Nuances, Contadictions, and the Fairh...
by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny
Any questions? If so perhaps the obvious is just to difficult to understand?
Read the entire sordid story HERE.
Via: Memeorandum
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny
Any questions? If so perhaps the obvious is just to difficult to understand?
Read the entire sordid story HERE.
Via: Memeorandum
Why no notation regarding how you usually always disagree with the Young Turks. They are a liberal organization like Think Progress, or "Think Regress" as Will Hart calls them. Also, according to Dennis The Young Turks chose their name to celebrate "a group of extremists who committed one of the worst and first genocides of the last century".
ReplyDeleteThat's despite the fact that Wikipedia says "The show's name derives from the English-language phrase "Young Turk", meaning a reformist or rebellious member of an institution, movement, or political party". It is NOT a reference to the genocide Dennis thinks the name is in "celebration" of (a liberal news program... OF COURSE they must support genocides!).
As for your right to be an atheist... I support it -- and believe in the separation of church and state.
"Why no notation regarding how you usually always disagree with the Young Turks. They are a liberal organization like Think Progress, or "Think Regress" as Will Hart calls them."
DeletePerhaps it is because unlike you the purpose is not exclusively to agitate and start a crap fest.
"As for your right to be an atheist... I support it -- and believe in the separation of church and state."
Bravo for you. You finally got something ENTIRELY right.
As to the rest? I shall leave it to others to comment. I simply report.
I don't think that dmarks was saying that Mr. Unger himself was celebrating the Armenian genocide, just that it was an unfortunate choice for a name given its history. My suspicion is that Mr. Unger is simply an ignoramus and probably thought that he was merely giving a shout-out to Rod Stewart.
DeleteI think not, Mr. Hart. Dennis has a long history of immediately going to genocide when bashing Liberals he doesn't like. He's accused Norman Finkelstein, a Jewish man whose parents were Holocaust survivors, of being a Holocaust denier, and of being critical of Jews for "not hurrying up and being ashes scraped out of industrial ovens". He's accused Van Jones of being the "kind of guy who could look around a crowded room and think of who he'd send to the death camps if he were leader".
DeleteSee a pattern here? Dennis does not believe "The Young Turks" was "an unfortunate choice for a name given its history", he believes Cenk Uygur is another bloodthirsty progressive who wants to bring genocide to America... why? Because Dennis truly is THAT crazy.
As for the Rod Stewart suspicion... I suspect the person holding that suspicion is an ignoramus.
RN: Perhaps it is because unlike you the purpose is not exclusively to agitate and start a crap fest.
Unlike me? I was referring to a prior post by you. You said you usually always disagree with Think Progress. I guess RN must have been trying to start a "crap fest" on his own blog.
Mr. Sanders, I merely report. Whether or not I choose to use "certain clarifying statements" is, or course discretionary on my part.
DeleteMy statement stands.
The mention of God isn't a religion. The word religion has a meaning. Atheism has become a belligerent religion. I think that's why atheists rush to the defense of the other belligerent religion Islam. Attitude is what these two ignorant and hateful philosophies share. These totalitarian animals seek dominion over everyone. They're about destruction. Not freedom.
ReplyDeleteChuck: sorry, you are going way overboard on generalizations, man...
DeleteChuck, if he be the chuckles of LR fame is but a parrot for the absurd idiocy of the lunatic rightwing fringe. Correction, rightwing militaristic fringe element of the libertarian party.
DeleteWD is lying. Cenk celebrates the main accomplishment of the historic Young Turks: the Armenian genocide. Yes, Will, look up Uygar's specific record on this very real historic event. Cenk's record on the Armenian genocide shows that he knew what he was doing with the name of the show. You would be surprised.
ReplyDeleteVan Jones is an unrepentant worshipper of Mao. He has never distanced himself from that. Jones is in fact to the left what David Duke is to the right: but regardless of that, my opposition to them has nothing to do with them being "liberal".
The only liberal etc sort of thing going on here is WD giving these kooks a free pass when they are liberals. I condemn it regardless of the side.
The fact that wd actually had to look up Mr. Finkelstein (a serial liar, meticulously documented by Counselor Dershowitz) on Wikipedia truly underscores what an ignoramus he is.
DeleteI could "look up" Cenk's "specific record" but I don't know what Rightwing conspiracy site Dennis read his "specific record" (composed of lies) on. Also, Will didn't want to believe that Dennis actually thought "The Young Turks" was to "celebrate" a genocide (due to the utter craziness of it), but I show Dennis does (and he confirms it), and Will's reply is that I'm an "ignoramus"? And you guys say I'm "mentally disturbed"? Unbelievable.
DeleteDennis is lying. There is no "record" of Cenk speaking in favor of genocides or choosing the "Young Turks" name to "celebrate" a genocide. Dennis should be ashamed. Cenk Uygur is a good and decent man. Same is true of Van Jones. He is a good and decent man who Glenn Beck drummed out of office. Glenn Beck, for crying out loud! This is the loony company Dennis is in. Dennis' lies about these good men has EVERYTHING to do with them being Liberal... that, or it has to do with his insanity. Most likely it's a combination of the two.
Delete
DeleteI did my research on Cenk Uygar's views concerning the Armenian Genocide, which is the main accomplishment, claim to fame of the historic Young Turks:
click here
"In 2013 during a Reddit "Ask Me Anything" session Cenk again refused to clarify his position, despite the fact that the most upvoted question was regarding the Genocide"
Sorry, no decent man would say these things. An in regards to Van Jones, no decent man would ever worship Chairman Mao (the only person in history that objectively is much worse than Hitler). The fact that both men have these stands, and are proud of them, and never refute them, even when given lots of opportunity even very recently, shows they are bad and indecent men.
"Dennis' lies about these good men has EVERYTHING to do with them being Liberal."
1) I have not lied about them.
2) I am critical of rightists who do this (Beck, Buchanan, etc) and will not make such claims of leftists who don't do this (O'Donnell, Maddow, etc() because it has nothing to do with whether they are liberal or conservative.
And again, to chose the El Canardo is the "liar" here to call "good and decent" a man who says this, and is proud of it:
"The claims of an Armenian Genocide are not based on historical facts. If the history of the period is examined it becomes evident that in fact no such genocide took place." - Cenk Uygar
The Armenian genocide is extremely well documented, and in fact is the incident that is the "predecessor" to the Nazi holocaust in Europe in the 20th century. Not only is "El Canardo" a liar, he is a repugnant idiot to imply as he did that the Armenian Genocide is something of a rightwing conspiracy site.
----------
Will, you called WD an "ignoramus". Do you think he is really so ignorant of Armenian history? Or is he taking a really crazy and repugnant stance out of some other lunacy... like his well documented stance of taking FDR's anti-public-union statements and claiming they said the opposite?
Crazy Dennis, your facts from "Conservapedia" provide no evidence of "celebrating" or pride for 20-year old writings that were misinformed (and done when Cenk was a Republican). None at all. And you give no evidence of Van Jones ever "worshiping" Chairman Mao either.
DeleteAna Kasparian is a member of the Young Turks whose parents are Armenian immigrants. When asked what she thought of the name (The Young Turks) she said "I don't love it because it causes a lot of confusion. But we have been clear about what the meaning is. We rebel against societal expectations. We don't believe in following the establishment. That's what it means. It has nothing to do with Turks or Armenians".
Also, in regards to Cenk's previous denial of the Armenian genocide (20+ years ago when he was a Republican) Ana Kasparian said "That's the biggest misconception about Cenk and it irritates me". She was referring to the belief by some that he still holds these views.
Would Ana Kasparian join the "Young Turks" and work with Cenk Uygur for 15 years if she thought Cenk was "celebrating" the genocide of her people? As for what Dennis believes, I seriously do not care. I'll take Ana Kasparian's opinion on this (as someone who has worked closely with Mr. Uygur for over a decade and a half) over that of Crazy Dennis for sure.
Crazy Dennis is constantly accusing Progressives of being fans of genocide when Progressivism is all about us helping each other. It's ridiculous and insulting. BTW, the info regarding Ana Kasparian is included in the Conservapedia page... but Dennis ignores it.
I said nothing at all of the Armenian genocide, so Crazy Dennis is clearly lying when he says I am "ignorant of Armenian history". And he is a repugnant liar to suggest (again, with absolutely nothing but his crazy imaginings to back up his vile accusation) that I believe the "Armenian Genocide is something of a right-wing conspiracy". The Armenian genocide happened. It isn't a "conspiracy". Cenk Uygur no longer holds those views. His views have changed on this, as well as on MANY other subjects (as he used to be a Republican and is now a Progressive). Also, FDR made no "anti-public-union statements" for me to "claim they were the opposite".
"...Progressivism is all about us helping each other..."
DeleteIf it were, I would love it. Instead, progressivism is all about the most powerful helping themselves.
Anyway, your lame non-defense of what Cenk said included nothing where he repudiated his outrageous statements about the Armenian Genocide. If it is so easy for him to do so, why hasn't he?
Another lie of yours is about Jones. He did willingly join STORM, a group of Maoists. He never repudiated that, either.
"I said nothing at all of the Armenian genocide"
Yet, Cenk did. And you keep defending him...
"Cenk Uygur no longer holds those views"
Provide evidence. You have refused. Hint: Guesses by Ana Kasparian don't count.
"Also, FDR made no "anti-public-union statements"
He did. Do you want links?
--------------
Dervie said: "The Armenian genocide happened."
Cenk Uygar said "The claims of an Armenian Genocide are not based on historical facts. If the history of the period is examined it becomes evident that in fact no such genocide took place."
Huge disconnect there, folks....
And now lets move away from an ignorant leftist who lies about Armenian genocide supporters just because they are on "his side":
DeleteFrom The Armenian Weekly:
"MSNBC TV is thinking of filling their 10 p.m. spot with Cenk Uygur, currently of “The Young Turks” radio show. The Wikipedia entry for Uygur states that “After cable news network MSNBC announced that it would replace re-airings of Countdown with Keith Olbermann with a new hour-long show…a grassroots campaign aimed at persuading MSNBC to choose Uygur as the host of that new show was launched.”
Uygur, a so-called “progressive,” vehemently denies the Armenian Genocide. He once proudly wrote that he challenged a professor at Columbia University to provide a single source that documented the genocide. According to Cenk, the professor was not able to do so."
Dervie has really gone out on a limb here....
Of course, he can come back to reality if he can come up with ONE quotation from Cenk Uygar himself that matches reality on the Armenian Genocide. Until then, Uygars actual statements stand.
Cenk has most likely decided to not invite hatred from people like Crazy Dennis. Probably a wise decision. Crazies like Dennis believe what they want to believe. Van Jones is a perfect example. His views changed and he has stated as much. But Dennis refuses to believe the words from Mr. Jones' mouth. Given the fact that he wouldn't believe Cenk either -- the calls from Dennis for him to make some kind of public statement are disingenuous.
DeleteNo disconnect, I believe Ana Kasparian, a woman of Armenian descent that has worked with Cenk for 15 years. She knows him and wouldn't be defending him based on guesses. Also, still zero proof of "celebrating". I don't know how the heck one could possibly "celebrate" something *if* you believe it didn't happen. Huge disconnect here from Dennis on these dueling claims of "celebration" and denial.
If Dennis thinks Cenk still holds these views (and is proud of them), how about a statement that is a little more current than something he wrote 20+ years ago? I doubt you can come up with one. I'm not "lying" about anyone because they are on "my side". I looked into it, found the statements from an Armenian who has worked closely with him for 15 years, and take her word on this matter. She knows him and I don't. And neither do you.
As for links to anti-union statement by FDR... you can't provide them because they don't exist. You want some links to PRO-union statements from FDR?
Dervish said: "His views changed and he has stated as much."
DeleteShow me a statement where Van Jones has repudiated his Maoist past. If he did, you'd find it, right? And we aren't even talking about his miserable turn as "green jobs czar", helping further crony capitalism, shipping jobs to China, all the while hundreds of thousands of people became unemployed on his tenure. That makes him a lousy public "servant", while his love for Mao makes him a lousy human being.
"I don't know how the heck one [Cenk] could possibly "celebrate" something *if* you believe it didn't happen."
Cenk's mindset is very similar to that of those who apologize for the Nazi Holocaust. While they deny it happened. they say it is OK if it did, and that is a form of support for it. i.e: those who deny these incidents are always those who have the most favorable attitude toward them.
Dervish said: "If Dennis thinks Cenk still holds these views..."
It is not a matter of me thinking. It is a matter of Cenk having strongly stated these views, and having never said anything since to contradict it. If he did, you'd find it, right?
"...the calls from Dennis for him to make some kind of public statement are disingenuous."
Not at all. It is very sincere. I would believe him if he made factual statements concerning the Armenian genocide. It doesn't even have to be "public" as in a press conference. Just something... SOMEWHERE.
I repeat: "....if he can come up with ONE quotation from Cenk Uygar himself that matches reality on the Armenian Genocide. Until then, Uygar's actual statements stand.
-------
So far, in both examples, I am going by the actual statements and records of both men. You are going by hopeful, wishful thinking... and no evidence at all.
-------
As for the fact of FDR's statements on government unions, don't play dumb. It was discussed many times at Will's blog (click here for one example, and he completely mopped the floor with you.
There is no "Maoist past" for Van Jones to repudiate. Why would he repudiate something that never happened? If Jones does indeed have (or had) "love for Mao" then please point me to ONE statement by Jones where he expresses this "love". If he did, you'd find it, right?
DeleteJones has a Communist past, and his statements "repudiating" that are easy to find (click here for one example). He worked with STORM because they were protesting police violence, not because of a "love" for Mao.
As for Cenk Uygur, the only comments I could find were by his colleague Ana Kasparian. Therefore it comes down to whether you believe her or not. I say she knows him better than I, having worked closely with him for 15 years. Being Armenian herself, I trust she would not lie or allow herself to be duped when it comes to this matter. Dennis clearly believes she's a liar or a dupe. His right, just as it is mine to disagree.
As for your FDR link to Will's blog... the first comment in that thread is by me and it proves you wrong. I took a look and found no "floor mopping", just semantic games regarding the definition of "collective bargaining", with Will weaselly saying collective bargaining wasn't collective bargaining but only "presenting of views".
One against many...
ReplyDeleteThree nuts who hang out together isn't "many". You people need help.
Delete"All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters."......This is what FDR said. Only a lunatic would have the idiocy to construe this as being in favor of collective bargaining.
ReplyDeleteAnd Will hits it out of the park. WD keeps striking out. He even defends Jones joining the worst hate group in history... and of course can't find any evidence that Jones changed his mind. For Cenk, he can only provide charitable guessswork from one of Cenk's buddies. That is evidence of nothing at all. Cenk's own emphatic statement says it all... and his embarassed evasion this year in an online forum... one he chose to be in... where his stance on the Armenia question was the top question, says even more.
ReplyDeleteYour defense of the extremism of both men, WD, is based on wishful thinking and the appalling "if they are progressive, this means they are good" idea. In contrast, I oppose any extremist, right or left, and I oppose these two men based on their actual words and actions.
An aside. Sorry WD, STORM and Maoism have nothing to do with helping the poor, and it is laughable to claim they are against police brutality when probably more police brutality occured under Mao than any other situation ever.
Previously I said "crazies like Dennis believe what they want to believe. Van Jones is a perfect example". I give him a link to quotes by Van Jones where he says he changed his mind and now believes the free market is the best way to solve our problems... and what does Dennis say? Just like I predicted he says that I "can't find any evidence that Jones changed his mind". Anyone interested in the truth can follow the link and see Dennis is lying. Those who believe him without looking at my proof... I don't care about them. They have their minds made up and will believe exactly what they want to believe. They, like Dennis, don't give a damn about the facts.
ReplyDeleteAlso, it is laughable for Dennis to claim Van Jones didn't protest against police brutality. It is a part of the public record, idiot! But, as I already pointed out, Dennis doesn't care about the facts. He probably thinks Van Jones was protesting because he thought the police weren't brutal enough! Why? Because Dennis is very eager to slander people based on nothing but wishful thinking and the appalling "if they are progressive, this means they are bad" idea.
As for Mr. Uygur, Dennis says Ana Kasparian "guessed"... what he really means is she was duped. She's an intelligent woman who worked closely with him for 15 years and I do not believe she could be duped. You think she never asked him? When the things he wrote concerned the people of her parent's home country? She's just "guessing"? Bullcrap. Neither would she lie (because she is Armenian).
So what we have here is wishful thinking from Dennis, and opinions based on facts from me. With Van Jones we have his own words AND actions (he wrote a book that included free market ideas to bring a green economy to the US). With Cenk Uygur we have a solid character witness. I don't need to "wish" for either of these because they are real true facts. Dennis reads spin on Conservapedia and "deduces" his own "facts".
As for Will "hitting it out of the park", FDR said, "as usually understood". He was talking about striking, as I pointed out before. And FDR also said...
Collective bargaining and efficiency have proceeded hand in hand. [This is a] splendid new agreement between organized labor and [government] ~ Franklin Delano Roosevelt in an address at the Chickamauga Dam Celebration near Chattanooga TN, touting the justness of collective bargaining rights for the Tennessee Valley Authority government workers (9/2/1940).
I see he is getting hotheaded, spewing more and more insults. And repeating the same old lies. Someone adopting some free market ideas does not negate Maoism... just ask the current regime in Red China.
ReplyDeleteNothing but guesswork and assumptions from WD. I will stick to the facts.
No hotheadedness, guesswork or assumptions from me, just pointing out the idiocy of your claim of sticking to the facts. I gave you facts and they don't fit with the narrative you wish to spin, so you ignore them. 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" (Hint: Dennis will never provide them because they don't exist).
DeleteWhen Dennis made that comment he was the one assuming (and a very bad assumption it was) and guessing (a guess based on his appalling idea that "if they are progressive, this means they are bad").
Unlike Dennis I will stick with the facts: Van Jones own words and actions and a solid character witness for Cenk Uygur, plus no similar statements to the writings from 20 years ago since. If there were any I'm sure Dennis would find them.
More facts about Cenk Uygar
ReplyDeleteThe 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.
DeleteIf 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.
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".
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.
ReplyDeleteKasparian? 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.
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.
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.
Here again is Cenk evading this simple question. Not 20 years ago, but spring 2013.
Reddit.
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".
DeleteDennis: [Maoism] is not about (as you said elsewhere) helping the poor or reducing police brutality.
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).
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...
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.
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.
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.
ReplyDelete"You can continue imagining bad things about these two people (and many other Progressives, I'm sure) to your heart's content."
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.
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.
Deletehttp://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2013/aug/13/scott-walker/Did-FDR-oppose-collective-bargaining-for-governmen/
ReplyDelete“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.
ReplyDeleteAnd 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.
ReplyDeleteWill, 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....
ReplyDelete"Those who know and know that they know - they are the wise - follow them.
ReplyDeleteThose who know but don't know that they know- they are misguided - enlighten them.
Those who don't know and know they don't know- they are the students - guide them.
Those who don't know and don't know they don't know - they are fools - avoid them."
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.
DeleteOn the other hand, Dennis may be trying to give me some advice... and that would be to avoid him. I should probably take it.
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.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAn example of Dennis sticking to the facts...
ReplyDeleteDennis: Remember WD. Mom-and-pop store operators are plutocrats, too.
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.
Will Dennis stop saying this now? (note: I'm asking a question, not requesting he do this.)
I predict no. What this proves... Dennis believes what he wants to believe and does not "stick to the facts".
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.
DeleteHowever, 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..not one here. Next time why not respond there, or if you can't, send me an email? No need to punish RN with this.
As always, I stick to to the facts, regardless of what I "believe".
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.
DeleteIntriquing indeed.
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?
DeleteAnd Dennis, you've never argued that a business owner should pay a fair wage. You always argue they pay the lowest wage possible.
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.
As for my "basic insecurity"... believe what you want RN. I don't care (although that sounds to me like an ad hominem attack).
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.
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.
Delete2) 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.
3) I pointed out the truth of Cenk's views now, WD. Based on all evidence from the man himself.
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.
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....
[1] You can't "correct" a claim I never made. You can't "do it again" when you've done it zero times.
Delete[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).
[3] You didn't. You pointed to something written 20 years ago. 20 years ago isn't "now".
[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".
[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?
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.
yes, as per your reminder, you have matters well in hand
ReplyDeleteRN 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."
ReplyDeleteI'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.
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.
I will add this, concerning not only a whopper. but a huge triple whopper with chease. WD said:
ReplyDelete"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."
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.
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".
There have been three other discussed, loosely using the definition of progressives to include FDR also.
1) Van Jones. WD actually brought him into this conversation, not me, in the "Wed Sep 11, 11:39:00 AM EDT" comment.
2) Norman Finkelstein. WD actually brought him into this conversation, not me, in the "Wed Sep 11, 11:39:00 AM EDT" comment also.
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.
---------------
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.
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.
DeleteNow, 51 comments later, to get back on track after someone completely derailed it for a very long time.
DeleteCenk 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.
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 no less Constitutionally protected than those of theists. More points to Cenk for displaying the First Amendment.
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.
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.