There are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others. The first is the most excellent, the second is good, and the third is useless.

semloh on September 16, 2008 at 4:12 AM

There are three classes of trolls: blatantly obvious which openly states it’s position by name; another which changes it’s position of attack based on the current topic; a third that changes its positions, changes its attacks, and changes its names. The first is the easiest to detect, the second is more difficult to immediately detect, the third is the most difficult to detect and the most cowardly of all, and its effect is one of slow and constant deflation of morale and obfuscation of purpose, yet never the less, a troll of the lowest order.

FiveWays, I don’t like trolls any more than you do, but any two (or more) people can quote the same article — it doesn’t prove that they’re the same person. All of the quoted text is by Paul Campos, and I doubt he posts here. ;-)

Mary in LA on September 15, 2008 at 4:00 PM

Nice rationale Mary- I ain’t buying it. Compare the two threads and you’ll see a similar pattern of debate with MB4 and HalJordan.

FiveWays on September 15, 2008 at 4:34 PM

There are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others. The first is the most excellent, the second is good, and the third is useless.

Yes. So what? Nice pointy head you have FW.

trailboss on September 15, 2008 at 5:11 PM

What’s it to you?

You already wholehartedly accepts divorce and remarriage and secular legal dominion over the family.

I do, do I? Perhaps you can cite what part of anything I have said leads you to think such a thing.

But before you do that, I’m still waiting for you to explain why you claim to be a conservative at the same time as you define conservatism as (see all the bad things you say about it at 3:43)

No, there are not many conservatives in America – just liberals of different persuasions – from the radicals of the democratic party to the conventualist bourgeoisie of the republican party. One of the very few people who at least approximate conservatism in America is Pat Buchanan.

Since you claim to be a real conservative (or do you? hard to get an intelligible response) you’ll be happy to hear that I think fairly highly of Pat. I’m not much of a fan of any variant of liberalism, since, as you say yourself, they all tend to lead to the same logical conclusion – a managerial state run for the benefit of the managers.

Of course you all define liberalism as the font of all goodness – another area of incoherence on your part.

Nice rationale Mary- I ain’t buying it. Compare the two threads and you’ll see a similar pattern of debate with MB4 and HalJordan.

FiveWays on September 15, 2008 at 4:34 PM

Yes. So what? Nice pointy head you have FW.

FiveWays, I don’t like trolls any more than you do, but any two (or more) people can quote the same article — it doesn’t prove that they’re the same person. All of the quoted text is by Paul Campos, and I doubt he posts here. ;-)

Mary in LA on September 15, 2008 at 4:00 PM

Nice rationale Mary- I ain’t buying it. Compare the two threads and you’ll see a similar pattern of debate with MB4 and HalJordan.

By the way, stop calling everyone who doesn’t agree with you a liberal. I am a conservative.

You’re not a conservative. You just spent several posts smearing conservatism as the beliefs of George III, and assigning what you think are the conservative virtues to liberalism. Do you even read what you write?

Conservative versions in parenthesis.

Your knowledge of conservatism is on a par with your knowledge of liberalism.

# Individualism? Liberal. Check! (Authoritariansim)

Just how stupid does a person have to be to think that the opposite of individualism is authoritarianism? As stupid as you are, it seems. But since you INSIST that you are a conservative and not a liberal, I suppose I can take it that you believe in, among other things, authoritarianism, offical State religion, guild system-corporativism, and the four estates.

At least, you tell me that these are the things conservatives believe in, and also that you are a conservative.

Your precious constitution is a liberal masonic document -even the notion of constitutionalism itself is liberal.

Long live King George!

That’s about the level of intelligence I was expecting from you. Maybe a little worse.

Long live Henri Comte De Saint-Simon!

(Another name for you to look up, in the unlikely event that you possess any desire to learn.)

BEHOLD! THE SOCK-PUPPET TROLL!
 
FiveWays on September 15, 2008 at 3:40 PM

 
FiveWays, I don’t like trolls any more than you do, but any two (or more) people can quote the same article — it doesn’t prove that they’re the same person. All of the quoted text is by Paul Campos, and I doubt he posts here. ;-)

Long live King George!

# Republican government? Liberal. Check! (Monarchy)
# Fredoom of religion? Liberal. Check! (One true Church)
# Separation of Church and state? Liberal. Check! (Offical State religion)
# Individualism? Liberal. Check! (Authoritariansim)
# Capitalism? Liberal Check! (Guild system-corporativism)
# Legal egalitarianism = Everyone has equal rights/duties as a citizen. Liberal. Check. (The 4 estates, Nobility, Clergy, Craftsmen and Peasantry)
# Contract or Status dominant? Contract. Liberal. Check! (Status)
.
By the way, stop calling everyone who doesn’t agree with you a liberal. I am a conservative. You, however, seem to be a rude rube, a nitwit hillbilly if you so please.

Here it is again.

The parallels between Senator James Inhofe’s [where he asked Gore to take a pledge to use no more energy than most Americans do] criticism of Gore and the “chicken hawk” argument made by opponents of the Iraq war are striking. Consider the hypothetical case of an Iraq war supporter who we’ll call “Jonah.” Jonah posts lots of things on the Internet in which he argues that the Iraq war is the central front in the war on terror, and that the war on terror is a fight for America’s survival.

When critics point out that our military has had to lower admission standards in order to meet recruiting quotas, and that Jonah himself is a healthy man of military age, Jonah replies that he’s contributing to the global war on terror in his own fashion, by posting pro-war arguments on the Internet, attaching a yellow ribbon magnet to his car, and so forth.

This response is just as lame as Gore’s, and in exactly the same way. If you claim we’re facing a huge crisis that requires great personal sacrifice on everyone’s part, but refuse to make any real sacrifice yourself, then your attempts to obscure the latter fact through empty symbolic gestures deserve to be mocked.

It’s obvious what Al and Jonah should each do, given their respective beliefs: Al should radically simplify his lifestyle, and Jonah should join the military.

Yet each of them could also do something that would, in its own way, be almost as impressive: simply confess his hypocrisy and weakness, and implore others to behave differently.

Imagine if Gore were to say, “Yes, I live in a deeply self-indulgent, utterly wasteful fashion. People like me are a very big part of the problem. I’d like to change, but I’m weak. For the sake of our planet, you need to be a stronger person than I’ve been.”

Imagine if Jonah were to say, “Yes, I’m a hypocritical coward, who values his own skin more than America’s survival. And our nation won’t survive if it’s made up of people like me. For everyone’s sake, you need to be more courageous than I’ve been.”

Now those would be inconvenient truths.
- Paul Campos
Tuesday, March 27, 2007 2:36 PM

MB4 on August 8, 2008 at 10:46 AM

NOW LET’S COMPARE

Paul Campos: The parallels between Senator James Inhofe’s [where he asked Gore to take a pledge to use no more energy than most Americans do] criticism of Gore and the “chicken hawk” argument made by opponents of the Iraq war are striking. Consider the hypothetical case of an Iraq war supporter who we’ll call “Jonah.” Jonah posts lots of things on the Internet in which he argues that the Iraq war is the central front in the war on terror, and that the war on terror is a fight for America’s survival.

When critics point out that our military has had to lower admission standards in order to meet recruiting quotas, and that Jonah himself is a healthy man of military age, Jonah replies that he’s contributing to the global war on terror in his own fashion, by posting pro-war arguments on the Internet, attaching a yellow ribbon magnet to his car, and so forth.

This response is just as lame as Gore’s, and in exactly the same way. If you claim we’re facing a huge crisis that requires great personal sacrifice on everyone’s part, but refuse to make any real sacrifice yourself, then your attempts to obscure the latter fact through empty symbolic gestures deserve to be mocked.

It’s obvious what Al and Jonah should each do, given their respective beliefs: Al should radically simplify his lifestyle, and Jonah should join the military.

Yet each of them could also do something that would, in its own way, be almost as impressive: simply confess his hypocrisy and weakness, and implore others to behave differently.

Imagine if Gore were to say, “Yes, I live in a deeply self-indulgent, utterly wasteful fashion. People like me are a very big part of the problem. I’d like to change, but I’m weak. For the sake of our planet, you need to be a stronger person than I’ve been.”

Imagine if Jonah were to say, “Yes, I’m a hypocritical coward, who values his own skin more than America’s survival. And our nation won’t survive if it’s made up of people like me. For everyone’s sake, you need to be more courageous than I’ve been.”

Now those would be inconvenient truths.

HalJordan on September 14, 2008 at 11:34 PM

BEHOLD! THE SOCK-PUPPET TROLL!

As I see it the American Conservative movement is just a timebound liberal philosophy (let’s say the liberalism of the 1950ies) that has refused to continue with the logical devlopment of liberalism and a refusal to acknowledge that the USA was founded on completly liberal principle (as opposed to the more conservative regime of George III and even more so the pre revolutionary French monarchy). Thank you for your replies.

JC Silverberg on September 15, 2008 at 2:07 PM

All right, I’ll reply. Like so many “liberals” (actually leftists) you have an opinion of your own intelligence which is highly exaggerated. You understand neither liberalism, leftism, nor conservatism.

The party which embodies “the logical development of liberalism” in America is (alas!) the Republican Party.

The modern Democratic Party is unabashedly socialist.

Conservatism owes nothing to George III and everything to his opponent, Edmund Burke. Try looking up the name.

The USA was most certainly NOT founded on liberal principle, whether 1800′s style, 1950′s style, or 2008 style. Concentration of power was the great enemy of the Founders. It’s the entire goal of the modern Democratic Party and of the liberal wing of the GOP.

You’re welcome.

Where the hell was Herbert Bush while all this was building over the last several years?

Even for a lefty troll, you seem rather dim. Herbert Bush is long since retired, and the current President is not the dictator of America who can singlehandedly micro-manage the banks. You people have a lot of odd ideas about how things work.

Second Rule of MB4 Trolling: When the HalJordan sock-puppet name is exposed, move onto Murphy9 name.

FiveWays on September 15, 2008 at 1:05 PM

I think that I will stick with Michael in Michigan. I kind of like sounding like an English professor.

BTW, do you get a nickle toward your HMO payments for every time you say troll?

BTW 2, are you also “wise_man”?

First Rule of Holes: When in one, stop digging.

Murphy9 on September 15, 2008 at 1:01 PM

Second Rule of MB4 Trolling: When the HalJordan sock-puppet name is exposed, move onto Murphy9 name.

I don’t know how to analyze your statement, it is so bizarre of reality…it forces you not to do the “right thing”, weird way of thinking, just weird…

right2bright on September 15, 2008 at 10:51 AM

First Rule of Holes: When in one, stop digging.

If you think you are doing the right thing, chances are it will backfire in your face.

Murphy9 on September 15, 2008 at 1:54 AM

So if you feel your post was the “right thing” it will backfire in your face?
What are you 9 years old to come up with that bit of advice?
What you are saying that whomever thinks they are doing the right thing, really aren’t…so your solution is not to do the right thing?
I don’t know how to analyze your statement, it is so bizarre of reality…it forces you not to do the “right thing”, weird way of thinking, just weird…