Grade Obama

[Razgovory]

I saved some of Hansmeister's kooky stuff.  And the one where Berkut claimed to be "Mr. Republican" and took welfare money.

Unfortunately I lost them due to a computer crash.

[Berkut]

I post on Languish a lot, and engage in a variety of discussions with a variety of people on a variety of topics. What I don't do is "save threads" where I made predictions, right or wrong, so that later on I can wave my dick about in the latest and most banal of my never ending jihad against some poster I don't like because he tends to crush me in any actual debate.

I suppose people find my contributions more or less valuable than others - but why would I care about such things beyond a cursory amount? I say what I feel like saying, when I feel like saying it, and if someone likes it great, and if it makes them go around raging and sulking, I can live with that as well, since it says much more about them than it does me.

If you think that is the evidence of your vast integrity and original thinking lies in the fact that you save and print off your ever most brilliant threads on Languish for posterity, than I guess bully for you. I certainly don't acknowledge any such thing, nor do I particularly care to "prove" how valuable I am to Languish. That these things are ever so important to you is really rather funny.

Now I am wondering if comparing you to Raz might have been a disservice to him. You really are incredibly full of yourself, aren't you?

It all started with you claiming that I'm totally unable to analyze issues on their own merit.  The only way to disprove that is to bring up past examples of successful analysis of issues by myself.  It's kind of hard to do that without sounding full of yourself.  Your baseless attack is what opened the door to this.

Again, to summarize, I only brought up my 4 year old thread to show how idiotic it was for you to claim that I was in effect a partisan hack without an ability to think for myself.

So your example of not being a partisan hack is some thread where you make predictions about teh economy, followed by blaming it all on Reagan/Bush/Republicans?

Brilliant show there.

You know, you could be entirely right about predicting the meltdown and STILL be a partisan hack. They don't really have much to do with one another.

And really, don't try to pin the start of this latest temper tantrum from you on me - you are the one who decided to drag me into a conversation with your trolling. Again.

[Berkut]

And the one where Berkut claimed to be "Mr. Republican" and took welfare money.

You are truly a despicable little creature.

[Eddie Teach]

I saved all of crunchy's threads on punch cards.

GOTO INCAN_TORPEDO_BOAT.SAV

[garbon]

What's wrong with taking welfare money? If you want it and they've got it, simple transaction.

[DGuller]

So your example of not being a partisan hack is some thread where you make predictions about teh economy, followed by blaming it all on Reagan/Bush/Republicans?

I didn't blame it on anyone other than maybe Greenspan in that thread, that's just your imagination.  And it's not partisan to put most of the blame on the party that advocates exactly the things that brought about the financial crisis.

You know, you could be entirely right about predicting the meltdown and STILL be a partisan hack. They don't really have much to do with one another.

No, being a partisan hack implies inability to think for oneself.  Most certainly being "incapable to analyse issues on their own merits" implies that.  You just happened to make an empty insult, because as usual you were talking about the caricature rather than the actual poster.

[garbon]

you were talking about the caricature rather than the actual poster.

In this case, the actual poster is a caricature.

[DGuller]

No caricature in Berkut land can ever resemble any real person that ever lived.

[garbon]

No caricature in Berkut land can ever resemble any real person that ever lived.

However, they can match the online persona that a person creates.

[Admiral Yi]

No, being a partisan hack implies inability to think for oneself.

Not necessarily.  One could combine the ability to reason with a belief in "the greater good" and the end result is self-censorship.

I've developed a Grand Unified Theory of the financial meltdown.

The increase in leverage limits played a part, as did soft money.  But the key ingredient was the pricing models developed by quantitative finance eggheads which risk managers simply didn't understand.  Risk managers got baffled by bullshit.

[Berkut]

So your example of not being a partisan hack is some thread where you make predictions about teh economy, followed by blaming it all on Reagan/Bush/Republicans?

I didn't blame it on anyone other than maybe Greenspan in that thread, that's just your imagination.

My prediction (since bourne out by your own posting) years ago that you were a partisan hack is not based solely on the contents of the thread you curl up with and sleep with every night.

Sadly, the thread was lost when languish went down, and my predictive powers are not as extensive as your own, so I didn't convert it to a pDF to save for posterity.

Lucky for me, you re-affirm said diagnosis regularly.

And it's not partisan to put most of the blame on the party that advocates exactly the things that brought about the financial crisis.

Of course it isn't.

An inability to recognize the complexities of issues and having a nearly 100% hit rate on finding the Republicans to blame for any and all problems with completely partisan thinking is in fact rather partisan. Pretty much by definition.

Just because you truly do believe that your tribe is right and the other tribe is always wrong doesn't mean you are not a partisan hack. It just makes you a very committed, faithful partisan hack.

[Berkut]

No caricature in Berkut land can ever resemble any real person that ever lived.

I bet you don't even recognize the basic hypocrisy in this post. not surprising, since inability to self-critique is a primary trait of the Partisan Hack.

This is the part where you rail against people who try to remain objective, btw. Go ahead.

[DGuller]

An inability to recognize the complexities of issues and having a nearly 100% hit rate on finding the Republicans to blame for any and all problems with completely partisan thinking is in fact rather partisan. Pretty much by definition.

I think being able to make an accurate detailed prediction sort of implies be able to recognize complexities of issues.  As for 100% hit rate, that's again just your imagination.

Just because you truly do believe that your tribe is right and the other tribe is always wrong doesn't mean you are not a partisan hack. It just makes you a very committed, faithful partisan hack.

Yes, a pro-life, anti-union, faithful Democratic hack.  Sure.

[Eddie Teach]

I will note that the Guller = partisan hack and Guller = Dorsey hypotheses rule each other out unless you assume either a radical and sudden philosophical change or that one persona was meant to discredit its side in arguments.

[DGuller]

I will note that the Guller = partisan hack and Guller = Dorsey hypotheses rule each other out unless you assume either a radical and sudden philosophical change or that one persona was meant to discredit its side in arguments.

The only thing consistent about labels attached to me on Languish is the inconsistency.  I started out as a fundie, then I was a Democratic hack, then I was a contrarian, then I was Dorsey, and now I'm back to being a Democratic party hack.  The contrarian is the only one that was somewhere in the zip code of the bullseye.