Various & Sundry for the Weekend
by jhwygirl
Update: I have turned off comments to this post.
Please consider this an open thread.
I’m a volcano/Yellowstone/earthquake/geology geek. Geek may be the wrong word, but whatever. This is the coolest thing. Then there’s the video 3-D imagery showing the plume, which can be found here. Wild stuff.
Seem like someone has finally decided to give the Kootenai sturgeon some water. That would be a good thing. Here is where the sturgeon survive today:
If you click on the pic, you get a report that includes some interesting how-did-we-get-here information. NewWest has a great article with more information on the current situation surrounding the sturgeon.
Former Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfield has bought a ranch in the Big Hole.
I’ve actually pondered this recent situation in Helena, wondering whether that sort of thing’d be a problem. Apparently it is.
Them teenagers in Helena sure seem to get in to a whole lot of trouble, don’t they?
Don’t miss this shocking post from Mark Tokarski.
Just to be clear, it’s the “there, I said it,” part that is shocking. NOT.
I read this and I think this is harassment of the homeless. I mean – does this town allow its citizens to lock up its bikes? What is the point in fining him?
Now, here’s a class act, NOT.
I can’t get why people like her. I get the sense that at a party, I’d want to avoid her..
Our Governor has been on, quite frankly, a roll. First, as guestnote speaker for the Montana Stockgrowers Association meeting in Billings last week, Schweitzer took a big ole’ jab at the leadership, telling its 2,000 members (over dinner) that they “don’t always act” in their best interests. That, after making peace with them a while back.
Then Schweitzer blocked payment of some mis-appropriated funds to Kalispell-based Swank Enterprises, a long-time generous supporter of the Montana GOP’s latest felon, Sen. Barkus. Schweitzer’s taking the late-minute insertion into the state’s budget bill quite literally – using the words “up to” in “up to $600,000” quite literally, and saying he’ll get nothing.
Now, I’ve no love for the Stockgrower’s Association, nor Barkus – so reading these had me, quite frankly, laughing. Pretty damned bold. But then I read this, where he brags to the Stockgrowers that he’d “sent more bison to slaughter than any other governor,” which only leaves me shaking my head, reminded that slaughtering wildlife for no frickin’ reason is one of his several UNendearing qualities.
Way to go.
Speaking of “way to go” and Sen. Barkus, seems they guy wants all his felonies dismissed.
My thoughts? Hey – a guy can dream. I’m also sure Rep. Rehberg is just thrilled to have Barkus eeking out every delay possible, especially when you consider the possibility of Rehberg’s subpoena increasing looking like it will be coinciding right smack-dab in the middle of his 2010 re-election campaign. Whee!
Recent Comments
Miles on A New Shelter for Vets or an E… success rate for In… on Thirty years ago ARCO killed A… Warrior for the Lord on The Dark Side of Colorado Linda Kelley-Miller on The Dark Side of Colorado Dan on A New Shelter for Vets or an E… Former Prosecutor Se… on Former Chief Deputy County Att… JediPeaceFrog on Montana AG Tim Fox and US Rep.…
4&20 blackbirds 
December 19, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Open? How about this one. After residing on the bottom of most lists, we break the top ten.
States ranked from happiest to least cheerful
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON — A new study found that people who report more satisfaction with their lives live in states that score well on things like good schools, low crime and short commuting time, perhaps a first objective look at why some states are happier than others.
The state-by-state list, from happiest to least cheery:
1. Louisiana
2. Hawaii
3. Florida
4. Tennessee
5. Arizona
6. South Carolina
7. Mississippi
8. Montana
December 19, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Swede – I don’t know what Montana is doing on that list, as its suicide rate is among the highest in the nation. (The ones that are left are the happy ones?)
But I gotta tell you, and you’re not going to like it, there’s a high percentage lf blacks in those happy states.
You’re just not reaching them!
December 19, 2009 at 4:45 pm
You don’t sound very happy, Mark.
Colorado is 23rd.
December 19, 2009 at 5:22 pm
But Swede – it was 24th till I moved here.
December 20, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Nothing like a good hurricane (Louisiana and Mississippi) to make people happy.
P.S. Rumsfeld in the Big Hole? Christ, the guy ought to be in Leavenworth.
December 19, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Open thread:
Isn’t it quite interesting that the Under Secretary of Agriculture (the person who runs the entire US Forest Service) has come out so strongly against the major provisions of Sen Tester’s S1470, the so-called Forest Jobs and Recreation Act?
The Under Secretary’s testimony delivered on Thursday to the Senate is here:
Click to access ShermanTestimonyonS1470121709.pdf
Keep in mind that the major concerns expressed quite clearly by Under Secretary Sherman and the Obama Administration have been (quite literally) the same exact concerns that many conservation groups in Montana and around the country, as well as citizens, have been expressing about this bill for months.
Concerns in S1470 such as: mandated logging overriding NFMA and science-based planning, undermining NEPA with unachievable timelines, unfunded mandate that could force other forests in Region 1 and nationally to transfer funds to MT, localization that will lead to balkanization of national forest system, the logging proposed on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge in this bill is “likely unachievable and perhaps unsustainable” (direct quote from Under Secretary Sherman).
So far, Senator Tester, his staff and the supporters of his bill have completely ignored all of these concerns. Not sure if that’s an option for them any longer.
December 19, 2009 at 3:06 pm
this bill was created in private behind closed doors and the inability of its supporters to take into consideration (much less respond to) criticism from anyone doesn’t surprise me.
unless you were invited into the inner sanctum many years ago, voices of dissent or even mild suggestion are ignored. and this is the way jon tester shows us how he believes in open government? it is ironic to say the least.
December 19, 2009 at 3:02 pm
throwing my 2 cents in and congratulating the montana griz for a fine effort last night and a great season. it had its ups and downs – inconsistency on defense and a lack of cohesiveness on offensive schemes (always a trademark of the bobby hauck method) seemed to make for quite a lot of roller coaster rides for the fans, but i think the determination to work hard and the athletic skills of the players certainly shined through in providing this country with one of the most thrilling come from behind victories in college football this year in the amazing win over south dakota in the quarterfinals along with the poised and well-played win last week over Appalachian state. well done men.
December 19, 2009 at 5:01 pm
“I can’t get why people like her. I get the sense that at a party, I’d want to avoid her..”
I agree completely, jhwyGirl, I have never cared for Arianna Huffington either. For someone who represents herself as a liberal, her Huffington Post goes out of its way to debase women with sexist BS. Examples:
Arrianna covers Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by posting a “Photo and Poll” of her clothing and jewlery at the APEC Ministerial meeting in Singapore.
Hillary Clinton’s Singapore Style: Love It Or Lose It? (PHOTO, POLL)
Hillary’s Lace And Pearl Look
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/16/hillary-clintons-singapor_n_359349.html
Huffington’s online mag is more and more resembling a trashy supermarket tabloid with endless pics of celebrity “nipple slips” and on line contests like “Guess The Celebrity Breast Implants”
December 19, 2009 at 5:10 pm
as the health insurance industry’s empowerment bill trundles slowly downhill toward eventual passage freighted with congressionally mandated and IRS enforcement of the working poor (formerly middle class) to purchase crappy coverage from parasites i am at least comforted by some wise people who attempt to differ with the beast……….
http://www.openleft.com/diary/16588/the-three-assumptions-driving-the-push-to-pass-the-insurancedrug-industry-health-bill
December 19, 2009 at 6:31 pm
problembear, Sirota makes some good points. But he lost me somewhat by using rather blatant fallacies of his own. First, these assumptions of which he writes are that, assumptions. He immediately labels them as “false”. See there’s a huge logical problem with that. In order for an assumption to be true or false, you need to either prove it such with sound argument or show contra-facts. For the most part, Siorota does neither.
1) David claims this assumption is false because we don’t know what will happen in the future. He’s right. Only one problem with that; we do know what’s happened in the past. When so-called comprehensive HCR has been attempted and failed, it has been put on the back burner for at least a decade, many times even longer than that. It’s a nice rhetorical trick to claim that HCR doesn’t have to be tabled, but that rings awfully hollow to those who see that it always has been. In truth, this refutation of the first assumption undercuts a later refutation that he offers.
What he does get correct is that this argument of assumption is being used by those Democrats who want to strong-arm others into accepting the bill for whatever personal or political reasons. But to make it a blanket claim as he does is little more than FUD, a threat of his own, if you will.
2) This refutation is almost funny. His claim is that the desperation for a bill is so great that Democrats would have to return to pass something. First, he’s admitting efficacy to the first assumption that he already claimed was false. Second, he’s missing the obvious. HCR would have to be taken up again by the same group of players on the same stage that gave us this monstrosity in the first place. What does he actually think would be different? I do believe that progressives have more power than they know, but not enough to overcome the BS inherent in an election year.
I reiterate what I’ve already claimed many times, and am confirmed in my belief: the political damage to Democrats among progressives is already done. We’ve seen LIEberman and Nelson blackmail the Congress of the US and get away with it. We’ve seen the White House fail us. So what power does Sirota think we can bring to bare at this point, other than our votes and money in 2010? If the prevalent view is that Democrats are going to lose seats (not control, but seats) than our Congress clowns have little reason to revisit the very topic which has them endangered. CYA is a much better motivator than progressive threats, especially with the press and the continuing lies about the awesome might of the Tea Party. Sirota has a point. If these Democrats want our support we need to let them know that they won’t get it without them doing the right thing. Only one big problem. Who told Sirota that these Democrats want our support?
3) David is using equivocation here, and I think he knows it. He’s using it to build a Straw Man of the centrist. No one rational is arguing that you “need 60 votes to do anything”. That assumption, as David points out, is a lie, and should be reviled. David dismisses it with almost a ‘pish-posh’. The problem is, you do need 60 votes for cloture on most things, and most who are using this argument of assumption know that distinction full well. And here, Sirota’s refutation is undercut by himself, way back in number 1. Reconciliation can be used after passage of this bill to create a public option just as easily as before it. Sirota relies on his own lie to push his view. He claims that ‘no one is even talking about it’. Bullcrap. It is being talked about all over the place, including being whispered in the great halls of the Senate Clown Circus. But reconciliation is truly the “nuclear option”. To use it, Democrats must be convinced that they will be safe from electoral wrath and Republican/LIEbermananian vengeance on future cloture votes. Do you see that happening in an election year? I don’t either.
Sirota is right about this much. There are options. But the current Senate rules make those unlikely at best. How many among the vaunted progressive caucus do you see proposing to change those rules? It is my opinion, clearly labeled as such, that any who ever thought the Democrats had a fool proof majority where it mattered wasn’t paying attention. We simply don’t. The Republicans, on the other hand, do have 40 (I think 41). If we can get 40 progressive members of the Clown Circus, than we can manipulate as much as they can. I still support Sirota’s urge to do something, anything, to thwart this insurance industry bail-out. But I have a real difficult time putting up with him lying to me to get that support. At heart, I’d like to think we’re the good guys.
December 20, 2009 at 8:34 am
At heart, I’d like to think we’re the good guys.
and there it is: democrats (and their supporters) are the good guys, and republicans are bad. democrats fight good wars, and republicans start bad ones. what a wonderfully simplistic world to live in, wulfgar. too bad it doesn’t correspond to reality.
here is the reality as i see it: representative democracy in this country is dead, the constitution is still in the trash can, and democrats are just as delusional as teabaggers.
just look at the insanity of the defense bill obama WILL sign into law, pushing through programs the pentagon doesn’t even want. over 600 billion dollars of deficit spending loaded with pork because the military/industrial complex is now a jobs program.
or look at the trillions of dollars infused into the market by the fed (oh wait, you can’t, because it’s all done in secret).
obama won’t (can’t?) even say landmines are bad because they blow up mostly kids, which puts america on the same page as china, russia, and iran. classy.
wulfgar, while you’re busy telling yourself the party you support is the party of good guys, obama is busy continuing the foreign policy his predecessors laid the groundwork for, with the same bullshit justification.
here’s the problem: every woman and child blown to pieces by predator drones or murdered by private contractors creates more “terrorists” who hate us. why do they hate us? because we are killing their families. and why are we killing them? because an evil boogeyman named osama sent 19 mostly saudi arabians to attack the symbol of our financial imperialism.
we can’t keep continuing on this path we are on; it will lead to domestic ruin and an international conflagration unseen since world war II.
and telling yourself you’re one of the good guys might make it easier to sleep at night, but it doesn’t make it true.
December 20, 2009 at 9:18 am
oh, one more thing. if you have a problem with someone lying to you to get your support, then you must have a problem with the president. right?
December 20, 2009 at 10:34 am
That’s an awful lot of words just to prove you can’t read, Lizard. The referent of “good guys” was progressives, not Democrats.
December 20, 2009 at 11:06 am
so you agree the majority of democrats are worthless corporate shills?
December 20, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Accusing someone else of an awful lot of words after what you wrote? At least his are not so tedious and lecturesome, wrangling a point out of painfully constructed logic as if you are a college professor. Lose the pamphlet.
Sirota makes cogent points: 1) The idea that we must pass a bill because this is a window of opportunity that will close thereafter is beside the point. The bill must stand on its merits, and does not. This is a lame argument to justify passage not of a bad bill, but specifically to pass a bill that the health insurance companies desire. It should be tossed aside with great force.
Reconciliation has been available from the beginning, and in fact, the Republicans are only able to stop so much legislation via the filibuster due to tacit agreement with the Democrats that this is how they want to do business. It’s triangulation – right wing Democrats and Republicans working against progressives. Works every time.
Baucus specifically elected to avoid reconciliation because he wanted to have to make concessions to the right in order to gain 60 votes, which he has had for a very long time now. It was his way of undermining the bill, and part of the script.
If reconciliation was going to be used, they would have used it. The are no hole cards, no aces, no sleeves, no pleasant surprises. It is a done deal. This bill was written months ago.
There’s no mystery or magic here. As throughout history, until there is popular support and activism for health care reform, including massive protests and work outside the parties by ordinary people (not stupid lefties with dreadlocks), nothing happens.
Electing Democrats was not the solution, them losing office makes no difference. Some of the most progressive legislation of the 20th century was signed by Richard Nixon. He didn’t want to. He had to.
In other words, Democrats are the problem. Not the solution.
December 20, 2009 at 11:04 pm
You’re a fool, Mark. You’ve proven it for all to see. Let it go.
December 21, 2009 at 8:53 am
Let’s see – our last encounter over at LITW, you got dragged your sorry ass out after a rather harsh lashing, saying “I’m done here”,much in the manner of a boxer looking up at his opponent from the tarmac.
You dragged your wagon over here, probalby hoping to avoid me, and started with the same bullshit – tedious lecturing, shopworn arguing tools taken out of Logic 101 … I gotta tell you something: logic has to produce meaningful results. If all you use it for is to highlight what you consider superior reasoning power, if you have no other ability with words than to fall back on trite semantic devices for refuge, then you are pointless. And you are.
I studied logic in college, such as it was – did you go to college? Anyway, I remember thinking, as we went through the list of fallacies and drew the boxes and did the syllogisms, “Man, this is going to be useful! I’m going to hammer people with it.” And the the professor was a wise man – as if heknew my thoughts he said that mere use of these tools as a hammer was not the same as thinking. There will be people out there who try to parse every debate using the list of fallacies as a debate tool. He advised us not to do so, as it was a constrictive tool. The logical fallacies may present in small parts of arguments, but we must think in a larger frame.
And frankly, thinking is hard. It’s hard to examine the whole impact of a process and try to understand the minds of the people behind it. The big thing you miss is that it is not an open process, and we are not debating – that is, ordinary people and the Democrats. They are leading us to a predetermined destination, using various actors to strip out those parts of the bill that are undesirable. You’re being played.
This is where you fail, where your pamphlet lets you down. You have to be able to step back from an argument and see it in large context. In the health care debate, better minds than ours have been at work. Overall, where did they take us? They gave us a system where there are no cost controls, no ability for states to implement their own systems, no wider access to Medicare, no control of drug prices, subsidies paid out to insurance companies and a mandate that, no matter the price, we must buy their product.
You are incapable of seeing this, as you are lost in detail. You are also, as I noted, suffering from a state of mind, one that allows you to be triangulated upon by various forces because, I suspect, of a submissive nature. You see the authority structure as dominant and are unwilling to fight it, as you feel you must somehow have some sort of victory. You are not the hardened type who can handle defeat and keep on fighting. You want the refuge of imagined defeat. You need to put your tired mind at ease.
Some days the bear eats you. The bear ate us on this one. Admit it, and do the logical thing: Take a measure of the big picture, and fight passage of this bill, seeking alliances where they might be forged, to ensure that it does not pass.
Do not scrape about on the floor for crumbs. That is undignified. We’ve been hammered by powerful forces, and the only answer is to defeat the bill in its entirety. It makes no difference that the window that was open might not open again soon. If we cannot forge a good bill, windows do not matter.
And, of course, it would be a good thing for more people to see the futility of the triangulation systme and try to organize outside the parties. That would be the only good outcme from this currupt process.
And finally, it is Eric Coobs who calims victory and runs from debate.You miserable coward.
Thus endeth the lesson. I’m done with you now.
December 21, 2009 at 9:23 am
tl/dr
December 21, 2009 at 9:39 am
Nutin. You got nutin.
December 21, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Wow -man, mea culpa … in the above screed, which Wulfgar plugged hsi ears and went lalalalalal to, I asked him if he had gone to college. That’s low, man. For the avaerage student, like me, American college is four years of advanced high school.
The fact that either of us went there or not is of no significance. It means nothing.
For that one remark, I apologize.
One employer told me that he looks at a college degree as evidence that a person has the ability to undertake and complete a large project, nothing more.
December 19, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Whoever told Sen. Tester there’d be no math involved needs to get him a calculator for Christmas. He’s trading away students, conservationists, hunters, and Forest Service voters in exchange for Wall Street bankers and CEOs of health insurance and drug companies. He’s gaining liquidity, but forgot one thing, CEOs and their lobbyists don’t live here. Now, repeat after me: “Made in Montana.” Feel better?
December 19, 2009 at 6:41 pm
You’re right. We should have voted for Burns, or maybe Stan Jones. After all, it’s not easy being blue.
December 20, 2009 at 11:32 am
coke or pepsi.
December 20, 2009 at 9:33 pm
What’s the name of that meme again? You know, what’s it called … something like, oh yeah, we never get what we want, so we should always be happy with the lesser of evils.
That is so damned clever!
December 20, 2009 at 11:05 pm
“Meme”, another word you haven’t a clue what it means.
Hardly surprising.
December 21, 2009 at 8:57 am
You mean, like a thought virus? Something that infects minds as a whole, the body politic?
If I look at a whole party of sorry losers who can only think in terms of lesser evils, I’m thinking meme.
December 19, 2009 at 6:49 pm
at some point we have to step back from “the process” and reevaluate it. we can’t just keep apologizing for our guys following the money and ignoring the will of the people simply because everyone else is doing it.
a system built on reciprocity is incapable of producing real leadership. it only promotes mediocrity in search of concensus, which is another way of saying lowest common denominator.
there has to be a better way.
December 19, 2009 at 7:01 pm
I couldn’t agree more. And I do love quoting Churchill:
“It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”
I’d like to see the alternative, and have asked for one in several places, usually only to have the conversation get derailed by someone who has no alternative, but bitter spite that I would ask the question. So I offer another Churchill quote:
“You can always count on Americans to do the right thing – after they’ve tried everything else.”
December 20, 2009 at 9:35 pm
You are no student of history, that’s for sure. Put down Bartleby and pick up Zinn.
December 20, 2009 at 11:07 pm
Now that your delusions have been laid bare and you’ve had you ass spanked, are you just going to stalk me all over the Intertubes, Mark? Sure seems like it.
December 21, 2009 at 8:59 am
Interesting. You think I’m stalking you. I come here too, now and then, and today I find you. You’re putting up the same drivel you put up elsewhere. Did you think you were safe here? That for some reason you can be unchallenged here. Get real.
December 19, 2009 at 7:29 pm
a democracy is a government system that is representative.
the only entities getting any representation in this modern day era of mega media in america are corporate interests who can afford to pay enough to buy it…..
there needs to be some accountability for democracy to work at all.
it is up to we the people to demand some representation.
December 19, 2009 at 7:34 pm
there is something wrong when we send our youth overseas to die for democracy in other countries when there is no longer any shred of democracy left in this country…
when 70% of americans want their politicians to vote a certain way and corporate interests deny us the majority representation which we are entitled to, i no longer call that nation a democracy. it is a corpocracy.
December 20, 2009 at 9:37 pm
That’s a fine, fine speech. I golf clap tonight in thine honor.
December 20, 2009 at 10:47 pm
Rock the vote.
If ya want some.
December 21, 2009 at 12:17 am
once upon a time i believed in good guys and bad guys. i believed that america, as a republic of semi-autonomous states, was a noble, unique, inherently good force in the world, using war or the threat of war only when necessary, and always to defeat those bad guys who constantly threaten our way of life.
then one day i discovered reality was infinitely more complex, and that goodness, while not easily quantifiable, was nonetheless a very scarce phenomenon.
luckily this delightful economic system we all actively participate in is not burdened by the moral dichotomy of good and evil, because profitability by any means necessary is the only creed that matters.
December 21, 2009 at 11:08 am
…..and the mark tokarski vs wulfgar debate kills another promising thread…..
moving on.
December 21, 2009 at 12:11 pm
What, pray tell, makes you think you are interesting? Why dn’t you just, as I usually do with you skip over?
December 21, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Do something useful in the real world mark. Volunteer at a homeless shelter, food bank.
Attacking fellow bloggers isn’t healthy behavior for anyone. And it seems to be progressing into an obsessive compulsion lately.
Step away from the keyboard and give us all a break from the nihilistic, pointless diatribes which only serve to further exhibit extreme sociopathic behavior. You are embarrassing yourself here.
Go away mark. We are all really sick and tired of your doleful drumbeats and absolute inability to converse in a civil manner. At least I attack the powerful like baucus.
It is cowardly in my view to attack others here without having the guts to attack the powerful politicians responsible for the sad state of mediocrity and corruption which infects our nation.
December 21, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Since you don’t know me, you don’t know what I do in the real world. You’re assuming a lot.
Every now and then you let go with some lecturing-the-tides type comment about your disappointment with the way things are. It’s a very tough life, and as one person put it, we must have pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the soul.
I fell both of those things each day, but the optimism of the soul won’t go away. I don’t get that from you at all. I just sense depression of will.
December 21, 2009 at 3:46 pm
You are correct mark.ignoring you is the best course of action after all
Your comments are grandiose displays of self promotion-obviously a pathetic attempt to compensate for some deep seated insecurity compounded with feelings of inadequacy
A good mental health counselor is what you require.
December 21, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Wow – you should charge by the hour. Beats living in the back of a van.
December 21, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Gramsci. Interesting thinker.
He’s dead now.
Mark, when are you going to get the idea through your overly thick skull that no one cares about what you “sense” concerning their thoughts, feelings and concerns, especially after you just chided them that ‘they don’t know you’. Almost everything you write is internally contradictory, Mark. Even when people tell you plainly what motivates and energizes them, you run right back to your books and interpret what you see through your delusions.
problembear, one among many, has asked you to quit trolling. Your only response is the same as it has always been: Ad Hominem based on your delusions. It’s not a mystery to me why you don’t like me, and are growing to dislike problembear. We’ve lost patience with being insulted by the voices in your head and are willing to say so. You’ve accused me of being angry at you because you tell the truth about me. That is simply the greatest act of projection I’ve witnessed online in very long time.
December 21, 2009 at 4:55 pm
The post above, which you tl/dr on, pretty well summed it up. Your only problem with me, so far as I can tell, is that I don’t take you as you present yourself. You come on with a lot of crap, logical fallacies, lecturing, psychoanalyzing and shit,especially the part about delusions, as if.
Anyway, read it when you get a moment, try not to move your lips as you go along. You’ll find it forthright and that it has explanatory power, which you in all pretensions lack.
PB – honestly – I don’t give a rat’s ass about him. He just comes out of his shell and lays some shit on me now and then, and then gets all weasely and whiny when he gets it back. He belongs in a monastery – he could cry in his gruel. .
You and PB are the only ones who lash out at me in an obsequious manner, and I give it back to both of you, driving you futher nuts. Note that I d
December 21, 2009 at 5:10 pm
*sputter sputter foam and drool*
As to the post above, Mark, tl/dr. You claim logical fallacies, but I seriously doubt you showed any. After all, I’ve taken logic 101, and a whole lot more. You? Not so much, apparently. Otherwise you’d know that logic is what it is. It isn’t based on personality, as you so desperately hope that it would be. But then again, you’re delusional. So, have you found those comments you were looking for yet?
December 21, 2009 at 3:01 pm
I’m certain you’ve noticed by now that it’s hardly a “debate”.
The sad thing for me is that there are now at least two websites that I can’t comment at without inviting Tokarski to troll the place.
December 21, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Wulfgar – replying to your comments is not trolling. You put up a bunch of pompous pretentious nonsense above, and as I am entitled to do, I commented on your comments. You don’t like what I say – you want respect and admiration. Cry me a river.
December 21, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Your delusion serves you poorly. No, Mark, I want discussion. You want respect and admiration. I did notice that your response to my comment about Sirota contained absolutely nothing about my objections and everything about me and Demoncrats. You even denigrate logic itself, for no reason whatsoever, other than you don’t like me. Though I know this won’t get beyond your wall of delusion, that’s trolling, Mark.
December 21, 2009 at 11:04 pm
This is through and through you. When I met you in person I thought you overbearing. You dominated the entire discussion among bloggers, and that happens, but it drives me absolutely nutsy to have to listen to someone who is both overbnearing and boring.
I am put off by people like you. You’re a mouth breather. My life impression of you was no different than the blogging persona.
You’ve tried to tone it down a bit, but it’s still you, long-winded,self-important. You don’t f-bomb people anymore, but you ar still strident and preachy., The reason we don’t get along it because I don’t kowtow to you. I see through your smoke. Your nature is overbearing, and since I am nonsubmissive, you picked me out for special attention these past few months, lecturing me, calling me names, using your logical and psychoanalytical 101 skills on me. I rebel against overbearing boring people. Life is too short.
Nw you’ve taken to claiming victim status. It keeps getting funnier. What a douche.
December 21, 2009 at 11:11 pm
OK. I am turning this thread off – although, if Wulfgar would like the last word, after that load of crap you just put out there, I’ll be glad to give it to him.
You are an ass. Please don’t come back.