tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8549971354391868786.post4945139464000212385..comments2024-03-28T15:24:53.579-04:00Comments on Rational Nation USA: Nuances, Contadictions, and the Fairh...Les Carpenterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01120280762698472496noreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8549971354391868786.post-26506574166118393972013-09-20T09:12:44.462-04:002013-09-20T09:12:44.462-04:00Now, 51 comments later, to get back on track after...Now, 51 comments later, to get back on track after <i>someone</i> completely derailed it for a very long time. <br /><br />Cenk makes several good points here. He often does. Just like Hannity, really. But like Hannity, he is very one-sided: he will by nature refrain from making much criticism of his own side. This was brought home in Cenk's criticism of right-wingers "politicizing" the Boston bombing right after it happened. He made a list, and took care to cook and fabricate his case by leaving out the left-wingers (those on his side) who also politicized the bombing. He, like Hannity, is very much a boilerplate partisan, stick to the template kind of guy.<br /><br />Whether or not Atheism is considered a faith, or which types of Atheism are, I consider Atheism to be a valid and defensible status in regard to religion (is that general enough for you?) such that the rights of Atheism and their beliefs are <i>no less Constitutionally protected</i> than those of theists. More points to Cenk for displaying the First Amendment.<br /><br />Beckel apparently offends Cenk greatly by daring to venture out of leftist echo-chambers to challenge those who don't agree with him. That kind of behavior goes against the boilerplate mentality. <br /><br />An aside, but still not any sort of derailing... the sound quality for "Young Turks" is terrible and echoey, like the studio is public-access cable or a boondocks ABC TV market 11:00 news show. There's a line of professionalism of production, and this show is on the wrong side of it. The potty-mouth ending makes it worse, making him seem like a would-be shock jock: an immature, hot-headed blow-hard.dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8549971354391868786.post-49079704010134936002013-09-19T01:59:29.937-04:002013-09-19T01:59:29.937-04:00He does it all the time. Like when we were talking...He does it all the time. Like when we were talking about Syria on a previous post and came out of nowhere with his "Will can't stand poor people" talking point. The fellow simply cannot focus.Will "take no prisoners" Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02315659209094683602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8549971354391868786.post-40500592888482635592013-09-18T09:15:53.419-04:002013-09-18T09:15:53.419-04:00I will add this, concerning not only a whopper. bu...I will add this, concerning not only a whopper. but a huge triple whopper with chease. WD said:<br /><br />"In other words it was Dennis who went whole-hog crap fest with his comments derailing the conversation... steering it away from the actual topic and toward discussing Progressives that Dennis loves to hate."<br /><br />The record is clear in all the comments, and it is actually the opposite of what WD said. Who started the discussion of Cenk and his record on the Armenian genocide? WD did. In his first comment. In fact, the very first comment here. MOST of it was about Cenk and the Armenian genocide/young turk issue. So, it is WD that steered it away from "the actual topic" right out of the gate. In the first comment, dated and timestamped Tue Sep 10, 05:24:00 PM EDT, he did this in regards to Cenk Uygar.<br /><br />What about the others? WD mentioned "progressives" (plural) that I supposedly loved to hate, and how I was "steering it away from the actual topic and toward discussing" them, in his actual words in comment "Tue Sep 17, 11:51:00 AM EDT".<br /><br />There have been three other discussed, loosely using the definition of progressives to include FDR also.<br /><br />1) Van Jones. WD actually brought him into this conversation, not me, in the "Wed Sep 11, 11:39:00 AM EDT" comment.<br /><br />2) Norman Finkelstein. WD actually brought him into this conversation, not me, in the "Wed Sep 11, 11:39:00 AM EDT" comment also.<br /><br />3) FDR. I mentioned him first, in my "Fri Sep 13, 08:23:00 AM EDT" comment. But not as anyone I condemn. And long after WD specifically "derailed" the conversation from "the actual topic" concerning not just one, but three progressives. <br /><br />---------------<br /><br />That's three strikes. He's out. The outlook wasn't brilliant for the Mudville nine that day.... nor was the batter. From Casey at the bat to Casey Jones: the record is clear on who "derailed" this conversation, right at the very start, and again, and again, and again.dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8549971354391868786.post-88958575547190214732013-09-17T20:37:37.124-04:002013-09-17T20:37:37.124-04:00RN said: "Let go Mr. Sanders. Find something ...RN said: "Let go Mr. Sanders. Find something important to discuss or point to make and then after being disagreed with move on. Either that or you will wear out your welcome."<br /><br />I've said my piece. Nothing new to say, and I won't take the bait of engaging you in your attempt to keep this going by grafting an entirely unrelated convo from Contra O'Reilly into this one.<br /><br />In closing, I remind you that this is RN's blog. There such a thing as manners. And while it is clear he is not demanding people who disagree with him behave all prim and proper, its obvious that it is out of place to come into the house, smash the dishes, and crap on the curtains every single frigging time.dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8549971354391868786.post-19556436383679102872013-09-17T19:40:56.546-04:002013-09-17T19:40:56.546-04:00[1] You can't "correct" a claim I ne...[1] You can't "correct" a claim I never made. You can't "do it again" when you've done it zero times.<br /><br />[2] You never have. I don't know why this would belong on Will's blog, when I'm referring to a claim you JUST made. And you've made it on multiple blogs (not just Will's. A blog you very well know is a place my comments won't be published).<br /><br />[3] You didn't. You pointed to something written 20 years ago. 20 years ago isn't "now".<br /><br />[4] Van Jones endorsed protesting against police violence. You produced zero (absolutely nothing) that proves they acted otherwise. You say "no quotes necessary" because there are none. What this equivocally proves beyond any doubt is that Dennis does NOT "stick to the facts". If there are no facts to back up his claims Dennis says "no quotes necessary".<br /><br />[5] Dennis is repeating the same lies again and again. And I did not "try to keep things going" with a spelling flame. I pointed out an error that I thought RN might want to change (I was being helpful). Although I left open the possibility that he spelled it the way he did on purpose. How should I know?<br /><br />Why do you end with "oh God"? Is that your feeble attempt to make your comment on topic... as this post was about atheism and you NEVER addressed it? Never. Dennis NEVER said a thing about the actual topic of RN's post.Dervish Sandershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13671865801885224353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8549971354391868786.post-76233923449814280392013-09-17T17:09:41.342-04:002013-09-17T17:09:41.342-04:001) I have corrected your false claim that mom and ...1) I have corrected your false claim that mom and pop store owners are plutocrats, multiple times, with quotes and links, elsewhere. No need to do it again. Post a comment on Will's blog where, unlike here, it is on-topic.<br /><br />2) I have always defended a fair wage, not an arbitrary amount set by ignorant and hostile outsiders. But again, your demand that most money paid to employees be an unearned gift is off topic, and belongs on Will's blog.<br /><br />3) I pointed out the truth of Cenk's views now, WD. Based on all evidence from the man himself. <br /><br />4) Van Jones endorsed Mao's views and actions by joining a group that worshipped Mao and acted according to his scriptures. No quotes necessary. Just like a man who joins the Nazis. And no, while you claim Maoism is about helping the poor, the opposite is true.<br /><br />5) You are repeating the same old lies again and again, and now trying to keep things going with spelling flames against RN. Oh god....dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8549971354391868786.post-49348944711318889662013-09-17T11:51:19.454-04:002013-09-17T11:51:19.454-04:00Dennis, it has to do with this conversation, as yo...Dennis, it has to do with this conversation, as you falsely claimed to "stick to the facts". I never said operators of mom and pop stores are plutocrats (it's something you inferred... somehow). You insist again that I said it in your comment above. Like simply making an accusation is all it take to make that accusation true. What about a link to the comment where I supposedly said this? How about a link to a statement from Van Jones where he talks about how many he wants to kill to achieve his political goals?<br /><br />And Dennis, you've never argued that a business owner should pay a fair wage. You always argue they pay the lowest wage possible.<br /><br />Dennis is trying to turn to blog into a crap fest and punish RN by attacking the man in the video RN posted. Cenk Uygur was defending RN's right to be an atheist, and RN appreciated that. But does Dennis say ANYTHING at all about Cenk's defense of atheism? No! He instead attacks Cenk for something he wrote 20 years ago (and no longer believes) that isn't related to atheism at all. In other words it was Dennis who went whole-hog crap fest with his comments derailing the conversation... steering it away from the actual topic and toward discussing Progressives that Dennis loves to hate.<br /><br />As for my "basic insecurity"... believe what you want RN. I don't care (although that sounds to me like an ad hominem attack).<br /><br />FYI, RN... you spelled "faith" wrong in the title of your post. I noticed it immediately and have been wondering ever since if you'd eventually correct it. But maybe it was on purpose, like your capping of the "E" in Republican and Democrat.Dervish Sandershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13671865801885224353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8549971354391868786.post-11373685658603454872013-09-16T23:19:54.593-04:002013-09-16T23:19:54.593-04:00yes, as per your reminder, you have matters well i...yes, as per your reminder, you have matters well in handdmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8549971354391868786.post-65971089402485236952013-09-16T23:08:37.096-04:002013-09-16T23:08:37.096-04:00Actually dmarks while I appreciate your concern wi...Actually dmarks while I appreciate your concern with Mr. Sanders punishing me I rather think his bringing issues discussed on another site he visited (Will's) is amusing. It shows his basic insecurity and his need to prove he is always right. Even in the eyes of those he doesn't like.<br /><br />Intriquing indeed.<br />Les Carpenterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01120280762698472496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8549971354391868786.post-77954520843175180912013-09-16T21:47:55.395-04:002013-09-16T21:47:55.395-04:00I am glad WD changed his mind from the two times h...I am glad WD changed his mind from the two times he called mom-and-pop store operators "plutocrats" in a discussion when I argued in favor of letting these store owners pay a fair wage. Glad he learned something.<br /><br />However, I suggest you stop (WD) trying to turn this blog into a "crap fest". You are directly responding to an unrelated comment I left at Will's blog..<i>not one here.</i> Next time why not respond there, or if you can't, send me an email? No need to punish RN with this.<br /><br />As always, I stick to to the facts, regardless of what I "believe".dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8549971354391868786.post-34900272722696908912013-09-16T20:50:59.105-04:002013-09-16T20:50:59.105-04:00An example of Dennis sticking to the facts...
Den... An example of Dennis sticking to the facts...<br /><br /><i><a href="http://paranoiacstoogetalk.blogspot.com/2013/09/on-ridiculous-notion-that-medicare-can.html?showComment=1379374438678#c7972837709465348000" rel="nofollow">Dennis</a>: Remember WD. Mom-and-pop store operators are plutocrats, too.</i><br /><br />I never said this. But, for the sake of argument, lets say I did. I am now changing my mind. I categorically reject the idea that the operators of "mom and pop" stores are plutocrats.<br /><br />Will Dennis stop saying this now? (note: I'm asking a question, not requesting he do this.)<br /><br />I predict no. What this proves... Dennis believes what he wants to believe and does not "stick to the facts".Dervish Sandershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13671865801885224353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8549971354391868786.post-52971584967782794282013-09-16T13:53:06.240-04:002013-09-16T13:53:06.240-04:00I posted my request to refrain from name calling, ...I posted my request to refrain from name calling, which includes ad hominem personal attacks on a following thread. This request is a request for all to do so and as such I'm certain dmarks understands it as such. In the unlikely event there are those who might not this response to your comment should do the trick.Les Carpenterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01120280762698472496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8549971354391868786.post-82322850780630415462013-09-16T13:39:48.541-04:002013-09-16T13:39:48.541-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8549971354391868786.post-66581172619230629422013-09-16T13:04:14.880-04:002013-09-16T13:04:14.880-04:00Clearly Dennis is referring to me, which would mak...Clearly Dennis is referring to me, which would make this an ad hominen attack, which RN SAID was not allowed... but Dennis knows RN was talking to me only (as Will Hart called me an idiot first, and RN addressed his concern to me only), which is why he posted this. And why RN published it.<br /><br />On the other hand, Dennis may be trying to give me some advice... and that would be to avoid him. I should probably take it.Dervish Sandershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13671865801885224353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8549971354391868786.post-18230673958196367522013-09-16T08:38:12.710-04:002013-09-16T08:38:12.710-04:00"Those who know and know that they know - the..."Those who know and know that they know - they are the wise - follow them.<br />Those who know but don't know that they know- they are misguided - enlighten them.<br />Those who don't know and know they don't know- they are the students - guide them.<br />Those who don't know and don't know they don't know - they are fools - avoid them."dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8549971354391868786.post-11579561649955772592013-09-15T21:54:03.680-04:002013-09-15T21:54:03.680-04:00Van Jones' remarks addressed him CHANGING HIS ...Van Jones' remarks addressed him CHANGING HIS MIND. And he joined the group to protest police brutality (a matter of public record). He never advocated killing anyone. Asked you for a link but you refuse. Shows who has a fork stuck in him (Hint: it is Dennis). As for the comments of Will... refer back to my previous quote from FDR.Dervish Sandershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13671865801885224353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8549971354391868786.post-85777347436979063382013-09-15T20:20:44.715-04:002013-09-15T20:20:44.715-04:00Will, was it going nuts on this, or the FDR "...Will, was it going nuts on this, or the FDR "war crimes" discussion that got WD banned from your blog? I thought it was FDR related....dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8549971354391868786.post-40909186235467669322013-09-15T19:46:46.282-04:002013-09-15T19:46:46.282-04:00And in a July 1937 press conference, FDR took a qu... And in a July 1937 press conference, FDR took a question from a reporter asking whether he supported having “representatives of the majority as the sole bargaining agents?” FDR responded: "Not in government, because there is no collective contract. It is a very different case. There isn’t any bargaining, in other words, with the government, therefore the question does not arise." FDR was thoroughly opposed to collective bargaining for municipal workers (as was George Meany, as was Fiorello Liguardia, as was Jimmy Carter) and it is a borderline crazy notion to say that he wasn't.Will "take no prisoners" Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02315659209094683602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8549971354391868786.post-79841073400340801542013-09-15T19:41:32.491-04:002013-09-15T19:41:32.491-04:00“In terms of accepted collective bargaining proced...“In terms of accepted collective bargaining procedures, government workers have no right beyond the authority to petition Congress – a right available to every citizen." AFL-CIO executive council, 1959.Will "take no prisoners" Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02315659209094683602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8549971354391868786.post-12912272499716231702013-09-15T19:37:10.662-04:002013-09-15T19:37:10.662-04:00http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/201...http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2013/aug/13/scott-walker/Did-FDR-oppose-collective-bargaining-for-governmen/Will "take no prisoners" Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02315659209094683602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8549971354391868786.post-51079749787104441022013-09-15T18:53:55.173-04:002013-09-15T18:53:55.173-04:00Stick a fork in yourself, WD, you have been done. ...Stick a fork in yourself, WD, you have been done. Overcooked. Done a while ago. Jones's words didn't address anything specific. We have the third time you have defended Maoism. You seem to think it is great that America is a place an "angry young man" can join an extreme hate group and never have consequences. I wonder if you excuse David Duke the same way. I am guessing you don't: as for you it is all about party or "side". You have gone way out on a limb here, linking progressivism with the worst sect of communism. I don't buy it. I see a difference.<br /><br />"You can continue imagining bad things about these two people (and many other Progressives, I'm sure) to your heart's content."<br /><br />Hasn't happened yet. I stick to what they say and do, not imagination. And of course everyone can see that this criticism has nothing to do with them being leftists. Maddow and Olbermann and in fact most leftists I know of have never been genocidal kooks as these two were or are still. I will defend them from such charges. As always I remain evidence based. I welcome your departure from this thread. The ripe old lies you keep repeating aren't smelling any better.dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8549971354391868786.post-14148139527308695022013-09-15T18:40:25.235-04:002013-09-15T18:40:25.235-04:00Ana Kasparian is not "irrelevant", she i...Ana Kasparian is not "irrelevant", she is a character witness. She refutes your claims that Cenk Uygur still believes what he wrote 20 years ago. I believe her. You weasel out of addressing her value as a character witness by calling her "irrelevant".<br /><br /><i>Dennis: [Maoism] is not about (as you said elsewhere) helping the poor or reducing police brutality.</i><br /><br />I never said that. I said that was the goal of Jones in joining that group. And it is what they did. They protested police brutality. They never advocated for mass killings (one is a part of the public record with the other is not).<br /><br />FYI, the philosophy of Mao and how Mao actually instituted his philosophies are two very different things. Clearly you are never going to provide the Van Jones quotes I asked you for (because they don't exist and you know it). An actual quote from him you won't accept...<br /><br /><i>Van Jones: I experimented with world-views and philosophies and I was an angry young guy, I was on the left side of Pluto. The great thing about America is, you can think whatever wacky thing you want to think, and you are free to change your mind once you get older.</i><br /><br />Says he changed his views, but he does not use the EXACT WORDS Dennis demands so the statement by Jones is rejected. That said, I'm tired of your insanity, Dennis. This conversation is going nowhere so I think I'm done. You can continue imaging bad things about these two people (and many other Progressives, I'm sure) to your heart's content.Dervish Sandershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13671865801885224353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8549971354391868786.post-1243195707317485372013-09-15T16:57:11.231-04:002013-09-15T16:57:11.231-04:00Maosm is about "execution of a large percenta...Maosm is about "execution of a large percentage of the population in order to achieve political reform". It is not about (as you said elsewhere) helping the poor or reducing police brutality. Jones made his statement about Maoism by his action of joining a Maoist group. Surely as someone going and joining the Nazis shows that someone supports them.<br /><br />Kasparian? Her being a progressive has nothing to do with this. Just as with these two men. And Pat Buchanan is as bad as Cenk and Jones, but of course you will not defend him, since he is not a leftist.<br /><br />No "attacks" for Kasparian (I.e. presentation of the facts of extreme genocidal statements/actions) against her, as she did not say or do what these two men did. In fact, I have had nothing to say about her as she is irrelevant to the discussion, and she has added no information at all, other than to say her buddy isn't that bad.<br /><br />You are sort of correct about the site I linked to: nothing new, really. Just more facts about the base extremism of one of these two men. Which I have proven many times over, and all you can counter it with is guesses from one of this man's buddies. The Armenians have the last word.<br /><br />Here again is Cenk evading this simple question. Not 20 years ago, but spring 2013.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1e94kj/i_am_cenk_uygur_political_commentator_internet/" rel="nofollow">Reddit</a>. <br /><br />dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8549971354391868786.post-44657102480095105382013-09-15T15:00:19.902-04:002013-09-15T15:00:19.902-04:00The article you link to does not present "mor...The article you link to does not present "more facts"... the article concerns the same facts you've already mentioned. I guess you had nothing new to say. Just wanted the last word.<br /><br />If you're looking for something new to say... what about some attacks on Ana Kasparian? Maybe Dennis thinks she is a self-hating Armenian and secretly agrees with Cenk's "celebration" of the Armenian genocide? She is a Progressive, after all... so surely killing large numbers of people to achieve her political ends is something she would cheer.<br /><br />Still waiting for those quotes in which Van Jones espouses support for the "execution of a large percentage of the population in order to achieve political reform".Dervish Sandershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13671865801885224353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8549971354391868786.post-11045327154265202013-09-15T12:54:40.339-04:002013-09-15T12:54:40.339-04:00More facts about Cenk Uygar<a href="http://asbarez.com/101017/armenians-protest-uygur-talk-at-democratic-convention/" rel="nofollow">More facts about Cenk Uygar</a>dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.com