TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. – Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak, targeted for defeat by Tea Party activists for his crucial role in securing House approval of the health care overhaul, said Friday he would retire from Congress this year.
The nine-term congressman told The Associated Press he could have won re-election and insisted he wasn't being chased from the race by the Tea Party Express, which is holding rallies this week in his northern Michigan district calling for his ouster. Instead, Stupak said he was tired after 18 years in office and wanted to spend more time with his family.
"The Tea Party did not run me out," he said in a telephone interview. "If you know me and my personality, I would welcome the challenge."... The article ends with:
Three little-known hopefuls are seeking the GOP nomination, and Stupak faced a primary challenge from a Democrat who is pro-choice on abortion.
Do you think he's quitting because he wants to spend more time with his family or he couldn't put money into a sure defeat.....by the 'little-known' GOP 'hopefuls?' Have you seen this video where he says he'd have voted for health care even if he'd not got the 'promise' of no federal funding for abortion? No, the mainstream media didn't show it........ but, here it is:
z
117 comments:
To be certain, there is nothing virtuous about proclaiming one's self Pro-Life if in the final analysis they cannot come to the realization that Life and Liberty are mutually inclusive.
Hence my distaste for Mike Huckabee.
Stupak is correct in that in a representative democracy, he is allowed to vote 'his' conscience. It is also true that if an elected representative does not listen to his constituency, he may be looking for work after the next election.
Exercising a keen sense of the obvious, Stupak has decided not to run for reelection. That way, he can boast he was never defeated in an election. The man is dripping with integrity; not unlike Senator Spector (Dumbass-PA).
As for Obama, what does he care? These communist members of congress are merely statistics to him, just like most of Joe Stalin's supporters were cannon fodder for him.
I agree with the above commenter: we have far too many socialist-light politicians in the GOP.
Spit.
This guy is a dirt bag. Believe me, I'm keeping this G-rated.
Mustang, news from the White House just now is that Obama tried to get Stupak not to step down. He's probably right on script..
Boy, they must REALLY cut deals when they give in like Stupak did........
Apparently, BHO called Stupak not to resign.
Stupak resigned anyway. LOL.
WOW, soapbox, so you're saying that you can't be pro life if you don't feel women's liberty to kill life is valid?
There is no such thing as a pro-life Democrat.
"WOW, soapbox, so you're saying that you can't be pro life if you don't feel women's liberty to kill life is valid?"
Um no...what I'm saying is what the hell virtue is there in being Pro-Life if you can't get your head around the fact that life without individual Liberty is really no life at all.
If you make a point to ensure that no child should ever be aborted but then you tax the hell out of said children so as to stifle their individual pursuit, their freewill, hold that they have a moral or biblical obligation towards subsidizing instate tution rates for the children of illegal immigrants, a lower standard of living for the sake of a biblical duty to "protect" mother earth, etc. there is nothing then virtuous about any claim to being "Pro-Life".
To be certain, there is a very good reason why individuals risk life and limb to flee countries such as Cuba to come to the United States. Further, there too is a very good reason why "Life" in prison without the possibility of parole is the virtual equivalent of a death sentence.
Wow! Is this guy a weasel or what?
What he's really saying is, he lied for months, when he stated he would vote no. He knew in the end, he was voting yes, but thought he could hoodwink his constituents.
Well, it could be "voting your conscience", could compete with "keeping your word", which exemplifies honor.
The question could be, are you honest about what your conscience tells you, and do your constituents know what that is?
I think honor trumps voting your conscience. Politicians are elected on their word. Not keeping your word, is betrayal. If you say one thing and do another, you're a liar, and there is no honor in that.
Pris
Politicians are elected on their word. Not keeping your word, is betrayal. If you say one thing and do another, you're a liar, and there is no honor in that.
This is the great paradox. Not keeping your word is real-politics. If you say one thing and do another thing, you’re a politician. Politicians are by their nature, liars. Among politicians, practicality trumps honor every single time.
Hilarious! It sure didn't take long for Stupak to realize his fat cat career is over, did it?
No doubt he will have a nice fat lobbyist job or something similar lined up, courtesy of BHO.
You scratch my back...
...another one bites the dust.....
"Among politicians, practicality trumps honor every single time."
Mustang, I understand that, and as you said previously, he may be looking for another line of work.
However, as a politician, giving your word on an issue as important as healthcare, or abortion, you cannot accept that kind of betrayal and that's what this was. In fact, a double whammy!
For me, I could never be a politician. I wouldn't sleep at night if I lied to the people who trusted me.
I do believe there are some however, that are more honorable than others. I think it's unfair to paint them all with the same brush.
Pris
Good riddance Stupak. He knew there was no way he was going to get re-elected so he backed out. If he would have kept his word and stood his ground he wouldn't be kissing his political career goodbye.
Z,
When is it good or acceptable to abandon your priciples, whatever they are? That's the deal with Stupak. He sold out. Too bad. Go home.
Stupak in essence: I am staunchly pro-life, as long as I can still act pro-choice.
Pris, you must have watched the video, thanks. YOu said this:
What he's really saying is, he lied for months, when he stated he would vote no. He knew in the end, he was voting yes, but thought he could hoodwink his constituents.
YOU are absolutely right...
all of you are (tho I'm not quite following soapbox, I must admit...will get to that later..)...
but the crux of this is that he was LYING when he was making that big push for NO FEDERALLY PAID FOR ABORTION. This was for his upcoming election and he was probably forced to cave in...and he was FOR the bill ANYWAY. that's CRAP and goes, I think, farther than Law and Order's comment about principles..it's SO BAD it's beyond no principles...
NOW..Soapbox, of course my surmisal of your original comment has to be correct..when I said:
so you're saying that you can't be pro life if you don't feel women's liberty to kill life is valid?
WHAT else could that have meant?
You now say: "If you make a point to ensure that no child should ever be aborted but then you tax the hell out of said children so as to stifle their individual pursuit, their freewill, hold that they have a moral or biblical obligation towards subsidizing instate tution rates for the children of illegal immigrants, a lower standard of living for the sake of a biblical duty to "protect" mother earth, etc. there is nothing then virtuous about any claim to being "Pro-Life"."
I don't get the Bible analogies, but maybe it's because I know most Bible readers are NOT for those things you describe, like taxing the successful and protecting mother earth to ridiculous lengths, GOOD lengths, yes (who doesn't want clean water and air?) but the Al Gore stuff? Liberal Christianity that I'm about 100% sure none of my conservative readers espouse.
SO....you're saying that you can't be Pro Life when you're not really offering a person much of a life of liberty and the promise of well rewarded pursuits, is that right?
"You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.
All the bastards are on the run. Don't ever expect them to stand up to the truth....to the challenge. They know...deep down...that they have violated their oath....their sacred oath of office for a bribe...for a paycheck...for life long perks. For betraying the Americans who granted them such exclusive amenities.
They're rotten to the core...they're toast...and they know it.
Major
Z, yes I watched the video, and Stupak sickened me. What more can I say, except, I'm glad he's gone.
And they wonder why we're angry!
Major, that was a great moment from "A Few Good Men", and what Nichloson's character said, contained a lot of truth and should have given people pause to think, regardless of the hollywood plot.
pris
"regardless of the hollywood plot."
That hollywood plot...is becoming a reality each and every day. People who have worked hard all their lives...now have to give it all away to the 50% of parasitical scum that keep their hands out for more? People have had enough of this "generosity" shit. People have had enough of being taken for chumps. People have had enough of being vilified for being hard working, industrious...sacrificing all including their lives to provide for the bastards that refuse....refuse to be responsible. People are sick of being told that murder of the innocent is...acceptable. People are tired of being lied to by these cretin, lying, lawyer scum in Congress and the Senate. People are tired of supporting not just the perennial underclass...but the eletist, detached, unaccountable scum that sit in congress and ridicule us. 150 years ago....this country undertook a civil war. What's "civil" about a war, I ask? We are...once again...on that same precipice. They didn't imagine it could happen then...but it looks likely it will.
First...with the electoral process. Then if that fails...good old American resistance.
It won't be the first time or the last when we've exhausted all avenues to restore our freedoms and constitution.
See what Jefferson said.
Major
Patience...is no longer a virtue...it's a damned stupid response to this arrogant treachery.
Z: Have you seen this video where he says he'd have voted for health care even if he'd not got the 'promise' of no federal funding for abortion? No, the mainstream media didn't show it........
The fact is Stupak stated in that old video, which was not replayed on Fox either, that he could vote for a health care reform bill containing everything he wanted except his amendment to disallow public funding for abortion, and still be true to “the beliefs of this district.” He gave every appearance of being sincere in believing he could do that.
ladydi5319 at YouTube and beamish here said: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A PROLIFE DEMOCRAT!
Democrats, both pro-life and pro-choice, think it is wrong to do nothing about reforming health care when 14,000 Americans die every day for lack of it. Especially when the failure of the bill to pass would most likely set back serious movement on health care reform for decades more.
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheFoundryBlog#p/a/u/2/sYn2LwBezEk
The poor man can barely trip over his words when actually questioned with the truth.
Z: The poor man can barely trip over his words when actually questioned with the truth.
Stupak did not stutter or repeat words. He answered the question calmly and steadily with his own truth. The fact is: He appeared very relaxed at that sparsely-attended meeting, which took place last year on Oct. 29.
Z: "WOW, soapbox, so you're saying that you can't be pro life if you don't feel women's liberty to kill life is valid?"
Ummmmm, no. You can’t be pro-life if you maintain that the government has no right to tell women what they must do with their bodies, thereby invalidating their individual liberty.
Soapboxgod: Um no...what I'm saying is what the hell virtue is there in being Pro-Life if you can't get your head around the fact that life without individual Liberty is really no life at all.
Ummm, yes. If every woman is denied the individual liberty to choose her own course of action free of government intrusion, a woman really has no life at all.
If you make a point to ensure that no child should ever be aborted but then you tax the hell out of said children so as to stifle their individual pursuit, their freewill, hold that they have a moral or biblical obligation towards subsidizing instate tution rates for the children of illegal immigrants, a lower standard of living for the sake of a biblical duty to "protect" mother earth, etc. there is nothing then virtuous about any claim to being "Pro-Life".
Ummmm, Soapboxgod, taxation of children (?), instate tuition for children of illegal immigrants, and protection of earth’s environment are separate political issues not contingent on abortion issues.
// 14,000 Americans die every day for lack of it.//
Please cite your facts supporting that statement.
Democrats, both pro-life and pro-choice, think it is wrong to do nothing about reforming health care when 14,000 Americans die every day for lack of it.
What about the millions of Americans who can't afford health insurance because the price of their XBox Live subscriptions are too high?
It's the blatant, unabashed HYPOCRISY that irritates me and most others too about figures like Bart Stupak, I imagine.
What we fail to acknowledge -- because it indicates the falseness of most of our practices in opposition to our stated ideals and principles -- is that "deal-making" (i.e. bribery and corruption) are THE standard by which most politicians operate.
If they were sincere, open, honest and true to the tenets they are sworn to uphold, they could not SURVIVE more than fifteen minutes in Washington, DC.
Face it: Laudable, lovable, heeroic figures like Jimmy Stewart's portrayal of Jefferson Smith exist ONLY in the realms of fiction and mythology.
Sad, but TRUE. It's naive to think otherwise.
~ FreeThinke
Either you believe a nascent human being is a "life," and that abortion is, therefore, "murder," or you do not.
If murder is justified as the fulfillment of a woman's right to "freedom," then why wouldn't infanticide be regarded the same way? Why wouldn't killing an abusive spouse, a wayward teen, a sick, demented old grandmother using up family money on useless medical care, a domineering mother-in-law, or a nosey gossip qualify as justifiable homicide on the same grounds?
In fact if the "freedom" merely to pursue one's own whim at will is paramount, why then would it not be "justifiable" under the law to murder ANYONE who gets in your way?
~ FreeThinke
If abortion isn't murder, are pre-natal care specialists quacks?
FT, I absolutely agree with you, of course. Thanks.
Beamish is right....how is it just a mass of cells when it's 1/16th inside a woman's birth canal, but the minute it's 1/16th OUT of the canal, it's a human being for whose killing you'd be tried for?
//Face it: Laudable, lovable, heeroic figures like Jimmy Stewart's portrayal of Jefferson Smith exist ONLY in the realms of fiction and mythology.//
Remember that Jefferson Smith was one man, out of the entire congress. I think that must be realistic--not mythical at all. There must be one --maybe two-- men or women in congress who are able to stand tall. So in this case it would seem reality is no different from mythology.
Semper Fi
Naturally, I hope you're right, Mustang, but from the way things have been going for a very long time it doesn't look as though there IS anyone who can or will stand up to the "infernal machine" that is the US Congress today. Apparently, ever elected representative has his price, and George Soros is there to see that it gets paid.
Before Woodrow Wilson (I think it was he) it WAS possible for one determined individual -- like the fictitious Jefferson Smith -- to stage a filibuster and hold the floor forever to block legislation, but that ability was taken away. The filibusters of today are weak, essentially meaningless ineffectual things.
And surely you've noticed that "they" change the rules once circumstances seem poised to go against them.
This latest outrage with "deem and pass" and "reconciliation" is a great example. Before Teddy's soiled seat got filled by a Republican -- what WAS his name? -- you had to have a SIXTY-PERCENT majority in the senate to pass legislation. Once what-his-name -- Scotty Somebody, is it? -- got elected, SUDDENLY it was "reconciliation," or "demon pass."
With the ground forever shifting underneath everyone's feet how COULD there be any integrity in the US Congress?
As the disreputable Kingfish-style clown Alcee Hastings said, "There ARE no rules anymore; we just makes them u[p as we go along."
There IS no US Constitution anymore. "They" just ripped it up and have been using it in the congressional outhouse for DECADES.
~ FreeThinke
// 14,000 Americans die every day for lack of it.//
Mustang: Please cite your facts supporting that statement
It is the average that I recall, of which individual cases have been cited numerous times, but whatever the exact number is, it provides an important reason propelling serious action on health care reform.
Democrats, both pro-life and pro-choice, think it is wrong to do nothing about reforming health care when 14,000 Americans die every day for lack of it.
beamish: What about the millions of Americans who can't afford health insurance because the price of their XBox Live subscriptions are too high?
What about the callousness, beamish, in making a joke from so many tragedies?
Fauxthinker: Either you believe a nascent human being is a "life," and that abortion is, therefore, "murder," or you do not.
Either you believe women have inalienable rights and therefore are not the property of the State for purposes of reproduction, or you do not.
If murder is justified as the fulfillment of a woman's right to "freedom," then why wouldn't infanticide be regarded the same way? Why wouldn't killing an abusive spouse, a wayward teen, a sick, demented old grandmother using up family money on useless medical care, a domineering mother-in-law, or a nosey gossip qualify as justifiable homicide on the same grounds?
The killing of persons, i.e., those born of a woman, is in most circumstances illegal under U.S law.
In fact if the "freedom" merely to pursue one's own whim at will is paramount, why then would it not be "justifiable" under the law to murder ANYONE who gets in your way?
The same answer applies, Fauxthinker: The killing of persons, i.e., those born of a woman, is in most circumstances illegal under U.S law. Freedom in the U.S. is not license to infringe on the equal rights of other persons. If you desire the freedom to murder ANYONE in your way, Fauxthinker, you will need to live in another country.
beamish: What about people who want to spend money on XBox rather than health insurance?
Should these folks be the reason to deny affordable health care to the rest? Not everyone is like you in wanting to play games.
Government shouldn't interfere with decisions about one's own body my ass.
Many women believe the government does not have sovereignty over their bodies (a belief in which they are supported by the Supreme Court). They do not see themselves as reproduction machines for the State. That “Be fruitful and multiply” stuff may be biblical, but it is not for everyone — each woman may choose. It’s the morning after [pill] in America.
beamish: If abortion isn't murder, are pre-natal care specialists quacks?
No, pre-natal care specialists are professional health care providers for those who want to have babies, and, at the same time, abortion in most cases is not murder under U.S. law.
Home demolition is not a crime where permission is given by law, and home builders are not quacks by virtue of what they do: That is to say, America is large; it contains multitudes.
Z: FT, I absolutely agree with you, of course. Thanks.
Beamish is right
Thanks, for your opinions, Z.
If 14,000 Americans die every day from lack of health care coverage, the problem is going to solve itself in around 7 years.
If 14,000 Americans die every day from lack of health care coverage, around 46 million uninsured people are going to die before Obamacare's coverage provisions are fully implemented by 2019.
So, 47 million uninsured minus 46 million that will allegedly die in the 8+ years until Obamacare is fully implemented means the federal government is ramping up price and market controls on 20% of the US economy to save 0.3% of the US population by 2019?
Logic hates leftism.
What about people who want to spend money on XBox rather than health insurance?
Should these folks be the reason to deny affordable health care to the rest? Not everyone is like you in wanting to play games.
Irrelevant. Obamacare requires people to purchase health care coverage under penalty of law, which may cause people to cancel their XBox Live subscriptions or cell phone contracts or whatever in order to budget for it.
That is the government telling you what to do with your body and your money.
Scratch a leftist, find a totalitarian.
beamish: If 14,000 Americans die every day from lack of health care coverage, the problem is going to solve itself in around 7 years.
You are assuming static conditions, which may be simplifying but not realistic.
If 14,000 Americans die every day from lack of health care coverage, around 46 million uninsured people are going to die before Obamacare's coverage provisions are fully implemented by 2019.
The uninsured will receive access in 2010 to coverage through high-risk pools if they are uninsured because of pre-existing conditions. This year, insurance companies will be barred from removing coverage from an insured person when that person gets sick, and barred from imposing lifetime caps. Next year, insurers will be required to spend at least 80% of premiums on medical services. That is to say, the most important provisions of the law will be implemented many years before 2019, as you assume.
So, 47 million uninsured minus 46 million that will allegedly die in the 8+ years until Obamacare is fully implemented means the federal government is ramping up price and market controls on 20% of the US economy to save 0.3% of the US population by 2019?
You are attempting, ineptly, not logic but hard-nosed calculus, such as is done in totalitarian regimes..
Logic hates leftism.
Logic is not your pretzel.
What about people who want to spend money on XBox rather than health insurance?
Should these folks be the reason to deny affordable health care to the rest? Not everyone is like you in wanting to play games.
Irrelevant. Obamacare requires people to purchase health care coverage under penalty of law, which may cause people to cancel their XBox Live subscriptions or cell phone contracts or whatever in order to budget for it.
Yes, beamish, it should be irrelevant that people may, hypothetically, be caused to cancel their XBox Live subscriptions to save American lives.
That is the government telling you what to do with your body and your money.
That is an exaggeration. No one is compelled to do what a doctor says, and government taxes and penalties have always been part of American life..
Scratch a leftist, find a totalitarian.
Aggravate beamish and he reveals his totalitarian proclivities.
And they’re not pretty.
And here we have PsiBond the leftist deploying that tried and true weapon to defend leftists from all accusations of being capable of rational thought, the fallback to exhibiting a lack of reading comprehension skills.
I'm opposed to the government growing to seize control the medical industry and forcing Americans into purchasing health insurance against and regardless of their own will, and I'm the "totalitarian?"
Be honest, PsiBond. You're an idiot.
Admit you're an idiot so we can move on to disputable matters.
"I don't get the Bible analogies, but maybe it's because I know most Bible readers are NOT for those things you describe..."
Really??? Mike Huckabee sure was and boy how some of the "conservatives" just thought he was the greatest thing since sliced bread during the 2008 primaries.
Soapbox, you said "Some", I said "most"....You think Huckabee WAS about high taxes and the other things I mentioned? And you think they're biblical?!
The best and cleanest way to avoid abortion is to avoid getting PREGNANT.
PERIOD!
~ FreeThinke
Persons psychologically disposed to totalitarianism are dedicated to promoting pseudo-élite distinctions between broadly drawn classes of people, recognizing and denying rights as though they were privileges awarded to those they have deemed capable of rational thought. While, in an earlier era, in Europe, it was the Jews who were this outcast class., you want to replace them, beamish, in our era, with all those whom you classify as "leftists". They are the “idiots” in your passionate totalitarian mode of thought — which imposes on the concept of intelligence a heinously politicized definition. You don’t have to admit to the truth of any of this description of your behavior here, beamish, since, unintentionally, you have long made it plain that its accuracy is hardly debatable.
PsiBond,
Presenting an intelligent leftist would totally refute my view. Good luck with that.
beamish: Presenting an intelligent leftist would totally refute my view. Good luck with that.
Providing objective evidence that no “leftist” is intelligent, in the sense that the word is commonly understood, would suffice to establish your view. Go for it!
Fauxthinker: The best and cleanest way to avoid abortion is to avoid getting PREGNANT.
True love is like seeing ghosts: we all talk about it, but few of us have ever seen one. Most folks have to make do with sex.
Providing objective evidence that no “leftist” is intelligent, in the sense that the word is commonly understood, would suffice to establish your view. Go for it!
Well, okay.
Show of hands. Who here besides PsiBond doesn't think PsiBond is an imbecile?
"You think Huckabee WAS about high taxes and the other things I mentioned? And you think they're biblical?!"
I KNOW Huckabee was about high taxes and the other things I mentioned.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8838 (This article appeared on Foxnews.com on December 11, 2007.)
"As governor of Arkansas, Huckabee dramatically increased state spending. During his two-term tenure, spending increased by more than 65 percent — at three times the rate of inflation.
The number of government workers increased by 20 percent, and the state's debt services increased by nearly $1 billion. Huckabee financed his spending binge with higher taxes. Under his leadership, the average Arkansan's tax burden increased 47 percent, according to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, including increases in the state's gas, sales, income, and cigarette taxes. He raised taxes on everything from groceries to nursing home beds.
Huckabee answers these complaints by pointing out that he "cut taxes 94 times" while governor. True. But most of those tax cuts were tiny, like exempting residential lawn care from the sales tax. Some cuts reduced overall state revenues by as little as $15,000. On net, Huckabee increased state taxes by more than $500 million. In fact, Huckabee increased taxes in the state by more than Bill Clinton did."
"...having become health conscious while losing more than 120 pounds (a remarkable feat), he now calls for a national smoking ban. Because he believes that "art and music are as important as math and science" in public schools, he wants these programs funded — and thus, directed and administered — federally."
"Huckabee has called for increased federal spending on a variety of programs from infrastructure to health care. He wants more energy subsidies, including, naturally, more subsidies for ethanol. In fact, he supports increased agricultural subsidies generally. He is the only Republican candidate who opposes President Bush's veto of the Democrats' proposed expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, and he is skeptical of most conservative proposals for entitlement reform."
"Calling global warming a “moral issue” mandating “a biblical duty” to prevent climate change, he has endorsed a cap-and-trade system that is anathema to the free market."
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/mike_huckabee_-_false_conservative/
well, Soapbox, he sure hides that stuff whenever I've watched his show!
Very pro the Flat Tax and highly against VAT, too.
Maybe he's changed. Thanks for the information, though..
Of course he does. All the while shielding himself with his Pro-Life/Baptist minister credentials which goes directly back to my fundamental point.
He doesn't shield himself from his faith, not at all.
By the way, Soapbox, what makes YOU prolife?
Providing objective evidence that no “leftist” is intelligent, in the sense that the word is commonly understood, would suffice to establish your view. Go for it!
Well, okay
Show of hands. Who here besides PsiBond doesn't think PsiBond is an imbecile?
You have just demonstrated plainly that you have no objective evidence.
In case you don't know, beamish, there are two problems with your “objective evidence”: I am not identical with the (ragtag) classification "leftists", and a show of hands here can only be a display of rightist opinion. In addition, your phrasing of the question suggests the opinion you zealously desire.
Objective evidence is not what someone may think, but what can be demonstrated regardless of what anyone thinks. If someone were to say Jews are imbeciles, it would prove nothing but that person's prejudicial opinion. The same applies to similar pronouncements about “leftists”.
"By the way, Soapbox, what makes YOU prolife?"
My view on the life issue and abortion can be viewed in a guest post at Beth's "Five Foot Three" blog:
http://5ft3.blogspot.com/2008/11/guest-post-from-soapboxgod.html
"He doesn't shield himself from his faith, not at all."
You're quite right about that. And, for the single issue evangelical voter it's enough of a platform to run on.
One may be highly intelligent, erudite, even generally well motivated, and still be an obnoxious, pernicious influence, because of "ENEMITICS."
ENEMETICS is the overt expression of a fundamental human craving always to oppose, disapprove of, loathe and despise SOMETHING in order to give oneself (and possibly one's kind) a sense of purpose and identity.
"I have enemies, therefore I am" might be a more succinct way of putting it.
Dis-scenting dissent is a formidable task. One would be better off just taking a deep breath of the stench, and then ignoring it -- as students are often instructed to do while witnessing or performing odoriferous experiments in a chemistry laboratory.
~ FreeThinke
PsiBond,
Objectively, you're identified as an idiot often enough by a large enough pool of observers to be persuaded to accept its veracity.
Your asking for proof of a negative, such as proof "that no leftist is intelligent," demonstrates a typically leftist lack of familiarity with even basic logical inquiry.
You yourself are proof that leftists are incapable of rational thought.
Objectively, you're identified as an idiot often enough by a large enough pool of observers to be persuaded to accept its veracity.
So, it’s the Big Lie, eh, beamish? Repeat it often enough ….. We’ve heard that somewhere before.
In my personal experience, only some rightists, those unable to respond on a rational level, have called me pejoratives like “idiot”. Idiocy, however, is a personal trait; it has nothing to do with one's politics. The truth, speaking in psychological terms, is that some leftists and some rightists may be idiots. Laughable partisan allegations notwithstanding, there is no objective evidence that idiocy is confined to one group or the other.
Your asking for proof of a negative, such as proof "that no leftist is intelligent," demonstrates a typically leftist lack of familiarity with even basic logical inquiry.
After failing spectacularly to prove it above with your hokey pseudo-logic, you now fall back on the familiar old objection that negatives cannot be logically proved. But you fail even to prove that the proposition that all leftists are imbeciles is likely true. That you can only get a focus group composed of rightwingers to agree with this across-the-board accusation makes it less not more likely.
A sound logical argument must begin with a precise definition of terms. You have never given a definition of “imbecility”. The same goes for “leftism” but a definition of “imbecility” is more important. How about it, beamish?
You yourself are proof that leftists are incapable of rational thought.
Many old-fashioned rightwingers claimed that blacks are incapable of rational thought. Clearly, for up-to-date extreme rightwingers, "leftism" is the new negritude.
You cannot prove yourself rational, beamish, when you are conflating me with all “leftists” and mindlessly fueling hatred of your political opponents.
Fauxthinker: One may be highly intelligent, erudite, even generally well motivated, and still be an obnoxious, pernicious influence, because of "ENEMITICS [sp?]."
ENEMETICS is the overt expression of a fundamental human craving always to oppose, disapprove of, loathe and despise SOMETHING in order to give oneself (and possibly one's kind) a sense of purpose and identity.
"I have enemies, therefore I am" might be a more succinct way of putting it.
Dis-scenting dissent is a formidable task. One would be better off just taking a deep breath of the stench, and then ignoring it -- as students are often instructed to do while witnessing or performing odoriferous experiments in a chemistry laboratory.
In brief, Fauxthinker, dissent is not to your licking,
Like we need to know that.
A sound logical argument must begin with a precise definition of terms. You have never given a definition of “imbecility”. The same goes for “leftism” but a definition of “imbecility” is more important. How about it, beamish?
imbecility \ ˌim-bə-ˈsi-lə-tē \
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural im·be·cil·i·ties,
Date: circa 1533
1. the quality or state of being imbecile or an imbecile
2a. utter foolishness, also futility
2b.something that is foolish or nonsensical
-----
Many old-fashioned rightwingers claimed that blacks are incapable of rational thought. Clearly, for up-to-date extreme rightwingers, "leftism" is the new negritude.
Yawn. A clear indication of the aforementioned imbecility is when a leftist is losing an debate, he'll cry racism.
Given that the eugenics movement was as much a product of the progressive left 100 years ago as it is a staple of the progressive left even today with its inherent assumptions of inferiority of blacks as a justification of affirmative action, charges of racism from leftists are at best Freudian projections.
You cannot prove yourself rational, beamish, when you are conflating me with all “leftists” and mindlessly fueling hatred of your political opponents.
You could distinguish yourself from leftists by saying something intelligent.
Fueling hatred?
Calling leftists "imbeciles" is no more hatemonering than calling chairs "furniture."
A sound logical argument must begin with a precise definition of terms. You have never given a definition of “imbecility”. The same goes for “leftism” but a definition of “imbecility” is more important. How about it, beamish?
imbecility \ ˌim-bə-ˈsi-lə-tē \
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural im·be·cil·i·ties,
Date: circa 1533
1. the quality or state of being imbecile or an imbecile
2a. utter foolishness, also futility
2b.something that is foolish or nonsensical.
Regurgitating the dictionary definitions does not specify the sense in which you intend it. However, assuming that you are using it to mean foolishness, then, as I thought, beamish, you are using a word that expresses a subjective judgment as if it were a factual description. Yet, who is foolish is a matter of individual opinion. For instance, many say President Obama is an imbecile, while many others say he is a brilliant man. In emotional political discussions, the word “imbecile” tends to get overused and much abused.
Many old-fashioned rightwingers claimed that blacks are incapable of rational thought. Clearly, for up-to-date extreme rightwingers, "leftism" is the new negritude.
Yawn. A clear indication of the aforementioned imbecility is when a leftist is losing an debate, he'll cry racism.
You are showing evidence of a lack of reading comprehension skills. I didn't do what you accuse me of. It seems that when a rightist cannot objectively prove his defamatory charge, he is likely to resort to crying that he is being called a racist.
Given that the eugenics movement was as much a product of the progressive left 100 years ago as it is a staple of the progressive left even today with its inherent assumptions of inferiority of blacks as a justification of affirmative action, charges of racism from leftists are at best Freudian projections.
Yawn. Attempting to liken the eugenics movement (which had support from rightwing icon Winston Churchill at its height) to affirmative action (in which the central assumption is innate equality foiled by adverse socio-politico-cultural conditions) is futile and silly — so, your broadside accusation of imbecility against all political opponents looks like a colossal (archetypal) Freudian projection.
You cannot prove yourself rational, beamish, when you are conflating me with all “leftists” and mindlessly fueling hatred of your political opponents.
You could distinguish yourself from leftists by saying something intelligent.
If you appoint yourself “impartial” judge of what is intelligent, there is no way a “leftist” can win that challenge. Which is not to say that things “leftists” have said have never been judged to be intelligent by rightists not on the lunatic fringe.
Fueling hatred?
Calling leftists "imbeciles" is no more hatemonering than calling chairs "furniture."
That is a false analogy. Calling chairs "furniture" is to recognize their function. Calling "leftists" "imbeciles" would indicate they have no serious claim to the attention of a rational person.
Those embracing your extremist opinion are likely to be folks who hate “leftists”.
Falling back into Pee Wee Herman "i know you are but what am I" mode again, PsiBond?
Just in case your imbecility is blocking you from learning anything, I remind you:
Whenever you actually want an honest discussion, don't hesistate to give a sign of honesty. Admmitting you are an imbecile will suffice.
TRUER EVERY DAY
One may be highly intelligent, erudite, even generally well motivated, and still be an obnoxious, pernicious influence, because of "ENEMITICS."
ENEMETICS is the overt expression of a fundamental human craving always to oppose, disapprove of, loathe and despise SOMETHING in order to give oneself (and possibly one's kind) a sense of purpose and identity.
"I have enemies, therefore I am" might be a more succinct way of putting it.
Dis-scenting dissent is a formidable task. One would be better off just taking a deep breath of the stench, and then ignoring it -- as students are often instructed to do while witnessing or performing odoriferous experiments in a chemistry laboratory.
~ FreeThinke
"Falling back into Pee Wee Herman "i know you are but what am I" mode again, PsiBond?"
ROTFLMAO! That's exactly what I've been thinking for about the last three to four days!
Hey, Brooke, I was wondering when a cheerleader would kick in.
Fauxthinker: TRUER EVERY DAY
One may be highly intelligent, erudite, even generally well motivated
Well then, argue your dissent with beamish.
Falling back into Pee Wee Herman "i know you are but what am I" mode again, PsiBond?
You’re still hung up with a has-been entertainer as if he’s some kind of awe-inspiring pundit, eh, beamish? You don’t seem to know how foolish you make yourself appear.
Just in case your imbecility is blocking you from learning anything, I remind you:
Whenever you actually want an honest discussion, don't hesistate to give a sign of honesty. Admmitting you are an imbecile will suffice.
I remind you that opinion is not fact, and your mantra — “all ‘leftists’ are imbeciles” — is an opinion., a totally partisan one.
Not only have I never known you, beamish, to engage in an honest discussion, I genuinely doubt you are capable of one, even though you flatter yourself thinking that you are capable. Customarily, you demand a handicap advantage for yourself by bullying and pleading with your opponent to assent at the start to a bogus position of inferiority. Someone who passionately supposes all “leftists” are imbeciles is not a person with whom I can reasonably expect to have a meaningful discussion. Obsessed folks like you always have an argument, but never a good one.
Don't knock Pee Wee Herman. He was a better Alinskyist than Saul Alinsky.
What you're failing to grasp, PsiBond, is even if I said nothing, you'd still be an imbecile. You bring it with you.
"Hey, Brooke, I was wondering when a cheerleader would kick in."
Cheerleader? I've been reading your inane comments for a few days now, and the Pee Wee comparison is dead on.
I guess it really hacked you off to have such a reaction. LOL!
Brooke, courtesy teaches me to acknowledge those speaking of me, even when you're only chanting your agreement here.
However, spending days reading comments that you feel are inane is just inane. LOL
The thing you're failing to grasp, beamish, is that your personal opinions of me or "leftists", and your lasting admiration for Pee-wee Herman from the 1980s, carry no weight with me, and, despite all your vigorous bullying here, they have in the larger world no measurable consequence whatsoever
Pee Wee Herman is one of the greatest left-wing minds of the 20th Century. You should be flattered that I esteem your argumentative style is within his league, PsiBond.
You're exemplifyingly stupid. Beyond the call of your ideological duty and such.
All leftists should be as blissfully imbecilic as you.
beamish, you make it hard not to believe: Hardcore rightwingers are bullies.
No, YOUR comments are inane, psi bond.
And courtesy? HA!
Just in case anyone's counting, another piece of evidence that all leftists are imbeciles is that PsiBond feels "bullied" by words on his monitor from someone who's words he feels "carries no weight" and that he continues to respond to despite their having no "measurable consequence whatsoever."
With PsiBond, as always. we're talking weapons grade imbecilic here, folks. The guy lowers the average IQ of his state by himself.
Brooke: No, YOUR comments are inane, psi bond.
Then, why read them? Doing so is inane.
In case anyone is reading beamish's inane claims, I merely observe that beamish is behaving like a bully, but I do not feel bullied. His manifest bullying will not intimidate me into discontinuing correction of the record he distorts.
I've distorted nothing. PsiBond's imbecility is on record, in this very thread.
Rational persons will find beamish’s bullying, abnormal obsession on record here.
Rational people will and have observed PsiBond flailing hopelessly against the fact that his imbecility is obvious even to casual observers.
One day, a leftist may unintentionally say something intelligent. It's a safe bet that that leftist won't be PsiBond.
Rational persons will observe that BeaMish makes up inane things while vigorously attempting to defend his specious mantra.
BeAmish: One day, a leftist may unintentionally say something intelligent. It's a safe bet that that leftist won't be PsiBond.
Frog is the Messiah! Hallelujah!
And BeAmish is his Prophet!
Amen!
I'm really not posting as PsiBond to make him look stupid, y'all.
He's like this all the time.
I concur that it is stupid to state that Frog is the Messiah and BeAmish is his Prophet.
As if y’all (except BeAmish) didn’t know, I admit I was indulging in a little sarcasm.
Obviously, Frog is not a messiah, and BeAmish is no prophet.
See what I mean.
Imbecilic all by himself.
See what I mean.
See how you see just what you want to see.
You provide no credible evidence of being able to read well, BeAmish.
Imbecilic all by himself
See how you distort all things to support the preconceptions you have.
You provide no credible evidence of being able to think well, BeAmish.
Inexhaustibly dull as well, this PsiBond character. "I know you are but what am I" all the time.
Pee Wee Herman should be charging PsiBond royalties every time PsiBond is reduced to twitdom.
Which is all the time.
Boringly repetitious in his mindless personal attacks is this bully BeAmish. Above one can see examples of how he uses bogus evidence to prop up and propagate his silly mantra.
I'm a bully because PsiBond is too cowardly to admit he's an imbecile despite leaving no room for doubting that fact.
No respectful, honest discussion can move forward until PsiBond confirms that he is aware of his imbecility so that discussions are not bogged down with reminding him of this blatantly obvious fact.
No, BeAmish is a bully because he too cowardly to admit that his marathon crusade of abuse of the Internet is loony, silly, uncivil, and vulgar.
No discussion that is deferential and honest can take place here because BeAmish, through much bullying and pleading, doggedly requires my granting of a handicap to him that is obviously bogus before he will permit the start of discussions which have no interest for me.
Wrong, PsiBond. You are not interested in honest, intellectual discussion because you are incapable of such things.
I merely want you to feel accomodated as a recognized imbecile contributing to discussion with your betters without getting sidetracked by absurd protestations against the reality of your imbecility.
If you would merely identify yourself honestly and correctly as presenting the views of an imbecile, it would save us from unneccessary sidetrack rehashes of the easily demonstrated.
Wrong, PsiBond. You are not interested in honest, intellectual discussion because you are incapable of such things.
Wrong, BeAmish. I am not interested in such a discussion with you because you have shown yourself to be not a rational person but a silly bully. Like bullies will, you even attempt, as above, to put words in my mouth.
I merely want you to feel accomodated [sic] as a recognized imbecile contributing to discussion with your betters without getting sidetracked by absurd protestations against the reality of your imbecility.
No better demonstration of your dishonesty could be given, since you would be thereby granted a position from which to dismiss as imbecility, by virtue of your silly false mantra, anything a so-called “leftist” says. Apparently, you need an acknowledged position of phony superiority to feel accommodated in such a discussion. It’s like a player agreeing to a game of chess with an opponent, but only if he will surrender at the start his queen and both his bishops.
If you would merely identify yourself honestly and correctly as presenting the views of an imbecile, it would save us from unneccessary sidetrack rehashes of the easily demonstrated.
Whereas it has been shown that you make up things to attempt to make a seemingly rational point, what you call “easily demonstrated” has, in fact, never been demonstrated, except by your deceitful hand-waving towards all of my posts.
I'm not deceitful. I truly do acknowledge that you are an imbecile, PsiBond.
The deception is in you trying to portray yourself as not an imbecile, and it isn't even good deception, running counter as it does to your concerted efforts to convince people that you are in fact an imbecile.
Your views are the views of an imbecile. I know it, and you know it. Having a dispute over the clearly indisputable fact of your imbecility is as productive as if you were trying to cast doubt on 2 + 2 equalling 4.
It is a shame you're not interested in honest discussion, PsiBond. This will not dissuade me in any way from identifying you correctly as an imbecile.
BeAmish: I'm not deceitful. I truly do acknowledge that you are an imbecile, PsiBond.
Relentlessly insisting on this nonsense is imbecilic. And deceitful. You cannot acknowledge any such thing — you can acknowledge only that your opinion is such.
The deception is in you trying to portray yourself as not an imbecile, and it isn't even good deception, running counter as it does to your concerted efforts to convince people that you are in fact an imbecile.
Relentlessly insisting that my intention is to convince people of what you say I am doing is imbecilic. And deceitful.
Your views are the views of an imbecile. I know it, and you know it. Having a dispute over the clearly indisputable fact of your imbecility is as productive as if you were trying to cast doubt on 2 + 2 equalling 4.
Relentlessly insisting that you know what it is I know is imbecilic. And deceitful.
In the decimal system of notation, 2+2=4. But in the ternary system, 2+2=11. And in the binary system, 2+2=4 is impossible — rather, the case is thus: 10+10=100.
It is a shame you're not interested in honest discussion, PsiBond. This will not dissuade me in any way from identifying you correctly as an imbecile.
It is your deception to say I am not interested in honest discussion. I am. However, you have shown you’re not capable of that. So I am not interested in honest discussion with you, BeAmish, whom I have judged, correctly I think, to be just a silly bully.
In the decimal system of notation, 2+2=4, BeAmish. But in the ternary system, 2+2=11. And in the binary system, 2+2=4 is impossible — rather, the case is thus: 10+10=100.
You highlight your intellectual limitations by failing to understand the significance of mathematical context. And you seek to distract attention from that failure by attacking me, once again.
In the context of comparing the absurdity of doubting your imbecility to the absurdity of doubting 2 + 2 = 4, you make a pedantic twittery case for 2 + 2 not equalling 4 in a different context. I hope someone else balances your checkbook.
Regardless of your desperate flailing of bifurcation fallacies, you will not find a context in which you are not an imbecile.
I did not say I doubted that, in the decimal system of notation, 2+2=4. And no “bifurcation fallacies” are on the premises. With poorly worded dissembling, you make it clear that you don't understand what you are talking about.
Double talking and displaying your lack of mathematical sophistication are unbecoming.
The smallest integer equal to the sum of all its lesser divisors is 6.
Mathematicians have a name for such a number. Do you know, BeAmish — without having to look it up — what it is?
The smallest integer equal to the sum of all its lesser divisors is 6.
Mathematicians have a name for such a number. Do you know, BeAmish — without having to look it up — what it is?
Yes, I do.
Can you, without relying on your tactics of employing logical fallacies and Pee Wee Herman-esque taunting, come up with a plausible explanation as to why you contest the established fact that you're an imbecile?
The smallest integer equal to the sum of all its lesser divisors is 6.
Mathematicians have a name for such a number. Do you know, BeAmish — without having to look it up — what it is?
BeAmish: Yes, I do.
Familiar with your disingenuous character, BeAmish, I correctly anticipated that that would be your answer. I also guessed it would be a lie.
Can you, without relying on your tactics of employing logical fallacies and Pee Wee Herman-esque taunting, come up with a plausible explanation as to why you contest the established fact that you're an imbecile?
As sensible folks know, there is no rational answer to your ridiculous, albeit expected question, nor is there one that would satisfy you.
What is the name and the essence — stating from memory, as I can — of the famous mathematical result proved in 1931 which is incontestably the most important and most influential mathematical achievement of the 20th century?
Why do you want to discuss the theorems of Kurt Gödel instead of your intransigence against admitting the easily verified, readily observed fact that you're an imbecile, PsiBond?
I'm not interested in playing Trivial Pursuit with you. I want to know why it is you reject out of hand the clear fact that you're an imbecile. Pride? Vanity?
I knew you couldn't name or state them without a reference, BeAmish, just as I knew you didn't know the answer to the other question.
The kinds of evidence you make use of, BeAmish, have not been highly accredited since the end of Medieval times.
You present all the evidence needed to determine that you are an imbecile, PsiBond, every time you post.
For example, one strikingly hilarious accounting of your imbecility is your current speculation that quizzing me on math history trivia will somehow shift the inquiry away from our exploration of why it is you deny the reality of your imbecility.
Stay focused, PsiBond.
Focus, BeAmish: If your claim of intellectual superiority is not bogus, you will need to demonstrate mathematical sophistication:
The integers 220 and 284 are related by a remarkable property that makes them the smallest such pair — using the resources of your brain alone: What do mathematicians call such numbers and what is the property that defines them?
I don't claim to be a collector of obscure mathematics novelties.
Nor would knowing something as trivial as the "amicable numbers" lift you out of the ranks of imbecility anyomore than not knowing that bit of trivia would make one an imbecile.
That you consider it would is just another proof of your imbecilic lack of reasoning skills.
Your imbecility lies in thinking pedantic raving is a substitute for constructing a logical argument, which much like all leftists you seem rather severely unfamiliar with.
At least you're consistently stupid, and I mean that with all respect due.
Apparently, BeAmish, you had to search to finally find an answer, perhaps under mathematical novelties. Googling "220, 284" would have gotten the answer. However, it is much more than a mathematical novelty to professional mathematicians working in the important branch of mathematics known as the Theory of Numbers, who have derived a number of important results concerning these numbers. A fondness and enjoyment of such knowledge develops the mind and kindles an appreciation of early Greek and Islamic civilizations, in which these numbers were well known. At best, your strident philistine disdain betrays your lack of refinement to me. But it is entirely consistent with your bullying childish nature.
None of your pedantic babbling reduces your imbecility, PsiBond.
So you imagine, BeAmish.
Post a Comment