A.R.B.R. ain't dead yet??????

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Freewheeling wrote:

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

Freewheeling wrote:

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...


Freewheeling wrote:



"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...



Freewheeling wrote:




...
The reason I stopped listening to the left is that their judgment is
so awful on the War on Terror that I figured it just couldn't be any
good on these other issues. And it's not. They're still retooling
the same old needs-based remedies they've always relied on. And
they're still dead wrong on foreign policy and the misnamed "War on
Terror."....

How can a war be fought against an abstract noun? Someone, please
explain that. I see no credibility in those who can not even see the
logical impossibility of this.


That's not the issue. The issue is that terrorism is a mere tactic.
It's a marker for totalitarian movements, however, so the misnomer
really isn't as bad as all that. But basically we're in a
century-long war against totalitarianism, and we no sooner defeat one
form than it morphs into another. The most recent is
Salafism/Qutbism. It's the social cancer and scourge that took over
as the primary threat once we finally ended chattel slavery (against
similar objections of a Democrat "peace movement," by the way).

And gee, I though it was just a way to win election campaigns and
implement creeping fascism domestically.



... If you want a phenomenal success story, just look at Chile....

Throwing people out of helicopters into the ocean? Packing them into
stadiums so they can be more efficiently tortured? Henry Kissinger
must be proud.


Again with the Cold War stuff. I'm talking about Chile today, and
naturally you want to talk about something else. Why wouldn't you?

I like to remind people of atrocities committed with the consent and
support of the right wing politicians and parties they support. Duh!

If it annoys you, then it serves its purpose.


Actually it's a useful way to illustrate how the left can't make a
logical argument. To listen to them you'd think they believe that
having done a bad thing in the past is reason enough not to do a good
thing now. But the bottom line is that the world is a better place for
what Reagan did. In fact, Chile is a better place for it's acceptance
of the financial reforms proposed by the Chicago Boyz. In fact, except
for a few neo-Marxist flirtations with disaster most of the southern
cone is going that direction. More prosperous, more free, more secure.
And if that annoys you, who gives a damn.

Gee, so that is why the people in South America keep on electing
governments who at least promise to oppose neo-liberalism and Bretton
Woods imposed austerity measures. Income growth for most people on the
continent almost stopped with the introduction of neo-liberal economic
policy. But hey, it was good for exploitation by multi-national
corporations, so who is complaining.

Those is the US who do not have substantial inherited wealth are almost
universally worse off for what Reagan did - but I suppose that makes you
happy.


Be honest, you just made that stuff up didn't you? Or are you really
that unaware?

No, I have just inoculated myself from right wing propaganda. It is well
known that neo-liberal economic policies have been a disaster for all but
a small economic elite.

Not if you use any sort of unbiased welfare accounting. The literature on
deregulation, for instance, is almost a consensus.


--
Tom Sherman - ****ing Contest Hell

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Freewheeling wrote:

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

Freewheeling wrote:


"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...


skip wrote:



"Mark Leuck" wrote in message
...



"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...



No, you like most people are unwilling to see things as they are and
how
they could be. This is understandable, because the normal human
brain is
not capable of handling such a disconnect - to know than only a
small
handful of the six billion have the true freedom to pursue real
opportunities, while the rest are held in servitude by economic or
social restrictions will certainly lead to mental disorders.

You can not handle the truth of how bad things are, so you create
clever
intellectual arguments to convince yourself that things are
acceptable
and getting better. It is why you refuse to see evil where it
clearly
exists. We are doomed to a miserable existence by greed and avarice.

--
Tom Sherman - Earth

Damn talk about being disconnected....I pity you Tom




What you are seeing here is quintessential Tom Sherman. His
contention that we are doomed to a miserable existence by greed and
avarice is the cornerstone of his beliefs.

You will never again have to wonder why he is miserable. Or wonder
how he can think as he does. He just told you why. And he won't
budge an inch from that belief. No one has had any success in moving
him from that position.

Why should I move from a position when I am right?

I wish I could be a delusional lemming happily marching towards the
cliff, but it is my great misfortune to have gained true understanding
of the dark side of human group behavior.

I could happily ignore the situation and discuss recumbents, but then
some right wing blowhard has to crap on the group, ending the illusion.
At that point, I am willing to fling poo well after the bovines have
returned to their agricultural structure abode.


Again, according to simple empiricism the trend is moving in the
opposite direction from what you claim, and has been for more than a
century. People are better educated, better fed, better entertained,
more free, more secure, and according to IQ tests actually smarter, than
they ever have been before. There is less poverty and misery with each
passing year, not more, except in those places where the left still has
its totalitarian demonstration projects.

We will all be better off with the ecological damage from resource
overuse and global warming (not a myth, but something that is already
happening, unless you are in denial).

Enjoy seeing billions suffer.


Again, making it up aren't you?

There is near universal agreement among climatologists about global
warming, with most of the dissenters being on the payroll of the
hydrocarbon extraction industry. Giving them credence is like giving the
Flat Earth Society credence in a discussion about astronomy. The same is
true about resource overuse.

Do you just uncritically buy everything those with a corporatist,
neo-feudal agenda say? Or do you have a vested interest in promoting their
policies?

Why do you want to argue this in a recumbent bicycle forum anyhow? I
really don't, but I am happy to **** off those who do.

Last I heard there was close to a consensus that the climate shift that has
taken place since the beginning of industrialization is well within the
bounds of natural climate change. This isn't tough to verify.

By the way, is Owsley on the corporate payroll? Heh.

http://www.thebear.org/essays2.html#anchor506010


--
Tom Sherman - ****ing Contest Hell

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Freewheeling wrote:

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

Freewheeling wrote:


"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...


skip wrote:



"Mark Leuck" wrote in message
...



"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...



No, you like most people are unwilling to see things as they are and
how
they could be. This is understandable, because the normal human
brain is
not capable of handling such a disconnect - to know than only a
small
handful of the six billion have the true freedom to pursue real
opportunities, while the rest are held in servitude by economic or
social restrictions will certainly lead to mental disorders.

You can not handle the truth of how bad things are, so you create
clever
intellectual arguments to convince yourself that things are
acceptable
and getting better. It is why you refuse to see evil where it
clearly
exists. We are doomed to a miserable existence by greed and avarice.

--
Tom Sherman - Earth

Damn talk about being disconnected....I pity you Tom




What you are seeing here is quintessential Tom Sherman. His
contention that we are doomed to a miserable existence by greed and
avarice is the cornerstone of his beliefs.

You will never again have to wonder why he is miserable. Or wonder
how he can think as he does. He just told you why. And he won't
budge an inch from that belief. No one has had any success in moving
him from that position.

Why should I move from a position when I am right?

I wish I could be a delusional lemming happily marching towards the
cliff, but it is my great misfortune to have gained true understanding
of the dark side of human group behavior.

I could happily ignore the situation and discuss recumbents, but then
some right wing blowhard has to crap on the group, ending the illusion.
At that point, I am willing to fling poo well after the bovines have
returned to their agricultural structure abode.


Again, according to simple empiricism the trend is moving in the
opposite direction from what you claim, and has been for more than a
century. People are better educated, better fed, better entertained,
more free, more secure, and according to IQ tests actually smarter, than
they ever have been before. There is less poverty and misery with each
passing year, not more, except in those places where the left still has
its totalitarian demonstration projects.

We will all be better off with the ecological damage from resource
overuse and global warming (not a myth, but something that is already
happening, unless you are in denial).

Enjoy seeing billions suffer.


Again, making it up aren't you?

There is near universal agreement among climatologists about global
warming, with most of the dissenters being on the payroll of the
hydrocarbon extraction industry. Giving them credence is like giving the
Flat Earth Society credence in a discussion about astronomy. The same is
true about resource overuse.

Do you just uncritically buy everything those with a corporatist,
neo-feudal agenda say? Or do you have a vested interest in promoting their
policies?

Why do you want to argue this in a recumbent bicycle forum anyhow? I
really don't, but I am happy to **** off those who do.

Oh BS.


You know, I could hardly believe that you would be this disingenuous, so I
had to go back and check to see who it was that actually brought up ecology
(since it's not a topic I generally discuss very much). Sure enough it
wasn't I who raised the topic, but YOU! You raised it in the context of our
discussion about whether things were getting better or worse, and it was
apparently the only thing you could think of where you might conceivably
have an empirical advantage, in the following incompetently ironic
statement:



"We will all be better off with the ecological damage from resource overuse
and global warming (not a myth, but something that is already happening,
unless you are in denial)."



You're some piece of work, Tom. You and Markos "Screw 'em" Zunida (Daily
Kos) share a common ethical tradition, apparently.

"Freewheeling" wrote
"Tom Sherman" wrote in message

Why do you want to argue this in a recumbent bicycle forum anyhow? I
really don't, but I am happy to **** off those who do.

Oh BS.

You know, I could hardly believe that you would be this disingenuous, so I
had to go back and check to see who it was that actually brought up
ecology

Consider "argue this" in a broader context encompassing the general
content and ongoing nature of this thread (and others before and
likely to come).

You're some piece of work, Tom. You and Markos "Screw 'em"
Zunida (Daily Kos) share a common ethical tradition, apparently.

Apparently you're both sufficiently interested in trolling with "this"
bait in ARBR to continue posting.

Jon Meinecke
net.subtle-apteryx

"Freewheeling" wrote in message
news:Yy2Vd.52949$EL5.20319@trnddc05...


You're some piece of work, Tom. You and Markos "Screw 'em" Zunida (Daily
Kos) share a common ethical tradition, apparently.

I wouldn't go that far, Markos is a true nutcase

(to anyone who doesn't know who Markos is see

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/webl...10440&only=yes

"Jon Meinecke" wrote in message
news:1109703203.a1fd4175711185d9237dd1a722257ec7@t eranews...
"Freewheeling" wrote
"Tom Sherman" wrote in message

Why do you want to argue this in a recumbent bicycle forum anyhow? I
really don't, but I am happy to **** off those who do.

Oh BS.

You know, I could hardly believe that you would be this disingenuous, so
I
had to go back and check to see who it was that actually brought up
ecology

Consider "argue this" in a broader context encompassing the general
content and ongoing nature of this thread (and others before and
likely to come).

You're some piece of work, Tom. You and Markos "Screw 'em"
Zunida (Daily Kos) share a common ethical tradition, apparently.

I have a hunch this is a valuable comment, but I can't quite make out what
it means.


Apparently you're both sufficiently interested in trolling with "this"
bait in ARBR to continue posting.

Pretty much constrained to this thread, and to about 3 participants, until
you joined.


Jon Meinecke
net.subtle-apteryx

"Mark Leuck" wrote in message
...

"Freewheeling" wrote in message
news:Yy2Vd.52949$EL5.20319@trnddc05...


You're some piece of work, Tom. You and Markos "Screw 'em" Zunida (Daily
Kos) share a common ethical tradition, apparently.

I wouldn't go that far, Markos is a true nutcase

OK, I may have gone too far.


(to anyone who doesn't know who Markos is see

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/webl...10440&only=yes

Freewheeling wrote:

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

Freewheeling wrote:


"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...


Freewheeling wrote:


"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...



Freewheeling wrote:




"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...




Freewheeling wrote:





...
The reason I stopped listening to the left is that their judgment is
so awful on the War on Terror that I figured it just couldn't be any
good on these other issues. And it's not. They're still retooling
the same old needs-based remedies they've always relied on. And
they're still dead wrong on foreign policy and the misnamed "War on
Terror."....

How can a war be fought against an abstract noun? Someone, please
explain that. I see no credibility in those who can not even see the
logical impossibility of this.


That's not the issue. The issue is that terrorism is a mere tactic.
It's a marker for totalitarian movements, however, so the misnomer
really isn't as bad as all that. But basically we're in a
century-long war against totalitarianism, and we no sooner defeat one
form than it morphs into another. The most recent is
Salafism/Qutbism. It's the social cancer and scourge that took over
as the primary threat once we finally ended chattel slavery (against
similar objections of a Democrat "peace movement," by the way).

And gee, I though it was just a way to win election campaigns and
implement creeping fascism domestically.




... If you want a phenomenal success story, just look at Chile....

Throwing people out of helicopters into the ocean? Packing them into
stadiums so they can be more efficiently tortured? Henry Kissinger
must be proud.


Again with the Cold War stuff. I'm talking about Chile today, and
naturally you want to talk about something else. Why wouldn't you?

I like to remind people of atrocities committed with the consent and
support of the right wing politicians and parties they support. Duh!

If it annoys you, then it serves its purpose.


Actually it's a useful way to illustrate how the left can't make a
logical argument. To listen to them you'd think they believe that
having done a bad thing in the past is reason enough not to do a good
thing now. But the bottom line is that the world is a better place for
what Reagan did. In fact, Chile is a better place for it's acceptance
of the financial reforms proposed by the Chicago Boyz. In fact, except
for a few neo-Marxist flirtations with disaster most of the southern
cone is going that direction. More prosperous, more free, more secure.
And if that annoys you, who gives a damn.

Gee, so that is why the people in South America keep on electing
governments who at least promise to oppose neo-liberalism and Bretton
Woods imposed austerity measures. Income growth for most people on the
continent almost stopped with the introduction of neo-liberal economic
policy. But hey, it was good for exploitation by multi-national
corporations, so who is complaining.

Those is the US who do not have substantial inherited wealth are almost
universally worse off for what Reagan did - but I suppose that makes you
happy.


Be honest, you just made that stuff up didn't you? Or are you really
that unaware?

No, I have just inoculated myself from right wing propaganda. It is well
known that neo-liberal economic policies have been a disaster for all but
a small economic elite.


Not if you use any sort of unbiased welfare accounting. The literature on
deregulation, for instance, is almost a consensus.

Whatever. [Yawn]

Freewheeling wrote:

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

Freewheeling wrote:


"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...


Freewheeling wrote:



"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...



skip wrote:




"Mark Leuck" wrote in message
...




"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...




No, you like most people are unwilling to see things as they are and
how
they could be. This is understandable, because the normal human
brain is
not capable of handling such a disconnect - to know than only a
small
handful of the six billion have the true freedom to pursue real
opportunities, while the rest are held in servitude by economic or
social restrictions will certainly lead to mental disorders.

You can not handle the truth of how bad things are, so you create
clever
intellectual arguments to convince yourself that things are
acceptable
and getting better. It is why you refuse to see evil where it
clearly
exists. We are doomed to a miserable existence by greed and avarice.

--
Tom Sherman - Earth

Damn talk about being disconnected....I pity you Tom




What you are seeing here is quintessential Tom Sherman. His
contention that we are doomed to a miserable existence by greed and
avarice is the cornerstone of his beliefs.

You will never again have to wonder why he is miserable. Or wonder
how he can think as he does. He just told you why. And he won't
budge an inch from that belief. No one has had any success in moving
him from that position.

Why should I move from a position when I am right?

I wish I could be a delusional lemming happily marching towards the
cliff, but it is my great misfortune to have gained true understanding
of the dark side of human group behavior.

I could happily ignore the situation and discuss recumbents, but then
some right wing blowhard has to crap on the group, ending the illusion.
At that point, I am willing to fling poo well after the bovines have
returned to their agricultural structure abode.


Again, according to simple empiricism the trend is moving in the
opposite direction from what you claim, and has been for more than a
century. People are better educated, better fed, better entertained,
more free, more secure, and according to IQ tests actually smarter, than
they ever have been before. There is less poverty and misery with each
passing year, not more, except in those places where the left still has
its totalitarian demonstration projects.

We will all be better off with the ecological damage from resource
overuse and global warming (not a myth, but something that is already
happening, unless you are in denial).

Enjoy seeing billions suffer.


Again, making it up aren't you?

There is near universal agreement among climatologists about global
warming, with most of the dissenters being on the payroll of the
hydrocarbon extraction industry. Giving them credence is like giving the
Flat Earth Society credence in a discussion about astronomy. The same is
true about resource overuse.

Do you just uncritically buy everything those with a corporatist,
neo-feudal agenda say? Or do you have a vested interest in promoting their
policies?

Why do you want to argue this in a recumbent bicycle forum anyhow? I
really don't, but I am happy to **** off those who do.


Last I heard there was close to a consensus that the climate shift that has
taken place since the beginning of industrialization is well within the
bounds of natural climate change. This isn't tough to verify.

Have you had your hearing checked?

Freewheeling wrote:

"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...

Freewheeling wrote:


"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...


Freewheeling wrote:



"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...



skip wrote:




"Mark Leuck" wrote in message
...




"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...




No, you like most people are unwilling to see things as they are and
how
they could be. This is understandable, because the normal human
brain is
not capable of handling such a disconnect - to know than only a
small
handful of the six billion have the true freedom to pursue real
opportunities, while the rest are held in servitude by economic or
social restrictions will certainly lead to mental disorders.

You can not handle the truth of how bad things are, so you create
clever
intellectual arguments to convince yourself that things are
acceptable
and getting better. It is why you refuse to see evil where it
clearly
exists. We are doomed to a miserable existence by greed and avarice.

--
Tom Sherman - Earth

Damn talk about being disconnected....I pity you Tom




What you are seeing here is quintessential Tom Sherman. His
contention that we are doomed to a miserable existence by greed and
avarice is the cornerstone of his beliefs.

You will never again have to wonder why he is miserable. Or wonder
how he can think as he does. He just told you why. And he won't
budge an inch from that belief. No one has had any success in moving
him from that position.

Why should I move from a position when I am right?

I wish I could be a delusional lemming happily marching towards the
cliff, but it is my great misfortune to have gained true understanding
of the dark side of human group behavior.

I could happily ignore the situation and discuss recumbents, but then
some right wing blowhard has to crap on the group, ending the illusion.
At that point, I am willing to fling poo well after the bovines have
returned to their agricultural structure abode.


Again, according to simple empiricism the trend is moving in the
opposite direction from what you claim, and has been for more than a
century. People are better educated, better fed, better entertained,
more free, more secure, and according to IQ tests actually smarter, than
they ever have been before. There is less poverty and misery with each
passing year, not more, except in those places where the left still has
its totalitarian demonstration projects.

We will all be better off with the ecological damage from resource
overuse and global warming (not a myth, but something that is already
happening, unless you are in denial).

Enjoy seeing billions suffer.


Again, making it up aren't you?

There is near universal agreement among climatologists about global
warming, with most of the dissenters being on the payroll of the
hydrocarbon extraction industry. Giving them credence is like giving the
Flat Earth Society credence in a discussion about astronomy. The same is
true about resource overuse.

Do you just uncritically buy everything those with a corporatist,
neo-feudal agenda say? Or do you have a vested interest in promoting their
policies?

Why do you want to argue this in a recumbent bicycle forum anyhow? I
really don't, but I am happy to **** off those who do.


Oh BS.


You know, I could hardly believe that you would be this disingenuous, so I
had to go back and check to see who it was that actually brought up ecology
(since it's not a topic I generally discuss very much). Sure enough it
wasn't I who raised the topic, but YOU! You raised it in the context of our
discussion about whether things were getting better or worse, and it was
apparently the only thing you could think of where you might conceivably
have an empirical advantage, in the following incompetently ironic
statement:



"We will all be better off with the ecological damage from resource overuse
and global warming (not a myth, but something that is already happening,
unless you are in denial)."



You're some piece of work, Tom. You and Markos "Screw 'em" Zunida (Daily
Kos) share a common ethical tradition, apparently.

Death is good. Without death, life would have no meaning.

Death to the hominids! Death to ALL!