Libertarian Fascists for Mother Russia

[DGuller]

No, not being partisan is fundamental to any possible chance of actually solving problems like this, and that is important to me. If it is turned into just another Us Vs Them battle, nothing will ever happen. It will just be another entrenched issue that one side supports and the other side rejects on the prcinciples that you and Hans hold ever so dear - My Party, Right Or Wrong!

I'm a little burned out at this from being tag teamed by you and grumbler in heat, so I'll just address this last point without conceding any of the other points (if you need cliff notes, I still think that you're full of shit on them, and you think I'm full of shit on them.  We won't resolve it, and I don't care to at this point.)

So, about this last point.  Sometimes at the core of the issue, and what makes it an issue in the first place, is a concerted political campaign.  The drive to increase the role of money in politics is one such thing.  I would say that 80% of the gains of money in the war of money vs. democracy is directly attributable to a strategy executed by Republicans.  It may be a wise diplomatic tactic to avoid fingerpointing in order to avoid defensive reactions, but sometimes it's just so obviously bullshit that it's not going to work anyway.  You may disagree with my 80% argument, but to disagree with it in the way you did is going straight for ad homs, bypassing any debate.  Minsky disagreed with me as well, but he did it without being disagreeable;  that's something he is very good at, and you and grumbler are extremely poor at.

As for the very last sentence, that's just utter bullshit.  You've done a very good job defining me and the source of my views, and I give you credit for it, but that's still a lie.  I've said it plenty of times before that the reason I regard Republican party with extreme hostility is because I perceive them to conduct war on democracy in favor of crony capitalism.  I feel freely admit to that.  Being very hostile to the Republican Party does not make me an ardent Democrat.  Judging by the sheer amount of positions you attributed to me over the years that I actually leaned the opposite way on, just on the assumption that I would go with a Democrat position, I'm sure this will go right past your ears, and you'll go back to scoring intellectually dishonest points, but that's still true.  I'm not an ardent Democrat, I'm an ardent anti-Republican.  And I will argue that I have damn good rational reasons to be that way.

[Berkut]

No, not being partisan is fundamental to any possible chance of actually solving problems like this, and that is important to me. If it is turned into just another Us Vs Them battle, nothing will ever happen. It will just be another entrenched issue that one side supports and the other side rejects on the prcinciples that you and Hans hold ever so dear - My Party, Right Or Wrong!

I'm a little burned out at this from being tag teamed by you and grumbler in heat, so I'll just address this last point without conceding any of the other points (if you need cliff notes, I still think that you're full of shit on them, and you think I'm full of shit on them.  We won't resolve it, and I don't care to at this point.)

So, about this last point.  Sometimes at the core of the issue, and what makes it an issue in the first place, is a concerted political campaign.  The drive to increase the role of money in politics is one such thing.  I would say that 80% of the gains of money in the war of money vs. democracy is directly attributable to a strategy executed by Republicans.  It may be a wise diplomatic tactic to avoid fingerpointing in order to avoid defensive reactions, but sometimes it's just so obviously bullshit that it's not going to work anyway.  You may disagree with my 80% argument, but to disagree with it in the way you did is going straight for ad homs, bypassing any debate.  Minsky disagreed with me as well, but he did it without being disagreeable;  that's something he is very good at, and you and grumbler are extremely poor at.

Minsky has more patience than I do, and is more careful in his maneuvering.

What I found fascinating about the entire exchange was that you were so hysterically upset that I wasn't willing to focus only on who was to blame - even after I agreed with the basics of your position, if I was not willing to frame my entire view on the subject solely around "OMG TEH REPUBLICANS ARE EVOL!!!" I was some kind of anti-partisan asshole. Like I said - this was AFTER I agreed with you - but that wasn't enough, I had to agree with you *and* agree that the entire topic was only interesting to the extent that it meant we should "vote for the 98% against the 99%" - the only interest it had was how it might influence who "wins" the next battle between Purple and Green. Yawn.

It is so very much like religion with you - you didn't display a fraction of the vehemence at the actual Republicans in the thread saying it was all just fine - but someone who had the audacity to challenge the basic premise that this, along with every other issue of import, is not necessary to be framed as more of your partisan crap, THAT is worthy of true hostility and anger to the point that you are willing to trot out the standard lies you know are simply not true.

I am sure you simply cannot see it, but this is *exactly* how fanatical religious people view atheists - there is no such thing for them as people who just don't care - you are either one of them, are you are are against them. They (and you) simply cannot imagine someone who just rejects the entire framework of "party" as pointless. You cannot handle someone who doesn't share your tribalism - even the "enemy" tribal fanatics are  vastly preferable to someone who rejects the entire thing out of hand.

I am not anti-partisan Guller - I am a-partisan. I think that really bothers you, which really is rather amusing, and even fascinating. You are clearly incredibly smart, yet just as clearly unable to use that intelligence in a meaningful manner when it comes to anything touching on politics, since you have this rabid insistence that first and foremost the overriding principle must be partisanship, even if your partisanship is defined as being against one tribe rather than in favor of another. A distinction that I am sure is very meaningful to you, but completely lost (or maybe the better word is uninteresting) to those who do not share your obsession.

I really do find this fascinating, and a little depressing, since I suspect it is the basic foundation behind how impossible it is to actually get anything accomplished. You are exactly the kind of person who would rather make sure the other side fails that get anything done and risk the "enemy" being perceived as successful.

[DGuller]

No, not being partisan is fundamental to any possible chance of actually solving problems like this, and that is important to me. If it is turned into just another Us Vs Them battle, nothing will ever happen. It will just be another entrenched issue that one side supports and the other side rejects on the prcinciples that you and Hans hold ever so dear - My Party, Right Or Wrong!

I'm a little burned out at this from being tag teamed by you and grumbler in heat, so I'll just address this last point without conceding any of the other points (if you need cliff notes, I still think that you're full of shit on them, and you think I'm full of shit on them.  We won't resolve it, and I don't care to at this point.)

So, about this last point.  Sometimes at the core of the issue, and what makes it an issue in the first place, is a concerted political campaign.  The drive to increase the role of money in politics is one such thing.  I would say that 80% of the gains of money in the war of money vs. democracy is directly attributable to a strategy executed by Republicans.  It may be a wise diplomatic tactic to avoid fingerpointing in order to avoid defensive reactions, but sometimes it's just so obviously bullshit that it's not going to work anyway.  You may disagree with my 80% argument, but to disagree with it in the way you did is going straight for ad homs, bypassing any debate.  Minsky disagreed with me as well, but he did it without being disagreeable;  that's something he is very good at, and you and grumbler are extremely poor at.

Minsky has more patience than I do, and is more careful in his maneuvering.

What I found fascinating about the entire exchange was that you were so hysterically upset that I wasn't willing to focus only on who was to blame - even after I agreed with the basics of your position, if I was not willing to frame my entire view on the subject solely around "OMG TEH REPUBLICANS ARE EVOL!!!" I was some kind of anti-partisan asshole. Like I said - this was AFTER I agreed with you - but that wasn't enough, I had to agree with you *and* agree that the entire topic was only interesting to the extent that it meant we should "vote for the 98% against the 99%" - the only interest it had was how it might influence who "wins" the next battle between Purple and Green. Yawn.

It is so very much like religion with you - you didn't display a fraction of the vehemence at the actual Republicans in the thread saying it was all just fine - but someone who had the audacity to challenge the basic premise that this, along with every other issue of import, is not necessary to be framed as more of your partisan crap, THAT is worthy of true hostility and anger to the point that you are willing to trot out the standard lies you know are simply not true.

I am sure you simply cannot see it, but this is *exactly* how fanatical religious people view atheists - there is no such thing for them as people who just don't care - you are either one of them, are you are are against them. They (and you) simply cannot imagine someone who just rejects the entire framework of "party" as pointless. You cannot handle someone who doesn't share your tribalism - even the "enemy" tribal fanatics are  vastly preferable to someone who rejects the entire thing out of hand.

I am not anti-partisan Guller - I am a-partisan. I think that really bothers you, which really is rather amusing, and even fascinating. You are clearly incredibly smart, yet just as clearly unable to use that intelligence in a meaningful manner when it comes to anything touching on politics, since you have this rabid insistence that first and foremost the overriding principle must be partisanship, even if your partisanship is defined as being against one tribe rather than in favor of another. A distinction that I am sure is very meaningful to you, but completely lost (or maybe the better word is uninteresting) to those who do not share your obsession.

I really do find this fascinating, and a little depressing, since I suspect it is the basic foundation behind how impossible it is to actually get anything accomplished. You are exactly the kind of person who would rather make sure the other side fails that get anything done and risk the "enemy" being perceived as successful.

I wasn't upset with you, I just thought that you were so reluctant to identify the primary cause of something you were complaining about as the primary cause, that your whole thread was just like bitching about bad weather.  Yeah, that money problem just went and happened, where the fuck did it come from?  And your solution of changing the system?  Yeah, that is so much more practical.

And the bit about me being more accepting of Republican fanatics than of you?     That's another one of your pet theories that is so divorced from reality that I don't even know how to parry that.  It was lolbad nutty the first time you trotted it out many years ago, and it's still nutty now.  The reason I get into scraps with you and grumbler is not because you're the moderates I'm trying to destroy as a fanatic;  I get into scraps with the two of you because you are extremely, and I'm not using that word lightly or hyperbolically, unpleasant to argue with.  It is much more pleasant to vehemently disagree with Hansmeister than it is to even unconditionally agree with you.  Don't take it as a criticism of you as a person, you're are not an unplesant person (grumbler is, though);  you're just unpleasant to debate with or even not debate with.

[Warspite]

American kulturkampf hijacks are the new American Civil War hijacks.

[Tamas]

American kulturkampf hijacks are the new American Civil War hijacks.

Things have really escalated over there.

[grumbler]

Sometimes I wonder if DGuller can really have so little self-awareness.

[mongers]

Sometimes I wonder if I can really have so little self-awareness.

Grumbler, you may need to remap your keyboard and the keys are sticking too.

[Tamas]

Sometimes I wonder if I can really have so little self-awareness.

Grumbler, you may need to remap your keyboard and the keys are sticking too.

I haven't followed their "debate" because frankly it is boring but DGuller has been for quite a while almost on Raz levels of just parroting the Democrat party line.

[grumbler]

Sometimes I wonder if I can really have so little self-awareness.

Grumbler, you may need to remap your keyboard and the keys are sticking too.

Hmmm... I just copied and pasted someone else's post, merely changing the subject of the sentence, and you responded.  You didn't respond to the first guy who posted it.  Double standards much? 

[grumbler]

I haven't followed their "debate" because frankly it is boring but DGuller has been for quite a while almost on Raz levels of just parroting the Democrat party line.

You are wise, because it isn't really a debate at all.  DG doesn't really "get" intellectual discourse, I don't think.  To him, it all seems very personal and emotional.

[mongers]

Sometimes I wonder if I can really have so little self-awareness.

Grumbler, you may need to remap your keyboard and the keys are sticking too.

Hmmm... I just copied and pasted someone else's post, merely changing the subject of the sentence, and you responded.  You didn't respond to the first guy who posted it.  Double standards much? 

I'm not taking part in the debate, I'm commenting on your behaviour here, you come across as a grade one arsehole.

[Eddie Teach]

Grumbler is high on tiger blood and winning.

[Tamas]

I haven't followed their "debate" because frankly it is boring but DGuller has been for quite a while almost on Raz levels of just parroting the Democrat party line.

You are wise, because it isn't really a debate at all.  DG doesn't really "get" intellectual discourse, I don't think.  To him, it all seems very personal and emotional.

You are some guy to talk about that.

[DGuller]

Sometimes I wonder if I can really have so little self-awareness.

Grumbler, you may need to remap your keyboard and the keys are sticking too.

I haven't followed their "debate" because frankly it is boring but DGuller has been for quite a while almost on Raz levels of just parroting the Democrat party line.

Nonsense.  You are far too hung up on a few subjects where I definitely agree with Democrats much than than with real libertarians, such as economics, and you're extrapolating it to all of the issues.

[DGuller]

I haven't followed their "debate" because frankly it is boring but DGuller has been for quite a while almost on Raz levels of just parroting the Democrat party line.

You are wise, because it isn't really a debate at all.  DG doesn't really "get" intellectual discourse, I don't think.  To him, it all seems very personal and emotional.

Some intellectual discourse that was.  Here are the latest two opening salvos from you two:

  You and Hans are practically twins in your thinking.  Only your tribal allegiances differ; your contempt for opinions other than your own, and your over-use of hyperbole, are identical. 

I don't want to discourage you (or Hans), but I want to help the rest of the forum see how funny you guys are.

And you wonder why you get blasted so often for tribalistic bullshit.

"Libertarians" are not defined by whatever the dumbest, kookiest thing you can find some libertarian saying. Any more than Republicans are defined by Sarah Palin, or Democrats by Michael Moore.

Libertarians became libertarians because the government cracked down on fascism?

Are you really this fucking insane?

How in the world could I take such masterpieces of rational "intellectual discourse" personally?