Wednesday, November 07, 2012

What Can I Say? I'm Shocked!!!

Yeah, shocked.  Shocked that stupidity reigns supreme in this nation.  I mean, really...the first time around, one could understand the emotion attached to the notion of electing our first black president (I could have sworn they said that was Bill Clinton).  It was too much to ask to let that slip by without any sense of when another chance might come along.  It might have been then or never, as if it was all that important to risk the following four years over it.

Yeah, that was shocking, too.  Here was a guy with no track record, no accomplishments...at least none that anyone ever highlighted...and at least two clear examples of having far less than the brilliance so often attributed to him:  his objection to the Born Alive Infant Protection proposals and his radio interview demonstrating his incredibly nutty views on the US Constitution.  His associations were incredibly suspect and with all that and with all the rest not mentioned, he was a Chicago politician.  So much to suggest that it would be stupid to even nominate such a man, say nothing of voting for him. 

Yeah, that was stupid enough.

But now, after establishing just how impotent he is, just how poor a leader, just how bad a president, even after providing in his first campaign and shortly after what would justify a one term proposition and following through to deliver that very justification, he is actually re-elected?  I'm ashamed at how stupid so many of my fellow Americans are.

The stupid came in three different flavors:

1.  Those who bought into the Obama cult of personality, who never took the time to truly examine his actions and the effects of them.  Some of these people are just mindless followers of the first black president and feel he can do no wrong, especially if he gives them stuff and sticks it to the rich guy they don't even know.  These are the people who would vote for him because he's a Democrat and not a Republican and no other really substantive, thoughtful, reality-based reason.

2.  These are the non-voters.  They are those who like to say that voting makes no difference, that it's all rigged but in reality are just too freakin' lazy to really take any time out of their lives to pay attention.  Their non-action is the most heinous action for daring to believe such nonsense and putting it forth as a valid reason for not voting.  I know too many people like this.  They guarantee that they make no difference.

3.  Third party voters.  I don't know what it would take for any third party to be a viable option that has more than an ice cube's chance in hell to win the presidency.  That is, of course it would take at least fifty-one percent of the vote, but what I mean is, what would it take to muster up those kinds of numbers?   As they never have more than a few percentage points at most, they aren't so very little better than non-existent and a vote for one of them makes no statement of any consequence, makes no noise anyone can hear and is completely wasteful.  All it does is hurt the chances of the candidate for which one would have voted if none but the two major parties were allowed and one had to pick one of them.  That is to say, most, if not all third party voters lean left or right.  A lefty voting third party only hurt Obama and helped Romney by not voting for Obama.  That's the only tangible effect of a third party vote.  It is stupid to think that such votes have any other value but to screw candidate of the two major parties closest in ideology to the third party voter.  In the case of this election, it got us Obama for another four years.  The time for voting one's principles is the primaries.  The time to vote to save the country from the worse scenario possible was just lost to that worse scenario.  Thanks. 

I know people of each group.  I'm ashamed of and for all them.  This was a no-brainer, but that expression does not mean one removes one's brain and then does something incredibly stupid.  It's supposed to mean that one needn't have to use a brain to see just who the better choice was. 

May God forgive everyone of them.  I wonder if He can.

113 comments:

Dan Trabue said...

Nothing like a little grace or humility in loss, eh, Marshall?

How belligerent would you have been if your team won?

As to being "shocked," the polls suggested it was going pretty much as it went, what was shocking?

I think the thing that the GOP ought to take away from this (and yet, probably won't this time around), is that the demographics are changing. You can't run a "He's a socialist and we know best, vote for us, old straight white men" campaign and win.

Hispanics voted Obama at about 70%. Black folk voted Obama at over 90%. Young folk voted for Obama. Women voted for Obama. Urban centers voted for Obama. Folk concerned about the environment voted Obama. Gay folk and their families and friends voted Obama.

You can't just keep blowing people off as "enemies," "socialists," "heretics," "those who trust 'Science' and not God," and "evil people" and expect to keep winning elections. The GOP will have to change their ways or go the way of the Whigs.

It's just plain numbers.

Stan said...

"May God forgive everyone of them. I wonder if He can."

Really? You wonder that?

Dan Trabue said...

Excellent point, Stan. This is a human election with flawed human people making choices between other flawed human candidates. God has not alit on anyone's shoulder and announced, "Vote THIS way..." We are simply looking at our choices and making the best, if flawed, choices we can make.

There is no evil intent. It simply isn't a sin to vote Democrat. Or Republican. Why would God even NEED to forgive someone for the way they voted?

Bubba said...

"You can't just keep blowing people off as "enemies," "socialists," "heretics," "those who trust 'Science' and not God," and "evil people" and expect to keep winning elections. The GOP will have to change their ways or go the way of the Whigs."

No, the way to win is the positive message that your opponent isn't "one of us," that he's waging a war on women, and that he's a vampire capitalist who caused the wives of laid-off workers to get sick years after the fact.

Seeing that you DO stand by that poem where you accuse your political opponents of deicide and worshipping a bloodthirsty false idol, you're in no position to take any sort of moral high ground.

Do fuck off, Dan. Really.

Feodor said...

Bubba only knows rigid truthiness or vulgarity; such is the heretic.

Marshall Art said...

Too soon for me to respond to comments with my usual emotion free aplomb. I will only say that I do not approve of Bubba's final sentence posted as it is on my blog. That would be my job if I chose to do it. At the same time, I feel ya, bro.

As for feo, there is no heresy in Bubba's understanding of the faith. That would be your job, and you do it well. Truth is indeed quite rigid. Vulgarity is in denying this is so and believing the alternatives to truth.

Finally, our actions prove our devotion to Him and what we believe is right and wrong are based on His notion of right and wrong and not ours. To support Obama is to support what he has done, and has said he will do, much of which cannot be reasonably argued as in line with God's teachings on right vs wrong. "Many will say, 'Lord, Lord'...."

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Two states decriminalized pot. Massachusetts approved medical marijuana. Three states voted to legalize same-sex marriage. The US now has its first openly gay member, Tammy Baldwin from Wisconsin (Larry Craig's wide stance is not the same thing as being open and out).

Allen West and Joe Walsh both need to find places to live back in their home states. You won't find too many politicians to the left of Elizabeth Warren, the Senator-elect from Massachusetts.

So not only was it a win for Obama. It was, by and large, a pretty good night for liberal politicians and causes.

So Art and Bubba are having a sad and want God to punish all those American evildoers.

Les said...

What a perfect time to check in again on Marshall Art's clubhouse.

"3. Third party voters."

Hi. I'm Les. I'm a stupid third party voter. Why? Probably because I'm sick to death of the damage done to our country by the inevitable tendencies of partisan supporters to refer to their opposition as stupid. Been there. Done that. Got nothin' out of it but a bad headache. Decided life's much too short to acquiesce to a system horribly compromised by online anonymity and editorialized 24-hour cable news cycles. Decided instead that I'd go to sleep at night knowing that I, if nothing else, made a principled stand at the voting polls - a stand against the lack of more apt representation.

Idealists like me aren't wasting our votes. We realize the results we hope for might be implausible. We also realize those results aren't impossible. Big difference. The hope is that, at some point, there will be enough angry Americans out there who are brave enough to tear this suicidal two-party system down to the ground. Pipe dream? Maybe. But, hey - they just legalized pot out west. Change is coming. Get on board.

Let's be friends again, Arthur. It's Bucks season.

Bubba said...

My last sentence above was unnecessary, but so too is Dan's thoroughly hypocritical sanctimony.

I probably should have told him to drop the sanctimony in a more forthright and less impolite manner, but I'm tired of giving his passive aggressive routine any amount of respect when it's simply not due.

Dan Trabue said...

Bubba, I'm offering an opinion: In my opinion, the GOP is on their way to Whig-sized irrelevance if they don't change their tactics of demonizing folk who support marriage equity, if they don't change their policies on immigration and if they don't give up treating of all those who disagree politically as heretics, socialists and evil folk.

If you don't agree with my opinion, that is your option. I see no sanctimony in offering my opinion.

It seems to me that the demographic numbers do not bode well for current GOP policies.

As to the name-calling, I think most folk are tired of hearing person A saying to person B, "You disagree with me. That means yer stoopid and quite possibly evil."

Live and let live. Disagree and let it go. That's what my opinion is. Feel free to disagree, but I'd suggest doing it respectfully.

Parklife said...

"As to being "shocked," the polls suggested it was going pretty much as it went, what was shocking?"

Heh.. when your only source is the far right wing and you dont believe in science.. everything you dont agree with seems like a miracle.

You owe me Marshall.. for awhile now I've been telling you how this country was changing. About how you are being left behind. About how Obama was a 50+1 kind of guy. You simply dug your head in the sand. Well, as Geoffrey points out.. liberals had a pretty good night. Women.. minorities.. these groups matter and they flexed their muscles at the voting booth.

Next time you and your conservative friends can stop treating people like second class citizens and we can start to have a real conversation about real problems in this country.

Have fun counting fewer votes than McCain got four years ago.

Bubba said...

Dan, this is what I see as sanctimonious.

"As to the name-calling, I think most folk are tired of hearing person A saying to person B, 'You disagree with me. That means yer stoopid and quite possibly evil.'"

Twice you published a poem directed to "W and his spawn" that accused your political opponents of the worst things.

--

Shame on your god
Your arm-breaker
Your life-taker
Your freemarket witch
Your sonofabitch
god
Damn your god!
Who preaches war
That corporate whore
That distorts scripture
So the rich can get richer
On the backs of the poor
Taking more and more and more...

Shame on your god
Your upside down
Vulgar, hideous clown
Your backwards, inside-out
Bloodthirsty boyscout
god
And shame on you

We had a perfectly good God
Prince of Peace
Making a feast
For ALL God's children
Black, white, straight, gay
Preparing the Way
Good God! We had a Good God

And you killed him

You religious,
You white washed tombs,
You serpents,
You blind guides,
You gnat-straining, camel-swallowing, hellspawn-making
Blind Fools

Shame on you
And shame on your god.

--

You recently defended the poem arguing that no one COULD reasonably take offense.

"My poem is an imprecatory prayer - praying for an end and a damnation of the ways of evil. And I continue to think the Iraq Invasion was a moral evil...

"If you agree that those behaviors ARE to be condemned and if you DON'T think that imprecatory psalms are wrong and should be removed from the Bible (I certainly don't), then I can't seriously think you have a problem with my poem."

You defend the worst sort of personal attacks, so I do think it's hypocritical and sanctimonious for you to lament name-calling.

Dan Trabue said...

So, are you saying, Bubba, that those biblical imprecatory prayers were wrong?

If you think that, then you might have at least some consistency to your position. But, given as how you almost certainly are NOT willing to condemn the psalmist for imprecatory prayers, your problem with mine seems to be hypocritical and based not on ethics, but on cultural partisanship.

As for me, I have no problem with imprecatory prayers, as long as they are taken for what they're intended to be: A cry against injustice.

So, whether you actually are opposed to the Bible's prayers or are just being hypocritical in your problem with mine, color me unimpressed, either way.

Feodor said...

Oh, I don't mind vulgarity per se. Sometimes the only appropriate response is a vulgarity that give clarity to what's being offered. LIke what you offer, Marshall. The only concise summarizing response to such excrement is a vulgarity.

Like this sentiment of yours: "Truth is indeed quite rigid."

No, Marshall. And your Savior offers you the opposite concept, which is true: "the truth will set you free." Rigidity is not freeing. It is small minded and worry-hearted fear that thinks it's so. It is heresy that comforts the fearful and vengeful. And that's Bubba.

Freedom, rather, is brought to us by the truth of love and grace, by a prodigal, unconditional, every emanating life of love. God is love. 1 John 4:8.

And you will be judged with the measure you use to judge others. And thank God for that.

Feodor said...

As for your post, besides how blithely ignorant you are to all the messages your country is giving you and which Geoffrey and Dan have pointed out...

I found David Gergen, he of the service for four presidents, put it best: "It's extremely unhealthy for the country to have a Republican Party that relies on white people for 90% of its support."

Bubba said...

Dan, not one line -- NOT ONE LINE -- of that vicious and artless poem was directed to God, so it defies credibility that you would claim that it was an imprecatory prayer.

I asked before, and I ask again since the questions went unanswered:

--

"Shame on your god"

Was that directed to Jehovah?

"Damn your god!"

Was that?

"We had a Good God
And you killed him"

Do you often accuse God of killing a Good God?

"You religious,
You white washed tombs,
You serpents,
You blind guides,
You gnat-straining, camel-swallowing, hellspawn-making
Blind Fools"

Do you often call God such terrible things, in plural? Is the Triune Deity "Blind Fools" in the plural, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost?

"Shame on you
And shame on your god."

Shouldn't it be, "And shame on your god, Amen"?

--

You engaged in precisely what you now deride, name-calling and the attribution of evil, or how else could one describe the smear about worshipping a bloodthirsty false god?

You're COMPLETELY full of shit, Dan.

Dan Trabue said...

Not everyone prays in your prescribed ways, Bubba. Sorry about that. Unfortunately, no one died and made you Guardian of Prayer, my man. Get over it.

Dan Trabue said...

My poem/prayer is not the topic here, Bubba. Let it go.

Marshall Art said...

Not a lot of time right now, and not sure if I'm ready to go anyway, but I cannot express how happy I am to see Les visit here again. I've missed ya, buddy, and yeah, Bulls/Bucks season is here! Let's get it on!

Les was always my favorite lefty and is one of two who visit(ed) here that really pumped me up with truly challenging opinions (the other is Vinny, who still stops by occasionally). Others on the left could learn from either of them. I hope you choose to risk a comment here now and again. As to the rest of your comment...

Here's my problem with the "principled" third party vote: That principle doesn't trump the principle that says the damage being done to the country must be diminished or slowed if not outright reversed. The "principled" third party vote does not rise to the level of tangible and meaningful benefit as does the principle of stopping or slowing a horrible agenda. It's self-soothing, but soothing the self is part of the problem with the state of the nation and has been for several decades.

In fact, this attitude is akin to one of Dan's positions regarding warring on despots. His principled position results in continued suffering and death to the civilians that might die in a war to free all the civilians from tyranny. Good principle that!

As I've said many times, while I firmly believe, and still do, that Romney was head and shoulders the superior choice for the nation over Barry Obumbles, he was not my ideal (actually, none existed in the primaries for me). If I didn't support him then, this third party principle would demand I not support him now. Uh, uh. The greater principle was the impact of another four years of Obummer. Only Romney had any chance to unseat him. Thus, the principled position, the higher principle, was a vote for him over Barrack Obrotheryougottabekiddingme.

But indeed, the results you hoped for are proven again to be impossible. I don't know what it would take for a truly viable third party to have a real chance at winning the presidency and I don't believe three parties would be a good thing. The problem of our nation is not the politicians or the parties they represent. The problem is the population and its unwillingness to pay attention and stay engaged with this self-governing experiment begun in the 1700s. The only way to truly fix the two-party system is from within the two-party system.

Marshall Art said...

To all,

There is much here upon which I intend to comment and respond. Stay tuned.

Marshall Art said...

Geoffrey said,

"So Art and Bubba are having a sad and want God to punish all those American evildoers."

I'll play the game you and Alan play and demand you reprint the comment that says we want God to punish all those American evildoers. As Christians with an objective and God-serving perspective (as opposed to the self-serving perspective of leftist Christians), we know God will punish whom He sees as worthy of punishment. In my post, I asked God to forgive but wondered if he can (not whether He was capable in fact, but capable as a result of His sense of justice).

As to the rest of you comment, it mirrored sentiments expressed in other comments to which I will respond in a more comprehensive manner when time allows. Stay tuned.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

OK. Then I'll play you in this game. "I never said that! If you were smart enough, you'd know that what I meant when I said that, which is as clear to anyone who claims to be as intelligent as you always do, by not forgiving them, God is punishing them! Because it's in the Bible!"

Wow. That was actually kind of easy. I'm surprised you don't make money at that, Art.

Dan Trabue said...

Bubba, I will say this last thing on your off topic ad hom attack about my imprecationary poem/prayer. Where you say...

not one line -- NOT ONE LINE -- of that vicious and artless poem was directed to God, so it defies credibility that you would claim that it was an imprecatory prayer.

In addition to pointing out that you are not the Guardian and Defender of Prayer, I would also point you to theopedia's comments about imprecatory prayers/Psalms, where they note that imprecations are not found only in the Psalms, but also in the NT.

They cite, for instance, Jesus' own words, "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in."

My poem/prayer was imprecatory in this same sense. It was a one time Yawp at what I perceived a great series of injustices and wrongful deaths. I don't make a habit of demonizing those who disagree with me. That is my point with my comments here. Do you think the GOP is going to win people over by calling them stupid and evil? Then make your case. I think it's a rather hopeless cause to argue.

And if you have a problem with imprecations themselves, take it up with Jesus, but since it's off topic here, let it go. But since you don't have a problem with them when they're in the Bible, presumably, then your "offense" at my doing so seems to be more politically motivated than an actual stand against imprecations.

Let it go.

Les said...

"...as does the principle of stopping or slowing a horrible agenda."

It's a horrible agenda to you, Art, and those on your side of the issues. Not everyone. It's not like he's starting a war with which I disagree. That, to me, would be a horrible agenda that deserves a vote cast against it - which I did do in 2004.

A goal is only unrealistic if no one pursues it. If no one pursued abolition, it wouldn't have happened. If no one pursued suffrage for women, it wouldn't have happened.

"...I don't believe three parties would be a good thing."

The issue for me, again, is more apt representation. The two parties' candidates, by definition, hold platforms that are much too broad for me to get behind. I don't like that. We already have coalition building, or caucusing, in Congress, so what's the harm in throwing more options into the mix? Gridlock? Don't we have that already? If we're already stuck with that situation, then I'd much rather have a dog in the fight that more closely resembles my belief structure.

I'm a patient man, and the country isn't gonna fall to the barbarian hordes if the guy I prefer doesn't end up in the White House every election cycle. I'd much rather vote my conscience then let peers and circumstances pressure me into perpetually casting a vote for the least offensive nominee, thank you very much. Isn't that what they refer to as "freedom?"

Les said...

I forgot to mention - the short-term goal isn't winning the White House. The short-term goal is consistently earning 5% of the vote. That's totally possible. Funding leads to growth, which paves the way for loftier long-term objectives. Baby steps.

Bubba said...

Dan,

Even online, life is NOT a series of atomized events, wholly unmoored from any larger context.

Those who pretend that each discussion is a world unto itself, so that they can put on a different persona each time, are embracing hypocrisy. They demonstrate that they have no integrity.

Some of the worst representatives of the church are those who debauch themselves on Saturday night, only to preach temperance on Sunday morning.

Even worse are those who are completely indifferent to being called out for their inconsistent behavior.

--

Personally, I'm not against the use of harsh descriptions. My problem isn't with imprecations, per se, but with your hypocrisy -- your pretending to oppose name-calling, but only when it suits you.

Jim said...

Hey folks!

Obama got over 50% of the popular vote and over 50% of the vote of every state he won.

That means third party votes were irrelevant.

Jim said...

As to 1, this is the mythical Democratic voter. The fact that the presidential candidate is a Democrat and not a Republican is plenty of justification, and quite substantive at that.

For 2, was it you or Mark that was arguing a couple of months ago that people too lazy to inform themselves or too "ignorant" to come to the same conclusion as you as to how to vote, should NOT be allowed to exercise the franchise?

Marshall Art said...

Les,

Try it this way: If your goal in voting third party was somehow tied to any displeasure with Obama's first term, your vote for a third party helped to secure his second. How does your principled vote stack up against that obvious drawback?

Assume a third party comes to enough power to challenge either of the other two. How long before it supplants one of them? In the meantime, assuming it continues to attract voters, what do you say to those not happy with any of the three and cast a vote for a fourth party? The two party system is superior for the purpose of achieving a mandate. Multiple parties dilutes mandates if third and fourth parties fail to displace existing parties. In the meantime, the party which displeased you has another four years to do more of what displeased you in the first, possibly to the extent that turnarounds are far more difficult, if possible at all.

Marshall Art said...

Geoffrey,

Sure it's easy if you're stupid. Nothing in your last is representative of anything I've ever said or done on any blog conversation ever. It is, however, typical of you to miss the point and typical of leftists in general of distorting the words of someone center-right to suggest a failing of the person rather than discuss the point being made.

To state it again, and pay close attention here, I didn't say I wanted God to punish anyone. I didn't suggest it. I didn't hint at it. Clearly, I asked Him to forgive wondering if His sense of justice would allow Him to do so. If you have any questions about my position here, feel free to ask. Your ability to interpret my simply stated comments is no better than your ability to interpret Scripture or anything else.

Marshall Art said...

Parklife,

The polls, such as Rasmussen, Gallup and others to which all news services refer, all show a trend toward Romney. Indeed, it's very possible that another month would have resulted in a Romney win. Obama won with far, far fewer votes in his favor than the first time around.

Also, I owe you nothing. You owe me. I've been waiting for substance from you in your comments for a long, long time. I have not banned you despite your pathetic tripe.

Marshall Art said...

Dan,

Bubba's trouble with your initial comment is spot on. Case in point:

You said,

"You can't just keep blowing people off as "enemies," "socialists," "heretics," "those who trust 'Science' and not God," and "evil people" and expect to keep winning elections."

This from the side of the aisle that sealed its victory with 85% of campaign adds of the attack variety. We are routinely called haters, bigots, knuckledraggers, tea-baggers, evil rich, uncaring of the poor (really hypocritical) and a host of other nasty things. I'll remind you that Obama himself said,

"And if Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, we're gonna punish our enemies..."

Honesty, not being a strong suit of the leftists in general, would preclude the charge you made, as it isn't true. We don't "blow off" anyone, but instead regard all as Americans (except illegal immigrants and for some, the president). We don't look to pander to groups, pitting them one against the other. That's YOUR gig.

Marshall Art said...

What's more, Dan, you "prayer" or poem or whatever you call it depending on the circumstance, is every bit the demonizing of which you accuse the right. Again you pretend by comparing your behavior to Biblical figures that you somehow mitigate your bad behavior. You have no comparison to any of them, particularly Christ. Which author of such a prayer in Scripture did not have contact with the Almighty, either directly or through prophets. Which people toward which the prayers were directed were presented in Scripture as less than actually known evil doers, rather than some political guy with which the author disagreed? You could not be more presumptuous about the motivations of Bush, nor more audacious to believe that you have insights into his motivations that can justify the harsh words of your "prayer".

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

# 1 is the most heinous of the three. This voter votes without justification. In this case, it is not a party issue at all. Obama is a failure except in suckering boobs like yourself into supporting him. I wish I had that talent. His arguments aren't even mildly persuasive to any with a mind.

#2 I won't speak for Mark, but my position is that anyone who doesn't inform himself, doesn't stay involved with what is going on and pay attention should not vote. I don't regard the vote as a right, but as a duty and obligation in a supposedly self-governing nation. As such, if one doesn't inform one's self, one has the obligation to NOT vote.

But I wasn't speaking of such people in this post. I was speaking of those who didn't vote for equally ill-informed reasons. You obviously fall into that "not paying attention" group.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

"I don't regard the vote as a right". Art, that's fine you think that way.

But voting is a right, whether you think that way or not.

Which is kind of why anything you write about voting, while it may reflect the way you think, has nothing to do with voting as a legal right in the United States.

I only point this out - again - to ask a question: Does that distinction make any sense at all? Does the distinction between what actually is the case - voting is a right - and what your personal preference concerning the matter - voting is not a right - register at all?

I'm no fan of people who don't know who the President and Vice President are, yet decide to hit that voting booth. Part of the price we pay as a free country is allowing people who probably shouldn't vote the ability to exercise the franchise. Just like insurance companies force people to subsidize unhealthy behaviors and the First Amendment permits people to call other people horrible names and allows Nazis to march in a parade past the homes of Holocaust survivors, the 14th and 15th Amendments, combined with earlier clauses, give the right to vote to all men, with the 19th Amendment giving the right to vote to women - voting is something that we do because we're Americans. Whether we know the names on the ballot, or the stakes in an election, or not.

VinnyJH57 said...

I can understand how it seemed like a no-brainer to someone who gets all his information from Fox News, right wing radio yakkers, and wingnut websites like American Thinker. For those of us whose minds operate in the real world, however, it was very hard to see how concentrating more wealth and power in the hands of the 1% promised any hope for ordinary people.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

On the polls. Look, it's really easy. Sure, there are a lot of polls out there, and you look at enough at them and you throw up your hands and say, "What are you going to do?"

You create a model that takes all those polls, and, assuming the Presidential contest is a matter of State Electoral votes rather than popularity or a single national vote total, you look at the polls in each state, making sure you create for polling sample size, inherent bias, and using basic statistics, you state the probability of a candidate winning. There were several such out there this year, after several people noted that Nate Silver has had quite a bit of success the past two election cycles. The trouble with these other models - like Unskewed Polls, and one at the University of Colorado - is simple enough: They were wrong.

How do I know they were wrong?

Obama won. Just like Silver said he probably would.

Romney's momentum? Stopped a month before the election. That, too, was in all the polls, and Silver reported it, and reporters and people who didn't like the message Silver was reporting, either ignored him or insisted their guts were better than his numbers.

At the end of the day, Silver was right because he and the pundits were talking about the same thing; Silver, however, was relying on actual information available to anyone, using methods for interpreting that information that are available to anyone. That Romney and his campaign refused to believe it, well, that's OK.

Except, alas, it seems they were so far inside their bubble they really were shocked to discover that all that fancy math and statistics and stuff was right. Obama, who always had a probability of winning, according to Silver's model, increased his probability over the last two weeks from roughly 3 out of four to nine out of ten. These are things a candidate should pay attention to.

Not at the expense of policy. Just as a barometer of how to conduct a campaign. Romney and many other Republicans and their supporters refused to do so, accusing Silver of all sorts of things, except one.

Being wrong.

Marshall Art said...

Hey, Vinny! That makes my two favorite lefties visiting one post! But let me ask you, are right-wing sources wrong when they report that Obama, say, removed missile defense systems from Eastern European nations that were once oppressed by Russia in order to appease Russia? Are they wrong when they report that Obama's signing on to the New START treaty diminished our capabilities while leaving Russia's at an advantage? Are they wrong for reporting the 43 months of high unemployment, the negative impact on the medical profession of Obamacare, the incredibly high debt and, among so many other things lefty sources cannot deny, the reports flooding out showing the layoffs and reduced worker hours since the Obama victory? This is the real world, Vinny. Not the fantasy that wealth is "concentrated" as if with intent on the 1% that is not a fixed group of people. You realize of course, I hope, that adopting the behaviors of wealth creators does improve the lives of the bottom 1%? What leftist tripe to state that the top 1% are making their dough at the expense of everyone else, when they need a strong economy in order to thrive. It does not serve them to keep the rest of society barely able to feed themselves. But then, when one only follows leftist sources, this one can only receive leftist demagoguery.

Marshall Art said...

Geoffrey,

Of course, voting is a right. The problem is that it isn't regarded as more than that by too many people, mostly lefties. It IS a privilege and it IS an obligation that requires more than just saying "I like that guy" and punching a ballot. If people do not make the necessary effort to educate themselves on the issues and where the candidates stand on them, they should not vote. They should leave it to those who know what's going on. Keep in mind your own code: If you don't know anything about arc welding... How much more important and sensible is it to apply that logic to voting.

Also, having a right does not mean one is right to indulge it. The Constitution gives us the right to arm ourselves. I think you'd agree not everyone should avail themselves of that right.

As to polls, I was merely correcting the notion that the polls were not trending in Romney's direction, even if it is true it plateaued a month back. That stall does not mean it couldn't or wouldn't have picked up steam with another month or two. But it's moot now anyway.

Regardless of one prognosticator's track record, "the polls" were trending in Romney's direction. There were also quite a bit of unhappy Obama supporters from last time and a growing number of people who came to see Romney differently from what Obama tried to paint him as being.

With that said, I am interested in checking into this Silver dude to see how he came to his conclusions. I'm keen to see if his work supports or contradicts my post regarding the stupidity of America in re-electing Obumbles.

Les said...

"If your goal in voting third party was somehow tied to any displeasure with Obama's first term..."

It wasn't. I almost always vote third party.

"Assume a third party comes to enough power..."

You're missing the point of my intentions. It's not about coming to power. Heck, it's not even about winning the White House. Government consists of more than just the presidency. You may have noticed this thing we have called "Congress." If a third party candidate wins a seat in the House or the Senate, that means he/she has the ability to promote his/her agenda. If that person's platform happens to be one I support, then obviously my concerns are being represented in a much more tangible way.

For goodness sake, Art - we're not even debating an issue here. You're even opposed to the manner in which I choose to vote! I just can't win with you.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

"Regardless of one prognosticator's track record" is exactly the point, Art. He has a track record because he uses the tools effectively and intelligently.

You repeat the polls were trending Romney's way. They weren't, and the actual real polls indicated that across the board. Repeating the magic formula doesn't make reality goes away.

And by the way, I have a post for you, a question for you to answer - and it is meant with both honesty and sincerity - if you are at all interested.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

This is an image from Silver showing the two lines of probability, the one in blue for the President, the one in red for Gov. Romney. Notice, the big jump in Romney's chances that coincided with the first debate. Please note Romney's steady, then precipitous, decline in probability thereafter.

This isn't stuff Silver made up. All the poll data he uses, his larger model, how he controls for everything from sample size to bias - it's all there, all the time, for anyone to check out.

You may not like it. That doesn't mean it isn't real.

Like voting rights. You may not like that some people aren't as conscientious about using the right (and yes, it is indeed a duty and a privilege; it is, before either of those things, a right). I've already said I'm not. All I'm saying is the price of living in a free society is people exercise their rights in ways we might not like.

Les said...

"...people exercise their rights in ways we might not like."

Preach!

VinnyJH57 said...

MA,

When they blame those 43 months of high unemployment on anything other than the financial crisis engendered by years of laissez-faire economic policies that Republicans championed, they are wrong. When they fail to report that median incomes have stagnated under those same policies and that the increases in wealth have wound up almost exclusively in the hands of the already wealthy, they are wrong. When they fail to report that those policies led America to go from the biggest creditor nation in the world to the biggest debtor, they are wrong. When they fail to report that job creation under Democratic administrations has exceeded that under Republican administrations for the last fifty years, they are wrong. When they fail to report the decline in class mobility, they are wrong.

You call me a lefty, but had the Republican party remained the party of Eisenhower, I suspect that I might be a Republican today. The first time I voted in a presidential election, I voted for Ford. Unfortunately, the Republican party decided to drive out all the moderates for the sake of reactionary ideological purity. It is suffering the consequences today and the nation is suffering the consequences as well.

Bubba said...

A housing sector distorted by the strengthened Community Reinvestment Act and the government's implicit backing of Fannie and Freddie -- and the bubble's predictable burst is a problem of "laissez-faire" economic policies.

We've had George H.W. Bush's "kinder, gentler" approach to government -- tax increases -- and George W. Bush's "compassionate conservatism" that expanded Medicare and started the ball on bailouts, both ulimately unaffordable big-government policies. But we're supposed to consider the last two decades' worth of GOP nominees -- Bush, Dole, Bush, McCain, and now Romney -- as conclude that "the Republican party decided to drive out all the moderates for the sake of reactionary ideological purity."

And if we disagree with Vinny on these conclusions, we're simply not living in the real world.

VinnyJH57 said...

Sure Bubba. The bankers went batshit crazy making no-doc, pick-a-payment, no-down-payment loans as a result of the CRA. Don't let the fact that the overwhelming majority of sub-prime loans were underwritten by institutions that weren't subject to the CRA bother you. And don't be bothered by the fact that Freddie and Fannie's share of the mortgage market dropped during most of the bubble because they weren't allowed to make the kind of crap loans that carried the higher interest rates that the securitization firms coveted. Stick with narrative.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Bubba, we had an actual inquiry in to the financial crisis and its relationship to the housing bubble. It issued a report. I wrote about it in real time. I can't find the original docs online, but I think I downloaded them.

Anyway.

The FCIC considered the role CRA and loans made under it's provisions played and here is what the majority concluded: "The Commission concludes the CRA was not a significant factor in subprime lending or the crisis.Many subprime lenders were not subject to the CRA. Research indicates that only 6% of high cost loans - a proxy for subprime loans - had any connection to the law. Loans made by CRA-regulated lenders in the neighborhoods where they were required to lend were half as likely to default as similar loans made in the same neighborhoods by independent mortgage originators not subject to the law." That's a direct quote from the majority report. One member of the committee, Peter Wallison, wrote a minority report that concluded the exact opposite, yet he relies not at all on any facts, not the least of them being the relatively small number of loans made under CRA, as well as their far-better repayment rate and far smaller default rate.

Now, these are facts, Bubba. CRA loans did not bring about the housing bubble. Private banks, acting in their capacity as fund managers, decided to pretend that mortgages, which are in fact liabilities, were actually assets whose value would increase if bundled together. Because the default rate in America was historically no more than five percent, it seemed a sure thing.

Except, pretending that someone owing you money means you actually have the money is no more real than claiming the whole housing bubble was caused by the CRA loans.

So, are you denying reality?

You tell me. I cited actual evidence.

Bubba said...

The CRA and Fannie and Freddie aren't the only areas where the government distorted the market, but they certainly didn't make the situation better, and they're evidence that the sector isn't and wasn't an anarchist, state-of-nature environment.

Thomas Sowell has written an excellent book on the matter, and he doesn't trace the boom and bust to a single cause, but he does note that the worst areas of real estate inflation occurred where local governments made supply scarce through regulation.

It defies reason that bankers would, en masse, deliberately make bad loans -- that is, LOANS THAT ARE LIKELY TO END UP AS LOSSES -- unless the state has distorted the market to make such loans attractive.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

"It defies reason that bankers would, en masse, deliberately make bad loans", except, of course, that's exactly what happened.

Reality defies reason constantly.

Thomas Sowell wrote a book. Really.

Wow.

No comment on the relevant facts? Like the fact that CRA loans were an insignificant number of home mortgages overall, an even smaller percentage of loans made at higher interest rate, and had a default rate less than half of any other loan?

You toss around phrases like "government distorting the market" yet you reference no facts, no evidence, nothing at all but a book by Thomas Sowell.

Again - the Financial Crisis Investigation Committee spent a year studying it, issued their report, and made clear that it was a combination of a lack of state oversight of private enterprise along with a near-criminal disregard for fiduciary responsibility that created the appearance of endless piles of cash from investments rooted in liabilities.

These are the realities, Bubba. Instead of cliches without substance, I ask again: Who is dealing with reality?

Because there is a correct way to understand things. The incorrect way, well, just ask the Romney campaign just how right their polls were as opposed to all the polls that showed him losing. Go tell the folks in Shishmaref, Alaska that global warming is a hoax that was debunked long ago.

Color me unimpressed with appeals to reason that disregard well-documented realities. You may not believe or accept that certain things happened. That doesn't mean they didn't happen.

VinnyJH57 said...

Bubba,

There is a difference between costs and distortions. If a government regulation says that a utility may not cut off a customer’s heat in the winter for non-payment, that is a cost that the utility must deal with by adjusting the prices it charges to paying customers. By the same token, if the CRA actually forced banks to make unprofitable loans (rather than simply forcing the bank to make somewhat less profitable loans in underserved areas), then there is no reason that the banks simply wouldn’t have made the minimum number of loans necessary to meet the regulatory requirements while pricing their remaining loans to make up the difference. There is simply no way that the CRA would have induced the kind of batshit crazy underwriting practices that we saw during the bubble.

Fannie and Freddie, as well as favorable tax treatment for home mortgages, might be considered distortions, but I think the evidence shows that the secondary market for home mortgages that these institutions created and sustained for better than half a century contributed to the prosperity of the American middle class. They were poorly run and poorly regulated over the last two decades, but they didn’t create the housing bubble, even if they may have put a few extra puffs in it at the end.

I think that the Federal Reserve’s artificially low interest rates under Alan Greenspan in the early 2000’s qualify as a market distortion that contributed to the bubble and for which the government can be blamed. Artificially low rates created a demand for higher yielding instruments which the securitizers of subprime mortgages supplied. However, Greenspan’s refusal to regulate mortgages and credit default swaps in his naïve Ayn Randian belief in the magic of markets was a huge problem as well.

I think that the biggest problem was the hubris of the financial engineers on Wall Street who believed that they had discovered the magic secret to eliminating risk through securitization. By slicing and dicing sub-prime mortgages and selling them in combinations and pieces, they believed that they had conquered risk. In fact, they had simply assured that the risk wound up in places that it wouldn’t be noticed by those least prepared to bear it.

In my humble opinion, the thing that these financial engineers failed to recognize was that they were working with insufficient data. We really only have testable data for the United States going back to the 1950’s. That is only a tiny slice of the economic history of the world. No matter how sophisticated your mathematical modeling is, if your data set only includes periods in which real estate prices have risen, your model isn’t going to prepare you for what happens if real estate prices go down.

Bubba said...

Geoffrey: earlier in this thread, you showed me just how committed you are to getting your facts straight. With absolutely nothing to support it, you attacked me and Marshall personally by saying that we "want God to punish all those American evildoers."

I do believe you're quite wrong on both the housing bubble and global warming, but I have no interest in arguing with you.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

"I do believe you're quite wrong".

OK. Don't believe me.

That doesn't make you right and me wrong.

I cited actual facts about the the role of CRA in the housing bubble. You toss around catch phrases and names.

As for global warming, this is a graph of global temperature over the past 130 years. Please notice - it is rising. In particular it rises more steeply during eras of massive industrial expansion, in the early decades of the previous century, and in the post-WWII era.

Now, this could be a coincidence. It could be all sorts of things. This is what you call "logic" at work; anything could be possible, even Santa Claus. The task of science is to find out what actually is the case. Scientists have studied it for several decades and concluded that human action, the burning of billions of tons of fossil fuels, has generated carbon dioxide that is now acting to trap heat at the planet surface.

Now, those scientists could still be wrong. They aren't "wrong", however, because you believe they're wrong, or because someone somewhere noticed global warming thousands of years ago before human industrial activity, or for any other reason. The answer that best fits the evidence is human activity that releases carbon dioxide.

Similarly, it was still possible, before the election, that Mitt Romney could win. Up until the last few days, most projection gave him a one in four probability of winning. Last weekend, however, those chances dipped as low as one in ten. The Romney campaign, however, believed not only that information was wrong, but the polls that showed Romney consistently behind in Ohio, Florida, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and elsewhere was wrong. Thus, they pushed the idea these states were competitive and moving toward Romney.

The exact opposite of all available evidence.

When the polls turned out to be right, those polls the Romney campaign refused to accept, the campaign was shocked, as is Art. Had they paid attention, and accepted the evidence before them, it might not have change the outcome of the election; it might, however, have changed their strategy in several states, and certainly lessened the blow to the campaign, at least as testified by members of the Romney campaign.

Look, it is still possible all those polls were wrong all along, and the people voting last Tuesday made up their minds as they entered the voting booths. There is enough evidence, however, to disprove that thesis and none to support it.

That's science. That's how we "know", rather than "believe", things to be as they are. Whether it's the Financial Crisis or global warming or polls. The explanations that use facts not only to explain what has happened, but predict what will happen with a fair amount of accuracy (that last phrase always open to interpretation, a whole different subject), those can be loosely categorized as scientific.

So, do you "believe" me? I couldn't care less. Your belief doesn't change either what happened or why.

As to my initial statement, you and Art both seem to care far more when some folks say things in jest, while do not care in the least when you insist that science and evidence just don't matter.

So again. I'm curious: I know you say you don't want to argue with me, and that's fine, because I'm not interested in an argument. I just want to know how it is you "believe" something to be the case that is already demonstrated not to be the case.

Marshall Art said...

Geoffrey,

Actually, if you re-read my post, I don't think you'll find anywhere in it any statement that suggests my shock has anything to do with polls. Indeed, I've often said that the only poll that counts is the one that was taken on election day. No sir. My shock was and is a result of the intelligence, or lack thereof, of voting for an incompetent like Obama over a far more qualified and quality man like Mitt Romney. It was a result of the lack of intelligence of people who didn't vote at all or voted third party, both of whom by doing so allowed this incompetent to win a second time.

I also don't think there is any honest reason to believe I've ever put forth that evidence and science doesn't matter...unless it doesn't matter to the point being made. This has happened multiple times in past discussions and is frustrating to have to spell things out so specifically.

Feodor said...

Bubba, I'm afraid you have a very simple understanding of financial markets.

Shorting a stock has been an investment policy that makes profit out of creating loss.

It has been a policy for a very long time.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

"My shock was and is a result of the intelligence, or lack thereof, of voting for an incompetent like Obama over a far more qualified and quality man like Mitt Romney. It was a result of the lack of intelligence of people who didn't vote at all or voted third party, both of whom by doing so allowed this incompetent to win a second time."

Seriously.

I completely agree the only poll that matters is the actual voting. Yet, polls - a whole lot of them - have indicated the way the election might well move (and please remember, prior to election day, it was always a matter of probabilities not likelihoods). I'm waiting to read how Obama has been incompetent. I'm waiting to read how Obama, having served as President for four years, is less qualified to serve as President than a man whose only public service was a single term as Massachusetts governor. I'm waiting to read anything that demonstrates that people who voted for Barack Obama are less intelligent than people who voted for Mitt Romney.

Because there's a whole lot of evidence that, in fact, people who voted for Mitt Romney demonstrated a lack of understanding of basic facts. That video that went viral, of some Romney supporters at a rally, who were nearly inarticulate in their disdain for President Obama, claiming he was simultaneously a Marxist, an atheist, and a Muslim (the first two might go together, although not necessarily; the last doesn't jibe with the second; since none of them are in fact true, or relevant to the matters before us in the election even if they were true, well, that's a whole other matter), it seems to me we have evidence that at least some Romney voters were, um, "less than intelligent" to be generous.

So, I await actual evidence. I had all sorts of evidence, and wrote several times, why I was prepared to vote for a Third Party candidate rather than the incumbent, only changing my mind in the past few weeks. I had evidence, I thought the matter carefully, and decided that voting for Pres. Obama would mean, at the very least, that I was looking beyond a small area of my own personal areas of concern.

In the process, I remembered the many things Pres. Obama did that have benefited the country as a whole. In doing that, I remembered - again - that this was not so much a "lesser of two evils" campaign, that Pres. Obama has done demonstrably good and beneficial things for the United States. So I voted for him, thoughtfully and with a clear conscience.

You may not agree with my decision, any more than I agree with yours. To say, however, that three million more Americans were less intelligent than any of those who voted for Mitt Romney, with not a single shred of evidence to support that claim - that's a pretty hefty claim you're making.

Feodor said...

Congratulations, Marshall, you have knocked off the boredom for GKS.

Really crazy people always get some attention from the rest of us. It's just so unavoidably stunning to see psychosis live on the train platform.

Parklife said...

"The polls, such as Rasmussen, Gallup and others to which all news services refer, all show a trend toward Romney."

Umm.. this is either a lie or complete ignorance. Considering it came from Marshall, I'll go with ignorance.

Geoffrey mentions Silver, but Silver isnt the only one with a model. Even the other guys playing with models had Obama winning.

POLLS - Predictions
Economist/YouGov Obama 303
Reuters/Ipsos Obama 294
Public Policy Polling Obama 332
Nate Silver / 538 Obama 307
inTrade Obama 303

As Silver likes to say, this isnt that hard.

Even models that I saw at the start of the year in the Guardian, many had Obama wining then. My guess is thats why Christie didnt want to be VP nor did he want to run.

Its interesting that Marshall says that Romney may have won if the election was on a different day and that Obama had fewer votes than last time. I might remind all the conservatives out there that the objective of the election is not to get the most votes in June or December. Nor, is the objective to get more votes than "last time". The objective, in case you were not paying attention, is to get more electoral votes than the other guy in November. If you want to play the number of votes game, Romney got fewer than McCain. See how that works.

Another thing that isnt all that shocking is the poor response from the losers like Marshall. Insulting the citizens of this country to justify your positions, not very American in my book.

Happy Veterans Day!

Bubba said...

Real quick clarification re: global warming, just because my comment earlier was more terse than clear.

I have no problem with the claim that global temperatures have risen in the last century or so, but I believe it's reasonable to be skeptical about many of the subsequent claims, particularly because of how politicized the supposedly scientific process has become.

I am skeptical of these claims:

- That the change in temperature is unusual for this planet, as if the climate is supposed to be static and as if the temp hasn't been dramatically higher in the past.

- That the change in temperature is caused, primarily or even significantly, by human activity.

- That the increase in temperature is, on-balance, a terrible thing: a slight warming is probably easier for man to deal with than a slight cooling.

- That the statist solutions proposed by the Left are worth the costs.

I think skepticism about any of the above is entirely reasonable.

Marshall Art said...

Parkie,

You pretend you have the intelligence to detect ignorance in others. Not when you defend against something I've never said.

Notice that I speak of polls having trended in Romney's direction. YOu, like Geoffrey (I believe it was) prefer to speak of predictions. These are distinctly different from each other. What Silver and others do with "models" to predict election outcomes has nothing to do with polls indicating trends or even reflecting possible outcomes at the time the poll was taken. "At this point in time, our poll shows the candidate leading by X percentage points." And that's all polls say. But when a poll taken this month shows a greater percentage of candidate A than it did last month, which was better than the month before, that is a trend. It is not a guarantee. Please pay attention.

With that in mind, I suggested that with the trend moving in Romney's direction, at least until the very end, another month or two might have resulted in a Romney win, whereas an election held two months ago would very possibly seen greater support from Romney who hadn't yet gotten the attention the debates afforded him. Indeed, another two months might have altered even Silver's prediction. It is speculation.

The noteworthy aspect of fewer votes than last time around indicate less support for Obama, even though there was less support for Romney than McCain, if indeed there was. This means less of a mandate unless one does not care about the rest of America who didn't vote. I'd be good with that, as if one doesn't vote, one shouldn't bitch.

And as a loser, you shouldn't be speaking of me as a loser. The fact is, the whole nation lost and the reason is the stupidity of the populace. Losers whine about being called stupid when they do something stupid. They also demonize anyone who recognizes and points out their stupidity. Your "book" has no understanding of what is American, or your coloring outside the lines has obscured that explanation; not that you'd understand it.

Parklife said...

Wow.. Marshall, you are lazy. You didnt even bother to hit up Silvers blog. He has a chart, prominently displayed, showing the change in his model over time. Knowing that his model tracks hundreds of polls, it shows a large bump for Romney after the first debate. Then, by mid-Oct Obama was pulling away again. I remember Obama getting down to the low 70s for a chance at a win. By election day, it was at 90 percent. If you read Geoffreys blog, he has several posts and comments that show people quoting Silvers model. Even from there you can see Obama pulling away. Another month or two (which is completely irrelevant) might have had Obama winning 400 electoral votes.

Look at Silvers chart. Go to his website right now. Unless, as I suspect, its impossible for you to do any research on your own.

"And as a loser"

lol.. Marshall, you cant come up with anything original. You voted for the loser. The loser had his ideas rejected by the voters. I will enjoy pointing and laughing at you for the next four years.

"Your "book" has no understanding of what is American, or your coloring outside the lines has obscured that explanation; not that you'd understand it"

Oh.. this is even worse. Just by this comment.. it shows you hate Americans. Why? I dont know and dont care. You are a sad sad man. I hope that one day you will realize what a great nation we all live in.

Marshall Art said...

Wow, Parkie, you are stupid. You didn't even understand my simple statement that the only poll that matters is the vote on election day. This isn't a new thing, turd-boy. It is something I've said a hundred times. Why, then, would I need to take the time to review Silver's blog? Even where I have seen polls trend one way or the other, even where I have seen pundits of all stripes refer to trending, of what possible import is this information to me, the voter? I'll tell you and it is so simple that you might even comprehend it: None. Did you get that, shit-for-brains? NONE. I take absolutely no notice of polls in making my voting decisions. Let's imagine for a moment that the entire country, except for me, was as stupid as you are in believing Obama was the better choice. I would STILL have voted for Romney. Do you see this, you little twerp? The bulk of that support does not make Obama the better choice for the nation, even if the nation believes it to be true, because numbers to not mean that it is true. So, take some time, like the rest of your miserable life, and study these words until you understand them.

Here's more: what makes you a loser, among a host of indicators, is that you think I need to read what YOU think is important, regardless of how irrelevant it is to the point of any given post. What makes you a loser is the stupidity necessary to believe Obama was the better choice for the nation you claim to love. What makes you a loser is thinking a loser like you laughing at me makes any difference to anyone other than yourself. What makes you a loser is thinking that a shot at you, a shot based on reality, can be interpreted as a shot at Americans or an indication of hatred for them. What makes you a loser is how easy it is to list these reasons about you being a loser just from your last comment.

Parklife said...

"Notice that I speak of polls having trended in Romney's direction."

vs.

"...the only poll that matters is the vote on election day."

Im not sure you even read or remember or comprehend what you write. So, I wont hold your contradictory arguments against you. Regardless, please check out Silvers blog, you just might learn something.

"I would STILL have voted for Romney"

Bravo! And guess what.. Obama would still be POTUS. Nobody cares about your hypothetical victory for Romney based on a different voting date. And nobody cares how you, as an individual voted. Congratulations on proving nothing.. again. Obama winning isnt about YOUR choice for president. So, take some time and understand that the US and the rest of the world doesnt revolve around you and doesnt care about your crazy opinion. Nobody here is trying to change your choice for POTUS.

"you think I need to read what YOU think is important"

Lol.. talk about projection.

In my opinion, Obama was a far superior candidate, but again, that has little to do with the nation choosing him as the leader for the next term. Im laughing at you b/c you continue to be unhinged... for your belief that Romney had any chance of winning... for all your crazy ideas that are not based anywhere near reality.

Marshall, lets be clear, I think Obama will be a POTUS for 100% of America. This is one reason I voted for him. I cant say the same for Romney. Much like Obama Im very happy to include everybody. Much like Romney, you are intent on excluding people. And, much like Romney you will always be a loser.


Marshall Art said...

Troll-boy,

I will respond to each piece of idiocy as if your comments were numbered, seeing as how they are separated by quotes of my comments.

1. There is absolutely nothing contradictory in what I said. I have never in THIS post or my comments afterwards suggested I have any concern about polls. Others here have suggested things like the final tally having been obvious. I merely referred to polls that indicated a trend, and a variety of pundits from both sides acknowledging such. Why you insist on making so much of polling results is likely due to your mental disorder.

When I refer to "the only poll that matters", it is obvious that there is a vast distinction between the poll taken last election day and those insignificant polls that came before it during the campaign season. Can you guess what that distinction is, little turd-boy? Here's a hint: the first one to which I referred in the previous sentence resulted in a president being elected.

2. Please find where I suggested, hinted, implied or stated that I believe the world revolves around me. YOU care about my opinion because you can't wait to see me post another so that you can find a way to pretend you've found fault with it.

Here's another point you need to keep in that twisted mind of yours, and it should be easy considering how empty it is: That you can't understand what I prove or highlight or draw attention to has no bearing on the truth and logic and reason that is presented.

3. Projection? How so? YOU think I need to read Silver. I don't. His method of predicting elections are of no concern or value to me, unless I decide to wager on the outcome of elections. I say again that there is no value in reading such things as it has no bearing on my choice of candidate.

Your opinion, Parkie, is worthless without some explanation for why you hold it. Obama is clearly inferior to Romney and I'll be posting on why soon, though I've given reasons already.

I have no problem with a mentally challenged individual like yourself laughing at me. Patients like yourself laugh at all sorts of things for no logical reason. I don't expect to see that change any time soon for you. But remember, YOU voted for Obama. That makes YOU the unhinged one, and of course, among the most stupid who did so.

As to Romney winning, I'm not sure that I ever gave any indication that he would win, but I sure as hell didn't forget that a lot of stupid people voted for him last time around. THAT gave me reason to fear that there would be enough stupid people to make his re-election more than possible. Forgive me for hoping against hope that the American people were smarter than that. I've learned my lesson now.

Finally, there's this:

"...I think Obama will be a POTUS for 100% of America."

Based on what? His love for the top 1%? His disregard for the religious beliefs of those who prefer not to enable abortions and homosexual behavior? Maybe it's all those people on food stamps, those people working longer hours for less pay, those people not working at all. Obama, and the left in general, constantly plays one group against another. Romney, and even more so the conservatives in general, think of all America all the time because we only think in terms of Americans, not black Americans, or "gay" Americans or any other group that Obama and the left is constantly pitting against another. We don't exclude anybody and you don't have a prayer of showing that we do.

I'm not a loser because Romney didn't win. I'm a loser because Obama did. America is a loser for the same reason. As one of the stupid that voted for him, you're too stupid to see it. I'll be helping you with that in the days ahead. I'm done here.

Parklife said...

Yawn.

Let me know when you will start acting like an adult.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

I decided to leave this because it got boring again. Then I read this from Art: Obama, and the left in general, constantly plays one group against another. Romney, and even more so the conservatives in general, think of all America all the time because we only think in terms of Americans, not black Americans, or "gay" Americans or any other group that Obama and the left is constantly pitting against another. We don't exclude anybody and you don't have a prayer of showing that we do.

Mitt Romney to his backers: Obama, Romney argued, had been “very generous” to blacks, Hispanics and young voters. He cited as motivating factors to young voters the administration’s plan for partial forgiveness of college loan interest and the extension of health coverage for students on their parents’ insurance plans well into their 20s. Free contraception coverage under Obama’s healthcare plan, he added, gave an extra incentive to college-aged women to back the president. [...]

The Republican Party to Mitt Romney: Ana Navarro, a Republican strategist who helmed Hispanic outreach for John McCain in 2008 and worked for Jon Huntsman in 2012, was also critical of Romney through the campaign for his failure to engage minority communities. She took to her Twitter feed after “gifts” to tie the remarks to his broader shortcomings as a candidate.

“Livid at Romney saying Obama won b/c offered minorities ‘gifts,”’ she wrote. “As if he didn’t alienate Hispanics enuf while running! Look in mirror, Mitt.”

David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter and longtime critic of the party’s lurch to the right, held up Romney’s latest comments as emblematic of his failed campaign.

“Mitt Romney was very wrong to see 2012 as a referendum on ‘stuff,’” he wrote in a blog post. “It was a referendum on the question, which candidate would do a better job promoting prosperity and creating jobs. That was the referendum that Romney and the Republican party lost. We lost both because voters did not believe in the job-creating magic of upper-income tax cuts - and because voters were unpersuaded that the GOP even cared that much about job creation, as opposed to wealth preservation.”

The long run impact of Romney’s comments probably have more to do with Romney than with the GOP. Republicans weren’t too interested in rallying around Romney after he lost to begin with, and now they’re much less likely to come to his defense. Romney’s reupping on 47 percent could make it harder for the party to move forward, however. The “gifts” comments is getting play in Hispanic media, ensuring that one of the key groups the GOP is hoping to woo will be well aware of what Republicans are saying is Romney’s final presidential campaign misstep.


So, go ahead and say it's Democrats who divide the electorate. Like Mitt Romney just did. And feel the love from fellow Republicans.

You make this too easy.

Marshall Art said...

From the child who never fails to leave a childish comment:

"Let me know when you will start acting like an adult."

There's nothing like being scolded by the childish for not acting like an adult.

Marshall Art said...

Geoffrey,

You, and those you cite, are accusing Romney of being divisive because he pointed out the divisive tactics of Obama. What the hell's wrong with this picture? What Romney said is absolutely true, and it has been true of Democrats, particularly Chicago Democrats, for an incredible long time. Alderman offer new garbage cans to get people in their precinct to vote Democrat. Obama speaks to "groups" of people to entice them to support him by making promises specific to each group.

Now, it seems that even some in the GOP are looking to adjust to emulate this plan. It is wrong-headed considering how impossible it would be to out-promise the very people who wrote the book on bribing the electorate.

The problem remains the same: the inability to articulate the benefits of conservative policies, proposals and ideals is at the heart of this loss for America. It is the problem the right has failed to correct for a long time. It is problematic for the GOP because of the greater problem of America: too many stupid people voting. I'll explain in my next post.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Art, I gotta tell you. America has been hearing the conservative message for decades now. How do I know? Because I'm an American and I remember, all the way back to the 1970's and 1980's, and the message was the same then as it is now.

The difference now? More people are saying, "No thanks." The problem isn't the messenger.

Face it. The problem is the message. Now, you can stick to principle, and for the sake of the Republic I do hope conservatives demand a doubling down, because that will only benefit the rest of the country as more and more people abandon a Republican Party dedicated to a losing message.

You might feel better about yourselves. And you'll lose a whole lot of elections in the process.

Marshall Art said...

First off, Geoffrey, I doubt you can seriously articulate just what the conservative message is. I'd love to read your perspective on that, either here or a post at your own blog.

Secondly, despite this election, a case can be made that the nation is still center-right. So the fact is that it absolutely isn't the message at all. I voted for Romney but didn't in the primary, as is the case with many on the right. Some of us, recognizing the horror that is another four years of stupidity, lies and a degradation of American superiority, voted for him anyway to reduce the harm that is sure to come. We gambled on Romney's abilities to do better than that, but that the harm would be reduced is no gamble at all.

Indeed, Geoffrey. I would wager that even you and Dan are more conservative than you could imagine, but are too suckered into the rhetoric of leftist fantasy.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

More conservative than we imagine? Since I have no idea what you think it is I actually think about politics - despite having written about the subject pretty much every day for six years, since you insist I never actually give evidence for the things I think and say, I cannot imagine what it is you actually think I believe about anything - that statement is not only one of the strangest I've read, it's also the silliest.

There is much I admire about Edmund Burke. I find his understanding of the social contract, as he writes about it in his "Reflections on the Revolution in France", to be compelling; viz., that we exist within time, that ours is a compact between the dead, the living, and the yet-to-be-born. While Burke sees this as a need for caution, I see it as a need for justice; where Burke would insist that such a temporal expanse implies the need for solid institutions, I see it as a demand to make our social institutions work for all of us.

I do not believe in violent revolution. Barring that extreme, I do think that, in pursuit of social justice, we are compelled to put everything on the table, and not a few people in irons, for the crimes they have committed against that very compact both the late, great Burke and I both believe is the bedrock of any human society. For Burke, it would be the Jacobins and their penchant for watching aristocratic heads wind up in baskets at the bottom of guillotines. For me, it would be watching George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, and the rest of them in the dock at The Hague. They would have to watch the full videos of the innocent people driven insane by the treatment these men ordered. They would be forced to hear testimony from the widows and fatherless children that resulted from a war of choice in Iraq. They would have to watch the on-the-ground video of the results of our not-so-surgical bombing that left parents holding their lifeless children in their arms.

The only difference between Burke and me is simple. For Burke, institutions bind us together; for me, it is the demand for justice.

So, conservative? Probably not so much.

Keep telling yourself whatever you wish. If you actually read anything I'd been writing all these years, you could never have typed that sentence.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Let me add that this dream - seeing American officials answer for war crimes in an international tribunal - is both perfectly legal and Constitutional. As ratified signatories of any number of treaties on matters related to national conduct of war, the UN Charter, the treatment of prisoners of war, and even the establishment of the World Court (the forerunner of the ICC), these treaties have the force of law. When American officials violate the terms of treaties to which we are ratified signatories, they are breaking the law.

Because of the precedent set first in Nuremberg and later in Japan, trying officials for violations of their conduct during war time, and because of later precedents putting national leaders on trial for what had been considered acts immune from legal prosecution - the idea of sovereign immunity really goes back to Machiavelli; anything a leader does for reasons of state is inherently legal (see Nixon, Richard M. for why this idea isn't so hot) - the only reason this isn't happening is because some folks think we Americans are special in some way.

Above the law.

Don't have to answer to the standards of conduct we ourselves very often originated and brought the rest of the world to grudging agreement.

So, ship 'em off, I say. Not without counsel, certainly, and with the right to defend themselves. The nice thing is, however, there is enough evidence in the public record to say these folks are war criminals.

If we were really serious about being "conservative" and "Constitutional", the jury would already be seated.

Parklife said...

"I would wager that even you and Dan are more conservative than you could imagine"

ahh.. secret conservatives..

"leftist fantasy"

Care to explain?

Parklife said...

"There's nothing like being scolded by the childish for not acting like an adult."

ha.. Then I would think it would tell you something.

Marshall Art said...

Geoffrey,

I was not referring to you politics, which is clearly based on idiocy, but the manner in which you live your life. I doubt you give to those you know who make less than you enough so that you are equal financially for the sake of "justice". I doubt you feel no expectation of recognition for your achievements (assuming you have any) as if you played no role in them. I doubt that you would limit your own income, were you to start a business, to a level no higher than that of your least talented or dedicated employee. I doubt you would stand for outside interference in how you run that business, how you live out your family life, and the decisions on how best to do either. No. In short, you likely demand, insist or at least expect the least abridged liberty to live your life as you see fit. Such is typical of the leftist.

"They would have to watch the full videos of the innocent people driven insane by the treatment these men ordered."

Are you certain with proof to support it, that these people were not already driven insane by the treatment of the madman and his sons who ruled their country before the invasion? Had you any posts indicating your desire to see them brought to international trials for their insistence on sovereignty in how they treated their people? Are you equally keen on seeing Obama brought to justice for the reported deaths of civilians as a result of drone strikes on terrorist targets? You're a fraud, Geoffrey. You think that because there was disagreement between nations on how best to deal with Iraq that we need to cowtow to the sentiments of disagreeing nations when our duly elected leaders make a decision they feel is in the best interests of our nation and our allies. That reeks of the type of entanglements the founders had in mind.

Marshall Art said...

Parkie,

I did explain to Geoffrey, not that either of you have the character and integrity to consider the point honestly.

"Then I would think it would tell you something."

Yeah. It tells me you're a hypocrite as well as a clinical idiot. Not that I needed more proof.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

"I doubt you give to those you know who make less than you enough so that you are equal financially for the sake of "justice". I doubt you feel no expectation of recognition for your achievements (assuming you have any) as if you played no role in them. I doubt that you would limit your own income, were you to start a business, to a level no higher than that of your least talented or dedicated employee. I doubt you would stand for outside interference in how you run that business, how you live out your family life, and the decisions on how best to do either. No. In short, you likely demand, insist or at least expect the least abridged liberty to live your life as you see fit. Such is typical of the leftist."

Shorter Art: I know nothing about you, but I know you aren't as holy as you demand other people be, so shut the hell up!

Really? That's your argument here?

That isn't even sad. I'm not sure what to call it.

Jim said...

I doubt you give to those you know who make less than you enough so that you are equal financially for the sake of "justice".

This is one of those "big" lies that you have fallen for and now repeat ad nauseum. Nobody in American politics today has ever suggested that "justice" means financial equality. Nobody.

I doubt you feel no expectation of recognition for your achievements (assuming you have any) as if you played no role in them.

Another lie. Nobody has ever suggested that achievers not be recognized and rewarded for their achievements.

I doubt that you would limit your own income, were you to start a business, to a level no higher than that of your least talented or dedicated employee.

WTF? What a bizarre concept! Who is being asked to do this and by whom?

I doubt you would stand for outside interference in how you run that business

All business owners have, do, and expect to. No rules equals chaos.

how you live out your family life

Unless you are pregnant and don't want a child or want contraceptives or want to marry someone of the same sex.

Such is typical of the leftist.

Only in your delusional world.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

What might it take to pierce your thick skull that your "understanding" of liberalism has as much to do with any reality - not just mine, but any - as leprechauns do with mining gold.

It should be ridiculous of me to ask this, but I will ask anyway: Is there any place, in the tens of thousands of words we've exchanged over the years, in which I have ever expressed the idea that I think "justice" means everyone has the same income or access to financial resources. Find me a single quote where I have ever said that individuals do not deserve any credit for their achievements. I would appreciate even one link to a single sentence of mine that even hints I believe any person in a position of authority should, by law, be forced to surrender his or her income to equal the current lowest-paid employee.

Because, you know what? You won't find any such insanity. Not just in anything I've written. In any liberal, progressive, or socialist thought of which I'm aware. Good Lord, Art, what you've written isn't even a bad parody of progressive or Leftist thought. It's the fever-dreams of people like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, only with worse grammar.

Still, I will wait even one link to a sentence of mine, in context, that even hints I believe any of these things. Or, contrariwise, that if I did believe this list of crazy, that I would in fact not follow it, only foist it upon an unwilling world while I and other liberals enjoyed the fruits of our unearned power.

Stuff like that gives delusions a bad name.

Feodor said...

You're beginning to get air time, MA.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/20/russell-brand-westboro-baptist-church-video_n_2166670.html

Parklife said...

heh.. The "priestsrapeboys.com" guy seems so reasonable.

Marshall Art said...

The video, false priest, has been blocked due to legal reasons. No matter. I have no doubt that your dishonesty and reprobate minds (I include Parkie here) find comparisons where none exist or can be proven to have been hinted at ever existing. Again, you sad and pathetic cretins need to have such comparisons exist to allow your false accusations to gain credibility. How desperate you are!

Marshall Art said...

To Jim and Geoffrey,

You can object all you want. You can pretend that neither of you have voiced what I relate in exact terms. But the ramifications of your beliefs and positions can only result in the things that I stated. If you are not looking to make everyone equal financially, then what other inference should be taken from those who insist that "the rich" pay more (as an example from above)?

There is also the fact that by supporting a candidate who HAS expressed the things I've said that to some extent you believe the same. Sure. It's not a guarantee that supporting a candidate means one supports absolutely everything the candidate says or believes. But it is also true that speaking in general terms does not guarantee that everything I say can be applied directly to any given blog opponent.

Just the same, the general sense is true and it is to you to separate yourself form the general understanding of what is known today to be liberalism. My understanding is based on what is clearly seen from day to day. This is different from what people like either of you commonly regard as typical of conservatism, since no clear evidence is ever offered that is never any more than an indictment of a specific individual, as opposed to conservatism and conservatives in general.

But yeah, I stand by my statements, as I always do, until you can prove I have misunderstood.

Jim believe no one on the Dem side has ever called for financial equality. But what does Barry mean by "spreading the wealth around"?

Geoff speaks of "justice" from our institutions, but fails to provide any example of injustice that would lend a semblance of understanding of just what he means. Apparently, it is OK for Geoff to speak generally, but I'm required to give examples of direct statements to support my generalizations. This is convenient way to maintain one's fantasy, but it won't play here.

I still don't believe you would act differently than how my suggestions from Nov 19 @ 4:08. You not so long ago stated that you felt embarrassment at seeing the total on you W2 (I believe last year). Did you take the balance between that sum and whatever sum would relieve your embarrassment and donate to a nearby family who's income was less?

The point is valid. If you lean left, do you live left in your personal life? I lean right and live the same way. There's no inconsistency between the principles I support in my vote and those I live out in my life. I don't believe most lefties live like lefties, except, perhaps where the moral issues are concerned.

Marshall Art said...

For Jim specifically:

"Nobody in American politics today has ever suggested that "justice" means financial equality."

Then what does it mean? I was speaking of justice as it applies to economic matters. And again, Obama said "spread the wealth around". So what does that mean? How much spreading would satisfy a lefty? And how much spreading of your own wealth have you done and continue to do?

"Nobody has ever suggested that achievers not be recognized and rewarded for their achievements."

You can't have it both ways. Either one "built that yourself" or one didn't. How can you ever give anyone credit if one didn't achieve alone?

"What a bizarre concept! Who is being asked to do this and by whom?"

This is the very concept of the union and those who constantly refer to the wealthy as having created their wealth "on the backs of others". Unions, indeed, insist that all make the same, and more than an employer might be willing to pay, and regardless of equal effort on the part of every employee. There is never any mention of just what is equitable as regards the income of the person who created the business that employs others versus what he pays those he employs.

"All business owners have, do, and expect to. No rules equals chaos."

There is a big difference between complying with rules, expecting rules and preferring that rules be implemented that interfere with their ability to make the most for their efforts.

"Unless you are pregnant and don't want a child or want contraceptives or want to marry someone of the same sex."

No, Jim. Killing your child because you don't want one after engaging in the act that is meant to impregnate does not qualify for preferring no outside interference in family decisions. Demanding that I pay for your contraceptives does not qualify as interference of family decisions. Demanding that I accept a false definition of marriage does qualify as interfering with family decisions, especially since there is no prohibition against two mentally disordered individually from living with each other as if they were a normal couple married to each other.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

But yeah, I stand by my statements, as I always do, until you can prove I have misunderstood.

Your comment proves you have no idea what you're talking about, Art. It also proves you're far too dense even to begin to understand how completely insane the positions you claim I support - and which I have categorically denied ever even hinting at supporting - really are.

You have proved by your very words that you misunderstand. I need to do nothing.

Marshall Art said...

I can only wonder if you can actually tap dance as well as you rhetorically tap dance. But I haven't made suggestions as to your positions, but have suggested what likely aren't as regards how you live your personal life. But again, at the same time, when you support particular candidates, the likelihood that you stand in favor of some of their positions seems fairly likely. Or are you in the habit of supporting candidates who stand for that which you oppose?

I can handle being proven to have spoken in a manner that demonstrates I might "not know what I'm talking about". You don't do a whole lot to show that has been the case. Actually, you do nothing but make the claim.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Art, I do believe Alan is right. It's like the movie Memento with you: each day is new and fresh.

You and I have been back and forth for years. On all sorts of topics. So please, for the love of all that is good in this world, demonstrate how I have never, ever, in all the tens of thousands of words we've exchanged, once backed up a claim I made with any actual evidence. Please.

I treat this whole thing as an on-going conversation, Art. You treat it . . . like we've never met, never talked about any of this stuff before, like I've not written 3669 blog posts as of this morning, and probably three or four times that many comments just on yours.

Evidence, Art? You're soaking in it. If you don't feel like using Google, or still need instructions, that's one thing. Just admit it.

So, please stop with, "You never provide evidence!" You never like the evidence, you insist all my evidence is biased (whereas yours, of course, is all real evidence), or you think - as in this comment thread - that I'm a liar (I say I do not believe the things you claim I do; you insist I do; that would be calling me a liar, Art, in case you don't have a dictionary handy).

So I ask you, for the last time: Please provide evidence that I or anyone else has ever said the things you say. Don't weasel out of it by talking about implications or writing, "But what else can it mean?" Since I have categorically stated (as has commenter Jim) the things you claim we on the left believe are untrue even as you "stand by them"), please, just point to a sentence, a phrase, anything that I have ever written that says the things you claim I "really" mean.

Jim said...

what other inference should be taken from those who insist that "the rich"

The "rich" have paid more since the Federal income tax law was implemented in 1913 when there were 7 progressive tax brackets. Not then, nor in any other implementation of progressive tax systems has the goal ever been to achieve financial equality. This was true even under Eisenhower when the top bracket was 91%.

In a progressive tax system, the rich pay more not because the goal is to spread the wealth or to achieve financial equality, but because the rich can easily afford to pay more at the margins.

by supporting a candidate who HAS expressed the things I've said that to some extent

He hasn't so your assertion fails.

But what does Barry mean by "spreading the wealth around"?

I believe that it was JFK who described it as "a rising tide floats all boats." "Spread the wealth" doesn't mean put it all in one pot and divvy it up in equal shares. It means an economy does better when wealth isn't concentrated at the top and those in the middle and lower have money that they can spend and invest to boost the economy.

fails to provide any example of injustice that would lend a semblance of understanding of just what he means.

I'll provide one. The institution of tax rules in which a person like Mitt Romney can pay 14% (or zero) on income of $20 million while the average worker pays 25% because investing capital is somehow "risky" and being in the labor pool, working physically demanding jobs, or first responder jobs is NOT risky.

I don't believe most lefties live like lefties

That makes sense to you? I'll bet 100% of them do.

Jim said...

And again, Obama said "spread the wealth around". So what does that mean?

See previous post.

And how much spreading of your own wealth have you done and continue to do?

Plenty, higher than the national average.

Either one "built that yourself" or one didn't.

Every sentient being knows by now that Obama was referring to the national infrastructure and educational system which are essential to the success of any business.

How can you ever give anyone credit if one didn't achieve alone?

Gee, I don't know. How did Aaron Rodgers get to go to Disneyland?

Unions, indeed, insist that all make the same

Really? Then why do many union contracts have different pay scales for journeymen and apprentices? Or higher pay based on seniority?

preferring that rules be implemented that interfere with their ability to make the most for their efforts

Are there any rules that DON'T interfere with the ability to make the most for their effort?

does not qualify for preferring no outside interference in family decisions

Yeah, it does. An embryo is not a child. A fetus is not a child. Abortion is legal. And people can engage in any consensual sex act they want regardless of what you think it is meant for, and it's none of your business.

Demanding that I pay for your contraceptives does not qualify as interference of family decisions.

Nobody has demanded that you pay for anybody's contraceptives.

Demanding that I accept a false definition of marriage does qualify as interfering with family decisions

You don't have to accept anything. The law defines civil marriage. You can take it or leave it.

Marshall Art said...

Geoffrey,

You continue to make these accusations. I continue to assert the same things, but not as if the topics haven't been covered. I assert them because you haven't proven what you wish to assert you have. I'm well aware of most of what you've written and I base all my comments about you on that, just as I do for everyone and everything else. Thus, Alan is no more right about me than you are. You both just need to have that be true. Your denials of what I conclude by the sum total of your comments does not mean I am wrong or that you haven't lead me to those conclusions. This is the same issue I have with Dan, as he insists that nothing he's said matches the conclusions his words have provoked.

But I can give you an example or two regarding your lack of proof:

1) God doesn't care about our behavior. If I've misstated this position, feel free to correct me in that gracious manner of yours. But I offered a number of verses that conflicted with your statement and you crapped on my doing so, rather than to provide any verses that supported your position.

2) The manipulation of capitalism. This should have been easy, but you chose to deny me any example of your having been manipulated by capitalism.

3) Still no proof or support for the notion that a fertilized ovum is comparable to a skin cell, except for relative size.

And really, you've never really proven that I "don't know what I'm talking about" on pretty much any subject where you've put forth that notion. Instead, you use it as a dodge, particularly when I point out what appear to be blatant flaws in your comments.

And as if YOU are acting like we haven't had a running battle for years, you continue to assert that I dismiss your proof for the shallowest of reasons, such as the bias of the source, as if such has ever represented the alpha and omega of my opposition. Nonsense and bullshit. I've NEVER used source bias as even a secondary reason why your proof is lacking, but have only noted the bias due to its obvious nature.

However, you routinely dismiss any citations I use from sources such as Townhall.com, AmericanThinker.com and others with nothing more than critiques of writing style rather than an intelligent counter to points being made.

I weigh your "evidence" on its own merits, not on the source of them. You do, however, like to point to opinions as evidence, such as your hard-on for Charles Price, who does nothing more than cast aspersions (based on links you've provided to his articles), and recently, by your leaning on the opinion of Judge Jones in that ID case (still reading it by the way...yawn).

If your "evidence" still leaves me with questions, that's not on me, but on your choice of poor evidence to offer in support of your positions. Try finding something more compelling, instead of simply calling into question my ability to understand or see what doesn't exist or hasn't been proven.

Marshall Art said...

I just thought of another example, Geoffrey. It's one I can't believe didn't jump to the fore. That hefty list from way back of "Bush lies" which yielded no evidence of actual lies. That list was put forth by you as evidence of him lying but none were lies by definition.

Jim said...

You do, however, like to point to opinions as evidence

And Townhall.com and AmericanThinker.com are NOT opinion sites?

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

"I just thought of one"!

Seriously, Art? GWB's lies?

As I wrote on my own blog about creationists screeching about evolution: Yawn. The ship has sailed.

Honestly, Art, every time you type something, the world gets stupider. I'm out, and not checking back. You remind me of any number of children throwing tantrums. You want attention. You want to be noticed. You want to count.

Sorry. I have to go dream up new ways of making sure the rich don't get richer and gay people force themselves on you legally.

Marshall Art said...

Geoffrey, since you will be checking back in,

"Seriously, Art? GWB's lies?

As I wrote on my own blog about creationists screeching about evolution: Yawn. The ship has sailed."


You distinctly asked for proof of not having supplied evidence for something you've said. You distinctly did NOT demand that I restrict my examples to recent posts only. Not to mention the fact that it was one of three examples I put forth, the other two being more recent yet unworthy somehow of response from you.

And now you revert to your default tactic of accusation. Tantrums? Seeker of attention? I want to count? Whatever helps you get through the night, Geoffie. That "stupider" you feel the world getting is you feeling your own stupidity. Nothing more. Certainly nothing I'm bringing about.

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

"The "rich" have paid more since the Federal income tax law was implemented in 1913..."

Thanks for the history lesson Jimmy. But that has nothing to do with the point I was making. It isn't a matter of how much more the rich were taxed in the past, but that the rich are constantly imposed upon to cover for the non-rich in paying for what the gov't had no business buying in the first place. To tax the rich at a higher rate is another way to take from them in order to pay for YOU or your share. Spreading the wealth around. Making everyone financially equal. Who are you kidding?

"'by supporting a candidate who HAS expressed the things I've said that to some extent'

He hasn't so your assertion fails."


He has indeed, as have most every leftist candidate out there.

"'But what does Barry mean by "spreading the wealth around"?'

I believe that it was JFK who described it as "a rising tide floats all boats." "Spread the wealth" doesn't mean put it all in one pot and divvy it up in equal shares. "



JFK was not talking about spreading the wealth. He was talking about the benefits of an expanding economy. "Spread the wealth" means that some leftist believes there is some injustice in how the money has come to be where it is. If the money is mostly in the hands of the few, it has more to do with the abilities and behaviors of the few than any injustice that requires gov't intervention. At the same time, it has much to do with the abilities and behaviors of the many that they don't have the same amount. "Spread the wealth" is a result of the idiotic notion that there is a fixed amount of money that is being monopolized by the few so that the many are deprived. What the few do with their money has nothing to do with what the many have or have not. The money of the few isn't just sitting in the pile doing nothing.

"'
fails to provide any example of injustice that would lend a semblance of understanding of just what he means.'

I'll provide one. The institution of tax rules in which a person like Mitt Romney can pay 14% (or zero) on income of $20 million while the average worker pays 25% because investing capital is somehow "risky" and being in the labor pool, working physically demanding jobs, or first responder jobs is NOT risky."


There's nothing unjust about it, Jim, seeing as how you, or anyone else, is entitle to invest and earn in the same way Romney and other wealthy people do. And it isn't so much a matter of risk as it is the benefits to the economy of investing in the market.

Marshall Art said...

"Every sentient being knows by now that Obama was referring to the national infrastructure and educational system which are essential to the success of any business."

Not being one, how would you know what sentient beings know about Obama's statement? He was definitely setting out to diminish the work, risk and time spent by the successful in achieving their success in order to pretend he is justified in demanding they pay more in taxes than they currently do. Who are you kidding? Not to mention the fact that everybody benefits equally by infrastructure and the educational system so that pretending the successful are somehow more indebted is complete bullshit. It is simple covetousness of the left that tries to run this drivel as legitimate arguments for sticking their hands deeper into the pockets of others to fund their programs.

"'And how much spreading of your own wealth have you done and continue to do?'

Plenty, higher than the national average."


According to the National Philanthropic Trust, that would be more than 2K per year. But how much more? What percentage of your income is your donation? Why isn't it more? Notice that no matter how much of the total tax burden is covered by the top 5%, you lefties want to raise it. So that means you certainly aren't giving enough, either. More importantly, whatever you give on your own is entirely voluntary. You're demanding other give, which is to insist that everyone is leveled out to have similar amounts.

"Gee, I don't know. How did Aaron Rodgers get to go to Disneyland?"

By virtue of his own efforts and discipline in refining his talents and wheeling them into a pro-football career. HE made himself successful and put his own ass in position to be where he is. Others got the same type and level of coaching, but HE achieved. See how that works?

"'Unions, indeed, insist that all make the same'

Really? Then why do many union contracts have different pay scales for journeymen and apprentices? Or higher pay based on seniority?"


Unions force wages based solely on merit alone? I don't think so, Jimmy-boy. I've been in union shops and slackers make just as much as good workers. Employers cannot easily rid themselves of poor workers. The teachers unions are noted for this incredible blight on work ethic.

"Are there any rules that DON'T interfere with the ability to make the most for their effort?"

Questions like this help prove my point about stupid people in America. I'd say that answer to this idiotic question is "yes". Some rules are in place but do not affect those who have a strong moral character. In other words, people of strong moral character do not engage in the types of behavior against which most rules are meant to protect. And speaking of stupidity...

Marshall Art said...

...when I mentioned "how you live out your family life", I was referring to the things such as how you raise your kids, how you spend your money, things like that. But since you brought up your lies about abortion and what a human embryo is, to prevent the needless killing of an innocent human being is not what moral people see as interference of personal lives. Moral people see it as defending innocent human beings. But indeed, idiots like yourself don't see that forcing companies, organizations, and therefor private citizens to comp for abortions, contraceptives, as well as forcing people to do business with people who engage in perversion is indeed interfering with one's private life. You're simply not honest enough or endowed with high enough character to admit it.

Jim said...

the rich are constantly imposed upon to cover for the non-rich in paying for what the gov't had no business buying in the first place.

Most people would disagree with you on what the government's business is. But that is DIFFERENT the earlier point you were making. You are changing the subject.

Making everyone financially equal.

Does Warren Buffet's 35% marginal rate make him "financially equal" to you? Who are you kidding?

He has indeed, as have most every leftist candidate out there.

No, he has not and they have not.

"Spread the wealth" is a result of the idiotic notion that there is a fixed amount of money that is being monopolized by the few so that the many are deprived

No it's not. That is an absurd notion believed by no one.

Jim, seeing as how you, or anyone else, is entitle to invest and earn in the same way Romney and other wealthy people do.

Only if a person or family has income over and above what they need to live on.

And it isn't so much a matter of risk as it is the benefits to the economy of investing in the market.

And labor doesn't benefit the market?

He was definitely setting out to diminish the work, risk and time spent by the successful in achieving their success

No, he was not. Who are you kidding?

By virtue of his own efforts and discipline in refining his talents and wheeling them into a pro-football career. HE made himself successful and put his own ass in position to be where he is.

He didn't play high school football coached by publicly-paid teachers and coaches? He didn't attend a public university (California) which is partially funded by taxpayers? He didn't have 40 team mates in high school, college, and Green Bay?

Unions force wages based solely on merit alone? No, and I didn't say that, did I Artie?

forcing companies, organizations, and therefor private citizens to comp for abortions, contraceptives...

Nobody is forced to "comp" for any of this. Employers pay employees for their labor, employees decide how to use their compensation.




Marshall Art said...

Jim,

I'll ignore your simpleton comments that simply deny the facts. This "no it's not/no he's not" crap is a waste of my time.

"Most people would disagree with you on what the government's business is."

I doubt "most" would at all. I do not doubt that too many, mostly on the left, have any idea of what the federal gov't is mandated to do and not do. But my point is not altered by that which provoked this poor response of yours. Whether the rich are directly giving a portion of their money to those with less or being taxed more heavily to cover what the less wealthy can afford, the result is the same: redistribution. "spreading the wealth". You want to pretend it must require an actual change of wallets in order for the concept to be true. It does not.

"Does Warren Buffet's 35% marginal rate make him "financially equal" to you?"

In like manner, you now dishonestly pretend that absolute financial equality is something I think is possible. It doesn't have to be for the aim to be factual. But yes, when the wealthy are taxed more heavily, they are then MORE equal financially to those who are not wealthy. Something leftists strive to achieve.

"Only if a person or family has income over and above what they need to live on."

The ambiguous and loosely defined "poor people" do not have to remain poor and starting with even tiny amounts of dollars can begin to develop a nest egg for investment. What's more, the lefties who want to tax the crap out of rich dudes can offer to donate to the cause of enriching the less fortunate. Feel free.

Regardless, the option is still available to all. There is no injustice in the tax code because not everyone has the bucks to invest.

"And labor doesn't benefit the market?"

Not in the same way, to the same extent or in as direct a manner.

"He didn't play high school football coached by publicly-paid teachers and coaches...etc?"

Like with infrastructure and education, he was afforded what thousands, if not millions were afforded and he succeeded where others didn't. Why is that? Because HE BUILT THAT, not the coaches, not the teachers, but he himself. With all those others having the same opportunities, or opportunities like them, its a wash. I have no doubt that most, if not all successful people would be successful (or more successful than most) regardless any of what you think was necessary for an Aaron Rodgers to succeed. Remove the infrastructure and education and the driven people will still succeed.

"'Unions force wages based solely on merit alone?' No, and I didn't say that, did I Artie?"

More importantly was that my mention of unions insuring everyone gets paid the same was purposely twisted away from the obvious meaning (based on the context of the comments leading to it). Starting wage, journeyman wage...those different scales were not relevant whatsoever. However, I wouldn't doubt those are mere concessions.

"Nobody is forced to "comp" for any of this."

Bullshit. The insured don't get to dictate what an insurance company covers if that company is mandated by law to cover abortions. The costs of covering non-catastrophic issues like contraceptives increases the cost of every premium payer. (and don't try pretending only contraceptives constitute this type of mandated bullshit we are forced to cover). The taxpayer doesn't get to stop paying taxes that are used to support abortion mills. And what an employer must cover has an effect on what an employee is paid, and how many employees can be hired.

Jim said...

This "no it's not/no he's not" crap is a waste of my time

As is my time in trying to convince you that what I've said is true.

being taxed more heavily to cover what the less wealthy can afford

Huh?

But yes, when the wealthy are taxed more heavily, they are then MORE equal financially to those who are not wealthy. Something leftists strive to achieve.

Hogwash on both counts.

The ambiguous and loosely defined "poor people" do not have to remain poor and starting with even tiny amounts of dollars can begin to develop a nest egg for investment.

Really?

the lefties who want to tax the crap out of rich dudes can offer to donate to the cause of enriching the less fortunate. Feel free.

Your trusty fallback.

There is no injustice in the tax code because not everyone has the bucks to invest.

That ignores the point of investing being riskier or more valuable than running into a burning building.

Of course labor doesn't benefit the market in the same was as investing, as rushing yards don't benefit total yards the same as passing yards.

Remove the infrastructure and education and the driven people will still succeed.

Sure, pro scouts would have found Rodgers in the sand lot.

Starting wage, journeyman wage...those different scales were not relevant whatsoever.

They are precisely the point.

Abortion coverage is not mandated by the ACA.

The costs of covering non-catastrophic issues like contraceptives increases the cost of every premium payer.

Absolutely incorrect. The cost of prevention of pregnancy is minimal compared to the cost to all premium payers for prenatal care, delivery, and post birth care. Exponentially. And since preventative care REDUCES cost, the your employer CAN hire more employees.

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

It is not true, or at least not confirmed, that preventative care reduces costs to health care. Check here, and here for just two articles discussing this point.

But there is a far greater concern here, in that you believe abortion, birth control pills that are actually chemical abortions, are morally justifiable means of reducing costs. Hell, if we're going to use murder as a means to reduce costs, I say we start with lefties who are the big spenders and enablers of behaviors that lead to programs people of character don't require.

This article is but one that explains how abortion is expanding via ACA.

The rest of your comments are nonsensical and idiotic. You clearly demonstrate my main point in my post is accurate.

Jim said...

Unfortunately (for you) your first link is limited ONLY to a study of type 2 diabetes measuring the cost of preventative measures vs. cost of treatment. While it says preventative measures may be somewhat costlier than than treatment, the quality of lifestyle may be benefitted by these measures. The study says nothing about any other programs of preventative care.

Your second link also does not support your contention. It only says that the contention that preventative care saves money can not be generalized for all conditions. It states:

Careful analysis of the costs and benefits of specific interventions, rather than broad generalizations, is critical. Such analysis could identify not only cost-saving preventive measures but also preventive measures that deliver substantial health benefits relative to their net costs; this analysis could also identify treatments that are cost-saving or highly efficient (i.e., cost-effective).

Furthermore, it doesn't take much logic or math to figure out that the cost of contraceptives, even at say $50 per month, is far, far less than the cost of obstetric care during pregnancy and birth.

I have never said that abortions should be viewed as a means of reducing costs. I don't really care how birth control pills work. They are not legally or medically abortions. They are legal and common medical prescriptions. AND they reduce the number of actual abortions which renders your final link moot.

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

Unfortunately for you, I am not so dim as to miss the fact that you missed the part where I stated the articles were "just two articles discussing this point." Thus, your dishonest attempt to nit-pick either of them fails. The real point, however, is that the cost benefits of preventative care is not the cut-and-dried argument that seals the deal. What's more, as if that wasn't enough, preventative care, such as proper sleep, quality foods (such as organic produce, grass-fed beef, etc.) also raises the cost of preventative care.

As to abortions, I'm not the least bit surprised that one as corrupted as yourself would not care how birth control pills work. That might threaten your ability to have sex whenever you want, damn the consequences. Any drug that causes the flushing of an embryo is an abortifacient, and thus, does not "reduce" abortions at all. Far more cost effective is to engage in self-control and deny one's self the gratification of an orgasm when pregnancy is just too darn inconvenient. But no. To suggest that adults act in an adult manner would be "SEX-NAZISM"!!!! And we can't have that!

VinnyJH57 said...

I am not so dim as to miss the fact that you missed the part where I stated the articles were "just two articles discussing this point."

Those two articles aren't even vaguely relevant to Jim's point which was that "[t]he cost of prevention of pregnancy is minimal compared to the cost to all premium payers for prenatal care, delivery, and post birth care." Even if there were any doubt whether preventative care is generally or usually less expensive than treatment (a point which neither of your articles appears to address), there cannot be any rational doubt that there are many specific conditions, e.g., pregnancy, for which it is (a point which one of your articles expressly acknowledges).

One of the most tiresome things I find in discussing issues with right wing bloggers is the frequency with which they cite articles that don't support the proposition for which they cite them.

Marshall Art said...

Actually, Vinny, Jim said this:

"And since preventative care REDUCES cost, the your employer CAN hire more employees."

It was this statement that made my links quite relevant. Please don't sink to Jim's level by focusing on minor points as if that might do damage to the larger point. Once again, the two article are only two that can be found in which the notion of preventative care being less expensive is found to be debatable.

As to pregnancy, it is not in any way, shape or form a "condition" comparable to illness or injury. Any preventable methods that result in the death of the conceived human cannot be justified by cost considerations. Only those that prevent conception can be tolerated by an honorable culture. Outside of those procedures that render a person incapable of conceiving, only abstaining will prevent a pregnancy. And guess what? It's far cheaper than any other option. Too bad few people these days are willing to do the right thing.

One of the most tiresome things I find in discussing such things with left wing bloggers is their cheap rationalizations for abortion.

Vinny said...

Have you ever heard of context?

Jim was responding to your complaint about contraceptives driving up the cost of insurance when he wrote "Absolutely incorrect. The cost of prevention of pregnancy is minimal compared to the cost to all premium payers for prenatal care, delivery, and post birth care. Exponentially. And since preventative care REDUCES cost, the your employer CAN hire more employees."

Jim was addressing the specific case of contraceptives. He wasn't making a generalized claim about the cost advantage of preventative care (not that either of your articles supported your position on that anyway).

Marshall Art said...

If you want context, Vinny, then go back and see that we began speaking in terms of the forcing of companies and individuals to provide products and services (abortions and abortion inducing contraceptives) in conflict with their religious beliefs. He went on to insist that ACA does not, though it does, so he went on to preventative care. If you want to focus on one area of preventative care, then you diminish the argument as that one area does not comprise the whole of health care, thus to mandate it is even less reasonable. I haven't lost sight of the context at all, though Jim tries hard to muddy it.

What's more, considering 99% of abortions and all contraceptive use is elective in nature, to eliminate them from consideration is logical and justified considering the purpose of insurance in the first place. (To be sure, procreation is elective as well. But the benefits to society in giving birth to and proper raising of future tax payers is far more obvious.) So, serious talk about reducing the cost of health care must include returning insurance policy toward its original purpose which was to protect against the debilitating costs of catastrophic illness or injury.

Vinny said...

I would prefer to look at the context of the point to which you claimed you were responding.

Jim said...

I stated the articles were "just two articles discussing this point.

If they weren't the best ones to make your argument, why did you select them?

To suggest that your definition of adult behavior is the standard by which all adults must live by is "SEX-NAZISM"!!!!

focusing on minor points

Minor points? They were key points of the articles.

As to pregnancy, it is not in any way, shape or form a "condition" comparable to illness or injury.

And yet it is treated in the same offices, by doctors with the same initials after their names, and covered by the same insurance companies and policies.

Any preventable methods that result in the death of the conceived human cannot be justified by cost considerations.

The concept of contraception can certainly be justified by cost considerations. The so-called "death of the conceived human" is your hang up.

honorable culture That could by another 200 comment post.

One of the most tiresome things I find in discussing such things with left wing bloggers is their cheap rationalizations for abortion.

That's because we also don't consider appendectomies "amputations". I mean, an appendectomy also removes a "human" appendage.

in conflict with their religious beliefs.... He went on to insist that ACA does not

As I have pointed out, nothing in the ACA contraceptive mandate infringes on ANYONE's religious beliefs. The use and cost of contraception is in the hands of the person who earns the compensation, not the one who compensates.

If you want to focus on one area of preventative care, then you diminish the argument

Like focusing on type 2 diabetes?

the purpose of insurance in the first place

We aren't in "the first place" anymore. Health insurance isn't car insurance. This is grist for another 200 comment post.

But the benefits to society in giving birth to and proper raising of future tax payers

To paraphrase you, "the forced birthing of humans cannot be justified by tax revenue considerations."

So, serious talk about reducing the cost of health care must include returning insurance policy toward its original purpose which was to protect against the debilitating costs of catastrophic illness or injury.

This will never happen. Health care insurance is not car insurance, homeowners insurance, or flood insurance. It's something totally different.

I know that at least since 1975 when I first started paying for health insurance, it was not simply for catastrophic health issues. It is an integral part of health care management, payments and employee compensation.

This prompts me to read up on the history of health care insurance which I will do, but again, I can say that "the first place" predates forty years ago.

Marshall Art said...

"If they weren't the best ones to make your argument, why did you select them?"

I don't require any better to make the point. They both speak to the notion regarding preventative care being necessarily less expensive. By saying they were "just two" of those available, I was indicating that there are more. Feel free to take a look yourself and after reading all that is available, you can select the two YOU feel is best. I already know the subject isn't closed.

"To suggest that your definition of adult behavior is the standard by which all adults must live by is "SEX-NAZISM"!!!!"

First of all, it isn't "my" definition. It is "THE" definition of adult behavior, maturity, honor and high moral character.

"Minor points? They were key points of the articles."

The "key" point is whether or not preventative care is always less expensive. Both articles speak to that "key" point.

"And yet it is treated in the same offices, by doctors with the same initials after their names, and covered by the same insurance companies and policies."

Is this supposed to be a winning point for your position?

"The concept of contraception can certainly be justified by cost considerations."

It's cheaper to kill your wife if she breaks her legs. Does that sound like justification to you? If you are referring to actual contraceptives, that is, devices that prevent conception, most of them are very cheap over-the-counter items that reprobates like yourself, so lacking in self-control, can pay for them yourself. The more complicated methods, such as vasectomies, which your father should have spent a few bucks acquiring, is not something on which insurance companies should be wasting premium monies. One less, unnecessary expense for insurers means lower costs for the insured.

" The so-called "death of the conceived human" is your hang up."

The deaths of Jews by Nazis was a hang-up for millions of people, as was the enslavement of black people. There is nothing "so-called" as regards what is killed in an abortion. But then, when one simply must have an orgasm, why should the lives of human beings get in the way, right Jim?

"'honorable culture' That could by another 200 comment post."

That's a lot of comments posted that would be wasted on the likes of you who has shown repeatedly that you have no understanding of the term "honorable".

Marshall Art said...

"That's because we also don't consider appendectomies "amputations". I mean, an appendectomy also removes a "human" appendage."

Actually, an appendectomy is the surgical removal of the appendix. An amputation is the surgical removal of a body part. The only distinction is what is surgically removed.

But leave it to a morally bankrupt individual like yourself to regard an entire human being, an entire human body as an "appendage".

"As I have pointed out, nothing in the ACA contraceptive mandate infringes on ANYONE's religious beliefs. The use and cost of contraception is in the hands of the person who earns the compensation, not the one who compensates."

You've pointed out fantasy. The religious beliefs of providers, be they the insurer or the company that must provide insurance to compete for employees is totally disregarded. And you'll note that your heroine, Sandra Fluke, was specifically fighting for coverage for contraceptives by a religious institution. Try paying attention to reality, not the claims of your lying politicians.

"Like focusing on type 2 diabetes?"

Typical Jim idiocy.

"We aren't in "the first place" anymore."

The "first place" was where health care was far less expensive.

"To paraphrase you, "the forced birthing of humans cannot be justified by tax revenue considerations.""

And again to wander back to fantasy land. This does not parallel what I said in any way because it does not reflect reality. Of course the reality is that far to many people like yourself inhabit our society, thinking of their own carnal pleasures when engaging in the act designed to bring into existence another generation. They just want to achieve their pleasure and damn the child they bring about. No honor. No maturity.

"This will never happen. Health care insurance is not car insurance, homeowners insurance, or flood insurance. It's something totally different."

True. It will never happen as long as the number of immature people lacking in strong moral character like yourself have a vote.

To give you a head start, the government implemented a wage freeze during WWII and employers began offering benefits to attract employees. Before that, health insurance began with a doctor offering services to teachers. But minor issues were always paid for and often with a barter system. The current mood is one that has helped to raise costs as every freakin' hangnail is covered when a simple trip to the doctor for a minimal fee would suffice. The issue of employer provided health insurance has led to this insane attitude that insurance is some kind of right.

Jim said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jim said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

It's not the hangnails that are driving up health care costs. It's the knee replacements and hip replacements.