting my posts into this thread, to back up their position with. So I don't think you need to worry. You will all be able to continue to post here instead of actually arguing your positions.

[Gustaf]

Somebody's taking the Sulfur Mine waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too seriously, methinks.  And confusing it with the Deluge as well!

I'm not confusing it with the Deluge, though it's true that the Deluge is even worse.

I'm not sure how I'm taking it any more or less seriously than anyone takes anything around here. It's not as if I care particularly about Antonio and Px not understanding the concept of retributivist justice.

[Gustaf]

*yawn*

Well, I guess that gem of intellectual snappiness pretty much settles the debate in your favour then! Kudos to you, good sir.

[Gustaf]

fire fighters in CA, grossly overpaid as well.

A bold statement from a lawyer in a part of the country constantly plagued by wildfires.

I made my riposte to that little thrust. Towel snaps just get my juices going.

You can't expect Lief to do things like thinking or analyzing. Imagine what it would do to his worldview.

(It is amusing that he posted this 2 hours after you explained why Memphis point was invalid, something that neither of them responded to )

[Gustaf]

Memphis' post belonged in here because it was witty and sharp.  Torie's dull paragraph responding to it, regardless of its validity, was irrelevant.  Sorry.

It wasn't really witty to begin with, since it was obviously moronic. Had that been intentional (merely to be funny) it'd have been ok, but knowing Memphis that's unlikely. But I guess one man's wit is another man's fart joke and all that.

[Gustaf]

No prizes for guessing who this was aimed at:

Out of curiosity, is there any level of education that you actually support, considering your blistering hatred for public schoolteachers and belief that university professors are 'wacky'? If not, why are you able to compose English at even the level that you are, and do you realize that it's somewhat hypocritical to do so?

Sort of like criticizing the US while living in it?

[Gustaf]

No prizes for guessing who this was aimed at:

Out of curiosity, is there any level of education that you actually support, considering your blistering hatred for public schoolteachers and belief that university professors are 'wacky'? If not, why are you able to compose English at even the level that you are, and do you realize that it's somewhat hypocritical to do so?

Sort of like criticizing the US while living in it?

Why, no. Not very much like that at all, as a matter of fact.

Nice to know you've still got it, though.

What's the difference then? If I understand your point correctly you mean that it is hypocritical to criticize a system one has benefited from. This seems very analogous to saying that one cannot criticize one's country of residence, for example.

[Gustaf]

Ah, defending the liberty of the businesses exploiting their employees and the liberty of oppressing minorities and poor people.

I suppose this isn't the place to argue this, but you need to put more faith in the markets, my friend.

Right, so the top 10% of Americans can control 100% of the wealth as opposed to the 80% they control now.

Government and political structure has a lot more to do with the wealthy having so much money than the markets do. Absent bailouts, insider deals, subsidies, etc the people would have a lot more power. Adam Smith knew what he was talking about. Are you sure you're a libertarian?

I'm 100% sure I'm not a Libertarian and I'm wearing the avatar for ornamental purposes.

What you fail to realize is that long before Government was the "big, evil, awful" thing that Libertarians view it as, markets were making people richer than would ever be necessary. Tell me, how would the free market resolve wealth inequality? The answer is, it doesn't.

Libertarians like to believe that the free market is the answer to all of America's (and the world's) problems, when in fact it caused most of those problems in the first place. It was the free market that created wealth inequality, and encouraged/encourages it in modern society. The first "rich" people--the ones that made more money than others when America was first becoming an industrial nation--did not hold that much more wealth than say the "poorer" Americans. What happened was, the industrialization expanded and corporations were born.

Corporations exist to ensure that a sort of oligarchical system be upheld throughout the monetary system. Meaning, the CEOs of the biggest companies are ensured a lot more money than the lower classes (about 350-400 times as much money, to be exact) for doing quantities less work. They deliver a cheap, but "okay enough" product onto the market, and consumerism ensures that it is eaten up without questioning exactly what it is or how it was made.

The problem is that such a small amount of people control such a disturbingly large portion of the wealth in this country (and world) and will only end up controlling more. Is Government doing anything to stop it? Not really, and certainly not as much as we should be doing. But that's because corporations have the power of Government. We need leaders that will not be afraid to stand up to corporations and strip them of their power. The voice needs to be returned to the average citizen, and the wealth with it.

I'm not talking about full-fledged socialism, I'm talking about equality. Where the poor aren't as poor and the rich aren't as rich. No one in this world could possibly need a billion dollars for their own use. They just invest it so they can make more money that they won't spend.

[Gustaf]

I don't think it's a class thing at all. I also refrigerate my apples, because I like the taste better when they're cold.

[Gustaf]

You are, however, a townie.

While not certain of the exact definition of that, yeah, I probably am.

[Gustaf]

I don't think it's a class thing at all. I also refrigerate my apples, because I like the taste better when they're cold.

Couldn't you just put the apple outside for a few minutes?

Are you intentionally making Al's point?

[Gustaf]

a man who takes his moderating duties way too seriously.

and in every post he has to remind us that...

he knows where the SHIFT key is on his keyboard.

FF.