[Vision2020] Roger: Who has the facts?
lfalen
lfalen at turbonet.com
Fri Feb 11 16:40:12 PST 2011
I have no great love for speculator. They are in it for a fast buck and add nothing to the system. They do not provide anything to production or the market system from producer to consumer.What little service they may provide is questionable. In my opinion they screw up the market. People like Bill Gates are different matter.
Roger
-----Original message-----
From: "Chuck Kovis" ckovis at turbonet.com
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 14:48:07 -0800
To: "lfalen" lfalen at turbonet.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Roger: Who has the facts?
> Roger, how hard does a man have to work for 5 billion dollars a year as a
> hedge fund manager? As hard as the guy who empties the trash cans at the U
> of I? How much sweat off his brow does that hedge fund manager have to
> drip? As much as the cow/calf operator out of Arock at 3:00 a.m. when he's
> calving? How hard? Chuck Kovis
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "lfalen" <lfalen at turbonet.com>
> To: "Gier, Nicholas" <NGIER at uidaho.edu>
> Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 12:08 PM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Roger: Who has the facts?
>
>
> >I am not going to reduplicate it here, but read "PIIGS To The Slaughter" by
> >Andrew Stuttaford in the December 20, 2010 issue of National Review. I do
> >not question your figures, but I think that there is more to the story that
> >what is presented here. The main issue is liberty and a right to keep what
> >one has eaned by the sweat of his brow. Society has a duty to care more the
> >mentally handicapped , the physically disabled and veterans. But to take
> >from those that have worked hard for what they have and give to to the able
> >bodied who won't work is stealing and is morally wrong. I would be in favor
> >of eliminating all subsides and tax brakes. I would make an exception for
> >subsidies in case of a natural cetastrophe. An exception could be make for
> >tax brakes if it can be clearly shown that it will benefit the state in
> >some way, such as providing more jobs and overall improve the economy.
> >This should be reviewed every few years. In the end I will stick with Ben
> >Franklin.
> > Roger
> >
> > -----Original message-----
> > From: "Gier, Nicholas" NGIER at uidaho.edu
> > Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 12:25:41 -0800
> > To: "lfalen" lfalen at turbonet.com
> > Subject: RE: Roger: Who has the facts?
> >
> >> Hi Roger,
> >>
> >> I meant to send my original message to the Vision, and it and your reply
> >> is below.
> >>
> >> Here are some figures from "The Economist," which even Jeff would have
> >> sense enough to NOT call biased. Business people all over the world rely
> >> on their data. So I challenge you to show me where the bias is.
> >>
> >> Excerpt from my column "Germany Leads Europe's Recovery":
> >>
> >> The latest figures (four months ago) published in The Economist shows
> >> that the 16 countries in the Eurozone grew at an annualized rate of 3.9
> >> percent, while the U.S. dropped to 1.6 percent. Just as is the case with
> >> the individual American states, the performance these countries ran the
> >> gamut from good to poor. Germany led with a dramatic 9 percent increase,
> >> while Sweden followed with 4.7 percent (Sweden has now jumped ahead),
> >> Britain (still under Labor rule) at 4.5 percent (but now 1.5 percent
> >> under the Conservatives), Denmark with 3.9 percent, and Austria
> >> increasing 3.8 percent.
> >>
> >> While the U.S. is struggling with a 9.5 percent unemployment rate,
> >> Norway, Switzerland, Austria, and Denmark are at 3.5, 3.8, 3.9, and 4.1
> >> percent respectively. Excluding Norway’s budget surplus because of its
> >> oil wealth, the three remaining countries have an average budget deficit
> >> of 3.8 percent.
> >> The U.S. budget deficit has fallen 2.2 percent since April 7, but it is
> >> still at 8.9 percent. Greece’s deficit is 9.5 percent, but Europe’s
> >> highest is Ireland at 14 percent.
> >>
> >> It is significant to note that all these countries, except for Ireland,
> >> were developed by Social Democrats, whose generous health and social
> >> services (financed by high income taxes) have been trimmed only slightly
> >> under recent center-right governments. According to free marketeers,
> >> these countries should be economic basket cases, but obviously they are
> >> not that at all. Indeed, it is primarily countries such as Iceland,
> >> Ireland, and the Baltic States that have failed under libertarian, free
> >> market policies. Greece went really bad with a center-right government
> >> that hired Goldman Sachs to hide their deficits.
> >>
> >> In the 1990s the Danish Social Democrats invested in a jobs training
> >> program (expending 20 times more per capita than the U.S. does), which
> >> has kept unemployment at a 3-4 percent rate ever since. During their last
> >> term in office (1995-2005) the German Social Democrats instituted a jobs
> >> program and relaxed tight labor laws, and the number of unemployed
> >> dropped from 5 million in 2005 to 3 million in 2008. Although the rate is
> >> still relatively high at 7.6 percent, Germany is in its 13th straight
> >> month of falling unemployment--right through the throes of the Great
> >> Recession.
> >>
> >>
> >> Nicholas F. Gier, Professor Emeritus
> >> Department of Philosophy, University of Idaho
> >> "The Palouse Pundit" on Radio Free Moscow, 92.5 FM
> >> President, Idaho Federation of Teachers, AFT/AFL-CIO
> >> www.idaho-aft.org/ift.htm
> >> 208-882-9212, 1037 Colt Rd., Moscow, ID 83843
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: lfalen [mailto:lfalen at turbonet.com]
> >> Sent: Tue 2/8/2011 12:14 PM
> >> To: Gier, Nicholas
> >> Subject: Re: Roger: Who has the facts?
> >>
> >> I think that Jeff has better data than you do. That is just my opinion
> >> and of course I am biased. I think your data is biased too. I am not sure
> >> just where Sweden stands, but most of Europe is n trouble with over
> >> extended debt. Just look at PIIGS. The US is not far behind. The third
> >> way does not rock and they are headed for a fall. This is to say nothing
> >> of individual liberty, which in the end is more important.
> >> To paraphrase Ben Franklin " He who prefers security over liberty,
> >> deserves nether"
> >> Roger
> >> -----Original message-----
> >> From: "Gier, Nicholas" NGIER at uidaho.edu
> >> Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2011 12:26:06 -0800
> >> To: "lfalen" lfalen at turbonet.com
> >> Subject: Roger: Who has the facts?
> >>
> >> > Hi Roger,
> >> >
> >> > Not once have you shown that I have presented erroneous data.
> >> >
> >> > Some time ago I answered Jeff with hard data on refugees per capita and
> >> > new citizens per capita that blew his claims about my "favorite
> >> > countries" out of the water.
> >> >
> >> > No response yet from Jeff, and not a very good record of coming up with
> >> > either facts or truths.
> >> >
> >> > A long time ago he said something about European unemployment, and I
> >> > quoted from The Economist to show that he was wrong.
> >> >
> >> > My columns showing many European countries with high taxes and more
> >> > regulation but lower deficits and lower unemployment go unrefuted by
> >> > either you or Jeff. Currently the fastest growing economy in Europe is
> >> > Sweden with 50 percent of its GDP in the public sector. I challenge
> >> > any libertarian to explain how that can happen.
> >> >
> >> > The Third Way Rocks and libertarian theories are not supported by
> >> > facts.
> >> >
> >> > Nick
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Nicholas F. Gier, Professor Emeritus
> >> > Department of Philosophy, University of Idaho
> >> > "The Palouse Pundit" on Radio Free Moscow, 92.5 FM
> >> > President, Idaho Federation of Teachers, AFT/AFL-CIO
> >> > www.idaho-aft.org/ift.htm
> >> > 208-882-9212, 1037 Colt Rd., Moscow, ID 83843
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com on behalf of lfalen
> >> > Sent: Tue 2/8/2011 10:52 AM
> >> > To: Art Deco; Vision 2020
> >> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] [SPAM]Re: that Jared guy and mental health
> >> >
> >> > I do not have that much of a problem with most f your list. I think
> >> > that you violate number 3 as much as anyone. On number 4 , it would be
> >> > good to substantiate what one says. There are some problems here. You
> >> > throw out a bunch of statistics. Every one should know that statistics
> >> > can be and are frequently skewed. This is done by leaving out relevant
> >> > information and only taking into consideration a portion of the facts.
> >> > This allows one to come up with an erroneous conclusion. My computer is
> >> > old and slow. It I were to try and find substantiating data every time
> >> > you ask for it would take me forever. I do not have that kind of time.
> >> > I have a few other things to do that look up data just to satisfy you.
> >> > You would just come up with more biased data to support your position.
> >> > Frankly a am a little fed up with your egotistical, holier than thou
> >> > attitude. Jeff does a good job of refuting the erroneous data put out
> >> > by you and Nick. He is better able to do so than I am and for the m!
> > ost !
> >> > part I
> >> > will leave it up to him.
> >> > Roger
> >> > -----Original message-----
> >> > From: "Art Deco" deco at moscow.com
> >> > Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 10:05:34 -0800
> >> > To: "Vision 2020" vision2020 at moscow.com
> >> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] [SPAM]Re: that Jared guy and mental health
> >> >
> >> > > So, Roger, tell us of another approach to resolving disputes other
> >> > > than:
> >> > >
> >> > > 1. Defining terms sufficiently, when necessary, so that each side
> >> > > clearly knows and agrees on what the issues, alleged
> >> > > facts/probabilities, and arguments mean and are.
> >> > >
> >> > > 2. Using valid argument forms, pointing out, when necessary, where
> >> > > the opposite side is not using valid arguments and why.
> >> > >
> >> > > 3. Not telling lies or making absurdly gross exaggerations.
> >> > >
> >> > > 4. Where needed, or when requested, giving sources for alleged
> >> > > "factual" information.
> >> > >
> >> > > 5. Understanding the probabilistic nature of knowledge, and the
> >> > > problems inherent in supporting value statements.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Please tell us which of the above you object to and why. Then tell
> >> > > us what you would do differently and why. Please tells us explicitly
> >> > > in clear language, and why, yours is a better system/approach to
> >> > > progressing toward the truth/resolution.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > I can see why you and Crabtree don't like the above approach to issue
> >> > > discussion/resolution. It put both of you at a formidable
> >> > > disadvantage.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Wayne A. Fox
> >> > > 1009 Karen Lane
> >> > > PO Box 9421
> >> > > Moscow, ID 83843
> >> > >
> >> > > waf at moscow.com
> >> > > 208 882-7975
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > ----- Original Message -----
> >> > > From: lfalen
> >> > > To: the lockshop ; Reggie Holmquist
> >> > > Cc: Vision 2020
> >> > > Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 5:27 PM
> >> > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] [SPAM]Re: that Jared guy and mental
> >> > > health
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Keep up the good work. I am out of here until next week. You do a
> >> > > better job of dealing with these guys than I do. If you have ideas
> >> > > that are different than theirs, then you are not responding with any
> >> > > meaningful dialogue. I quess that it is hopeless to try and engage
> >> > > then them on a civil plain. Wayne is real good at putting someone
> >> > > down that takes a different approach that he wants you to. You just
> >> > > arn't arguing within the proper framework.
> >> > > Roger
> >> > > -----Original message-----
> >> > > From: "the lockshop" lockshop at pull.twcbc.com
> >> > > Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 12:24:53 -0800
> >> > > To: "Reggie Holmquist" reggieholmquist at u.boisestate.edu
> >> > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] [SPAM]Re: that Jared guy and mental
> >> > > health
> >> > >
> >> > > > Dude? Seriously? Maintaining my credibility with the surfer/skate
> >> > > boyz segment of the forum isn't as high up on my priority list as it
> >> > > used to be.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > g
> >> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> >> > > > From: Reggie Holmquist
> >> > > > To: the lockshop
> >> > > > Cc: Art Deco ; Vision 2020
> >> > > > Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 9:55 AM
> >> > > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] [SPAM]Re: that Jared guy and mental
> >> > > health
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > "I, on the other hand think it would be good if you gave it a
> >> > > rest."
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Or what? You'll call him "creepy" again? Or perhaps tell him
> >> > > to "go pound sand"? You've lost credibility, dude.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > -Reggie
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 9:49 AM, the lockshop
> >> > > <lockshop at pull.twcbc.com> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > "dysfunctional disclarity"
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Dave Barry thinks that this would be a good name for a
> >> > > neo-punk band.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I, on the other hand think it would be good if you gave it a
> >> > > rest.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > g
> >> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> >> > > > From: Art Deco
> >> > > > To: Vision 2020
> >> > > > Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 8:17 AM
> >> > > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] [SPAM]Re: that Jared guy and
> >> > > mental health
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > The thesis is that you are not interested in constructive
> >> > > dialog.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Your response gives more than ample evidence of that. And
> >> > > also more than ample evidence of dysfunctional disclarity.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > w.
> >> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> >> > > > From: Gary Crabtree
> >> > > > To: Art Deco ; Vision 2020
> >> > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 7:57 PM
> >> > > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] [SPAM]Re: that Jared guy and
> >> > > mental health
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > "Either define "left" and "right" or enumerate those on
> >> > > the list that you consider to be "right" and "left" so that people
> >> > > will not have to attempt to reach the foggy recesses of your mind in
> >> > > order to decide who's who in your opinion. Otherwise, most will
> >> > > think you are pulling a Roger Falen by refusing to respond to an
> >> > > issue in any meaningful terms except by repeating yourself using
> >> > > different words and syntax."
> >> > > >
> >> > > > While I find you mildly unpleasant and not a little
> >> > > creepy, I don't currently believe you are stupid. Do you really still
> >> > > imagine that insisting that I respond to to your demands in precisely
> >> > > the manner that will please you is a productive use of your time? Do
> >> > > you actually believe that I am concerned with what you and your
> >> > > mythical "most" are thinking? If so, a drastic revision of my opinion
> >> > > is in order.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > "I think that you are cravenly refusing to define or
> >> > > enumerate "right" and "left" because even in that dark back room of
> >> > > The Lock Shop you know that there is vast disagreement among those
> >> > > you claim to be on the left on this list on some very fundamental
> >> > > issues such as abortion, the death penalty, health care, first
> >> > > amendment rights, gun ownership rights, religious freedom and truth,
> >> > > the bailouts and other economic issues, educational reform, drug
> >> > > policy, the desirability of unions, possible solutions to the
> >> > > immigration problems, etc. "
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Oh no! Us cartoon characters in our dark back rooms
> >> > > prefer to believe in monolithic stereotypes that never vary from the
> >> > > role to which they are assigned. To wit:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > The "right" = six gun toting, God fearing, courageous,
> >> > > generous types who love America, Mom, and apple pie and feel truly
> >> > > sorry for drug ingesting hippies who refuse to eat red meat and have
> >> > > questionable hygiene. These stalwarts gravitate to professions such
> >> > > as astronaut, super hero/costumed crime fighter, bronco busting, bull
> >> > > riding cowboy of a decidedly non-brokeback persuasion, and double
> >> > > ought spy.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > The "left" = squirrelly, tofu munching, dope smoking,
> >> > > atheist gas bags who march and wave placards in homogenous herds and
> >> > > have never met a criminal, tree, or illegal alien that they have not
> >> > > immediately wanted to coddle, hug, or provide welfare benefits to. If
> >> > > they can be bothered to arise from their cannabis and/or narcotic
> >> > > induced stupor to perform any semi-useful labor at all they will
> >> > > normally be lawyers, collage professors (liberal arts), bureaucrats,
> >> > > interpretive dancers, and mimes
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Does that satisfy your curious lust for definition?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Something, something, something...
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Some hastily tossed off flippant response. Is it becoming
> >> > > obvious that boredom is
> >> > > > beginning to set in? Gosh, I hope not.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Blah, blah, reading suggestions I'll immediately ignore,
> >> > > blah...
> >> > > >
> >> > > > zzzzz...
> >> > > >
> >> > > > "It's time to man up and either respond to the issues in
> >> > > a way that would promote understanding/clarification and possible
> >> > > resolutions, or man up and admit that you are just another
> >> > > propagandist whose goal is not truth, but attempts at persuasion
> >> > > exalting your personal ideals."
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Or what? you'll hold your breath, kick your little feets
> >> > > and pound your teeny widdle fists? Listen, I get it. I really do. You
> >> > > want me to take this forum more seriously. You want me to take you
> >> > > seriously. You want me to read the books you recommend. You want me
> >> > > to discuss what you want to discuss and you want me to discuss it in
> >> > > a manner that is pleasing to you. I'm reading you five by five. It
> >> > > pains me to have to tell you that there no chance your dreams are
> >> > > going to come true in this regard. For the last time, here's the
> >> > > deal. You may feel free to complain to your little hearts content
> >> > > but, I write what I write for reasons that are my own. Demanding that
> >> > > I do something differently or insisting that I respond to you in some
> >> > > specific way is a waste of your precious remaining time on earth. Now
> >> > > go pound sand.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > g
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > From: Art Deco
> >> > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 8:30 AM
> >> > > > To: Vision 2020
> >> > > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] [SPAM]Re: that Jared guy and
> >> > > mental health
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Crabtree writes:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > 'I don't really believe that there is any real lack of
> >> > > clarity on this list as to where the "left" leaves off and the
> >> > > "right" kicks in."'
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Either define "left" and "right" or enumerate those on
> >> > > the list that you consider to be "right" and "left" so that people
> >> > > will not have to attempt to reach the foggy recesses of your mind in
> >> > > order to decide who's who in your opinion. Otherwise, most will
> >> > > think you are pulling a Roger Falen by refusing to respond to an
> >> > > issue in any meaningful terms except by repeating yourself using
> >> > > different words and syntax.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I think that you are cravenly refusing to define or
> >> > > enumerate "right" and "left" because even in that dark back room of
> >> > > The Lock Shop you know that there is vast disagreement among those
> >> > > you claim to be on the left on this list on some very fundamental
> >> > > issues such as abortion, the death penalty, health care, first
> >> > > amendment rights, gun ownership rights, religious freedom and truth,
> >> > > the bailouts and other economic issues, educational reform, drug
> >> > > policy, the desirability of unions, possible solutions to the
> >> > > immigration problems, etc.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > And hence, any meaningful characterization of "left" and
> >> > > right" would exclude or make very fuzzy their inclusion in the list
> >> > > many you apparently think of as leftists. That this is so is
> >> > > exhibited by many prior discussions on this list. So, to deny such
> >> > > is either dishonest and/or cowardly. [Google:
> >> > > "Over-simplification", "Over-generalization", and Dishonesty".]
> >> > > >
> >> > > > 'Also, the definition of "hate speech" is absolutely
> >> > > clear. It's pretty much anything the left doesn't want to hear from
> >> > > the right. Hate speech is defined by its source not its content.'
> >> > > >
> >> > > > So if someone on the right says "the economy will do
> >> > > better under conservative leadership," and someone you allege is on
> >> > > the left disagrees, that's hate speech? What rot. Again you offer
> >> > > no reasonable criteria to determine what hate speech is except that
> >> > > it is anything one particular [the "left"] group doesn't like about
> >> > > what another [the "right"] says. That makes almost any political
> >> > > discussion of opposing views hate speech.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > See: The Fallacy of Persuasive Definition:
> >> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persuasive_definition
> >> > > >
> >> > > > It is not surprising that you again refuse to participate
> >> > > in a meaningful discussion of the issues. That is your style and
> >> > > fits your limited worldview from the window of the backroom of your
> >> > > business. Your definition of "hate speech" is so prejudicial, and
> >> > > it's lack of clarity greatly amplified given the lack of precision of
> >> > > the meaning of "right" and "left" that it tells readers a lot about
> >> > > you, but not much about the reality outside of you.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > "The never-ending insistence that everything evil
> >> > > emanates from the conservative end of the spectrum and that the libs
> >> > > are long suffering saints is hogwash and an endless round of
> >> > > competing lists will do nothing to change that fact."
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Another gross distortion/lie/exaggeration. Who one the
> >> > > list said anything like that? Some have said that violent rhetoric
> >> > > and hate speech is more common from pundits on the right, but I do
> >> > > not see that anyone claimed that such practices where exclusive to
> >> > > the right. So starting with a grossly false O'Reillyism, you then
> >> > > negate the possibility of anyone giving any kind of evidence that
> >> > > would might clarify or give weight to one side or the other on the
> >> > > issue. What a dunce-like position!
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Although you falsely accused Reggie of being foolish
> >> > > because you disagreed with his characterization of three people on
> >> > > his prior long list, and although your alleged counterexamples are
> >> > > open to reasonable questions such as Andreas Schou has raised, it is
> >> > > you that appears to be foolish, if not dishonest and cowardly when
> >> > > you:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > [1] Refuse to define in any meaningful way what you are
> >> > > talking about,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > [2] Use really cockeyed, prejudicial persuasive
> >> > > definitions when you do deign to define terms, and
> >> > > >
> >> > > > [3] Tell bald-faced lies about other's positions.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Perhaps your self-education might benefit from a
> >> > > concentrated study of Wesley Salmon's concise, but incisive book
> >> > > Logic. Or a careful reading of Proofiness by Charles Seife might
> >> > > help you deal with some of your problems of over-generalization and
> >> > > over-simplification.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > It's time to man up and either respond to the issues in a
> >> > > way that would promote understanding/clarification and possible
> >> > > resolutions, or man up and admit that you are just another
> >> > > propagandist whose goal is not truth, but attempts at persuasion
> >> > > exalting your personal ideals.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > w.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> >> > > > From: Gary Crabtree
> >> > > > To: Art Deco ; Vision 2020
> >> > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 7:48 PM
> >> > > > Subject: Re: [SPAM]Re: [Vision2020] that Jared guy and
> >> > > mental health
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Interesting. You sound like the kid on the playground
> >> > > who always wanted to tell everyone else what the game should be,
> >> > > define the minutia the games rules, and then become pouty when his
> >> > > expectations weren't met with regard to being deferred to in all
> >> > > matters. Life can be a disappointment for kids like that.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I don't really believe that there is any real lack of
> >> > > clarity on this list as to where the "left" leaves off and the
> >> > > "right" kicks in. (I don't consider myself a proper member of the
> >> > > "right" but to make this easier for you we'll pretend it's the case)
> >> > > The difficulty arises, at the very least in the most current
> >> > > discussion, when those on the left want to pretend to be Sunday's
> >> > > child where it comes to acts of violence and political discussion
> >> > > that is less then demure. The never-ending insistence that everything
> >> > > evil emanates from the conservative end of the spectrum and that the
> >> > > libs are long suffering saints is hogwash and an endless round of
> >> > > competing lists will do nothing to change that fact.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Also, the definition of "hate speech" is absolutely
> >> > > clear. It's pretty much anything the left doesn't want to hear from
> >> > > the right. Hate speech is defined by its source not its content. When
> >> > > the same sentiments are expressed from a liberal perspective it
> >> > > becomes passionate political discourse and a sacred first amendment
> >> > > principal. >From the right, pure incitement to violence (even when
> >> > > none was voiced) to be quashed by any and every means possible.
> >> > > Violent speech is funny in that when a person hailing from the
> >> > > "right" talks of targeting a district, defeating an opponent, or
> >> > > quotes the founding fathers the remarks are an unequivocal, bold neon
> >> > > colored calls for assassination. When the "left" explicitly hope for
> >> > > the death of Sarah Palin and/or her children, pray for Dick Cheney's
> >> > > heart to give out, and make big budget Hollywood movies glorifying
> >> > > the murder of GWB, the speech is apparently translucent in the lack
> >> > > of notice it receives.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I hope that this gives you "a clear and distinct idea"
> >> > > on where this cartoon character stands on the matter at hand. Now, if
> >> > > you'd be so kind, could you go into a little more detail with regard
> >> > > to my education? There is very little that I find more fascinating
> >> > > then to hear the playground mope expound at length on the topic of
> >> > > what he imagines my background to be.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > g
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > From: Art Deco
> >> > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 2:35 PM
> >> > > > To: Vision 2020
> >> > > > Subject: [SPAM]Re: [Vision2020] that Jared guy and
> >> > > mental health
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > A lesson to Reggie, et al:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > This dispute is on Vision 2020 is driven by at least
> >> > > two things:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > 1. The lack of anywhere near agreement on the
> >> > > definitions of "right" v. "left" and "hate speech".
> >> > > >
> >> > > > 2. The apparent inability and unwillingness of
> >> > > Falen/Crabtree to support their positions with meaningful arguments.
> >> > > With Roger, it is the apparent inability to understand what an
> >> > > argument is; with Crabtree, it is the long demonstrated unwillingness
> >> > > to engage in meaningful dialogue on any subject where his basic
> >> > > beliefs may be threatened by facts and/or alternative values.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Reggie: When you put the list at issue together, you
> >> > > offered evidence. One would expect those holding an opposing views
> >> > > would offer a different list of at least the same magnitude. Both
> >> > > Crabtree and Falen are unwilling to do so. Forget meaningful
> >> > > dialogue.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > At some point, maybe one side or the other would offer
> >> > > more clarifying definitions so that the dispute could be better
> >> > > conducted by referring meaningful evidence. Don't look to Falen or
> >> > > Crabtree for that either. It is too threatening.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I repeat the following without much hope that either
> >> > > Falen or Crabtree will alter their self-satisfying, but futile,
> >> > > churlish behavior:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > 'It may be wise to remember in a discussion of values
> >> > > [or any other subject] the following paraphrase of a quotation from
> >> > > English Philosopher John Locke:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > "When comparing two ideas, it is necessary to have a
> >> > > clear and distinct idea of each."'
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Or its modern statement:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > "When comparing two statements or theories, the
> >> > > clearer, less vague and ambiguous statement(s) of and definitions
> >> > > used in each, the better the chance of meaningfully determining the
> >> > > truth, or in the case of values, the correct application, or least
> >> > > discovering the roots of agreement or disagreement."
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Over many months of reading Crabtree in action on V2020
> >> > > I have thought that he might be the object of a possible Far Side
> >> > > cartoon whose caption would be "When self-education goes horribly
> >> > > wrong."
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Wayne A. Fox
> >> > > > 1009 Karen Lane
> >> > > > PO Box 9421
> >> > > > Moscow, ID 83843
> >> > > >
> >> > > > waf at moscow.com
> >> > > > 208 882-7975
> >> > > >
> >> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> >> > > > From: lfalen
> >> > > > To: Reggie Holmquist
> >> > > > Cc: vision 2020
> >> > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 10:52 AM
> >> > > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] that Jared guy and mental health
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I hope that you had fun putting together this list, some of
> >> > > which it would really be a stretch to call hate speech or necessarily
> >> > > from the the right. It would almost seem that anything you disagree
> >> > > with is hate speech or right wing. I don't much care if it is exactly
> >> > > equal from both sides. suffice it to say that there is plenty on
> >> > > both. I am not going to go tit for tat with you.
> >> > > > Roger
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > =======================================================
> >> > > > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> >> > > > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >> > > > http://www.fsr.net
> >> > > > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> >> > > > =======================================================
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > =======================================================
> >> > > > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> >> > > > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >> > > > http://www.fsr.net
> >> > > > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> >> > > > =======================================================
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > No virus found in this incoming message.
> >> > > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3419 - Release
> >> > > Date: 02/02/11 11:34:00
> >> > > >
> >> > > > =======================================================
> >> > > > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> >> > > > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >> > > > http://www.fsr.net
> >> > > > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> >> > > > =======================================================
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > --
> >> > > > There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers
> >> > > exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will
> >> > > instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre
> >> > > and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has
> >> > > already happened.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Douglas Adams
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > No virus found in this incoming message.
> >> > > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> >> > > > Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3420 - Release Date:
> >> > > 02/02/11 23:34:00
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > > =======================================================
> >> > > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> >> > > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >> > > http://www.fsr.net
> >> > > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> >> > > =======================================================
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > =======================================================
> >> > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> >> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >> > http://www.fsr.net
> >> > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> >> > =======================================================
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > =======================================================
> > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > http://www.fsr.net
> > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > =======================================================
>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list