One stop Obama shop, Merry Christmas!

http://www.lookingattheleft.com/2009/10/oh-wow-oba-mao-in-washington/

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@aye (#145):

Thank you for demonstrating so clearly the wretchedness of your repeated claims that I have “lied” on the Internet.

You offer the following examples:

1. The fact that I stated that a great many people, included highly respected academics, have cited Adam Smith as supporting progressive taxation, along with Karl Marx. You disagree with this premise; I think that Smith’s words clearly show that he does support the concept that people with more money should pay higher taxes, but that’s not the point. The point is that I didn’t lie about anything.

2. You keep bringing up Snopesgate.

To quote your #145:

First, quoting me:

I read the headlines and “went” with those headlines. Within 5 minutes, when doing a purely mechanical check, the headline had been changed from “True” to “Mixed” and I — only at that time — actually read the rest of the article.

You retort:

The problem here is that the “headlines” you’re trying to fall back on as justification never supported your claim regarding the 2001 nomination. The pages said “True” and later “Mixed” in regard to a 2002 nomination.

O.K. Why don’t we all go and look at the page in question:

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/nobel.asp

Current Headlines:

Claim: President George W Bush was nominated to receive the Nobel Peace Prize

Status: Mixture (at the time I first read and made my post, it had said True)

Example: (Collected on the Internet, 2001)

Now, if one goes on to carefully read the entire piece, it’s evident that, while there is no proof that Bush was ever nominated, the Snopes people consider 2001 to be mere rumor, while 2002 is felt to have more support. However, at the time of my original post, I was hurried (I was actually attending a breast cancer meeting at the San Francisco Marriott and was literally on a breakfast/coffee break in an area with Wi-Fi access) and did not carefully read the text under the headlines. So I made a very temporary mistake, which I myself discovered and corrected within five minutes of the original posting and before Aye posted his “gotcha” message. I discovered my mistake by simply doing a mechanical check of the link. The only reason I discovered the mistake was because the Snopes people had changed the headline from “True” to “Mixed” (or “Mixture,” I thought I’d remembered it was “Mixed,” but today it says “Mixture,” but that’s not substantive).

This whole Snopes thing is very useful for illustrating Aye’s debate style. When Aye doesn’t agree with your arguments, he focuses the bulk of his energies on going after you, as a person. The Snopes thing has to be the most trivial issue imaginable: were I trying to “lie” about Bush being nominated for the Nobel Prize, would I post a link to my source for this, when the source did not agree with my claim? What this shows is that I made a careless mistake (which, again, I corrected within 5 minutes — before the end of my coffee break); and I have explained this again and again and again, in response to Aye’s continued assertions that this supports his contention that I’m a liar. But Aye just continues to make the assertions.

Here’s my assertion. Aye is a gutless coward who libels people while hiding behind a pseudonym.

Quoting me, directed to Aye:

and it is a fact that you were called out on your shameful attempts to impugn my integrity by a blog reader who happened to be a conservative

Aye responds:

Actually, not true at all.
SOP referred to my repeated insistence that you provide proof to support your point.
He/she found my tone “aggressive” which I readily admit is true and make no apologies for.

Your “insistence” that I provide “proof?”

Good grief, I explained what happened about the Snopes thing. I misread the Snopes article, made a mistake, found my mistake, and corrected it within 5 minutes. What “proof” was required?

Quoting me:

and you were supported in this effort by no one.

Aye responds:

So, under the application of your pretzel logic the only way I can be correct is if someone else supports me, eh?

I’ll tuck that gem of reasoning away for future reference because 99.9994% of the time you have no one at all supporting your arguments.

Here’s the issue: What percent of contributors to this blog are conservatives? I don’t know. But it’s very large. I do know that whenever I make posts which argue against the conservative point of view, I am immediately gang tackled by hordes of conservatives. Of course, no one ever supports any of my arguments. Who wants to be gang tackled by hordes of conservatives?

But no one and I mean no one thinks that I was “lying” to anyone, regarding the Bush/Nobel prize post. I provided a link. I made a careless mistake. I found my own mistake within 5 minutes and corrected it. And this episode is your exhibit A with regard to me being a liar. And the Adam Smith thing is exhibit B.

In your latest post, you seemingly offer an exhibit C.

My requests for specificity regarding prior Peace Prize winners who supposedly received the Prize “not for actual accomplishment, but for good intentions instead” also remain unanswered.

No, that’s not true. I provided such a list of people who received awards for good intentions but negligible achievement. I conceded that Obama’s nomination was an extreme example of this.

You apparently believe that the UN Climate Change Committee had achieved something beyond good intentions; others might disagree. In any event, this honest difference of opinion between us is simply that — honest. It is not a lie.

Again, here’s my assertion:

Aye is a gutless coward who libels people while hiding behind a pseudonym.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

Like or Dislike: 0  0

i am like most people i know . i have a job ( NOT NOW ) come home from work cook clean help my kid with homework you know the living biz . well i have found my sealf with some time on my hands and though i would look at gleen beck who i have olney seen 3 – 4 times . i don’t trust the news that i see on tv it just fells like bullshit . seen gleens show and though i would do some looking in to how much bullshit he was squarting out of his mouth . the more i look at his crazy talk the more i trust him . so far he is looking good in my eyes ill prob keep an eye on him after i find a job . i don’t vote becouse i don’t have time to look at what is going on and i don’t trust people ( don’t want to vote for the next hittler ) bush was bad president Barack Obama i don’t know yet i know he it trying to do good thaings but so was hittler . he was trying to change the world

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I POSTED: The “big lie” propaganda technique is epitomized by so-called “Accuracy In Media” and even Mike’s America in their fraudulent “Stalinist” meme. George Orwell (”1984″) described it as “To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed…”

MIKE’S AMERICA RESPONDED: “Thanks Mark. You just described what you and your fellow Stalinists DO EVERY DAY!”

So there you have it, ladies & gentlemen! Not only does Mike’s America refuse to substantiate his claim that Frank Marshall Davis was an “avowed Stalinist,” but he has now expanded his delusion to include ME because I challenged his claim.

This clearly reflects the cognitive impairment of Mike’s America and his ilk. As reflected in the “Right-Wing Fantasyland” post at http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/Kaleokualoha/gG59cf :

“Jumping to conclusions seems to be quite common in the fantasyland of the right-wing blogosphere. When asked to substantiate their conclusions, we may encounter bluster, red herrings, and ad hominem attacks more often than rational, focused answers. Military Intelligence students are quickly disabused of such behavior, and learn the value of supporting every conclusion they proffer. Researchers at the Rand Corporation and other highly regarded research institutions often come from such rigorous backgrounds, where conclusions are based on empirical evidence, rather than wishful thinking.”

I only wish that I had encountered such wretched characters while on active duty. I would have taught them the cost of such dishonorable conduct, one way or another.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

You know what Mr. Beck – I’l GLAD SHE’S there; I’m glad she has the sensibility to be OPEN to alternative SUCCESS methods towards the betterment of the people as a whole. There’s too much of this “what’s in it for me” bs in this country. Maybe the ideals that help propel the NEXT greatest economy and country on this world will be finally be seen here before it’s too late. Oh yes Mr Beck the downfall has already started. The Chinese have just begun to over take and supplant the US as the leading economic force on this planet. The US will NEVER be able to buy back all the (financial) paper the the chinese posses; and just wait for the day when they call for those notes to become due – that will be the epitome of the greed and arrogance the US has shown the rest of the world.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@openid.aol.com/runnswim:

The words and reasoning of Adam Smith certainly can be (and have been) used to claim that Adam Smith supported progressive taxation.

Not without completely butchering and being absolutely dishonest about what Smith actually said. Hence the lengthy quotes that I provided from Smith’s own words.

No matter how many times Smith is supposedly “quoted” on the Interwebz, the truth of the claims is sorely lacking as I have pointed out to you over and over and over.

and it is a fact that you were called out on your shameful attempts to impugn my integrity by a blog reader who happened to be a conservative

Actually, not true at all.

SOP referred to my repeated insistence that you provide proof to support your point.

He/she found my tone “aggressive” which I readily admit is true and make no apologies for.

SOP was operating at a disadvantage. The poster in question has a very short history here (+/- 6 posts at that moment) and was unaware of our past exchanges, hence my effort to bring them up to speed in a later post.

As a side note, I would also like to note that my requests for proof of your claim went unanswered from one end of the thread to the other. My requests for specificity regarding prior Peace Prize winners who supposedly received the Prize “not for actual accomplishment, but for good intentions instead” also remain unanswered.

I read the headlines and “went” with those headlines. Within 5 minutes, when doing a purely mechanical check, the headline had been changed from “True” to “Mixed” and I — only at that time — actually read the rest of the article.

The problem here is that the “headlines” you’re trying to fall back on as justification never supported your claim regarding the 2001 nomination. The pages said “True” and later “Mixed” in regard to a 2002 nomination.

Furthermore, as I have said multiple times already, the pages point in the exact opposite direction of what you would have had us to believe regarding 2001.

and you were supported in this effort by no one.

So, under the application of your pretzel logic the only way I can be correct is if someone else supports me, eh?

I’ll tuck that gem of reasoning away for future reference because 99.9994% of the time you have no one at all supporting your arguments.

And with this post, I am done discussing things with you on this thread.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@Aye:

My statement was that Adam Smith is often cited as the father of the progressive tax and it has been widely quoted that BOTH Karl Marx and Adam Smith supported this. That is absolutely, demonstrably, 100% true. Google it. My quotation was by Robert Reich, former Harvard and current UC Berkeley professor and former Secretary of Labor. You want to have an academic debate on the matter, that’s one thing. You could debate with Reich, and I’m prepared to debate with you. But this doesn’t have any impact on the veracity of my statement above.

With regard to your quotations and arguments, here are my counter-arguments.

We are talking about two entirely different issues. The first is this: what forms of taxes are to be preferred over other taxes? Smith clearly prefers real estate taxes to income taxes. The second issue is this: once the debate over taxes has been settled, should the tax be “flat” or should it be “progressive?” The words and reasoning of Adam Smith certainly can be (and have been) used to claim that Adam Smith supported progressive taxation.

The battle over which form of taxation is to be preferred at the Federal level has been decided in favor of the income tax, where it was first imposed by Congress and signed by Lincoln in 1862 to pay for the war and remained in force for almost 10 years. It has been a permanent fixture since the passage of the 16th Amendment in 1913).

With regard to Snopesgate, I told you exactly what happened. I read the headlines and “went” with those headlines. Within 5 minutes, when doing a purely mechanical check, the headline had been changed from “True” to “Mixed” and I — only at that time — actually read the rest of the article. And I did this within 5 minutes of the original post and I immediately corrected it — BEFORE your “gotcha” post. You want to call me careless — fine. The shoe fits, in this instance. But it wasn’t an intentional lie, and the fact that I posted the link proves that I had no intention to deceive anyone, and it is a fact that you were called out on your shameful attempts to impugn my integrity by a blog reader who happened to be a conservative and you were supported in this effort by no one.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

Like or Dislike: 0  0

The first headline (and example given) made mention of a rumor that Bush was nominated in 2001, which would have been shortly after his inauguration.

I have tracked back and posted page versions all the way back to 2004 which plainly state “Bush wasn’t amongst the nominees…in 2001″ and, later, there was “no substantive evidence to support the claim”.

I contend that is precisely what the page you read had to say…yet you disregarded that information and posted the claim anyway.

There’s not an iota of anything to support your claim…in fact, every available version of the page is an explicit 180 degrees in the other direction…yet you posted it anyway.

Feel free to post the page that you referenced.

As to Adam Smith, all one needs to do is read his own words to discover that he thought income taxes (of all types) to be “absurd and destructive”.

In fact, Smith had much to say about his opposition to income taxes and he went into great detail as to why. Perhaps reading The Wealth of Nations (all five volumes) would help. Until then, some snippets for you:

The ordinary or average price of provisions determines the quantity of money which must be paid to the workman in order to enable him, one year with another, to purchase this liberal, moderate, or scanty subsistence. While the demand for labour and the price of provisions, therefore, remain the same, a direct tax upon the wages of labour can have no other effect than to raise them somewhat higher than the tax. Let us suppose, for example, that in a particular place the demand for labour and the price of provisions were such as to render ten shillings a week the ordinary wages of labour, and that a tax of one-fifth, or four shillings in the pound, was imposed upon wages. If the demand for labour and the price of provisions remained the same, it would still be necessary that the labourer should in that place earn such a subsistence as could be bought only for ten shillings a week free wages. But in order to leave him such free wages after paying such a tax, the price of labour must in that place soon rise, not to twelve shillings a week only, but to twelve and sixpence; that is, in order to enable him to pay a tax of one-fifth, his wages must necessarily soon rise, not one-fifth part only, but one-fourth. Whatever was the proportion of the tax, the wages of labour must in all cases rise, not only in that proportion, but in a higher proportion. If the tax, for example, was one-tenth, the wages of labour must necessarily soon rise, not one-tenth part only, but one-eighth.

A direct tax upon the wages of labour, therefore, though the labourer might perhaps pay it out of his hand, could not properly be said to be even advanced by him; at least if tile demand for labour and the average price of provisions remained the same after the tax as before it. In all such cases, not only the tax but something more than the tax would in reality be advanced by the person who immediately employed him. The final payment would in different cases fall upon different persons. The rise which such a tax might occasion in the wages of manufacturing labour would be advanced by the master manufacturer, who would both be entitled and obliged to charge it, with a profit, upon the price of his goods. The final payment of this rise of wages, therefore, together with the additional profit of the master manufacturer, would fall upon the consumer. The rise which such a tax might occasion in the wages of country labour would be advanced by the farmer, who, in order to maintain the same number of labourers as before, would be obliged to employ a greater capital. In order to get back this greater capital, together with the ordinary profits of stock, it would be necessary that he should retain a larger portion, or what comes to the same thing, the price of a larger portion, of the produce of the land, and consequently that he should pay less rent to the landlord. The final payment of this rise of wages, therefore, would in this case fall upon the landlord, together with the additional profit of the farmer who had advanced it. In all cases a direct tax upon the wages of labour must, in the long-run, occasion both a greater reduction in the rent of land, and a greater rise in the price of manufactured goods, than would have followed from the proper assessment of a sum equal to the produce of the tax partly upon the rent of land, and partly upon consumable commodities.

If direct taxes upon the wages of labour have not always occasioned a proportionable rise in those wages, it is because they have generally occasioned a considerable fall in the demand for labour. The declension of industry, the decrease of employment for the poor, the diminution of the annual produce of the land and labour of the country, have generally been the effects of such taxes. The consequence of them, however, the price of labour must always be higher than it otherwise would have been in the actual state of the demand: and this enhancement of price, together with the profit of those who advance it, must always be finally paid by the landlords and consumers.

A tax upon the wages of country labour does not raise the price of the rude produce of land in proportion to the tax, for the same reason that a tax upon the farmer’s profit does not raise that price in that proportion.

Absurd and destructive as such taxes are, however, they take place in many countries.

Pretty clear, eh?

“It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more in proportion.”

Partial quotes, out of context, will jump up and bite you in the ass every time. Here’s the entirety of what Smith had to say directly from Smith himself. Note that he is speaking of taxes on house rents (property taxes), not income taxes:

The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

The sad thing is this is yet another in a long string of exchanges where I have pointed out the facts; first about Smith, and now Snopes.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

[...] are nowhere to be found. Instead, we have a string of communists like Van Jones, Mao lovers like Anita Dunn and now Car Czar Ron [...]

Like or Dislike: 0  0

The miscommunication continues, AV. You said, INRE Mark Davis:

When someone offers a quote to back up their belief in public forum it was perfectly ok to question. Therefore, when someone offers me a quote to convince me that Americans love the White House Staff and President just because they are liars — I say that yes, a percentage do but that is shifting.

Again, a head scratcher. Mark did not offer the Mencken quote for that purpose. And in fact, INRE the subject of this post, he offered this:

Mark #97: Sorry, Mike’s America, but I could care less about Anita Dunn. My blogosphere attention is focused almost exclusively on refuting the lies concerning my father, such as your “avowed Stalinist” fabrication.

This is the exact same reason Mark entered the FA forum last August. Not to address the subject, but address solely what was said about his father. His quotes (yes, plural) offered were attached to many of his comments, by varied authors, all addressing the concept of spreading lies (exactly the reason he’s present in the thread). i.e.

Comment 81: “Truth is generally the best vindication against slander.” – Abraham Lincoln

Comment 89: “Have patience awhile; slanders are not long-lived. Truth is the child of time; erelong she shall appear to vindicate thee.” – Immanuel Kant

Comment 91: “The men the American public admire most extravagantly are the most daring
liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the
truth.” – H. L. Mencken (1880 – 1956)

Comment 93: “I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. That is why right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant.”
– Martin Luther King Jr. (1929 – 1968)

Comment 95: “The way to combat noxious ideas is with other ideas. The way to combat falsehoods is with truth.” – William O. Douglas

This has to do with Anita Dunn, Obama and the White House how? It doesn’t. Therefore, the quote you addressed, which you seemed to assume that Mark meant that “Americans love the White House Staff and President just because they are liars” is the first off tangent miscommunication.

It goes downhill from there.

The second miscommunication is your assumption the Mencken quote had to include every and all Americans, *and* that they admired them *because* they are liars. If you knew much about Mencken and his writings (which I can now only assume you don’t… and no, that’s not said with an attitude or judgment), he was saying is that those who generally garner the most admiration from the American public *are* liars, and they detest those that try to expose their heroes as liars.

Nothing could be more appropriate for Obama and the nation/media today than Mencken’s quote.

The third miscommunication was assuming that Mencken, born 80 years or so after Benedict Arnold had died, was in the same era. In fact, Mencken didn’t start most of these works (other than his cub report gig at a Baltimore paper) 1906 and later. Which is why Mark stated he believed it was a 20th century quote.

The last miscommunication was you assuming I was somehow infringing on your right to challenge (erroneously) Mark’s purpose for a quote that never existed. I established right from the start that I was merely trying to figure out how you got to your remark on that quote… (and never addressed any of Mark’s other quotes). Especially since you consistently tied it to Anita Dunn… whom Davis has no comment on. It’s not his purpose here.

Then you launch against me.

And now I’m a “leftist”. BWAHAHAHA Must remember to see if the DNC will let me within 20 feet of their doors. That oughta be a hoot.

Like I said… failure to communicate. However unlike you, I did not attack you personally. Instead, in your own failure to communicate/comprehend, you figured I was demeaning you. So you felt justified in becoming personal with me.

So be it. You’re not the only like minded commenter here with whom I can’t carry on a conversation. Neither of us will lose sleep about it. And if you feel more comfortable as the victim, have at it.

As for me? This thread has become far too ugly and base on many levels for me to tolerate further… even from the friendlies. You all enjoy your mud slinging and imaginary battles. Further comments will now end up in my e-trash bin.

Like or Dislike: 0  0