patrick.net

....maybe we should bring vaseline and have em lube themselves before we enter their country. Last I remember when a war was won all the women were raped and the men were murdered. We havent done enough to shut them down, which is why they feel obliged to set booby traps and blow up our national landmarks. The Patriot Act does nothing to limit our freedoms, as I say we should follow suit with raping and murdering the men of the countries whom we have invaded. I am only speaking hypothetically, but in war these are tactics that put all the non-sense to rest. After a war is won the people need to be shocked with gruesome acts of violence else they will get all bold and start revolting like in Afghan and Iraq of today. Sadaam shut all this down with his helicopter gunships, we are attempting to shut it down with a panzy Patriot Act so we can spy....its just silly. We either should pull out or man up and start cutting down some people with our gunships until the suicide bombing stops.

Which is worse for the people of these countries...RAPE or the PATRIOT ACT?.........I say only rape/pillaging will end this war.

4X says

….maybe we should bring vaseline and have em lube themselves before we enter their country. Last I remember when a war was won all the women were raped and the men were murdered. We havent done enough to shut them down, which is why they feel obliged to set booby traps and blow up our national landmarks. The Patriot Act does nothing to limit our freedoms, as I say we should follow suit with raping and murdering the men of the countries whom we have invaded. I am only speaking hypothetically, but in war these are tactics that put all the non-sense to rest. After a war is won the people need to be shocked with gruesome acts of violence else they will get all bold and start revolting like in Afghan and Iraq of today. Sadaam shut all this down with his helicopter gunships, we are attempting to shut it down with a panzy Patriot Act so we can spy….its just silly. We either should pull out or man up and start cutting down some people with our gunships until the suicide bombing stops.
Which is worse for the people of these countries…RAPE or the PATRIOT ACT?………I say only rape/pillaging will end this war.

That is the nuttiest most disjointed post I've ever seen. I might point out that the second largest terrorist attack on America was by a couple of redneck morons from Kansas. Gunships to Kansas anyone? Where in the don't ask don't tell army are you going to get volunteers to rape all these men anyway?

CBOEtrader says

Paralithodes has brought up a valid point. Why is there not a democratic backlash against the Patriot act extension? Why are all dems not grilling Obama for signing an almost unedited bill?

I answered his point about 10-20 posts ago and he ignored it. So, I figured that he wasn't really looking for an answer.

"Really. I think I quoted you as saying otherwise. I’ll refresh your memory"

Thanks... The piece you seem to be missing is that I never specifically said liberals "here" and I meant liberals in general. You specifically responded with the "liberals HERE" argument. While certainly I may not be able to "prove" my general opinion and observation, I also don't accept you attempting to reframe or reinterpret my position into something more narrow or broad, depending upon the context, so that you can try to refute it and paint me into some type of hypocrite either way. But I do understand your attempt since it is a very common "trick."

"Hmmm.. You said that you’re not a member of the Republican party because you’re a conservative. How should I have interpreted that? Should I take that to mean that you don’t vote for Republicans?"

I'm fairly certain that I NEVER claimed that I was not a member of the Republican Party. The probelm, unfortunately, is that while agreeing or disagreeing is one thing, you and Vincente seem not willing to acknowledge that many conservatives make the distinction in the first place. You don't argue against the position, you just deny that there is one.

That is why, similar to what you imply of me, you should perhaps just admit that there is no possible point that I, or any other conservative, would make, that you would find valid. How many times did it take Vincente before he would even indirectly acknowledge that Obama signed the Patriot Act? And why won't he clearly say he does not fault Bush for the first one (rather than merely saying I have no proof that he did)? I know you cannot speak for him, but apparently his inconsistency or unwillingness to answer questions clearly doesn't bother you. I take it you agree: A President signing a bill like the Patriot Act, when the bill theoretically could be veto-proof, is irrelevant and the President bears no accountability for it?

Which point did I ignore 10-20 posts back, that there is no backlash now because it was new then and it is old news now? LOL! Or did I not show enough sympathy for your poor dog? When Bush was in office, whom did you yell at: Bush or your dog?

tatupu70 says

CBOEtrader says

Paralithodes has brought up a valid point. Why is there not a democratic backlash against the Patriot act extension? Why are all dems not grilling Obama for signing an almost unedited bill?

I answered his point about 10-20 posts ago and he ignored it. So, I figured that he wasn’t really looking for an answer.

You did no such thing. You misdirected the question into some childish word game, which has unfortunately become very common practice in this forum.

Let's try this again, shall we? I am interested in hearing opinions from anyone that voted for Obama. Please either express your distaste for the current crop of democrats, or explain why the backlash against Obama has been muted.

Please keep your republican misdirection tricks out of this. I am most closely aligned with the libertarians, and generally disagree with both major parties equally.

It is always the supporters of the newly-in-power party who refuse to admit their leaders' faults. For whatever reason, this mental disease affects even the well-written, seemingly intelligent supporters of the newly minted power party. (See Elliemae, Vicente, Tat, and 4X for examples.) Kevin may be the lone voice of liberal reason in this thread (I am assuming he voted for Obama, which may not be true).

CBOEtrader says

You did no such thing. You misdirected the question into some childish word game, which has unfortunately become very common practice in this forum.

OK--I'll quote from my own earlier post.

tatupu70 says

This whole discussion is a bit ridiculous though. Of course there was more outcry when the bill was first written and passed. It was controversial and fresh. Now, it’s old news. Doesn’t mean anyone feels differently about it–just the way America works…

You may not agree with my opinion, but I answered the question.

CBOEtrader says

It is always the supporters of the newly-in-power party who refuse to admit their leaders’ faults. For whatever reason, this mental disease affects even the well-written, seemingly intelligent supporters of the newly minted power party. (See Elliemae, Vicente, Tat, and 4X for examples.) Kevin may be the lone voice of liberal reason in this thread (I am assuming he voted for Obama, which may not be true).

That is not true either--I've expressed my disappointment with Obama on several occasions on these boards. It may appear that I defend him only because others blame anything and everything on him...

"You may not agree with my opinion, but I answered the question."

I think he's right, CBOEtrader, he did answer the question. I will rephrase it, however, by adding the relevant timelines:

"It was controversial and fresh [until January 2009]. Now, [since January, 2009] it’s old news."

Hope you don't mind, Tat, I'm just trying to help make your statement more accurate.

Paralithodes says

“It was controversial and fresh [until January 2009]. Now, [since January, 2009] it’s old news.”
Hope you don’t mind, Tat, I’m just trying to help make your statement more accurate.

lol--I'd say you're twisting words to fit your purpose. If only you were as clever as you think you are...

"lol–I’d say you’re twisting words to fit your purpose."

True. But I'll give myself credit for at least being extremely obvious and upfront about it.

"If only you were as clever as you think you are…"

I agree! I certainly wouldn't be wasting my time posting in Internet chat forums (and no, that is not a swipe at anyone else here)! LOL!

tatupu70 says

OK–I’ll quote from my own earlier post.
tatupu70 says
This whole discussion is a bit ridiculous though. Of course there was more outcry when the bill was first written and passed. It was controversial and fresh. Now, it’s old news. Doesn’t mean anyone feels differently about it–just the way America works…
You may not agree with my opinion, but I answered the question.

Spoken like a true partisan. Your explanation is not rational. More than an actual rational explanation, this is your brain justifying your Democratic affiliation. The human psyche has an amazing capacity to justify and rationalize that which is neither justifiable, nor rational.

Paralithodes says

“It was controversial and fresh [until January 2009]. Now, [since January, 2009] it’s old news.”

It is indeed unfortunate, but Pralithodes is EXACTLY CORRECT in his sentiment.

CBOEtrader says

Spoken like a true partisan. Your explanation is not rational. More than an actual rational explanation, this is your brain justifying your Democratic affiliation. The human psyche has an amazing capacity to justify and rationalize that which is neither justifiable, nor rational.

No offense--but I really don't consider myself a Democrat at all. I've only voted for 1 Democrat in my life actually, compared with 2 Republicans and an Independent (for President).

I think you tend to look at things through your own political viewpoint so an Independent probably looks like a liberal to you.

Looks like Tat's voting record is to the right of mine! LOL! : Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Bush, McCain.

See--we're not that different!

http://xkcd.com/386/

Patriot Act bad then, bad now. Fin!

Which parts are bad (in your opinion)?

All of them. Next!

"All of them. Next!"

My hidden question was: Have you ever read it? Thanks for answering!!!!!

bob2356 says

4X says

….maybe we should bring vaseline and have em lube themselves before we enter their country. Last I remember when a war was won all the women were raped and the men were murdered. We havent done enough to shut them down, which is why they feel obliged to set booby traps and blow up our national landmarks. The Patriot Act does nothing to limit our freedoms, as I say we should follow suit with raping and murdering the men of the countries whom we have invaded. I am only speaking hypothetically, but in war these are tactics that put all the non-sense to rest. After a war is won the people need to be shocked with gruesome acts of violence else they will get all bold and start revolting like in Afghan and Iraq of today. Sadaam shut all this down with his helicopter gunships, we are attempting to shut it down with a panzy Patriot Act so we can spy….its just silly. We either should pull out or man up and start cutting down some people with our gunships until the suicide bombing stops.
Which is worse for the people of these countries…RAPE or the PATRIOT ACT?………I say only rape/pillaging will end this war.

That is the nuttiest most disjointed post I’ve ever seen. I might point out that the second largest terrorist attack on America was by a couple of redneck morons from Kansas. Gunships to Kansas anyone? Where in the don’t ask don’t tell army are you going to get volunteers to rape all these men anyway?

I was attempting to show that we are fighting the wrong war, laws dont apply to this situation because we cant fight a country which is lawless. Prior to our invasion, the people of Iraq refused to uprise because they knew Sadaam was willing to send his gunships in to gun them down. They have no fear of us because we are unwilling to do such a thing. What we need to do now is install fear in them, not attempt to befriend them and help them setup their government.

Paralithodes says

Looks like Tat’s voting record is to the right of mine! LOL! : Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Bush, McCain.

Anyone who voted for Bush, Mccain needs a reality check or a shot of pragmatism. Neither of these individuals are capable of making decisions based upon improving the welfare of the people. So I have to assume you are a millionaire with no concern for the common Joe the Plumber because Mccain, Bush, Republicans only want to deregulate and increase profits.

Social improvements are secondary if at all.

Paralithodes says

My hidden question was: Have you ever read it? Thanks for answering!!!!!

Are we playing "Wheres' Waldo?" Yes. Next!

"Are we playing “Wheres’ Waldo?” Yes. Next!"

Maybe I should have clarified... My "Thanks for answering" statement was due to the fact that by answering "All of them. Next," you made it very obvious that you did NOT read the bill. It is nothing to be ashamed of: Most people - on both sides - have not. But thanks again for making it clear!

"...because Mccain, Bush, Republicans only want to deregulate and increase profits."

LOL! Wouldn't increased profits increase tax revenue?

Paralithodes says

M you made it very obvious that you did NOT read the bill.

You made it very obvious that you are a degenerate spider that believes in molesting small animals with dental tools. You admitted it in "hidden code" but I like other smart people see it clearly. OK, now that we agree on the words I put in your mouth, you can justify your position. Do go on!

Paralithodes says

LOL! Wouldn’t increased profits increase tax revenue?

Ah the Laffer Curve talking point. It was a thin justification back during Reagan but the analysis of it never held water. Keep trying out your talking points though! Next you'll tell us wealth will "trickle down" if we simply hand over the remaining small part of our wealth not already held by the oligarchy. I love me some deregulation, here's what it led to when the chips were down:

Banktron

Yep all the Smartest Guys in the Room, who didn't need burdensome taxes and regulation..... suddenly decided they weren't tough and cold-hearted Darwinists, they ran to get a bailout.

"Ah the Laffer Curve talking point."

Oddly enough, I said NOTHING about adjusting tax rates....

Do you really deny that increased profits, at the SAME tax rate, would increase tax revenue????? Is there a different version of math that you use?

Judging solely on the evidence it doesn't appear that "decreased regulation" did anything except hand the keys to the liquor cabinet to teenagers. It sounds great when you come home and find your kid running around with thousands of dollars in hand.

Pop: "Great son, where'd you make that money!"
Son: "Oh dad I sold some fraudulent CDO to a bunch of pensioners, then once I'd unloaded that at a fat profit I use that money to buy short positions and credit default swaps on all the positions I knew were about to go south. What a bunch of suckers those old people are!"
Pop: "Say son, what about my MY retirement fund?"
Son: "Well Dad you are a sophisticated investor so any losses are strictly your problem. By the way there was a little fire, and the Porsche went into the lake, and it's really long story let's not go into it."

Good points... Clearly anyone who seeks a profit is dishonest... And using your math, increased profits, even at the same tax rates, does not increase tax revenue....

"Decreased regulation" and "tax freebies" are not just kissing cousins, they are Siamese twins. I can't think of a deregulator that didn't also want tax freebies for the wealthy and the corporations. If any policy ever results in increased revenue, then the campaign starts to reduce taxes. Alan Greenspan was a master at misguided misdirection about this you should take notes:

Paralithodes says

Good points… Clearly anyone who seeks a profit is dishonest… And using your math, increased profits, even at the same tax rates, does not increase tax revenue….

huh?? What are you talking about? You are just making shit up now.

Vicente says

“Decreased regulation” and “tax freebies” are not just kissing cousins, they are Siamese twins. I can’t think of a deregulator that didn’t also want tax freebies for the wealthy and the corporations. If any policy ever results in increased revenue, then the campaign starts to reduce taxes. Alan Greenspan was a master at misguided misdirection about this you should take notes:

It does not make sense to discuss regulation in our economy, as if we are debating adding extra salt to pea soup. Regulations are not created equal.

The whole regulation vs deregulation argument is a smokescreen. A COMPLETE AND TOTAL LIE! The financial industry is much more regulated than it was 30, or even 10 years ago. Of course we dropped some very rational regulations, in lieu of a MOUNTAIN of regulations designed to add barriers to entry into the financial business. In fact, the Patriot Act, in a way, is the US government's way of regulating the money flow of THE ENTIRE WORLD. This legislation alone was revolutionary to how the world invests and manages money.

Paralithodes says

“…because Mccain, Bush, Republicans only want to deregulate and increase profits.”
LOL! Wouldn’t increased profits increase tax revenue?

Unfortunately the past 8 years of deregulation havent proven squat to support your statement. Lets see how the next 8 turnout then make that comment.

Paralithodes says

Good points… Clearly anyone who seeks a profit is dishonest… And using your math, increased profits, even at the same tax rates, does not increase tax revenue….

No, capitalists have to be held back from eating their young...you wouldnt understand that because you want to promote your Republican bs. Open your eyes and you will see that every corporation is interested in one thing...increased profits and market share.

Paralithodes says

And using your math, increased profits, even at the same tax rates, does not increase tax revenue

Funny thing is that profits don't exist in a vacuum. Microsoft's profits came at their customers' collective expense and the profits of some other vendor. To the extent Microsoft increased their customers' productivity, it was a win, but what matters is the *overall* wealth-creation of the system, not just how well the big winners scoop the table repeatedly.

Indeed. Racketeering can be very PROFITABLE, as can patent trolling, but it's a negative for real wealth.

"Funny thing is that profits don’t exist in a vacuum. Microsoft’s profits came at their customers’ collective expense and the profits of some other vendor. To the extent Microsoft increased their customers’ productivity, it was a win, but what matters is the *overall* wealth-creation of the system, not just how well the big winners scoop the table repeatedly."
And yet Microsoft in fact helped create an entire market! Millions of entrepreneurs were, are, and will be employed because of Microsoft helping make a market. You talk about the "overall" wealth creation of the system while accusing one of the largest players in helping create that wealth of something else! Perhaps you should contrast Microsoft with Apple, which never gained the market share that it perhaps should have because it did not want to compromise its margins.

"Open your eyes and you will see that every corporation is interested in one thing…increased profits and market share."
That's right. Are you suggesting that a company should NOT be interested in these things? What would happen if a company did not care about profits?

tatupu70 says

huh?? What are you talking about? You are just making shit up now.

It was a poor attempt at sarcasm. I've found that Vincente has a habit of putting words or positions in ones mouth - adding premises which were not stated, etc.

4X says

Paralithodes says

“…because Mccain, Bush, Republicans only want to deregulate and increase profits.”
LOL! Wouldn’t increased profits increase tax revenue?

Unfortunately the past 8 years of deregulation havent proven squat to support your statement. Lets see how the next 8 turnout then make that comment.

You mean that profits do not increase tax revenue? An incremental $1.00 of net profit does not add an incremental 15 to 39 cents to the tax revenue?