For christ sake.....MSNBC even gave up on that fool. I'd guess 90% of the people who did vote for the idiot would'nt own up to it now.The R's could have run a well trained chimp against him and won.
Alan Grayson is indeed a man of the people. Anyone who voted for the religious fundamentalist nut-job who ran against him is a fool and I'm not arrogant to say so.
I've seen Grayson making regular media appearances on MSNBC and Current. The Liberal media outlets love him. I don't know WTF Rusty is talking about.
I'd be proud to have voted for him.
And Dennis Miller is a loser using the dmarks' standard. Acted in a few movies but that went nowhere. Hosted a string of his own talk shows on HBO, CNBC and in syndication... all canceled. Had a football announcing gig which he lost. Currently only appears in brief segments on Bill-o's Fox Nooz program, and a radio program of his own (not good enough for his own TV program anymore). Sounds to me like he's being "kicked down the stairs".
It's all a question of perspective wd. Here's a news flash for you, your perspective certainly isn't always right. Although, we all know you always believe it is.
I guess you're Proud to be arrogant without recognizing your arrogance.
Fine with me. Unlike you I don't heroes out of these media figures and cry and moan and get defensive to the point of lunacy when their careers decline, or, as in the case of Kieth Olbermann, they get fired for abusing employees and otherwise going all Leona Helmsley.
dmarks: Fine with me. Unlike you I don't [make] heroes out of these media figures and cry and moan and get defensive to the point of lunacy...
You're the one who cries and moans (and lies) about people you don't like being "losers" who clearly are not. I said Dennis Miller is a loser (using the dmarks' standard) only to illustrate the idiocy of you calling people losers simply because you don't like them... I don't actually belive Dennis Miller is a loser.
Unlike dmarks I don't lie about people being losers just because I don't like them.
Of course you have. Everyone knows it. You said Keith Olbermann was a loser before he was fired from Current (now, maybe, you have a case). Because you don't like him. And you said Joy Behar was a loser because you don't like her. This is despite her clearly being a winner (being on "The View" since day one in addition to several other shows she's hosted on her own).
WD said: "Alan Grayson is indeed a man of the people."
Yes, we know. As long as we realize that "the people" in this case means only about a third of the electorate in one Florida district. At last count, and a very accurate one, he represents their interest. But not that of anyone else. Again, that is the informed opinion of the voters there, entirely regardless of my own views and opinion.
"Anyone who voted for the religious fundamentalist nut-job who ran against him is a fool and I'm not arrogant to say so."
You are arrogant, and extremely so, because the voters in that district by a strong margin determined that Grayson's opponent was a competent representative, not a 'nut job'.
Miller's career isn't going gangbusters. But as long as the dude can continue telling jokes like this (as opposed to, say, the "Mormon fire police"), he isn't a loser.
dmarks: Yes, because he was kicked downstairs from a major network, MSNBC, to one I never hear about except in your comments, "Current"...
Who gives a shit if you never heard of it? That isn't the metric we judge success by... What an over inflated ego you have! Also, I notice how you ignore my comments concerning your lies about Joy Behar being a "loser". Obviously you ignore that comment because you realize you were caught in a lie.
dmarks: As long as we realize that "the people" in this case means only about a third of the electorate in one Florida district.
No, I was talking about all the people of the United States. He fought for us all.
dmarks: You are arrogant, and extremely so, because the voters in that district by a strong margin determined that Grayson's opponent was a competent representative, not a 'nut job'.
Wait a minute dmarks. Remember when you declared John Conyer's constituents to be fools because (in your estimation) he is corrupt and a waste of skin? You judged the people who voted for him, and declared them fools (even though Conyers is a superb representative)... but when I do the same thing (and am right about Webster being a nut-job) then I'm arrogant?? You are not only arrogant, and extremely so, but also an uber-hypocrite.
Will: ...as long as the dude can continue telling jokes like this (as opposed to, say, the "Mormon fire police"), he isn't a loser.
Going only by this one misfire of a "joke", Miller is a loser. Judging Behar only by her hilarious "millions of homes" joke, she is a winner.
WD said; "You judged the people who voted for him, and declared them fools'
Yes, and you lambasted me for being arrogant. I agreed.
I hope now that you stop with the extreme arrogance concerning other voters who are informed on the issues and candidates and vote differently than you would prefer.
I only held you accountable to your own standards (and pointed out your hypocrisy). Personally I strongly disagree that having an opinion and saying what it is qualifies as "arrogant". You want to keep attacking me on this so were forced to "agree" that you were arrogant... which you weren't. You were only stating your opinion... an incredibly wrong one, but an opinion just the same.
So... that's a "no" in regard to your second statement... although I must point out that I've never expressed any "extreme arrogance" and we aren't discussing voters "who are informed on the issues" -- I only criticize voters who are misinformed on the issues (like you). Them voting "differently than I would prefer" isn't the issue.
The arrogance comes in spades from calling voters misinformed because they do not vote as you want them to. They know their lives and interests and are informed about them. You are not. It is arrogant for you to presume otherwise.
The only "ignorance" here is your complete ignorance about the lives and interests of the voters who make the informed decision to vote for someone you don't like.
The voters, who are informed about their own lives and interests, disagree. I side with them, instead of with an arrogant fool who thinks he knows their lives and interests.
Being informed about their lives and interests doesn't mean they are politically informed. More often than not they are uninformed and misinformed in this area. This is an unfortunate fact, but a fact none the less. Only arrogant fools claim otherwise. I side with the facts, unlike dmarks who lies about the voters being informed when they aren't.
Here the Conservative Jonah Goldberg argues that voters are uninformed. In his article he says, "In fact, the data have long been settled. A very high percentage of the U.S. electorate isn't very well qualified to vote, if by qualified you mean having a basic understanding of our government, its functions and its challenges".
dmarks is completely alone in his ignorant belief that the voters are well informed and cast their votes accordingly.
"dmarks is completely alone in his ignorant belief that the voters are well informed and cast their votes accordingly."
The voters disagree, and they are politically informed about their own situation and represenatives and they vote accordingly. I side with them, not arrogant liars of either left OR right.
All the studies/polls conducted say otherwise. You can lie all you want, the facts are what they are. You're just making yourself look stupid with your continual denial of the truth.
The only polls that matter are the votes, which are the only reliable indicator of what is in the voters' interest. And though you claim to be so much for democracy, on this matter you hold it in the deepest contempt.
You're wrong. Voting is only an indicator of what they think is in their interest. And voting isn't a poll of what is in the interest of those who chose not to vote... at all.
As for holding people in contempt... I'll leave that to you and Will. You're the ones who incorrectly label people "greedy" and "jealous" because they DARE disagree with you politically.
Since they know and you don't, voting is the most accurate indicator of what really is in their interest. Until you walk a mile in each and every one of their shoes, you definitely have no idea what you are talking about. As for those too lazy to vote, they have handed their choice over to the voters and are thus not a factor.
For you to presume to know what is in their interest is very ignorant and arrogant of you.
Will and I use the words 'greedy' and 'jealous' to accurately describe those who believe things should just be handed to them by others (others who aren't greedy and jealous) instead of working ror it and earning it.
dmarks: ...you definitely have no idea what you are talking about.
I know exactly what I'm talking about, as I'm aware of the polls that show how uninformed most voters are. That you are willfully ignorant of these polls in no way demonstrates that I am "arrogant". It's an idiotic claim that I do not take seriously.
dmarks: Will and I use the words 'greedy' and 'jealous' to accurately describe those who believe things should just be handed to them by others (others who aren't greedy and jealous) instead of working for it and earning it.
I've never referred to these people, so you bringing them up is a total non sequitor. I've only ever discussed people who work hard and deserve higher wages, but don't get it due to the greed of the wealthy elites you worship. That you slander these workers by lying about them asking for handouts is shameful.
That's your opinion that they deserve higher wages, wd. The fact of the matter is that they get what they get because of their skill level and if they ever wish to do better than that, then they need to improve that skill level. And as I pointed out before, close to 70% of the new jobs created are created by small businesses, most who don't come anywhere close to that moronic "wealthy elite" caricature of yours.
And most people DO improve their skill set over time. The largest age demographic in the top 1%, for example, is 45-54....You see what I'm saying here? Work hard, improve your skill set gradually and succeed over time.
Will said: "That's your opinion that they deserve higher wages, wd."
I agree that they do deserve higher wages, Will. That is, if they earn them by producing higher value work. That is, by actually earning the higher wages.
In complete contrast to this, and entirely divorced from any actual value of the work involved, WD believes higher wages should not be set by a fair exchange of value, but instead by:
1) Ignorant decisions by distant uninvolved individuals who pull numbers out of their a** (minimum wage, prevailing wage, etc)
2) Amounts set by "Negotiations" by unions, which anywhere from 30% to 60% of the workers actually oppose.
3) Wages handed out to those who beg for them instead of work for them.
Will said: " The fact of the matter is that they get what they get because of their skill level and if they ever wish to do better than that, then they need to improve that skill level."
And that is what WD really hates: pay based on the value of the work, and raises based on increased value.
dmarks: In complete contrast to this, and entirely divorced from any actual value of the work involved... [blah, blah, blah... dmarks lies his ass off]
[1] The minimum wage and the prevailing wage are set by highly involved people making extremly informed decisions.
[2] You said you supported unions so long as there was a national "right to work" law. Of course we knew you were lying. About that and about how many people want to join unions but can't. dmarks uses constantly shifting figures he pulls from his a$$.
[3] I oppose this. In any case there is ZERO chance of it happening.
dmarks: And that is what WD really hates: pay based on the value of the work, and raises based on increased value.
dmarks hates those things. He likes it when workers are paid based on how desperate they are. We know this to be a fact due to his desire to abolish unions. In dmarks' world the employer has all the power and the worker is completely at his mercy.
35 comments:
Grayson is a man of the people, alright. But only one-third of them, and only those in one small area of Florida.
For christ sake.....MSNBC even gave up on that fool. I'd guess 90% of the people who did vote for the idiot would'nt own up to it now.The R's could have run a well trained chimp against him and won.
Rusty; You have it wrong...
... I don't think the R's would even have to train the chimp.
Alan Grayson is indeed a man of the people. Anyone who voted for the religious fundamentalist nut-job who ran against him is a fool and I'm not arrogant to say so.
I've seen Grayson making regular media appearances on MSNBC and Current. The Liberal media outlets love him. I don't know WTF Rusty is talking about.
I'd be proud to have voted for him.
And Dennis Miller is a loser using the dmarks' standard. Acted in a few movies but that went nowhere. Hosted a string of his own talk shows on HBO, CNBC and in syndication... all canceled. Had a football announcing gig which he lost. Currently only appears in brief segments on Bill-o's Fox Nooz program, and a radio program of his own (not good enough for his own TV program anymore). Sounds to me like he's being "kicked down the stairs".
I gather that you didn't care for the joke.
It's all a question of perspective wd. Here's a news flash for you, your perspective certainly isn't always right. Although, we all know you always believe it is.
I guess you're Proud to be arrogant without recognizing your arrogance.
Fine with me. Unlike you I don't heroes out of these media figures and cry and moan and get defensive to the point of lunacy when their careers decline, or, as in the case of Kieth Olbermann, they get fired for abusing employees and otherwise going all Leona Helmsley.
dmarks: Fine with me. Unlike you I don't [make] heroes out of these media figures and cry and moan and get defensive to the point of lunacy...
You're the one who cries and moans (and lies) about people you don't like being "losers" who clearly are not. I said Dennis Miller is a loser (using the dmarks' standard) only to illustrate the idiocy of you calling people losers simply because you don't like them... I don't actually belive Dennis Miller is a loser.
Unlike dmarks I don't lie about people being losers just because I don't like them.
I have yet to lie in such a fashion.
Of course you have. Everyone knows it. You said Keith Olbermann was a loser before he was fired from Current (now, maybe, you have a case). Because you don't like him. And you said Joy Behar was a loser because you don't like her. This is despite her clearly being a winner (being on "The View" since day one in addition to several other shows she's hosted on her own).
"You said Keith Olbermann was a loser before he was fired from Current (now, maybe, you have a case)."
Yes, because he was kicked downstairs from a major network, MSNBC, to one I never hear about except in your comments, "Current"
WD said: "Alan Grayson is indeed a man of the people."
Yes, we know. As long as we realize that "the people" in this case means only about a third of the electorate in one Florida district. At last count, and a very accurate one, he represents their interest. But not that of anyone else. Again, that is the informed opinion of the voters there, entirely regardless of my own views and opinion.
"Anyone who voted for the religious fundamentalist nut-job who ran against him is a fool and I'm not arrogant to say so."
You are arrogant, and extremely so, because the voters in that district by a strong margin determined that Grayson's opponent was a competent representative, not a 'nut job'.
Miller's career isn't going gangbusters. But as long as the dude can continue telling jokes like this (as opposed to, say, the "Mormon fire police"), he isn't a loser.
dmarks: Yes, because he was kicked downstairs from a major network, MSNBC, to one I never hear about except in your comments, "Current"...
Who gives a shit if you never heard of it? That isn't the metric we judge success by... What an over inflated ego you have! Also, I notice how you ignore my comments concerning your lies about Joy Behar being a "loser". Obviously you ignore that comment because you realize you were caught in a lie.
dmarks: As long as we realize that "the people" in this case means only about a third of the electorate in one Florida district.
No, I was talking about all the people of the United States. He fought for us all.
dmarks: You are arrogant, and extremely so, because the voters in that district by a strong margin determined that Grayson's opponent was a competent representative, not a 'nut job'.
Wait a minute dmarks. Remember when you declared John Conyer's constituents to be fools because (in your estimation) he is corrupt and a waste of skin? You judged the people who voted for him, and declared them fools (even though Conyers is a superb representative)... but when I do the same thing (and am right about Webster being a nut-job) then I'm arrogant?? You are not only arrogant, and extremely so, but also an uber-hypocrite.
Will: ...as long as the dude can continue telling jokes like this (as opposed to, say, the "Mormon fire police"), he isn't a loser.
Going only by this one misfire of a "joke", Miller is a loser. Judging Behar only by her hilarious "millions of homes" joke, she is a winner.
Gary Busey with a clogged Eustachian tube. In the words of Bania from "Seinfeld", "That's gold, Jerry, gold!"
WD said; "You judged the people who voted for him, and declared them fools'
Yes, and you lambasted me for being arrogant. I agreed.
I hope now that you stop with the extreme arrogance concerning other voters who are informed on the issues and candidates and vote differently than you would prefer.
I only held you accountable to your own standards (and pointed out your hypocrisy). Personally I strongly disagree that having an opinion and saying what it is qualifies as "arrogant". You want to keep attacking me on this so were forced to "agree" that you were arrogant... which you weren't. You were only stating your opinion... an incredibly wrong one, but an opinion just the same.
So... that's a "no" in regard to your second statement... although I must point out that I've never expressed any "extreme arrogance" and we aren't discussing voters "who are informed on the issues" -- I only criticize voters who are misinformed on the issues (like you). Them voting "differently than I would prefer" isn't the issue.
The arrogance comes in spades from calling voters misinformed because they do not vote as you want them to. They know their lives and interests and are informed about them. You are not. It is arrogant for you to presume otherwise.
dmarks: [Blah, blah, blah... lies about voters being informed].
Zzzzzz... Your ignorance bores me.
The only "ignorance" here is your complete ignorance about the lives and interests of the voters who make the informed decision to vote for someone you don't like.
I can't be ignorant of something that isn't happening. You're the ignorant one here.
The voters, who are informed about their own lives and interests, disagree. I side with them, instead of with an arrogant fool who thinks he knows their lives and interests.
Being informed about their lives and interests doesn't mean they are politically informed. More often than not they are uninformed and misinformed in this area. This is an unfortunate fact, but a fact none the less. Only arrogant fools claim otherwise. I side with the facts, unlike dmarks who lies about the voters being informed when they aren't.
Here the Conservative Jonah Goldberg argues that voters are uninformed. In his article he says, "In fact, the data have long been settled. A very high percentage of the U.S. electorate isn't very well qualified to vote, if by qualified you mean having a basic understanding of our government, its functions and its challenges".
dmarks is completely alone in his ignorant belief that the voters are well informed and cast their votes accordingly.
"dmarks is completely alone in his ignorant belief that the voters are well informed and cast their votes accordingly."
The voters disagree, and they are politically informed about their own situation and represenatives and they vote accordingly. I side with them, not arrogant liars of either left OR right.
All the studies/polls conducted say otherwise. You can lie all you want, the facts are what they are. You're just making yourself look stupid with your continual denial of the truth.
The only polls that matter are the votes, which are the only reliable indicator of what is in the voters' interest. And though you claim to be so much for democracy, on this matter you hold it in the deepest contempt.
You're wrong. Voting is only an indicator of what they think is in their interest. And voting isn't a poll of what is in the interest of those who chose not to vote... at all.
As for holding people in contempt... I'll leave that to you and Will. You're the ones who incorrectly label people "greedy" and "jealous" because they DARE disagree with you politically.
Since they know and you don't, voting is the most accurate indicator of what really is in their interest. Until you walk a mile in each and every one of their shoes, you definitely have no idea what you are talking about. As for those too lazy to vote, they have handed their choice over to the voters and are thus not a factor.
For you to presume to know what is in their interest is very ignorant and arrogant of you.
Will and I use the words 'greedy' and 'jealous' to accurately describe those who believe things should just be handed to them by others (others who aren't greedy and jealous) instead of working ror it and earning it.
dmarks: ...you definitely have no idea what you are talking about.
I know exactly what I'm talking about, as I'm aware of the polls that show how uninformed most voters are. That you are willfully ignorant of these polls in no way demonstrates that I am "arrogant". It's an idiotic claim that I do not take seriously.
dmarks: Will and I use the words 'greedy' and 'jealous' to accurately describe those who believe things should just be handed to them by others (others who aren't greedy and jealous) instead of working for it and earning it.
I've never referred to these people, so you bringing them up is a total non sequitor. I've only ever discussed people who work hard and deserve higher wages, but don't get it due to the greed of the wealthy elites you worship. That you slander these workers by lying about them asking for handouts is shameful.
That's your opinion that they deserve higher wages, wd. The fact of the matter is that they get what they get because of their skill level and if they ever wish to do better than that, then they need to improve that skill level. And as I pointed out before, close to 70% of the new jobs created are created by small businesses, most who don't come anywhere close to that moronic "wealthy elite" caricature of yours.
And most people DO improve their skill set over time. The largest age demographic in the top 1%, for example, is 45-54....You see what I'm saying here? Work hard, improve your skill set gradually and succeed over time.
Will said: "That's your opinion that they deserve higher wages, wd."
I agree that they do deserve higher wages, Will. That is, if they earn them by producing higher value work. That is, by actually earning the higher wages.
In complete contrast to this, and entirely divorced from any actual value of the work involved, WD believes higher wages should not be set by a fair exchange of value, but instead by:
1) Ignorant decisions by distant uninvolved individuals who pull numbers out of their a** (minimum wage, prevailing wage, etc)
2) Amounts set by "Negotiations" by unions, which anywhere from 30% to 60% of the workers actually oppose.
3) Wages handed out to those who beg for them instead of work for them.
------
He has argued for all of this.
Will said: " The fact of the matter is that they get what they get because of their skill level and if they ever wish to do better than that, then they need to improve that skill level."
And that is what WD really hates: pay based on the value of the work, and raises based on increased value.
dmarks: In complete contrast to this, and entirely divorced from any actual value of the work involved... [blah, blah, blah... dmarks lies his ass off]
[1] The minimum wage and the prevailing wage are set by highly involved people making extremly informed decisions.
[2] You said you supported unions so long as there was a national "right to work" law. Of course we knew you were lying. About that and about how many people want to join unions but can't. dmarks uses constantly shifting figures he pulls from his a$$.
[3] I oppose this. In any case there is ZERO chance of it happening.
dmarks: And that is what WD really hates: pay based on the value of the work, and raises based on increased value.
dmarks hates those things. He likes it when workers are paid based on how desperate they are. We know this to be a fact due to his desire to abolish unions. In dmarks' world the employer has all the power and the worker is completely at his mercy.
Post a Comment