Herman Cain: Another Country Club Conservative Elitist

Post Reply New Topic

That's true. Though if you were to compare the USA with the CSA there was more cooperation going on up in the North. The individual governments of the various states valued their autonomy too much in the South. In some ways making a point to deny resources to their federal government simply as a matter of principle



Sorry, I wasn't trying to 'strike a nerve', or anything, I just thought it would be an analogy you could relate to, since (I assume, for some reason) you are interested in the US Civil War. This has been a topic of great interest with me for some years. I like that you use the term "War of Northern Aggression"



That's true. I don't like the idea of communes much personally, but to each their own

Before I get to responding to Marshall's ginormous post, I'll ask a question.

Which seems more likely?

Scenario A: I lead some sort of double life where on the one hand I co-founded and help organize and run a local support group for other Aspies at considerable expense to my time and money, contribute here by authoring advice to help other users avoid trolls and scammers as well as help behind the scenes with such things in addition to my regular participation, plus do myriad other things to help out other Aspies BUT am also secretly a huge troll that chooses people I KNOW in real life as my victims in order to feed my huge ego...

Or

Scenario B: Marshall is angry and lashing out at me with everything he can think to throw at me because he's frustrated.

Incidentally, Marshall already knows all about how wicked and selfish I am, since he was actually at my house last Thanksgiving for the dinner we put on for local Aspies who are away from their families during the holiday; sinister!

Of course, in his current state he'll probably twist things around and try to claim that I'm only bringing up my personal charity work to "excuse" my ideology or further flatter my ego, rather than to point out just one gaping flaw in his characterization of me.

Yeah, unfortunately the Marquis of Queensbury is long dead, and his rules with him. My brother is actually a lawyer, and that type of advocacy without getting personally involved is close to what I strive for. I just don't see the point in getting personally worked up over any of this stuff, I get intellectual satisfaction from constructing an argument and defending it, but it's not worth getting actually angry about. I like to save my real anger for people who are actually doing things I consider reprehensible, not waste it on people who are merely saying things I may disagree with.

Are you accusing me of something M_P? Care to point me to a post where I've argued a position I don't support "for the lulz"? Or have you been following me around the web outside WP again? I did run a bit of a decoy operation on another site somewhat recently using this screen name to take the heat off of someone else, were you one of the "guests" watching the thread perhaps?

His statement including "I don't have facts to back this up, but I happen to believe that these demonstrations are planned and orchestrated to distract from the failed policies of the Obama administration. Don't blame Wall Street, don't blame the big banks, if you don't have a job and you're not rich, blame yourself! ... It is not a person's fault if they succeeded, it is a person's fault if they failed."

Is worthy of the response: "Wow! And they want to make this guy President of the Divided states of America? If you read that statement and still want to vote for this guy either A. you have a 3rd grade education or B. you are very wealthy."

Dox47 quotes Penn Jillette: "Helping poor and suffering people is compassion. Voting for our government to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness." Jillette also holds: "No one is even 2 to the 300 millionth times smarter than a squirrel."

Do very many "non-Liberals" actually know that Jonathan Swift wrote "A Modest Proposal: For Preventing The Children of Poor People in Ireland From Being Aburden to Their Parents or Country, and For Making Them Beneficial to The Public", as also the satirical premonitory warning ”I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled ...”??????? Once Born, What Rights by Conservative Values????

http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html

If Cain gets a Mr. Potato-Head caught, it is own fault too???

Tadzio

http://www.fredposner.com/politics/917/ ... esnt-know/

^
Are you quite sure you speak English? (pardon me if you're truly ESL, but that's not the first post of yours to make my brain hurt)

A white liberal boy might think it was demeaning. But it might have been a laugh and a half in the black community. But that is purely a guess, since I am a white unliberal boy. A do not know exactly what passes for humor among those who are somewhat darker than I am.

I am sure Herman Cain believed he was hitting a spot. He paid good money to put that bit on the air.

By the way, I thought it was amusing, but what do I know?

ruveyn

Now a real troll would have just left it at "U mad?", where as I'm trying to figure out what your goal is here. You have and continue to launch a series of attacks on me personally, while I'm wondering what it is you think you're going to accomplish by doing so. I'm also trying to keep things light, if you have a problem with that, tough.



Who's playing games? I say not to take things personally as I'm certainly not, and you twist that into something it's not. You don't punch someone in the face because you're losing to them at chess (at least I hope you don't), so neither should you get so bent out of shape over how a debate is going. Let's be real, nothing is being changed by anything said in any of these threads, so why take them so seriously?



I never said it wasn't. What I did say was that it wasn't important to me one way or the other.



If you say so. I personally think that black voters would get more bang for their buck if they at least made a credible threat of voting something besides Democrat, and I disagree as to what their best interests actually are. So long as the Democrats know they have the black vote locked up no matter what they actually do, they have no reason to deliver any real benefits to those voters and are more likely to spend their political capitol elsewhere to woo less sure thing voters. Republicans also might be more willing to court those voters if they thought they actually had a shot at swaying them, as it is they only see wasted resources in that direction and direct their focus elsewhere.



There's that selective empathy again; you really can't see things from other people's perspectives when they don't match your own. If you knew anything at all about libertarians you'd know that civil liberties are a major plank of our school of thought, easily equaling our economic preferences. I read Salon and Counterpunch among other left leaning publications to keep abreast of how other people think and why; do you ever actually read Reason or Volokh any other libertarian leaning publications or blogs? If you think civil liberties are just window dressing for us, than you really don't get us at all.



Inferiority complex again, although second hand this time. I never said he should look for my approval, what I've done is critique his posts and point out how the catch phrases, the hyperbole, the generalization, etc detract from the points he tries to make with his posts. It had and has nothing to do with my approval, I do usually disagree with him politically after all, it's the way he presents his arguments that I usually criticize. Its the same thing I've done with you concerning your rage and invective, any glimmer of people responding constructively to you is lost the minute you start in with the cursing and insults and acting like a crazy person.

As for me, I do enjoy arguing, but I don't get any pleasure from fighting, there is a rather large difference there. I addressed your ridiculous troll accusation in my pre-response post, though I'm still stupefied that you of all people would make that particular accusation. If I wanted to troll you, why would I waste my time with such lengthy posts when making you mad is so trivially easy, and I've specifically warned you about that attracting real trolls before?



Oh really? Refresh my memory about why I was banned again? I'd love to hear what rules I broke, especially since I was never given a specific reason, let alone a warning. Need I also point out that if the same mod team that banned me was still moderating that you'd have been banned months ago on the personal attacks alone? You've either been extraordinarily luck or the current mods extremely tolerant that you're still here at all, many, many posters got the hammer for far less than you've done here.

Also, pointing out the numerous flaws in your posts and telling you to tone down the rage is now being an ass? Would you prefer I simply ping a mod next time you go off on someone? You can't exactly play the victim card when half the time the things I've pointed out to you have been posts where you've directly contradicted yourself, often in the same thread.



Did I say I was blowing you off? Have I also not said repeatedly that participating here is enjoyable for me, so it might stand to reason that a long post isn't proof of my lack of nonchalance and is really just me trying to get my point across as clearly as possible. I can also type nearly as fast as I can talk, so long posts are not a huge undertaking for me. No games, I shrug off 90% or more of things thrown my way, that I'm giving you my attention is only because I'm bewildered by your behavior here and a tad concerned.



There's nothing wrong with sympathy, I'm just saying that you'd probably be happier if you learned to control it a bit better. I'm an empath, it's what allows me to truly see other people's points of view in debate, but also what prevents me from reading my local news or watching certain movies that I know will upset me. I've spent a long time learning not so much to control it but rather to harness it in constructive ways rather than let it make me miserable.




I was and am replying to a post making numerous false accusations against me and attacking my character, I think you're getting off pretty easy if "sport" is the worst thing I call you.



You can call it whatever you want, and I'm not the type to go rummaging through 6k + posts just to try and rub your nose in something which you'll deny no matter what I do. I also trust in the veracity of the observation, and I'm perfectly confident that other posters familiar with your postings here will have no problem seeing the truth in it without me cross-posting a bunch of examples.



DW is pretty good. You should ask her about me sometime, about why I was banned and later why I was allowed to return.



I think I got to this before, but to put it succinctly I don't see how pledging undying allegiance to a party that largely ignores you is a smart move.



False equivalency; my beliefs rely far less on subjective morals than yours do. My personal libertarian philosophy seeks to minimize moral leaps as much as possible, and rejects "the ends justifies the means" as incredibly dangerous because everyone thinks their ends are noble. Remember that I'm not an orthodox libertarian, I do support things like social safety nets but on the grounds that they're more efficient than putting people on the street, not because I think they're "the right thing to do". You, on the other hand, think that your views are so self evidently right that anyone who thinks otherwise must be greedy or morally deficient; you never consider that they may just think they have a better way of helping more people than yours. You did also argue that your willingness to contemplate force made you "less rigid" than libertarians, where all it really makes you is more committed to your own righteousness. I stand by my claim that you're not qualified to judge other people on logic, your own personal filters won't allow you to be objective..



So if I were to post a study showing that liberals tended to be smug and arrogant, you'd happily concede the point? Besides which, stereotypes are nothing but another form of mass generalizations, and those are not good foundations for opinions.



This is what I call "The Incredible Hulk" defense; it's everyone else's fault for making you mad, and we don't get to complain about the ensuing carnage because you didn't really mean it, you have a condition. If I really had an axe to grind with you, a simple PM would have taken you permanently out of my hair here, you're just taking things personally that were not meant to be personal. I actually understand your feelings just fine, I just don't think they give you a license to act the way you do here when you get angry. You couldn't use anger issues as a get out of jail free card if someone angered you in real life and you lashed out at them psychically, so I don't treat it as an excuse here for when you misbehave.

I do actually read your other posts, I believe I've even responded to some of them, but when a goodly chunk of your posts have this incandescent rage just blasting from them, it becomes kind of hard not to focus on those posts.

Again, a troll wouldn't take this many words to try and rile you, they tend to be quick and dirty.



Again, I do note those posts, but your other ones are so off-putting that even when you're calm it's hard not to think of you as an unstable beast in the room, the wrong words or your perception of such could set you off at any moment. You are also overly fond of sarcasm of a sort and the aforementioned head-banging and eye-rolling emotes, in fact you even used one in this post.



You don't see the problem with claiming to only judge people who judge others? And here you are having a problem with me then judging you for it...



Because he's describing his first hand experience of being poor and homeless rather than second or third hand info on the subject? I also never said Fnord wasn't judgmental, I don't think he'd dispute that he is, but your reaction to him was still out of proportion to what he was actually saying.

I'm not a just world fallacy guy, I know how much you like to hang that one on anyone who doesn't agree with your own position on social justice type issues. I'm more of a "we cant help everybody" pragmatist, I accept that bad things happen to people for know fault of their own, I just don't it's reasonable to think that massive government programs are the answer to helping as many of them as possible.



So you think you should get a pass for calling out Fnord over his opinion, but think I'm being a troll for doing the same thing to you over your behavior here? Selective empathy strikes again, you don't think Fnord is entitled to his opinion and don't like his attitude, so you're going to attack him personally about it, and then essentially make the argument that it's okay because he "deserved it".



Plenty of people think your attitude is offensive and upsetting, yet me pointing some of these things out to you is seen by you as me picking on you and trying to puff up my ego in the process. I certainly didn't come at you with the venom and vitriol you've shown for me, and you've said a lot worse things than Fnord has IMHO.



So you passed judgment based on a stereotype. Also, what is my vested interest in supporting my inferiority complex hypothesis? I think it's pretty obvious to everyone but you, but it doesn't really affect me in any way whether you are self aware enough to take a good hard look at the claim.



Sure you can. There's nothing trollish at all about stating that I don't put much stock on your opinion in a given area based on my experience with you, that's simply my honest opinion. If you can't tell the difference between that and trolling, it doesn't exactly increase my confidence in that area.

I thought it was good satire. It probably was not intended as satire, but satire it was.

ruveyn

Last edited by ruveyn on 06 Oct 2011, 12:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I guess by that you're saying that you've served in the armed forces. I'm surprised you'd lower yourself to something so banal.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol5Dfs7jqFI[/youtube]

I haven't read your next post but I'll respond to this one first...

No, I don't think you're wicked or selfish. I think you come off as a control freak. You can't simultaneously position yourself as some kind of community leader on this forum AND participate in petty personal feuds where you goad/troll people who "annoy" you.

You don't like it when I've gotten angry and swore. I apologize and would like to put those things in the past, yet you keep bringing it back up. However, I'm not going to be civil to YOU if you insist on addressing me as troll. I also have the right to express that I find certain ignorant and un-humanitarian views of certain people worthy of contempt. You cannot silence me on this. If you think I'm breaking the terms of service, take it up with the moderators.

If you don't want me to assume you're trolling me, talk to me like you would if we were speaking face-to-face. None of this "U mad?" baloney.

Last edited by marshall on 06 Oct 2011, 11:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

Sweety no one "serves" in the armed forces.
They mooch, they Goldbrick they malinger.
Service Implies they are useful.

Last edited by JakobVirgil on 06 Oct 2011, 12:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Try page 3 of this very thread.

Which of my posts there is me arguing something I don't believe? I'd classify all three of my posts on that page as more like banter than arguments for specific positions, unless you take my opinion that M_P's slogans could use an update and polish as a platform of some sort.