Free Markets, Free People

Prof. Erb feels put upon

Scott Erb commented in Bruce’s post, which is aptly titled, “Delusional”. Speaking of delusional, here is Prof. Erb’s comment. Ready it slowly. Caress it with your mind. Savor the overweening self-righteousness of it before I respond:

Apparently you choose to delete my replies rather than post them.  Not surprising.  You know I’m right and have predicted all this, and you aren’t honorable enough to post those statements.  OK – you’ll delete this too, I’m sure.  That proves to me that you know I’ve been right, and you’re too scared, chicken and dishonest to allow it on your website.  Thank God you don’t have the responsibility to teach or impact the next generation.  By deleting my posts you prove that you’re scared of the truth.   I pity you, but know that you’re passing – your way of thinking is of the past, and will soon be gone.  My way of thinking is winning the cultural war.  And you know it!  Thank you for admitting defeat by deleting my responses.  You’re scared of the truth!  It’s very satisfying that you decided to delete – that proves to me you know I’m right!  🙂

This is a serious accusation, and, as such, deserves a front-page response.

Dear Prof. Erb;

Delete this comment? Oh, no, I have no intention of doing that. Indeed, I am putting it out where everyone can see it.

In case you haven’t been reading the blog, we had to transfer the web site to a different hosting plan. I’ve been writing about it since Friday.

This transfer process means that the WordPress MySQL database containing all the content has to be exported. After that, the domain has to be transferred from the old IP Address to the new one, which starts the  process of propagating the server change to the Internet, worldwide, through the DNS system. As a result of this unavoidably lengthy process, several hours pass between the time the site content’s database is copied over and users are directed to the new web site. A lot of people who commented during this process also lost their comments, because those comments didn’t exist when the database was transferred to a new server. I left a post (still available until sometime tonight) at the top of the old site yesterday warning that this would happen. So, sadly, you’ll have to temper your satisfaction with the the knowledge that you were not, in fact, the victim of a nefarious scheme. I didn’t even know you had commented, and the loss of your–and everyone else’s–comments after yesterday morning was due entirely to the timing issues inherent in transferring an existing database-driven web site to a new web hosting system.

The truth is that neither Bruce nor I care enough about your turgid literary ejaculations to take the effort of going into the admin section, finding them, and deleting them. If either of us really cared about your doltish ramblings and their <sarcasm>devastating effects</sarcasm>, we’d simply ban you from commenting. That takes even less trouble than finding and deleting your moronic screeds, and we don’t even care enough about you to do that.  Why would you possibly think that, after years of freely allowing you to infest the comments section, we would pick those particular comments to delete? Perhaps you felt that they shone with particularly blinding beacons of your brilliance, to which our only possible response could be to delete them, before the shining rays of your genius corrupted our entire weltanschauung. If so, it must be particularly irksome to know that your uniquely gifted wisdom was lost due to unavoidable technical issues. Perhaps you should consult a professional about these feelings of persecution, though. Failing that, you might simply get over yourself.

Oh, and as a professor of business at an accredited, non-profit, 4-year university, I do, In fact, “teach or impact the next generation.”  Indeed, I have been employed in formal classroom instruction and curriculum development in the military, government, private industry, and academia since 1987. So, sadly, your academic superiority trump card, pathetic as it is, is certainly not applicable to me. Think of it: every term I have a new crop of students to “teach or impact”, as I toil away in the fields of academe. Where is your God now?

Your comments above amply demonstrate the monumentally smug self-regard and intellectual imperviousness to reality that causes so many of our commenters to react badly to you. Certainly, it usually causes me to spurn you as I would spurn a rabid dog. Happily, the self-importance and ignorance of your comment, coupled with its wildly inaccurate allegations, made it too precious to ignore. I would even go so far as to call it “classic Erb” in its grandiose wrongness in every material aspect.

By the way, why are you commenting here? I’m pretty sure you promised to go away and never come back a while ago. A man should keep his word. Anyway, if you had a shred of decency, and something more than a Rain Man-like grasp of human interaction, you’d apologize abjectly to me for this unfounded accusation.

Dale’s social media profiles:
Twitter | Facebook | Google+

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

189 Responses to Prof. Erb feels put upon

  • Bravo, Dale! Bravo! I will wait patiently for Mr. Erb’s heartfelt apology.

  • Bwa ha ha! I have never seen anyone put their foot in their mouth and then proceed to shoot it. Watch and learn!

  • Try making a comment like that on Erb’s blog and you will find it deleted in a heartbeat.  In fact, a comment like that will get your comment deleted AND a responding rant against your deleted comment telling the world how you will not allow vicious, self-serving, abusive comments like the one you just highlighted to fester on his blog.  And by the way, Erb has sworn off this blog on no less than 4 times by my count.  And if you expect an apology from Erb – when pigs fly.

    • You comment frequently on my blog.  You often disagree – sometimes strongly – and I don’t delete your comments. I have a clear and very open commentary policy.  The people who get deleted are almost always people who post anonymously, do not give a proper e-mail address, and add nothing of value.  Most comments I delete are spam.

      • “. . . and I don’t delete your comments.”  That’s commonly called a lie.  On two separate occasions you deleted a comment I made and on one occasion took the time to rebut me with a written tirade about how you will not tolerate “abusive and derogatory” comments on your blog.  Was I abusive?  You obviously thought so.  But that was then and this is now – a red letter day – pigs seem to be flying.

      • By ‘anonymously’ do you mean they don’t give you their ‘actual’ name and they use a handle like – “looker”.

        You seem to think that matters, on the internet, across thousands of miles, without actual verifications of any useful sort for people you will never actually meet.

        that knowing their name or not their name, makes their arguments and points more, or less, valid.

        • I allow anonymous comments or pseudonyms as long as the person is not simply abusive or personally insulting.  If I did comments on my blog like I write here, virtually all of them would be in line with my policy since I try very hard not to be personally insulting.  I might say I believe someone isn’t accepting cultural change, or doesn’t understand how the Mideast operates — but all that kind of stuff would be allowed on my blog too.  If people want to simply make accusations, cut another person down and focus on ad hominem attacks, I’ll tolerate that perhaps a few posts, but will usually write the person and explain what is not allowed.  If it gets bounced back and I find the person used a fake e-mail address, I decide the person’s not serious.  There have been very few posts that reach that level – as long as someone is posted on the issue and not trying to simply attack someone else personally, it’s allowable.

  • On a happy note, those of us who dithered on the road to the new world apparently to abuse Mr. Wonderful kept Schemp Erb from reading the post that stated quite plainly said comments WOULD be lost in the move.

    Pity, I posted the question for the answer 42 and I guess it’s lost forever now.

    Damn you Vogon Constructor Fleet!

  • The amazing thing is he did not see that comments he had replied to were also gone. The memory of a goldfish seems good and necessary for the modern professor. No wonder he has not published anything of note nor supervised grad students during his illustrious career, all that concentration on facts and names could really harsh an old dude’s mellow.

    • I surprised he didn’t do a “I was sooooooo right you’re giving up blogging!” victory dance over a posting titled “QandO is Dead”

      – the one that contained the line…

      ” I’m dropping this post so you’ll know that we can’t blog here anymore, because anything we write here won’t appear on the new site, since I’ve migrated the database over as of this afternoon.”

  • “My way of thinking is winning the cultural war.”  That, sadly, tells the whole tale of this schmuck’s world – winning the cultural war.  Now the next question regarding the professor?  Is it the culture or merely the winning that trumps all?

    • Winning. Winning really matters to little Scottie.

      We should consider how tough it has to be on a mid life clown who’s been so unhappy with his country and culture for over 40 years that he views what we’re having now as an improvements worth boasting about and being part of.

      • Yup, I think we are improving, and I find it exhilarating.  To be serious for a moment, I do think many of you are finding it hard to let go of the past – a different America, one that is being changed both culturally and demographically.  But I really think most of you guys seem decent humored and smart.  You just take me far too seriously.  Here’s a clue – if you ever say, “OK, let’s seriously discuss this” I’ll put aside my provocative play and actually have a sober conversation.  But that effort has been brushed aside all the time here, so I’ve taken to just rattling cages now and then, and donning a persona that arouses a reaction.   I’ve come to realize you don’t want a discussion or real debate, it’s more about promoting your world view and attacking others.

        • Yeah, cuz the America you grew up with just sucked big donkey parts didn’t it? Yeah, pure hell the old days.

          When we could go into an airport and not be injected selected and detected to get on a plane. When we didn’t have armed troops walking around with ‘assault’ weapons. When we didn’t have a biquadtrillion dollar deficit, when our kids learned something useful in school, when Martin Luther King’s dream hadn’t been torn up, shredded and prostituted to hack reverse racists for a buck, when we didn’t have to hear chicken little sky falling climate change stories every 10 minutes.

          I can go on, and on, and on.

          Glad you’re liking the Republic of Media circus with it’s runaway spending, nearly nonexistent borders, threats from whackjob turbanwearing maniacs and all.

          The entire past didn’t suck, the foreseeable future ain’t bright. Your kids won’t have the same chances you did to improve their place in society.

          Those are facts, not opinions.

          • I think the future is brighter than the past, and that my kids will have chances that others didn’t.  But there is something to fix.  In the 1980s we took a wrong turn, deregulating the economy too much, cutting taxes while increasing spending, and starting both a large debt problem, and a rapidly increasing gap between rich and poor.  The trends have going on since the early eighties (debt went from 30% of GDP in 1980 to 60% by 1990), and unless that is turned around, the middle class will continue to decline.  Luckily I’m in the “have” side of that increasing gap, so my kids will have opportunities.  But I’d rather be taxed higher, have government programs limited, and see these problems solved than watching the gap continue to grow.  I really think it will – the current generation is pragmatic and anti-ideological, I think they see ideology as the poison that has made politics so unpleasant, and has warped our system.  I have a lot of faith in the very active youth – ones changing the culture on gay rights, immigration, and other policies where there is real improvement.  But I suspect the EU’s future in the near to middle term is a bit brighter than ours.

          • Here, you poor dogmatic moron.

            Learn something…begin learning something…about economics. You won’t even have to read.

          • Oh, the Horror!!
            Innovation is UNPLANNED! ?!? NONONO!!! Evil righties will innovate the wrong stuff while the good stuff doesn’t get innovated. Can’t you see that?

        • I agree. My America was superior to the sh*t you’re helping to bring about, and when said sh*t hits the fan, I guarantee you there’s a wall you’ll have a few minutes to get well acquainted with.

        • “To be serious for a moment, I do think many of you are finding it hard to let go of the past ”

          You know, the truth is, Progressivism is just warmed over primitivism and tribalism. Postmodernism is just pharaohs and high priests under a new, colorful wrapper of political elites, the nomenklatura and apparatchiks. We’re seeing it play out in Ferguson, and during Katrina.

          Every “progressive” (in truth, REgressive) city and state is collapsing and eating the “seed corn” that they had two hundred years to amass.

          While there is plenty of silliness on the right, there is nothing but elementary school level mentality and behavior on the left. Yes, the one afraid to let go of the past, and to adopt a civil culture, is the left.

          Indeed, the title of the original article, “Delusional” is most appropriate.

        • Yeah see you elitist turd you’re kids are covered so it’s all good. Meaning when it comes to you and yours you’re a good little running dog of capitalism even while advocating against the idea of others using their wealth to give themselves and their kids an edge.

          As expected you want to even the score with other people’s money and you toss off lies that you’d be fine with higher taxes because you expect someone else will pay them.

          I’m not a fan of guaranteed equal outcome, but I actually don’t mind if your kids have the same shot at success mine do. You, your mindless drone advocate shut with the belief that your kids won’t actually be affected by the current plethora is stupid spending and taxing policies. No doubt you’re raising them to be good little robots of the state.

    • First, that is one of his constant delusional conceits. We’ve plowed this ground repeatedly.

      Second, cultures DO change. If he was not such a historical idiot, he’d ALSO know they don’t just change in one direction.

      Third, a cultural change is not necessarily a GOOD change. Some are quite destructive of both individual people and the nation they compose. The culture of Germany during the interregnum between world wars is a terrible example.

      • Here we disagree.
        Cultures don’t change. people simply drift away or toward them. In our case, drifting away from the culture is mandated by the government. Witness Homosexual marriage as an example of such.

    • If I believe I’m fighting for what’s right, of course I want to win!

      • Then don’t belittle us for doing the same – fighting for what we believe is right.

        • I don’t belittle you – I’m pretty consistent in reflecting back what I get.  You guys are great at dishing it out – sometimes you’re a bit sensitive about taking it.  But hey – I have nothing against any of you, especially not you SShiell, even if we’ll never agree on John Kerry!

      • So were most Southern slave owners during the Civil War – so were Hitler’s goons when they overran Europe.

        Fighting for what you think is ‘right’ doesn’t mean shit if what you think isn’t right .

        SShiell has a point though, if that’s your trick, don’t be snotty at us when we point out it’s also ours.

      • If you could tell us what you FEEL is right, AND EXPLAIN WHY, most here would probably grant you some modicum of credibility.

        I suspect your explanation would be logical fallacies and myths, not real logic and reason (Oh, I forgot, postmodernism rejects logic and reason as outdated, and repressive).

  • I always said the good professor was a bit too judgement

    • Yep. Very judgmental. And uniformly BAD.

      • You know I posted there late yesterday and my post is gone too.
        Having a brain in my head allowed me to know just as soon as I posted it that it was destined for the “bit bucket.”
        I read the “QandO is Dead” post, and like anybody who ever left a CD in the car you’ve just traded in will know, it will be gone before you can do anything about it.

  • Interesting.

    I lost a long, well-thought out series of questions for Erp to answer in support of his rambling BS about ISIS, the “new man of the 21th Century”, international war-making, and Islam generally.

    Did I cry? No. I sent an email to Dale, who explained what had happened. All fair and square, nothing but straight up technical constraints during the change-over.

    But I don’t live in the narcissistic, delusional bubble of the Erpster, where I consider my thoughts have any more worth than other readers afford them.

    What an amazing and humiliating exposition…!!! Truly, the man has no self-awareness and really needs a keeper who will stop him from this kind of self-immolation.

  • Prof Erb and I went at it a few times on Usenet, years ago. Speaking of delusional self-righteousness, some things never change.

    • Paul, I remember that debate quite differently – as I recall you’re a computer geek libertarian who is a bit out of his league in discussing political theory.  In any event, I suggest you stick to blogs like this where you and like minded folk can band together, attack the ‘infidels’ and protect the dogma.  It’s so much easier than thinking.

      • “Paul, I remember that debate quite differently”

        Yes, we know. You “remember” everything differently.

      • Wow. So, this is a sample of your provocative play is it? Like minded folk and out of his league. Much easier than thinking.

        Great that you can demonstrate in so few posts to any passing reader why you are so thoroughly mocked and scorned here.

      • You’re a pompous Political Science professor who is full of himself, and otherwise out of any league discussing political theory. As a matter of fact, you seems out of sorts discussing any topic past women’s biological functions.

        • You really need to learn how to flame better, Sharpshooter.  Pompous is a bland insult, and “full of himself” is pretty blase.  Women’s biological functions?  You have to have some kind of context if you’re going to throw in something like that, it seems arbitrary.  I appreciate your flame effort, but you need to take a little more time and make it witty, with insults that aren’t the usual name calling.  Thanks for the effort though!

    • Judgemental

  • Pearls before swine, Mr. Franks, pearls before swine…

  • “My way of thinking is winning the cultural war. And you know it! Thank you for admitting defeat by deleting my responses. You’re scared of the truth! It’s very satisfying that you decided to delete – that proves to me you know I’m right!” 🙂

    Anyone who’s seen the movie Rat Race – think of Rowan Atkinson as Enrico Poligni shouting “It’s a race! It’s a race! I’m winning! I’m winning!”

  • Lol

    This is the first of many humiliations for Erb.

    Reality has a giant clue bat for him and it’s getting ready to swing…..

  • Obamagalumpagum… sorry, need to back the Obamacok oral therapy device out of my mouth a bit to properly compose my comment.

    Apparently you choose to delete my replies rather than post them. Not surprising. Though you’ve never done it before. So maybe it is surprising. Which doesn’t mean I should have wondered if maybe there was some other reason before righteously composing this comment. Hey, you grunt engineer types are always supposed to do that tech stuff perfectly, so I was completely justified in assuming you targeted my comments. We academics with advanced degrees and godlike powers of political science certainly can’t be bothered to worry about “technical issues”, can we? Glad we agree on that.

    But you had never deleted me before, so I naturally assumed my godlike powers had finally gotten under your skin and caused you to do so. Because, as I’ve mentioned before, I have fun coming here and irritating everyone who frequents the site. Which isn’t either psychologically sick, so stop saying that. And I don’t either come here and post because you won’t delete my replies no matter how much I condescendingly talk down vigorously engage you dense righties. I have a magical life, and I certainly don’t need to boost my imaginary self worth by coming here. Stop saying that too. {giggle}

    You know I’m right and have predicted all this, and you aren’t honorable enough to post those statements. Just like all the other thick righties out there who ban me faster than a dog takes a pee after being indoors all day.

    OK – you’ll delete this too, I’m sure. Totally, absolutely positive. That proves to me that you know I’ve been right, and you’re too scared, chicken and dishonest to allow it on your website. Especially on the front page. Oh, wait, you just put it on the front page, didn’t you? Um, now what do I say? You’ve proven me totally wrong, haven’t you.

    No, you haven’t. I decree it. I’m right and you’re wrong. Just like all the other times. I handwave aside the obvious fact that you not only didn’t delete the comment, but in fact did an entire post about it. Because I know that, deep down, you –wanted– to delete it. And that totally counts, because intention means more than results. All the cool pragmatic moderate leftists say so.

    Thank God you don’t have the responsibility to teach or impact the next generation. By deleting my posts you prove that you’re scared of the truth. Yep, deleting comments off a blog prove that. And the fact that I delete comments and ban way more people than you guys ever thought of doesn’t count. Got that? If you delete one comment, you are scared of the truth and not fit to impact the next generation. But I can delete as many as I want and I’m not the least bit scared of the truth and eminently qualified to impact the next generation. Got that?

    And there’s no contradiction there. None. Obamadubagumpabub. Sorry, but I needed to get fairly aggressive with the Obamacok oral therapy device, because I spotted some giant magenta caterpillars peeking out of my desk drawer. Yes, they still have Sarah Palin’s face, and her naughtly librarian glasses too. They are not far enough out for me to see their ample bosoms, but I know they are there. So I’m really working on my oral therapy device to keep them in the drawer. Obamadumbalumgadum.

    I pity you, but know that you’re passing – your way of thinking is of the past, and will soon be gone. Gone, gone, I say! I decree it. From my redoubt in the woods of Maine, in which the all-knowing, all-seeing professor of political science completely grasps and intuitively understands the entire whole of existence, I can tell that all you dense righties are about to fall off the face of the earth and become completely irrelevant. I decree it.

    Thank you for admitting defeat by deleting my responses. Yes, it made my night. I spent hours basking in the pleasure of knowing that I had finally goaded you into deleting me, and thereby proving my superiority and wisdom. And shut up about the comments I delete, and what they prove, by the same exact logic, about my commenters being superior and wise. It’s different. Because. {whimper}

    Yes, it’s very satisfying that you decided to delete – that proves to me you know I’m right! And it’s not either pathetic that I take pleasure in such a trivial thing that turned out to be not targeted at me anyway. It is not either pathetic! Stop saying that!!!

  • For anyone wanting to get access to the comments in that “Delusional” thread, I extracted them and placed them in a page on my own site.

    You just know Professor Polywobble composed his whole rant in his mind a long time ago,, while waiting and hoping he would finally push someone here over the edge. It’s obvious that he was just aching to use it. That’s why he was so eager to post that he jumped at the chance, without noticing that other comments were also missing or spending a moment’s thought into the possibility that there might be some other reason his comment was missing.

    • For anyone wanting to get access to the comments in that “Delusional” thread, I extracted them and placed them in a page on my own site.

      Ok. Great. Um….why?

      • Why not? Took me less than sixty seconds, and some people seemed to have some desire to refer back to them.

        • Well, don’t get me wrong. It’s not a criticism. I’m just wondering if you saved those comments specifically, because of the changeover, or because it’s something you regularly do.

    • Bless you, Billy…!!!

      Here, Erp, eat…er…deal with THIS…

      Ragspierre on August 13, 2014 at 21:28

      HIGH-larry-ous…!!! This may be your biggest pant-load of pablum EVAH…!!!

      Let’s see if we can put bones to your pablum, eh?

      1. Quote where you predicted ISIS amid your blathering about the “Arab Spring”.
      2. You mentioned ISIS tactics. What are they?
      a. you answer should EXPLICITLY review ISIS military tactics
      b. next, your answer should EXPLICITLY review ISIS political tactics
      c. your answer MUST review ISIS psychological tactics
      3. How are these tactics “easily defeated”? Please be VERY detailed.
      4. Why would any European power follow Barracula, John F’ing Kerry, and Hagel into battle?
      5. Explain why Muslims from all over the world are traveling to fight with ISIS if they are “a small cadre who know they won’t win the hearts and minds” yada, yada, and yada.
      6. Given that the “international community” is expressed in the UN, and that the UN is dominated by Muslims and dictators, what OTHER “international community” do you posit?
      7. What on earth makes you think Barracula wants to lead a major land battle in the ME?
      8. Tell us about this “new man” you imagine for the 21st Century. In detail. No more pablum.
      9. Given that I can show you pictures of Muslim yoots…and seven-year-olds with severed heads…who are eager ISIS killers, show us some pictures of the “new Muslim” youth majority you claim.

      Do that, or STFU.

    • q cite=”… spending a moment’s thought”

      Re Erb, That’s redundant.

      Hey, and notice his “w[on} cultural war” is best played out in Ferguson, and even more so now that some relevant facts are in:

  • I’ll bet you also stole his strawberries.

    Typical of Erp’s careless, sloppy, and paranoid attitude towards reality. Everyone else knew about the construction in progress, and it was clearly and repeatedly advertised, but when he didn’t notice the detour sign and ran off the road it was an intentional plot against only him.

    As to his hypocrisy, I think I can claim to be one of the first (along with Shark?) to have comments deleted from his website. I was even polite and non-confrontational.

    There really is something not-quite-right about him.

    On the positive side, it seems his generic “spirituality” has evolved into real religion;
    “Thank God you don’t have the responsibility to teach or impact the next generation”

    • “Thank God you don’t have the responsibility to teach or impact the next generation”

      What a fool – raising kids, BSA, church groups, school and community volunteering – yep, NONE of those things have an impact on the next generation.

      What do you suppose impacts someone more – a couple Poly Sci courses in the world renowned college in Farmingmoose Maine, or, say, becoming an Eagle Scout?

    • Free at lass, free at lass…thank GAWD we are free at lass…
      Poor ol’ Erp and his failure with Russian brides… I wonder if he’s had any better luck with other wimmins….???

      • I don’t understand why you dense righties go on and on about my Russian bride. It was just one of those things. You know, a soulless husk of a marriage, which wasn’t either because I have the emotional depth of a tree stump.

        Besides, you should come over to my blog and see me cavorting with nubile young co-eds on the Italy trip. And I wasn’t either furiously fapping in my foreign hotel room because two of them were on the other side of the wall giggling. Stop saying that.

        • “L-o-t-i-o-n. Must park lotion for next junket… It burns soooooo good…”

  • LOL … so funny … Erb finally jumped the shark (not our shark, THE shark)

  • I gotta laugh at you guys.  You take me so seriously, even writing a whole post about me – and people feel compelled to comment.  I’m touched, I really influence you guys, get you to write whole posts, spend time commenting.  Even though I’ve made it pretty clear I don’t take you or myself seriously in these debates.  I’ve given up getting you guys to actually have a real conversation.  So I only look in here when I’m bored and usually something will strike me as wrong and I’ll comment and then wait for the usual reactions, chuckling.
    But I’m sorry if I erred in realizing what you were doing with the blog, it’s because I don’t read regularly that I didn’t see that.
    In any event, I feel flattered that I have such an impact.  You take me more seriously than I take myself here – and while that’s a bit fun, you’re just not getting my humor/playfulness…nor do you actually want to discuss issues… *shrug*

    • The trusty pol sci gambit of “pretend I am a six-year old” does seem appropriate after such a spectacular own-goal. Well done sir! Well done!

    • I gotta laugh at you guys. I mean, I really can’t do anything else. Because I’m sure as hell not going to apologize for making a fool of myself and saying nasty things about you that turned out to be totally unjustified.

      You take me so seriously, even writing a whole post about me – and people feel compelled to comment. I’m touched, I really influence you guys, get you to write whole posts, spend time commenting. The fact that they are uniformly derisive doesn’t bother me at all. Not because I have the emotional depth of a tree stump and don’t even have the ability to keep a Russian bride happy, mind you. Stop saying that. No, it’s because, from my lofty perch in at Mooseville Community College, I am way above such pettiness. My godlike powers of political science allow me to be unaffected by insults, name-calling, mistakes I might or might not have made, or even reality itself if I don’t like it.

      And, if my native capabilities of avoiding the oppression of my own mediocrity are not enough, I have some blue pills and my new Obamacok oral therapy device to comfort me. So your slings and arrows are completely worthless against me. See? I brush them off, with no effect. And certainly no need to apologize for being a jerk even worse than usual, and making claims that were completely untrue.

      I’ve made it pretty clear I don’t take you or myself seriously in these debates. I only look in here when I’m bored. Bored, I tell you, and certainly not when the mediocrity and loneliness of my pathetic life cause me to crave someone to talk down to. Because none of that is true. {whimper}

      But I’m sorry if I erred in realizing what you were doing with the blog, it’s because I don’t read regularly that I didn’t see that. And that’s all I have to say about that. And I’m not either admitting that I don’t really read any of the stuff you guys post, but just skim until I find something that will allow me to dump the same, trite leftist talking points here again and again. I admit nothing. Obamabagumbalumpadum.

      You’re just not getting my humor/playfulness. Hey, I’m a funny, playful guy! All my students laugh and laugh and laugh at my jokes. They’re so good I use the same ones in every class. And they always laugh. And I’m so very, very playful that I immediately jump to the conclusion that I’m being persecuted over a minor technical problem. And wail about how you’re all scared of the truth. Because you are, but that’s just a playful comment on my part. Not serious at all.

      Nor do you actually want to discuss issues. Which we could totally do if you would just realize that I reserve the right to playfully handwave aside anything you say that I don’t like. *shrug*

    • “You take me so seriously,”

      Wow. Seriously delusional. I think the appropriate word is actually “recreationally”. Spending a few moments making a joke at your expense or pointing out your flaming ignorance and self-delusion can be amusing.

      “people feel compelled to comment”

      Nope. As I said, it’s amusement.

      “you’re just not getting my humor/playfulness”

      Nice try, but no sale. You have no sense of humor, and your attempts (plural) to pretend you are not seriously arguing your “points” don’t work in the face of so much contrary evidence. Exhibit A;

      As far as your intellectual prowess goes, I can do no better than quote one of your own students;

      “If you have had one class with him you have had them all. I learned this when I had three classes with him at the same time, it was painful I heard the same jokes over and over, as well as the same lessons. I was bored to tears by the time I heard it the third time.”

      This guy (or girl) nailed it; boring and repetitive.

      • You try too hard timactual.  You know nothing you write can bother me – but the way you respond shows that what I write can bother you.  You don’t get how funny I find that sometimes.   Some of you take things so seriously – you really don’t get it!

        • We don’t need to PRETEND you’re a six year-old.

        • “You know nothing you write can bother me”

          Get over yourself. You seem to be the one who takes yourself too seriously.

          As I have written, repeatedly, I don’t give a rat’s hindquarters what you think. I do this for my own amusement. It’s all about me; what amuses and entertains me. Surely you can understand narcissism?

          Actually I am fascinated by how you “think”. Rather, I try to understand the convoluted processes by which you come to a conclusion and the malleability of your reality. Like the cliched train wreck, horrible but fascinating. I look at you as I would someone with Alzheimer’s or tertiary syphilis; fear and horror that something like that could happen to me and thankfulness that it hasn’t.

          I also like a good laugh and I must say you have inspired quite a few over the years.

          “what I write can bother you.”

          No, my arthritis bothers me, you either bore or amuse me. Right now I find you amusing, hence the willingness to waste time responding to you.

    • “you’re just not getting my humor/playfulness”

      Because, to give you a current similarity, you’re about as funny as Ebola.


      Speaking of “BORING”. You just got drilled, Erp.

      Answer the questions. Or retreat with your tail tucked. You know, like when the bull moose are rutting…

  • Try something for a change, Erb.  Try walking into a discussion here without having to “just rattling cages now and then, and donning a persona that arouses a reaction.”  Treat us with the same level of respect you demand of those commenting on your own blog.  Who knows, you might even “actually have a sober conversation.”

    • You might as well walk up to the nearest farm animal and expect it to solve a calculus problem.

    • Been there, done that, many times.  I gave you.  Every now and then I’ll try again, but I get the usual responses so I figure I’ll just come back now and then when I’m bored and watch the usual response.  Efforts to insult, anger, efforts to ridicule, but always ALWAYS my comments generate more responses than any other commentator, and threads I’m on have many more comments than others.  You guys secretly love me – you want to hit out at a caricature of how you would see a leftist professor, and when I play into that, I just watch how you fall over yourselves in a desire to lash out.  It’s emotion.   Any time you say “I want a serious discussion on this.”  I’ll comply.  One person, I think Billy, says he tried it once and I didn’t, but he can’t point out what I said that wasn’t respectful or honestly engaged in that conversation.  Yeah, we won’t agree – but as I do tell my class, disagreement is good.  I think most of you really don’t get that.  Political debate should be about mutual learning and LISTENING to different points of you.  When it becomes war – the other side is evil, our side good – then it becomes destructive.  I think inbred blogs on the left and right do a disservice to political discourse by discouraging efforts to understand people with different perspectives.

      • “One person, I think Billy, says he tried it once and I didn’t, but he can’t point out what I said that wasn’t respectful or honestly engaged in that conversation. ”

        Now you’re out and out lying. I did point it out. Three times, in fact. You handwaved away the obvious cheap shots.

        And it wasn’t just once, you jackass. I put up with your handwaving, illogic, obtuseness, and sheer idiocy for two years. That’s what it takes to get to the point where I think someone is a lost cause.

        Yes, I know you don’t see any of that. Because you’re too narcissistic, smug, condescending, and stupid to see it.

        Two years, Scott. Two dreary years I put up with your stupidity, and tried to respond reasonably respectfully. Of course, with your selective memory, you don’t recall it. You never recall anything that would put you in a bad light. Never. The psychological defense mechanisms you have in place to deal with your psychopathy won’t allow it.

        You simply deny it all, pretend it doesn’t exist, and chortle to yourself about how you have made people lose their cool again and that means you’ve bested them or are smarter or something. Never even considering the fact that irritating people for fun is indicative of a psychological sickness.

        • Just quote what I said that caused you to think I wasn’t willing to discuss in a calm, respectful manner.  It’s easy to throw out insults, but if you can’t quote what I said exactly in the thread, then you have nothing but impotent insults.  I don’t need to recall it, if you can quote it.  If you can’t quote it, well, that says something.  I honestly truly believe that when I’m effective in showing flaws in the logic of some of you on the right – and when I make a strong case for an alternative view, you get angry that I’m not simply accepting your assumptions and logic.  Rather than engage it – and risk that you might end up having to admit I’m right, you hide behind insults and false claims.  I don’t mean to be insulting, but I think it’s a defense mechanism for you to avoid having to possibly question your deeply held beliefs.  That’s not uncommon, and I’m sure I do that at times too – but the way to really keep learning and growing is to listen and communicate.

          • And that is at base why I keep posting now and then.  I think you all deep down know I show flaws in your argument and reasons not to just hook line and sinker follow your right semi-libertarian ideology.  I think I’ve even seen you recognize the flaws in overly ideological thinking.  I’m trying to get you to question some of the assumptions you make, and see how it is that intelligent, honest people can have a perspective very different than yours.  I see your response as an effort not to acknowledge effective counter positions.  That’s why your insults can’t stick – they are meaningless to me.  In fact, I see them as a sign that you do see some logic to my position and it bugs you.  If it didn’t, you’d just ignore me.  I’m actually trying to help you learn, and I’m reading what you all right to learn myself.  I’m not afraid of alternative views than my own, nor do I see those who think differently than me as evil, stupid.  I mean, you guys call nobel prize winning economists stupid and clueless – that says something, you automatically define people’s traits via their political perspective.  That’s irrational.

          • write, not right in the above post

          • No, Erp. What is “irrational” is kneeling down and fellating someone because they have been given an award. Rational people recognize the award, but never suspend critical thing WRT its holder. Otherwise, we’d be so stupid as to consider Yassir That’s My Baby Arafat as a great humanitarian and champion of peace.

            Really, how stupid are you? You never cease to raise that question when you post.

            Now, answer the flucking questions I posted.

          • “Just quote what I said that caused you to think I wasn’t willing to discuss in a calm, respectful manner. ”

            I did, you fucking idiot! Three times! Can’t you read? You just don’t remember it, because you *never* remember the stuff that puts you in a bad light.

            What would be the point of going through it again? You would just blow it off again, and three months later you would have even forgotten that I ever did it.

            You can’t even recognize when we’re all laughing at you over your industrial-grade stupidity. Your sort-of-apology didn’t even engage the main points of your misplaced accusations. Because you’re too smug and stupid to understand your own actions, much less take responsibility for them.

          • You posted a link.  I followed the link to an entire conversation and could not find anywhere that suggested I mistreated you.  So again, I challenge you – if it exists, post a quote.  Not a link to a whole thread, but a quote.  I bet you can’t because none exists.  All your ranting, raving, redundant impotent name calling and other silliness hides that you have nothing, and deep down, you know it.  Check mate.
            Unless you actually have a quote – something specific.

          • “when I’m effective in showing flaws in the logic of some of you on the right”

            Logic? Oh dear. I can’t resist;

            “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

          • “I’m actually trying to help you learn”

            Thanks for the laughs. That line alone will keep me chuckling for hours.

      • ” So I only look in here when I’m bored ”

        “I’ll just come back now and then when I’m bored and watch the usual response. Efforts to insult, anger, efforts to ridicule, but always ALWAYS my comments generate more responses than any other commentator”

        Ah, a nugget of truth, at last. Like the Maytag repairman of television commercial fame he sits on his own blog waiting for commenters that never come. The poor boy is lonely. Even derision and mockery are better than being ignored to someone whose ego constantly needs to be fed.

        Fascinating. The only person I have ever seen who takes pride in the number of insults, etc. they receive. Correction, the only adult I have ever seen.

  • Let’s get real here, you know this post for Erb is like mainlining crack lol

    • What I notice, too, is that he cannot answer direct questions.


      Another time.

      Some more.

      What a coward.

      • Rags, your “questions” are so full of fallacies – things like Muslims dominate the UN, most Muslims supporting ISIS, etc.  Bigotry, Islamophobia, ignorance.  So here are your answers:
        1.  Almost nobody predicted ISIS directly, but I blogged about how long and difficult the transition would be, with internal battles for the soul of Islam.  Here’s a quote from my Feb. 23, 2011 blog:  “What this means for the region is unclear.  Europe modernized over centuries, with bloodshed and rivalries tearing the continent apart.  The US modernized in relative isolation, though its superior technology seduced the early Americans to conquer natives and violently expand.   Modernization and democratization have always been messy processes, and usually not successful right away.   Reactionary forces will also strive to halt change, such as Islamic fundamentalists.”
        2.  ISIS tactics are to use brutality to try to try to polarize the population and force the masses to choose between supporting repressive regimes or them.  They know the youth aren’t radical like they are, so they use fear and utter brutality to try to either cower opponents into submission, or silence moderate voices.  This will fail, but as I noted above in 2011, it will be difficult and messy.
        3.  I explained that in my blog post.  You need to read my blog, “Defeating ISIS.”
        4.  They already are getting involved, Germany has been pushing this.   Kerry and Obama are very respected in Europe – unlike Obama’s failed predecessor, who had France and Germany conspiring with Russia against the US.  Obama is improving US standing in the world which reached a low ebb in 2007.
        5.  Very few Muslims are joining ISIS, almost all Muslims oppose ISIS.   Please provide evidence that somehow ISIS has broad support.  Nobody argues that, you’ve based your question on a false premise (a typical tactic of yours).
        6.  The UN is not dominated by ISIS, your question is based on a false and irrelevant premise.  The UN can act, as can NATO.   No Muslim state is supporting ISIS.
        7.  False assumption – I never said the US wanted to lead a major land battle.
        8.  I don’t imagine a new man for the 21st Century, now you’re just making stuff up.
        9,  Irrelevant – showing pictures does not make an argument.  But if you do a google image search on peaceful Muslims, you’ll find many.  You seem to have a very ignorant and ill-informed view of Islam if you think even more than a small portion support ISIS.  I strongly suggest you educate yourself, there are many Muslim-American outreach organizations that can help you overcome your bigotry.  Have a nice day.

        • Well, not at all remarkably, you simply LIE about what I did say.

          Then you published more pablum…fresh and stale. Take, for instance…

          1. “What this means for the region is unclear. Modernization and democratization have always been messy processes, and usually not successful right away. Reactionary forces will also strive to halt change, such as Islamic fundamentalists.” What a lode of crap…!!! They aren’t concerned with ‘halting change’. They ARE interested in real change, and have been going about it very successfully.

          2. You didn’t answer the questions. What you did is regurgitate a bunch of generalized bloviation. ISIS uses a very SET group of military, political, and psychological tactics that are very effective, hard to combat, and by no means “easily defeated” as you stupidly…and we see ignorantly…related.

          3. I won’t let you pimp me to your blog. State it here, or concede you have no flucking idea what you are talking about. As usual…

          4. “Kerry and Obama are very respected in Europe”. No. They are not. You are out of your mind, and don’t care to demonstrate it. See recent slap-down by French Foreign Minister of Pres. Vacay.

          5. Well, ISIS is pulling YOUNG Muslims from all over the world. Remember “the strong horse”? I would not say…and never did, you lying phuc…that they enjoy “broad support”. They enjoy world-wide support, and a small percentage of Muslims is a whole lot of people. Isn’t it, you lying phuc?

          6. Is not only an outright lie, it is beeeeee-zare. Quote me in support of what you said, liar.

          7. You explicitly said that Obama would lead an international campaign against ISIS. That implicates…for anyone with a brain…a land war. What did you imagine? Hash-tags?

          8. People read your shit. Either you DID say it, or you are the worst writer in…EVER…

          9. I see. You can’t. But you can call me a “bigot” because I deal in reality. You are the kind of idiot who will get a lot of good people killed, displaced, miserable, maimed, and diseased. Just like Pres. ScamWOW and his like-minded idiots in State and Defense.

          But thanks for the demonstration. I always love it when you are driven from cover.

          • I answered the questions.  You gave nothing of substance, you’re dancing and weaving but saying nothing.  If you want to know my plan you have to read my blog – I’m not going into detail here.  I’m absolutely right on points 5, 6 and 7.  Post evidence to the contrary if you disagree.  So far, you’ve given nothing.  I said Obama could lead a concerted effort, NOT a military campaign (again, that’s explained in my own blog).  Where do you think I said “new man” for number 8.  And you are not dealing with reality if you think ISIS is indicative of Muslim thought.  It is a tiny extreme.  In short, you’re not very good at making an argument, Rags.  You equivocate, are vague, press, but avoid actually saying anything of substance.  When I do answer you just claim I don’t.  Oh well – I don’t expect much from you, and in that you never disappoint.

          • “The US is not powerful enough, nor are the American people willing enough to the price, for the US to do it alone. The European states have some of the best professional armies in the world, if much smaller than the US, and can contribute to a limited military campaign which, combined with arming Kurdish Peshmerga fighters can change the military tide.”—Erp

            Or…a land war in the ME. Liar.

            “President Obama can help lead building this unilateral force, but the US is not in a position to “fix” this alone.”—Erp (And I think you wanted “multilateral force”…like the one BooooooOOOOOOOoooosh led, ya moron.)

            “Politically, the ICC is the perfect mechanism for going after individual ISIS leaders.”

            Too loopy to even require a comment. Does the term “suicide bomber magnet” cause even a HINT of actual THOUGHT…????

            “Several non-binding resolutions have been voted on and accepted by the UN condemning “defamation of religion.” The motions, sponsored on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, aim to prohibit expression that would “fuel discrimination, extremism and misperception leading to polarization and fragmentation with dangerous unintended and unforeseen consequences.” Religious groups, human rights activists, free-speech activists, and several countries in the West have condemned the resolutions arguing it amounts to an international blasphemy law. Critics of the resolutions including human rights groups argue that they are used to politically strengthen domestic anti-blasphemy and religious defamation laws, which are used to imprison journalists, students and other peaceful political dissidents.”

            “Algeria, China, the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates all share at least three qualities in common: they are all recidivist violators of human rights, they are all members in good standing of the UN General Assembly Human Rights Council, and they all voted for that Council’s Resolution S-21/1 of 23 July 2014, which condemns Israel for violation of a broad array of human rights in Gaza, and then appoints an “independent” commission to investigate.”
            From the “conservative rag” Huffing Pros

            You simply lied on No. 5…

            You: “Please provide evidence that somehow ISIS has broad support. Nobody argues that, you’ve based your question on a false premise (a typical tactic of yours).”

            My question: “Explain why Muslims from all over the world are traveling to fight with ISIS if they are “a small cadre who know they won’t win the hearts and minds” yada, yada, and yada.”

            Note that you lied, accused me of a false premise BASED on your lie, and accused me of using a false premise as a “typical tactic”. You really don’t have a shred of honesty about you.

            You simply lied on No. 6…

            You: “The UN is not dominated by ISIS, your question is based on a false and irrelevant premise.”

            My question: “Given that the “’international community’” is expressed in the UN, and that the UN is dominated by Muslims and dictators, what OTHER “international community” do you posit?”

            See, this is what I do for a living, Erp. I ask people questions, and let them lie on paper. As here. There was nothing in my question that MENTIONED ISIS. You simply lied about my question’s premise.

            And then you lied again about lying.

            I LOVE these demonstrations…!!!

  • Concerning that “sober conversation” we have been talking about – you know, Erb, the one you would like to have but cannot get from those who inhabit this nether region of right wing complacency as you might call it.  As I said before, try to respect us the way you require respect from your own blog.  One of the ways to do that is to answer your detractors.  What do I mean?  Simple – many times you waltz in here and make statements, supported or not that “stir the pot” and then sit back and watch.  But one of the counters you receive from those here are questions from the commenters here challenging your statements/positions.  You ignore the questions and waltz away.  Once in a while, answer the questions – show us you are really engaged and not just – dare I say it – trolling.

    • I do respect you, and almost all posters here.  That’s the irony – as poorly  as you all think of me, I don’t think that way of you (and I know the view of me most have is a fantasy).  When I’ve done things wrong – had a fact wrong, over-reacted, etc., I always apologize.  If I had done what Pendergast did when he ridiculed me, falsely as it turned out, I’d have apologized to him.  He of course did not.  If you tally up the insults and attacks on me compared to what I say, it’s pretty clear that while at times I can dish it out, I can take it quite well.  But deep down, I really truly respect almost all of you (and often wish I could get past that antagonism).  I do like to read the economic stats, though at times I do think there is a propagandistic element here (on global warming, etc.) that the earlier version of Q & O – when it was really trying to chart a new neo-libertarian space rather than being part of the right of center blogosphere – didn’t so much have.  But compared to places like Red State, if I want to see creative, interesting thinking from the “right,” this is one of the best blogs.

      • I think the evidence is very clear why you run from pointed questions like a scalded spider.

        Actually, that is a very apt metaphor.


        • No, I answered your questions and, predictably, you simply declared it not enough, offered no evidence of your own, and essentially proved yourself incapable of putting together even a basic argument.  You have nothing – but dancing and weaving and avoiding any kind of argument or fact.  No wonder you are ashamed to sign your own name to your posts.

          • Wow. MORE lies and then your broke-dick ad hominem…!!!



            Suck it, Erp.

          • On the whole “suck it” issue…

            Does the Obamacok oral therapy device need batteries or is it wind powered?

            Does yours come with a jell-pack? (You can spell “come” any way that works, BTW)

          • Rags, you have nothing.  Your verbose bits about the UN, etc., don’t deal with the issues.  If you have a point, make a cogent argument, clear and concise, and give evidence.  You are now down to trying to argue the definition of “is” in your questions.  Pathetic.  Be a man, put your name on your post, make a concise argument, stop with the blather and the verbosity, and actually debate.  You have not responded to any of my points, nor have you refuted them.  Step up.  Show you have the capacity to actually make an argument!  Find that strength deep within!


            That isn’t JUST an argument. THAT is a dead-bang demonstration of how you lie.

            What an moron…!!!

            And the FUNNIEST part is you just cannot stop. Can you…???

          • Ah, your obsession with his name is pretty creepy. Either he makes a point or he doesn’t. His real name means nothing.

            Are you saying if he turned out to be someone important or famous that that would make his arguments better or more persuasive to you?
            Are you admitting you’re impressed by power and money or influence over a persuasive argument?

      • Always good to know you’re paying attention to me skippy. As you like to say, thanks.

        Do you care to explain the error I made that day between arguing the numbers of jobs versus the number of unemployed as a percentage of the employable population, which had been the purpose of Bruce’s post?

  • Amazing. Erb completely pwns himself and STILL manages to make an even bigger knob-end of himself. An outstanding effort truly worthy of some lifetime achievement award!

    • He’s where he always is by this point in a thread. We’re mean but he loves and respects us anyway., even those of us who are out of his league and don’t really think.
      No one has proved him wrong, no one has refuted his genius arguments and we’re reduced to impotent (he likes that word) rage and name calling. Rags, or whoever, is not a real man because they won’t use their real names and if we would only treat him with the same respect he has for the senile inbred exmilitary right wing narrow minded archaic last century failed idealogical inhabitants of QandO he’d be happy to give us all the benefit of his 45ish years of wisdom about life and his vision of what America should be and instruct us in the right way to best atone for our imperialist racist history.
      If we’re really polite he’ll explain quantum theory and maybe give us insight into Cartesian Dualism to boot.

      • This may have been done before, but it’s kind of fun exercise anyhow…

        Erp, if you will note, does NOT answered several of the questions. He makes no attempt to answer by providing any information or anything really responsive to the question.


        1. He erects a straw man by completely changing the premises and subject of the question

        2. He proceeds to attack his straw man courageously

        3. He launches an attack on the questioner for asking such a stupid question (‘your typical tactic’)

        Now that we’ve a model for this kind of response, we can watch for this same kind of pattern in future.

        This is fun. And Erp is one of the most dishonest people on the interwebs. Which is a tough field to run in.

        • No Rags, you gave a list of questions, I answered them, you said the answers weren’t good enough, making vague claims and attacks, but not offering any evidence or counter-argument.  You bobbed, weaved, but did not put forth any cogent position.   So I’ll make it clear:  ISIS numbers between 6000 and 10,000.  That is a small percentage of the Islamic world, even though you vaguely suggested young people were flocking to them.  ISIS was born from anti-American insurgents in Iraq.  Without the US invasion, there would be no ISIS.  ISIS is a rival of al qaeda, and most of its members are hard core jihadists, many from Chechnya, and a growing number from North Africa.  They are feared by most Muslims, and are almost universally held to be anti-Koranic and contrary to Islamic values.  They use barbarism and ruthless brutality because they know they will not win hearts and minds.  They wish to force a polarization that will make it a black and white “Islam vs. the West.”   My argument, which you did not counter, is that the US and NATO could engage in military strikes and support the Kurdish Peshmerga, which Germany already is rearming, and Secretary Kerry said we should arm as well.
          Beyond that, a political effort to create a regional anti-ISIS, anti-genocide isolation of ISIS will allow that relatively small group to militarily defeated, or at least pushed into a small territory they can’t escape from.  From there, global efforts to help refugees need to happen, funded broadly (not just the US).  Because ISIS is small and their crimes so egregious, there is already nearly universal condemnation of the group.  Acting together, we can easily defeat them.   It won’t be easy, and I think President Obama needs to lead the effort to develop a coordinated international response – if he can succeed in defeating ISIS, this will be a major accomplishment for his Presidency.
          You say weird things like “the UN is mostly Muslim and dictatorships” as if that is at all a relevant fact.  That’s your effort to distract and diffuse the argument so the central core is obscure.  Do not give a list of questions, make an argument.  You do not have standing to just throw out questions and avoid stating your case, clearly and cogently.   If you believe my position wrong, point out where and why.  Give your counter argument.  Are you up to that?

          • “No Rags, you gave a list of questions, I answered them….”

            No. That’s a lie, and you are a liar. You very pointedly DID NOT address MY questions, but tried to get away with answering your own set of straw man questions that had no connection to mine.

            ANY reader of this thread can see our demonstration (thanks again, btw).

            ANY reader can see my point-by-point analysis of your tactics.

            And you can’t refute any part of that, because it is memorialized here.

            So you just go on to more lies. You are like the Energizer bunny of intellectual dishonesty, and you are KNOWN for it here. And you cannot seem to stop adding to your execration by your conduct.

            “You do not have standing to just throw out questions and avoid stating your case, clearly and cogently.”

            Well OF COURSE I do. I can…and certainly WILL…challenge your bullshit.

            Like, for instance, asserting that ISIS tactics are “easily defeated”. You have no clue to this moment what those tactics are, and how wrong your asinine assertion really is. And you won’t BOTHER to learn, which is simply ASTOUNDING, in the face of a challenge. Because you are so cocooned in your own sense of right, and (I guess) having to allow you were WRONG.

            You usually just ignore pointed challenges, and will likely do so in the future. Because you are an amazingly stupid man who insists on choosing to stupefy himself by embracing the delusions you do. But you simply hunger for the attention you garner here by showing up to lob a trolling comment here and there, and OCCASIONALLY engaging in one of these marathon lie-fests. You really are a very sick fella, Erp.

          • ” You are like the Energizer bunny of intellectual dishonesty, and you are KNOWN for it here.”

            Judging from the commenters who keep popping up with stories of past experiences with Erp he is “known for it” just about everywhere. Wow. We are blessed with the presence of an internet legend.

          • I know, right?

            But it’s kind of like knowing Rasputin. It’s an “honor” you could have easily lived without…

      • Tell me, when do you actually make a counter argument?  Name calling and personal attacks reflect junior high playground tactics.  Rather than channel your inner eighth grader, maybe you could think about the issues and actually make a substantive claim.  That’s not too hard, is it?

        • Which one of the many people who have had you hand wave away substantial links and proof to back up a point are you talking to?

          Nearly all of us, except dear old Ott have at one time or another had patient attempts to give evidence of our points to refute yours. You either ignore or disregard things that generally might put a dent in whatever carnival sideshow talking points you show up with. Take for example your recent fixation that Obama is going to be remembered as not only a better President than Jimmy Carter, but as great as some of our greatest. The objective evidence is all around that that in itself qualifies as a delusion.
          But we’re supposed to back it up with links (which you will ignore ) and proof that your merest hand wave dismisses?
          Pull the other one.

          • That’s not true.   I make it a point to answer any substantive point.  I also made an argument on why I’m convinced Obama will be remembered as one of history’s greats.  Truman left office with 27% approval, seen by people at the time as a horrible President.   Indeed, the right wing media and blogosphere is beside itself attacking Obama (and has been – it did it to Clinton too, who is now remembered fondly by most).  My argument was substantive, looking at what Obama has accomplished.  I won’t reprise it here, but it is on my blog on April 2, 2014.  It involves getting us out of the Great Recession he inherited, passing landmark health care reform, recasting US foreign policy for a new multi-polar world, and there’s more listed in my blog entry.  I certainly understand that you have a different view.  But you don’t have “objective evidence,” you have interpretations and opinions.  I explain my position, and make it a point to respond to substantive arguments.  It’s the playground name calling that I just shake my head at.

          • Accomplished?
            Executive edicts to arbitrarily modify law? No budget since 2009? Foreign policy disaster stacked on disaster brought about by the inability to make a decision? Out of control deficit spending? Complete disregard for his vaunted promise to be the most transparent administration evah. Increased spying, increased spending, not just failure to secure the border but a wilful practice of making it worse and issuing official lies about it.
            Not just one area, many. Not just recognized by all here, but recently highlighted by even the beloved of liberals NYT. From black protesters in Furgeson No, to liberal columnists to WE poor benighted posters and commenters here.
            You are entitled to your opinion,as they say, as Looney as it may be.

          • His legislative accomplishments are many.  While the right is blaming everything that happens in the world that is bad on Obama, that makes no sense. Not only can’t the US President control what happens globally, but much of what’s unfolding was put into motion because of the horrible decision to go to war in Iraq in the first place.  The “blame America first” group that seems to think Obama is the cause of everything from ISIS to Ebola is, in my opinion, wrong.  Obama is shifting US policy from a Cold War “leader of the West” – a role that was shown barren in the Gulf War during the Bush Administration, to part of building a new multi-lateral, multi-polar world order.  It’s a work in progress, but he’s handled crises well – what would you have done differently?
            I honestly think you’re reading a lot of right wing media, which viciously blames Obama for everything and creates a meme out there that Obama is bad.  But objectively, Bush left the country in far worse shape.  His administration created the Great Recession, had a disastrous foreign policy in Iraq, pushed allies away (Germany and France working with Russia against US police), didn’t stop Russia from invading Georgia, and his approval was below 30%.  But you know what?  I think Bush turned out to be a decent President.  Yes, the choice to go to war in Iraq proved disastrous, but he altered policy by his second term, I don’t blame him for Russia’s invasion of Georgia any more than I blame Obama for what Russia does in Ukraine (Putin acts based on Russian near abroad concerns), and I don’t blame Bush for the Great recession, that was decades in the making.   Bush actually handled the country in his second term very well – and if his party had listened to him on immigration, they’d probably be in the White House and control both houses of Congress by now.
            You see, just as the left got into the “demonize Bush” mode — with a lot of what you’d call objective evidence to support it, the right now does that with Obama.  But that’s making the mistake of blaming all that happens on one person, and thinking that somehow a different person would have prevented events.  Would Gore have made the mistake of invading Iraq?  I don’t know.  But it’s easy to blame anything that goes bad on one person – harder to come up with alternatives and assess it without wearing partisan lenses.

          • Seriously, dude…take a nap.

            ***The “blame America first” group that seems to think Obama is the cause of everything from ISIS to Ebola is, in my opinion, wrong.***

            Yes. Both WRONG and NON-EXISTENT. Jeepers.

            ***Bush left the country in far worse shape. His administration created the Great Recession***


            ***I don’t blame Bush for the Great recession, that was decades in the making.***

            Honey, please… You are giving people whiplash. And not in that fun way your Russian bride used to administer…

          • No one has blamed him for Ebola.. keep slaying the scarecrow though.
            Many legislative accomplishments. You mean the ACA?
            You contradict yourself. In order to have legislative accomplishments he’d have to have a pragmatic bipartisan House.
            And as you point out it’s run by the crazy tea party who won’t work with him. Since any legislative accomplishments have to pass the House how can he have many when they won’t do his bidding?
            No, as with his tour of duty in the SenAte he has a very paltry few Legislative accomplishments. He boasts of not being able to wait for Congress, of having a pen and a phone and of creating law, or ignoring law through executive branch agencies. Recess appointments that are struck down in court, regulation evaluated by evil activist judges reminding him his job is to see the laws are obeyed, not create them.

            Can’t have it both ways desire.

            What would I do differently? Ah yes the whine of the no defensive liberal. I am not president. I do not have a coterie of experts, generals, state crafters and expert bureaucracies to advise me, for me to question and prod and order about. So go away with such a childish argument that if I personally cannot solve the problems before him I may not comment on his methods and observe the failure thereof. People may not have the right answers but we can certainly see the WRONG ones when they’re employed.

            One thing I do know for sure I would respond a lot fanned quicker than he does to nearly any problem he has faced. He’s forever a day late and often a dollar short when it comes to responding to trouble. As I pointed out the other day he can’t eve show up to meetings and speeches HE scheduled on time. That’s just arrogant and disrespectful and is an insight into his imperial state of mind towards the rest of us. He dithers, and has since day one. It became obvious when he talked about his Afghanistan policies and then took three months to tell us what they were.
            And that hadn’t changed. The only thing he does fast is getting to the course for another 18 holes.

            Indecisive, procrastinating and weak. None of the troublemakers in various world hotspots are fooled about his inability to respond in a timely let alone decisive and forceful fashion. And that is his fault alone.
            He’s had 6 years to undo what Bush did in 8. What does he need another 2 + 4 more?

            For God sakes, why is Hillary Clinton, his former Secretary of state acting like she’s running against HIM? Answer THAT question alone if you dare.

          • So name some accomplishments of legislative nature. I’ll help, the ACA, now you fill in a few more that would entitle him to be ranked as even an accomplished president let alone a great one. Let us see what you think he’s done. No handwaves with words like many or vast without some substance to them

  • And still Erb, in a thread about his own deluded rudeness, makes it all about Muslims and Obama. Fields of strawmen died to bring us this entertainment, please remember them in your prayers tonight.

  • You are certainly free to have a negative opinion on Obama.  I have a positive one.  You think I’m wrong, I think you’re wrong.  One difference: I am not so arrogant as to think you should not hold your opinion.  You seem to think me holding mine is somehow horrible because in the way you interpret the world, I’m wrong.  And that’s sort of my point – there is a “conventional wisdom” or “party line” on this blog or the right that you all are absolutely certain is self-evidently true. So certain that you think I’m being completely unreasonable when I have a different view on the President.  A lot of people support the President and agree with his policies, and he did a lot, especially his first two years, with a Democratic congress. Ended don’t ask don’t tell.  I have a list in my April blog.  But hey – I get that you disagree.  You seem to think that somehow I’m not honest or up front because I have a different interpretation.  See my point?  I come here with a different, but very main stream left-of-center view, and I’m attacked because you guys are so certain that the view on the right is correct.  You seem to have forgotten that democracy works because people have different opinions – disagreement is GOOD.

    • So you’re REALLY going to pretend you’ve never tossed off the term “ODS” WRT people here…???

      Or suggested that others, not holding your “cultural” views, are not merely wrong, but hidebound and hateful?

      Or the people like us are threatening “the future children of the world” as the song’s cliche would have it.

      Sorry, no sale, Erp.

    • Yes and see WE toe Hillary Clinton’s latest party line. Fascinating.

      I said very specifically you are entitled to your opinion. You seem to think that grants you license to your own complete set of facts that fly in the face of the daily mounting evidence that contradicts them.

      You dodged a simple question. After being advised to be specific you dodged with ‘he did a lot, go read my blog’.
      No, a list. You managed “Don’t ask don’t tell”, a Clinton policy in the first place and then you zoomed to ‘go read my list’. That’s a hand wave, that’s a “vast number” or “many” answer of zero substance. Don’t ask don’t tell affects a number of people that doesn’t even represent a statistical rounding error in the population.
      DADT WAS DETERMINED TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. In court. How brave of Congress and the President to repeal an unConstitutional law! AFTER Federal judges ruled it was illegal. Mark of a great President no?

      Do you have any other of the vast legislative accomplishments to list? I gave you 50% of the list you have so far. Surely it’s not stretching your power to produce a list, or part of a list. After all there many things, pick six, you already have two.

      If you dare to address the Hillary point I made your legendary discussion prowess will only be that much the greater!

  • Sigh.  McCain and a number of Republicans fought hard against Obama ending DADT.  McCain was livid.  But you make it sound like Obama had no choice.  Look at a timeline.  Anyway, I didn’t want to re-write in the comment section here things you could find elsewhere.  I was trying to be polite, but here are quotes from my blog about why I’m absolutely convinced Obama will be remembered as a great President:
    Domestic Policy: The White House was almost giddy as enrollments in Obamacare reached over 7 million, a number nobody thought they’d reach after the problems with the website roll out last year.   It is almost inconceivable that this law will be repealed – the cost and disruption of doing so would be immense, and it would create a massive health care crisis.    There will be reforms; once the GOP realizes the law is here to stay they’ll work on fixing problems in it rather than waging ideological jihad.  But President Obama did what Nixon, Carter, and Clinton all failed to do: achieve a major health care overall to expand coverage to tens of millions (ultimately) uninsured, and slow the rate of health care cost increases.
    Obama has amassed a series of other major policy victories that often get neglected, but will shape the nature of US politics in the 21st Century.   He turned around the auto industry which stood on the brink of collapse in 2009.   He got an economic stimulus package passed that started creating jobs, including for the first time in decades an increase in manufacturing jobs.    Wall Street reform is major improvement on what we had before, and likely will protect the US from the kind of Wall Street induced crisis like that of 2008.  Relatedly, the recapitalization of banks, while controversial, avoided an entire collapse of the credit market in the US and allowed for a quicker recovery than I expected – I thought in 2008 we were looking at a decade before the economy would come back.
    He repealed “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,” and his justice department gave considerable support to the growing move to legalize gay marriage by recognizing such marriages at the federal level, being on the right side of an irreversible cultural shift.  He also worked to get the banks out of the student loan business, increase Pell grants, and make student loans easier and more accessible at a time when education is becoming more expensive.   Also under Obama’s stewardship the US became the world’s leading producer of natural gas and oil for the first time since the early 70s.
    Other policies involve significant education reform, toughening fuel efficiency standards, major credit card reform, improved veterans benefits, food safety, an emphasis on nutrition that may be turning around the obesity epidemic among the youth, federal regulation of tobacco, expanded national park service, massive investment in green technology (which will pay benefits long after Obama leaves office), new sentencing guidelines, and more.   Obama has reshaped the policy landscape. That’s one reason the right is so beside itself hating him: he’s an effective leader that has altered the political environment and put the US on a fundamentally different path than had been the case six years ago.
    Foreign Policy. The US has undertaken a quiet but very successful shift in foreign policy, including military downsizing, the Asian pivot, support for nascent democratic movements in the Mideast, and an effective effort to collaborate on international financial regulations.   He ended the war in Iraq and is ending US involvement in Afghanistan, reoriented US missile defense, helped topple Gaddafi in Libya, and supported South Sudan independence.  Osama Bin Laden was eliminated, and al qaeda is a shadow of what it was in 2008.    Due to unprecedented cooperation between countries (even ones not exactly friendly with each other) on intelligence about terrorism, terrorism has gone from being a threat feared by Americans daily to just a nuisance.
    Perhaps most importantly by ending torture policies and having two very capable Secretaries of State – Hillary Clinton and John Kerry – US prestige and clout is at its highest point since the end of the Cold War.   President Obama is respected internationally, and has shown himself capable of engineering significant breakthroughs with Iran and – if reports are right – soon in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.   When people claim that Putin’s taking the Crimea is a failure of Obama, they are grasping at straws.  That is, as I noted, a sign of Putin’s weakness and desperation.   Obama has reinvigorated US international leadership.
    Economic success. When President Obama took office, the US was bleeding jobs, and the budget was out of control.   Now the deficit is far lower than anyone predicted (federal spending has grown much more slowly than during the Bush Administration), and more jobs have been created than during the entire Bush Administration when the US was experiencing a bubble economy. The economy looks set to take off with increased job creation this summer, meaning that the book ends of Obama’s Presidency will be an inherited economic crisis of immense proportions at the start, and a growing and revived economy by the end.
    Finally, when the GOP tried to hold the US economy hostage on the debt ceiling, Obama starred them down, refused to bend, and ultimately the GOP was forced into a humiliating retreat, being blamed for a government shut down, a downgrade in the US credit rating, and playing Russian roulette with US jobs.   That was an example of the successful leadership that defines Obama’s stewardship of the economy.
    Personal/cultural factors: Although the right has tried to find one, Obama has had a clean and scandal-free Presidency.   He has shown himself to be a strong personal leader, using speeches, visits, and his own influence to guide policy.  He is, of course, the first black President, and reflects an America that is more cosmopolitan, tolerant, and diverse.   Just 20 years ago it would have been inconceivable that a black man named Barack Hussein Obama could win the Presidency.
    The so-called Tea Party in the US, made up of mostly older white folk (my demographic), reflects shock at the scope of this change.  They believe they are losing America to some strange force which Obama – the black President with the funny name maybe born in Kenya – personifies.  He’s not “one of us,” he went to a radical church, he travels, he’s well educated, he’s not a good old boy like “W”. In that, Obama is indeed symbolic the emerging culture shift.   The process is just beginning, and Obama is destined to be associated with these changes.  He took office as the old order collapsed in an economic crisis and failed wars; he’ll leave office with the country revived and heading down a different path.  He symbolizes a pivot to a new direction for the 21st Century.
    Just as most people now forget the attacks on Reagan by the left, or the vicious attacks on Clinton by the right – the two are both remembered fondly by most Americans – the attacks on Obama will fade from the collective memory.   Within ten or twenty years it’ll be clear that his Presidency was not only successful, but ranks alongside America’s greatest Presidents.

    • John McCain alert from being a bozo is also not the Constitution. DADT WAS UNCONCTITUTIONAL. I don’t give stats ads if McCain and the usual unnamed ‘many others’ strawmen didn’t like it.
      This is about what Obama accomplished legislatively, not what McCain wanted.
      A list Scott. That was simple request. A list of LEGISLATIVE items of which you said there were many.
      Instead you went with the undergrad answer of baffle em with bullshit, which is unsurprising.

      Legislative. Your claim. Not wordy credit for executive policies, or your opinions of foreign policy victories.

      Credit card reform. Good.
      College loans? No that’s a budget issue and since there is still no budget hardly a law..
      Executive agency rules and regulation changes are not LEGISLATIVE.
      You said many legislative changes and accomplishments.
      Executive rules that can change apparently at will (that which has been demonstrated) are not going to get him Greatness.
      Especially when they keep turning out to be Unconstitutional as with the recent Hobby Lobby ruling.

    • Oh, torture policies. You think he ended those huh?
      Yep, I’m sure. If that helps you sleep at night you run with that.

      • Let me clarify my comment.

        Officially he did. For that official act, applause.

        Now they’re done by foreign allies I’ll wager.
        But officially, good work Barack.

    • Well, THAT was a litany of your fantasies for the last six years.

      We need to record that for beating you over the head with in the next several months, as these “milestones” continue to become the predicted millstones people who understand things have foretold.

      So, again, thanks for the demonstration.

    • “Although the right has tried to find one, Obama has had a clean and scandal-free Presidency.”

      See, Erp, this is why you can’t have nice things…

      like any credibility here. I won’t even elaborate on the scandals, because you pre-hand-waved them with the predicate to that sentence.

      What a moron…

    • There are about 72 words in your disclaimer that explains why you had to cut and paste the entire view of why you think Obama is awesome on all fronts.

      Credit Card reform.
      Repealed don’t ask don’t tell.

      That’s half the list of 6 I asked for.
      It took up 9 words.

      LIST. Good Lord – here

  • So what is collapsing the presidency of the once mellifluous Obama? It is not the IRS, AP, VA, or NSA scandals. Nor did the nation especially fault him for Benghazi or the complete collapse of U.S. foreign policy, from failed reset to a Middle East afire. In each case, he either blamed Bush or denied there was a smidgeon of wrongdoing on his part.

    Certainly, the stampede at the border, as disastrous as it was, did not ipso facto sink Obama’s ratings. Ditto the embarrassing Bergdahl deal, in which we traded a likely deserter for five Islamist kingpins. Was it the ISIS ascendance that is leading to genocide and a nascent caliphate? Not in and of itself.

    We could go on, but you get the picture that it was all of the above that finally became too much, as Americans turned Obama off because they were all lied out. In all of these scandals a charismatic Barack wheeled out the teleprompter, smiled, dropped his g’s, soared with “make no mistake about it” and “let me perfectly clear,” and then, like Lonesome Rhodes, told the “folks” things that could not be true or at least were the exact opposite of what he himself had earlier asserted.
    —Victor Davis Hanson, a guy with a HUGE stock of creds you don’t have, Erp.

  • Pro-tip: When feasting on popcorn, covered in butter and schadenfreude, a good way to get rid of those pesky husks which adhere to the gums in difficult crevices is to rinse with warm salt water.

    Where is your God now?

    That line wins the thread.

    By the way, why are you commenting here?

    Many keep asking him that. Given his declarations, he has yet to provide a coherent answer. If we’re all as bad as he insists, he is wasting his time. If he wants people who are have embraced the new paradigms of the current century and who reject echo-chamber ideological-bound dogma, shouldn’t he be seeking out such people?

    If I went to a bar with a bunch of unenlightened, chauvinistic blue collar guys, or frat boys, or whatever, and found that my educated, well-reasoned, and perceptive comments on current events were always meet with jeers and raspberries, I think I’d just go elsewhere. If the men were as closed-minded as I would expect, then I’m just wasting hours and days I can never recover in my one and only life to beat a dead horse.

    Alas, that particular question he avoids is, to me, the perfect embodiment of his preposterous narcissism.

  • You obviously disagree with my analysis. That’s OK. You don’t provide any real counter-argument, and I’m fine with accepting that gee – people with different perspectives see things differently. Only a weak person wants to think he or she can be proven objectively right on such things – those are people who are insecure, and feel a need to have objective certainty or else they find it hard to operate. We’ll see what history ultimately records. I’m confident with my prediction that Obama will be remembered as one of the greats, you all are confident with your ridicule of him (and ridicule seems to be your main mode of operation).

    Elliot – I do things for only two reasons – to learn, and have fun. I learn stuff reading this blog and seeing how people reply, both about the world and human psychology as well as social media interactions. And I have to admit, I have some fun – since I don’t take this seriously, it’s sort of fun to see how others get so bent out of shape when someone has a view different than their own. So why do I post here – or why do I do anything – to learn, to have fun.

    • But…even though challenged directly…you STILL don’t know shit-all about ISIS tactics in the three areas mentioned and you STILL haven’t learned why your assertion about “easily defeated” was such a stupid one to make.

      Ergo, I conclude that you really DO NOT like learning at all, and will avoid it even at the cost of making yourself even MORE foolish here.

      But you WILL marinate in the craziness of the moonbattery, where you derive your derivative “ideas”. Heh!

    • Are you talking to me in the first half of that?

      • I don’t think you’re a weak person, I wasn’t referring to you. That was aimed at more at the Ayn Rand wing of the commentators (the Rand followers, like the Marxists, think they have an objectively true ideology). But yeah, I can see how that could be offensive, so I’m sorry for including it in a way that could look like it was directed at you. I understand I sometimes add things like that in there, and that’s a cause for the way some of you respond. I’m actually considered more free market and centrist in the group I hang around with 🙂

        I was referring to everyone about the disagreement. You and I can agree to disagree on Obama and that’s OK. I have no problem with you thinking he’s a horrible President – we have different perspectives and different interpretations. If you read Daily Kos, and leftist blogs, it’s clear that Bush is responsible for ISIS and all our problems. As I said, I don’t buy that either. I think a lot of what’s happening globally would happen no matter who was President because it reflects broader patterns of change. I like Obama because he’s trying to find a way to build an international response before committing US troops and resources. I think we have to step back from trying to shape global events — out of self-interest.

        • armistice then.

        • “I like Obama because he’s trying to find a way to build an international response before committing US troops and resources.”

          Wow. You really are closeted up there. He HAS committed troops and resources.

          You can try to ignore world events, but they won’t ignore you. That’s for your students.

          • Yes, while building up an international rather than unilateral response! My point exactly.

          • There are only American troops on the ground and American planes in the sky, along with an aircraft carrier task force.

            You lying idiot.

          • “Unilateral” in Erb’s world apparently means “Get 30 to 40 countries to go along with you”

          • You too eh?

            I was trying to think of a ‘foreign adventure’ we’ve gone on since before Bosnia that we went it alone….and couldn’t.

          • A Prendergast, neither can Erb.  But he cannot bring himself to admit that Bush didn’t act unilaterally.  He’ll spin and spin and try to redefine terms to make it look like he’s right, but deep down he knows he’s wrong.
            It would be comical if it weren’t so sad to watch.

        • That was aimed at more at the Ayn Rand wing of the commentators…the Rand followers….

          Please name anyone here who self-identifies as an Objectivist or a “Rand follower”.

          Anyone? Anyone?

          You’re throwing spears at scarecrows of your own manufacture.

          (the Rand followers, like the Marxists, think they have an objectively true ideology).

          And, once again, you indict ideas themselves, refusing to distinguish between good ideas and bad ideas. The alternative of an ideology is what? Whim? Sticking your finger up the air to gauge the wind direction? Taking polls? Twitter?

          You’ve described yourself variously as a democratic socialist, as a “left-libertarian”, and a “free market centrist”. You claim your ideological views are for decentralized government. Ideologically, you attack laissez faire free markets because of “powerful actors” (not the government, but business owners, who have no power to tax or imprison the little people). In practice, you always, always run home to your Democrat Party momma and defend every centralized, big government program (putting a lie to your “decentralized” claim). Even considering that you are not what you want others to believe you are, the fact remains that your arguments are clearly ideological and highly partisan in nature. Since your indictment of ideas do not distinguish between good and bad ideas, but “ideology” itself, and you don’t treat yourself as being guilty of the failings you ascribe to all ideologies, then one can only conclude that you’ve got a massive case of special pleading.

          Learn to insert: “…ideologies [besides my own] are bad because….” “People who engage in ideological thinking[, except for me,] are silly poopheads who do….”

          …objectively true ideology….

          Spears. Strawmen. Thrash thrash thrash!

          Who claims to have everything figured out, that their beliefs are all proven to be objectively true?

          When information is lacking or insufficient, wouldn’t you either say you don’t know (perfectly acceptable) or acknowledge that, due to a lack of information, you must make a decision based upon some sort of heuristic or gut feeling, and account for the fact that you’re testing a hypothesis or taking a risk?

          As for certitude, which you’re certain is bad, if the ideas–principles and facts–by which you determine what is good and bad are not true, why would you use them? Would you take a proposition which you knew to be false and employ that to make decisions? And, does it make sense to count an idea as true unless it can be objectively determined to be so?

          Even when you construct strawmen, you still lose to them because your criticism is too weak to stand up to a bag of hay.

    • “Only a weak person wants to think he or she can be proven objectively right on such things…”

      Wow. Just wow. Only weak people want to be accurate or factual.

    • “I learn stuff reading this blog ”

      Son, at your level of ignorance you can learn stuff from comic books.

      • Hell, a close examination of toilet paper…

      • Look at his criticisms of this blog and the comment participants. He alleges we’re closed-minded, ideologically-driven, sheltered from the “real world”, part of a dying breed that clings to 20th century notions, driven not by facts and principles but by derangement, hatred, and (probably) racism. We’re mean and spiteful and angry and unhinged.

        Forget how silly his accusations are. Just assume, for the sake of argument, he described us to a tee.

        How do you learn from such people?

        Shouldn’t he be seeking out modern thinkers? Refined, open-minded people? As a master of his area of expertise, shouldn’t he be engaged with others in his field? Wouldn’t such places be the ideal environment for him to learn, rather than tweaking inbred ex-military Neanderthal types?

        I’ve been around leftish hipster techno-nerds who are all about saving the planet and who end every sentence on an up-note, as though they were asking a question. I’ve been around staunch union men, loyal Democrat party members, who angrily gripe about business owners and rich people. I’ve been around rednecks who spout bigotry and wild accusations. Believe me, the only thing I learn from them is that there is incredible ignorance among the American electorate and that it isn’t worth my time to discuss politics, philosophy, or other serious matters with such people.

        Scott should just abandon his sinking ship here and go seek out a place in what he would consider a more enlightened and civil forum.

        • Oh, don’t be so thin skinned. Nothing I’ve said about you is any worse than anything you’ve said about me – quite the contrary. If you dish it out, don’t be surprised if you have to take it. But if you actually treat people with respect, don’t be surprised if they do likewise. Cosmic law.

          • What does any of that have to do with your reasons for participating here?

            If we are all as bad as you suggest, how are you learning anything? As a purported EXPERT! in the field of Political “Science”, shouldn’t you be engaged in discussions with other Political “Scientists”? Perhaps grad students? Perhaps acanemics in related sociological fields?

            Shouldn’t you be seeking out the young people on twitter who are bringing in this wave of new 21st century thought? You think you might find people who are not inbred, ex-military Neanderthals if you go to the Democratic Underground, Daily Kos, Little Green Footballs, Occupy, or any other number of “progressive” types? You could thrill them with your Joe Biden taco man story.

            Really, you’re just the object of ridicule here and you continue to fail to make any headway against that. You’re the mouse trying to shout down the hurricane.

            Stay or go, as you please, but just know that we’ll continue to mock you and lampoon you, with gusto.

    • You obviously disagree with my analysis.

      What analysis? You accused the moderators of censoring you and howled like a monkey in a tree about your superior arguments. That’s not analysis.

      You don’t provide any real counter-argument….

      Counter to what argument? That you were censored? That your comments are so radiantly magnificent that the moderators had to shield their eyes so as not to be cast down in abject despair?

      I’ve reached the point that I never bother to take your arguments seriously. On a few occasions, I’ll refute an obvious lie of yours, but I’m basically about ridiculing you now. You’re a waste of time and energy to try to debate, because you never have been able to provide an honest, straightforward exchange of ideas. For you, it’s all about emotions and posturing and beating your chest about your self-proclaimed authority. For many of your other critics, it’s also just about mocking you now.

      Only a weak person wants to think he or she can be proven objectively right….those are people who are insecure, and feel a need to have objective certainty or else they find it hard to operate.

      Words like “proven” and “certainty” are your invention and do not reflect reality. Nor do they have any place here, in this thread, with regards to anything I’ve written.

      About what do you imagine I’m allegedly asserting to be “objectively right”? Something about Obama? I wrote nothing here about him.

      Have you been drinking?

      …ridicule seems to be your main mode of operation….

      Indeed, you get back ridicule because you behave in such a ridiculous manner.

      It’s too late for you to repair your reputation.

      …I do things for only two reasons – to learn, and have fun.

      Wouldn’t you have more fun to engage in debate with people who are, by your reckoning, more open-minded, more 21st century, more of the youth on Twitter variety? If the people here are all closed-minded and ideologically bound, shouldn’t you seek greener pastures in which to learn?

      …it’s sort of fun to see how others get so bent out of shape when someone has a view different than their own.

      Indeed, which is why it’s so much fun to ridicule you and watch you make such a damned fool of yourself.

      You’re not accomplishing anything you apparently seek to accomplish here. You’re just heaping dung on your already pathetic reputation.


      • You say more about yourself here then you say about me. Think about it.

        • Well, there’s another happy delusion you’ve gotten yourself into…

        • Excluding you, I agree on a significant number of issues with nearly everyone here. I disagree with everyone on at least a few things. In nearly all cases in which I’ve been at odds with another commenter, I’ve found our discussions to be respectful. Besides a small number of unproductive angry flame wars, the exchanges with others involve them and I both presenting our arguments genuinely, for the purpose of persuading and offering counter-arguments.

          In other forums, in which there are Democrats, “liberals”, gun-control advocates, and even outright Marxists, I have had exchanges of ideas which, more often than not, remain at least a few notches of respect above a flame war. Only you and a handful of hard-core, sleazy, dishonest ideologues ever violate the foundation of debate being straightforward presentation of ideas, rather than the sort of disingenuous fraud and childish personal attacks for which you’ve come to be known here, on Usenet, and likely anywhere else you’ve haunted.

          A saying I heard, paraphrased: If you meet an a-hole at 10 a.m., then you’ve met an a-hole. If you meet 20 a-holes by 1 p.m., then you’re the a-hole.

          Scott, you’re the a-hole. Your dishonesty, hostility, and stupidity are the common denominator of nearly all of the problems here.

          Why don’t you just leave?

  • I’m willing to discuss things very cordially, I’m doing so now. You’re the one hyperbolic here. And if you want me to leave, the last thing you should be doing is replying to my posts. That’s inviting a response. I find it odd that an adult needs to engage in such silly insults, but if it makes you feel good to attack me, it doesn’t bother me a bit. Better if you’d actually either just ignore me, if you think I’m useless, or make an argument and respond so we can have an adult discussion, if you think I’m worth replying to. But when you just insult, you’re sending mixed messages: “You really make me want to respond to you, but I don’t think you’re worth responding to.” Think about it.

    • “I’m willing to discuss things very cordially, I’m doing so now. You’re the one hyperbolic here.”


      What are you doing, Dave…???

      Daaaaissy, Daaaaisy, g-i-v-e…me….y-o-u-r……a….n…..s…..w……e……r…….do….

    • ” I find it odd that an adult needs to engage in such silly insults”
      “But when you just insult, you’re sending mixed messages: ”

      No habla ingles?

      That is just breathtaking. You actually refuse to understand plain English. Fascinating, in a Grand Guignol sort of way.

      • Ω πανίσχυρο Δία!


        ¿Por qué es Scott una ducha así?

    • I’m willing to discuss things very cordially, I’m doing so now.

      You’re Lucy with the football.

      Every. Damned. Time.

      Go find a place you can discuss your interests with people you don’t have to put down as “inbred” and 20th-century thinkers. Go find a place where you have friends, people who not only don’t despise you, but who are happy to engage in cordial conversations with you, who care about your personal interests outside of politics.

      This is not such a place. You’re spending days and weeks of your one and only life surrounding yourself by people who not just dislike you, but look down on you as a dishonest huckster and a pathetic fool.

      • So long as he’s talking to sycophants, he doesn’t get to practice lying, cheating, and stealing. These are important skills and modes of entertainment for Collectivists.

        These guys are…remember…voluntarily sick.

        • You may be correct.

          All I can do is take his own words and keep reminding him what he’s said about Q&O and the participants here, challenging him to reconcile such declarations with the fact that he just will not leave.

          I realize that he could just be so crazy that he’ll never allow himself the cognitive dissonance. But I’m taking a chance that he may be something else, in which case he must face the glaring contradictions, even if he’ll never outwardly acknowledge them.

          • As several of us have observed…he can’t.

            He is constitutionally incapable of dealing with reality. He made a long series of choices to arrive where he is, and he likes the destination.

            This is just commonplace Collectivism. They live life in delusions, and the first person they deceive is themselves. Billy has pointed out that is just postmodernism in application.

            When driven to answer pointed questions, they simply make up THEIR questions and proceed to answer THOSE, not the ones that would make them face up to the perfidy they live with.

            All you can do is demonstrate the process. Well, and point and laugh….

      • LOL! Wow, you’re bitter, Elliot. Silly over the top with the trash talk, but apparently very bitter. Carrying grudges isn’t good for the soul – or the psyche.

        • Scott, it shouldn’t matter to you what sort of bitterness or grudge-holding is expressed by, to use your terms, an inbred, ex-military type who is ideologically bound to 20th Century thinking, who will fast be obsolete as the youths on Twitter surge in to wrest control from all the powerful actors.

          If you believe what you say about us, you can just chuckle and leave, knowing that nothing else will transpire here but preaching to the choir. You have never convinced anyone here to change their political viewpoint and you never will. You’ve only got so many more years left to learn. Spend that precious time with open-minded people who embrace 21st Century changes, people who will give you positive responses and engage in constructive dialogue with you!!

          You’re throwing away your time on this place! All that deft wisdom, wasted on the deranged!! Look around and find people who can appreciate how deep you are with all your experience and your insightful remarks on quantum quantumness.

          • Are you calling yourself inbred? I’ve criticized “inbred” blogs of the left and the right. That’s a concept wherein blogs attract only like minded folk, and they gang up on anyone who doesn’t follow the party line. That’s much different than literally calling someone inbred. If I’m wasting my time, what are you doing? In any event, I’m learning and I’m having fun, so I’m not wasting my time.

            I would be glad to discuss the dangers of 20th Century ideological thought (indeed that’s part of the argument in my current research/book about changes in the nature of politics thanks to the communication revolution), the way politics is changing, and all that. Though that’s more the subject of my blog, Q & O focuses more on specific events and partisan politics, which is also interesting.

          • Elliot:…expressed by, to use your terms, an inbred, ex-military type….

            Scott:Are you calling yourself inbred?

            “What we have here is failure to communicate.”

            Whatever you want to call people here, however you want to boil down our failings, take all of that together, and then answer the question: why in the world do you, an EXPERT! in foreign affairs, someone who teaches this stuff, a world traveler, a magnificent genius, doing slumming here at this backwater blog of bumpkins? How do you learn from people who are so wrong about everything, who won’t break out of old-fashioned ways of thinking, etc.?

            Why aren’t you trying to learn from the cool kids?

            Why don’t you connect with other political “scientists”? Why don’t you go to blogs or discussion forums about German culture? Maine stuff? Joe Biden stuff?

            What is it about Q&O, a place you constantly denigrate, which draws you back here? Aren’t you, by your own reckoning, too good for this place?

  • I am only an expert on German politics and the EU, and really only a subset of German foreign policy. In American politics I’m like everyone else, trying to understand and interpret. I read less about US politics than most people at this blog – but I do have some poli-sci insights I can share. But I am here to learn, because I don’t have a negative opinion of you all. There are smart people who post here with interesting insights – I like the idea of neo-libertarianism even if I don’t agree with it. It has an interesting perspective.

    Moreover, I believe you learn most from people who think differently. I don’t want to just be around people who think like me, that would be sterile and lead to stagnate thought. In any event, I think it’s funny that you’re so put off that I would comment here. And even funnier that you feel a need to keep telling me not to post here. That is, well, interesting.

    • …I think it’s funny that you’re so put off that I would comment here. And even funnier that you feel a need to keep telling me not to post here.

      Have you seen someone at the beach or a swimming pool who is wearing a suit far too skimpy, and despite how their exhibitionism is seen by everyone around as disgusting, they are the personality type that struts around like they are god’s gift to the opposite sex? If someone says something to them on the side, they respond that the critic is just jealous, or some other defense mechanism. Try as they might, no one can convince the person to be more modest, to spare everyone else the cringes.

      There’s no getting through to you. You’ll never show others the respect of dealing with their arguments honestly. You look down on other people like they are playthings. You say one thing and they get mad. You say another thing and they criticize your dishonesty. It’s never treating them as people, considering their ideas. It’s always about you having your fun and playing your head games. And, when so many people explain this, you just put on your mask and declare how they are mean and you’re just a nice feller who doesn’t hold grudges. You never seriously consider what they say.

      Once again, if the people who write articles and comments here are so dumb, so foolish, so closed-minded, your claim that you’re hear to learn doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. Learn what? How to push buttons by being a douchebag? A little kid can do that.

      You’re supposed to be a grownup, a professional, a font of mature, informed ideas.

      And, you spend your time trolling people you don’t respect and who don’t respect you.

      Go cover up, man. Nobody wants to see your nasty fish-white backside hanging out of a speedo.

  • One more point: when confronted with a position I think is wrong, I will make my best argument against it. Then I wait to see what the counter-argument is. I make a point to keep my mind open, I don’t want to get locked into thinking a certain ideological way or with a certain perspective because at one point in my life it persuaded me. I don’t want to treat my point of view as a religion, to be defended, and to just argue like a lawyer (glad I didn’t go into that career – that was my fallback if I couldn’t get into a good grad school!), defending my party/ism/perspective. But if I am to be persuaded, I need to know that the best argument of the other side can defeat mine. Usually it’s not black and white. Even in heated debates on the old usenet forums (which were a real mix of perspectives – people didn’t segregate into like minded blogs like they do now), I often ended up changing my view a bit because of someone’s argument, even if we were in a flamewar. So however it looks to you – I wouldn’t be reading this or commenting if I didn’t think I could learn something from this blog and its commentators. I understand it may not seem that way and I sometimes get too provocative. But that’s how it is.

    • …when confronted with a position I think is wrong, I will make my best argument against it.

      Scott, how you treat other people in discussions and how you describe how you treat other people in discussions are two completely different things. Many of us have seen you play your games, for years, and we know better.

      Save your breath.

      • Looking at your replies to me it reads like an eighth grade playground kid shouting out insults. Internet insults are meaningless. You’re the one behaving in a silly way – and you can’t help yourself.

        • Yes, Scott, I’m behaving terribly. There’s no reason for a man of your position to ever stoop to responding to me.

          In all your years online, with the exponential explosion of blogs and other forums, you can’t find any other place in which to hold discussions with people who respond to you in the mature and open-minded manner to which you obviously feel entitled?

          Nowhere but Q&O?

    • And yet if we go back to your original triumphal declaration that kicked off the whole thread:

      I pity you, but know that you’re passing – your way of thinking is of the past, and will soon be gone.  My way of thinking is winning the cultural war.  And you know it!  Thank you for admitting defeat by deleting my responses.  You’re scared of the truth!  It’s very satisfying that you decided to delete – that proves to me you know I’m right!

      Which as any sane reader can see is totally at odds with your claims above. As Elliot notes, what you say you do and what you actually do are usually completely different things.

      • And, of course, that was written when I thought posts were deleted. When it was pointed out they weren’t and I was in error, I apologized. That’s the way people are supposed to behave. What’s funny is you hold me to a very high standard – if I have an insult or a taunt, it’s proof of how bad I am. But when you all do it, well, that’s fine. I chalk that up to the attribution error.

        • Oh yeah Scotty, that is the way it happened. You can convince yourself of that, but no one with functional frontal lobes else is fooled in the least.

          • Mel Gibson being busted for drunk driving.

            It wasn’t the DUI that turned people against him. It’s what came out when he was angry at being arrested and he just let loose.

            Scott can apologize for falsely thinking someone deleted his comments. But he hasn’t addressed all his strutting and crowing about being so superior to everyone that the censorship was proof of his superiority, and proof that the site owners are just pathetic, rotten scoundrels.

            Did anyone see the latter mentioned in his apologies? Did I miss it?

          • Uh, it’s documented. I complained about deleting a post, and early in this comment section I posted an apology. It’s interesting how even when something is documented to anyone who reads it, that you try to claim that’s not what happened. Either you haven’t been paying attention, or you’re being dishonest. In fact, I believe in response to comments I repeated that apology a few times the first day this thread appeared.

          • I take it you missed Elliot’s comment directly above. Comprehension professor, comprehension is important.

          • 1. Scott complained his comments were deleted.
            2. Scott ranted: “You know I’m right and have predicted all this, and you aren’t honorable enough to post those statements. OK – you’ll delete this too, I’m sure. That proves to me that you know I’ve been right, and you’re too scared, chicken and dishonest to allow it on your website. Thank God you don’t have the responsibility to teach or impact the next generation. By deleting my posts you prove that you’re scared of the truth. I pity you, but know that you’re passing – your way of thinking is of the past, and will soon be gone. My way of thinking is winning the cultural war. And you know it! Thank you for admitting defeat by deleting my responses. You’re scared of the truth! It’s very satisfying that you decided to delete – that proves to me you know I’m right!

            Now, Scott insists that he apologized, except he only apologized for #1.

            Emily Litella.

    • Oh, baloney, Erb.  I’ve seen you proven wrong here before, and you refused to admit it.  You merely moved the goalposts or redefined terms to try to claim you were right.  Everyone here knows your game, and you aren’t fooling anyone.

  • Elliot, you are being repetitive. It seems clear to me that you NEED to have the last word here, you repeat the same things over and over. Yes, I go to conferences, am part of organizations where I discuss academic matters. I have my own circle of friends where we talk about things like interdisciplinary connections between music, art, politics, and all that. I comment on many blogs where the thinking is closer to mine, and have very useful conversations. Those are fun for me too. But I’m interested in a variety of perspectives and ways of thought. In the 90s I was fascinated by the usenet groups, conspiracy theorists in alt.clinton.whitewater who thought the Clintons were killing people, or Rand followers who believe that human rights are objective. I found those arguments completely unpersuasive, but yet it was interesting to see the thinking behind that. I always want to challenge my own assumptions. So I’ll read here now and then, and post now and then, however much you don’t want me too. You really don’t have a say in what I do. But since you seem to want to repeat the same basic line over and over in this thread, I’ll let you have the last word here. I don’t plan to come back to read any more comments so in your last word if you do decide to put aside the playground insults and actually discuss something, come over to my blog or do is in a relevant future exchange. But for now – be my guest, have the last word.

    • Ye shall know them by their fruits…

      I pity you, but know that you’re passing – your way of thinking is of the past, and will soon be gone. My way of thinking is winning the cultural war.

    • So I’ll read here now and then, and post now and then, however much you don’t want me too.

      The boy, I say, the boy has been out in the sun too long. He thinks he’s deft but he’s just daft.

      This isn’t about me. It’s about your own stated criticisms of Q&O and commenters, how horrible we are, and how superior, wise, mature, and fantastic you are. If you believed all that, you’d have moved on years ago.

      So, the fact that you stay leads one to a few possibilities. (1) You’re crazy. (2) You’re incredibly obtuse. (3) You’re a cheap propagandist or troll and you know your assessments of our behavior and your behavior are complete nonsense. And, my pick: (4) All of the above.

      …playground insults….

      Why would you, a world traveler, a foreign policy EXPERT!, an accomplished professor, a beloved figure, a wise forward thinking, deign to converse with someone as lowly as me, someone who employs “playground insults”?

      No sir, you’re too refined and civilized for that sort of thing:

      You know I’m right…you aren’t honorable…you know I’ve been right, and you’re too scared, chicken and dishonest…you’re scared of the truth. I pity you…you’re passing…. My way of thinking is winning the cultural war. And you know it! …You’re scared of the truth! …you know I’m right! 🙂

      Playground insults, indeed!

  • …believe that human rights are objective. I found those arguments completely unpersuasive….

    Because asserting that it was objectively wrong to murder Anne Frank is just so 19th century.

    Rights can’t be based upon objective facts of the universe. No, they are always subject to the whims of chin-pulling intellectuals. Never mind that putting matters of life and death, freedom and slavery, up to the whims of human caprice allows those who commit atrocities to seek cover from the paralytic doubt of decent people. We have to vote on this and just accept when those in power legalize human slavery and concentration camps.

  • “My instructor was Mr. Langley, and he taught me to sing a song. If you’d like to hear it I can sing it for you.”

    Dave Bowman: Yes, I’d like to hear it, HAL. Sing it for me.

    HAL: It’s called “Daisy.”

    [sings while slowing down]

    HAL: Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer do. I’m half crazy all for the love of you. It won’t be a stylish marriage, I can’t afford a carriage. But you’ll look sweet upon the seat of a bicycle built for two. “