Yesterday’s post about how growth in the number of WA state government full time employees has remained flat relative to total population growth, prompted a debate in the comment thread regarding the impugned productivity of state workers versus those in the private sector. It was a stupid debate… devoid of actual, you know… facts, but it was a debate nonetheless, and as it turns out, a useful springboard for discussing the nature of government expenditures, and why the right’s familiar “population plus inflation” formula is little more than a cynical gimmick intended to erode government services over time.
Implicit in the population plus inflation model is the notion that services delivered by the public sector are somehow representative of the economy as a whole, and thus the per unit costs incurred should generally rise in step with the Consumer Price Index. This notion also forms the basis of the critique in the comment thread that looks to the population-proportional growth in government FTEs as an indication of zero productivity growth, and “a fucking testament to inefficiency.”
Of course, this notion is total bullshit.
To compare the inflationary pressures or productivity gains of the public sector to that of the economy as a whole would be as ridiculous as comparing that of one private sector industry to another. For example, according to the federal Bureau of Economic Analysis, the cost to consumers of durable goods has plummeted 14 percent since 2000, while the cost of consumer services has risen 29 percent. Over that same period of time the Implicit Price Deflator (generally accepted to be the most accurate measure of inflation) has risen 21.6% for Personal Consumption Expenditures as a whole, but over 42% for State and Local Government.
Why has the inflation rate for state and local government services risen at nearly twice the rate as that for consumer expenditures? According to a report compiled by the Washington D.C. based Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, productivity is indeed a major factor:
Proponents of TABOR-type tax and expenditure limits sometimes contend that a growth formula based on population plus inflation would be adequate to maintain public services at a roughly constant level. But researchers long have recognized that the services provided in the public sector, such as education, health care, and law enforcement, tend to rise in cost faster than many other goods and services in the economy in general. This analysis was first put forward by economist William Baumol, who pointed out that technology and productivity gains may make goods cheaper to produce, but the services that government provides are different. Baumol said public services typically rely heavily on well-trained professionals — teachers, police officers, doctors and nurses, and so on — and technology gains do not make these services cheaper to provide. It may take far fewer workers to build an automobile than it did 30 years ago, but it still takes one teacher to lead a classroom of children. (In fact, as education has become increasingly important, the trend is toward more teachers per pupil, not fewer.) Doctors generally still see patients one by one, and nursing care remains labor intensive despite technology.
In fact, we haven’t seen the same sort of productivity gains in the public sector as we have in the private, because there simply haven’t been the same inherent opportunities to improve efficiency overall. In the same way that the price of consumer services rises even as the price of durable goods falls, the cost of providing most government services—even the exact same services at the exact same level—continues to rise substantially faster than the average rate of inflation across the broader economy.
It’s not that, compared to the private sector, government is inherently less efficient at delivering services, but rather that productivity in these sort of labor-intensive, high-skilled services is impacted far less by technological advances than, say, the manufacturing sector. Indeed, when it comes to health care, quite the opposite has been true, with dramatic technological advances tending to dramatically increase costs. (While at the same time, government health insurance programs like Medicare and Medicaid have consistently proven to be less expensive and more efficient than their private sector competitors.)
Population plus inflation may seem like an intuitive measure by which to compare growth in government expenditures, but it simply is not grounded in economic reality: both simple logic and prior history proves that the long term cost of maintaining government services at constant levels rises faster than this rigid formula would allow. And given this reality, it is hard to argue that today’s budget crisis is largely the result of profligate spending, when state spending has long trailed behind growth in demand and cost for the services it provides.
There has been some surprise in the media that under yesterday’s Senate budget proposal, the dollar amount of general fund expenditures from state revenue sources would actually decrease from the previous biennium, for the first time ever. I suppose then, they will be absolutely shocked to learn in future posts that when measured by its ability to provide existing services at constant levels, Washington state government has actually been shrinking for some time.
“There is no problem that can’t be solved with the proper amount of self-righteous fury.”
Melvin Belli
Or, could it be the notion that organized labor at a state, county, and local level have systematically been engaging in inflating their compensation and benefits at a rate that far exceeds inflation and is fundamentally unsustainable given things like I-695 and reluctance to more taxes.
Now that the public is pushing back and saying their not getting the value of services from tax dollars they’re contributing…there’s a bunch of hand-wringing by those same people that over-extended services to try and go for a fresh tax stream.
I know you don’t get something for nothing. I don’t want zero services and zero taxes….but just the best level of services vs. taxes as well as only those services that people can’t do for themselves…and there are a lot of people sucking the tit that shouldn’t be.
Puff as much as you want and try spiffy charts, but it does come ultimately to dollars and the percentage the state squeezes out of people’s paychecks. In these trying times ESPECIALLY we should absolutely expect our lawmakers have squeezed very single last dime of efficiency out of services BEFORE they even consider going to the trough. To date, they haven’t come close to demonstrating that to me or the public. There’s WAY more fat out there…and a big chunk of it are in the unions.
re 2: That sounds reasonable, but to answer the question, you would need the % of the budget that salaries take over a representative period of years.
Why don’t you look that stuff up, and report your findings only if they fit your pre-conceived notions.
” … technology and productivity gains may make goods cheaper to produce …”
Another reason goods produced by the private sector are cheaper to produce is because so many companies have cut corners with their products that even once-revered brand names are now cheap crap.
Not only that, the money you save on the purchase price is often an illusion, because the lower relative cost of a refrigerator or washing machine is likely to be more than offset by costly service calls and earlier replacement.
Goldy,
Good post overall, but you did leave out the issue of capacity. That, too, breaks the assumption held by conservatives that government expenditures should parallel population growth plus inflation. The classic example of this is the perennial traffic problem that plagues the Puget Sound area, but other examples abound.
This is a problem that’s exacerbated by the sensitivity of Washington’s tax structure to business-cycle fluctuations. Capacity improvements get postponed during business-cycle down-turns, and have to be made up during business-cycle up-turns often-times at even greater expense than they would have required had the government had a more steady revenue stream.
It’s more than specious to argue that politicians in Olympia have been spending like a bunch of drunken sailors without taking into account the amount of capacity expansion that had to be included in up-turn budgets due to the fact that capacity expansion had to be suspended during the previous down-turn.
“It’s not that, compared to the private sector, government is inherently less efficient at delivering services …”
We’ve now had enough experience with privatizing government services to know that private businesses generally haven’t been able to perform these functions more efficiently than government did.
When government services are privatized, one of two things normally happens. Either the cost is the same or higher than when government provided the service, or the contractor achieved lower costs solely by slashing the wages and benefits of the workers who provide the service.
Simply cutting workers’ incomes is neither “efficiency” nor “productivity,” but it’s hard to get Republicans to understand that.
@2 “Or, could it be the notion that organized labor at a state, county, and local level have systematically been engaging in inflating their compensation and benefits at a rate that far exceeds inflation and is fundamentally unsustainable given things like I-695 and reluctance to more taxes.”
That is utter and complete bullshit, at least in this state. The real wages of state workers in Washington have steadily gone down over the last 30 years.
Cut baby, cut!
@6
Beyond AIG: A bill to let Big Government set your salary. Have no fear Barney’s here to save your day.
http://www.washingtonexaminer......58597.html
Between Mr. Cynical, The Truth, PuddyBud and myself we’ve taken over HA!
hahahahahaha.
Technology doesn’t affect police, health or teaching services? Are you fucking kidding me? Maybe not when unions administer them…
Have you ever noticed that all the assertions from asshats on the left require some pavlovian response to nonsense?
Now I’d like to tell you a true-life story about private sector efficiency.
We paid off our burrow last year. The lender (a local S & L) charged us a fee to file the documents releasing the lien with the county. They were supposed to send us a copy.
We never got the documentation showing our free-and-clear ownership of our hole, so Mrs. Rabbit called them yesterday to complain. When the person who took her call told her it would take at least another month, she threatened to call KING 5 TV’s “Get Jesse.”
Of course, you know what happened next. Mrs. Rabbit was kicked upstairs to a supervisor, who blamed the delay on the county. But guess what showed up in today’s mail?
Executive summary: Once they had our payoff money in their hot little hands, they didn’t give a shit about us as customer anymore, and the loan release documents we were supposed to get sat in someone’s in-box for months. When we complained, they lied about it and blamed the government. And someone went and got the document out of the in-box, ran it through a copy machine, and mailed it to us — which took all of 5 minutes — because Mrs. Rabbit had threatened to call a TV station’s consumer affairs editor.
Think about this the next time someone in a bank or other private company gives you a song-and-dance about “inefficient government”: They may be blaming the government to cover up their own procrastination and inefficiency. Very clearly, that’s exactly what happened here.
“We’ve now had enough experience with privatizing government services to know that private businesses generally haven’t been able to perform these functions more efficiently than government did.”
At what altitude did you pick this cherry?
LOL ! Your posts are becoming hilarious.
Would be nice if you could link these tales.
I’m gonna save the preceding comment in my archives, and the next time some wingnut posts a comment extolling private enterprise and bashing government workers, I’m gonna retrieve it and shove it up his ass.
I’m not saying government bureaucracies are perfect, or that all bureaucrats are efficient.
But I certainly will argue that there’s no damned difference between a lazy bank employee and a lazy government employee.
Human nature is the same everywhere, and private enterprise has no inherent advantages over government when it comes to motivation or efficiency.
@13 From numerous news reports and analyses over a period of more than 20 years. If you want to dispute it, let’s see you disprove it, jerk.
If I wanted to cherry pick I’d start with the private jail company that bribed juvenile court judges in Pennsylvania to send kids to prison for trivial offenses. But it isn’t even necessary to venture into the well-populated realm of crooked contractors and outright ripoffs to find examples of why contracting government services to the private sector rarely saves money and sometimes is a costly mistake.
Roger Rabbit Quiz
Which is a more efficient use of taxpayer money?
[ ] 1. Paying a soldier $15,000 a year to man a guard post
[ ] 2. Paying a private security contractor $150,000 a year to man a guard post
Roger…
Seems private banks have become highly efficient–at taking gargantuan amounts of their depositors’ and the taxpayers’ money and turning it into $3,000 lunches, blowjobs in the backs of limousines, villas in the South of France, and other “basic essentials” for their senior executives.
Between Mr. Cynical, The Truth, PuddyBud and myself we’ve taken over HA!
Nope, you have just made it easier for new readers to identify which posts (those you named) to ignore because they are full of ignorant and stupid Ad hominem attacks, void of merit or sense.
For example of wingnut wet dream, see #10 above.
@9 You’re damn right government should set the salaries when taxpayers are paying the salaries.
After all, that’s what you advocate for teachers and state workers, isn’t it? That taxpayers’ elected representatives, not unions, should decide how much they’re paid?
I’m a little different, though. I decide how much I’m paid, and if I don’t like the pay offer, I walk away. If you want me to work, then you have to pay what I want to get paid, not what you want to pay. Otherwise, take your job and shove it!
18 The Blackwater goons in Iraq apparently worked under a paradigm that defined their job efficiency simply in terms of how many people they killed, with no distinction of whether those killed happened to be the enemy.
This site has turned into a monumental collection of evidence to the effect that right wingers are certifiably insane, most of it contributed by the right wingers themselves.
@7. I didn’t say wages…I said compensation. There’s a difference and you know it. Although I believe wages fit my characterization as well (especially those unions subject to binding arbitration) it the benefits portion that has gone up even more so. The portion state employees pay in health care is low and widening compared to the rest of the country, increasingly unions utilize deferred compensation, and other benefits are up across the board.
Roger Rabitt doesn’t know the real cost per soldier per year.
Beyond their base pay that is.
As Barny Franks would say:
“Silwy Wabitt”
@19 Thank GMRS* I don’t have to deal with banks anymore, except to withdraw my deposits and collect the interest they owe me. I don’t owe a fucking cent to anyone! You know the old song,** “I owe, I owe, so off to work I go”?** Well, I don’t owe, and I don’t work!!! If banks want my deposits, they have to suck up to me, not the other way around!
* Great Mother Rabbit Spirit
** Sung to Disney’s “Snow White” theme song
@26 “the real cost per soldier per year” isn’t remotely close to what profligate Republicans paid to private mercenaries using our tax dollars.
@15
“But I certainly will argue that there’s no damned difference between a lazy bank employee and a lazy government employee.
Human nature is the same everywhere, and private enterprise has no inherent advantages over government when it comes to motivation or efficiency”.
Wrong try to fire a state city or federal employee….
@16
Nice to see at least one link to back up your claim.
AF @ 24
This site has turned into a monumental collection of evidence to the effect that right wingers are certifiably insane, most of it contributed by the right wingers themselves.
I’ve long marveled at the irony of Republican insistence that they should stand as the most compelling argument in favor of a Republican form of government.
@25 Sweetie, the only deferred compensation state employees get is what they themselves contribute to the state’s deferred comp plan.
Do state workers have a better health care deal than private sector employees? Depends on which private sector employees you compare them to. Better than Wal-Mart or most other retail companies, sure. Not as good as Boeing, and nowhere near as good as the union trades, where private employers pay into a union health and welfare fund.
As a retired state employee, I have to pay 100% of the cost of my health insurance. I have two neighbors who retired from the trades. One is a Boilermaker, the other an Operating Engineer. When they were working, they paid nothing for their health insurance, and now that they’re retired, they still pay nothing for their health insurance, and have no deductibles or copays. Mine costs nearly $1,000 a month for Mrs. Rabbit and me, has copays and deductibles, and every year goes up at least $100 a month. So tell me again how government benefits blow away anything in the private sector? It ain’t true, honey.
Am I better off then a Wal-Mart worker? Of course; I’m a lawyer, I do skilled work, so I should be compensated better than a cashier or greeter. But Wal-Mart is also a greedy company that makes its profits on the backs of taxpayers by shifting its health insurance costs from the corporation to Medicaid — a practice that some states are starting to take legislative action against.
@30 I’m not your fucking research assistant. If you want to back up your claims, do your own fucking homework.
@29 What’s that gibberish supposed to mean? What, exactly, are you trying to say?
Any of you wingnuts want to try to justify the $100,000-year plus salaries paid by our government to “private security contractors” in Iraq for doing essentially the same job that Army and Marine Corps privates are expected to do when they’re not busy fighting battles — namely, guarding stuff?
@22
If the Business wants a government bail out sure we should set some rules. He wants to go after your interest maybe it’s to much in his opinion or the gas station owner charging 3 cents more than the other stations.
“Pay for Performance Act of 2009,” would impose government controls on the pay of all employees — not just top executives — of companies that have received a capital investment from the U.S. government. It would, like the tax measure, be retroactive, changing the terms of compensation agreements already in place. And it would give Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner extraordinary power to determine the pay of thousands of employees of American companies. “
@18
Where is this guard post located ?
@35
Sure war zone I don’t remember hearing hiring adds on Air America or seen any on HA.
Also you not telling the whole story they where guarding the State Dept employees which was a big waste of tax money. They where doing allot more than sitting in a chair watching TV.
Do you think paying Secret Service over $200,000.00 year protecting loser boy?
26 Oh, you mean the cost of replacing blown-off body parts?
Let me get this straight: you’re lecturing a veteran (who also happens to be an attorney) about military benefits?
Have you also tried to tell your grandmother’s duck how to lap ashes?
What a tool.
25 The real bad news is not that state employees get pensions and decent health coverage.
It’s that so many other people don’t. This is the direct result of Cheap Labor Conservatives(tm) demolishing the social contract over the last thirty-plus years.
@34
“Wrong try to fire a state city or federal employee….”
What part of this don’t you understand?
The rest of the post was your rubbish.
25. Matty spews:
The Union KLOWNS and minions intentionally avoid any discussion of Paid Benefits and Paid Time-off. Indeed, these have risen astronomically and out of proportion with the private sector. TOTAL COMPENSATION is what should always be discussed. You can tell the insincerity of the KLOWNS by how they try to side-step it or pretend it’s what everyone gets. Until we get TOTAL COMPENSATION on the table for the taxpayers to see and disect…we will get nowhere.
@32
“Am I better off then a Wal-Mart worker? Of course; I’m a lawyer, I do skilled work, so I should be compensated better than a cashier or greeter.”
Two days ago you where a dog show judge. Now your a lawyer. No wounder you pay high insurance premiums. You have above average problems.
Goldy–
There are very, very few study’s done on State Government Productivity. It is up to our Elected Officials to build that into the system. However, the futile stabs show how unconcerned our Electeds are about PRODUCTIVITY. When you cannot measure it, you cannot have a Benchmark. It all becomes very subjective…which is what we are down to here (you included). You want folks to show Start Government is inefficient…we want those Elected to show that it is BEFORE any more tax increases.
@33
You liberals can’t contain your angry. You talk and that’s all it is. You couldn’t even back out of your hole without help. LOL!
A more healthy approach would be to look at each service the State Government provides, outline it’s mission…then ask is it Mandatory or Discretionary and is it necessary.
If so, how do we most cost effectively provide it. It is a long and arduous task. But isn’t that why we have Representatives, Senators and a Governor? To look out for “We the People” rather than to look for ways to shake us down for more money BEFORE they do the necessary accountability which a reasonable person would believe to include Productivity measurements, organizational structure analysis etc??
These agencies operate independently which has led to a lot of overlap and problems.
Why should all this be so new and why has so little been done?
Because it’s easier to tax and squander!
@ 41
What part of this don’t you understand?
All of it. It reads like a bad case of “Engrish” where someone named “Wrong” tried to fire a state, city or Federal employee.
Budget plan to fuck over lowest paid state employees.
Little mentioned is the fact that they want to raise health share costs for state employees as a way to balance the budget. Now remember that this is basically a lump sum for each employee. The poorest state employee, someone making somewhere just over 22K per year pays the exact same out of pocket expense for health insurance as the coach of the Huskies, someone who is making over a million dollars per year.
So the employee that can least afford it, will be paying a way higher penalty to balance the budget than the employees making the most money. This is absolutely fucked up.
When times are going good, we all get straight percentage raises, which go disproportionately to employees at the top. If you make 60K per year, your 3.2% raise will net you twice the money of someone making 30K per year.
Now add the indisputable fact that higher paid classifications get reclassified upward way more often than lower paid classifications, and you understand that higher paid jobs got raise two to five times bigger than my raise in the 2007 contract. This is a fact.
So the end result is the people at the top make out when the economy is going good. And the people at the bottom get disproportionately screwed when the economy is going bad.
As a relatively low paid state employee, I regularly get screwed in good times or bad times. When the economy finally turns around they will delay reclassifying lower paid employees while once again taking care of higher classifications first. By the time it is my turn, the economy is in the toilet again, so I miss out again. This cycle repeats roughly every five years.
Do you think one single newspaper or source will print the fact that the lowest paid state employees are doing more than their share? Hell no!
Baxter–
More importantly, the fact that the higher paid State Employees are not paying their fair-share.
We need to increase Employee contributions on all State Employees with TOTAL COMPENSATION of $80,000 and more (Salary + Benefits + 15% for paid time-off)
So baxter, what is your salary that you feel is “low-paid”?? What are your benefits worth?
Lay it out.
How much does it cost to put a school of bronze fish on an overpass?
Couldn’t you compare efficiencies between public and private employees where the occupations are the same?
The OP seems to imply that government has unique occupations that don’t exist in private sector, and because of this, you can’t compare. Maybe you can’t compare broadly between the two, but you must certainly be able to compare a government programmer’s efficiency vs a private programmer. (and construction workers, nurses, etc.)
Don’t forget to calculate state pensions given state FTE’s…
I can’t argue with Goldy’s main point that inflation+population is not the way to index gov’t growth.
But what is always left out is the tax money spent on gov’t “services” that we neither want nor need. Baseball stadiums, $4 million in art at a sewer plant, state troopers molesting female motorists who go on “adminstrative leave” for 1.5 years, rapist teachers also on ‘admin leave’ etc. $100,000 for a study on how to make the Viaduct a historical landmark at the same time the state was studying was to tear it down. $67500 paid for a Seattle judge who sexually harassed. $800,000 paid for a Mountlake Terrace cop who let off a pot suspect.
There are just too many examples of such “services” that we could do without. Otherwise, Goldy might have a point.
“You liberals can’t contain your angry.”
Less productivity and fewer students per teacher could have its advantages.
@52 A couple examples of the better known fuck ups in the private sector: The Exxon Valdez spill (which hasn’t been paid for yet, and still requires govt. input to correct), and the Thyokol O-ring oops that brought down the Challenger. Most of the private sector doozies are not made public.
“$4 million in art at a sewer plant”
With the state’s .05% for art program, that’d be an $800,000,000 sewer plant!
re 11: Does a 1 hour class with 31 students go faster if the teacher has a computer?
No. It doesn’t. So, your point was what?
Bottom line is that we’ve been down this conservative road since Reagan took office and it’s got us back to 1929.
So, trolls, quit muddying the waters with your unworkable bullshit and allow the grownups to fix your mess.
@47
At least the other guy couldn’t remember if he was a judge or a lawyer. I’ll take my miss givings anytime compared to a bunch of Loser boys. Who can’t control angry and would probably be a a threat to society after having one beer.
It is absolutley hilarious to see when the conservative pro-business crowd was posting their nuggets of wisdom. All of it between 8 AM and 5 PM. No doubt, this is evidence of the hard-working, toiling that private sector employees do, while we public sector employees waste our days—actually working.
In my office, with 2.5 people, we’ve managed to become one of the top nationally recognized service agencies for the work we do. We do it for about 1/2 the cost for 2.5 people that one person makes in a year at a comparable private organization in Seattle, without the downtown Seattle rent prices. If you compared the effect we have on the constituencies served, we outpace the private group in numbers of people served as well as the depth and breadth of that service. We rock. Deal with it.
@58 I think it’s all posted by one guy, and I think he’s getting paid. Those are the business hours of the BIAW. His name is Kevin Carns.
@55 Don’t try to reason with these blockheads. Just kick them.
@43 You have to be a lawyer to be a judge, idiot.
The racist one farts:
And they did such a great job with AIG. Now Obama is a car CEO. With these as the bellwethers, this will be a fun exercise.
Here is stillbentover’s latest in transportation:
http://www.crunchgear.com/2009.....bar-stool/
Wingnuts always want to cut the pay of government workers and teachers. It doesn’t matter how low their pay is; they want to cut it more. You see, wingnuts hate all forms of government, especially public schools, and take it out on those who work for government. It’s pointless trying to appease wingnuts; the best thing to do is tax them. They’re almost certainly not paying their fair share to begin with, so we can readily raise their taxes without guilt.
I love it when Goldy attempts to explain economics.
It should be titled “Economics for Dummies”…..by Dummy.
re 62: You are the racist. You are a white guy pretending to be black with feelings so sensitive that no one can say BOO! to you.
I know you are not a black man because you are such a freakin’ sissy.
66. headless lucy spews:
This is a personal invitation to join us for lunch in a public place so you can meet Puddy and tell him this to his face. Ask fellow KLOWNS SJ and GBS…they have told you before they have met Puddy.
I know you will wimp out..racist cowards like you always do.
Whatsamatta, you afraid of Black people??
“Implicit in the population plus inflation model is the notion that services delivered by the public sector are somehow representative of the economy as a whole, and thus the per unit costs incurred should generally rise in step with the Consumer Price Index. This notion also forms the basis of the critique in the comment thread that looks to the population-proportional growth in government FTEs as an indication of zero productivity growth, and “a fucking testament to inefficiency.””
Well now hold on – let’s recap: the growth rate in state employees looked on the chart to be the same as the population over the last forty years. Now you’re talking about the cost of services not declining like the cost of widgets has declined due to productivity gains. I wasn’t talking about the cost of services vs. the cost of goods – I was remarking on how the number of FTE’s the state pays for seems excessive.
Probably most state employees are more productive now in terms of their ability to serve numbers of people than their 1970 counterparts. The example of teachers would perhaps be an exception, although the growth rate of teachers hasn’t been that high because many kids are in private schools and public school kids as a percentage of population is less now than in 1970.
What we’ve got then is most state employees being more productive in terms of serving numbers of people. That raises the question of what is the cohort of current state employees that is less productive than the average state employee in 1970? Some big group of state employees is being paid to serve, on average, less of the population. I was asking if those were because of new regulations, or what . . . and that’s what I still don’t understand. Who are these state employees who aren’t being as productive in terms of serving the public?
Pelletizer@17: Those Luzerne County Bribed Judges are Dummocraptics. We all know you love to throw up pellets and pellets of real horseshit on HA but you should research what you upchuck dumb bunny.
http://sightsonpennsylvania.bl.....e-and.html
“Maybe the Luzerne County Democratic Committee can explain these donations from former Judge Mark Ciavarella to their party during his retention campaign. Sitting judges should not be making political donations according to the judicial cannons.”
Justice Michael Conahan is a Dummocraptic too.
This was a link on MSNBC until they determined they were Dummocraptic. www . msnbc . msn . com /id/28881082/
Tooooooooooooooooo
Damnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
Funnnnnnnnnnnnnnny
Pelletizer, this would have been missed by the PuddyRadar as Puddy hadn’t seen this story.
Rules? We’re Democratics… We don’t follow any stinking rules.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahaha
Puddy will start his PuddyVestigation to determine how many of these incarcerated chilluns are minorities.
And spyder@20 is always caught spewing worthless nonsense previously disproven by us whom think right.
Matty@25:
You seriously think Pelletizer will argue back without twisting your comments? Witness Don Joe and how he twists anything and everything posted by us whom think right.
Cynical@67:
Many of the standard DL Crowd met Puddy. Puddy got PacMan to attend once, because headlice thought Puddy and Paccy were the same peep. What a fool!
Professor Darryl and Puddy trade emails. Puddy actually agrees with Lee on some of his drug comments. Isn’t that amazing? Puddy walked up to Goldy unannounced at a DL stuck out his hand first and introduced himself to Goldy. Only a really secure man offers his hand first.
Puddy would size up clueless wonder and rulax and place hand in latex glove first. Spyder is a moron plain and simple. But spyder won’t read this cuz he “skips over our posts”.
Puddy–
Some of these KLOWNS are probably semi-decent human beings and worth getting acquainted with.
Others like headlice, ByeBye, Kountry Klubber steve & YLB–
All they are is time well wasted.
I’ll get us a big box of Latex gloves.
I think they have them at Costco!
Maybe 2 Big Boxes.
nob @ 68
Now you’re talking about the cost of services not declining like the cost of widgets has declined due to productivity gains.
The key phrase being “due to productivity gains,” which, to be more accurate, should be stated as, “due to differences in productivity gains.” Labor remains the primary differential component in both sets of costs.
I wasn’t talking about the cost of services vs. the cost of goods – I was remarking on how the number of FTE’s the state pays for seems excessive.
Except that you can’t conclude that the number of FTE’s is excessive without assuming productivity gains.
Probably most state employees are more productive now in terms of their ability to serve numbers of people than their 1970 counterparts.
That doesn’t follow from the data we’ve seen so far. It’s entirely possible, indeed the thesis of Goldy’s post is, that most government services are not susceptible to any kind of productivity gains whatsoever, because they are inherently labor-intensive requiring professional services.
Also, one needs to take into account the possibility that the government has expanded some labor-intensive services either due to some cost-benefit analysis or in response to some voter initiative.
Lastly, as Goldy pointed out, the mixture of required government services also depends on specific changes in demographics. It’s entirely possible to see an increase in the required number of state employees as a result of a shift in demographics (say from working age to retirement age) without any increase in overall population.
In short, there isn’t any evidence to suggest that any productivity gains in government services would have necessarily resulted in a reduction in the ratio of government employees to overall population. There are too many unknown variables for us to make the kinds of blanket assumptions you want to make.
Puddy @ 71 spews:
Witness Don Joe and how he twists anything and everything posted by us whom think right.
You’ll all have to excuse Puddy’s delusions. He’s had his ass handed to him rather recently, and is still reeling from the sting.
The two members of the right wing circle jerk from hell: Stupes and Mr. Klynical???
Imagine getting “acquainted” with that. Shudder… Never in any thinking person’s lifetime.
Delusional Don Joe: They you go again with your delusions.
Some one wake him up please.
Remember this?
clueless wonder asks:
monomaniacal synonyms: neurotic, delusional, disturbed, psychoneurotic, maladjusted, paranoid, deranged, schizoid, obsessional, obsessive, pathological, phobic.
So yes it’s you, clueless wonder, hiding behind your own screen name.
And just think everyone, it was an HA lefty who named clueless wonder this wonderful adjective…
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahaha
You lose.
KABLAMMMMO
“That doesn’t follow from the data we’ve seen so far. It’s entirely possible, indeed the thesis of Goldy’s post is, that most government services are not susceptible to any kind of productivity gains whatsoever, because they are inherently labor-intensive requiring professional services.”
Professional service providers such as lawyers, accountants, auditors, etc. are vastly more produtive in the private sector now. PC’s, on-line research tools, databases filled with the data they need to do their jobs all allow professional service providers to be far more productive now than in 1970.
I expect exactly the same thing is true for lawyers, accountants, auditors, and the like in the public sector as well. Far fewer FTE’s are needed in secretarial slots in agencies using professionals, no FTE’s are on the state payroll pushing carts full of inter-office memos around the floors of buildings, filing clerks aren’t being hired by state agencies, etc. so a given state lawyer FTE (say) is doing what probably 2.3 FTE’s were doing in 1970.
If Goldy’s thesis is that professional service providers hired by the state aren’t more productive FTE’s than a FTE was in 1970 – which isn’t what I think he’s saying – then something state professional services providers is terribly wrong. The productivity gains as between the public and private sectors should be comparable (in terms of serving numbers of people, which is the data that chart presents).
“Also, one needs to take into account the possibility that the government has expanded some labor-intensive services either due to some cost-benefit analysis or in response to some voter initiative”
That’s what I’ve been saying. There might be a rational explanation: 10,000 people were hired by the state to push 10,000 wheelbarrows around all day moving dirt in three state parks (in other words, some huge hiring of state FTE’s to serve some small number of people). I don’t know what jobs those relatively less productive FTE’s would be doing though. What the data suggest is that a bunch of them are on the state payroll.
See I look at that chart and think “Hey, why aren’t all state FTE’s more productive in terms of serving the population than they were in 1970?”
And contrary to what this new article we’re commenting under implies, I didn’t say anything yesterday one way or the other about what the right wing nuts (or whatever they’re called) apparently bitch about – the cost of each FTE growing over time.
Puddy @ 77
There you go again, making unsubstantiated statements of fact. Statements like, Alan Greenspan is a “leftist pinhead”.
78 – LOL! Hey Stupes, I’ve noticed that a big, strong (in the olfactory sense) fool like you is quick to come to the aid of the right wing women folk like Sarah Palin.
Well crank up that old guilt-by-association thang.
Sarah and Todd be pallin’ around with Scientologists:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....77709.html
What a fool you are!
Nob @ 79
Professional service providers such as lawyers, accountants, auditors, etc. are vastly more produtive in the private sector now.
That’s not at all obvious, at least if we’re measuring “productivity” in terms of the number of people they’re able to serve. Advances in technology have enabled lawyers, for example, to produce more cogent legal analyses that take into consideration an ever-increasing body of case law, but that doesn’t, in any inherent way, directly translate into attorneys being able to provide the same level of services to increasing numbers of people.
That caveat is as likely to apply to any of the other labor-intensive, professional services provided by the government. The ability to process information more effectively translates into a higher quality of service, not necessarily an increase in the quantity of people served.
See I look at that chart and think “Hey, why aren’t all state FTE’s more productive in terms of serving the population than they were in 1970?”
I think we all got that the first time you asserted it. The point is, you still haven’t cited any data that would justify your specific expectations about productivity.
@68 “Who are these state employees who aren’t being as productive in terms of serving the public?”
They’re called management. The ratio of managers to front-line workers in most state agencies has increased at a crazy rate. Admittedly, more managers are required to manage contracts with private sector. However, using Community Services Division at DSHS as an example, front-line service-providing staff has decreased by roughly 6% in the past decade or so and caseloads have increased as much as 24% for some programs in the past 12 months.
Additionally, you CAN fire a state employee for Just Cause and there’s nothing a public sector union can do to stop it. What you can’t do is arbitrarily fire or discipline a represented employee. Just Cause for termination includes documented job non-performance and insubordination.
It isn’t the service-providing staff that are driving up the cost of doing the state’s business, it’s the layers of bureaucratic management (much of which is mandated by the feds).
Remember it’s private sector mis-management and outsourcing manufacturing jobs that got us in the financial mess we’re in now, not front-line public sector employees.
“Advances in technology have enabled lawyers, for example, to produce more cogent legal analyses that take into consideration an ever-increasing body of case law, but that doesn’t, in any inherent way, directly translate into attorneys being able to provide the same level of services to increasing numbers of people.”
You are wrong about that. Technology has allowed professional state FTE’s to provide services to far greater numbers of people.
By definition a FTE state accountant doing some task that benefits the state overall is being more productive in terms of serving people now than when a 1970 FTE accountant was doing a comparable task(say, reviewing monthly accounts payable reports from DOL or something). That’s a function of the population being so much larger.
In addition, that accountant is working on spreadsheets sent electronically now, and there’s software to reconcile balances, pivot tables to cross check, etc. Plus that accountant doesn’t need other FTE’s, like someone to type up inquiry letters, someone to file reports, etc. Those things mean a FTE accountant can work on more, and much more detailed, reconcilliations in a given day.
The same holds true for a lawyer who’s job it is to prepare memos and briefs for the AG’s office, for example.
Professional state workers are more productive in terms of serving numbers of people for those two reasons (technology helping them do their tasks better and faster, and also eliminating the need for all the FTE’s that were required to support professional FTE’s in 1970).
So that begs the question of who are the FTE’s who are so much less productive in terms of serving the people of the state. It isn’t the accountants and lawyers.
nob @ 84
You are wrong about that. Technology has allowed professional state FTE’s to provide services to far greater numbers of people.
Sorry, but that’s just not obvious, for, well, obvious reasons.
By definition a FTE state accountant doing some task that benefits the state overall is being more productive in terms of serving people now than when a 1970 FTE accountant was doing a comparable task
Except that this increase in productivity would only translate into increased services to the public if the government were in the business of providing direct accounting services to the public.
This gets back to my original objection to your first comment in the other thread. You can’t simply compare similar functions in the private and public sectors in order to extrapolate out to the quantity of people that the public sector is able to serve, because the services aren’t the same.
moron@81: There you go again using the kook-aid sites. Puddy guesses an inspection of your bookmarks are all left wing horseshit sites.
Watch the pithy comment from the paranoid, maladjusted one.
“Except that this increase in productivity would only translate into increased services to the public if the government were in the business of providing direct accounting services to the public.”
My observation about the number of state employees having grown too large was not limited just to those providing what you call “direct . . . services to the public.” The majority of state employees don’t provide “direct . . . services to the public,” and the chart yesterday wasn’t limited to that small subset.
Now you want to make points about state employees who provide “direct . . . services to the public?” What state lawyer or state accountant does that? None of them. They provide services to and for the state government.
Don Joe, okay Greenspan isn’t a pinhead.
86 – LMAO!! Greta and her husband are Scientologists Stupes.
Why would Sarah and Todd hang out with such people? Would you or Mr. Klynical? Sarah’s own right wing peeps are PO’ed about it.
You can’t handle the truth. ‘Cuz you be a fool!
“This gets back to my original objection to your first comment in the other thread. You can’t simply compare similar functions in the private and public sectors in order to extrapolate out to the quantity of people that the public sector is able to serve, because the services aren’t the same.”
That wasn’t what I did. I expressed concern and disappointment that state FTE’s aren’t any more productive now in terms of serving numbers of people than were state employees in 1970. That lack of progress can be seen by looking at the chart. It is pathetic, and across the board (that is, it’s a phenomenon that can be seen when you include the many state employees who indirectly serve people by serving the government).
nob @ 87
My observation about the number of state employees having grown too large was not limited just to those providing what you call “direct . . . services to the public.” The majority of state employees don’t provide “direct . . . services to the public,” and the chart yesterday wasn’t limited to that small subset.
First of all, your “observation” isn’t an observation at all. It’s a conclusion, and that conclusion is based on incomplete data and faulty reasoning.
Secondly, you’re assuming that the government’s internal need for things like accounting services is not influenced by anything other than population growth, which is demonstrably false. A clear example if this would be voter-mandated performance audits, which increase the need for a number of internal governmental services for reasons having nothing to do with the size of the population.
So what about Great. She and Shep Smith are the leftists on Fox. Here it is again fool…
clueless wonder asks:
monomaniacal synonyms: neurotic, delusional, disturbed, psychoneurotic, maladjusted, paranoid, deranged, schizoid, obsessional, obsessive, pathological, phobic.
So yes it’s you, clueless wonder, hiding behind your own screen name.
And just think everyone, it was an HA lefty who named clueless wonder this wonderful adjective…
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahaha
You lose. Isn’t it great your own side dismisses you too? Only one stood up for you and he invented the Stupid Solution. Come on only one clueless wonder fan? I bet on FB or MSpace you’d have one friend. Sucks to be you sucka.
Toooooooooooooooo
Damnnnnnnnnnnnnn
Funnnnnnnnnnnnnny
LMAO – KABLAMMMMO
clueless moron you are so dumb. The world knew Van Susteren was a Scientologist since the 90s. At CNN Greta was their legal beagle and Scientologist. But as always your head is up someone’s ASS and the world moves on without you.
It’s 04012009 and clueless moron just found out. What a schizoid clueless wonder.
Tom Cruise and John Travolta are Scientologists. From your moronic commentary above you’d run away from both. What a useless used wad of toilet paper you are!
92, 93 – LOL! What a losing moron! Keep it up Stupes.
You’re doing a first class job of playing the fool.
You were made for it.
@81
Obama hangs around with Terrorists.
His wife slips out in the middle of the night to be with Farrakhan.
LOSER BOY Screws up again.
Riots greet loser boy.
“Unlike President Bush’s White House communications team, which usually timed press conferences abroad to coincide with the U.S. morning programs, the Obama operation kicked off the president’s first day in Britain while most Americans were still asleep. What’s more, the president banned most reporters from nearly every event he held on a day busy with bilateral talks with foreign leaders, and even held cameras at bay for his visit to Buckingham Palace to meet the queen.
The 24-hour cable shows began their morning programs with endless footage of hooligans clashing with British bobbies.
“They’re the only pictures being shown out of London right now,” said Christiane Amanpour, CNN’s chief international correspondent. But anchor Christine Romans assured viewers: “There’s a lot of other hard work going on behind closed doors,” although a split-screen showed only the raging protest in the streets of the city’s financial district. ”
http://washingtontimes.com/new.....a-no-show/
Hey clueless wonder did you send Rachel MadCow birthday wishes?
What a fool!
LMAO @ clueless wonder@94. You are the fool. See point #4
You are the wet noodle
You are Goldy’s chimp
You are the bottom ladder of HA weasels
You are disliked by your own kind
You wank over left-wing kook-aid
You can’t think of anything original
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahaha
LMAO @ clueless wonder@94
Two of your hollyweird stars are Scientologists… and you are still a moron too.
nob @ 90
Your original comment was:
You didn’t qualify the “productivity of workers” in any way that would distinguish it from the entire economy as a whole, and you certainly expressed the expectation that the productivity of government sector workers would parallel that of all workers.
I had pointed out that this isn’t a valid baseline comparison, and that, if you want to make any reasonable statements about the productivity of Washington State employees, the proper baseline is the productivity of all government sector employees.
My comment at 85 in this thread is a clarification of what I’d said about the proper baseline. One of the reasons we can’t compare the productivity of government sector employees to the productivity of all employees regardless of sector is that productivity is measured in different ways in different sectors.
Consider computer programmers in the private sector. We don’t measure their productivity in terms of the number of people who are served by the software they write. Yet, you’re trying to extrapolate from productivity gains for private sector computer programmers to productivity gains for computer programmers in the public sector based on the number of people that the government serves. That extrapolation is flawed, because it involves two distinctly different measures of productivity.
I feel sorry for his kids, If they believe in Christmas. LOL!
“Barack Obama’s gift for the Queen: an iPod, your Majesty”
She already has one!!! LOSER BOY!
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/t.....ur_majesty
97-99 – LMAO! Three posts that only put your desperation and impotence in a clearer light. Thanks for helping to make my points about the incompetence and increasing irrelevance of the right wing.
You’re doing fantastic Stupes. Keep it up.
Make it 4 comments next time.
Wow! You been fooled again !
“Capitol Hill bonuses in 2008 were among the highest in years,”
http://online.wsj.com/article/.....76409.html
If you enact a state income tax, rich people are going to flee to Idaho!
*shakes fist at HA*
LMAO @ clueless moron@102: Anything for HAs lefty noted deranged one. Puddy knows there is neon lights flashing Vacancy in those bloodshot eyes.
Sucks to be the only lefty identified monomaniacal and neurotic and delusional and disturbed and psychoneurotic and maladjusted and paranoid and deranged and schizoid and obsessive and pathological and phobic leftist pinhead from a peer. All those adjectives from a lefty.
Your won progressive peeps reject your commentary fool. We whom think right shake our heads at your continued lunacy. You didn’t know Greta was a scientologist since the 90s. You get picked apart every time you post. Your “son” must be proud of your clueless and not-wonderful banter.
See ya sucka
LMAO at your “cleverless” comments.
Crusader, Goldy ignores the 5500 millionaires doing their white flight from CA.
“A clear example if this would be voter-mandated performance audits, which increase the need for a number of internal governmental services for reasons having nothing to do with the size of the population.”
The SAO hires outside firms to do the big I-900 performance audits. And that’s another reason the number of state FTE’s shouldn’t be as high as it is: the state spends huge amounts on outside consultants (work that then FTE’s don’t need to perform).
“you’re assuming that the government’s internal need for things like accounting services is not influenced by anything other than population growth”
No I’m not.
I’m seeing what that chart shows: the growth rate of state FTE’s corresponds to the population growth rate of the state over the past 40 years.
Technology has 1) displaced some job types (“support staff”), and 2) made professionals much more efficient. Moreover, it is a given that a really big percentage of state workers now provide (indirect) benefits to many more people than they could have been serving in 1970 because they are providing those services to and for the government. In light of those changes, you’d expect the growth rate in state FTE’s to have dropped.
You’ve speculated that there may be new tasks that weren’t around in 1970 that many current state FTE’s are performing that benefit few people. So what are those jobs? Are 10,000 state FTE’s busily pushing wheelbarrows of dirt around in three state parks all day every day?
105 – Chock full of lies like all the other crap you post here.
Oh and throughout it all you implicitly admit that HuffPo told the truth about Greta and her hubby. I thought “kook-aid” didn’t do that.
See how easy it is to show what a fool you are?
Excellent. Keep up the good work.
103 – From the article you linked to:
The joke’s on you.
@81
The only reason huffington brought this up again was: 1- slow news day 2- to coverup LOSER BOYS G20 screw ups?
YES #2
Why else would you regurgitate this old story.
Let them. A state income tax awaits them there.
LMAO at the clueless moron@105
Puddy understands you are stupid.
Puddy understands you are a moron.
Puddy understands you live i momma’s basement. Puddy understands you are still shocked at whom called you monomaniacal?
Cynical or CJS or Jane or Janet S or RUFUS or Delbert or Crusader or Original Mark or Mark1 or MTR-X or MOT or The Truth or Right Stuff or Puddy?
Or was it an HA leftist? ANSWER HA leftist.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahaha
Next notice all the synonyms. The are you through and through.
Nutcase, Puddy said you didn’t know Greta was a Scientologist since the 90s. Show you ain’t paying attention to much. If you call that agreeing with HuffPo okay. The truth is the truth. You are still a clueless wonder.
It’s okay, you can take the pink granny panties off your head now.
@109
No it’s on you !!!
Congress spends the money remember you been in control since 2007.
If Democrats where upset about AIG employees getting bonuses then where is the outrage of these idiots who allowed the failure of our economy.
They fooled you again!
112 – Oh. LOL! This is working so well. Stupes you are amazing beyond my wishes with your batshit insanity.
I have to reward this.
In the past you’ve been paranoid about the Sharia law coming here if the “moonbats” get their way.
Well, the man we wanted in the White House was elected. The party we wanted controls the Congress. A few of the members aren’t what we’d like but we’re working on that.
And the Supreme Court will soon be in good hands!
So this is fresh off the press from Faux News:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyo.....Sharia-law
LMAO!! Now let’s see you dance!
@114
He’s a wacko and the only place he can find a job is in Government.
Even so as dean he should have no problem with that interview neither should you.
It’s so trendy among leftists to say “Faux News”.
clueless wonder@114: Haven’t been paying attention to kos as it’s not my first choice o read for real news fool. Man your head is so far up his ASS…
But since you asked clueless wonder because you don’t accept anything except kook-aid sites… http://bismarcktribune.com/art.....178713.txt
It’s already starting fool!
nob @ 107
First, a factual issue involving an example:
The SAO hires outside firms to do the big I-900 performance audits.
Regardless of who conducts the audit, the ability to conduct the audit requires the implementation of additional procedures and work required to provide the documentation required for the audit. This is work that would not need to be done in the absence of an audit.
Now, back to the substance:
Technology has 1) displaced some job types (”support staff”), and 2) made professionals much more efficient. Moreover, it is a given that a really big percentage of state workers now provide (indirect) benefits to many more people than they could have been serving in 1970 because they are providing those services to and for the government. In light of those changes, you’d expect the growth rate in state FTE’s to have dropped. [emphasis added]
Frankly, it’s difficult for me to imagine a more blatant form of begging the question than the portion of your paragraph that I emphasized above. The very substance of Goldy’s post is that “a really big percentage” of government employees engage in the kinds of work that is not susceptible to the kinds of productivity improvements that we’ve seen in the private sector. Why not simply say that you don’t believe the data Goldy references, and be done with it?
You’ve speculated that there may be new tasks that weren’t around in 1970 that many current state FTE’s are performing that benefit few people.
No. I’ve provided hypothetical, yet realistic, scenarios that show how your underlying assumptions do not necessarily hold true. Your assumptions might be valid in light of more specific data pertaining to the number of particular job functions in government and the correlation between each particular job function and the state’s ability to provide services to a given population size, but your assumptions are not supported by the data we currently have.
So what are those jobs?
I don’t know. You tell me. These are the assumptions that you want to make, so the onus is on you to provide data to justify those assumptions.
117 – LMAO!!! Kos watches Faux so I don’t have to. I don’t pay for that shit.
Thanks for playing…
You’re so well trained..
Fool@114:
You also forgot the uproar about the Minneapolis cab drivers in 2008 who wouldn’t pick up people who had alcohol in their bags or on their breath. So not many HA leftist pinheads would get cab rides in Minnesota.
Once again all can see the monomaniacal one in action.
Obsessed with kos.
Obsesses with HuffPo.
Get help dude.
Watch for the obsessed response from clueless wonder. He has no original thought in his granite head.
LOSER BOY has broken this promises so many times we can’t keep count.
What is he hiding that the money went somewhere else? We know that but where?
“Watchdogs: Treasury won’t disclose bank bailout details”
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/65195.html
Hey Stupes,
The Fool @ 122 called Obama a “boy”.
See how your peeps do?
Not that you care. What a fool..
@123
He is a LOSER BOY dumb shit unless his wife told you something different?
You always look to make a mountain out of a mole hill. I been calling him a LOSER BOY for many weeks and you just noticed it today. No wounder you can’t find a job. LOL!
@119
You can’t even get news on your own. Once it’s filtered and the truth is left out then you call it news.
LOL!
SHEEP!!!!
“The very substance of Goldy’s post is that “a really big percentage” of government employees engage in the kinds of work that is not susceptible to the kinds of productivity improvements that we’ve seen in the private sector.
That’s not even close to what “Goldy’s post” says. What that posting and the article it quotes say is that the cost of providing government services has risen much more rapidly than inflation. I’m not arguing against that point.
“I’ve provided hypothetical, yet realistic, scenarios that show how your underlying assumptions do not necessarily hold true.”
What “underlying assumptions?” I’ve got questions about why these data look like they do.
I’m questiong the reasons for these data, not making assumptions about them.
I’m looking at that chart and seeing an incongruity: state FTE’s have grown at a rate comparable to the population since 1970 despite the fact that a state employee – especially those who provide benefits to the state government primarily and only indirectly to the public – should be able to work far more productively than a state employee was in 1970.
What I’m doing is looking at those parallel growth trends and seeing an absence of productivity increases. That is a bad thing. It makes no sense – I’m sure technology is being used by many state employees in a way that has increased their productivity and decreased the need for “support staff” type positions.
So why can’t the population be served by relatively fewer state employees?
Is there a bunch of deadwood?
Is there some big new set of state workers doing something that state workers didn’t do in 1970? What are they doing, and who are they?
The poors tax rebate went up in smoke.
“PROMISES, PROMISES: Obama tax pledge up in smoke”
http://www.breitbart.com/artic....._article=1
There you go again clueless wonder@122. You haven’t been paying attention to any of the previous threads have you fool? In one ear and out the toilet.
What a moronic idiot. No wonder your side doesn’t pay attention to your drivel. So lonely isn’t it?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahaha
nob @ 126
That’s not even close to what “Goldy’s post” says. What that posting and the article it quotes say is that the cost of providing government services has risen much more rapidly than inflation. I’m not arguing against that point.
Now I’m wondering if you even read the post:
What “underlying assumptions?” I’ve got questions about why these data look like they do.
I’m questiong the reasons for these data, not making assumptions about them.
Have you stopped beating your wife?
Some questions have underlying assumptions. You cannot be unaware of this, can you?
What I’m doing is looking at those parallel growth trends and seeing an absence of productivity increases.
You’re also expecting to see productivity increases, but, as I believe I’ve been pointing out for quite some time now, your expectation of productivity increases isn’t justified.
You’re also completely ignoring a significant part of Goldy’s original post, so I’m beginning to wonder if there’s any point in continuing this discussion.
128 – LOL! What a fool! If I called you that you’d be starting a new bullshit tally on people denouncing me.
You don’t fool anyone because you’re a fool yourself.
So are you going to ask “The Fool” nice and gentle not to call the President a “boy”?
Just askin’…
124 – You sound a little defensive there fool.
Naughty, naughty.. You think the President is inferior to you because of the color of his skin don’t you?
@117 Yeah, those Muslims are weird, huh?
Leviticus 25:36-37
36Take thou no usury of him, or increase: but fear thy God; that thy brother may live with thee.
37Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase.
I’m certain that you, Puddy, a good Christian, would never stoop to sin by allowing someone to sign a contract with you that involved their paying you interest. Nor would you ever pay interest yourself.
@131
ylb,
“Let’s see if I can make easy for you. LOSER MAN wouldn’t be correct as he hasn’t nor will he ever reach that peak. Loser Boy fit’s very well with a immature boy who thinks he can save the world by waving his hand.”
No need to do a sinful act to sin my boy. Just the thought of sin makes you a sinner.
“Naughty, naughty.. You think the President is inferior to you because of the color of his skin don’t you?”
(Humm you have something against be black and white?
I have never said that here or anywhere else.
However, ylb has a high record on saying those exact words you uncovering from all those years wearing a white hood and sheet?
I would advise you take hood, sheet off when looking for a job. On the other hand if you’re just like living off the backs of others leave them on.
@131
In 2009 with the first black President.
ylb is stuck in the 50-60’s where he ruled over the black man. For him to come up with that Boy crap shows how insecure he is for what he would call the Good Old Days.
This my friends is a low life sub human very close to a snake.
@134
Wow, there is more projection in this comment than in a movie theater.
133 – You could have called him just “loser” but that would be denying reality. He’s done nothing but win not only against your bankrupt ideology but even against an established political machine in his own party.
And he’s continued to win against the pathetic remainders of your party in Congress.
But instead you add “boy” which is intended to denigrate him because being so diminished yourself you need to see yourself as above him.
In your warped eyes, he’s too “uppity”. A self-made African American in the White House is too much for you to handle. Life’s so very tough for you right now, isn’t it?
So Goldy:
“For example, according to the federal Bureau of Economic Analysis, the cost to consumers of durable goods has plummeted 14 percent since 2000, while the cost of consumer services has risen 29 percent.”
That’s the guts of the article you quote, and you are trying to slam what I wrote yesterday based on it. Here’s the problem with that – I wasn’t addressing the costs of the services the state provides. I was commenting on how the fact that there’re no obvious productivity gains by state employees indicates a bad workforce. See, many of the current state employees must be able to serve many more people, directly and indirectly, than the typical 1970 state employee. That means there’s a big contingent of state employees now who are not as productive on that scale.
The designated hitter above wouldn’t speculate on the reasons for the growth rates of FTE’s and population being equal, nor would he/she address any of the questions I posed, which would have allowed issues to be narrowed. The purpose the d.h. intended to serve was throwing up stuff designed to deflect attention from the data shown by your chart yesterday.
You seem slavishly devoted to backing all things government-employment related. Could you disclose whether or not you receive payment from any source that make money off fairly recent tax collections? That might put what seems to be your kink into perspective.
The Truth,
clueless wonder supported John Deadwards. He didn’t like Obama at all. He liked philanderers. Almost says it all about clueless wonder.
What happened to that Sha’ria law argument you put forth earlier? Haven’t been paying attention huh fool? Well you didn’t read on the kook-aid sites so you like spyder – 100% ignorant.
Did I hear KABLAMMMMMMO again? Yes Puddy did.
Such a moron. All alone, no one on his side to play with.
Puddy gotta play it again…
Here it is again fool. The rest of the story… clueless wonder asks:
monomaniacal synonyms: neurotic, delusional, disturbed, psychoneurotic, maladjusted, paranoid, deranged, schizoid, obsessional, obsessive, pathological, phobic.
So yes it’s you, clueless wonder, hiding behind your own screen name.
And just think everyone, it was an HA lefty who named clueless wonder this wonderful adjective…
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahaha
You lose. Isn’t it great your own side dismisses you too? Daily weak sauce arguments easily dissected, full of holes. No real data to back it up. Uses sites taught to him because he has no clue how to acquire real data. And only one lefty stood up for you and he invented the Stupid Solution, Ekim’s favorite drink when in the goat pen. Come on only one clueless wonder fan? I bet on FB or MSpace you’d have one friend. Sucks to be you sucka.
Toooooooooooooooo
Damnnnnnnnnnnnnn
Funnnnnnnnnnnnnny
LMAO – KABLAMMMMO
138, 139…
LMAO!! Yet another lie. If you remember I expressed some enthusiasm about Obama around the time he announced. I told you back then there’s nothing you fear more than the first African American prez being a Dem. Ken Blackwell? Only in your masturbatory dreams.
When Obama rolled out his platform, yes I was less than enthused about his DLC style leanings and his past support for the likes of John Roberts. Edwards was more progressive – no doubt about it.
Is Obama a dream come true for progressives – nope, not entirely.
Is Obama a huge improvement over that disgusting chimp you voted for twice and his puppet-master Darth Cheney?
FUCK YES!!!
Losing? You been losing straight since Nov 2004 and you will continue to lose ‘cuz your head is up the right wing ass.
LOL! Such a pathetic fool.
Oh and when you write your rejoinder don’t forget to bark some orders to me about HL – which I’ll ignore of course.
I fully expect you to give “The Fool” a pass on calling the President “boy”.
nob @ 137
I don’t think anyone’s going to answer your question until you first tell us if you’ve stopped beating your wife. Or, at least, until you give anyone some plausible reason to believe that…
is true. Proof by repeated assertion, despite evidence to the contrary, might be enough to convince you. It’s not likely to convince anyone else.
Just a suggestion, but you might want to start by not ignoring the explanation given for why the costs of durable goods have gone down while the costs of consumer services have gone up.
Here is the reason your side doesn’t cum to your rescue clueless wonder@140. If you had “enthusiasm for Obama” put it up here. All Puddy saw was Deadwards luv. Puddy remembers while you don’t. You attack me as a liar all the time when Puddy brings it all the time. This is why they agree you are a bottom dwelling knuckle dragging Goldy simian, and an everyday buffoon. I’ll use HA to prove the PuddyPoint.
BTW everyone Will was for Deadwards waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back in 2007: http://horsesass.org/?p=2658 “I’m an Edwards guy, but I hope all the candidates get some clarity about who’s on our side and who’s not. Or maybe they’ll just get some “brass ones.”” That sez sumtin.
BTW everyone Goldy was for Deadwards too http://horsesass.org/?p=4057 “But it is Edwards who speaks to me and my vision of a more prosperous, free and just America for all our citizens.” That sez sumtin. Read this thread, really enlightening on the peeps who supported Deadwards…
clueless wonder has a wonderful memory: http://horsesass.org/?p=4038
This is when the clueless wonder thought having his name letters capitalized made him look great! What a toolfard.
3. YLB spews: “Sideline the billionaire, support the REAL Dem – John Edwards, the man with the most dangerous message to the beltway crowd – take the power from the corrupt corporate elites and give it back to the people where it belongs.”
14. YLB spews: “The establishment is panicking over the disarray among the Republicans and in sheer terror over the Dem Slate. The people are not enthusiastic over Hillary’s hard sell of a return to the 90’s or Obama’s Kumbaya message.”
22. YLB spews: 15 – There you go. The establishment line on Edwards with a heavy shot of neo-con insanity. That signals to me that Edwards is on the mark!
You had nuthin to say when Deadwards two bloggers were writing bigoted things February 2007 did ya?
In thread 4057:
6. YLB spews: Edwards – Obama would be an excellent team. If they could bury their egos or personal differences, they’d could get a lot done and it will take a lot to get done to clean up the pitiful mess Republicans have made of this country.
20. YLB spews: while he lives in a 28,000 square foot mansion paid for by suing big corporations.
How sweet it is. Holding greedheads accountable. Accountability is something else that gives the right wing terror spasms.
Even SeattleJew took issue with you
54. SeattleJew spews: @38 YLB “conservative principles” Can you spell oxymoron? Making it, getting rich, screwing the world .. are these”principles?” – When you support John Deadwards…
62. SeattleJew spews: I too could bvote for any of these guys, but would rank them by competence:
Biden, Dodd, Richardson, Hillary, Obama, Edwards – OUCH
My bottom line, I would hire Edwards to sell my case anyday. I am just not confidant that it is HIS case. He seems to me of all the Dems to be the best at pandering – Now there’s the best case for supporting Deadwards Puddy ever saw.
76. YLB spews: Edwards a phony? He’s the the most real thing ever to happen compared to the Mittster.
97. Bill Cruchon spews: “Do you notice how little Cruchon is worth anyone’s time?” Do you notice how YLB has no interest in actual debate about issues? It’s always the same with the left…ad-hominem attacks, and name calling. Is it really that difficult to actually have a discussion? – With HAs clueless wonder it’s his modus operandi. Once you destroy his commentary his ad-hominem attacks start. What a loser.
When Mickey Kaus told the world of Deadwards affair you in your continued luv of Deadwards answered:
36. Puddybud spews: Yes yelling loser boy, I remember this quote from some other John Deadwards jock strap: October 15, 2007 – “Kaus is one of those perpetuating the myth that John Edwards had an affair. Those ever so reliable anonymous sources told Kaus so. Even though the woman in question, Rielle Hunter, is on the record saying she did not have an affair with Edwards, Kaus’s anonymous sources say otherwise.” – Well we know this was true!
39. YLB spews: LMAO @ Stupes!!! Kaus? Just another showboating self-promoter with a grating style that I tune out. That the likes of you include him in your right wing bullshit tells me I’ve made a good call. I could care less what the schmuck gets right. Case closed. And that’s why no leftist besides Steve, when he drinks his Stupid Solution supports your sorry ASS!
All this above from:
YLB – Take the Test. Take the Test. Oops… it’s fake.
YLB – GWBush Rejected Kyoto. Oops… Not Senate Ratified
Here is the reason your side doesn’t cum to your rescue clueless wonder@140. If you had “enthusiasm for Obama” put it up here. All Puddy saw was Deadwards luv. Puddy remembers while you don’t. You attack me as a liar all the time when Puddy brings it all the time. This is why they agree you are a bottom dwelling knuckle dragging Goldy simian, and an everyday buffoon. I’ll use HA to prove the PuddyPoint.
BTW everyone Will was for Deadwards waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back in 2007: horsesass . org /?p=2658 “I’m an Edwards guy, but I hope all the candidates get some clarity about who’s on our side and who’s not. Or maybe they’ll just get some “brass ones.”” That sez sumtin.
BTW everyone Goldy was for Deadwards too horsesass . org/ ?p=4057 “But it is Edwards who speaks to me and my vision of a more prosperous, free and just America for all our citizens.” That sez sumtin. Read this thread, really enlightening on the peeps who supported Deadwards…
clueless wonder has a wonderful memory: horsesass . org /?p=4038
This is when the clueless wonder thought having his name letters capitalized made him look great! What a toolfard.
3. YLB spews: “Sideline the billionaire, support the REAL Dem – John Edwards, the man with the most dangerous message to the beltway crowd – take the power from the corrupt corporate elites and give it back to the people where it belongs.”
14. YLB spews: “The establishment is panicking over the disarray among the Republicans and in sheer terror over the Dem Slate. The people are not enthusiastic over Hillary’s hard sell of a return to the 90’s or Obama’s Kumbaya message.”
22. YLB spews: 15 – There you go. The establishment line on Edwards with a heavy shot of neo-con insanity. That signals to me that Edwards is on the mark!
Notice about the clueless wonder; you had nuthin to say when Deadwards two bloggers were writing bigoted things February 2007 did ya?
In thread 4057:
6. YLB spews: Edwards – Obama would be an excellent team. If they could bury their egos or personal differences, they’d could get a lot done and it will take a lot to get done to clean up the pitiful mess Republicans have made of this country.
20. YLB spews: while he lives in a 28,000 square foot mansion paid for by suing big corporations.
How sweet it is. Holding greedheads accountable. Accountability is something else that gives the right wing terror spasms.
Even SeattleJew took issue with you
54. SeattleJew spews: @38 YLB “conservative principles” Can you spell oxymoron? Making it, getting rich, screwing the world .. are these”principles?” – When you support John Deadwards…
62. SeattleJew spews: I too could bvote for any of these guys, but would rank them by competence:
Biden, Dodd, Richardson, Hillary, Obama, Edwards – OUCH
My bottom line, I would hire Edwards to sell my case anyday. I am just not confidant that it is HIS case. He seems to me of all the Dems to be the best at pandering – Now there’s the best case for supporting Deadwards Puddy ever saw.
76. YLB spews: Edwards a phony? He’s the the most real thing ever to happen compared to the Mittster.
97. Bill Cruchon spews: “Do you notice how little Cruchon is worth anyone’s time?” Do you notice how YLB has no interest in actual debate about issues? It’s always the same with the left…ad-hominem attacks, and name calling. Is it really that difficult to actually have a discussion? – With HAs clueless wonder it’s his modus operandi. Once you destroy his commentary his ad-hominem attacks start. What a loser.
In another thread: When Mickey Kaus told the world of Deadwards affair you in your continued luv of Deadwards answered:
36. Puddybud spews: Yes yelling loser boy, I remember this quote from some other John Deadwards jock strap: October 15, 2007 – “Kaus is one of those perpetuating the myth that John Edwards had an affair. Those ever so reliable anonymous sources told Kaus so. Even though the woman in question, Rielle Hunter, is on the record saying she did not have an affair with Edwards, Kaus’s anonymous sources say otherwise.” – Well we know this was true!
39. YLB spews: LMAO @ Stupes!!! Kaus? Just another showboating self-promoter with a grating style that I tune out. That the likes of you include him in your right wing bullshit tells me I’ve made a good call. I could care less what the schmuck gets right. Case closed. And that’s why no leftist besides Steve, when he drinks his Stupid Solution supports your sorry ASS!
All this above from:
YLB – Take the Test. Take the Test. Oops… it’s fake.
YLB – GWBush Rejected Kyoto. Oops… Not Senate Ratified
clueless wonder loves to place lie after lie after lie after lie after lie after lie after lie on HorsesASS.
Damn Don Joe, we heard you beating your wife all the way to Neah Bay last night! What happened, didn’t get any?
LMAO @ 143 – Wow Stupes have you screen-scraped this site or did you just waste all night dredging that up from the archives? Still a little sensitive about Ken Blackwell?
Ok I’ll deflate this gas bubble with one prick:
http://horsesass.org/?p=2628#comment-647274
Eh the rest I pretty much stand by – Edwards better than the Mittster, you bet. Kaus an unreadable moron – absolutely. SJ is no gold standard by any means and Cruchon? Pleeeze…
And no Republican has ever had an affair (see Poppy Bush). It’s a private matter that should have no bearing on a candidates’ other qualifications for the job.
Yawn… Shredded..
@138 Puddy reasons, “He liked philanderers”.
By extension, we can conclude that Puddy likes pedophiles. Why do you like pedophiles, Puddy?
What’s good for the goose, Puddy.
Another thing, Puddy. With all the namecalling you indulge in, it’s difficult to know who you’re even talking about anymore.
Puddy @ 145
What’s the matter, Puddy. Your backside still bothering you from the last ass-kicking I gave you? Up for a little more?
Remember your hero, Sam Zell? His name came up in a fascinating piece on slate.com yesterday:
This is the kind of thing your heros do, Puddy. They pull off highly leveraged buy-outs piling up debt they can’t possibly repay using holding companies to do the buy-out. After spending a few months or years lining their own pockets with huge salaries paid to them by the holding company, the holding company declares bankruptcy.
They even have a name for this. It’s a process called, “flip, leverage and strip.”
At the same time, your Republican buddies came out with a budget proposal that gives people like Sam Zell a tax break more than three times larger than the Bush tax cuts gave them.
Puddy’s like Chip Diller in Animal House. Remember the Omega House hazing? Chip Diller in his skivvies getting smacked in the ass, and, after each smack, saying, “Thank you sir! May I have another?”
Puddy, you can waste your life wallowing in the small puddles of mud looking for dirt on Democrats, but none of that will ever change the bigger picture. However bad Democrats might be, Republicans are orders of magnitude worse.
146 is pretty devastating to you Stupes.
What happened to the bubble memory?
Such a joke. I’m lovin’ it.
clueless wonder, deflection using Ken Blackwell. Devestating? Well I’m glad you asked.
All attacked by the progressive wingnuts of the compassionate Dummocraptic party as “Negroes who left the reservation”.
And that’s why the clueless wonder LHAO over attacks on blacks who left the racist reservation called progressivesville.
The only devastation is the rest of the story… clueless wonder asks:
monomaniacal synonyms: neurotic, delusional, disturbed, psychoneurotic, maladjusted, paranoid, deranged, schizoid, obsessional, obsessive, pathological, phobic.
So yes it’s you, clueless wonder, hiding behind your own screen name.
And just think everyone, it was an HA lefty who named clueless wonder this wonderful adjective…
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahaha
You lose. Isn’t it great your own side dismisses you too? Daily weak sauce arguments easily dissected, full of holes. No real data to back it up. Uses sites taught to him because he has no clue how to acquire real data. And only one lefty stood up for you and he invented the Stupid Solution, Ekim’s favorite drink when in the goat pen. Come on only one clueless wonder fan? I bet on FB or MSpace you’d have one friend. Sucks to be you sucka.
More EPIC FAIL in #146
Delusional Don Joe: still stinging over the beating your wife all the way to Neah Bay last night comment?
Chip Diller – Animal House? It figures your love of “sophomoric humor” continues to amaze.
“flip, leverage and strip” as Don Joe claims. So you are saying the banks allowed Sam Dell to issue “junk bonds”? Since you brought it up Don Joe, what banks allowed this to happen?
LMAO!! @ 150.
Accuses deflection while he deflects from this gem:
His memory is faulty and I proved it in 146.
Puts out his latest repetitive bullshit and slinks away…
defeated..
Oh and this is interesting:
What is with this fool and “cum”? Can’t he freaking spell?
Puddybud,
ylb, used this race baiting in the past with the same results.(nothing)
I have addressed this yesterday with him still no connection from eyes to brain.
I find this site hilarious the Losers change their positions on a issue weekly or depending who their there tiring to defend or attack.
Have a great day Puddybud.
Puddy @ 151
First, not stinging at all. When Mrs. Joe does the beating, it’s aaaaalllll goooood.
Second, I think we should frame this:
So you are saying the banks allowed Sam Dell to issue “junk bonds”?
Banks have no say over whether or not someone is allowed to issue “junk bonds,” Puddy. In fact, banks have no say in whether or someone is allowed to issue bonds of any rating whatsoever.
But, thank you for putting your ignorance on display.
What happened to “boy”?
Once again clueless idiot you didn’t prove anything you originally said
Puddy responded
You also said
You claimed I lied. You didn’t bring it. In post #146 you BROUGHT NUTHIN! Puddy posted your luv for the child making philanderer Deadwards. Where is the cumback fool??!?? Show all of us where Puddy lied? You can’t fool. So it’s deflection time when you ass is whupped. That’s why no one comes to your aid moron. They see you getting your ass whipped and they chuckle – “what a dumb moron with that weak sauce argument”.
You stole someone elses brass marbuls (cuz you lack any yourself) and threw up Ken Blackwell. Puddy again brought to you how the Dummocraptic progressives treat blacks who are not in the reservation.
You need an army of clueless wonders to fool one Puddy moron!
Delusional Don Joe: You brought to us Sam Dell Slate article and his Trib purchase. You called it “flip, leverage and strip.” And I’m the moron? Delusional synaptic neurons run amok inside that granite encased mind.
You using the term “leverage” implies a leverage buyout. For a LBO the usual ratio is 9:1 debt to equity. For the moronic class that’s 90% debt: 10% equity. Well Sam Dell did it with 4% or a 24:1 ratio.
So what did Sam Dell issue with all the debt you are trumpeting?
Did Sam Dell take the assets of the Trib company and used them as collateral for the loans in addition to the assets of his company Don Joe?
Is that what he did with the Cubbies Don Joe?
What were the loan “instruments” Don Joe?
Come on Don Joe regale us with the instruments used and the banks playing the “game”?
Now what did Sam Dell flip and strip Don Joe? Was Sam Dell tracking the Trib for years, gonna strip out the profitable parts of the company and then flip them in an IPO offer on those parts while jettisoning the bad parts in a fire sale?
Bring it Don Joe. We’ll wait Don Joe. It was your post. Bring it.
Yep you did. In 138 you said this:
That’s a lie. And I linked to the truth in 146. In that thread I said my first choice was Obama which at that time (March 2007) was true.
You didn’t remember our conversation apparently which casts a lot of doubt on your vaunted “bubble memory”.
A liar (I am Puddybud, NOT) and a fool. Your foolish ass has been handed to you.
Okay clueless wonder you did like Obama at one time. Then you dropped him for Deadwards because you said “Obama’s Kumbaya message”, “Obama’s ego”. Why clueless wonder?
Puddy didn’t lie. You have so many names on this blog it’s hard to remember what you say and when you say it. Puddy can lose a bubble every now and then.
159 – Kumbaya meant Obama’s post-partisan rhetoric which in the age of Rove did not make sense to me.
Now that he’s prez I give him some credit for trying. And if his continued efforts means the ouster of the man of the eternal suntan, Cantor, McConnell and the rest of the ugly Rovians, Bushies and Gingrichites AND results in their replacement with sane adults willing to act as a loyal opposition?
Then count me in as a believer.
I in no way condemned Obama for his ego. I don’t know where you get that.
You don’t lie? Pleeease..
clueless wonder Puddy loves all the post play explanation to your commentary. “I meant this or I menat that” Be clear up front fool. You may get supporters to your worthless comments. Naaaaaaaaaah probably not.
Puddy posts what libtards write, say and breathe.
Go back and reread post #143.
Puddy @ 157
You using the term “leverage” implies a leverage buyout. For a LBO the usual ratio is 9:1 debt to equity. For the moronic class that’s 90% debt: 10% equity. Well Sam Dell did it with 4% or a 24:1 ratio.
Are you saying that a debt/equity ratio of 24:1 means that it was not a leveraged buyout? If not, then what’s your point?
Come on Don Joe regale us with the instruments used and the banks playing the “game”?
Why? I’ve already made my point: Sam Zell’s leveraged buyout ended in a bankruptcy, and you can rest assured that Sam Zell, your hero, isn’t among the folks who’ve been left holding the bag.
If you think there is some reasonable point to be made by digging up the names of the financiers who facilitated this deal or the specific types of financial instruments used (usually a variety of both long term and short term commercial paper–and I’d be willing to bet that there were a few credit default swaps thrown in for good measure), then do your own homework. I’m guessing you’ll try to figure out some cockamamie way to claim that these folks were all Democrats (working for the Tribune Company? Riiiight).
But, the really funny part is the way you keep trying to disavow that Sam Zell is your hero by misspelling his last name. His first name isn’t “Michael.”
Funny how we don’t see or hear Sam Zell the talking head very much any more. He was the guy who said there was no housing bubble, and that’s why he was your hero.
161 – I don’t need supporters fool. I chip in my two cents and that’s all she wrote.
You post right wing bullshit, name-calling and assorted other foolishness.
It’s worked out great for you:
2005 – Election contest (lost)
Nov 2005 – I-912 (lost bet)
Nov 2006 – Right wing meltdown
Nov 2008 – EPIC FAIL
Today – still name-calling, still losin’. It’s so easy to forget the classic definition of insanity: doing the same old, same old expecting different results.
That’s what you do.
clueless wonder you are the biggest name call fool here. Anyone above can view your handiwork and laugh for a long time.
You brought up Sha’ria. Shown the facts, you dropped it.
You asked where did you condemn Obama’s ego. Shown the facts, you dropped it.
So what do you do? You resort to the singular horseshit in #163.
Everyone wants friends clueless wonder. You can’t buy a friend on HA.
That’s EPIC FAIL, or better yet you are an EPIC FAILURE!
You throw up so many canards you lose count of all the crap you post.
Puddy calls you names because you’ve used so many here on HA and Puddy can’t keep them straight anymore.
The only devastation is the rest of the story… clueless wonder asks:
monomaniacal synonyms: neurotic, delusional, disturbed, psychoneurotic, maladjusted, paranoid, deranged, schizoid, obsessional, obsessive, pathological, phobic.
So yes it’s you, clueless wonder, hiding behind your own screen name.
And just think everyone, it was an HA lefty who named clueless wonder this wonderful adjective…
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahaha
You lose. Isn’t it great your own side dismisses you too? Daily weak sauce arguments easily dissected, full of holes. No real data to back it up. Uses sites taught to him because he has no clue how to acquire real data. And only one lefty stood up for you and he invented the Stupid Solution, Ekim’s favorite drink when in the goat pen. Come on only one clueless wonder fan? I bet on FB or MSpace you’d have one friend. Sucks to be you sucka.
EPIC FAILURE, not hard working, living off the guvmint dole, doesn’t give diddly to charity.
That’s you fool!
Don Joe has the temerity to ask
Where do you get that pellet nugget from? Your ASS?
You are right it is Sam Zell. But that doesn’t change the argument.
And Puddy asked who agreed to this? What banks? You brought the article. Bring the rest of the story fool!
Puddy – you keep givin’ them hell and that’s why they hate you.
Thanks crusader.
Puddy says:
People who live in glass houses….
Hmmm, and some of the crap you have thrown up….well let’s just say they have been proven to be false despite all your protestations. Your mass quoting of right wing “sources” with no fact verification – shameful at best and ignorant, certainly.
You were totally wrong on Phil Gramm
Totally wrong on your global warming sources and infromation.
Totally wrong on WMDs.
Totally wrong on the Iraq war.
Totally wrong on the racists in the republican party.
Not a very good track record – maybe you should think about becoming a Democrat. Then you would at least have to spell democratic correctly.
We don’t hate Puddy – I think he is probably a nice guy underneath the veneer – but I feel sorry for someone so devoid of logic and so committed to right wing propaganda he can’t even recognize it.
As usual, Don Joe is kicking your butt and you can’t even see it.
Puddy @ 166
Where do you get that pellet nugget from?
From your earlier comment:
I’m asking you why you would bother to bring this up.
Bring the rest of the story fool!
Why? There isn’t any conclusion I’ve made that isn’t supported by the facts I’ve cited so far or would be significantly altered if additional facts are brought to light.
If you want more details than the facts that are required for my argument, then go find them yourself.
Crusader @ 167
Puddy – you keep givin’ them hell and that’s why they hate you.
Are you kidding? Puddy’s the gift that just keeps on giving. I love Puddy.
@ 169
You can add wrong about Alan Greespan’s politics to that list.
Oh, and who can forget that amazing hissy fit Puddy threw when he pissed and moaned about Democrats blocking ANWAR oil drilling? I’d pointed out that pumping oil out of ANWAR at the maximum rate possible would barely be a drop in the bucket for us, at which Puddy got all hot and bothered claiming that he never suggested that we pump oil out of ANWAR at the maximum rate possible–as if there’s some magical formula under which pumping at less then maximum capacity would alleviate our dependency on foreign oil when pumping at maximum capacity would not.
Most of the time Puddy simply throws out random factoids without ever having formulated any kind argument that would use those facts to reach a useful conclusion, and he covers up that fact with boatloads of name calling and comic-book rhetoric. It really is an amusing thing to watch.
No facts I could see. That professor the attack dogs at Faux was after never advocated Sharia law in this country.
And if you’re implying it’s here already. What was that you posted? North Dakota?
Worthless..
No facts I could see. That professor the attack dogs at Faux was after never advocated Sharia law in this country.
And if you’re implying it’s here already. What was that you posted? North Dakota?
Worthless..
Hey Stupes,
Is that CNR helping me out? Not that I asked for it.
Just sayin’ you’re a miserable fool for gibbering about it.
And Stupes, nowhere have I criticized Obama for his ego.
Maybe you’re confusing Obama’s ego with yours which hits the door ten feet ahead of your face.
You’re either lying or can’t read for shit.
Delusional Don Joe, you are
Tooooooooooooooo
Damnnnnnnnnnnnn
Funnnnnnnnnnnnny
Random factoids? Yeah right Don Joe. You were the only one suggesting pumping ANWR at a maximum rate. We whom think right didn’t. Useless canard.
Wrong on Greenspan Politics? Married to A big time NBC libtard? Yeah right.
You brought up the Sam Zell article. Then you won’t provide the necessary commentary to prove your points. You scream he did this or that based on your article. And you decry my tactics? What a fooltard dude.
Now onto NutRight and clueless wonder
Readily apparent when caught he deflects and introduces his bevy of used topics.
Sha’ria – Taxi drivers already implementing it. Go to Minneapolis and have an open bottle. See how they treat you fool. Go on prove everyone wrong. What? Oh yeah you don’t take orders. You mean you can’t follow orders so you are unemployed. Home loans written with no interest. What does the clueless wonder do? He runs like always.
NutRight
You were totally wrong on Phil Gramm – Obama said the fundamentals of the economy are strong while the Stock Market was still plunging. Hmmmmmmmmmmm?
Totally wrong on your global warming sources and infromation. – Nope. IPCC report is under attack from many sources from reputable scientists and the list grows daily.
Totally wrong on WMDs. – Nope. Puddy used the same intelligence of 13 countries including Putin’s Russia. You are too stupid to remember.
Totally wrong on the Iraq war. – Nope. Evil man you liked and supported is gone. You support Baghdad Jim fool.
Totally wrong on the racists in the republican party. – Nope Puddy identified the racists of the Dummocraptic party.
EPIC FAIL fool!
When the chips are down on failing right wing policies – use guilt by association.
and Andrea Mitchell ain’t all that liberal AFAICT.
Taxi drivers? LOL!
How stupid are you?
Well it reminds me a bit of the pharmacists who won’t fill birth control prescriptions.
In the case of taxi drivers, they’re cutting themselves out of a lot of business if they don’t pick up intoxicated fares.
If the cab company hears about it then the cabbie is out of a job. Sounds like a non-issue to me.
Puddy @177 spews:
Yeah right Don Joe. You were the only one suggesting pumping ANWR at a maximum rate.
Puddy’s wrong again. I was suggesting that we not pump oil from ANWR at all.
But, and this is the uproariously funny part, if wingers are not suggesting that we pump oil out of ANWR at the maximum rate, then there is no justification for pumping any oil out of ANWR at all. Is Puddy bright enough to figure this out? Noooooo.
Wrong on Greenspan Politics? Married to A big time NBC libtard?
So? Mary Matalin married James Carville.
Can Puddy find even one insane person other than himself who considers Alan Greenspan to be a liberal? Nope.
You brought up the Sam Zell article.
Yup. Sam Zell. Puddy’s hero.
Then you won’t provide the necessary commentary to prove your points.
Get this. First, Puddy wanted facts that had nothing to do with my conclusions. Now he’s demanding commentary! Puddy doesn’t even understand the difference between facts and opinions.
Puddy wants us to ignore the fact that not a whole lot of commentary is required when Puddy’s hero, Sam Zell, pulls off a highly leveraged buyout that ends up with the target company declaring bankruptcy. Puddy’s heroes don’t make for very good heroes.
Oh, and Puddy never did explain why he pointed out the fact that Zell’s LBO was at only 4% as opposed to the more usual 10%. You know what I think? This is just my opinion, mind you, but I think Puddy thought he’d caught me misusing the word “leverage” and only realized that he’d stuck is foot in it after I asked him why he mentioned it in the first place. I predict that Puddy will never offer up a cogent explanation for why he pointed that out.
And you decry my tactics?
I don’t decry your tactics, Puddy. I’m merely noting how you never seem to be able to take these various factoids you scrounge up and use them to construct a cogent argument.
Don Joe farts:
Puddy don’t need to. You placed the link up on HA and you still won’t give the facts Puddy asked for. Why do you run Don Joe?
Don Joe, here are your words again as you called it “flip, leverage and strip.” Did Puddy bring up “flip, leverage and strip.” first? Nope you Dope. So how could Puddy misuse leverage fool? Keep spinning shucking and jiving. Keep flipping and stripping cuz you gots no leverage.
You are such a fool. You take what others identify out your worthless garbage then try to twist it as the person brought it up. You can fool the simpleton leftists Don Joe, but all Puddy does is replay your crap.
If your Sam Zell article can’t be explained by the debt instruments, and the banks playing with Zell, then it’s EPIC FAIL fool.
All can see your Keep spinning shucking and jiving flipping and stripping.
See ya Don Joe.
NEXT!
clueless idiot says Andrea Mitchell ain’t liberal.
Prove it.
Pay attention everyone. This will be the most interesting piece of material clueless wonder has ever copied from URLs.
Puddy still waiting for the Don Joe answers on these great questions…
So what did Sam Zell issue with all the debt you are trumpeting?
Did Sam zell take the assets of the Trib company and used them as collateral for the loans in addition to the assets of his company Don Joe?
Is that what he did with the Cubbies Don Joe?
What were the loan “instruments” Don Joe?
Come on Don Joe regale us with the instruments used and the banks playing the “game”?
Now what did Sam Zell flip and strip Don Joe? Was Sam Zell tracking the Trib for years, gonna strip out the profitable parts of the company and then flip them in an IPO offer on those parts while jettisoning the bad parts in a fire sale?
With that ego fed intellect these should be simple questions Don Joe.
@155
“I find this site hilarious the Losers change their positions on a issue weekly or depending who their there tiring to defend or attack.
Have a great day Puddybud.”
155. YLB spews:
I find this site hilarious the Losers change their positions
What happened to “boy”?
133. The Truth spews:
@131
ylb,
“Let’s see if I can make easy for you. LOSER MAN wouldn’t be correct as he hasn’t nor will he ever reach that peak. Loser Boy fit’s very well with a immature boy who thinks he can save the world by waving his hand.”
No need to do a sinful act to sin my boy. Just the thought of sin makes you a sinner.
“Naughty, naughty.. You think the President is inferior to you because of the color of his skin don’t you?”
(Humm you have something against be black and white?
I have never said that here or anywhere else.
However, ylb has a high record on saying those exact words you uncovering from all those years wearing a white hood and sheet?
I would advise you take hood, sheet off when looking for a job. On the other hand if you’re just like living off the backs of others leave them on.
ylb, aka, LOSER
Puddy @ 181 spews:
Puddy don’t need to [explain why Puddy pointed out that Zell’s leverage was 4% of asset value.
Fine. Then we’ll all conclude that my speculation about why you mentioned this is factually correct. Thank you for affirming that you put your foot in.
You placed the link up on HA and you still won’t give the facts Puddy asked for.
But, Puddy hasn’t given any reason for Don Joe to go dig up the facts that Puddy wants. Not one of the facts that Puddy wants would change the conclusion that Puddy does a pretty piss poor job of picking his heroes.
Notice the difference, here. In Puddy’s mind, Puddy doesn’t have to explain himself. But, Don Joe is supposed to go out and do Puddy’s homework.
If there were any doubt that Puddy is completely clueless, this sentence should dispel all doubt:
If your Sam Zell article can’t be explained by the debt instruments, and the banks playing with Zell, then it’s EPIC FAIL fool.
Puddy thinks that there’s something that needs to be “explained,” but he can’t identify exactly what needs to be “explained.” So, he uses the vague and blanket word “article.” In the process, he ends up with a completely nonsensical concept that, somehow, the “article” needs explanation.
What might need explanation would be a conclusion that someone has reached, but the only conclusion I’m putting the table based on that article is that Puddy does a piss-poor job of picking heroes. To reach that conclusion, the article I linked provides all the evidence I need. Puddy’s hero, Sam Zell, pulled off a highly leveraged buyout of the Tribune Co. only to end up driving the Tribune Co. into the ground.
Try drawing a logical connection between the facts you want and my conclusion. If you can’t do that, then use the internet. Go find the NPR story, or the quotes from the WSJ article that was written about this. Maybe you’ll find information on the complex financial instruments that leveraged employee pensions with an employee stock-option plan. Find whatever information you think would be useful, and try, just once, to connect those facts together into a cogent and coherent argument.
My guess is that you won’t even try. You’ll fall back on this lame demand for further data without ever giving any justification for why I should provide those facts other than the idea that you demand it.
Note, Puddy, before you go dancing off about how I ask questions, please go find any instance where I asked a question and didn’t provide justification for the questions I’ve asked when someone challenged me on it. Go ahead.
You see, Puddy, Don Joe doesn’t just ask random questions that have no relation to some conclusion in any logical sense. Don Joe asks questions that have a legitimate rhetorical purpose.
Construct an argument, Puddy. Just once. Use logic and reasoning to connect facts to a conclusion.
@177 Puddy says, “Wrong on Greenspan Politics? Married to A big time NBC libtard? Yeah right.”
Is there anybody here who embraces the left-right paradigm more so than Puddy? No greys for Puddy. No middle ground. He wants to keep it simple, black – white, left – right. He not only embraces such simplistic thought, he’s self-appointed to sort us all out. Greenspan? He’s a lefty, says Puddy. No proof, mind you, other than Greenspan’s wife’s supposed party affiliation for which Puddy has no proof. Mary Matalin married James Carville? Puddy conveniently ignores. It doesn’t fit the paradigm. David Frum? He’s a lefty. Why? Because Puddy says he used to be a Dem. Does Puddy offer proof? No, of course not. Does it occur to Puddy that Reagan used to be a Dem? Nah. Too inconvenient a thought that doesn’t fit the paradigm. Indeed, instead of proving of his accusations towards Greespan, what does Puddy do? He demands to be proven wrong!
@183 “clueless idiot says Andrea Mitchell ain’t liberal.
Prove it.”
My girlfriend is rabidly conservative. I hold some views that are no doubt more conservative than Puddy’s. Does Puddy see me as being on the right? No, of course not – too grey a thought for Puddy to contemplate. Not only is he self-appointed to determine an individuals party affiliation, as though we all have one, any consideration of any middle ground, the color grey, would apparently run contrary to Puddy’s agenda. And what’s that agenda? To seek out simplicity in order to sooth a simple mind? Or does Puddy want to see America divided and weakened in a time of war and as we face other troubling challenges?
@178 Puddy says, “Sha’ria – Taxi drivers already implementing it.”
Maybe you’ll take a moment and explain to everybody here just how Sha’ria law is so different than the Bibical laws that you and Mr. Klynical would impose on Americans? I hope you can come up with more than just the manner of execution. Do you believe that you are too civilized to lop off somebody’s head and yet somehow believe that stoning women to death at the gates of the city is OK? Do you really think the dead give a shit?
Delusional “flip, leverage and strip” Don Joe:
You are such a sorry moron. “flip, leverage and strip” Tell the world why the banks agreed to Zell’s plan fool. Oh you can’t do that can you? It’s not Puddy’s article so Puddy is the bystander here. I’m playing your games Don Joe. You used it so PROVE IT.
Stop the theatrics Don Joe. It’s your article.
Spin shuck and jive Don Joe. “flip, leverage and strip.” Why you running Don Joe? You grabbed a factoid and through it up as Don Joe’s Jumbled Jerkweed Jokerisms. You run from these questions so Puddy will ask them again. “flip, leverage and strip” The rest of your rant above was weak and useless because you won’t answer your original theme.
“flip, leverage and strip” So what did Sam Zell issue with all the debt you are trumpeting?
Did Sam zell take the assets of the Trib company and used them as collateral for the loans in addition to the assets of his company Don Joe?
Is that what he did with the Cubbies Don Joe?
What were the loan “instruments” Don Joe?
Come on Don Joe regale us with the instruments used and the banks playing the “game”?
“flip, leverage and strip” Now what did Sam Zell flip and strip Don Joe? Was Sam Zell tracking the Trib for years, gonna strip out the profitable parts of the company and then flip them in an IPO offer on those parts while jettisoning the bad parts in a fire sale?
With that ego fed intellect these should be simple “flip, leverage and strip” questions Don Joe.
Since Don Joe won’t answer the questions regarding “flip, leverage and strip” above it must mean he’s clueless and he’s bowing out. Another match dissected and quartered by Puddybud.
Goodness Puddy loves that feeling, the sweet smell of success.
See ya Sucka. Sucks to be Don Joe. Factoid Man.
EPIC FAIL!!!!! KABLAMMMMMMMMMMMO
Steve, still waiting for clueless idiot to explain Andrea Mitchell ain’t liberal.
Prove it.
Pay attention everyone. This will be the most interesting piece of material clueless wonder has ever copied from URLs.
Steve, you didn’t help clueless moron’s cause. And he has to PROVE IT.
Steve of Steve’s Stupid Solution barfed:
First off we were a Judeo-Christian country.
Second off we don’t impose you can’t drink in my taxi rules. There are open bottle laws in the land. But if it’s closed, in a bag and you are not drinking it you can ride in the taxi. In sha’ria state Minneapolis, a Muslim taxicab driver will reject you being in his cab. That’s the diff moron! Sorry you are still drinking your Stupid Solution as you can’t see the big diff here.
Next whopper:
Ummmm Steve, where has Puddy advocated that? Show Puddy where.
Next whopper:
Well, your Stupid Solution deadened mind is giving us all the shits.
Puddy @ 190 spews:
You are such a sorry moron. “flip, leverage and strip” Tell the world why the banks agreed to Zell’s plan fool.
First of all, your question is vague enough to make it impossible to know exactly what information you want. For these kinds of deals, banks don’t have to “agree” to anyone’s plan. Banks might approve (a better word would be “underwrite”) funds that they themselves loan to someone, but in deals like this very little money comes from banks. Most of the funds tend to come from some form of commercial paper.
Secondly, in this particular deal, must of the financing hinged on leveraging employee pensions through an employee stock-option plan. The whole objective of the deal was to take the Tribune Company private.
Third, there is very little doubt that some credit default swaps would have been involved in a transaction like this. Any commercial paper that would have been issued for this was likely insured through some company like AIG (this kind of financing insurance is AIG’s specialty).
Fourth, all of this is information you can easily find on the internet through about a half-hours worth of digging. Puddy claims to be so good at digging stuff up, but, for reasons that are fathomable only within the confines of Puddy’s brain, he refuses to do so.
Oh you can’t do that can you? It’s not Puddy’s article so Puddy is the bystander here. I’m playing your games Don Joe. You used it so PROVE IT.
Prove what, Puddy? Be precise? Exactly which conclusion of mine have I failed to prove? That Sam Zell engineered an unusually high leveraged buyout of the Tribune Company? Already proved. That Sam Zell has driven the Tribune Company into the ground? Well they’ve filed for Chapter 11, so that’s been proved too.
The only conclusion I’m reaching is that you don’t do a particularly good job of picking your heroes. In what way does the particulars of the financing deal have to do with that conclusion?
And, as I pointed out in my last comment, you’re not even coming close to playing my game, Puddy. You don’t have what it takes to play my game, because you cannot articulate a rhetorical purpose for these questions. Tell us what I need to prove, Puddy, and explain why I need to prove it.
If you can’t do that, then the only “kablammo” here is your attempt at constructing a cogent argument blowing up in your face.
Don Joe wondered
Not my job to support your swill bud.
Sam Zell assumed Chicago and suburbia readers would return if Sam made a format and editorial changes. The Trib was losing readers cuz it was libtard. This started back in the 90s Don Joe. Sam felt a more neutral paper would bring back readers. It didn’t work. More and more people went to the Internet. That’s it dude.
There was no driving the company into the ground. Sam Zell didn’t change the success model. The complaint about Sam was he didn’t have the people invest in selling Internet. The Trib was bleeding readership since the 90s. And we all know the Trib was big time Libtard Don Joe. That’s Don Joe moronic swill. Sam invested into the company. Advertisers moved to the Internet. Could Sam control that Don Joe? The economic situation doomed his gamble.
Good try Don Joe. Stupid hypothesis.
Puddy @ 194 Spews:
The Trib was losing readers cuz it was libtard.
Bullshit. The Tribune’s advertising revenue was falling, and that had nothing to do with whether or not the Tribune was too liberal. It had to do with advertising revenue moving to the internet.
There was no driving the company into the ground. Sam Zell didn’t change the success model.
The Tribune Company had overextended itself by buying up other newspapers, particularly the LA Times. They had already piled up a good deal of debt despite the falling revenues.
That’s not a “success” model. That’s a business model that’s failing.
And what does Sam Zell do? With no plans to change the business model, he does nothing but pile on a massive amount of debt, leveraged, as you pointed out, at a debt/equity ratio of 24:1
The buyout, alone, was sufficient to drive the company into the ground. It was either a completely idiotic move (seriously, using massive leverage to buy up a business that’s already on hard times?), or Sam Zell never had any intention of making the Tribune Company into a success.
Either way, Sam Zell isn’t exactly a “hero”. You sure do know how to pick ’em, Puddy.
Wow. Now I have to “prove” Andrea Mitchell, in my words, “ain’t all that liberal AFAICT.”.
Oh but I haven’t been ordered to prove she “ain’t all that liberal AFAICT”. Instead I’ve been ordered to prove she “ain’t liberal”.
Stupes, I don’t take your orders. Good night.
“That’s the diff moron!”
Are you purposely acting the fool? I’ll ask you again. What’s the difference between the two? I’ll answer for you because you can’t face the truth. There is no difference between Sha’ria and Bibical law.
Is that all you’ve got? Namecalling? The mark of a loser, you know.
Explain again how it is that Christian pharmacists can deny medication based on religious conviction. Or are you saying that in this country a Judeo-Christians can act out the laws of their faith but Muslims can’t.
“Where has Puddy advocated that?”
Oh, so now you ignore the laws of Moses? Well, except when they suit your political agenda. Like when condemning gays in their quest for equality.
“Stupid Solution” Yup, that’s all you’ve got. Infantile namecalling.
@190 “he has to PROVE IT”
Oh really? So if you make a baseless accusation, offering no proof whatsoever, you demand that someone prove you wrong or you stand vindicated? I’m sure you agree that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
I recall someone accusing you of fucking goats. You’ve had nearly a year to prove that accusation wrong. You haven’t. You haven’t even tried. Fine. No offer no proof. By your own reasoning, we can all rightly conclude that Puddy does indeed fuck goats.
Steve, Puddy has posted Andrea Mitchell libtard quotes on HA. You on the other hand are a monotonic moron.
clueless wonder said Andrea Mitchell wasn’t all that libtard. Prove it.
You see he can’t. That’s why he enters his stupid zone with I don’t take orders. It’s his fall back, like you drinking your Stupid Solution. And for you to run to his aid with your goat attack proves you can’t either.
Steve,
Where in the Mosaic law does it say you shall not congregate with people who drink?
Where in the Mosaic law you shall not provide assistance to someone with a wineskin on their person?
Where in the Mosaic law are these “tenets”?
The Sha’ria law as worshipped by these Minnesotan taxicab drivers does this.
Steve, regarding name calling,
Ask clueless wonder what was his first name he called me.
Ask ATJ what was his first name he called me.
Ask treefrogfarmer what was his first name he called me.
Ask Donnageddon what was his first name he called me.
Ask Pelletizer what was the first name he called me.
Ask Lee what was the first name he called me.
Ask Goldy what was the first name he called me.
Ask stillbentover what was the first name he called me.
Ask rulax what was the first name he called me.
Darryl is exempt cuz he always called me Puddy.
SJ called me a name but later apologized to my face.
Puddy already gave you headless lucy’s names. Funny thing Steve you haven’t called headless on it have you?
Ask all your libtard weasels buds who called Puddy the names first. Puddy was the recipient of name calling WAY BEFORE Puddy called people names. You can check the HA tapes because you accused Puddy of name calling. Well Steve of Steve’s Stupid Solution this will be another losing task for you. But we know your winning task is doing a goat upon wake up. Does your Republican girlfriend get jealous you gravitating to the goat first before giving her her morning hug? Does the goat sleep in the middle or do you Steve?
Ask them Steve, because Puddy already confronted clueless wonder on his first name calling incident earlier this year. He went silent. He was the first, and the others followed. So why should Puddy turn the other cheek when Puddy turned them for a while?
See ya Steve. Enjoy your morning goat.
Don Joe, you called it “flip, leverage and strip”. Don Joe said Puddy could have found all this on the Internet. Well Puddy found much on the Internet. Of course Don Joe in his zeal to hate anything conservative forgot to add the Tribune Shareholders forced the sale. Two Los Angeles billionaires – Ron Burkle and Eli Broad – joined forces to bid for Tribune against local Sam Zell. Even NPR covered that Don Joe. But Don Joe can’t admit to whom forced the sale. He only wants to attack the individual who tried to save the newspapers. Typical so typical of an HA weasel.
The Tribune Company eliminated NY Newsday’s foreign bureaus and most of its Washington reporters before Zell arrived Don Joe. Some at the Tribune wanted Zell to sell the LA Times because of their attitude at the Times. Well we see the LA Times is another big libtard paper. Another point lost on your pinhead.
And yes Zell, did use some of the retirement funds to help borrow the money needed to buy out shareholders. The greedy shareholders wanted out. Hmmm… maybe someone’s union pension fund wanted to bail. It was a gamble too as employees would have benefited if the company’s revenues improved under Zell.
Everyone interviewed for the Zell story in multiple newspapers and other stories mentioned Sam Zell wasn’t a micromanager, unlike you right Don Joe. That’s why you cut and ran from management. You sucked at it.
Whopper #1:
The Trib was the liberal Chicago daily. The Sun-Times was more conservative. Regarding the Internet advertising revenue, didn’t Puddy say this first above? Thanks for playing Don Joe. No new information here. Thanks for the parroting.
Next Whopper:
So Sam Zell caused that too per your commentary.
Where was the flip?
Where was the strip?
We’re still waiting for those whoppers.
Steve @ 197
I gotta say, you’ve managed to allow Puddy to side-track the issue. Whether or not Andrea Mitchell is a liberal is now the focus of the discussion, but let’s recall how we got here.
I pointed out that Puddy claims that Alan Greenspan is a liberal. A claim that Puddy hasn’t disavowed, because, well, he can’t disavow it. It’s too damn easy find the statements that Puddy made.
I asked Puddy to provide some proof of this claim, and Puddy’s “proof” was that Greenspan married a liberal. Now, there were two responses to that claim. YLB’s was one response, but there was also my response back up at 181.
Ever sense then, Puddy’s been talking about Andrea Mitchell, but he is now not talking about Alan Greenspan, and Puddy has completely ignored the example of I cited of the Matalin-Carville marriage.
Puddy’s hypocrisy is not in the sense that he’s demanding someone else disprove his claim. Puddy’s hypocrisy lies in his demand that other people prove their claims about the political leanings of Andrea Mitchell all the while ignoring the fact that he has completely failed to prove his own claims about Alan Greenspan.
But, that’s not all. You see, Puddy’s claim about Alan Greenspan is yet part of another argument about the relationship between conservative economic philosophy and our current economic crisis. Puddy needs to believe that Alan Greenspan is a liberal, because, if he doesn’t, then he’s forced to accept the huge role that conservative philosophy played in precipitating the current economic crisis.
As I’ve explained before, Puddy cannot ever admit to having made a mistake here. Puddy’s little side-trip down Andrea Mitchell lane is nothing more than a way for Puddy to avoid the larger, yet infinitely more important, policy debate.
So, Steve, don’t let Puddy get you to take your eye off the ball. Puddy still has an unsupported claim about Alan Greenspan hanging out there. Keep pressing Puddy to prove that claim.
Puddy @ 201
Let’s deal with Puddy’s “Whoppers” first:
1) Puddy claimed that the Tribune was failing because it was too liberal. I challenged that claim, pointing out that advertising revenue was falling. Puddy’s offered no proof about falling readership, nor has he made any causal connection between readership and falling advertising revenue. It’s entirely possible for readership to be on the rise while advertising revenue is falling. Puddy’s response to my challenge? “No new information here.” So much for Puddy’s claim about falling readership being the cause.
2) I pointed out that the Tribune Company was already on the down-and-out when Zell stepped in. Puddy’s response? “So Sam Zell caused that too per your commentary.” Pure deflection that completely obfuscates the point about I had made: engineering a highly leveraged buyout of a failing business is not particularly smart business unless one’s objective is to kill off the business while lining your own pockets.
Which brings me to Puddy’s theory of these events:
But Don Joe can’t admit to whom forced the sale. He only wants to attack the individual who tried to save the newspapers.
Puddy’s theory is that Sam Zell is the white knight in this story. The shareholders are the greedy ones, and the black knights are Ron Burkle and Eli Broad.
What evidence does Puddy offer to back up this interpretation? None. Not a scintilla of evidence. Zip. Zilch. Zero. It’s an interpretation of pure convenience.
It’s also an interpretation that ignores, again, the highly leveraged nature of the buyout and the undeniable fact that this deal left the Tribune Company facing a massive amount of debt.
Which brings us to the last of Puddy’s side-long advances: the strip and the flip. First of all, you don’t execute the flip until after the strip has been completed. Since, clearly, the strip hasn’t been executed, the question about the flip is irrelevant.
The point Puddy’s trying to make is that this couldn’t have been a case of “flip, leverage and strip,” because there’s been no “strip,” but that reasoning is flawed. It’s entirely possible for Zell to have intended to strip the company, and was simply unable to.
Is there evidence to support this notion? Yes. The Tribune Co. had already been trying to sell the Cubs and Wrigley Field. After Zell arrived, they’d put the Tribune Company Tower and the LA Times Building on the market. Wonderful timing there given the way the real estate market has been trending–a trend Zell should have spotted.
But, that’s not all. One aspect of this strategy is that, even if you fail to pull off the strip, the company can file for bankruptcy, at which point the “strip” happens anyway.
The key to all of this is to ask, how was Sam Zell personally at risk? The answer is, Sam Zell has very little personally at stake in this. As this business week article points out, Zell’s $315 million is in the form of “subordinated debt,” which means that, in the event of bankruptcy, Zell stands well in line ahead of any shareholders. And, because Zell’s stake is relatively very small, he stands a very good chance of being made whole.
As I’ve said all along, this is Puddy’s hero. Puddy doesn’t do a very good job of picking his heroes.
See how Don Joe when confronted with facts changes his attack. More weak sauce produced by Don Joe.
Don Joe, the Matalin-Carville marriage? So what? What does that have to do with US Monetary policy? Were they setting US Monetary policy on the Fed? Talking about a useless factoid…
Above Don Joe accused Puddy of not using the Internet. It’s all there Don Joe. Who has taken his eyes of the ball except you? Sure Greenspan worked with Cheney and Rumsfeld in the Ford Administration. That’s common knowledge. But Puddy said he was a libtard under his shiny veneer.
Greenspan was a close friend of Ayn Rand. Greenspan became a 20-year close bud of Ayn Rand. In one of Rands books you’ll find a Greenspan chapter. Greenspan was a contributor to Rand’s newsletters. Rand was rational hedonist. Rand was a devout atheist. These are Republican qualities Don Joe? Maybe that’s why headless lucy is a Rand troglodyte. headless used Rand to espouse his racist positions on HA all the time. headless is a prime HA weasel chimp like you Don Joe. Rand taught that charity is not a virtue. Rand had a dislike for religion and compulsory charity. Ran believed charity was a government activity. This is what Greenspan supported Don Joe. These are NOT Republican or conservative values.
Puddy learned from the HA weasels the evangelicals were the hit machine of the Republicans. Well reading the crap thrown here by the HA weasels would lead someone to grab that position.
We saw how Greenspan acted when under pressure. When this financial crisis happened what did Greenspan do? He immediately blamed Republicans to save his sorry ASS. When confronted with his lack of support for reigning in derivative securities back in the 90s with Rubin and Leavitt he blamed Republicans. If he was a real “Republican” as Don Joe claimed, he wouldn’t be running around saying the Republicans were the only cause. Greenspan forgets the 2004 pronouncements of Fwank, Waters, Meeks, and others on Freddie and Fannie. Greenspan gets to spout his libtard propaganda and the libtard MSM gleefully publishes it all over the map. Greenspan says it was Republicans who claimed “Deficits Don’t Matter.” Barney Fwank says “We need to spend more” Obama is proving that statement belongs to the left not the right.
When Jim Leach tried to reign in derivative securities in 1994 Greenspan said: “Risks in financial markets, including derivative markets, are being regulated by private parties. There is nothing involved in federal regulation per se which makes it superior to market regulation.” But to Don Joe that’s a conservative position. We see that Alan Greenspan was a product of Ayn Rand libtard radicalism of the 50s.
Nuff SAID Sucka Don Joe. The evidence is there.
Oops now he’s changing his tune.
Plenty of documentation out there that Mitchell’s reporting tended to favor Republicans like almost every beltway journalist.
Stupes’ eulogy for Tim Russert was most interesting in that regard. sniff.. sniff…
You’d think Stupes was crying at the funeral of Limbaugh.
Me@203
Correction. The article I linked is Business Insider, not Business Week.
Don Joe Don Joe Don Joe: You tell lie after lie after lie after lie after lie after lie after lie after lie after lie.
Now he steals Puddy’s Whopper comment. So dealing with whopper #1:
Don Joe why did you leave out the Puddy comment The Trib was the libtard newspaper and the Sun-Times was the more conservative one? Don Joe Don Joe Don Joe, the HA bellwethers for what’s conservative vs. liberal are NutRight and clueless wonder. They never get refuted here so it means they must be right in their assessment. Whenever a person whom thinks right quotes from the Sun Times your pea pod pal clueless wonder or NutRIght will trot out the ownership of said quoted article and dismiss it as “right-wing bullshit”. But to Don Joe this isn’t proof enough. So clueless wonder, here is another prime example of your commentary being dizzed; this time by Don Joe.
Ohhhhh Teach… Ohhhhh Teach… I know the answer… Yes Johnny… Because Don Joe is a disingenuous debater. Correct Johnny. You get your A for the day. You are correct Johnny, Don Joe forgets Puddy said the Internet was a big cause of declining readership before above Puddy’s last comment. But to Don Joe, one has to keep repeating themselves because Don Joe is two dimensional. He only looks at the last post.
Whopper #2:
Puddy wrote above Zell was telling Chicago that he knew how to make money in newspapers. He said at the purchase he was “certain, absolutely certain, that Tribune Company newspapers – including The Chicago Tribune and The Los Angeles Times – would soon be returned to higher readership, higher ad rates and greater profits”. Yet to Don Joe that statement was he’s lining his pockets with the dough.
Puddy wrote above the Shareholders forced the sale. You betcha! You can find that all over the net. Regarding the two LA billionaires who tried to take over the Trib, Puddy used that as part of the reason the price was bidded so high. Don Joe is so dense he couldn’t figger that out. You have to be really explicit with Don Joe. His reasoning powers are small, really small, femtometer like small. Sam Zell was local. He wanted to save it. and Don Joe you’ve been arguing stupidity all over this thread. Puddy just joined to encourage you to continue and write more stupid things. See how easy that was…
So what does Don Joe say,
Whopper #3:
To all HA weasels, who brought up “flip, leverage and strip” terminology to HA weasel-land.
How many say Puddy? – Zero Thats’s Correct.
How many say Don Joe? – Everyone.
There you go again Don Joe. You make a statement and when called on it you try and make it someone else brought it up. Sorry dude, that’s EPIC FAIL. Puddy don’t play dat.
Next Whopper #4:
The LA Times was in turmoil from 2006 through now. People everywhere was saying sell the LA Times. As a smart businessman Zell was trying to reduce the debt load while there was a chance he could get value. He did this in June 2008 not December 2007 or January 2008. The LA Times was losing readership like lemmings dropping off the sinking ship. Yet Don Joe overlooks the NY Times selling off part of it’s building to reduce it’s debt load. That’s okay cuz the NY Times are run by libtards friends of Don Joe.
moron@205: Let’s see it. Puddy posted Mitchell’s attack:
Tom Brokaw: There are other Republicans who are saying, listen we’ll be able to pull those Hillary Clinton voters who are not happy the way Obama treated her across the line. What are the chances of that Andrea?
Andrea Mitchell: Well, they think now that they have a story. They have a story of a working mom, she is a colorful character, an Annie Oakley… you know, Annie get your gun. They love her story, but when she tried to talk about Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania, in western Pennsylvania, yesterday at a rally with conservative Republican voters, Hillary Clinton was booed. So, she can use the Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro analogy if she wants to in interviews, she cannot use that at Republican rallies.
She is not appealing to the same women who were really voting or supporting Hillary Clinton on ideological issues but they think that they can peel off some of these working class women, not college educated, who, the blue collar women who were voting for Hillary Clinton and may be more conservative on social causes.
Once again Puddy brings it. clueless wonder wings it. As Puddy stated above, “Pay attention everyone. This will be the most interesting piece of material clueless wonder has ever copied from URLs.”
Puddy @ 204
Don Joe, the Matalin-Carville marriage? So what? What does that have to do with US Monetary policy?
Well, it’s about as relevant to US monetary policy as the marriage of Greenspan to Andrea Mitchell has to do with Alan Greenspan’s economic philosophy. ‘Course, it was Puddy who brought up Andrea Mitchell as evidence that Greenspan is liberal.
Sure Greenspan worked with Cheney and Rumsfeld in the Ford Administration. That’s common knowledge. But Puddy said he was a libtard under his shiny veneer.
And, Greenspan was appointed to his Fed chairmanship by a Republican President. Also common knowledge.
But, let’s remember this. Puddy’s claim is that Greenspan is a “libtard under his shiny veneer.” Puddy’s next bit of evidence is:
Greenspan was a close friend of Ayn Rand.
Exactly! Before I get to the real zinger, allow me to point out that the rest of Puddy’s argument is that Greenspan is not Republican. Indeed, Puddy argues:
If [Greenspan] was a real “Republican” as Don Joe claimed, he wouldn’t be running around saying the Republicans were the only cause.
First of all, I’ve not claimed that Greenspan was a Republican. I’ve claimed that, on economic issues, Greenspan is staunchly conservative.
Secondly, Greenspan being not Republican is not the point. Puddy’s claim is that Greenspan is a “libtard under his shiny veneer.” Being “not” Republican is not the same as being a liberal.
Puddy is correct in noting that Greenspan’s politics are best described as “libertarian”. Puddy’s EPIC FAIL is the extent to which he discusses the differences between Republican and libertarian policies on social issues while completely ignoring the economic issues that are the substance of the larger question.
But, when it comes to economic philosophy, libertarians are damn near indistinguishable from Republicans. Both espouse a largely laissez-faire philosophy under which less government presence in the economy is nearly always better than more government presence, and both are staunchly in favor of deregulation across the board.
By citing Greenspan’s ties to Ayn Rand and Rand’s philosophy, Puddy completely fails to substantiate his claim that Greenspan is a closet liberal. In fact, Puddy actually proves my point. On economic issues, it’s damn near impossible to be more conservative than Greenspan.
Puddy closes by, again, returning to Jim Leach. Allow me to summarize Puddy’s argument: When Republicans make half-assed attempts to propose legislation that hasn’t a snow-ball’s chance in hell of actually becoming law, that means they support increased regulations on the finance and banking industry. When Republicans actually pass laws that bring about sweeping deregulation of the banking and finance industry, that does not mean that Republicans favor deregulation.
Hey moron@205, You gonna stop seeing Travolta/Preston or Cruise/Holmes movies because they are the nasty Scientologists?
What a fool!
Puddy gonna be gone for a while but again for all HAs to see how Don Joe is disingenuous in his arguments. Don Joe skips the evidence and says Puddy is wrong.
Don Joe conveniently forgets all the Rand evidence Puddy put forth on how Rand molded the Greenspan mind when Alan was a young’un. This is your only debate tactic you have Don Joe. You don’t argue on a merit based commentary, you argue by twisting other peoples’ words. Puddy don’t play that. Puddy takes your whole comment and responds.
Why bother continuing the rest of the argument when Don Joe opens up his response with disingenuous debate tactics? Disgusting dude. No value continuing the debate when you take one sentence and forget all the supporting evidence.
Puddy throws up his hands in disgust. Don Joe can’t make a cogent argument because Don Joe is disingenuous. See ya Don Joe! This debate it over.
EPIC FAIL dude.
@200 When Puddy was a pup scraping with his siblings didn’t your mother ever say to you, “I don’t care who started it?” I’m sure you heard that a thousand times. Apparently you didn’t take it to heart. Perhaps she understood the meaning of “turn the other cheek” whereas you never have. Jesus says to “turn the other cheek”. Your response? “Why should I?” Understand this, Puddy, regardless of what we claim our values to be, we act out our real values each and every day. You say that your values are better than the Democrats here. And yet you never show it. When the opportunity arises for you to act out real Christian values your response is a pathetic, “Why should I?” And yet you continue to hold your faith above others.
Speaking of namecalling, if I’ve followed the Regnery book titles correctly, then you and your fellow travelers believe Democrats to be treasonous, terrorist sympathizing, fascist, Godless heathens. When you call Greenspan a lib, you’re really accusing him of all of the above. Your only proof is to say that his wife is a Democrat. You demand the we prove otherwise.
We can see that you reject Christ’s teaching to “turn the other cheek. Bearing false witness doesn’t trouble you either, does it? You, the man who, along with Cynical, holds your faith to be above those of “Godless” Democrats? I’m sure you’ll have a “why should I” response for me with some infantile namecalling thrown in for good measure. The lipservice Puddy pays to his faith is peeled back as Puddy’s real values are acted out and revealed for all to see. What we can all see is a hypocritical man who says “why should I” not to us, but to his God.
You say that Greenspan is a lib. I now say that you are no Christian. I’m sure you agree with me when I say that it is up to you to prove me wrong. I suspect your next post and all posts to follow will fail to do so.
@61
Am I better off then a Wal-Mart worker? Of course; I’m a lawyer, I do skilled work, so I should be compensated better than a cashier or greeter. But Wal-Mart is also a greedy company that makes its profits on the backs of taxpayers by shifting its health insurance costs from the corporation to Medicaid — a practice that some states are starting to take legislative action against.
03/31/2009 at 3:41 pm
One or two days before you said you’re a judge.
Is this mail in schooling…..
Puddy @ 211
Don Joe conveniently forgets all the Rand evidence Puddy put forth on how Rand molded the Greenspan mind when Alan was a young’un.
Puddy has now gone completely insane. Puddy is claiming that a Randian acolyte is liberal on economic issues. After I spent a good deal of time pointing out that libertarians are virtually indistinguishable from Republicans on economic issues, Puddy then accuses me of ignoring all of his evidence.
Puddy, please, throw your hands up in disgust, but don’t forget to look yourself in the mirror before you do.
Just before walking out the door Puddy saw Steve’s vomit above. Curiously missing was his return comment on Sha’ria law vs Mosaic law. Why is that Steve. You mean Mosaic law doesn’t forbid you from dealing with the drinking gentile like Sha’ria law does with the drinking infidel? I guess the drinking part really inhibits Steve from making further commentary.
Just before walking out the door Puddy saw Steve’s vomit on name calling. Steve conveniently forgot this PuddyLine:
I guess the enjoy your morning goat had more meaning to him than turning the other cheek.
Oh BTW Steve, are you saying Greenspan was a Rethuglican, Nazi, goosestepping thug, jackbooted Nazi, cheap labor conservative?
Just checking Steve.
While Puddy was walking out the Door Don Joe farted again. While Puddy said he was through debating Don Joe on his disingenuous way of debating the Greenspan and Zell topics Puddy noticed another whopper:
Puddy Curious Don Joe. You first mentioned libertarian in comment #209, no where before. So how can Puddy respond to a libertarian comment when you never put forth this until #209? More EPIC FAIL dude.
Stupid is as stupid does. See ya Don Joe.
Shit! Don Joe has handed you your silly ass. Like I could give a flying f when you return.
It’s a lot nicer around here when you’re gone!
@215, 216 How Christ-like of you. What did I say about you and your subsequent posts? I was right about you. Again.
I’ll say again, you are no Christian. The only purpose the Bible serves for you is as something to cherrypick for scripture that serves your right-wing political agenda. As such, you necessarily ignore the words and teachings of Jesus.
My return comment on your deflection concerning Shar’ia and Biblical law? Hypocrite. It is you who failed to return comment when I say there is no difference between the two? You ignored my comment above about how you say Frum is a Democrat today because, as you claim without proof (as usual), that he was at one time a Democrat? I point out that Reagan was once a Democrat. I can see why you failed to return comment. I can see why you resort to deflection and denial. You failed to return comment both times and others unmentioned because to do so would require you to pull your head from your ass, look in the mirror and admit what a pathetic excuse for a man you have become. I didn’t return comment because your own comments were nothing but a weak and pathetic attempt to ignore my own remarks.
Puddy @ 217
You first mentioned libertarian in comment #209, no where before. So how can Puddy respond to a libertarian comment when you never put forth this until #209?
OMG. Now Puddy is going to prattle endlessly about the word “libertarian” while remaining completely ignorant of the fact that any Randian acolyte is, by definition, libertarian. Puddy’s particular combination of ignorance, bravado and dualism does make for some awfully funny entertainment.
Tell you what, Puddy. Do a web search for “Michelle Malkin John Galt”. Tell us what you find.
Stupid is as stupid does.
On this, I believe we are in violent agreement.
@213 Name a judge who was never a lawyer first.
@218 When Puddy was gone for a week the discussion here took a decided turn for the better. Even trolls elevated their game.
YLB & Steve,
I get the feeling Puddy’s going to be gone again for a while. I’m kinda thinkin’, though, if/when he does come back, we should all ask him what he found when he did a web search for “Michelle Malkin John Galt”.
Steve@221:
Deborah, The Judges Moses appointed after the children crossed the Jordan River.
@223: What does that have to do with anything? Another useless factoid?
Steve@222:
But Steve you were the same old goat spewing hater as always. So why didn’t you elevate your “game”?
Puddy, I notice you’re using the word EPIC a lot.
Did you learn a new word or just read the record label?
Don Joe@220: Not being a Rand “acolyte” She ain’t one of my heroes, but we can see you know her so well.
“Neither I nor “Atlas Shrugged” nor my philosophy has any connection with the so-called “Libertarian” movement. I hold that politics without a consistent philosophical base leads to disaster. The “Libertarian” movement is a random movement of emotional hippies-of-the-right who play at politics without philosophy or consistency…Ayn Rand to the New York Times, Letter to the editor August 11, 1976″
“Conservatism” and “Libertarianism” – Objectivists are not “conservatives.” We are radicals for capitalism; we are fighting for that philosophical base which capitalism did not have and without which it was doomed to perish… Ayn Rand – The Objectivist Newsletter, Jan. 1962 “Choose Your Issues”
GBS how are you? Doing fine was out for most of the day. Remember we’re on for the second week of May for lunch with Cynical and potentially PacMan.
EPIC FAIL is a description of the worthlessness of many leftist comments recently.
Don Joe: More Ayn Rand…
Democracy, in short, is a form of collectivism, which denies individual rights: the majority can do whatever it wants with no restrictions. In principle, the democratic government is all-powerful. Democracy is a totalitarian manifestation; it is not a form of freedom.
The Ayn Rand Letter, 1971, “How to Read (and Not to Write)”
Kind of what we’re seeing now in the Obama Administration.
Oh, we’re on for lunch in the 2nd week of May are we?
This reminds me of our ‘scheduled’ lunch before I went to Europe in 2006.
The only way I’ll have lunch with Mr. C. is if he brings along some of his trade slips to back up his smack about the stock trades he openly bragged about on HA.
Otherwise, I’m not interested in meeting him. Bona fide liars are not the company I keep. Especially, when I break bread.
You know that, MAAAAAANNNNN!
@226 Now you’re reduced to making shit up in a pathetic attempt to save face. You fool no one here. But that isn’t the point, now is it, Puddy? The fool needs to fool himself. I’m sure that’s how you’ve learned to live with what you’ve become.
Geeeeezzzzzzz, Puddy, Are you really reading Any Rand??
The garb there is incorrect. Would you pleae read, and comprehend before you post??
Gotta run.
Yack at you later.
GBS, no I’m not. Never read her books. Put your fingers in the sign of a cross; get it? But your pal Don Joe seems to love her.
@231 Puddy once wanted to break bread with me. But he’s a fickle man and now wants nothing to do with me. I had hoped to tell him about the time I crashed a Black Panther party up on 23rd back in 1969. I’m sure he would have got a kick out of that one. And I wanted to hear about what it was like for him growing up in Philly. Oh well. I think he takes our exchanges here too seriously. He needs to lighten up and laugh a little.
Puddy is very happy with his life’s outcome. Puddy sees peeps like Steve, stillbentover, clueless wonder, headless lucy; all your great friends, etc. Puddy has to respond.
Steve, making up what?
What Steve, Puddy didn’t say this first?
This hit home?
This was an excellent question.
Your game is still tepid at best dude. Still haven’t answered post #200’s name caller comments.
Steve, Puddy changed his mind over your stillbentover comments and you not calling headless out more. GBS stood up and was one of the first counted. You can recover your status with just a could of heartfelt sentences.
Don Joe, what has the clueless wonder brought to this discussion?
Puddy’ll wait while you are searching…
The miserable fool is back.
Let’s see in 210 he forsakes guilt by association yet uses it with Greenspan and Mitchell.
What a silly fool!
So with Sarah Palin IOKIYAR but with Greenspan it’s Stupes’ Silly Solution – when the right wing world is caving in cry “libtard”. He performs this idiocy with Paulson and Greenspan.
This fool’s mind is too f’ed up.
@237 “you not calling headless out more”
And just how many times have you called out manoftruth? You know damned well I was greatly disappointed to read those comments from 2005. And I was itching to get to the bottom of it. Maybe I will someday. Far better chance of that happening than my ever reading your denunciations of manoftruth’s hate that’s spewed now, not years ago. Perhaps you shouldn’t concern yourself with the speck in my eye when you have a beam stuck in your own.
“your stillbentover comments”
I have no idea who or what you’re talking about. It’s not like I keep track of the childish names you call other people here.
“You can recover your status with just a could of heartfelt sentences.”
Have you no regard for your own status? Just how many heartfelt statements of mine do you need to read? Has anybody else here ever apologized to you? Have you ever apologized to me? Do you think I don’t feel justified in going after you these past couple weeks?
See Don Joe, I present #239 from the clueless wonder.
I drink water clueless wonder. So Puddy supposes God’s creation is Stupes Silly Solution. So be it.
You’re terrifying.
Steve,
Do you remember what Puddy said was my mot call out requirement? GO BACK and reread it.
“your stillbentover comments” I have no idea who or what you’re talking about.
The rest is mindless blather.
@236 “Oh BTW Steve, are you saying Greenspan was a Rethuglican, Nazi, goosestepping thug, jackbooted Nazi, cheap labor conservative?”
Those are your words, not mine. I don’t see your point. Here’s one for you. Do one of your infamous Puddy searches and find a single instance where I’ve called former President Bush a “chimp” or any other name. Search all you want. You won’t find it. I can be a mean SOB, but I’ve tried to avoid that stuff.
241 – Solution as in solution to a problem.
This dipshit just can’t freaking read.
@242 “my mot call out requirement”
Apparently Puddy will stand up to hate, but only if his price is met. And you think you’re somehow better than other people? I don’t have a price, Puddy. I do try to do what’s right, occasionally at great risk.
Holy crap. I leave the office to pick up my daughter, drop her off at home, pick up my son, drop him off for his games night, and come back here to find Puddy has left nothing but shit all over the place.
First of all, Puddy, for the I-don’t-know-how-many-th time, I don’t have heroes. Putting people on a pedestal is a distinctly Puddyesque phenomenon.
Secondly, even if I did put people on some kind of pedestal, you can rest assured that Ayn Rand would surely not be one of them.
Lastly, Puddy, lost in the mist of all the shit you’re slinging around here is the fact that you brought up Ayn Rand in an effort to prove that Alan Greenspan’s economic philosophy is liberal. I’m particularly fond of this little gem:
Care to explain, again, how Alan Greenspan’s adoration of Ayn Rand implies that Greenspan was a closet liberal? Or, are you simply too stupid to figure out that, with that quote, you’ve just shot yourself completely in the foot?
And you still haven’t told us what you found when you did that web search for “Michelle Malkin John Galt”. All you did was proclaim it “useless,” which is just about what you always do when I bring up facts that happen to contradict your conclusion.
So, Puddy. Tell us what you found. Or, are you simply not man enough to admit that you’ve totally screwed up your claim that Alan Greenspan is a liberal?
@242 “The rest is mindless blather”
I borrowed from the word of Jesus. Puddy calls that “mindless blather”. LMFAO!! Is there no end to how far you’ll go to save face?
@242 “You don’t remember saying about clueless wonder and stillbentover:”I find their comments very funny”?”
How many times must I tell you that, when you call use the infantile names you call people, I have idea who you’re talking about?
Regardless, I find some of the posts by Headless Lucy and BBG to be funny, even hilarious. Sometimes, not so much. Occasionally they are even offensive. Does that clear things up for you?
It’s obvious now that you won’t confront manoftruth because it’s the simply right thing to do. Sigh, and I thought I had set an example for you to follow. Please remind me, just what is the price we must pay to get you to stand up to hate?
@246 “web search for “Michelle Malkin John Galt”.”
I did that search and I found a lot of crazy wingnuttery. Hmm, crazy and wingnuttery. I’m being redundant here, aren’t I?
Don Joe, Post #211 is my final debate answer.
Steve, those are infantile names? No those are well thought out ones which describe something each wrote.
BBG claims he bends my wife over and “fucks her in the ass” – hence stillbentover
Roger Rabbit drops 15 to 20 single sentence posts in a row – his pellets. I personally like Roger Roadkill but that belongs to another righty.
You can read ylb’s clueless wonder banter everyday.
See ya Steve.
So Steve
Why not say it?
Regarding MOT, Puddy already said he’s personally offensive but he’s has a right to say what he feels. Does Puddy need to show this post to you Steve? Well this time you’ll have to perform your own due diligence. Puddy also said he won’t call out mot until the majority of HA weasels call out headless. Even seeing all of his cockroach posts, they were mysteriously mum Steve. Didn’t that pique your interest. Since that ain’t gonna happen well…
BTW Steve, if you are really good you’ll find my callout of JCH on HA. Puddy has to prove what Puddy says cuz Steve you don’t take great notes.
@252 “Why not say it?”
Good grief, man, I just did!!
“Regarding MOT, Puddy already said he’s personally offensive but he’s has a right to say what he feels. Does Puddy need to show this post to you Steve?”
For Puddy once is enough. But Puddy insists that I call out others on a regular basis. As far as the “right” to speak. Does not Headless have the same rights as manoftruth? And, yeah, show me the single time you actually said something about manoftruth’s hate.
So Puddy sets conditions for himself to display any courage or valor. I don’t play that game. I’ll leave that to you.
@252 “my callout of JCH on HA”
I have no idea who you are talking about or why. It must have been before my time. I’ve only posted here for the last year.
@251 “Steve, those are infantile names? No those are well thought out ones which describe something each wrote.”
So is “goatfucker” a well thought out name, though I’ve retired that term. It’s a two syllable word summarizing Republican moral failure. Puts it in a nutshell, don’t you think?
Anyway, I see that it’s OK for you, not OK for me. It must be that IOKIYAR thing again.
Puddy @ 250
Don Joe, Post #211 is my final debate answer.
Puddy, I am in complete agreement with everything you’ve said connecting Alan Greenspan to Ayn Rand. I have always been in complete agreement with everything you’ve said connecting Alan Greenspan to Ayn Rand. Frankly, I’m amazed that you could read what I’d said at 209 and react the way you did.
Yes, Rand, as an objectivist, disavowed libertarianism in general, but, today, the vast majority of both Libertarians and people who ascribe to various aspects of libertarian philosophy cite Ayn Rand as someone who articulated the underlying philosophy of their movement.
Moreover, in terms of economic philosophy, all the various shades of objectivism and libertarianism are in complete agreement with each other and with the Republican Party.
As wikipedia notes:
According to Britanica.com’s entry on the Republican Party:
So, let’s recap, shall we? In terms of economic philosophy, Ayn Rand = liberarianism = the Republican Party. You’ve claimed that Alan Greenspan was a closet liberal, but, in support of that claim, have also pointed out that Alan Greenspan was both a friend and an avid student of Ayn Rand’s philosophy (I’ve used the word “acolyte” to describe Greenspan’s relationship to Rand).
So, Puddy, if 211 is your final word in this debate, then I’m afraid you’re going to have to concede that you were wrong about Alan Greenspan. Either that, or everyone here will know that you’re just not man enough to admit that you were wrong.
Don Joe, let’s recap…
“Neither I nor “Atlas Shrugged” nor my philosophy has any connection with the so-called “Libertarian” movement. I hold that politics without a consistent philosophical base leads to disaster. The “Libertarian” movement is a random movement of emotional hippies-of-the-right who play at politics without philosophy or consistency…Ayn Rand to the New York Times, Letter to the editor August 11, 1976″
Seems to everyone, Ayn Rand’s words have more weight than someone writing an article Don Joe. Puddy isn’t surprised at this attitude Don Joe.
Puddy @ 158
You, who feigns disgust over my supposedly ignoring everything you said about Ayn Rand and Alan Greenspan now take it upon yourself to completely ignore what I wrote above:
Moreover, you’ve apparently completely forgotten that the central issue here is economic philosophy. I know you’ve been scouring the internet trying to find a quote from Rand where she disavows laissez-faire capitalism. Why do you suppose you haven’t found any such quote from her, Puddy? Isn’t the fact that you can’t find such a quote compelling evidence that Rand did, in fact, advocate laissez-faire capitalism?
And before you start arguing that Rand being some kind of “socialist”, here’s an entire web page with quotes from rand on property rights.
“Michelle Malkin John Galt,” Puddy. If there is no connection between Ayn Rand and Republican economic philosophy, then why was Michelle Malkin talking about people going John Galt? Or is Michelle Malkin now a “leftist pinhead”?
And, you’re still not man enough to admit your mistake. Talk about disgusting. You, Puddy, take “disgusting” to an entirely new level.
So what Don Joe?
Puddy could say “Puddy is a Jessie Jackson fan”.
Puddy could say “Puddy is a Al Sharpton fan”.
Puddy could say “Puddy is a Don Joe acolyte”, but THAT WOULD BE THREE BOLD LIES!
Regarding me scouring the Internet, NOPE Puddy went out with friends yesterday, came back saw your “witless attack” and had to answer.
Puddy @ 260 spews:
So what Don Joe?
Your claim that Alan Greenspan is a “leftist pinhead” has been proved false. Conclusively.
Now, quite a few people are starting to notice a rapidly waning rationality in your comments here. You could go a long way to dispelling that impression of irrationality if you were to own up to the fact that you were, indeed, wrong about Alan Greenspan.
The question is, will you admit to an obvious error, or will your tailspin into even further depths of irrational discourse continue unabated?
How Don Joe. You keep saying Rand is a Libertarian. Rand said she wasn’t. Why do you make stuff up Don Joe?
Rapid waning rationality? You tell good jokes. Puddy quotes Ayn Rand and you quote WikiPedia. Seems you da fool Don Joe.
@261 You’d have better luck conversing with a brick wall, Don Joe.
Puddy @ 262
You keep saying Rand is a Libertarian.
Where does Don Joe say this, Puddy? Is this the echo of some misbegotten idea that keeps bouncing around inside that empty head of yours? I said that “libertarian” (little el) best describes Alan Greenspan’s politics.
The really funny part is that you keep arguing as if Greenspan’s politics are indistinguishable from Rand’s political views, which only serves to underscore your ignorance of the subject. If you knew anything at all about the views of Objectivists, you’d know that they would all claim that Greenspan ceased to be an Objectivist the instant he took the job as Fed Chairman.
Rapid waning rationality?
First, I said, “rapidly waning rationality.” The fact that you don’t know the difference between an adjective and an adverb does not give you license to misquote me.
Second, you are obviously, and flat out, lying about what I’ve said regarding Ayn Rand’s political views. The reason for this is obvious: you’re not man enough to admit that you were wrong.
Steve @ 263 is only partially correct. I might have a more informative and interesting discussion if I were conversing with a wall, but I’m having absolutely undeniable success in proving that Puddy is a completely ignorant idiot of highly questionable character and sanity.
Da Sucka above @264: You keep saying Rand is a Libertarian. Where does Don Joe say this, Puddy?
Don Joe forgets what he types
We knew you meant libertarianism. Puddy excuses mistypes.
And don’t try to say “I only meant economic philosophy.” NUFF Said Sucka…
Once one proves Don Joe is a raving lunatic, the rest of his rant is just lunacy.
Here is some salve for ya sucka… http://www.laissez-fairerepublic.com/LIBERTAR.htm
Since you like WikiPedia… Libertarianism is a term used by a broad spectrum[1] of political philosophies which seek to maximize individual liberty[2] and minimize or abolish the state.[3] There are a number of libertarian view points, ranging from anarchist to small government, and from anti-property to pro-property.[4][5][6] The word libertarian is an antonym of authoritarian.[7]
Libertarianism’s status is in dispute among those who style themselves Objectivists (Objectivism is the name novelist Ayn Rand gave her philosophy). Though elements of Rand’s philosophy have been adopted by libertarianism, Objectivists (including Rand herself) have condemned libertarianism as a threat to freedom and capitalism. In particular, it has been claimed that libertarians use Objectivist ideas “with the teeth pulled out of them”.[106][107]
Puddy @ 265
Don Joe doesn’t forget what he types. Puddy has a very selective way of reading:
In terms of economic philosophy, Ayn Rand = liberarianism = the Republican Party.
Puddy further spews:
And don’t try to say “I only meant economic philosophy.”
Why the hell not when that is exactly what I said?
Again, the Puddy Parade of Partial Punditry rears its ever so ugly head. Puddy can’t bear to acknowledge that I’ve been talking about economic philosophy all along, even in the statements where Puddy quotes me, because that would force Puddy to acknowledge that he’s been wrong.
And, Puddy is, quite simply, not man enough to ever admit that he’s been wrong on this from the outset.
Of course Don Joe is so delusional he can’t admit Ayn Rand said she didn’t believe in Libertarianism. But to Don Joe, someone else’s word is more important.
Remember the movie Back to School with Rodney Dangerfield? He has Kurt Vonnegut write a paper on Kurt Vonnegut and the professor throws out the paper. That professor is Don Joe. He’d rather read what someone else writes than the own words of Ayn Rand.
Puddy @ 267 spews:
Of course Don Joe is so delusional he can’t admit Ayn Rand said she didn’t believe in Libertarianism.
Puddy, what does it mean when someone says, “Rand, as an objectivist, disavowed libertarianism in general”?
Puddy is setting an entirely new standard in “epic fail,” all because he’s not man enough to admit that he was wrong.
Don Joe, there is no need to say I’m wrong when Rand an Objectivist, says she is not a Libertarian in any shape of form. Yet because others accept a piece of her capitalistic position, she’s a Libertarian.
Dr Delusional asks:
It means nothing to Ayn Rand, as it’s someone else’s thoughts on her position. It means something to the sentence creator because he/she is trying to make a point.
This is where Don Joe can’t admit he’s wrong like his other time when CJS and Jane eviserated him on his wrong data. Don Joe relies on what others say while Puddy delivers Ayn’s own position statement. Ayn says she’s not a libertarian, but Don Joe finds a statement where the Libertarians like what Ayn wrote and take it to their position so they are right and Ayn is wrong…
See ya.
Puddy @ 269 spews:
Don Joe, there is no need to say I’m wrong when Rand an Objectivist, says she is not a Libertarian in any shape of form.
Notice how Puddy is no longer talking about Alan Greenspan.
Yet because others accept a piece of her capitalistic position, she’s a Libertarian.
Notice, again, that the only way Puddy can convince himself that Don Joe was wrong about Ayn Rand is to lie about what Don Joe actually said.
I asked Puddy what it meant for someone to say that Rand disavowed libertarianism in general. Puddy’s earth-shattering response was:
It means nothing to Ayn Rand, as it’s someone else’s thoughts on her position. It means something to the sentence creator because he/she is trying to make a point.
Now, we have Puddy projecting his own dishonest motives on Don Joe. What Don Joe actually said is meaningless to Puddy, and we know why.
Puddy then has to lie, again, about Don Joe saying that Don Joe didn’t admit his mistake about CBO projections. Don Joe admitted that mistake several times over.
Puddy lies, because Puddy isn’t man enough to admit his own mistakes.
First we’ll deal with Don Joe’s “admitted mistake” wording
Funniest thing I’ve read in a while…how these admitted errors affect my judgment. If you admit an error then the judgment from the admitted error is also false. Too Damn Funny dude.
Got that right. You admitted your “error” but your judgment is perfectly sound on an erroneous presentation.
Now this is the coup de grace. You have no credibility because of an erroneous presentation and so you deflect your wrong conclusions on those who pointed out your wrong conclusions. This is Don Joe’s modus operandi.
Why do you do this Don Joe?
Why do you deflect blame on others when your worthless positions are blown apart?
Why do you think people will miss this character flaw Don Joe?
Why do you blame your mistakes on others Don Joe?
Yeah really contrite mistake responses Don Joe.
Now to the whoppers above…
Whopper #1
You dropped Greenspan and decided to focus on Rand as a Libertarian. Puddy is trying to decipher your swill and meandering argumentative style.
Whopper #2
Yeah that’s the ticket. Puddy delivered Don Joe’s response to Ayn Rands words. Anything delivered against a Don Joe rant is a lie against Don Joe. Your words Don Joe
Puddy didn’t force you to write that.
Whopper #3:
Notice Don Joe’s use of the words “in general”. She fully disavowed them Don Joe not in general. Great try at twisting her words. You are a master at argument deflection. Puddy asks the world where does Ayn Rand say “I reject Libertarianism ‘in general’ in her commentary?
Can’t seem to find “in general” Don Joe. You can’t either. So when Puddy responds “It means nothing to Ayn Rand, as it’s someone else’s thoughts on her position. It means something to the sentence creator because he/she is trying to make a point.” it’s cogent now as it was last night. But of course Don Joe “in general” has to enter the twilight zone:
because “in general” Don Joe is truly a moron!
In general, Don Joe gets so caught up in his own thoughts and he projects them in general on other people’s commentary to “mold” them into Don Joe World.
Don Joe,
Stupes has been exposed as an ugly liar before.
One time so bad that he left HA supposedly for good.
Of course he lied about staying away and gave a total bullshit reason for coming back.
Stupes is the poster child of right wing insanity.
And you clueless idiot forgets on November 10, 2006 @10:00AM you said “My work is done, I’m leaving” and at 5:07 PM you return as YOS LIB BRO?
FOOL!
clueless wonder’s glass house has many broken panes! BTW Puddy didn’t need Goldy to tell him your name morphing idiot monikers. Puddy’s own detective work figgered it out.
273 – Yeah sure “I am Puddybud, NOT” and “my word is my bond”.
Bonded to what you pull out of your ass!!!
LOL!
clueless wonder lives vicariously off of others. You didn’t find it fool. But Puddy deciphered your crap and found you out.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahaha
‘Productivity….’
For YLB:
Productivity
Noun
1. The quality of being productive or having the power to produce.
2. (economics) the ratio of the quantity and quality of units produced to the labor per unit of time.
In economics: A measurement of the efficiency of production.
A)the rate of output per worker or per machine in a factory; b)the rate return per unit(pound, dollar, etc. )of capital. Source: European Union.
The ratio of output to the total labour time spent on production.
It’s a little funny someone unemployed, I mean “between jobs”, who pays nothing and produces nothing somehow has the audacity to speak of anything related to the above after calling others who are productive and taxpayers “losers”. But then again, gainful employment continues to elude the almighty weasel Goldy too…. That’s hypocrisy for ya! Enjoy the sun!
Puddy @ 271 spews:
If you admit an error then the judgment from the admitted error is also false.
Again, Puddy either demonstrates his ignorance or shows his willingness to lie in order to avoid admitting his own mistakes. Puddy asserts, without evidence or any form of deductive reasoning whatsoever, that my entire argument was based on that one piece of data about which I was wrong. Puddy ignores the primary, and uncontested, factual bases for that argument (facts about how, and how much, wealthy people save).
Why, because Puddy ignores facts that would destroy his own argument. For example, Puddy quotes me:
Ayn Rand = liberarianism = the Republican Party.
Notice how Puddy now completely drops the qualifier from my original sentence. The funny part is that Puddy quoted my full statement back in his comment at 265. Does Puddy really think that no one is going to notice this? Apparently so.
Which brings us to the question of credibility. I’d said:
Why do people who have absolutely no credibility whatsoever think that they can have anything legitimate to say about the credibility of someone else?
In Puddy’s dualistic world, people are either completely credible or they have no credibility whatsoever. So, once one makes even an inconsequential mistake, in Puddy’s world, one has no credibility whatsoever.
Which is why Puddy isn’t man enough to admit that he was wrong about Alan Greenspan. He’s also not man enough to admit that he’s lying about what I’ve said. This would force Puddy to admit that, by his own reckoning, Puddy has no credibility whatsoever.
Puddy then accused Don Joe of dropping Alan Greenspan from the discussion:
You dropped Greenspan and decided to focus on Rand as a Libertarian. Puddy is trying to decipher your swill and meandering argumentative style.
I mentioned Greenspan in my comment at 264. Puddy chose to focus on Ayn Rand in his comments at 229 and 231, and hasn’t discussed the connections between Alan Greenspan and Ayn Rand since then.
If Puddy wants to decipher a meandering argumentative style, Puddy should try to make sense of the disconnected ideas bouncing around in his own head.
Which brings us to Puddy not understanding “in general”. And, as usual, Puddy’s failure to understand is someone else’s fault. Of course, in order to get there Puddy has to, again, misquote Don Joe:
Puddy asks the world where does Ayn Rand say “I reject Libertarianism ‘in general’ in her commentary?
This, even after Puddy quoted my actual words:
I asked Puddy what it meant for someone to say that Rand disavowed libertarianism in general.
Apparently Puddy is ignorant of the fact that “libertarianism” (little el) is not the same thing as the so-called “Libertarian movement” that Ayn Rand was discussing in the passage he quotes. There are “libertarians” (little el) who have nothing to do with the Libertarian (capital “L”) movement for precisely the reasons that Ayn Rand stated in the letter that Puddy quotes. Puddy chooses to ignore the difference between a “movement” and a “philosophy”.
Lastly, note how any and all mention of economic philosophy is absent in Puddy’s discussion. Indeed, Puddy even tries to preclude me from even talking about economic philosophy, despite the fact that economic philosophy is the overall issue. Puddy cannot accept the fact that policies that implemented Republican economic philosophy lie at the heart of the present economic crisis.
I’ve proved that Ayn Rand was an advocate of laissez-faire capitalism, I’ve proved that laissez-faire capitalism is an integral part of all forms of libertarian views, and I’ve proved that laissez-faire capitalism is part-and-parcel of Republican economic philosophy.
I’ve, ultimately, proved that Puddy was wrong on a vast majority of the issues we’ve been discussing. But, Puddy isn’t man enough to admit this. So, Puddy lies. No one is surprised by this.
About the only thing that might surprise anyone here is the extent to which Puddy is going to continue with these lies and deceptions. Only time will tell.
Don Joe,
No I don’t and you can try to twist my words all over but you continue to EPIC FAIL. In General, You can’t deal with his previous “deductive” posts being dissected because Ayn Rand didn’t say it but deductively Don Joe puts a transitive argument together because in his mind it’s the right thing to do. In General, Don Joe can’t argue on the actual Rand commentary facts, he has to look for some train running somewhere else so he can hang his hat there. In General Once Don Joe hangs his hat there he call you a liar.
In General, Don Joe, Puddy didn’t twist fold or mutilate your comments. In General, Puddy showed your deductive reasoning to be flawed.
So In General, Don Joe either using
or
In General, You try to deduce something Rand OBJECTIVELY rejects. Yet you rant In General, on for the last 5 posts about vacuous positions not held by Rand and you claim it’s her gospel.
Regarding Greenspan, In General, you haven’t yet articulated a cogent position on his support back in the early 50s. You focus on the 80’s and 90’s. Why is that Don Joe? In General, it doesn’t fit your deductive argument?
In General, the only similarity between your “movement” and your philosophy” argument is that fact both need to be cleaned up with toilet paper. In General, your deductive reasoning powers are flushable. Why? Because Don Joe uses other people’s arguments for his worthless hypothesis. When Puddy gave Don Joe http://www.laissez-fairerepublic.com/LIBERTAR.htm did you HA weasels notice how Don Joe had no comment. In General, that’s because Libertarians or Libertarianism isn’t Republican. In General, it isn’t Objective Randism. But for Don Joe’s argument to survive In General, he has to skip this link. Ayn Rand was not a practical idealist.
In General, Don Joe hasn’t proved shit except the shit between his eyes. In General, all he did was take some factoids and threw them together and say look at my deductive powers. In General, Don Joe accused me of Partial Punditry and that’s his main argument style. Of course Don Joe has to run this out:
In General, Where Don Joe? You haven’t addressed
Greenspan of the 50s…
Greenspan of the 60s…
Ayn Rand is not a libertarian or a proponent of libertarianism…
You forget and discount Rand’s own words on the subject…
Don Joe’s argument doesn’t even wash on WikiPedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire
In General, Don Joe is the stupid professor on Back to School.
Don Joe,
No I don’t and you can try to twist my words all over but you continue to EPIC FAIL. In General, You can’t deal with his previous “deductive” posts being dissected because Ayn Rand didn’t say it but deductively Don Joe puts a transitive argument together because in his mind it’s the right thing to do. In General, Don Joe can’t argue on the actual Rand commentary facts, he has to look for some train running somewhere else so he can hang his hat there. In General Once Don Joe hangs his hat there he call you a liar.
In General, Don Joe, Puddy didn’t twist fold or mutilate your comments. In General, Puddy showed your deductive reasoning to be flawed.
So In General, Don Joe either using
or
In General, You try to deduce something Rand OBJECTIVELY rejects. Yet you rant In General, on for the last 5 posts about vacuous positions not held by Rand and you claim it’s her gospel.
Regarding Greenspan, In General, you haven’t yet articulated a cogent position on his support back in the early 50s. You focus on the 80’s and 90’s. Why is that Don Joe? In General, it doesn’t fit your deductive argument?
In General, the only similarity between your “movement” and your philosophy” argument is that fact both need to be cleaned up with toilet paper. In General, your deductive reasoning powers are flushable. Why? Because Don Joe uses other people’s arguments for his worthless hypothesis. When Puddy gave Don Joe www . laissez-fairerepublic . com /LIBERTAR.htm did you HA weasels notice how Don Joe had no comment. In General, that’s because Libertarians or Libertarianism isn’t Republican. In General, it isn’t Objective Randism. But for Don Joe’s argument to survive In General, he has to skip this link. Ayn Rand was not a practical idealist.
In General, Don Joe hasn’t proved shit except the shit between his eyes. In General, all he did was take some factoids and threw them together and say look at my deductive powers. In General, Don Joe accused me of Partial Punditry and that’s his main argument style. Of course Don Joe has to run this out:
In General, Where Don Joe? You haven’t addressed
Greenspan of the 50s…
Greenspan of the 60s…
Ayn Rand is not a libertarian or a proponent of libertarianism…
You forget and discount Rand’s own words on the subject…
Don Joe’s argument doesn’t even wash on WikiPedia en . wikipedia . org /wiki/Laissez-faire
In General, Don Joe is the stupid professor on Back to School.
Moron @ 277
The ugly mean-spritedness you’ve brought here since before the 2005 election contest has “produced” for you in spades.
Fool! and yes, LOSER!
I found that swiss cheese hole in your “bubble memory” that forgot about my support for Obama in 2007.
I posted that as YOS LIB BRO. Then you bullshitted about my screen name changes!!
I wiped your silly ass all over the floor fool!
Is this moron Stupes still trying to sell that Greenspan is a “leftist” because he’s married to Andrea Mitchell?
He’s not fooling anyone but his own stupid self.
Who appointed Greenspan Fed Chair? Ronnie Raygun no?
Next Stupes will be boxed into the “unforgivable sin” of calling Raygun a “leftist”.
Need Puddy say more? Nope! The fool admits he’s a name changing morphing clueless wonder.
My ugly mean-spiritedness? Oh you mean the name calling you started on Puddy when you disagreed with him in 2004? Go back and see your vile mean-spiritedness fool.
While were on the topic of your lunacy, remember this plagiarizing gem http://horsesass.org/?p=1855 @post #135?
You are: A LEGEND IN YOUR OWN MIND.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahaha
HELL NO clueless wonder, Puddy said Greenspan was shaped by Ayn Rand in the 50s and 60s. No one can refute that because it’s known fact.
Then he fought against derivative securities being managed.
Well, we’re rapidly heading toward another 300 comment thread in which Don Joe hands Puddy is ass on a plate. This is fun:
No I don’t and you can try to twist my words all over…
Puddy doesn’t what? Lie? I’ve proved it. Over and over again, and I’ve not had to twist Puddy’s words in order to do so. I will, however, prove, again, that Puddy wants to twist Don Joe’s words. But, first:
In General, You can’t deal with his previous “deductive” posts being dissected because Ayn Rand didn’t say it but deductively Don Joe puts a transitive argument together because in his mind it’s the right thing to do.
As best as anyone can tell from this discussion, Puddy has cited a single quote from Ayn Rand as refutation of the notion that Ayn Rand advocated laissez-faire capitalism. If Puddy’s comments are to make any sense whatsoever, Puddy’s syllogism must go like this:
1) Ayn Rand rejected the Libertarian movement saying that her philosophy has no “connection with the so-called “Libertarian” movement.”
2) The Libertarian movement advocates laissez-faire capitalism.
3) Therefore Ayn Rand rejected laissez-faire capitalism.
This syllogism, based on a single quote from Ayn Rand, has to ignore the volumes of evidence in which Ayn Rand advocates laissez-faire capitalism. This includes both the web site I linked to back in my comment at 259 and the statement from Rand’s The Virtue of Selfishness quoted in the very Wikipedia page that Puddy cited at the end of his previous comment:
Does Puddy make any attempt whatsoever to reconcile this quote from the single quote to which he keeps returning again and again? Is it Don Joe who chooses to ignore Ayn Rand’s words, or is it Puddy who chooses to ignore Ayn Rand’s own words?
Puddy wonders whether I would advocate:
or
Fascinating, isn’t it? Puddy asks Don Joe to choose between a full quote of Don Joe’s words or a partial quote of Don Joe’s words. If this isn’t a blatant attempt on Puddy’s part to twist Don Joe’s words, one wonders what, in Puddy’s mind, would constitute such an attempt.
Perhaps we can gain some insights into this by returning to the question of Alan Greenspan’s politics. Puddy blurts:
Puddy first provided that link in his comment at 265. Yet, I’d previously said in my comment at at 210:
Now, why should I have to comment further on a set of facts about which I’d already commented? Puddy keeps wanting to ignore the central question of economic philosophy.
If I were to say that basketballs and baseballs are both round, Puddy would plummet me with a barrage of quotes and web links saying that basketballs and baseballs are not the same thing while not once countering the simple statement that baseballs and basketballs are both round.
Yet, when I say that, in terms of economic philosophy, Ayn Rand, libertarianism and Republicans are indistinguishable from one another, I am stating the rhetorical equivalent of saying that baseballs and basketballs are both round. Puddy wants to drop the “in terms of economic philosophy” part, because Puddy wants to get into a general discussion that only serves to obfuscate the central point.
Which brings me to the last bit of Puddy insanity:
Regarding Greenspan, In General, you haven’t yet articulated a cogent position on his support back in the early 50s. You focus on the 80’s and 90’s. Why is that Don Joe?
Well, because the central question is Alan Greenspan’s economic philosophy while he was Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Why does Puddy want to talk about Alan Greenspan of the 50’s and 60’s, when Alan Greenspan didn’t become Chairman of the Federal Reserve until 1987?
Puddy wants to create a smokescreen; a smokescreen that clearly designed to avoid having to admit that he’s been wrong about Alan Greenspan since Puddy first referred to Greenspan as a “leftist pinhead”. Puddy’s not man enough to admit that he was wrong.
@286 “Puddy’s not man enough”
Puddy’s manhood can be questioned on several fronts. Speaking of which, I see that our friends Troll and Mr. Klynical want to start a discussion about black-on-white crime over on the “Yet another Profile in Courage” thread. The last time we had visited this subject Puddy had blessed Troll’s use of the “N” word to describe blacks who have committed a black-on-white crime. So this could be interesting.
YLB stands for YOS LIB BRO idiot!!
I was referring to Mark1, one of your peeps who made a career out of calling Chris Gregoire a “bitch” and a “twat”. You know, the kind of guy you call out to daily around here.
Brain fart!!!!! I only started commenting here in December 2004. You probably weren’t here then. Show me the link fool!
Where did I say it was my own work? Any idiot (like you of course) could see I was quoting. You’ve quoted a shitload of right wing bullshit without attribution.
Looking in the mirror? Of course. You’ve never been able to get over your stupid self.
Witness the lunatic in the asylum: Stupes.
First off clueless wonder… Professor Darryl has stated many times you cite the reference. You didn’t end of story moron. You’ve don that many times from Kos and Puddy caught you.
Puddy been here since before the 2004 election moron. Puddy already cited one of your name calling reference in January when Steve first asked about Puddy’s name calling. Puddy then asked you to tell Steve why you resort to ad hominim attacks and I spelled it just like that. Don Joe then ridiculed me for the misspelling of hominem. You went quiet fool because you were caught. Don’t have to post it again. Other HA weasels commented on it fool!
Don’t you remember For the Clueless? You are A LEGEND IN YOUR OWN MIND. That was your first name cluelessman. Don’t change the subject. Or how about those special Bush HNMT choices you used in January 2009 fool?
@283 “calling Raygun a “leftist””
Puddy already did that when he claimed that David Frum was a pin-headed leftist. Puddy reasoned that Frum’s a Dem because he was a Dem decades ago, no matter what he did in the meantime. Once a Dem, always a Dem, claimed Puddy. Of course, there’s no evidence that Frum was ever a Dem. On the other hand, Reagan wasn’t only once a Democrat, he was a fucking “Hollyweird” Democrat. In fact, Puddy says that he hmself was once a Dem. Confronted with his failure in reasoning, Puddy changed the subject as he usually does, chalking himself up for yet another victorious debate. Poor sap. It seems that he has to erase everything that doesn’t fit into his insane reality construct.
Golly Don Joe where to start? We can all see you skipped over the first part of #271. That sets up the rest of my argument. Of course you skip over that because it demonstrates the foolishness of your premises and when shown wrong you’ll revert to this ad hominem attack:
When you ignore your own words from a previous thread (was Puddy lying Don Joe) it makes you look really stupid for the rest of the rant.
If the argument gets refuted use the same line again with different qualifiers…
Regarding his “syllogism”,
Since Ayn Rand rejects any notion of her Objectivism being called Libertarianism, Don Joe chokes on the big one and still calls it something else from the “mountains of evidence”. Don Joe won’t concede some libertarians have hijacked Rand’s laissez faire positions but She flat out rejected them as Puddy stated above.
It’s tough debating a brick wall of ignorance or is that a barn door of stupidity. Don Joe hijacks my EPIC FAIL, KABLAMMMMMMO and soon the barn door and brick wall.
That is a fact. Are you calling Ayn Rand a “leftist”. How fucking insane are you? Rand was a refugee from the Soviet Union.
Michelle Malkin is one of the queens of your right wing bullshit crowd. She’s been doing that “John Galt” bullshit. That’s one of the characters in Rand’s novels! What’s next? You calling Malkin a leftie?
WTF does this mean? Against being regulated? Of course he would fool. Greenspan was all for that laissez-faire capitalist dogma!
Ok then you’re guilty, too. Long time ago I pointed out some newswhacks.com bullshit you pasted without a link and you said “there’s quotes around it”.
Such a prevaricating fool!
Frum was a Federalist Society conservative at Harvard Law School. I think he said one of only a few at the time.
Lots of neo-cons were Dem at one time. Norman Podhoretz, Richard Perle worked for Scoop Jackson.
So would Stupes think Perle is a “leftist pinhead”? Man this fool has boxed himself into a corner!
Show me the links fool and I will refute your silly ass or admit any missteps on my part. Like you’ve ever done that without pulling teeth!
Puddy @ 291 spews:
Golly Don Joe where to start?
Well, Puddy could start with the truth. That would be a refreshing change of pace.
We can all see you skipped over the first part of #271.
Well, no. In my reply at 278, I said:
Only in Puddy’s empty-headed brain did Don Joe skip over that one.
The funny part is when Puddy skips over the bulk of my refutation of his syllogism by merely restating it:
Since Ayn Rand rejects any notion of her Objectivism being called Libertarianism, Don Joe chokes on the big one and still calls it something else from the “mountains of evidence”.
Not once does Puddy address the fact that Ayn Rand, in her own words, says that she advocates laissez-faire capitalism. Instead, Puddy conjures up an entirely new idea that has no supporting evidence whatsoever:
So, some libertarians “hijacked Rand’s laissez faire[sic] positions.” A fascinating assertion. We’ll return to this in a bit, but first let’s see what Puddy fails to consider.
One reasonable interpretation of the Rand quote that Puddy keeps returning to is that Libertarians (capital el–why does Puddy keep failing to uphold this distinction?) extracted the specific laissez-faire notions from Rand’s general philosophy and threw out the rest–that, in essence, the “Libertarian movement” that Rand refers to took Rand’s conclusions regarding the preferred economic philosophy and threw out the underlying metaphysical philosophy that led to those conclusions about economic philosophy. Note that, in this interpretation, the economic philosophy in question, namely laissez-faire capitalism, is the same philosophy.
But, that doesn’t work for Puddy. Without putting forth any effort whatsoever to show that the laissez-faire of the Libertarian movement differs substantially from the laissez-faire that Rand mentions, Puddy posits that libertarians (little “el”) have “hijacked” Rand’s laissez-faire positions. In order to get around this notion that Ayn Rand, libertarianism and Republicans all share the same economic philosophy, Puddy has to assert that when each of them uses the phrase “laissez-faire capitalism” they aren’t really talking about the same thing.
Implicit in Puddy’s reading of the Rand quote he cites is the idea that Rand’s version of laissez-faire capitalism is something new and unique; that Rand’s use of the term “laissez-faire capitalism” was not designed to describe her views using an off-the-shelf term the meaning of which is not, and never was, in any way controversial.
In other words, Puddy’s trying to create some controversy over the meaning of the phrase “laissez-faire capitalism” where no such controversy exists. Rather, the phrase “laissez-faire capitalism” has always had a pretty standard meaning, and no one, neither Rand nor the Libertarians (nor the Republicans for that matter) have attempted to do change that meaning.
So, Puddy chastises Don Joe, because Don Joe won’t concede something that Puddy has utterly failed to prove to be true.
You see, it’s not Puddy’s fault that he’s not man enough to admit that he’s wrong. It’s Don Joe’s fault. Puddy’s deflection is now complete. Too bad the only place this works is in Puddy’s own dilapidated head.
Oh, and ah, before Puddy accuses me of, again, dropping Alan Greenspan from this discussion, allow me to point out that Puddy is the one who has, yet again, failed to mention Alan Greenspan. Is there no end to the number of Puddy failings and character flaws that Puddy will project onto those who are not persuaded by Puddy’s feckless rhetoric?
It wasn’t moron! Shows how clueless you are!
Stupes. I took a look at the high traffic threads in Sept, Oct, Nov 2004. “Puddybud” is not there.
So did you lie yet again?
Put this to rest. Show me da link…
Don Joe, m post @291 was a summarization of all your swill.
Again he twists my words around laissez-faire capitalism because it’s a loser of a position for him otherwise. Where has Puddy discussed laissez-faire capitalism except to bring other views which as ALL CAN SEE Don Joe rejects because it doesn’t flavor his positions? Yet you see paragraph after paragraph of made up crap trying to as they say: “put words never spoken written or thought of in my mouth”. There is no controversy except in the granite encased neanderthal cranial opening of Don Joe’s mind.
It’s very exasperating to discuss anything with Don Joe because his mind is made up.
Oh BTW Don Joe my UW son looked over my shoulder and Puddy quotes his words “Where is this Don Joe guy coming from with his Ayn Rand position?”. He got a 3.7 in that course the last two quarters Don Joe. So I suppose UW is teaching something quite different from your beliefs.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahaha
Wow clueless wonder @297 is admitting to using more names on HA than originally postulated.
What a weasel.
What was the first name used here?
Glad you are finally telling to truth to something…
Wow clueless wonder AKA whatever looked at the high traffic threads. Maybe Puddy’s name wasn’t Puddy back then either. Maybe I used a pseudonym. Maybe I name morphed like you did in January.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm…? Keep looking.
300 – LMAO @ you moron. You got nothing on me with names. MWS? Kingbud? Reckless? There were others for sure.
Show me where I circled jerked with my own sock puppet like you did with MWS!!!
I hope your son isn’t looking over your shoulder now. Just like the time you couldn’t remember that MWS lied about his true identity!
You could barely live with the shame of your exposed lies!
Looked already. Not going to look anymore. Give up the link. But since you’re not going to. I know you too well – I’ll call it right now:
Bullshit.
Keep looking..
LOL!
MWS? Kingbud? Yep. Prove I was Reckless. Go on fool! You claimed Puddy was PacMan until PacMan went to DL. He was looking for your sorry ASS.
Puddy is a nice guy so here’s a hint. 2004 election fool. BTW I’m not gonna “keep looking” for your foolishness fool. The name Clueless told me all Puddy needed to know about your sorry ASS.
My son knows what I post cuz he reads much of HorsesASS. No need for your feigned embarrassment fool.
Puddy @ 299 pisses and moans:
Again he twists my words around laissez-faire capitalism because it’s a loser of a position for him otherwise. Where has Puddy discussed laissez-faire capitalism except to bring other views which as ALL CAN SEE Don Joe rejects because it doesn’t flavor his positions? Yet you see paragraph after paragraph of made up crap trying to as they say: “put words never spoken written or thought of in my mouth”. There is no controversy except in the granite encased neanderthal cranial opening of Don Joe’s mind.
Well, if I have, in fact, misrepresented Puddy’s argument, then Puddy should restate his argument in a way that clearly distinguishes what he intends from the way I’ve read his argument. Instead, Puddy just pisses and moans.
Is Puddy’s statement ambiguous? Of this, there can be no doubt. Puddy said:
Don Joe won’t concede some libertarians have hijacked Rand’s laissez faire positions but She flat out rejected them as Puddy stated above.
Puddy can certainly explain what he meant when he said that “some libertarians have hijacked Rand’s laissez faire positions,” but cannot reasonably deny that it is entirely reasonable to believe that Puddy intended that phrase to mean that libertarians and Rand advocate entirely different forms of “laissez-faire capitalism.”
Moreover, Puddy cannot avoid the ontology of the situation. Either Ayn Rand, libertarianism and Republicans mean the same thing when they use the phrase “laissez-faire capitalism” or they each mean something different.
If they all mean the same thing, then the statement that has thrown Puddy into this wild kanipchen fit is entirely correct: in terms of economic philosophy, Ayn Rand = libertarianism = Republicans.
So, even if I have misunderstood Puddy’s intentions, what I have done is to interpret Puddy’s statement in a manner that is most favorable to the conclusion Puddy wants to reach: namely that Don Joe was wrong in saying that, in terms of economic philosophy, Ayn Rand = libertarianism = Republicans.
No, I have absolutely no doubt that Puddy finds this exercise frustrating. The problem, however, lies not in Don Joe stubbornly holding on to a position that is untenable. Rather, the problem lies in Puddy’s complete inability to articulate a cogent argument against Don Joe’s position.
Puddy closes with a lame appeal to authority:
Oh BTW Don Joe my UW son looked over my shoulder and Puddy quotes his words “Where is this Don Joe guy coming from with his Ayn Rand position?”.
Well, then, by all means, Puddy, have your son step into this discussion. He can’t possibly do a more pathetic job than you have. Let’s see if he can put that UW training to good use.
By the way, Puddy, did you ask your son about your claim that Alan Greenspan is a closet liberal? After all, if you’re going to appeal to authority on one issue, why not appeal to authority on the question that prompted you to bring Ayn Rand into this discussion in the first place?
Don Joe: Here is what Puddy said and all can see how you twisted it:
Greenspan was a close friend of Ayn Rand. Greenspan became a 20-year close bud of Ayn Rand. In one of Rands books you’ll find a Greenspan chapter. Greenspan was a contributor to Rand’s newsletters. Rand was rational hedonist. Rand was a devout atheist. These are Republican qualities Don Joe? Maybe that’s why headless lucy is a Rand troglodyte. headless used Rand to espouse his racist positions on HA all the time. headless is a prime HA weasel chimp like you Don Joe. Rand taught that charity is not a virtue. Rand had a dislike for religion and compulsory charity. Rand believed charity was a government activity. This is what Greenspan supported Don Joe. These are NOT Republican or conservative values.
After seeing all the convoluted postulations you posted here it’s amazing anyone can make heads or tails out of it.
So using what is taught at the best school in the state is a “lame appeal to authority”?
What a fooltard.
You can’t find a private school that’s better? You pick the school that HA blogger Prof. Darryl teaches at?
Gonzaga? UPS? PLU?
You choose a school in “librul” Seattle?
This’ll sink you with your peeps Stupes! (Like that total moron Stamn) You might be a (gasp) closet socialist!!!!
What? I can’t use guilt by association? You fools use it all the time!
clueless moron@309, let’s see if either of your “children” are accepted into UW fool!
NUFF Said SUCKA!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHA repeat 4 times for effect.
BTW moron what trade skuul, technical skuul, college or university did you attend? Oh wait a minute… it’s another question you are too embarrassed to answer so you’ll tell Puddy you don’t take orders. Well clueless wonder it just makes you more stupid to your peers than you already are fool! So do you have the brass marbuls to tell us?
Puddy @ 307 spews:
Here is what Puddy said and all can see how you twisted it:
Regarding that very comment, I said, in my comment at 257:
Seriously, how can Puddy claim that I’ve twisted that comment in any way when I’ve previously said that I agree with every single factual statement made there? Puddy cannot point to a single statement I’ve made anywhere in this or any other thread that could be construed, through even the most tortuous means, to contradict any one of those facts.
What Puddy can’t answer is how any of those facts relate to the specific economic philosophy of laissez-faire capitalism. Puddy has made no attempt whatsoever to make that connection. Puddy retreats to the broader claim that Libertarians, Objectivists and Republicans are not the same thing in the same way that basketballs and baseballs are not the same thing.
But, that’s not the issue. The issue is whether Libertarians, Objectivists and Republicans share a single attribute: their economic philosophy. Puddy can spend his entire remaining life on earth talking about any number of ways in which Libertarians, Objectivists and Republicans differ, and Puddy will still have failed to answer the central question about the one attribute they do share.
I should remind Puddy that this isn’t simply a rhetorical issue. Understanding the economic philosophy that precipitated our current economic crisis is an important step in understanding which policy changes make sense and which policy changes don’t. This isn’t the blame game that Puddy so often plays.
Lastly, Puddy blurts:
So using what is taught at the best school in the state is a “lame appeal to authority”?
No. Quoting a single sentence from someone who supposedly got a 3.7 grade in a course that studied Ayn Rand (at some unspecified level of depth) is a lame appeal to authority. If Puddy’s son can actually articulate how and where I’ve misstated anything about Rand’s philosophy, then Puddy’s son is more than welcome to step up and point out my errors.
My recollection is that YOU admitted it but I won’t waste my time digging that up.
Yep. I also got MWS to LIE about who he really was didn’t I? Led to YOU being shamed into leaving here.
Nope. Knew you two were different way before then.
Glad I missed him. I would have been careful not to drop a dime on the floor near the fool.
Pfffft!
Hint for what? Your sockpuppet back then? Not going to bother. If you don’t give up the link, I call bullshit. I’ll gladly take it back. You know what to do.
Like I’d could give a flying f. Then why’d you ask fool?
So the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. My kids know of my interest in this blog but it stops there. They got better things to do.
No embarrassment on my part. I don’t give a flip. In your case, I’d be plenty embarrassed at the exposure of such batshit insanity but hey it’s your life.
“librulism” Stupes. It’s in the air we breathe here Stupes. It’s in the water we drink. Didn’t your peeps teach you that? Your son is at risk… Has he been inoculated with enough Limbaugh? enough Medved? enough Regnery? enough Newswhacks.com and Wingnut Daily?
Then there’s the “donko conspiracy” to recruit him into the “librul” ranks… Prof. Darryl is for sure an agent of that conspiracy Stupes. How could a parent put their child in harm’s way like this for a mere piece of paper?
Grasp opposite sides of your shirt opening. Pull apart the reveal the large capital “C” for conservative!
Super Stupes is here to save the day!!!
LOL!
Clueless wonder, If Puddy’s life is so batshit insane, why not compare income tax returns, charitable gifts, etc.? Cuz you’ll be KABLAMMMMMMMMMMO that’s why fool!
314 – Shit! Everything comes down to money for you.
You ain’t going to get into Heaven worshiping Mammon fool!
Moron, you are measured in life by many things but the only comparison we have is what have you done in life so far. Are you providing a path where your children are proud of the clueless wonder or not. Puddy knows his sons are proud of him because their friends congregate at my house when they are back from school.
So step up to the plate and prove to all you are not a clueless wonder. You love to run run run when confronted. That’s why you are ridiculed by both sides of the aisle fool!
So put up or shut up. Prove Puddy is batshit insane as you put it. You turn moron…
Wow Don Joe, so when you say
You agree that Greenspan doesn’t uphold Republican or conservative values? Because those values also include economic policy. Thanks Don Joe. So we agree Greenspan isn’t a conservative or a Republican and therefore
isn’t true for Alan Greenspan. Because economically if libertarianism = Republican party and Alan Greenspan isn’t a Republican economically then he has to be liberal. He can’t believe in libertarian economic policy because libertarianism = Republican party. And, since you Don Joe said you agreed with what Puddy wrote about Alan and Ayn he can’t be a libertarianism believer either. Puddy used your own words again so not to confuse the issue.
Thanks for clearing that up Don Joe.
WTF are you saying? That your kid’s friends think you’re cool because of money? You could have millions of dollars but if you bellow shit like a fool no kid is going want to be around you.
Don’t have to prove shit to you.
That’s you making shit up and even if it were true, you think I’d care? If I’m so disliked why aren’t I banned?
Easy:
http://horsesass.org/?p=2048#comment-575788
That’s just one egregious bit of mean-spiritedness and no it’s not even in the same league as me haranguing you about your kids not fighting the war on terra.
Read through the whole thread. If one knows that Mike Webb Sucks is YOU, then the diagnosis of insanity is just about complete.
But it gets even better:
That’s YOU bragging about your own PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES to..
YOUR OWN SOCK-PUPPET!!!
How fucking insane is this shit?
http://horsesass.org/?p=2048#comment-575805
ehh! Damn I should remember that Goldy’s spam filter screws you if you post more than one link.
Here’s the preceding to 319:
WTF are you saying? That your kid’s friends think you’re cool because of money? You could have millions of dollars but if you bellow shit like a fool no kid is going want to be around you.
Don’t have to prove shit to you.
That’s you making shit up and even if it were true, you think I’d care? If I’m so disliked why aren’t I banned?
Easy:
http://horsesass.org/?p=2048#comment-575788
That’s just one egregious bit of mean-spiritedness and no it’s not even in the same league as me haranguing you about your kids not fighting the war on terra.
Read through the whole thread. If one knows that Mike Webb Sucks is YOU, then the diagnosis of insanity is just about complete.
Goldy, please close this thread.
Oh and better trolls please!
Requiring registration to post comments seems like a better idea every day.
Puddy @ 317
You agree that Greenspan doesn’t uphold Republican or conservative values?
I agree that Greenspan doesn’t uphold some Republican values. Puddy didn’t enumerate all Republican values. In particular, Puddy barely discussed economic values at all, the only exception being to mention “deficits don’t matter” (something Dick Cheney said to Paul O’Neill).
Regarding the result of the 2000 election, Greenspan said in his memoir:
Greenspan didn’t blame the Republican party as a whole. He blamed the Bush Administration. In fact, Greenspan said exactly the same thing that hundreds, if not thousands, of Republicans said during the most recent Presidential campaign in their effort to distance themselves from the Bush Administration–namely that the Bush Administration forsook traditional Republican economic values of, “effective, fiscally conservative government and free markets.”
Lastly, Puddy never mentioned deregulation, the primary issue over which Puddy blames Greenspan regarding the current economic crisis.
Who knows? Perhaps when Greenspan says, “free markets,” he means something radically different from what Republicans say when they say, “free markets,” but Puddy has yet to provide any evidence to show that this is the case.
Which leaves us with:
Because economically if libertarianism = Republican party and Alan Greenspan isn’t a Republican economically then he has to be liberal.
First of all, it’s amazing how Puddy seems to have such difficulty accurately stating my position despite having quoted it several times. I’ve said, “In terms of economic philosophy, … libertarianism = Republican.” Why does Puddy continue to leave out the reference to the philosophical underpinnings? Only Puddy can answer that.
(BTW, Puddy should note that rather than merely pissing and moaning about Puddy’s misstatement of my position, I’ve pointed out exactly what Puddy left out in his restatement of my position. Puddy should also note that he has, in fact, not used my own words–at least not all of them.)
Second, Puddy attempts to make the rhetorical equivalent of saying that, because basketballs are not baseballs, baseballs are not round. Once again, Puddy doesn’t want to talk about economic philosophies. I agree that Libertarians are not Republicans. I also agree that Ayn Rand didn’t cotton much to Libertarians. That is not the issue, and it won’t become the central issue despite Puddy’s repeated attempts to engage in this horribly transparent form of rhetorical sleight-of-hand.
Third, oh, why even bother pointing out that “liberal” isn’t the only alternative in the spectrum? If I did that, Puddy would accuse me of even further confusing the issue. Puddy might be confused, but that’s a product of Puddy’s own addled brain, not anything I’ve said.
Puddy has been wrong about Alan Greenspan from the get-go, but refuses to admit that he’s been wrong. The pretzel-logic Puddy has to invoke in order to avoid admitting he’s been wrong is a testament to his abilities to rationalize away these mistakes of his, but the logic is severely contorted.
Hey Chris Stefan go back to the Sound Transit Transportation Thread.
Wow Don Joe, putting words in Puddy’s mouth again. Nothing you wrote in 321 is remotely close to what Puddy said.
Lost in Space. Sad so sad!
You betcha clueless wonder.
So you are lying about the names you called Puddy now? Let’s be clear. You didn’t start the name calling with Puddy ButtPacker Puddpacker, ButtPuddy? When asked in January you went silent. So we all know and be perfectly clear, what are you saying now clueless wonder…
325 – As I recall I DENIED calling you those names or at least originating them.
I’ll take responsibility either way – drop a link.
My recollection is yes I’ve called you many things but not any of those you list.
Puddy @ 323
Wow Don Joe, putting words in Puddy’s mouth again.
We see how addled Puddy’s brain is. Don Joe points out the things that Puddy did not discuss, and Puddy says that this is putting words in Puddy’s mouth.
grbvqeowjohfuk interracial relationships qhefwrgbrejhg naked anima mythical creators