L.A. BRONCOS FAN -Quit spamming or lose your privledges...

[Taco John]

You make me want to shut down this sub-forum and banish political topics from this place altogether. It's not a discussion forum when one person dominates it with a bunch of crap.

[W*GS]

Please don't, TJ. Everyone needs a good laugh now and again, and LABF is better than the 3 Stooges - not as intelligent or witty as they were, true, but good for ample guffaws on a regular basis.

[Rascal]

he is becoming Robb.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

It's not a discussion forum when one person dominates it with a bunch of crap.

If I may say a word in my own defense, I had absolutely no designs on dominating this forum.

There has been a lull here for a few days now - not a whole lot of activity - and I've been one of the only people continuing to post at the usual rate here.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Please don't, TJ. Everyone needs a good laugh now and again, and LABF is better than the 3 Stooges - not as intelligent or witty as they were, true, but good for ample guffaws on a regular basis.

Since you make it a matter of routine to reply to my every post with a three thousand word dissertation (with impunity, I might add) then what does that make you?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

he is becoming Robb.

The real question is "why doesn't rascal use the ignore options?"

Just a few mouse clicks, and you never have to see/read anything you don't like ever again (well, at least not here anyway.)

My guess is that avoiding posts he doesn't like is not rascal's actual goal.

On the contrary, rascal's real goal is to help rid the world of people whose views he dislikes.

So far, he seems to be making good progress toward that end.

[W*GS]

Since you make it a matter of routine to reply to my every post with a three thousand word dissertation (with impunity, I might add) then what does that make you?

Urbane, sophisticated, mature and wise - qualities you would do well to try to emulate. You'll fail, of course, but you could at least make some effort.

But please, keep up with the Stooge-ish intellectual pratfalls. They're too funny.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Urbane, sophisticated, mature and wise - qualities you would do well to try to emulate.

rofl

Surely you're not referring to yourself here?

Remember - TJ knows you from the DPO.

[W*GS]

Surely you're not referring to yourself here?

My name's not Shirley, and I sure as heckfire wasn't referring to you.

Remember - TJ knows you from the DPO.

So? I've comported myself well here on the OM - you, on the other hand, just cannot get out of the sewer - and the odor from that choice is permanent.

Are you gonna play victim now and whine?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

So? I've comported myself well here on the OM

That wasn't the point.

The point was that TJ undoubtedly remembers your "comportment" on the old DPO, and that, consequently, you have little cred when it comes to judging others.

BTW, all this would suggest that your "good comportment" is more a function of a moderated forum than any virtue of your own.


- you, on the other hand, just cannot get out of the sewer - and the odor from that choice is permanent.

Decided to provide us with another example of your "good comportment," eh?


Are you gonna play victim now and whine?

....inquires W*GS with one hand on the keyboard and the other ready with the Jergens bottle.

[TexanBob]

he is becoming Robb.

Au contraire! He was Robb before Robb was Robb. He's MegaRobb. Johnny One Note has just one opinion and no amount of fact or derision shall interfere with his spreading his gospel of Bush Hatred to anyone who will read. He is a man (and I use the term in an allegorical sense) fixated on Bush the way KoKo the Gorilla is fixated on nipples. If Bush were to suddenly curl up and die, I think LABFs brain might shrivel up like Barry Bonds' left nut because he would have absolutely nothing left to say to anyone. Thank God for his sake that Bush won reelection or the two neurons left in his brain might cease to function altogether and we the taxpayers would have to foot the bill for his institutional care.

[Rascal]

The real question is "why doesn't rascal use the ignore options?"

Just a few mouse clicks, and you never have to see/read anything you don't like ever again (well, at least not here anyway.)

My guess is that avoiding posts he doesn't like is not rascal's actual goal.

On the contrary, rascal's real goal is to help rid the world of people whose views he dislikes.

So far, he seems to be making good progress toward that end.

whatever ditto monkey.

Don't blame me because you've been spamming the board and TJ doesn't like it.

Yes my goal is to rid people on this board of whose views I dislike...right. LOL

I don't use the ignore function because reading your moronic comments gives me a good laugh as it continues to remind how intelligent our President is compared to morons like you. ROFL!

Go ahead throw a temper tantrum... ~Popps~ this needs to be ~LABF~

[Taco John]

You're welcome to start a thread that you can hit at your leisure and post every anti Bush thing you can find. But it is a huge turn-off when people come here and see your name 50 times in one screen.

And keep in mind... It's not political discussion I'm trying to moderate here... It's political spam. You're welcome to discuss, make points, counterpoints, etc. But when your posting style strays from that to post after post after post after post after post of images and news gems from whatever political site... It starts crossing into the level of spam. That's what got Robb banned.

[Spider]

LOL . Load of Crap ....... Problem is LABF is extreme but no one here can counter him .... So the next best thing is a threatened banned ...... Hardly ever does a thread follow the original title here , but in LABF case he has to confrom ....... Held to another standard ......Right wingers has been kicked around so much , they should be used to it by now , and I have seen others start the Name calling first , then When LABF fires back , he is the trouble maker ...... I have seen plenty of other people spam here also ... But LABF singled out cause of the Cartoons that make fun of Bush ....

[Mile High Shack]

LOL . Load of Crap ....... Problem is LABF is extreme but no one here can counter him .... So the next best thing is a threatened banned ...... Hardly ever does a thread follow the original title here , but in LABF case he has to confrom ....... Held to another standard ......Right wingers has been kicked around so much , they should be used to it by now , and I have seen others start the Name calling first , then When LABF fires back , he is the trouble maker ...... I have seen plenty of other people spam here also ... But LABF singled out cause of the Cartoons that make fun of Bush ....

that's BS and you know it

Taco doesn't support Bush at all

nice try Spider, besides WAGS kills him everyday with logic and no attacks.

I have the moron on iggy so he doesn't bother me

[Crushaholic]

LABF is one of the few people that still give a damn about keeping this forum going. He's still trying to convince anybody who will listen that Bush lost both elections. The number of people who care is dwindling day by day (there's not a thing the liberals can do about it) and that's why it's become the LABF forum. I might visit this place more often as it gets closer to 2008.

[Spider]

that's BS and you know it

Taco doesn't support Bush at all
Where did say Taco Supports Bush ?
I do believe that Taco gets so many report this post about LABF he has to respond ......

nice try Spider, besides WAGS kills him everyday with logic and no attacks.
Hilarious! if you say so ........

I have the moron on iggy so he doesn't bother me
Gee and the ones that complain about LABF dont .. maybe you guys should have a right wing huddle and you can show them the power of ignore ......

[Taco John]

LOL . Load of Crap ....... Problem is LABF is extreme but no one here can counter him .... So the next best thing is a threatened banned ...... Hardly ever does a thread follow the original title here , but in LABF case he has to confrom ....... Held to another standard ......Right wingers has been kicked around so much , they should be used to it by now , and I have seen others start the Name calling first , then When LABF fires back , he is the trouble maker ...... I have seen plenty of other people spam here also ... But LABF singled out cause of the Cartoons that make fun of Bush ....



Whatever. I'm holding him to the same standard I held Robb to. LABF applauded when I yanked the plug on Robb.

[Spider]

Whatever. I'm holding him to the same standard I held Robb to. LABF applauded when I yanked the plug on Robb.
I only had 2 Problems with Rob was he posted his spam outside of the Religion/ Politics Forum .. I dont see LABF doing that
Then when I put Robb on ignore , he logged in under a different name and continued the same practice ..........

[Exile_In_SJ]

LOL . Load of Crap ....... Problem is LABF is extreme but no one here can counter him .... So the next best thing is a threatened banned ...... Hardly ever does a thread follow the original title here , but in LABF case he has to confrom ....... Held to another standard ......Right wingers has been kicked around so much , they should be used to it by now , and I have seen others start the Name calling first , then When LABF fires back , he is the trouble maker ...... I have seen plenty of other people spam here also ... But LABF singled out cause of the Cartoons that make fun of Bush ....

Lol, he's countered every time, and refuted. But I see TJ point, it is boring to see constant thread after thread bashing bush authored by LABs'er. You think the guy would try and get a life.
rofl

[Spider]

Lol, he's countered every time, and refuted.
Hilarious! if you say so .......


But I see TJ point, it is boring to see constant thread after thread bashing bush authored by LABs'er. You think the guy would try and get a life.
rofl
LOL , Unless you are looking for a date , I wouldnt worry too much about LABF's personal life .... Besides LABF is easly controled , Ignore . or stay out of the political Forum .......

[Rascal]

I only had 2 Problems with Rob was he posted his spam outside of the Religion/ Politics Forum .. I dont see LABF doing that
Then when I put Robb on ignore , he logged in under a different name and continued the same practice ..........

well it's not your board so it doens't matter.

I logged on the other day and he had at least 15 of the top 20 threads (last comment anyway). And they were all within 15 minutes of each other and each one was slamming Bush with an article or cartoon from bartcop. If I posted stuff like that from republican sites or christian websites you would go ape ****.

[Spider]

well it's not your board so it doens't matter.
your right this isnt my board , and it isnt youres either , So whats your point ?
you are the one doing most of the complainging .......

I logged on the other day and he had at least 15 of the top 20 threads (last comment anyway). And they were all within 15 minutes of each other and each one was slamming Bush with an article or cartoon from bartcop.
Well to use your own words , this isnt your board so it doesnt matter what you like or Dislike .Right


If I posted stuff like that from republican sites or christian websites you would go ape ****.
Hilarious! Poor old crusified me defense hey .. crusified cause you are a christian .... Hate to tell you this , but you are the one that mostly goes apeshiat ....
If you post somthing I disagree with , I will let you know , I dont care where it is from .....
Get it ?
got it ?
gooood............
But on the same hand I wont go crying ot a mod about what you post either , nor will I try and get you banned ........

[Rascal]

Point is TJ makes the rules and he has mentioned this before to LABF in particular.

I was pointing out what LABF had done and how TJ considered it spam.

"Crusified" defense..what the hell are you talking about? I was merely pointing out your hypocrisy.

When have I tried to get someone banned? Well I did with wisconsinhomer but not with LABF.

Get it? Got it? Good....

[Spider]

Point is TJ makes the rules and he has mentioned this before to LABF in particular.
And I was pointing out that LABF has done nothing that Robb has ......

I was pointing out what LABF had done and how TJ considered it spam.
So now answering post or starting too many threads is spam ?

"Crusified" defense..what the hell are you talking about? I was merely pointing out your hypocrisy.
Show me where I went "apeshiat " over a religious post or a Cartoon ..... Link would be nice , that way I know you are not talking out the side of your neck like you did when you claimed Clinton Paid off the Media ......

When have I tried to get someone banned? Well I did with wisconsinhomer but not with LABF.
your consistant crying .........

Get it? Got it? Good....
I aked you that first ...... Pay attention will you ?

[Rascal]

He hasn't done anything that Robb has? Please. The only thing that's different is that Robb would go outside of the political forum.

If you could follow a discussion you would have remembered that in the previous post that almost every single one of his posts is a cut and paste from bartcop or something...that is what Robb did. See the similarity?

I said you would, didn't say you did. Comprehension again??

constant crying? Whatever spider. Saying that someone is spamming is equal to saying how they should be banned? keep on reaching there.

I was mocking you or is that not obvious enough?

I don't know I'm even discussing this with you. The point is TJ has pointed this out to LABF before and he has done it again. He doesn't want it here (of any kind) and it doesn't matter where it comes from. If you or LABF or anyone else has a problem with it to bad. It's his board and he can do what he wants.

[Spider]

He hasn't done anything that Robb has? Please. The only thing that's different is that Robb would go outside of the political forum.

If you could follow a discussion you would have remembered that in the previous post that almost every single one of his posts is a cut and paste from bartcop or something...that is what Robb did. See the similarity?
LOL ...... you have to be kidding ..... Keeping Political Spam in the Politcal Forum ..... what a Troll huh .......

I said you would, didn't say you did. Comprehension again??
So now you know what I will or wont do huh ...No I dont comprhend that skill you have ...... Go deeper in to it ........

constant crying? Whatever spider. Saying that someone is spamming is equal to saying how they should be banned? keep on reaching there.
Politcal spam on a Politcal board , so where does W*GS and others that post from the right wing websites fall under ? non Spam ?

I was mocking you or is that not obvious enough?
LOL ..... and when I fire back you will go off on a tangent on how i am attacking you ....... Same ole Game there Rascal , they dont refer to you as a Baffoon in FF for nothing ........

I don't know I'm even discussing this with you.
Thats simple , you are trying to justify your position and want to be justified in all the ctying over LABF .......



The point is TJ has pointed this out to LABF before and he has done it again. and a Mod took the same stance I have here , go figure ....
Well incase you havent figured it out yet ...... What is spam to you , may not be spam to someone else ......... Get it ?

He doesn't want it here (of any kind) and it doesn't matter where it comes from. Political spam on a politcs board ....... go figure

If you or LABF or anyone else has a problem with it to bad. It's his board and he can do what he wants.and who left you in Charge here ? Tee Jay has always allowed People to voice their Opinion , even if he disagrees with it ..... somthing you cant do anything about . hilarious!

[orangenblue2]

Some of the best sparring I've seen here yet... :woowoo:

[Spider]

Some of the best sparring I've seen here yet... :woowoo:
;D whats worse is , I dont agree with everything LABF post , he does go too far left for me on alot of Issues ..... But thats for another thread

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

LOL . Load of Crap ....... Problem is LABF is extreme but no one here can counter him .... So the next best thing is a threatened banned ...... Hardly ever does a thread follow the original title here , but in LABF case he has to confrom ....... Held to another standard ......Right wingers has been kicked around so much , they should be used to it by now , and I have seen others start the Name calling first , then When LABF fires back , he is the trouble maker ...... I have seen plenty of other people spam here also ... But LABF singled out cause of the Cartoons that make fun of Bush ....

Spider with the reality check.

(Particularly the part about "another standard.")

The last time I was singled out as a "spammer," the reason given was that six threads I had started were on top at the same time.

Since then, others have broken my record, and have not received any sort of reprimand or warning.

Further, the right-wingers operate with total impunity here.

Not once have I ever seen one of them reprimaned or warned for the sort of behavior Spider described.

Perhaps if I make it a habit to cry to the mods until they can't stand it anymore, just like rascal, et al...?

IMO, it's pathetic that rascal, errand, et al, play the victim role when all they have to do is use their "ignore" options.

I've been the subject of a lot of personal attacks and threats from right-wingnuts here, but I've never once gone crying to the mods or snitched on anyone.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

LABF applauded when I yanked the plug on Robb.

That's not true.

I've always made it clear that I despise censorship of any kind.

I don't support "pulling the plug" on anyone - even my enemies.

As much as I detest people like W*GS, rascal, errand, et al, and their vile propaganda, I support their right to say whatever they want to say in whatever way they choose to say it.

The only caveat is that I will respond in kind to verbal abuse, personal attacks, name-calling, etc., as they well know.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Thats simple , you are trying to justify your position and want to be justified in all the ctying over LABF .......

Bingo.

He's obsessed.

At any rate, leaving this thread up is certainly a way to throw some red meat to rascal and his pals.

They're getting what they want.

[RaiderH8r]

Spider with the reality check.

(Particularly the part about "another standard.")

The last time I was singled out as a "spammer," the reason given was that six threads I had started were on top at the same time.

Since then, others have broken my record, and have not received any sort of reprimand or warning.

Further, the right-wingers operate with total impunity here.

Not once have I ever seen one of them reprimaned or warned for the sort of behavior Spider described.

Perhaps if I make it a habit to cry to the mods until they can't stand it anymore, just like rascal, et al...?

IMO, it's pathetic that rascal, errand, et al, play the victim role when all they have to do is use their "ignore" options.

I've been the subject of a lot of personal attacks and threats from right-wingnuts here, but I've never once gone crying to the mods or snitched on anyone.
How's the view from up their on your cross? ::)

[Mtbrncofn]

Some of the best sparring I've seen here yet... :woowoo:


Stick around, buddy. You ain't seen nothin' yet.

[Rascal]

Spider with the reality check.

(Particularly the part about "another standard.")

The last time I was singled out as a "spammer," the reason given was that six threads I had started were on top at the same time.

Since then, others have broken my record, and have not received any sort of reprimand or warning.

Further, the right-wingers operate with total impunity here.

Not once have I ever seen one of them reprimaned or warned for the sort of behavior Spider described.

Perhaps if I make it a habit to cry to the mods until they can't stand it anymore, just like rascal, et al...?

IMO, it's pathetic that rascal, errand, et al, play the victim role when all they have to do is use their "ignore" options.

I've been the subject of a lot of personal attacks and threats from right-wingnuts here, but I've never once gone crying to the mods or snitched on anyone.

please show me where someone had started six threads like you did in the past?

Threats? Please.

Insults...whatever you throw more insults around the anybody else.

[Taco John]

Yep. Sometimes this whole politics board isn't worth the headache...

[TexanBob]

How's the view from up their on your cross? ::)

Is this true? Why, LABF, I never knew you were one of those intolerant religious whackjobs...

See? He really is like Robb! LOL

[Mile High Shack]

Yep. Sometimes this whole politics board isn't worth the headache...
amen to that

[errand]

While LABF is a clown, and his spam is quite irritating, nonetheless, his takes make me laugh, and it reminds me of why these clowns must be defeated in the arena of ideas...because they usually come into it unarmed.

[W*GS]

That's not true.

I've always made it clear that I despise censorship of any kind.

Baloney.

Liberals willingly attempt to strangle speech when they have the opportunity to do so - witness campus speech codes, and the demands for apologies and contrition when someone utters or does something non-PC. For example, Larry Summer's remarks.

"Yeah, what's wrong with them damn libruls, tryin' to get good conservative, God-fearin' folks like me to stop usin' the "N" word, anyway?" - W*GS

Apart from being a wholly-false quote, you do favor censorship for at least one word - "****er".

So you don't despise censorship as much as you despise "****er".

Why?

As much as I detest people like W*GS, rascal, errand, et al, and their vile propaganda, I support their right to say whatever they want to say in whatever way they choose to say it.

Read "vile propaganda" as meaning "not the views of the rabid Left".

The only caveat is that I will respond in kind to verbal abuse, personal attacks, name-calling, etc., as they well know.

Not just "respond in kind", but "initiate". To wit:

Koresh did not initiate the events that caused the deaths of those children - the federal government did.

So you deny that the children were in Koresh's custody and that Koresh had ample opportunity to ensure the safety of the children by surrendering to the law?

Why do you always defend criminals and sociopaths?

Is it because you identify with them?

You can't help dishing out the attacks. It's pathetic, LABF.

[Hogan11]

Yep. Sometimes this whole politics board isn't worth the headache...

INHO, If you ban LABF, then you might as well shut the thing down.

[Taco John]

INHO, If you ban LABF, then you might as well shut the thing down.



I really don't like banning anyone...

[Hercules Rockefeller]

INHO, If you ban LABF, then you might as well shut the thing down.

Not something I'd advocate, but it's kind of hard to create any political thread here without it turning into an Anti-Bush/Republican thread no matter what is in it.

At least in the beginning, you'd probably see more threads created to start debate and discussion to see how things would turn out.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

How's the view from up their on your cross? ::)

Probably much more expansive than your view from Pontius Pilate's leg.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Baloney.Apart from being a wholly-false quote, you do favor censorship for at least one word - "****er".

So you don't despise censorship as much as you despise "****er".

Why?

When did I say you should be banned or otherwised censored for dropping your 'N bombs?'

Quotes/links would be nice.

Read "vile propaganda" as meaning "not the views of the rabid Left".

No - read "vile propaganda" as "disinformation, propaganda, and spin put forth in an attempt to minimize or excuse criminal acts by the bush administration and/or the GOP."

(Not that I would expect a bush apologist like W*GS to know the difference.)

Not just "respond in kind", but "initiate". To wit:

I'm still waiting for the part where I called you a name...

You can't help dishing out the attacks. It's pathetic, LABF.

Sort of like the way you can't help hijacking every thread on this forum in the interest of waging your petty little personal flame war?

It's pathetic, LABF.


rofl

Oh, the irony.

Once again, TJ undoubtedly remembers you from the DPO (where even the right-wingers to whom you constantly endeavor to suck up wrote you off as a complete loon) so you may as well drop the holier-than-thou charade.

[RaiderH8r]

Probably much more expansive than your view from Pontius Pilate's leg.
"He was God's only begotten son and he sacrificed himself for your political sins. His constant preaching and haranging of internet message boards fell largely on ignorant, redneck, ditto monkey ears. He cried in the night, begging to be heard. His light, the light of the only truth was to be dimmed by the allmighty Taco John. But in the face of it all he continued his Holy War against the Repugs with a constant barrage of unsubstantiated claims and accusations. Go see the Orange Mane's "The Passion of the LABF" coming soon to a video store near you. He knows what is good for you."

[TexanBob]

"He was God's only begotten son and he sacrificed himself for your political sins. His constant preaching and haranging of internet message boards fell largely on ignorant, redneck, ditto monkey ears. He cried in the night, begging to be heard. His light, the light of the only truth was to be dimmed by the allmighty Taco John. But in the face of it all he continued his Holy War against the Repugs with a constant barrage of unsubstantiated claims and accusations. Go see the Orange Mane's "The Passion of the LABF" coming soon to a video store near you. He knows what is good for you."

I gave it four pitchforks.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Speaking of films, what movie or TV show would best represent RaiderH8r, Texas Pete, and other Bush Davidians?

Nominees:

1) The Boy in the Bubble
2) Fantasy Island
3) 1984

[W*GS]

When did I say you should be banned or otherwised censored for dropping your 'N bombs?'

Quotes/links would be nice.

Here's your (made up) quote:

"Yeah, what's wrong with them damn libruls, tryin' to get good conservative, God-fearin' folks like me to stop usin' the "N" word, anyway?" - W*GS

What do you mean by "stop usin'"?

I'm still waiting for the part where I called you a name...

Every time you call me a Bush apologist, or a racist, or a right-winger. Hundreds of times. And this:

"Why do you always defend criminals and sociopaths?

Is it because you identify with them?"

You're calling me a criminal and a sociopath.

That's low, even for you.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Here's your (made up) quote:

"Yeah, what's wrong with them damn libruls, tryin' to get good conservative, God-fearin' folks like me to stop usin' the "N" word, anyway?" - W*GS

What do you mean by "stop usin'"?

Wow - how obsessed with me is W*GS that he has apparently archived all of my posts for quick reference?

I'm not sure whether I should feel flattered or disturbed.

For all his shortcomings in almost every other area, no one can say W*GS doesn't work hard for that right-wing rep.

At any rate, the fallacy in your reasoning is your failure to distinguish between a reference to a word and the use of a word.

In other words, you are equivocating when you fail to note the difference between calling an African American person a and the discussion of the 'N' word in some academic setting or another.


And this:

"Why do you always defend criminals and sociopaths?

Is it because you identify with them?"

You're calling me a criminal and a sociopath.

That's low, even for you.

Um, asking if you [i]identify with criminals or sociopaths isn't the same thing as calling you a criminal or a sociopath, but if the shoe fits...

You have to admit that this is a reasonable assumption given your record of defending the criminals and sociopaths who have hijacked our government.

[W*GS]

Wow - how obsessed with me is W*GS that he has apparently archived all of my posts for quick reference?

The OM helpfully does that for me. More than once your words have come back to haunt you - in this instance, for example.

At any rate, the fallacy in your reasoning is your failure to distinguish between a reference to a word and the use of a word.

You didn't make the distinction - your (made-up) quote states rather clearly that in no context is the word "****er" acceptable to liberals - in short, the word should be censored from use.

Dodge all you want, LABF, but I'll catch you every time.

Um, asking if you identify with criminals or sociopaths isn't the same thing as calling you a criminal or a sociopath, but if the shoe fits...

And another example of name-calling on your part.

Hell, you can barely write without doing it - just because you can't think any deeper than that.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The OM helpfully does that for me.

But you still have to know where to find the exact post or quote you're looking for.

Why deny your nutty obsession when it's as plain as day?


More than once your words have come back to haunt you - in this instance, for example.

Wishing this were the case does not make it so - as we'll soon see:



You didn't make the distinction -

It was you who initially made the distinction, via your use of quotation marks around the word in question.

In so doing, you tried to argue, in effect, that liberals opposed all reference to the word in question.

Hence, it was you who was equivocating when you implied that liberals advocated the following:

...in short, the word should be censored from use.

Dodge all you want, LABF, but I'll catch you every time..

Just like you "caught" me when you claimed the great depression worsened under FDR?

Or when you claimed Tipper Gore's actions amounted to censorship?

What's with bush apologists like you, anyway - always claiming victories they haven't really won?

- just because you can't think any deeper than that.

I can obviously think 'deeply' enough to mop the floor with you.

[W*GS]

But you still have to know where to find the exact post or quote you're looking for.

The search function works quite well.

Let's keep this:

"Yeah, what's wrong with them damn libruls, tryin' to get good conservative, God-fearin' folks like me to stop usin' the "N" word, anyway?" - W*GS

It was you who initially made the distinction, via your use of quotation marks around the word in question.

In so doing, you tried to argue, in effect, that liberals opposed all reference to the word in question.

It's obvious you're attempting to backtrack here. Not only did you (a) make no distinction about proper use of "****er" (academic, by reference, or otherwise) in your silly quote, you (b) left open the possibility that liberals wouldn't suffer the censorship they would impose on others. Only "good conservative, God-fearin' folks" would be forbidden ("stop usin'") "****er".

Just like you "caught" me when you claimed the great depression worsened under FDR?

That's a matter of interpretation. Certainly the data you provided (and I haven't bothered to check its veracity) doesn't show continuous improvement over the entirety of the 1932-1940 period.

Or when you claimed Tipper Gore's actions amounted to censorship?

I expounded on this already.

What's with bush apologists like you, anyway - always claiming victories they haven't really won?

I'll come to for guidance when I slip and do so, since you're the expert around here on "claiming victories". I've beat you about the head and shoulders so many times I've lost count.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The search function works quite well.

But you still have to know what it is you are searching for.


It's obvious you're attempting to backtrack here.

Not at all.

In your original statement, you clearly suggested that liberals opposed any reference to the word in question - as evidenced by your use of quotation marks around the word.

Your use of quotation marks made it clear that you were talking about reference as opposed to use.

That's a matter of interpretation. Certainly the data you provided (and I haven't bothered to check its veracity) doesn't show continuous improvement over the entirety of the 1932-1940 period.

Still trying to weasel out of admiting you were wrong, I see.

I don't have to show "continuous improvement" - all I have to do is show that your claim, viz., that the depression worsened under FDR, is invalid.

Mission accomplished.

I've beat you about the head and shoulders so many times I've lost count.

How many times do I have to remind you that what you do in your dreams doesn't count?

[W*GS]

But you still have to know what it is you are searching for.

Scrolling down works well too. Certainly searching for all posts by "L.A. BRONCOS FAN" is a bad idea.

Let's keep this:

"Yeah, what's wrong with them damn libruls, tryin' to get good conservative, God-fearin' folks like me to stop usin' the "N" word, anyway?" - W*GS

In your original statement [...]

You were the one who pulled out the above nonsense; you're trying like mad to wriggle out of your inanity, but it ain't working. Just own up to making a really poor argument, before you get even more embarassed.

Still trying to weasel out of admiting you were wrong, I see.

Nope.

The data you provided was a little dodgy - what it should have shown, if I recall correctly its contents, was data relative to the start of the depression, not year-on-year. I'll have to look up this sort of more-accurate data.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You were the one who pulled out the above nonsense; you're trying like mad to wriggle out of your inanity, but it ain't working. Just own up to making a really poor argument, before you get even more embarassed.

On the contrary, I just made the case in my last post that it is, in fact you who is trying to "wriggle out of" yet another invalid argument, viz., that liberals want to ban all references to a certain word.

Hence, you are the one who is embarrassing yourself by your unwillingness to admit defeat.

The data you provided was a little dodgy - what it should have shown, if I recall correctly its contents, was data relative to the start of the depression, not year-on-year. I'll have to look up this sort of more-accurate data.

Translation:

"Since my argument that the depression worsened under FDR blew up in my face, I'll just have to embarrass myself further by making unsubstantiated claims about the validity of data."

[W*GS]

On the contrary, I just made the case in my last post that it is, in fact you who is trying to "wriggle out of" yet another invalid argument, viz., that liberals want to ban all references to a certain word.

Let's keep this:

"Yeah, what's wrong with them damn libruls, tryin' to get good conservative, God-fearin' folks like me to stop usin' the "N" word, anyway?" - W*GS

LABF, your argument has become Jello - jiggling all over the place. In vain, too.

"Since my argument that the depression worsened under FDR blew up in my face, I'll just have to embarrass myself further by making unsubstantiated claims about the validity of data."

For your consideration:

A refresher on the 1930s
Sep 17th 1998
From The Economist print edition

From a distance of more than 60 years, it should be possible to view the 1930s objectively. What went wrong, how things were handled and how they should have been—all this ought to be understood by now, you might think. If it were, lessons could be drawn to guide policymaking in difficult times such as these. Unfortunately, it isn’t.

The century’s greatest economic minds have examined the subject without producing anything like a consensus. Still, enough is known to refute the folk-memory version—namely, that the Depression started with the Wall Street crash of October 1929; that the slump persisted because policymakers just sat there; and that it took Roosevelt’s New Deal, heralding the modern era of enlightened activism, to put things right. Briefly, the Depression did not start with the stockmarket crash; American policymakers were not passive, they were incompetently active; and on balance the New Deal, far from ending the slump, most likely prolonged it.

At around the beginning of 1928 the Federal Reserve, worried about financial speculation and inflated stock prices, began raising interest rates. Industrial production turned down in the spring of 1929, and overall growth turned negative in the summer. A recession had started. In the two months before the Wall Street crash, industrial production fell at an annual rate of 20%. When the crash came, however, it was savage: stunning drops on October 24th, 28th and 29th, then a rally, then another fall. By mid-November the market had declined by a half.

Coming on top of a recession that had already begun, the crash set the scene for a severe contraction—but not for the decade-long slump that ensued. The key question about the Depression is why a bad downturn just kept getting worse, year after year, not just in the United States but around the globe.

In 1929 most of the world was on the gold standard. Allowed to work, this system should have helped stabilise the American economy. As demand there slowed, its imports fell, its balance of payments moved further into surplus and—under the ordinary “rules of the game”—gold should have flowed into the country, expanding the money supply and buoying the economy. But this mechanism was deliberately shut down by the Fed, which was still worried about the effect of easier credit on speculation. The inflow of gold was “sterilised” by the sale of government debt, and money grew tighter.

Abroad, meanwhile, outflows of gold had their customary effect of reducing the money supply and curbing demand. Governments everywhere then tried to reduce imports through tariffs, with America kicking things off with the Smoot-Hawley act of 1930. The effort was futile: the monetary pressure wasn’t eased, and collapsing trade only added to the plight of industry. The Fed’s policy, together with Smoot-Hawley, had turned the gold standard into a global-recession machine.

There was worse to come. In 1930 American banks began failing. The Fed let them, again not out of neglect but as a deliberate act. Its policy was to insist on collateral before it would help out, but the kind it wanted (commercial bills) the banks didn’t have. Before the Fed was created in 1913, the banks had had their own clearing-house arrangements for helping each other resist runs; now, with those arrangements all but defunct, the banks looked to the Fed to do the job, and nothing happened. As the crisis of confidence spread, more banks failed, and then more. By 1933 more than 11,000 of America’s 25,000 banks had failed. As people rushed to turn bank deposits into cash, the money supply collapsed.

So much for monetary policy. Fiscal policy was little better. Hoover notoriously raised taxes in 1932, to help balance the budget and “restore confidence”. But history has been unfair to Hoover, who tried to get the Fed to do more for the banks, and too generous to Roosevelt. His New Deal delivered no substantial fiscal stimulus—Roosevelt, like Hoover, believed in balancing the budget. On the good side, it brought in bank-deposit insurance (a wise move, though not without problems). On the other hand, it piled taxes on business and sought to prevent “excessive competition”. To stop prices falling, controls were brought in, alongside other new and avowedly anti-business regulations.

In 1935 the economy was recovering—by now America was off the gold standard and the money supply was expanding again—but unemployment stayed up, partly because of the New Deal. In 1937-38 the economy moved into recession again. In 1939 the jobless rate was still 17%. It was the war, not the New Deal, that restored full employment in America.

A study of the 1930s offers rather little comfort in 1998. It shows how much damage bad policy can do, and how fragile economies can be. The policies of those years now seem grossly mistaken, but that was not obvious at the time, and every age has its own flawed orthodoxies. Indeed some rationales for bad policy in the 1930s have echoes in today’s debates—the need for fiscal austerity to “restore confidence”, the “moral hazard” argument against extending assistance to countries in financial distress, and so on. But the best cure of all for complacency is to reflect on the fact that banks, the crux of what went wrong in the 1930s, are still causing mayhem 60 years on, and regulators haven’t yet worked out what to do with them.

Copyright © 2005 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

LABF, your argument has become Jello - jiggling all over the place. In vain, too.


On the contrary, there are two possibilities here:

1) My argument sailed right over your head (and that jiggling sound you hear is the sound of synapses trying to fire.)

or:

2) You just can't bring yourself to admit that your attempt to smear some liberals (via your invalid 'N' word censorship claim) fell flat.

For your consideration:


But where does this 'Economist' cut 'n' paste job disconfirm the stats I posted?