Monday, July 23, 2012

Better Than or Worse Than Their Father

a) Richard M. Daley - worse than.......b) Mitt Romney - worse than.......c) JFK and RFK - better than (way, WAY).......d) George W. Bush - worse than.......e) George H.W. Bush - better than.......f) Andrew Cuomo - better than.......g) Chris Dodd - worse than.......h) Jesse Jackson Jr. - better than.......i) Rand Paul - worse than.......j) George Allen Jr. - worse than.......k) Al Gore, pre-2000 - better than.......l) Al Gore, post-2000 - worse than.......m) Barack Obama - better than.

40 comments:

dmarks said...

Why did you say Andrew Cuomo is better than his father? I remember his father as an eloquent statesman, and principled defender of the freedom of the press.

I also listened to Mario Cuomo radio program. He was one of the only (the only?) on the Left to have a program to counter Limbaugh that did not try to do it by being like a Limbaugh in overdrive. He actually played up to the intelligence of his audience, and didn't go the lowbrow Schultz, Hannity, etc route.

His son Andrew? He created and put in motion the bad public policies which were the trigger for the collapse of 2008.

Yeah, the information is out of date. Is there something so wonderful about Andrew Cuomo that he has done recently, and some horrible scandal about Mario which I am forgetting?

-------------------------

You left out a major one: Chris Wallace and Mike Wallace. Chris is "worse than", for sure. Who can compare to Mike, after all?

But I give Chris Wallace points for asking a reasonable question during an interview that caused a former President to get violent.

w-dervish said...

dmarks: His son Andrew? He created and put in motion...

He did not. bush is responsible for the bad public policies which were the trigger for the collapse of 2008.

dmarks said...

He most certainly did. The CRA, making banks loan money to undeserving people who could not pay it back, and F&F backing up this debt were the main cause. Left to the free market and their own devices, the banks would not have made these loans and not created the massive pool of toxic debt.

Bush's main fault here is in not trying hard enough to stop Barney Frank and others who promoted and maintained these very destructive and intrusive government regulations.

You should know this by now. Will has presented extensive documentation.

w-dervish said...

dmarks: The CRA, making banks loan money to undeserving people who could not pay it back, and F&F backing up this debt were the main cause.

It wasn't.

From the Conservative FrumForum: ...after the year 2000, the real driver of subprime lending was the non-bank sector, not subject to the CRA; and the subprime market was just too small to tank the US financial sector. Sub-prime lending only became a threat when sub-prime loans were packaged into derivatives. The CRA did not require anyone to do that.

dmarks: Bush's main fault here is in not trying hard enough to stop...

The Republicans were in control and could have passed any legislation they pleased. It was bush that encouraged bad loans via his "ownership society" initiative.

In a 12/20/2008 article, the NYT points out that "White House Philosophy Stoked Mortgage Bonfire" and that the financial crisis was caused by bush's "...housing policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged lax lending standards".

The reason for bush's "ownership society" initiative? It was designed to benefit the "...business interests of some of his biggest donors".

The mortgage crisis was caused by the bush administration calling off the regulators and allowing the banksters to scam poor people into taking out loans they couldn't afford.

dmarks: You should know this by now. Will has presented extensive documentation.

He hasn't.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

dmarks, I think that A. Cuomo has been a pretty good governor so far. He's taken on the unions and put forth some very decent tax reform. But, yes, if he had a role in Clinton's 1999 goal of trying to get F&F to have at least half of their portfolio in affordable housing, then I would have to invert it and say that he was worse than his father.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I see that wd's Bush Derangement Syndrome is totally in gear again. a) The financial sector was and is the most regulated part of the American economy and it shouldn't come as any surprise that that's where the crisis ultimately developed. b) Bush did not deregulate. He added regulations and the 2 most frequently mentioned deregulatory aspects of the crisis happened during Mr. Clinton's tenure. c) According to the New York Times (yet another publication that's not exactly hostile to Democrats), in 2003, "Bush proposed the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago." The paper also went on to say that "A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors and critics have said that Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates." What was the Democratic response to Bush's proposal? Barney Frank's was simply to state that "These two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are NOT (my emphasis) facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." Congressman Watt from North Carolina added that, " I don't see much other than a shell-game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing." Some members of the Black Caucus even referred to the proceedings as a lynching of Franklin Raines. d) Yes, the Republicans had a clear majority when Mr. Bush (and later McCain) proposed his reforms. But follow the money, wd, a lot of Republican Senators and Congressmen were also sucking off the teet of F&F. Bush met with resistance from both sides.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

If it makes you feel any better, wd, the 4 people who I blame the most for the crisis are Greenspan, Bernanke, Paulsen, and Geithner (the FED's idiotic interest rate policy, their manic printing of money, and their creation of a bailout culture) and 3 out of the 4 of them are Republicans.

w-dervish said...

Will: I see that wd's Bush Derangement Syndrome is totally in gear again.

"bush derangment syndrome" is what bush defenders call telling the truth about bush.

Will: Bush did not deregulate. He added regulations...

He added regulations because of the accounting scandals (remember Arthur Anderson?). Under bush the regulators viewed themselves as "partners" to the banksters. I previously provided you the quotes.

Will: "Bush proposed the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago".

He had no choice. People expect action when scandals occur. This doesn't change the fact that under bush the regulators acted as "partners" instead of watchdogs.

Will: A report... concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors and critics have said that Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

I never said there were no problems with F&F or that Barney Frank wasn't slow to respond to those problems. The fact remains that Barney Frank warned the Congressional Republicans (when they were in control) and they failed to act. And, in regards to the financial crisis, F&F was a bit player. Their role was minor compared to the role of the investment banks who were bundling the mortgages.

Will: Bush met with resistance from both sides.

bush didn't "meet with resistence" because he didn't attempt to regulate F&F... he USED them to enrich his cronies in the banking industry. Remember bush's "ownership society"? According to the NYT article I mentioned in my previous post, "both Mr. Paulson and his predecessor, John W. Snow, say the housing push went too far... Lawrence B. Lindsey, Mr. Bush's first chief economics adviser, said there was little impetus to raise alarms about the proliferation of easy credit that was helping Mr. Bush meet housing goals. 'No one wanted to stop that bubble', Mr. Lindsey said. 'It would have conflicted with the president's own policies'".

Sounds EXTREMELY damning to me, yet you continue to defend bush. Sounds to me like Will is suffering from "bush Defense Syndrome" as well as "Frank Derangement Syndrome".

w-dervish said...

Will: ...3 out of the 4 of them are Republicans.

Who do you think isn't a Republcan? You don't think any of these people are Democrats, do you?

Rusty Shackelford said...

WD's obsession with George Bush is reaching alarming proportions...I'd hope his family and friends are planning an intervention in the near future...if blogs were available in the early 80"s I'd guess John Hinckley would sound pretty damn near WD.Its a bit scary someone like him is out running around among the general population without an attendent close by.

dmarks said...

Rusty: There's a room open at St. Elizabeth's for him.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Bush absolutely DID try and regulate F&F and I gave you the direct quote from the 2003 New York Times article. And F&F were NOT a bit player. By the time the crisis rolled around they had a hand in about half the mortgages in this country and ended up needing a 150+ billion dollar bailout, the largest bailout of all.......And where did you get this regulators as partners thing? Think progress?..But even if it is true, how is that any different from the cronyism that's currently taking place between Obama and G.E., Philip Morris, the pharmaceutical companies, General Motors, etc.? It seems to me as if there's more than enough "partnering" going on on both sides these days.......And Barney Frank never warned anybody about F&F. I challenged you once to give me ONE in time piece of testimony or a statement to prove this and I am still frigging waiting.

Rusty Shackelford said...

I trust you're not holding your breath Will

dmarks said...

Rusty: I think he'd better. Something stinks around here.

Rusty Shackelford said...

I wonder if the NSA monitors blogs like they do phone calls? If so,they may very well be picking up buzz words from WD's comments.Hell,there may be a black SUV parked outside his home right now.You gotta know there'd be a full scale alert if he tries to go see the new Batman movie.

dmarks said...

I know how he gets the tinfoil to cover the top of his head, but how does he get it to wrap around the pony-tail?

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I suspect that wd is probably harmless enough (as opposed, Russ, to those lunatics over at Lydia's site). He just doesn't get out that much and apparently needs a well-ordered universe (circa comic books and 1970s wrestling).

Rusty Shackelford said...

I may beg to differ with you a bit Will.One indication of his singular mindset is his absolute zero interest in any type of team activity where people would have various views...a situation in which he'd have no control and no power.I'd imagine that for other then family members WD is a loner.It would'nt surprize me one bit if he ended up on a water tower with a rifle.

Rational Nation USA said...

Hey, I liked 1970's wrestling. And pre 1970's boxing as well!

dmarks said...

There ain't no flies on Muhammad Ali, for sure.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

On this one, Russ, I hope that I'm right and you're wrong....But now you've got me thinking. In addition to what you said, there's also that constant blaming of others for his own misfortune tendency. Maybe we really do need to keep an eye on him.............Les, I LOVE 1970s campy wrestling. I might even go as far as to call them the glory days.............And, yes, dmarks, Muhammad Ali was definitely unmatched (though I still think that the second Liston fight might have been rigged).

w-dervish said...

dmarks: I know how he gets the tinfoil to cover the top of his head, but how does he get it to wrap around the pony-tail?

What is so hilarious about this is that dmarks fails to realize how fringe his beliefs regarding the Iraq war are. I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that if you asked 100 random people if they thought the Iraq war was illegal and bush lied about WMD, or if Saddam started the war and bush told the the truth about WMD... more people would agree with me.

dmarks knows how to wrap the tinfoil around the top of his head because he does it daily.

Rusty: If so, they may very well be picking up buzz words from WD's comments. Hell, there may be a black SUV parked outside his home right now. You gotta know there'd be a full scale alert if he tries to go see the new Batman movie.

You're the one using the buzzwords asshole. And I find your use of the tragedy in Colorado to take a cheap shot at me utterly disgusting. I'm a nonviolent person who believes strongly in gun control. In my opinion the evil terrorist organization that is known as the NRA is responsible for this shooting.

That Rusty would joke about this shooting is just sick... but given Rusty's disgust for his fellow Americans he views as losers, that he'd use this tragic loss of life as fodder for a sick joke is really no surprise. It's also no surprise that neither Will nor dmarks would call him on it, given their sharing of Rusty's disgust for his fellow Americans he views as losers.

Will: He just doesn't get out that much and apparently needs a well-ordered universe (circa comic books and 1970s wrestling).

"Well ordered universe"? What arrogant, condescending and patronizing bullshit! I'm not a fan of wrestling or comic books. Because I don't view the world through the same conservative lens you do, that does not mean I'm a "partisan simpleton". The Democrats are far from perfect and I criticize them when they deserve it... unlike you, a person who thinks blame should always be apportioned evenly even if the facts show one political party (much more so than the other) is responsible.

Will: ...there's also that constant blaming of others for his own misfortune tendency.

You're referring to something that never happened and you have no clue about. I've never blamed anyone for my "misfortune tendency" that you would have no idea even if I have. This is an example of the "hollow insults" that dmarks refers to. You have absolutely zero proof but are still convinced you're 100 percent right... it's quite scary how delusional you are.

dmarks said...

Since my views are mainstream and not fringe, and are shared by the majority (conservatives plus moderates), you would lose this bet. All of your lying about illegality, and there not being a state of conflict with Iraq before March 2003 aside.

w-dervish said...

dmarks: Since my views are mainstream and not fringe, and are shared by the majority...

Yikes! That's pretty scary. I think dmarks should take advantage of that open room at St. Elizabeth's because his views are TOTALLY fringe. This is seriously delusional stuff. The bush administration, in making their case for the invasion, NEVER argued that the war was "already on". In a speech to the graduating class at the West Point US Military Academy on 6/1/2002 bush argued pre-emption, saying, "If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long".

The point is, how the hell could dmarks' view that the war was "already on" be mainstream when even the bush administration never argued that it was?

Also remember our discussion regarding your assertion that WMD was found in Iraq? I pointed out that bush confirmed that no WMD was found and that he blamed "intelligence failures". You did not dispute that bush said this, but claimed that bush was "wrong" about no WMD being found. Now, how the hell could dmarks' view that WMD was found be mainstream when even the bush administration never made that case?

Will (and others) will likely just ignore this craziness from dmarks, but if they were honest they would have to admit that his last comment is clear evidence that dmarks does not have a firm grip on reality.

Rusty Shackelford said...

pot.....meet kettle

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

So, what do you do, wd?

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I mean, I know that you claimed to have a $10 an hour job at one point and lost it (blaming Bush, of course). Did you ever get it back? And have you ever moved out of your parent's place, wd?......Also, please, show me one comment or post in which you give a full-throated denunciation of the Democrats. I can't seem to recall one. Not even Obama's surge in Afghanistan or his sextupling of the drone attacks in Pakistan or LBJ's getting us knee-deep in Vietnam or FDR's internment of Japanese Americans. Nada.

Rusty Shackelford said...

Nor will you ever hear one from him Will.Hence my comment about his utter contempt for team sports....he cant see anything but the dot on the wall in front of him.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Actually, Russ, he will throw a Dem under the bus when he has to. Like when Lee Hamilton came out and lambasted that idiotic and highly discredited theory about Reagan negotiating with the Iranians. But, yeah, you're right, it has to be an extraordinary circumstance.

dmarks said...

WD said: "...because his views are TOTALLY fringe."

No. they are mainstream, and represent those of a large and informed sector of the population that happens to be a majority (the sum of both moderates and conservatives)

"This is seriously delusional stuff."

Sorry, you are the delusional one.

"The bush administration, in making their case for the invasion, NEVER argued that the war was "already on".

So? Again, whether or not something is in a politician's speech has nothing to do with reality. You are completely failing to make any case. I focus on the actual state of conflict in Iraq and by Saddam Hussein to determine whether or not a war is "on".

"In a speech to the graduating class at the West Point US Military Academy on 6/1/2002 bush argued pre-emption, saying, "If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long"."

So? This statement has nothing to do with what you claim it does. It is, in fact, something General Patton could have said on the battlefield in the midst of an intense battle.

"The point is, how the hell could dmarks' view that the war was "already on" be mainstream..."

Because it is informed and based o history.

"when even the bush administration never argued that it was?"

Only a complete bonehead like you would keep arguing again that "if Bush did not say something was happening in the world, it wasn't"

"Also remember our discussion regarding your assertion that WMD was found in Iraq?"

It wasn't my assertion. I was pointing out the fact of many accurate reports which detail Saddam Hussein's hidden stockpiles. The most recent came from Wikileaks. You responded by scoffing and lying that actual WMD were just "bullets"

"I pointed out that bush confirmed..."

Again: I care what the facts are, not what a politician says.

"You did not dispute that bush said this"

Why would I? Unlike you, I don't deny what politicians actually said. We need to look no farther than Gore's whopper about creating the Internet (correctly paraphrased using the word "invent"). I know he said this too.

"Will (and others) will likely just ignore this craziness from dmarks"

Quite simply, because it is not craziness.

There's tons of craziness from you, and no evidence of any from me. One example of craziness from you that is very recent is this statement:

"Sounds to me like Will is suffering from "bush Defense Syndrome" "

A complete lie. because of the facts: Will didn't vote for Bush, and is proud of it. He ranks Bush as one of the worst Presidents. He goes on and on about how lousy Bush was. Only a liar with no reading comprehension would count this as any sort of "defense"

"...would have to admit that his last comment is clear evidence that dmarks does not have a firm grip on reality."

Actually, I am sticking to reality here, and you seem stuck on the nuances of politicians' speeches.

w-dervish said...

dmarks: ...I am sticking to reality here, and you seem stuck on the nuances of politicians' speeches.

A complete lie. dmarks seems to think those who agree that the Iraq war was justified would disagree with what the guy who ordered the invasion said reagarding the invasion. bush said [1] the war was pre-emptive and NOT "already on" and [2] WMD was not found.

Some delusional crazies do, but these people are certainly NOT a majority. They are a fringe group. A lot smaller than the group that believes the war was illegal and no WMD was found I'd bet. The majority actually believes something between those two extremes. Ask Will dumbshit. He does't agree with you.

He doesn't agree with me either, but I've never delusionally claimed that my opinions on this represent a "majority". dmarks is so delusional it is hard to believe that, if this blog is being monitored like Rusty suggested, the authorities aren't monitoring dmarks very closely.

dmarks: Will didn't vote for Bush, and is proud of it. He ranks Bush as one of the worst Presidents. He goes on and on about how lousy Bush was.

So? He still defends bush, and has admitted it! He defends bush in a post after this one, by comparring him to much worse war criminals and saying bush isn't a war criminal because his war crimes aren't as bad.

In fact, defending bush is one of the primary focuses of Will's blog. That and posts promoting his (and your) worship of the wealthy.

Will: So, what do you do, wd? ...have you ever moved out of your parent's place, wd?

My life is none of your GD business.

Will: Also, please, show me one comment or post in which you give a full-throated denunciation of the Democrats.

Where's your "full-throated" denunciation of Moderates, Blue dog Democrats and Libertarian Conservatives?

Will: I can't seem to recall one. Not even Obama's surge in Afghanistan or his sextupling of the drone attacks in Pakistan or LBJ's getting us knee-deep in Vietnam or FDR's internment of Japanese Americans. Nada.

I don't give a shit what you "recall". Your memory is obviously extremely selective... case in point is you lying about what I said on Truth's blog a second time after the first time you "recalled" incorrectly and I set you straight (but you "forgot").

All the bad things you mention that Democrats are/were responsible for... I'm opposed/against them all.

dmarks said...

WD said; "A complete lie."

No, I actually am sticking to reality here, and you seem stuck on the nuances of politicians' speeches. That is why I've stuck to the reality of conflict, and of WMD in Iraq, instead of your (mis)intepreting occasional comments from George W. Bush.

"bush said [1] the war was pre-emptive and NOT "already on"

Bush as everyone knows was not very eloquent. In light of the ongoing, already-going conflict and unprovoked aggression from Iraq, it is clear that in the context of reality, he was referring to pre-empting more aggression.


"and [2] WMD was not found."

We all know they were found. Next subject...

"Some delusional crazies do, but these people are certainly NOT a majority. They are a fringe group."

I stand with the majority. You, with your phony war crimes accusations and claims that WMD warheads are mere "bullets" don;t.

"A lot smaller than the group that believes the war was illegal and no WMD was found I'd bet."

You are confusing two different groups

1) Those, like Will, who opposed Bush's action in Iraq. They are the majority.

2) Those who believe, that despite all evidence, Bush'a action was "illegal". Very different group, and a lunatic fringe.

"The majority actually believes something between those two extremes. Ask Will dumbshit."

Will is not a dumbshit. He has an informed opinion that makes him dislike Bush's efforts. But he doesn't lie about him being illegal.

"He does't agree with you."

He agrees with me. Where have you been? He's been easily shooting down the illegal, war criminal, etc lies coming from you for a long time.

"but I've never delusionally claimed that my opinions on this represent a "majority"."

Your delusion mainly is in the war crimes, illegal stuff.

"So? He still defends bush, and has admitted it!"

Since Will has principles, he is harshly critical of Bush... but that doesn't mean he is gullible and buy into any made-up "throw in the kitchen sink" slander about Bush.

"He defends bush in a post after this one"

Complete bullshit. He says GWB is worse than his father.

"by comparring him to much worse war criminals"

Invalid grammar. "Much worse" war criminals does not fit, as there is no evidence that GWB is one.

"...and saying bush isn't a war criminal because his war crimes aren't as bad."

Of course, you got that right: Bush's 0 war crimes aren't as bad as those of a person who actually committed some.

"In fact, defending bush is one of the primary focuses of Will's blog."

You have Will confused with another.

"That and posts promoting his (and your) worship of the wealthy."

You always confuse the idea that the rich have the same Constitutional rights as the rest of us as "worshipping the wealthy". That, in all objectivity, is stupid.

"My life is none of your GD business."

For someone who is an extreme arrogant a**hole who wants to force his views on people better informed than him (voters, workers who say "union no" by an overwhelming majority, and everyone else) you sure are thin skinned. And arrogant.

"I don't give a shit what you "recall". "

Shit is what you give every time your fingers hit the keyboard.

w-dervish said...

Will: You are confusing two different groups.

I'm not. You're confused about your views and what the majority believes. You think they are the same... but they are not.

Will: Those, like Will, who opposed Bush's action in Iraq. They are the majority.

Exactly (and this is a prime example of your confusion). You aren't a part of this group. You are a part of a fringe minority who believes the war was a good idea, or that we had no choice because Saddam started the war.

dmarks: Those who believe, that despite all evidence, Bush'a action was "illegal". Very different group, and a lunatic fringe.

This is a fringe, but they are a highly informed fringe. Most people are not that informed regarding the illegality of the Iraq war.

dmarks: Will is not a dumbshit. He has an informed opinion that makes him dislike Bush's efforts. But he doesn't lie about him being illegal.

I was referring to YOU and you know it. You are the dumbshit. And I tell the truth about bush's crimes... Will excuses them because other war criminals have done worse.

dmarks: He agrees with me. Where have you been? He's been easily shooting down the illegal, war criminal, etc lies coming from you for a long time.

He disagrees with you. You've been very clear regarding your belief that the war was justified and a good idea. Will has said that he thought it was a bad idea. Where have *you* been?

dmarks: For someone who is an extreme arrogant a**hole who wants to force his views on people better informed than him (voters, workers who say "union no" by an overwhelming majority, and everyone else) you sure are thin skinned. And arrogant.

I've never said anything that could reasonably be interperted as "arrogant". And I do not want to force my views on anyone. I want to educate them, or encourage them to get educated. And this "union no" nonsense you keep spouting is very far removed from reality. It's you forcing your views on others. dmarks thinks that if he simply declares that the majority stands with him... that makes it so... facts be damned. This is HUGELY arrogant (and delusional).

And me defending myself against Will's lies doesn't equate to me having a "thin skin"... it just means I don't like liars.

w-dervish said...

dmarks: Complete bullshit. He says GWB is worse than his father.

In the post following this one Will argues that bush isn't a war criminal. The only "complete bullshit" is that which lies between your ears.

dmarks: "Much worse" war criminals does not fit, as there is no evidence that GWB is one.

There is. You simply chose to ignore it.

dmarks: of course, you got that right: Bush's 0 war crimes aren't as bad as those of a person who actually committed some.

bush's war crimes are numerous. Illegally invading a country and authorizing the torture of prisoners being only two examples.

dmarks: You have Will confused with another.

I am not confused at all. bush has authored numerous posts defending bush on multiple issues.

dmarks: You always confuse the idea that the rich have the same Constitutional rights as the rest of us as "worshipping the wealthy". That, in all objectivity, is stupid.

I refer only to your belief that they have more rights than everyone else (that they should be able to purchase with their wealth).

dmarks said...

WD said; "Exactly (and this is a prime example of your confusion). You aren't a part of this group."

You lost that argument, so you are shifting the target. Like you did when you remade Behar's 'joke' 3 times. This was not the group we are talking about.

"You are a part of a fringe minority who believes the war was a good idea, or that we had no choice because Saddam started the war."

Even this group is not a fringe. "Fringe" means something. A group that represents from between 30% to 50% is not fringe. I use the word for real fringe groups.

"This is a fringe, but they are a highly informed fringe."

No, because none of the facts are on their side. The "illegality" is a false accusation that the experts reject. Just an entirely uninformed opinion on their part. Most people are not that informed regarding the illegality of the Iraq war.

"I was referring to YOU and you know it. You are the dumbshit."

Since I said nothing dumb, I assumed you were doing one of your "Gross" insults to him.

"And I tell the truth about bush's crimes."

Since there are no crimes, you have yet to. Sorry, grossly amateur armchair attorney, I believe the UN and ICC over you.

"He disagrees with you. You've been very clear regarding your belief that the war was justified and a good idea."

We've rarely discussed this, actually. As it is a difference of opinion, and not fact. Will is very well informed of the facts. In fact, he has mentioned what he wishes had happened instead with Iraq, and I find it very reasonable.

"I've never said anything that could reasonably be interperted as "arrogant"."

You have. In discussing voters (where WD is right and voters who vote their interest in a way he diesn't like are all wrong) and especially workers (who make their own decisions on what is fair in their situation without giving a damn of WD's completely arrogant statements about them).

"And I do not want to force my views on anyone. I want to educate them, or encourage them to get educated."

Of course, the fact is completely lost on you that they have the equivalent of a doctorate when it comes to their life, their work, and what is fair pay. In terms of knowledge of this, you are like an 8th grade dropout. Completely ignorant compared to them.

"And this "union no" nonsense you keep spouting is very far removed from reality. It's you forcing your views on others."

Not at all. I respect the rights of workers to join or not join unions. You are totally opposed to this freedom and basic right.

"dmarks thinks that if he simply declares that the majority stands with him."

Actually, I respect workers who choose unions, and those who do not. Aside from the fact that those who say "union no" are 90% of the workers.

"And me defending myself against Will's lies doesn't equate to me having a "thin skin"... it just means I don't like liars."

You sure must really hate yourself.

w-dervish said...

dmarks: You lost that argument, so you are shifting the target. Like you did when you remade Behar's 'joke' 3 times.This was not the group we are talking about.

I won the argument. Look back at the previous comments and you'll find that even Rusty agreed with my observation that you are in the minority with your views on the Iraq war.

In regards to "shifting the target"... I don't know what you're talking about. I doubt you know what you're talking about, as I never "remade" Joy Behar's joke.

dmarks: Even this group is not a fringe. "Fringe" means something. A group that represents from between 30% to 50% is not fringe. I use the word for real fringe groups.

Far less than 30 to 50 percent share your views regarding the Iraq war. And you dropping the requirement of "majority" to 30 percent is an example of YOU shifting the target.

dmarks: No, because none of the facts are on their side. The "illegality" is a false accusation that the experts reject.

The facts are on their side. Read the UN charter and listen to what those in positions of leadership within the UN say (I've quoted them before). They all say the war was illegal under the charter.

dmarks: Just an entirely uninformed opinion on their part. Most people are not that informed regarding the illegality of the Iraq war.

[1] people who acknowledge the war was illegal are VERY informed. [2] You're right on this point. Most people don't know the war was illegal.

dmarks: Since I said nothing dumb, I assumed you were doing one of your "Gross" insults to him.

Almost everything you say is dumb.

dmarks: I believe the UN and ICC over you.

Neither the UN nor the ICC has ever issued a statement for you to agree with. You've been promulgating this lie for some time now... it's getting quite old. If they had issued such a statement you would have linked to it already.

dmarks: We've rarely discussed this, actually. As it is a difference of opinion, and not fact. Will is very well informed of the facts. In fact, he has mentioned what he wishes had happened instead with Iraq, and I find it very reasonable.

And he disagrees with you. Which is what we were discussing. Will is someone in the majority who disagrees with dmarks' fringe opinions.

damarks: You have. In discussing voters (where WD is right and voters who vote their interest in a way he doesn't like are all wrong)...

Sure I think they're wrong. As you do regarding people who vote in a way you don't like. That is called an opinion. Having an opinion isn't arrogant. And these people aren't voting "their interest"... they vote for what they THINK is in their interest.

dmarks: Of course, the fact is... [blah, blah, blah, complete nonsense.

Ignored due to this statement being complete nonsense.

dmarks: Not at all. I respect the rights of workers to join or not join unions. You are totally opposed to this freedom and basic right.

The ability to join a union isn't an option for most workers, due to the union busting and anti-union campaigns of the plutocrats. They have effectively crushed unions.

And I've previously linked to the stats that show many workers would join unions if they could. What you claim about 90 percent of workers saying "union no" is complete nonsense.

dmarks: Aside from the fact that those who say "union no" are 90% of the workers.

This is not a fact, but only something you imagine is a fact.

dmarks: You sure must really hate yourself.

I haven't lied, therefore it isn't possible for me to hate myself for that reason. *You* must really hate *yourself*... as you're the one doing all the lying.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I've defended Bush on 2 simple points; a) that he isn't a war-criminal (not for deposing one of the top 5 worst mass murderers of the 20th Century and arranging for free and fair elections) and b) that he doesn't hate poor people. These are elemental defenses that 90% of the American public (including President Obama and Vice President Biden) would also make.............And in that very same post, I also said that one could absolutely debate the wisdom of Mr. Bush's actions and that I personally still have problems with them. You conveniently left that out.............And I didn't lie about your stupid $10 an hour job (you're obviously still unemployed and living at home because if weren't you'd be bragging about it). I said that you wished that you had A $10 an hour job. Your old $10 an hour job certainly IS A $10 an hour job.

w-dervish said...

In every other post you defend bush. Just recently you defended him against war crimes, and you also defended him by wrongly aserting that he tried to reign in Fannie and Freddie.

And you MOST CERTAINLY did lie about the comment I made on Truth's blog. Originally you said that I was waiting for my FIRST $10 an hour job (implying that I'd NEVER had one). Clearly I didn't say that, which is why you've now switched it to "A" $10 an hour job. And why would I brag? I don't discuss my personal life, period. I've said nothing about it so anything you say is pure speculation and not "obvious". I moved out of my parent's home a long time ago. This is just a standard slur people like you use as ad hominem.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I got the information from a 2003 New York Times article, wd. Bush tried to regulate F&F and the Congress (Democrats AND Republicans feeding at the trough) totally stonewalled him. It's a fact.............And, yes, I did say "first" $10 an hour job on the first comment. But that was because I thought that it WAS your first (not because I was lying - again, you don't know what an actual lie is). When you told me that it wasn't your first, I dropped the "first" from the second comment. No lie. Zero. And I seriously doubt that you live on your own. I mean, how does a guy like you with such a singularly stinking attitude live, absent support? It doesn't pass the smell test, loser.

dmarks said...

Will said: "I got the information from a 2003 New York Times article, wd."

Yes. Information from a respected source, not a hairbrained blog like WD seems to prefer. And, wouldn't you know, a source that is consdered to be centrist, or even to the left. So he can't even bash it as a "Fox News" or something.

"It doesn't pass the smell test, loser."

Yes, it is pretty hilarous. He is so dead set against earning a fair wage, and for getting raises due to merit.

Imagine him going into the boss's office and demanding a raise. Not because his work merits it. But because it's "fair"... to which point he spouts text from a document by Ralph Nader which details what a fair wage is. Or any other ignorant outsider source which, as it has nothing to do with the workplace WD is in, really has no idea what is fair or not.

It's no stretch of the imagination