Are we using Obama as a scapegoat?

[']['ear]

One lie? Once again, are you serious? You've lied about just about every aspect of your history just to make yourself look good. When we talk about the military, you're ex-military. When we talk about religion, you're an ex-Christian. When we talk about Republicans, you're an ex-Republican. But you're right, no lies there. Remind me when I have ever said anything about myself that wasn't true.

We've busted you in threads repeatedly Loki. Active lies about what people have posted. I frequently point them out, at which point you go ballistic about how a liar can't point out lies, or some such.

I AM an ex-Christian, nitwit. I still struggle with whether I believe in God. I AM an ex-Republican. The only outright lie was military: I basically related the stories of a dear, dead friend who had gone into Panama during the Pineapple ouster.

That's it. But feel free to amplify it as bigger than it is, Loki. You and everybody else, including Cain, who claimed it was practically meaningless at the time.

[CitizenCain]

I'd argue that a guy who felt guilty enough about one lie and confessed in more reliable than a guy

Interesting.

So, someone who has confessed to committing a crime is less likely to engage in criminal behavior in the future than someone who's never committed a criminal act before?

Do you actually subscribe to this kind of logic, or do you just use it disingenuously when it suits your interests?

Or, we could believe Cain's fantastical stories.

I'm still waiting for an example of these fantastical tales, by the way.

But, for all I care, don't believe me. Not like I actually give a damn what you think or anything. And it's not like I base my arguments on my personal experiences - you're the king of argument from credentials, not me. So, in effect, what I say about myself doesn't matter, whereas what you say about yourself does, since you seem to use it to anchor your arguments. Like Loki said, whatever we're discussing, you used to be one, and that's why we should accept your position. Pfft.

Why wouldn't you? A really clever individual not burdened by too much integrity could have a lot of fun with that.

I like to consider myself clever... and for the right price, could probably unburden myself of my integrity. Please clue me in on how I might combine these traits to my amusement, because I just don't see it.

Except it doesn't work that way. This is still a community and there are real ramifications. What do you think all this fighting is about?

I think it's more a lack of discrimination online. You can be openly gay or transgendered or bigoted, or even something truly heinous (like being a socialist) without fear of the repercussions you could well face for openly admitting those traits out in the real world.

So why lie? It makes sense to lie or conceal things about yourself in real life, because of the repercussions you might face for being honest, but online, where those repercussions are largely non-existent... well, why lie? (To score points in a debate, apparently, but I think that the above is where Termite was going with what he said. At least, it's my thinking on the subject.)

You and everybody else, including Cain, who claimed it was practically meaningless at the time.

Come, now... we've been over this before. At the time, I said I couldn't care less, because I already knew you were a lying sack and beneath contempt.

That's a far cry from saying your pathology is meaningless. Your touching admission just didn't make a damned bit of difference to me, because I had you figured out beforehand. (Protip: the US stopped drafting people into the Armed Forces in 1973, and the Nicaraguan conflict was in 1986.)

[EyeKhan]

I like to consider myself clever... and for the right price, could probably unburden myself of my integrity. Please clue me in on how I might combine these traits to my amusement, because I just don't see it.

You're already doing it. Nice attempt to cover, Gladdis.

I think it's more a lack of discrimination online. You can be openly gay or transgendered or bigoted, or even something truly heinous (like being a socialist) without fear of the repercussions you could well face for openly admitting those traits out in the real world.

So why lie? It makes sense to lie or conceal things about yourself in real life, because of the repercussions you might face for being honest, but online, where those repercussions are largely non-existent... well, why lie? (To score points in a debate, apparently, but I think that the above is where Termite was going with what he said. At least, it's my thinking on the subject.)

You can be much more open here, but not completely yourself. You still have to be careful.

[CitizenCain]

You can be much more open here, but not completely yourself. You still have to be careful.

Oh?

Maybe it's just you, then. I feel like I can be completely myself here - in what way is that belief misinformed?

[EyeKhan]

Oh?

Maybe it's just you, then. I feel like I can be completely myself here - in what way is that belief misinformed?

My complete and open self is too ugly for you guys. You wouldn't talk to me anymore... And look what's happened to Tear. I couldn't handle being so universally reviled.

EDIT: On a serious note - one's "self" is really one's personality in relation to the wider culture around them. We're different people, at least outwardly, based on context. But every context has rules and restrictions. You may not admit it, but there are things (apparently not many ) you would not do or say here based on the contextual restrictions in this forum. You may say, I don't say those things because its not "me" to say them. Fine. But the "you" you are talking about is the "you" within the cultural context here in this forum, which gives you much greater freedom than, say, in the office, but still has structure and limitations, which is another way of saying "rules." (We're talking about rules of conduct, right? )

[ar81]

If Obama wants financial reform, and you use him as scapegoat, Wall Street wins again.

[Young Mage]

Don't the government and Wall Street basically keep each other in check?

[']['ear]

Interesting.

So, someone who has confessed to committing a crime is less likely to engage in criminal behavior in the future than someone who's never committed a criminal act before?

Lying isn't a crime, so why would you consider the two comparable?

I'm still waiting for an example of these fantastical tales, by the way.

That your "back story," and the occasional personal and professional updates, are far less plausible than those of anybody else here?

But, for all I care, don't believe me. Not like I actually give a damn what you think or anything. And it's not like I base my arguments on my personal experiences - you're the king of argument from credentials, not me. So, in effect, what I say about myself doesn't matter, whereas what you say about yourself does, since you seem to use it to anchor your arguments. Like Loki said, whatever we're discussing, you used to be one, and that's why we should accept your position. Pfft.

Yeah, you don't care. Which is why you troll me on the issue all the time? And get really huffy when I respond by calling you a fabricator of life stories?

Yeah, you don't care. You can dish it out, but can't take it. Typical bully.

That's a far cry from saying your pathology is meaningless. Your touching admission just didn't make a damned bit of difference to me, because I had you figured out beforehand. (Protip: the US stopped drafting people into the Armed Forces in 1973, and the Nicaraguan conflict was in 1986.)

Both Nicaragua and drafting are your inventions. I never mentioned either (though I vaguely recall mentioning registering for the draft when Nicaragua was a threat, and being pissed off by that. But that is all I ever said on the matter).

So you're holding me responsible for your lies about me? Well done!

[CitizenCain]

My complete and open self is too ugly for you guys. You wouldn't talk to me anymore... And look what's happened to Tear. I couldn't handle being so universally reviled.

To each his own, but I guess I don't get it. If people don't revile me for the depths of my cynicism and casual cruelty which I admit to on here... I guess find it hard to imagine what you could have that's so much uglier to make the folks around here refuse to accept you. <shrug>

EDIT: On a serious note - one's "self" is really one's personality in relation to the wider culture around them. We're different people, at least outwardly, based on context. But every context has rules and restrictions. You may not admit it, but there are things (apparently not many ) you would not do or say here based on the contextual restrictions in this forum.

Honestly, the only things I can think of that I do not or would not say here are those with likely/potential real world consequences. Pretty much, I won't admit to committing any felonies - but because I have an aversion to going to jail, not for any other reason.

You may say, I don't say those things because its not "me" to say them. Fine. But the "you" you are talking about is the "you" within the cultural context here in this forum, which gives you much greater freedom than, say, in the office, but still has structure and limitations, which is another way of saying "rules." (We're talking about rules of conduct, right? )

Well, it's pretty hard to find any rules of conduct I adhere to... other than those which may result in jail time for breaking. And that's not really a personality thing, so much as, well... the vestigial traces of intelligence I possess which tell me that jail is undesirable.

Lying isn't a crime, so why would you consider the two comparable?

Uhuh.

That, you see, was an illustration that past behaviors are generally considered to be reasonable predictors of future ones. Not actually saying that lying is necessarily comparable to criminal activity.

And, for the record, I don't consider lying and criminal activity as all that comparable. Just as a brief example, there's nothing immoral about selling crystal meth to someone who wants to buy it, but that's illegal all the same. Yet, there is something immoral about lying about yourself to "win" a debate, even though that's perfectly legal.

That your "back story," and the occasional personal and professional updates, are far less plausible than those of anybody else here?

Yeah, you keep saying this. I know you keep saying this. I'm even relatively convinced that you may believe it (to some extent).

What I'm looking for is an example. What is it, specifically, that's so implausible or outlandish or fantastical (etc) about my life? I'd really like to know, as I don't see it. And it seems to me like there's money or at least something of value in having an incredible story to tell.

Yeah, you don't care. Which is why you troll me on the issue all the time? And get really huffy when I respond by calling you a fabricator of life stories?

Yeah, you don't care. You can dish it out, but can't take it. Typical bully.

Again, you're totally distorting what I said.

Both Nicaragua and drafting are your inventions. I never mentioned either (though I vaguely recall mentioning registering for the draft when Nicaragua was a threat, and being pissed off by that. But that is all I ever said on the matter).

I don't think so, ][ear. I distinctly remember you saying that your military service was as a result of being drafted upon completion of an unspecified college degree, to serve in the little Central American conflict I was talking about at the time. I don't recall you coming out and saying point blank that you served in the Nicaraguan conflict, but you certainly implied as much, and very strongly.

[Young Mage]

I basically related the stories of a dear, dead friend who had gone into Panama during the Pineapple ouster.

Attempting to use pathos doesn't work when you've lost all respect and credibility. Most of us wouldn't care if it was a story about you brother. Yeah, I did something stupid and posted personal information online (i didn't know any better and i didn't think Cain was that gay pro), I still provided proof of what I was claiming in order to gain a quintessential level of credibility on this forum

Lying isn't a crime, so why would you consider the two comparable?

Boy oh boy! Here I thought I was stupid, I remember individuals losing their tongue for being hyperbolizing shitbags. It’s funny how it still happens today!

[EyeKhan]

To each his own, but I guess I don't get it. If people don't revile me for the depths of my cynicism and casual cruelty which I admit to on here... I guess find it hard to imagine what you could have that's so much uglier to make the folks around here refuse to accept you. <shrug>

Well, for my part I've chalked most of the freakier shit you talk about up to a humorous caricature. I've never actually believed you are as, well, extreme as you portray. (No, Tear, I'm not saying he's a liar, so don't drag this into your brawl.)

[LittleFuzzy]

Lying isn't a crime, so why would you consider the two comparable?

It was presented as an analog, not a comparison. You DO remember the differences between the two logic structures, right?

[CitizenCain]

Well, for my part I've chalked most of the freakier shit you talk about up to a humorous caricature. I've never actually believed you are as, well, extreme as you portray.

Well, of course. I mean, depending on what you mean, exactly. Of course I don't *actually* shoot at drug addicts to conduct ballistic tests, or engage in three-ways with the hot 4th-graders down the street, or even kick puppies for fun and profit.

But waking up one morning to see a mushroom cloud rising over the remains of D.C. would make my year, I don't see murdering a cop or a politician as immoral (and for that matter, see little moral difference between dropping a 500-pound bomb on a radical cleric in Iraq and blowing up a DNC convention), and do genuinely loathe humanity and the vast majority of people for their naked stupidity and destructive avarice. And that means I tend to oscillate between utter apathy and complete contempt for others. Yeah, I'd love to watch the world burn. Seriously.

So am I as extreme as I portray myself? Beats me. But I am who I am, and I have trouble imagining how "who you are" could be so much uglier that everyone around here would revile you for it. <shrug>

[EyeKhan]

Well, of course. I mean, depending on what you mean, exactly. Of course I don't *actually* shoot at drug addicts to conduct ballistic tests, or engage in three-ways with the hot 4th-graders down the street, or even kick puppies for fun and profit.

But waking up one morning to see a mushroom cloud rising over the remains of D.C. would make my year, I don't see murdering a cop or a politician as immoral (and for that matter, see little moral difference between dropping a 500-pound bomb on a radical cleric in Iraq and blowing up a DNC convention), and do genuinely loathe humanity and the vast majority of people for their naked stupidity and destructive avarice. And that means I tend to oscillate between utter apathy and complete contempt for others. Yeah, I'd love to watch the world burn. Seriously.

So am I as extreme as I portray myself? Beats me. But I am who I am, and I have trouble imagining how "who you are" could be so much uglier that everyone around here would revile you for it. <shrug>

You really are starting to remind me of Nessus a little. Weird.

A few comments:

If Washington got nuked, we'd probably find ourselves in a dictatorship before you could say decapitation. In which case all the rural gun toters would like start a guerilla war which would eventually make the (1st) Civil War seem pleasant.

Murdering cops and politicians... not immoral. Do you believe there are any good people who are cops and politicians? What about Serpico?

This loathing humanity and wanting to bring civlization down in a flaming wreck might explain how you can be libertarian despite the plain fact that a government of that type would wreck the country. Hmmm... That's in fact what you want.

Are you fat and bearded with a goatee?

[CitizenCain]

You really are starting to remind me of Nessus a little. Weird.

A few comments:

If Washington got nuked, we'd probably find ourselves in a dictatorship before you could say decapitation. In which case all the rural gun toters would like start a guerilla war which would eventually make the (1st) Civil War seem pleasant.

Not likely. State and local governments are still powerful enough to control the masses.

Murdering cops and politicians... not immoral. Do you believe there are any good people who are cops and politicians? What about Serpico?

I think it's impossible to be a moral person and a cop these days. As to politicians... well, it may be possible, but given that we've got one tolerable national politician out of ~547, well, <0.2%... nothing's perfect.

This loathing humanity and wanting to bring civlization down in a flaming wreck might explain how you can be libertarian despite the plain fact that a government of that type would wreck the country.

OK, I've gotta hear this. Do explain.

Hmmm... That's in fact what you want.

Only way to achieve meaningful, lasting change is through blood and ballistics. The longer we put it off, the worse it'll be.

[Young Mage]

Only way to achieve meaningful, lasting change is through blood and ballistics. The longer we put it off, the worse it'll be.

I've noticed this which several other members, but what's up with the alliteration? I try to incorporate alliteration in my essays, but I suck ass. How do you guys make it so subtle and easy?

[Nessus]

We have IQs higher than your average room temperature

In Celsius

[Illusions]

How do you guys make it so subtle and easy?

We do what we must, because we can...

[Nessus]

Harder better faster stronger our work is never over

[EyeKhan]

I think it's impossible to be a moral person and a cop these days.

It must be your demographic.

OK, I've gotta hear this. Do explain.

If the federal government stops investing in education, technology, and economic infrastructure, our nation will continue to decline.

Only way to achieve meaningful, lasting change is through blood and ballistics. The longer we put it off, the worse it'll be.

No thanks.

[Loki]

If the federal government stops investing in education, technology, and economic infrastructure, our nation will continue to decline.

Good thing that those three things make up about 5% of the federal budget.

[EyeKhan]

Good thing that those three things make up about 5% of the federal budget.

Good thing that's completely irrelevant to the point.

[Loki]

It's relevant to Cain's. You can't say you support the current size of the government because of factors that make up a twentieth of all federal government spending...

[Nessus]

It's relevant to Cain's. You can't say you support the current size of the government because of factors that make up a twentieth of all federal government spending...

And ostensibly Kain's utopian gubment wouldn't use a red penny on any of the aforementioned three things...

[CitizenCain]

I've noticed this which several other members, but what's up with the alliteration? I try to incorporate alliteration in my essays, but I suck ass. How do you guys make it so subtle and easy?

English as a first language + high natural linguistic aptitude + intelligence. My naturally twisted world view/way of thinking helps too.

It's relevant to Cain's. You can't say you support the current size of the government because of factors that make up a twentieth of all federal government spending...

Exactly. Drop the size of the government down to 5% of its current value (and decrease the complexity of the legal system accordingly), and I'd be pretty satisfied with the state of our state. If tax rates were reduced accordingly, and my tax burden was in the 2% range, I wouldn't even mind paying my taxes.

And ostensibly Kain's utopian gubment wouldn't use a red penny on any of the aforementioned three things...

I thought we settled this recently... anarchy's ideal, but infeasible. Hence, libertarianism. Spending tax money on (limited) investments in infrastructure and the future well being of society is not necessarily at odds with libertarianism, unless you chose to make it so. And then you're not really being a "mainstream" libertarian, but would better fit into one of the anarchist-leaning subsets/related ideologies.

[EyeKhan]

It's relevant to Cain's. You can't say you support the current size of the government because of factors that make up a twentieth of all federal government spending...

Cain's position is the government shouldn't be funding these things, regardless of the portion of the budget they make up. If anything you've taken a step to invalidating his opposition to government funding these things. Is that what you mean to do?

[Loki]

You're assuming Cain's main objective is to maximize economic growth.

[EyeKhan]

Exactly. Drop the size of the government down to 5% of its current value (and decrease the complexity of the legal system accordingly), and I'd be pretty satisfied with the state of our state. If tax rates were reduced accordingly, and my tax burden was in the 2% range, I wouldn't even mind paying my taxes.

Wait a minute. *Now* you're saying drop funding for Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security *and the military* and only keep Education, Technology and Economic Infrastructure investment??? How are you going to keep the Mexicans from taking back the Southwest without an army?

I thought we settled this recently... anarchy's ideal, but infeasible.

It's not ideal even if feasible. You don't even want a civlization. You want most people dead and the rest living like Grizzly Adams.

You're assuming Cain's main objective is to maximize economic growth.

I'm thinking now Cain's main objective is to dismantle civilization.

[CitizenCain]

Wait a minute. *Now* you're saying drop funding for Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security *and the military* and only keep Education, Technology and Economic Infrastructure investment???

No, I'm saying that some level of government is tolerable... but not a level that owns 40% of us (on average, for economically productive people) and routinely mortgages our futures on empty promises to further their desire to achieve re-election.

How are you going to keep the Mexicans from taking back the Southwest without an army?

Use the racist, xenophobic, bigoted morons in the region for something more useful than re-electing the same asshats. You know, instead of focusing their efforts on re-electing this retard or that jackass, we could incite them to patrol the border (for free) in those "minuteman" patrols. Worst case scenario, they all get killed by Mexicans, and... well, we lose a bunch of ignorant bigots and then have to fund an official border patrol. Best case scenario, it works.

Practically the definition of win-win.

It's not ideal even if feasible. You don't even want a civlization. You want most people dead and the rest living like Grizzly Adams.

Yeah, and all liberals worship Stalin and secretly desire to transform the US into the USSR.

I'm thinking now Cain's main objective is to dismantle civilization.

No, Cain's main desire is to opt out of this shitty "social contract" deal that he was forced into at birth and is violated daily by our government. Since that's not an option under our current system, I'll settle for changing (and if necessary, destroying) that shitty system. Killing my oppressors (as well as assorted idiots and miscellaneous irritants) and piling their bodies into 40 foot high mounds is strictly a bonus.

Oh, and FYI, gov't != civilization. Stop swallowing the propaganda hook, line and sinker.

[EyeKhan]

No, Cain's main desire is to opt out of this shitty "social contract" deal that he was forced into at birth and is violated daily by our government. Since that's not an option under our current system, I'll settle for changing (and if necessary, destroying) that shitty system. Killing my oppressors (as well as assorted idiots and miscellaneous irritants) and piling their bodies into 40 foot high mounds is strictly a bonus.

Oh, and FYI, gov't != civilization. Stop swallowing the propaganda hook, line and sinker.

I don't understand how you can have civilization without a government. At a minimum you need a more or less impartial entity to mediate disputes, enforce laws and protect the citizens from invaders. But that minimum will get you *minimum civilization,* not a great, thriving civilization. That comes from pooling resources to achieve things the private sector can't or won't.