Patterico's Pontifications

3/23/2009

The Punch-Drunk Presidency

Filed under: General — Karl @ 6:01 am

[Posted by Karl]

Steve Kroft asking Pres. Obama whether he is “punch-drunk” on 60 Minutes was fitting capper to a weekend which found spreading skepticism of his agenda and ability to govern.  The skepticism now comes not only from the Right, but also from Obamacons like Kathleen Parker and David Brooks, as well as Frank Rich, Thomas Friedman, Maureen Dowd and The New York Times editorial board.  Vanity Fair’s Michael Wolff calls Obama a terrible bore and narcissist on the scale of Jimmy Carter.  Memo to Wolff: We seem to get this every 16 years.

Keying off the Obama Administration’s botched handling of retention bonuses paid to employees of the crippled American International Group, the Times of London observes:

It was not just that the White House misread popular outrage at the Wall Street hot-shots rewarded for running their company into the ground; there were rumblings of discontent from a wide range of disillusioned Obama supporters complaining about everything from his lack of support for gays to his plans for a new military “surge” in Afghanistan.

***

Stung by popular anger over the AIG saga, several other Democratic senators have been quietly distancing themselves from the Obama team, suggesting it may have bitten off more than it can chew… Even Peter Orszag, Obama’s budget director, was obliged to concede that the CBO-projected deficits, if accurate, were “ultimately not sustainable”.

Guess what? The CBO estimates likely understate those unsustainable deficits.  That realization buttresses the growing resistance to Obama’s “too much, too soon” left-wing agenda in the general public, though balking Democratic Senators may be sufficient to halt it.  Michael Goodwin has escalated in the span of a week from suspecting Obama is incompetent to calling him “the most radical President of our times, far outside the mainstream of our political philosophy.”  (It is not an either/or proposition.)  Even people like Josh Marshall are fretting that the populist rage Obama tried to harness will destabilize the financial system the government is allegedly trying to salvage.  Thus, it is no wonder the White House is rethinking the AIG bonus tax, even though a rethink will not play well with the fevered masses Obama spent last week trying to court.

As it stands, Obama’s admirers will point to his rather average job approval numbers as evidence that all is well.  However, beneath the surface, independents now give GOP Congressional candidates the edge by 14 points.

Don’t follow leaders; watch the parking meters. You don’t need Bill Ayers to know which way the wind blows.

–Karl

364 Responses to “The Punch-Drunk Presidency”

  1. So I guess Rush’s wishes are coming true?

    Joe (17aeff)

  2. I’m eagerly waiting to here what spin has been distributed to the trolls.

    Techie (9c008e)

  3. I am pretty sure this is racist.

    JD (2e1461)

  4. Techie, my head already hurts at the nonsense that will be spun. People voted for this guy because he isn’t GW Bush. And you know what? There are people who aren’t GW Bush who are great. And then there are people who aren’t GW Bush who are arrogant, erratic empty suits filled with a whirlwind of entitlement.

    Maybe the Blue Dogs in Congress will keep things from going too far off the rails.

    But let’s be honest: most of us didn’t expect anything different. How much experience did the guy have in national politics? Oh, that’s right: running a campaign is experience. I forgot.

    I hope that the MSM morons who said that are forced to defend that kind of self-serving foolishness.

    Eric Blair (61dcb2)

  5. The faster it happens, Joe, the faster they stop mucking around and leave the market alone…

    Scott Jacobs (90ff96)

  6. Maybe Obama should go on Ellen’s show again next. He could dance a little, bust a few moves. That might help.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  7. Did 60 Minutes edit out all of the uh ummmm huh uh uh huh umm uh uh uh’s?

    JD (2e1461)

  8. Wasn’t there an alternative rock song with that title, JD?

    Eric Blair (61dcb2)

  9. Barack reminds me of the substitute teacher, can’t wait for them to get there, can’t wait for them to leave.

    Jimminy'cricket (637168)

  10. Crash Test Dummies, Senor Blair. Still one of my guilty pleasure favorite CD’s.

    JD (2e1461)

  11. So appropriate, JD. So appropriate.

    Speaking of which…. Did you see that the intellectual, elegant new President either snubbed the President of France, or didn’t know who actually was President of France?

    Good thing we don’t have a rude ignoramus as President, huh?

    I don’t mind one or two flubs. But this guy, already, is starting to rack up quite a record. Can’t wait for those transcripts, by the way.

    Eric Blair (61dcb2)

  12. EB – I will not fault him for snubbing France. I would have done the same thing, but on purpose.

    I think we all should engage in a little gallows humor like Baracky. His laughter while discussing the economic crisis was just … odd.

    JD (2e1461)

  13. I think Sarkozy is a step up, JD. Of course, Obama wrote his mash note to Chirac.

    But yes, they are all…French.

    Eric Blair (61dcb2)

  14. Agreed on Sark, EB. Chirac and De Villepin are crapweasels.

    JD (2e1461)

  15. That is an insult to weasels filled with crap, JD.

    You should denounce yourself, or at least tell five French jokes in penance.

    Eric Blair (61dcb2)

  16. I think I’m going to go trademark “The Empty Suit Presidency”.

    SPQR (72771e)

  17. That letter to Chirac was curious. Maybe he was just being polite and reaching out, and his advisors were a little tin-eared as to how the “coming four years” reference would play out as a snub to Sarkozy. Our country has a long, rich history of snubbing / being snubbed by France, so in a sense, he’s just continuing a tradition that goes back to 1793 or so.

    Maybe after he throws out the first pitch at the Sox opener, he can recover with a reference to more of our shared culture with France.

    Logo of the French Republic

    Logo of Major League Baseball

    carlitos (efdd90)

  18. But I thought the media was liberal.

    *scratching my head*

    Andrew (cbc5aa)

  19. But I thought the media was liberal.

    *scratching my head*

    Comment by Andrew — 3/23/2009 @ 7:34 am

    Generally Andrew it is. But even the media cannot avoid reality forever.

    Joe (17aeff)

  20. Well, at least he’s “Elegant”.

    Techie (9c008e)

  21. Dummerer than a sack of Andrews remains an excellent measuring stick.

    JD (2e1461)

  22. The media is liberal Andrew. Which just raises the shock level when they finally atart telling the truth.

    Have Blue (974cdf)

  23. David Brooks an “Obamacon?” I guess Obama shared some of his liquor with Patterico.

    Andrew (754714)

  24. David Brooks an “Obamacon?” I guess Obama shared some of his liquor with Patterico.

    Why would you think that? Patterico didn’t write the post.

    Steverino (69d941)

  25. I see that Andrew finds it much less work to comment on posts he has not read.

    SPQR (72771e)

  26. What makes you think Andrew read the post?

    Techie (9c008e)

  27. Barcky was drinking on 60 Minutes, Andrew? What liquor?

    JD (2e1461)

  28. Sounds ominous if the shitehead national media stops kissing O’Dumbo’s arse. Golly gee, you’d a thunk someone would bothered to look deeply into the roots of this assclown. But no..mass hysteria and adulation for the cult of the asshole reigned. Are Chrissie and Olberdouche now going to be impotent without O! to excite them sexually? Let’s print more money and give the gummint more control over our lives. Raise those income tax rates, convert those 401k’s to treasuries. Have union membership enjoy a renaissance so that private businesses more closely model that of govt. lackeys who enjoy featherbedding and rank incompetence. Yeah, I know the moonbats here will march in lockstep and praise Teh One eternally. W is the feck-up and I saw that care2.com is pushing for that Truth Commission about Bush II. Forget any campaign irregularities of O or all the tax cheats in Congress and his administration. Let’s worry about W’s lies that took us to war, even if many libs before the 2000 election agreed that Saddam needed removing. When is O going to do something about kissing UN’s ass and making us cough up an enormous green tax for UN oversight?

    Regarding boycotts: the local Palm Beach Post just raised their dead wood rates by 50% for daily and 20% for Sunday editions. I guess some will pay but this member of vrwc will pass unless he needs bird cage liner or puppy trainer.
    Can’t imagine feeding a meter 14 quarters for an hour’s parking in Chitown. Right now at the beach in delray it is 75 cents an hour and I think $25 for all day weekend parking in Boca. I know Ft. lauderdale used to be free at beach and now is obscene levels.

    aoibhneas (0c6cfc)

  29. What liquor?

    Courvoisier

    alppuccino (675a8b)

  30. al – Sure it wasn’t Remy?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  31. Not sure, but Old Harper would be my second guess.

    alppuccino (675a8b)

  32. Andrew, just in case you didn’t realize it, “punch drunk” does not refer to intoxication from imbibing alcohol-laced punch. It refers to a delirium caused by too many blows to the head, which might be a condition with which you have first-hand experience.

    Steverino (69d941)

  33. That’s Rémy, daley – don’t go insulting the French by leaving off the acute accent.

    carlitos (efdd90)

  34. Speaking of which, I know who has the record for strikeouts, and I know who has the record for most home runs, but I can’t remember who has the record for getting hit in the head by the most balls.

    alppuccino (675a8b)

  35. It’s tough when even the cheese-eating surrender monkeys are rethinking failed socialist policies.
    How many Euro elections are leaning to the right now?

    How do Hollyweird Elite and scum such as Mikey Moore feel about actress Richardson skiing in Quebec and there not being helicopter transport to a trauma center nor cat scan available at first hospital? That socialized medicine sure be wonderful, eh sicko?? Yes, let Obot’s bureaucracy determine your medical rationing and triage.

    aoibhneas (0c6cfc)

  36. but I can’t remember who has the record for getting hit in the head by the most balls.

    Ernie Pantuso!

    Steverino (69d941)

  37. Oh. I thought it was Liberace.

    alppuccino (675a8b)

  38. Google that sucker. Lots of interesting stuff on HBP. Hughie Jennings was hit 51 times in 1896. My guesses would have been perhaps Frank Robinson or Minnie Minoso, who was hit in five decades.

    aoibhneas (0c6cfc)

  39. carlitos – I don’t know how to do the accents on my keyboard or umlauts either. I did tour one of the cognac maker’s HQ’s in the south of France a ways back though. It’s in a town with an oyster museum. Seriously.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  40. Al – Sullivan owns that record.

    JD (2e1461)

  41. Jennings was hit record 287 times and went to Cornell law school, practicing law in maryland in off season.

    aoibhneas (0c6cfc)

  42. Ernie Pantuso – good one!

    daley, on a mac it’s Option + e, then whatever letter. on a PC, if you have a separate keypad, you can enter ALT + the ascii codes – 0133, 0225, 0249, etc. Pretty geeky, but I did a lot of typing en español over the years, so needed to know. Wait ’til you are confronted with a French PC – the keyboard isn’t arranged “qwerty,” it’s “azert.” Letters all over the place!

    carlitos (efdd90)

  43. FWIW, alppuccino is one of the bestest most funniest people on the innertubes.

    JD (2e1461)

  44. Checks in the mail JD. And I got new irons this year.

    alppuccino (675a8b)

  45. Hell he should be laughing the fact that the American people, in 2008, chose to elect a guy that attended a racist church for 20 years is a joke.

    Mr. Pink (eae12c)

  46. Al – Purgatory awaits.

    I think Mona is in the running for getting hit in the head by balls.

    I denounce myself.

    JD (2e1461)

  47. Ernie Pantuso – Is that “Coach” from Cheers?

    JD (2e1461)

  48. Ernie Pantuso – Is that “Coach” from Cheers?

    One and the same, JD. The character made a big deal about being able to force a HBP, and there were running jokes about him taking one too many in the head. I’m a nerd, I admit it: Cheers is my all-time favorite show.

    Steverino (69d941)

  49. 20.But I thought the media was liberal.

    *scratching my head*

    Translation – *scratches his nuts*

    Dmac (49b16c)

  50. “I think Mona is in the running for getting hit in the head by balls.”

    JD – Don’t forget the big slurp fest performed by our very own Lovey on a daily basis right here.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  51. Steverino – It was my favorite as well, until The Office and 2 1/2 Men came along.

    JD (2e1461)

  52. Clearly, Andrew wasn’t reading David brooks over the past year, but it’s tough to fault him for that. However, he might want to Google David Brooks Obamacon to discover I’m far from the only person to have reached that conclusion.

    Karl (f07e38)

  53. No, he is not punch-drunk. he is giddy at the thought of social change. It is no secret academics and those involved with community organization want to create social equality not by raising everyone higher, but by bringing down the wealthy. For many of them, they have a chip on their shoulder. They view wealth as evil–and this includes anyone making comfortable in the eyes of the poorest. They think by bringing down the rich, they will even the playing field so all can get ahead. The problem is, the top 3% of wealth earners shoulder 90% of the taxes (depending on the state/city) so by destroying them you destroy the economy. At that point everyone is equal and must rely upon the government. It’s one way to bring about social equality and change. While everyone will be provided for, freedom to choose is gone and the freedom to learn from the consequences of your mistakes to make your self better is also removed. For this reason socialism never produces great nations because the fact is pain and discomfort is really weakness leaving the body or society.

    http://tinyurl.com/cuer6d

    Or, Yes, if punch drunk means you have been hit more than you can rationally take so you laugh as your last-resort defense mechanism. This is a man that is in over his head. Remember, Obama has never run a business, has no prior executive experience, spent most of his life in academia and then as a community organizer where the prevailing philosophy is business has destroyed the life of those in poverty. In short he is in over his head, he is the quintessential political virgin, the 46 year-old political virgin

    joh hill (c80c29)

  54. This is all so racist. I feel icky.

    JD (5e452c)

  55. Comment by joh hill — 3/23/2009 @ 9:07 am
    Short version: Socialism – Trickle-Up Poverty!

    A comparison: Ernie Pantuso v. Barry O’Bama…
    Pitchers threw tight, especially to those crowding the plate;
    Barry runs around looking for wild throws to run into.

    He’s a street-punk who’s proud how his face really screwed-up the other guys’ knuckles.

    AD - RtR/OS (39b1d4)

  56. Leave Baracky alone. He’s new, and just learning the job. Can’t you guys just give him 8 or 10 years?

    Matador (8d0e3b)

  57. I’m sure, that if we looked hard enough, we could find something in his background that would get him 8-10, min-security if he’s lucky.

    AD - RtR/OS (39b1d4)

  58. Geithner this morning: “We are the United States of America, we are not Sweden.”

    So Bush’s stupidity continues. And China gains
    http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=china+stimulus&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

    You people are such idiots. Obama’s failure is that he’s still afraid of looking like a socialist. And you’re so afraid of becoming Europe you’re willing to cut off your nose to spite your face.

    You can’t even pretend to be serious.
    http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2009/03/despair-over-financial-policy.html

    The literate left, Krugman et al. are angry that Obimbo is blowing it. Can you imagine how better off the country would be if the republican party weren’t so full of idiots and yes men unwilling to question their masters?
    You don’t give a damn about debating the issues.

    The democrats spent years courting wall street and big business because that was supposedly the only game in town. And they still can’t begin to match scale of the republican greed and corruption machine.

    And you want simple, casual insult? Jokes about the special olympics vs jokes about rape.
    http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/tucsongorilla.pdf
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11823_Page2.html

    Meanwhile Jindal’s volcano dreams cone back to haunt you.
    http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/03/jindals_mockery_of_volcano_monitoring_money_only_lo.php?ref=fp2

    jeff wall (ab000b)

  59. Haw haw haw, you guys still think that O runs this show? It has been made abundantly clear over the last few months that some very well placed and very large corporations run this show.
    The libs criticizing him now are mostly criticizing his refusal to dump Giethner who is obviously not on our side.
    The funniest rants I have read over the last few weeks go on about the “arrogance” of the financial wheeler dealers who are still getting paid thanks and how they still want huge salaries and private jets etc.etc. and how they “don’t get it”. The thing is, they do get it. They definitely get that they are going to get paid no matter what and the AIG’s are going to be propped up no matter what. What they get is that they run things now and nobody is going to dump their political career to try and change that.
    Elect a Republican in 2012? Whoopee! So what? Won’t change a thing.

    EdWood (c2268a)

  60. Corporatocracy !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    JD (16485e)

  61. And here I thought it was the Trilateral Commission, JD.

    We both know where this theory will end up, right?

    Here’s a hint: Pat Buchanan Land.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  62. It really did look like he was either a little “high”, or hadn’t slept in a few days. Either way, it shows he is still very unprepared for the responsibilities. The probability for him making big mistakes is increasing.

    Ray (8cfb7a)

  63. Gee, I wonder if Iran and AQ are noticing all of this weakness, in both thought and action? Nah, they’re not doing anything to harm us – hey, what about closing GITMO already?

    Dmac (49b16c)

  64. Leave Obama Alone! – still timely, after a year.

    carlitos (efdd90)

  65. “It has been made abundantly clear over the last few months that some very well placed and very large corporations run this show.”

    Haw Haw Ed – The deuce you say! Chas. Freeman said it was the Joooooos. Can you name any names or would they kill you Ed?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  66. Ed’s just channeling some of Oliver Stone and Tim Robbin’s greatest hits.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  67. Clearly, Andrew wasn’t reading David brooks over the past year

    What is, roughly, the percentage of stories written by Brooks last year that you consider pro-Obama?

    Brooks sided with Obama versus Hillary,,
    But that’s it. He wrote many more anti-Obama than Obama articles. Let’s not get stuck in the first 1/3 of 2008. A year has 12 months.

    Andrew (96e177)

  68. 61 eric blair- Leave buchanan alone. At least he was instrumental in preventing an algore presidency by inspiring some Jooooos in Bobby Wexler’s district to vote for him (Buchanan) and tilt Florida to Bush. Ok, so they were confused old NY City ex-pats, but that dementia balanced somewhat the bogus algore hanging chads and rather’s early call for gore which discouraged central time Floridians from voting. So sometimes wonder where we would be now if Fat Albert had been Potus for eight years. Probably FUBAR?

    aoibhneas (0c6cfc)

  69. I can see where this is going. Anyone to the right of Lieberman, and including Lieberman, is a radical right wing republican.

    Mr. Pink (0ee368)

  70. Dummerer than a sack of Andrews.

    JD (16485e)

  71. Frank Rich’s criticism was actually cheerleading for Obama capped off with the strange conclusion that Republicans are worse than Madoff.

    The poor guy invalidates everything he says by his inability to mask his hate for conservatives.

    harkin (f9df5a)

  72. Next this idiot will be telling us Obama is a moderate. Do these guys all get the same newsletter or something? This stuff is just way to predictable.

    Mr. Pink (0ee368)

  73. What happened to the “Obama’s killing the stock market” meme?

    Yet another death-by-reality for a right-wing talking point.

    Karl called it, to the day! Alas, the wrong way, but I’m betting the Whine Club is paying no attention to that detail.

    Since the very day Karl opined — or, rather, recycled a bag of right-wing journalists’ opinions — that Obama was causing stocks to tank, the Dow is rallying.

    As of today, the S&P has had its biggest 10-day rally since 1938.

    Thanks Karl, you called it!! Can you let me know in advance the next time you want to opine or recycle some wingnutosphere talking points about stock prices?

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  74. What happened to the “Obama’s killing the stock market” meme?

    You’d have to be a complete idiot or utterly disingenuous to ask this question.

    Let’s let some time pass…find out whether today is part of a positive trend or just a bear market rally.

    Short-term thinking makes for short-term snark, but I’ll reserve my judgement for later.

    Steverino (69d941)

  75. What happened to the “Obama’s killing the stock market” meme?

    Nothing. He is.

    As of today, the S&P has had its biggest 10-day rally since 1938.

    And your point is? Nobody here is cheering for stock market declines and we’d all like to see it back to pre-election levels. We just disagree with the left on how to get there. If you think today’s rally is indicative of happy days, act on it and make some $$.

    It only took another 16 years from 1938, btw, for the market to recover to pre-crash levels. Or to put it into a little different perspective, a thirty percent rally from today’s levels will get us back to approximately the levels of November 4th.

    Chris (a24890)

  76. “ a thirty percent rally from today’s levels will get us back to approximately the levels of November 4th.”

    Dow on Nov. 4: 4 9,625
    today: 7,776

    A 30 percent rally would bring us to 10,108.

    My point, Chris, is that Karl on March 10 cobbled together the usual mediocre media subjects’ comments blaming Obama for plunging stocks on the very day the market turned up.

    If you want to argue that longer-term trends are more important,and more telling, maybe you should have made that one back when Karl was blaming the president in the first place, preposterously ignoring the data showing stocks performed worse during the 8 years of Bush than at any time since the Great Depression.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  77. Steverino, next time you think of engaging a certain poster, take a look at this. It perfectly encapsulates the genre. Redefine, obfuscate, ignore the argument, regurgitate talking points, protest ignorance about common terms, taunt, then run away after being spanked about the projectionist taunts. Not worth your time.

    carlitos (efdd90)

  78. Sheesh, all those goalposts got so many fingerprints on them from being moved by our trolls.

    SPQR (72771e)

  79. Thanks Carl! Over at Chicagoboyz they “win” arguments by simply banning posters who challenge them. I can see why that appeals to you.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  80. Hax apparently has trouble with reading the entire sentence.

    Seriously, who the hell actually pays your for this idiocy, Hax? It can not POSSIBLY be a national-level publication.

    I envision copies of the journal that publishes you being printed on an old ink-jet printer, with copies made of an old photostat machine, stapled by a guy in his mom’s basement, and being mailed from the corner mail-box.

    Scott Jacobs (90ff96)

  81. Q: Why are there so few real Barack Obama jokes?
    A: Most of them are true stories.

    nk (326199)

  82. Thanks Scott. Nice to know you have the time and mental energy to concern yourself with imagining the details of my career. Please forgive me for not spending any time at all thinking about you, other than to thank you for paying so much attention.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  83. So we only need a 25% rally then. I stand corrected. And we need 50% to get us back to where things were before O began trash-talking the economy. And before you go balistic, I’m not blaming him for the 5,000 point drop. But I do assign partial blame for the 3,000 drop between election day and two weeks ago.

    Geithner gets an assist as well. If Geithner was the man for the job he would have rolled out this plan on day one. Not that the plan is necessarily going to work, but at least it’s a plan, which is more than the admin had bothered to offer before this weekend.

    Chris (a24890)

  84. If Geithner had his head on straight, he would have had a working plan up and running when Bear imploded, and would have been ahead of the curve on Fannie/Freddie and Lehman Bros. Since he’s been trying to play catch-up on all of these, and getting the overall banking system back on an even-keel, it is glaringly appearant that he’s lost, and nobody wants to be on-staff to help him catch the in-coming spears that are sure to follow.

    AD - RtR/OS (39b1d4)

  85. “Can you name any names or would they kill you Ed?”

    What are you talking about bigD? When you really run things you don’t need to kill anybody.
    I suppose “run the country” is too broad. Let’s just say that AIG etc. knows they will be taken care of. Bush and Paulson were taking care of them with Paulson’s “no oversight allowed” bailout and when that wasn’t enough (and when the Reps lost the white house) the Dems stepped in with another CEO who is making sure the same people are being taken care of.
    When the Reps take over again in 2012 (assuming they can pin this entire thing on O and the Dems which they are very good at doing so probably) if the economy is still crap and AIG still needs bonus money the Republicans will come across with it. Even if heroic John Gault Republicans run things they will take care of AIG and company because those guys are into everything and have all the money.
    All the blah blah about O not doing a good job etc.etc. is just the same crap that started day one of his presidency and will not stop ever no matter if he is successful or not.

    EdWood (3600e9)

  86. “if the economy is still crap and AIG still needs bonus money the Republicans will come across with it”

    HawHawEd – You are aware that this is the same kind of “bonus” money that Chtysler is paying its folks and Fannie and Freddie is paying its folks, right? It’s not an uncommon practice in corporate America to pay retention bonuses, but most lefties seem clueless about that, not having worked in the for profit sector before. Just sayin’.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  87. “Geithner gets an assist as well. If Geithner was the man for the job he would have rolled out this plan on day one.”

    AD – If Geithner was the man for the job, he wouldn’t have let the banks fuck up so bad while he was at the N.Y. Fed. Duh!

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  88. _____________________________________

    Did you see that the intellectual, elegant new President either snubbed the President of France, or didn’t know who actually was President of France? Eric Blair — 3/23/2009 @ 7:07 am

    Perhaps Sarkozy was snubbed, but the latter assertion sounds too ignorant even for Obama. In some ways — and although I don’t believe the guy currently in the Oval Office has any business being president — it really would be too cynical of me to think the story is accurate and that the White House of 2009 truly is that incompetently managed.

    Then again, I thought all the snickers through the grapevine regarding Obama’s gift to Britain’s Prime Minister — beyond being a cheesy set of DVDs — not being playable on equipment located across the Atlantic were undeserved. However, as it turns out, that story apparently was true after all.

    http://www.associatedcontent.co

    It seems that President Obama, according to the French newspaper Le Figaro, sent a letter to the President of France.

    The problem is that the letter was addressed to the former President of France, Jacques Chirac, and not to the actual President of France, Nicholas Sarkozy. The story is translated from French, courtesy of Monsters and Critics:

    “US President Barack Obama has indirectly praised former French president Jacques Chirac’s fierce opposition to the US-led invasion of Iraq, the online edition of the daily Le Figaro reported on Thursday.

    “In a letter described by Chirac as ‘very nice,’ Obama wrote, ‘I am certain that we will be able to work together, in the coming four years, in a spirit of peace and friendship to build a safer world.’

    “The use of the word ‘peace’ was taken to be an indirect reference to Chirac’s stance against the US intervention in Iraq, which Obama had also opposed as senator.”

    The mind boggles. First, the Obama administration insults the British by giving the British Prime Minister a tacky set of DVDs as a state gift that don’t even work in British DVD players. Now the Obama administration is sending love notes to a former President of France as if he were the actual President of France, leaving the actual President of France steaming.
    ________________________

    Christian Science Monitor:

    Our handy colleague, Laurent Belsie, who writes the New Economy blog here at the Monitor, speaks French. (We don’t hold that against him.)

    With his help we found out that another French newspaper, the New Observer, explained that Obama was merely replying to a Chirac letter who was writing him as the head of his foundation — the Jacques Chirac Foundation for sustainable development and cultural dialogue.

    Of course it is much more fun to write things like “Maybe President Obama’s correspondence office needs a teleprompter too!” But in fact, there doesn’t seem to be a controversy here.

    Le Figaro did opine in its article that “in using the word ‘peace,’ Obama was offering an implicit homage to the former French president who had opposed the Iraq war.”

    But other French news organizations confirmed with Chirac’s entourage that they believed the reference was not in regards to the Iraq war but to Chirac’s current work as head of the foundation.

    Mark (411533)

  89. “I do assign partial blame for the 3,000 drop between election day and two weeks ago.”

    I suggest you look at a one-chart of the Dow, then ask yourself again what the trends might actually be.

    It looks to me like the bear market started in September and was triggered by the collapses of Bear and Lehman.

    After the early October plunge, the market swung wildly and ratcheted lower through November, October and December amid uncertainty about the extent to which the deep recession would spread from the U.S. to China, India and Russia.

    By January, it had become clear that Chinese growth would not be returning. China’s central bank cut rates a fifth time the last week in December, and when that failed to produce a rally in Chinese stocks, global gloom deepened notch. That, combined with a round of forecasts by U.S. companies for declining earnings and a round of credit-rating downgrades, triggered the next leg down for the Dow.

    The current rally has little, if anything, to do with renewed confidence in Obama or in his bank bailout and/or stimulus, just as the decline had little or nothing to do with concern about it. Rather, the current rally is simply a wager that a bottom has been reached. At the beginning of this month, just before the rally started, the Dow’s price/earnings ratio dropped to about 8, the lowest in more than 20 years, and, significantly below any of the world’s major stock indexes.

    If by 2011, stocks are below where they were when Obama took office, you can start holding him and his policies responsible. Before then, there are far more compelling culprits elsewhere.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  90. OK, Hax, I can go along with your analysis, but do I have to hold you to it if stocks go lower in 2011?

    The market moves on economic principles. I won’t blame the President, except that he is meddling in forces beyond his control in the long run.

    I hope that stocks do indeed go up. But printing trillions of dollars of new money, in my humble opinion, won’t deter those market forces.

    I really do hope that I won’t have to take a wheelbarrow to the grocery store to buy a loaf of bread.

    If I’m wrong: Good.

    Ag80 (d205da)

  91. Note how he can’t even say whether he was actually banned at chicagoboyz. A perfect example of the argumentative style. The argument begs another question, which is the goal. I will pass on asking, thanks.

    carlitos (efdd90)

  92. Comment by daleyrocks — 3/23/2009 @ 7:46 pm

    daley, I think you have this support of Geithner confused with my criticism of him?

    AD - RtR/OS (39b1d4)

  93. AD – No. The Duh! was aimed at Geithner supporters, not you. Sorry if there was confusion.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  94. Notice how nothing in the market summary of Hax given in comment #90 discusses the negative market impact of the dirty socialist policies proposed by Obama. I wonder why those were omitted from the analysis?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  95. I mean I don’t really wonder. It was done deliberately to hide the market impact of Obama’s dirty socialist policies. We have been through this many times before. Our dishonest commenter believes people forget.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  96. Also, today, the market went up a lot because it, by that I mean investors, believe that we will see some value placed on “toxic” assets. Also, the price of oil went up.

    Both are good things. Both should rise and fall based on the economy. The market may be able to pull this out. And, again, I hope it does.

    However, I’m extremely concerned about inflation. That’s my big worry on the horizon.

    Ag80 (d205da)

  97. This WBC title game is EPIC.

    JD (42fcdb)

  98. This week’s Hypocrisy Explosion Award goes to Lil’ Carl! He walks away with the trophy for laying down the innuendo, wrapping it in a hypothetical and finishing off with a non sequitur. What a shiny little glob of spiteful envy he coughs up there!

    But wait, there’s more…

    Given Carl’s spectacularly irrational presentation of a non-question question in service of a non-argument argument, I’ll even deign to give an answer.
    Indeed, I was banned at chicagoboyz, which rigorously bans any liberals who persist in shaming them, which is to say, all liberals. The site exists exclusively as a place where wannabe war wonks and free market dilettantes who don’t read the newspaper can pretend to win arguments.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  99. Hax,

    Even if there’s some merit to your comments about the global sweep of the problems in the markets, the uncertainty created by Obama fumbling was still a factor. Markets operate on information, uncertainty is bad for them, etc. See, when you write “the current rally is simply a wager that a bottom has been reached,” it’s based on a n aggregate of such information beyond P/E ratios. The Fed’s big QE last week and Timmy’s plan rollout moved the markets because — despite the merits (or lack thereof) of these actions, Pickens would tell you that fool with a plan beats a genius without one.

    Karl (8966b4)

  100. Karl,
    Indeed, we can at least imagine a scenario in which smoother implementation of stimulus measures and the bank rescue would have produced less uncertainty. It’s even easier to contemplate one in which the implementation produced even more fear about the future.
    Actually, we don’t have to imagine worse. We’ve just lived through it. The morbid economic fear the Bush administration’s rolling incompetence produced prompted the worst stock price performance since the Great Depression — so, yes, we have examples of worse very close at hand.
    And you might want to re-examine your formula for gauging uncertainty, given that it prompted you to call a bear market on the very day the biggest rally since 1938 started.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  101. Hax,

    If you can show me where I called a bear market, I would be glad to see it. Try providing a link to reality, rather than your imagination. I suspect you won’t bother, given that your claims about the market performance during the Bush years are so nuanced as to not account for externalities like the preexisting tech bubble collapse, the 9/11 attacks, etc.

    Karl (8966b4)

  102. Karl, good luck with this. But I think you know how it will end.

    Eric Blair (61dcb2)

  103. You also might want to read what people are saying about the wisdom of extrapolating from a 10-day rally.

    Karl (8966b4)

  104. Eric,

    Yeah, that’s why those links won’t be forthcoming.

    Karl (8966b4)

  105. But insults and changes of subject will.

    Eric Blair (61dcb2)

  106. Karl,
    Who’s extrapolating? Not me. Read my comments again, especially the part where I say:

    “The current rally has little, if anything, to do with renewed confidence in Obama or in his bank bailout and/or stimulus, just as the decline had little or nothing to do with concern about it. Rather, the current rally is simply a wager that a bottom has been reached.”

    And if you weren’t calling it a bear market, what in the world was the point of your post recycling talking points from the mediocre media blaming Obama for tanking stock prices?

    And if the tech-bubble’s collapse was “pre-existing” it would help, not hurt, Bush’s record on stock prices. In fact, it was partly concurrent with Bush’s presidency — nuances, indeed.

    I’m all for nuance, which is the point I’ve made all along about the blame-Obama-for-the-bear-market meme. Talk about “externalities.” You only seem to mind them when they interfere with your ideological myths.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  107. Hax,

    Obama’s flailing was one factor depressing the market; pretending otherwise would be silly.

    But I’m still waiting for a link to the post where I called a bear rally. Indeed, I’d settle for one where I place most of the blame on Obama for the state of the stock market. Really, just link the post you’re criticizing.

    Karl (3bf5f8)

  108. I hope you aren’t holding your breath, Karl. But no worries. There will be a Wall O’ Text cut and pasted sometime tonight.

    Eric Blair (61dcb2)

  109. Obama’s job approval rating slipping to 50-50.

    The honeymoon is over, a national poll will signal today as President Obama’s job approval stumbles to about 50 percent over the lack of improvement with the crippled economy.

    The sobering numbers come as the president backpedals from two prime-time gaffes – one comparing his bowling score to a Special Olympian and another awkwardly laughing about the economy, which prompted Steve Kroft of “60 Minutes” to ask “are you punch-drunk?”

    Pollster John Zogby said his poll out today will show Americans split on the president’s performance. He said the score factors out to “about 50-50.”

    carlitos (efdd90)

  110. Here’s what you wrote Karl:
    “[Geithner’s] vague and unconvincing bank-rescue plan tanked the market.”

    I tried to link it, but it gets trapped in the comment filter when I do.

    But hey, if you want to argue that you weren’t calling it a bear market, then why don’t you just come straight out and say that?

    And if you weren’t calling it a bear market, what exactly was the relevance of stock prices to your point?

    And I can’t say I’m disappointed that Obama’s poll numbers aren’t higher. At the end of the day, there will always be a percentage of American voters who are doggedly “what have you done for ME lately types.” Obama will when those back big-time when the economy doesn’t turn around. So the worse things look now, the better they’ll look in 9 months when all that helicopter money germinates.

    And if the economy doesn’t turn around within the next three years, or even a little sooner than that, then it will indeed be a very good reason for anyone to consider whether the president deserves their support.

    Hax Vobiscum (4012df)

  111. Did you see that the intellectual, elegant new President either snubbed the President of France, or didn’t know who actually was President of France? Eric Blair — 3/23/2009 @ 7:07 am

    Perhaps Sarkozy was snubbed, but the latter assertion sounds too ignorant even for Obama. In some ways — and although I don’t believe the guy currently in the Oval Office has any business being president — it really would be too cynical of me to think the story is accurate and that the White House of 2009 truly is that incompetently managed.

    The reason why such stories gain traction is the incredible story of the “gift” to Brown. The White House has a protocol office for that sort of thing and not even Obama can be that stupid. There has to have been an intent to insult Brown somewhere down the line. The only other possibility is that, like the Clintons with the Travel Office, Obama wanted “his people” in the protocol office and staffed it with ACORN volunteers.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  112. Hax,

    As I suspected, you’re ripping a quote from Rich Lowry out of context. But you know, to take but one non-pundity assessment, here’s Reuters:

    HORSHAM, England, March 14 (Reuters) – The U.S. Treasury will offer more details in the coming week about how proposed public-private partnerships to take bad assets off banks’ books will work, a senior department official said on Saturday.

    The proposal for such partnerships was first made by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner in February but the lack of detail about them at the time disappointed financial markets led to a sharp drop in stock prices.

    That was February 11th, but if you want to pretend Geithner’s lack of a plan did not tank the market at the time, you’re hopeless. And we’re supposed to be all about the Hope.

    The post Hax mentions makes the point that Obama was not focusing sufficiently on the immediate financial issues, with poor results. That the markets rallied over the past 10 days, in no small part due to the Fed acting and the Treasury announcing an actual plan, proves the point.

    Karl (3bf5f8)

  113. Is Hax’s basic argument that Bush was responsible for the performance of the stock masrket during the course of his administration but that nothing Obama has asaid or done or failed to say or do has had an impact on the stock market since the election except those things which have had a positive impact on the stock market? Did I get that right?

    I think there are some basic flaws with that argument right off the bat. Can anyone help me spot them?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  114. And you might want to re-examine your formula for gauging uncertainty, given that it prompted you to call a bear market on the very day the biggest rally since 1938 started.

    Comment by Hax Vobiscum — 3/23/2009 @ 10:37 pm

    So, we’re not in a bear market then? Thanks for straightening that out for us. Most of the largest rallies in stock market history occurred during bear markets, in case you weren’t aware, Hax.

    Chris (a24890)

  115. Chris, Hack redefines terms to his convenience on the fly … often shifting definitions in the midst of a sentence.

    SPQR (72771e)

  116. Since the market looks forward, and not arrears, the market has been on a general downward slope since it became apparent that Obama would be the nominee in a Dem Year, and that decline accelerated with his nomination and then his election. As far as the market is concerned, GWB became a Lame Duck sometime in the Spring when the front-runners for the nomination came to the fore, and their outlook on economy began to be examined in detail.

    AD - RtR/OS (19c3d6)

  117. “Since the market looks forward, and not arrears, the market has been on a general downward slope since it became apparent that Obama would be the nominee in a Dem Year”

    AD – The market pretty much knew that Obama would be bad for stocks with his tax increases and dirty socialist policies. One of the first big clues was the television interview in which he cluelessly claimed that increasing the tax rate on capital gains would have no impact on the market. What a braindead dorkwad!

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  118. I tried to link it, but it gets trapped in the comment filter when I do.

    Of course he did – yeah, surrre.

    “the current rally is simply a wager that a bottom has been reached,”

    The correct term is dead cat bounce, which I would wager he’d have learned over at the U of C economist site, if he had not been pantsed and beclowned immediately upon posting his inane and content – free “analysis.” He may not even remember this, but Bradley posted his drivel and the resultant beclowning when he was posting there as “bunkerbuster.” He’s already been outed on this subject numerous times, but nevertheless keeps trying to induce collective amnesia on the rest of us.

    “What a shiny little glob of spiteful envy he coughs up here!”

    Carlitos goes for the Troll killshot – and scores!

    Dmac (49b16c)

  119. Karl:
    I didn’t take Lowry’s comment out of context. And your citing of Reuters saying the same thing only underscores that. I presented his comment exactly as you intended it to be interpreted, apparently: as holding Obama’s Treasury secretary responsible for the decline in stock prices.

    We are making progress, though. Now, at least, you’re willing to attribute the rally to Obama’s treasury secretary: “The markets rallied over the past 10 days, in no small part due to the Fed acting and the Treasury announcing an actual plan.”

    I say that’s progress, because it at least shows that you’ve been compelled to provide some level of logical consistency. You’ve at least come down against the widespread meme on this blog that Obama’s policies are disastrous for the stock market.

    My view remains that broader forces are far more important causes of the rally: specfically, that prices relative to earnings had fallen far enough to prompt some investors to bet the market had bottomed and that China’s massive stimulus program is showing signs of gaining traction. There is also the fact that, amid all the panting and moaning about AIG bonuses, there hasn’t been a major bank failure in the past couple of weeks, nor, really, any other hideous suprises to throw off buyers.

    Lastly, never believe any daily market report from Reuters or, really, from anyone. Wire services like Reuters look at the market’s direction on the day, then grab the nearest, simplest reason and paste the two together, with far less concern for plausibility. They are literally telling you a story. As such, they need to make it simple.

    The market isn’t simple, so their story is almost never true, whether or not it is factual.

    Hax Vobiscum (4012df)

  120. The unintended irony of the Hacky sack’s comment is priceless.

    JD (85cf0b)

  121. Dmac,

    Please keep in mind that the media is not to be trusted on financial issues that reflect poorly on the current administration. They have no credibility… case closed. They do, however, have absolute credibility when it comes to stories about Guantanamo or anything reflecting poorly on the previous administration.

    It’s not like they called any of the regulars here murdering nutcases, gutless, or paranoid murderers. Because that would be out of line. Ignore the “journalist”.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  122. JD, you mean the part where he describes Reuters’ as Democrats?

    SPQR (72771e)

  123. Hax,

    You could watch traders freaking out over Timmy’s disasters in Feb and March in real time on TV, but I don’t really have the tech to link it, hence Reuters and WaPo. Also, I live about 3 blocks from a mjor financial district, but have no way to link the discussions I have with (or overhear from) traders. I guarantee you that on 2/11, they weren’t discussing the stimulus in China.

    Karl (d826c5)

  124. We are making progress, though.

    Translation – “well, other than that, how’d you like the play, Mr. Lincoln?”

    Dmac (49b16c)

  125. Comment by Stashiu3

    Funny, but I don’t remember an apology for any of that filth – but then again, being a prog means never having to say you’re sorry. Wonder if it even realizes why it was shat on and dumped into the river during it’s awesomely powerful presence on the ChicagoBoyz site. It must have been because of it’s insightful and learned commentary – those guys just can’t handle the twoof.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  126. Poor Hax, he can’t he’p it,
    he was born with a beclowned head up ‘is arse!

    AD - RtR/OS (19c3d6)

  127. “You could watch traders freaking out over Timmy’s disasters in Feb and March in real time on TV.”

    Well, that’s what people do on TV, Karl. It’s infotainment. Never take that stuff at face value. Most of these people you are talking about aren’t actually traders. They may be in the employ of traders, but if there were actually managing other people’s money — or their own seriously — they wouldn’t expose themselves like that, nor would they have the time.

    Does it occur to you, Karl, that these “traders” you say were “freaking out” have just lost their clients a shitload of money? THEY WERE DEAD WRONG! Whatever uncertainty they were afraid of proved to be illusory.
    And now they’re going around saying Geithner’s plan is supporting the market. Are you ready to believe them this time? Invest in haste, repent at leisure.

    So, fine, quote them and believe them, but don’t pretend you’re not aware of the sham.

    In the money business, those who know don’t talk and those who talk don’t know.

    As Jon Stewart demonstrated so entertainingly in his effortless smackdown of Jim Cramer, one would go broke fast taking what is said on CNBC at face value.

    Stash: I take most of what the mediocre media reports about Gitmo at face value because the coverage turns on the presentation of facts. Most of the what the talking heads of finance are saying on CNBC consists of interpretations and speculations wherein factuality is beside the point. They are, ultimately, claiming to be able to predict the future, whereas the people gathering and presenting facts on Gitmo are engaged in a much more plausible activity.

    And, Stash, please keep ignoring me! And when you do that non-ignoring ignoring thing, please be sure to admonish others to ignore me. Says it all about the kilter of your internal logic compass.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  128. “why it was shat on and dumped into the river during it’s awesomely powerful presence on the ChicagoBoyz site.”

    Chicagoboyz is dedicated primarily to slagging liberals. You’d think, then, that keeping liberal commenters around would be important to them. And you’d think that keeping liberal commenters around whom you’re capable of destroying in arguments would not only be important, but good, clean fun.

    Alas, the site is totally free of long-time liberal commenters. There are none. They drop by and they either get disgusted with the juvenality and leave or, they engage it and, in the midst of destroying it with facts and logic, are banned. No one stays, ever. Do the math and get back to me.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  129. “Alas, the site is totally free of long-time liberal commenters.”

    Hax – You have way too high an opinion of yourself. Most conservative sites would not consider you a worthwhile liberal commenter for reasons people here are tired of repeating. Bradley’s pull quotes from sites you’ve previously plagued confirm that opinion. Go figure.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  130. Daley: That’s beside the point. It’s not that the “boyz” banned me, it’s that they ban ALL liberals. There are no long-time liberal commentators there. None. Do the math.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  131. Hax – I’m making a point about you specifically.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  132. Well, Obama’s speech today looked like he was pretty punch drunk. That and his promises are ridiculous and don’t match his own actions to date. What an astonishingly bad and dishonest performance.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  133. Daley: And what point is that? The record shows all liberals are either banned or flee chicagoboyz on their own. The “boyz” are happy to operate a liberal-free blog that focuses on slagging liberals. In other words, they maintain the site in order to fight the liberals of their imagination, while avoiding fights with real, live ones.

    I appreciate that you and Brad take such an interest in me that you even follow my work on other blogs. Sorry if I don’t return the favor, but I don’t see that either of you have anything at all to say beyond ad hominem.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  134. “they ban ALL liberals”

    “flee chicagoboyz on their own”

    “avoiding fights with real, live ones.”

    These don’t really go together, it seems to me. To say all three in such a short space would seem to imply the “facts” of the situation are quite flexible in the speakers mind.

    Machinist (c5fc28)

  135. But I never was good at math.

    Machinist (c5fc28)

  136. Good catch, Machinist. I didn’t mean to say that that they ban all liberals. They certainly allowed me to post there a few times, right up until I started winning the argument. Rather, I meant that any liberals who systematically engage them are banned and that the net result is that there is no liberal representation on the blog.

    The record shows that the Whine Club here at Patterico’s was hoping I’d be banned. They love to attack liberals, but they cry like babies when liberals fight back. Abject cowards.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  137. I am not part of the family here and would not presume to speak for them but from what I have seen and my own experience in the matter it is your trollish and dishonorable behavior and your dishonesty that are the reason people want you banned, not your liberal views and certainly not your debating prowess.

    Machinist (c5fc28)

  138. […] The Punchdrunk Presidency at Patterico’s Pontifications […]

    Reaction to Obama Gaffes Miss the Larger Point « Dirty Democrats (05b5a7)

  139. I have never been to the site mentioned and don’t even know what it is but it is clear from the fact that your accounts of what happens there are inconsistent and contradictory that you are just making this stuff up. Why should I give any credence to an obvious liar? Why should I listen to anything you say about the people here when you are not truthful about people there?

    Machinist (c5fc28)

  140. “Daley: And what point is that?”

    Hax – My comment was not written with very big words. What part don’t you understand?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  141. Punch drunk is the only explanation for how this is cutting the deficit in half … well, that and brazen dishonesty.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  142. “They certainly allowed me to post there a few times, right up until I started winning the argument.”

    Hax – Link to the part where you were winning. I’d love to see that! Also, I thought you said you weren’t banned. Have you made your mind up about what happened yet?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  143. Daley: never said I wasn’t banned. You’re imagining that. And if you’re that interested in my blog comments, just go to chicagoboyz.net and search under my name…

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  144. “Does it occur to you, Karl, that these “traders” you say were “freaking out” have just lost their clients a shitload of money? THEY WERE DEAD WRONG! Whatever uncertainty they were afraid of proved to be illusory”

    Hax – News for you. Traders love volatility. Why would that occur to you given that you have displayed absolutely no understanding of the financial markets here, merely ripping and pasting talking points about the global economy and the worst stock market and best stock market, blah, blah, blah, without comprehension, from some other blog you read. That’s entirely sonsistent with your approach to commenting here.

    Does it occur to you that the traders are freaking out at the President and his administration’s seeming deliberate attempt to destroy the markets and the economy?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  145. “And if you’re that interested in my blog comments, just go to chicagoboyz.net and search under my name…”

    Hax – No fair. You claimed you were winning. Point it out. If it was your lame comments on immigration, forget it. Shannon smoked your ass.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  146. The record shows all liberals are either banned

    I didn’t mean to say that that they ban all liberals.

    Daley: never said I wasn’t banned

    Thanks for the clarification – but when someone keeps lying continuously, eventually they get hoisted on their own petard.

    Wouldn’t it be great if this commenter could prove just one of the hundreds of assertions that he’s made here over the past few months?

    Abject cowards.

    He forgot to add in murderering nutcases.

    The record shows that the Whine Club here at Patterico’s was hoping I’d be banned.

    With witty rejoinders and insightful commentary such as this, how could anyone want to ban him?

    just go to chicagoboyz.net and search under my name…

    Now, which name would that be, or has he been using many aliases at the same site? No, that wouldn’t be right, would it?

    Dmac (49b16c)

  147. Dmac, consistency … hobgoblin … etc. etc.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  148. We don’t do mushroom bruises here, but if we were keeping track Hax’s body would look like one giant, now don’t take this homoerotically, NTTAWWT, penis collage. Like Levi, though, he probably believe he won every single discussion.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  149. SPQR – heh.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  150. Daley, he takes EVERYTHING homoerotically – the man’s got a real projection problem on that score (among so many others).

    Dmac (49b16c)

  151. I generally avoid trolls but it’s hard to do around here lately.

    We are making progress, though. Now, at least, you’re willing to attribute the rally to Obama’s treasury secretary: “The markets rallied over the past 10 days, in no small part due to the Fed acting and the Treasury announcing an actual plan.”

    I say that’s progress, because it at least shows that you’ve been compelled to provide some level of logical consistency. You’ve at least come down against the widespread meme on this blog that Obama’s policies are disastrous for the stock market.

    The market hates doubt and uncertainty. One of the things that kept the Depression going was FDR’s inconsistency. His rules kept changing so people stayed on the sidelines if they had money to invest.

    The short rally was in response to SOME rules that seemed likely to persist. The rally lasted one day but if they will stay with one set of rules for a while, it might come back quite a way.

    Obama’s plans are a disaster for the country but smart investors can make money even from disaster, like Joe Kennedy did in 1929. His massive spending and deficits are bad enough but people make money from inflation. The worst is his energy plan which will leave us with rolling blackouts soon, maybe this summer. The deep recession may hold them off another year or two. I cannot explain the thinking of the Obama people and the far left (same thing). They seem to desire a shortage of energy with a concomitant rise in prices. I don’t know how they expect people to vote for this.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  152. Hax

    “Most of these people you are talking about aren’t actually traders.”

    I’m talking about the cameras trained on the floor. And since I run into dozens of them every frickin’ weekday, I kinda know the difference between actual traders and guys talking at a desk.

    Karl (3bf5f8)

  153. Not to mention that uncertainty is obviously based on information known at the time. And that Hax’s assessment that they were wrong also remains nothing more than a prediction. Or perhaps the person lecturing me about the market hasn’t figured out the difference between paper gains/losses and real ones.

    Karl (3bf5f8)

  154. You’re arguing with a Bobo Doll, Karl – or a very bad game of Whack – a – Mole.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  155. Also, the reports on Gitmo tend to turn on unproven allegations made by detainees. That Hax credits them really sums things up nicely.

    Karl (3bf5f8)

  156. Karl – Hax has probably seen “real” traders in the movies, you know like Trading Places. Eddie Murphy and Dan Ackroyd were real traders in that movie, right? Does San Francisco have any financial exchanges currently? Even dinky ones?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  157. Mike writes: “The rally lasted one day.”

    Um, no.

    The Dow rose for four straight days after Karl’s post bemoaning Obama’s effect on stock prices. On the fifth day, it was virtually unchanged (fell 0.1 percent), then gained for two more days. In all, the index is up 11 percent since Karl’s March 10 cut’n’paste of mainstream media views that echo his own.

    Thanks Daley, but I have assumed you’re male. Given that, your penchant for imagining me as a “penis collage” can only be interpreted as homoeroticism. You should get that checked. If you’re female, apologies and I’ll have to interpret it as a plainer variety of weirdness.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  158. “Or perhaps the person lecturing me about the market hasn’t figured out the difference between paper gains/losses and real ones.”

    Karl – Trust me. He’s just repeating shit he read somewhere else. He has no idea what it all really means.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  159. “You should get that checked.”

    Hax – Are you saying there is something wrong with that. Are you a HOMOPHOBE?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  160. Hax,

    The one phrase you quoted was in the past tense. Geithner’s bumbling tanked the market in February, and again in early March. It has gone up since, in part because the Fed created $1.5 trillion, in part because Timmy finally got his act together (and was kept off TV), in part for the global reasons you mentioned in the first place. Your entire rant here has been based on the straw man that I wrote that Obama was primarily responsible for the bear market, or that I was calling one. It’s been knocked down. Everyone gets that but you.

    Karl (3bf5f8)

  161. Isn’t that fun, Karl? It’s great that you try, but trust me: there will be a lot more microtoming of meaning, changing definitions, and unfounded assertions galore.

    Eric Blair (55f2d9)

  162. __________________________________

    Wow, how surprising that a certain pattern is in evidence here…

    Associated Press, March 24, 2009:

    President Barack Obama is defending a budget idea that would reduce the tax deduction that wealthier families can take when they make charitable donations. Obama says the plan is “the right thing to do.”

    Speaking at a prime-time news conference, the president said the change in tax policy would be realistic and fairer to lower-earning families that make charitable gifts but get a smaller tax deduction.
    ________________________________

    New York Times, March 26, 2008:

    The Obamas’ returns are striking on a number of levels. They show that the couple made very few charitable contributions, sometimes less than 1 percent of taxable income, until Mr. Obama began his run for the White House.

    In 2004, before Mr. Obama entered the Senate, he and his wife gave $2,500 to charity, 1.2 percent of the taxable income. The next year, the donations jumped, to $77,315, or nearly 5 percent of the taxable income.

    “Their charitable giving only went up when it looked like he was campaigning for the presidential office,” said Paul L. Caron, a professor at the University of Cincinnati College of Law and editor of the TaxProf Blog, which examines tax questions and has posted the returns.
    ________________________________

    George F. Will, March 2008:

    Although liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

    •Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

    •Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George W. Bush.

    •Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

    •In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

    •People who reject the idea that “government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality” give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.


    __________________________________

    Mark (411533)

  163. Karl writes: “Your entire rant here has been based on the straw man that I wrote that Obama was primarily responsible for the bear market, or that I was calling one.”

    Again, Karl, if you weren’t blaming the market’s decline on Obama, what was your point? Go back and read through the comments. One after another resounded your theme of blaming Obama for the market’s drop. You even repeat the assertion above: “Geithner’s bumbling tanked the market in February and again in early March.”
    If that’s not blaming the Obama administration, what is?
    My point all along has been your impeccable timing of choosing March 10 to do a cutnpaste of mainstream media views that mirror your own. That was the very day the current rally started.
    You got it wrong, Karl. Way wrong and you just can’t admit that.

    And Daley, there’s nothing wrong with having an active homoerotic imagination. what you need to get checked is why you choose to deploy those fantasies in defense of your political views, of all things.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  164. Don’t bother me!
    I gave at the office.

    AD - RtR/OS (19c3d6)

  165. Karl et al, I hope that you are enjoying this. Good luck on getting those links you asked for. We always got those when we asked for them on the other topics posted here. :)

    PS – Karl, with Cactus closed, where do the runners go to cocktail?

    carlitos (efdd90)

  166. carlitos – In the early 1990s on Friday afternoons during the summer they used to have live music outdoors at the bar along the river at the Merc. What a freaking meat market!

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  167. Well, let’s look at what happened today. The tax-dodging head of Treasury appeared before Congress and suddenly became the sheriff with a white hat.

    And stocks tanked.

    The market, indeed wants certainty, but it also wants to be left alone. Barney Frank’s noises about capping all executive salaries probably had a chilling effect, too.

    The market had been looking for a long time to see some value to the assets that had been left hanging by the collapse of the banking system. They finally got it, and responded.

    And to tell you the truth, it’s not a bad idea.

    But, then, Geithner came back and said he would punish those who make bad decisions after inviting them to take a chance in investing on those assets.

    How else can the market react?

    Ag80 (d205da)

  168. Hax, are you accusing someone of being a closet queen?

    Jimminy'cricket (637168)

  169. Thanks Ag: See Karl, here it comes again. The market drops and, low and behold, it’s Obama’s fault.

    Hilarious…

    Machinist asserts: “your trollish and dishonorable behavior and your dishonesty.”

    Dishonesty?

    Give one example of dishonesty, Mach. Just one. You give one example where I’m lying and I’ll never post here again.

    And if you can’t find even one single example, what does that say about your own honesty?

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  170. Hax,

    Try to grasp the following concepts:

    (1) In addition to other factors, Timmy’s blunders depressed the market;

    (2) The timeframe over which the effect of Timmy’s blunders depressed the market cannot be known with metaphysical certitude, which does not make said blunders any less stupid;

    (3) Recognizing (1) is not the same thing as asserting that Obama is entirely to blame for the bear market (which was your strawman);

    (4) The fact that the market rallies weeks later does not disprove (1) or (2);

    (5) The fact that the market rallied big on the days that the Fed did the big QE and Timmy got his act together tends to support (1) and (2), and possibly (4);

    (6) Whether the rally of the last 10 days marks a bottom, or is a bear market rally remains to be seen (and will depend in part on how the global markets ultimately judge Timmy’s plan); and

    (7) You keep asking what the point of my prior posting was, which I already explained in #113, though it really is self-evident to anyone who reads that post, which is linked at #113.

    Karl (3bf5f8)

  171. The Timmuh plan does not do much for market’s with large bid/ask spreads.

    It will fail at getting the bad stuff trading but will help subsidize returns in the less toxic markets

    Jimminy'cricket (637168)

  172. Your “apology” to Stashiu was disingenuous and dishonest. You did not mean it, you only did so under the threat of being banned. Your words towards him since have proven that your “apology” was dishonest.

    See ya

    Also, see murderous intent

    JD (45da85)

  173. Oh, JD, you know better than that.

    Karl, good luck. The dance continues.

    Eric Blair (55f2d9)

  174. Not even close JD. You’re presenting your emotions as facts bearing on my emotional state. You have no idea, nor any way of learning, whether my apology was sincere. Not only that, you present zero evidence that it was “dishonest.” You merely assert that it is so.

    And even if that were true, even if I was insincere, is that really all you’ve got? Of all the long-winded, “wall of text” and so on and so forth I’ve posted here, and all the times I’ve been accused of “dishonesty” the only thing you’ve got is that I really wasn’t sorry about something I wrote?

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  175. I’ll address you for this Hax.

    Give one example of dishonesty, Mach. Just one. You give one example where I’m lying and I’ll never post here again.
    Comment by Hax Vobiscum — 3/24/2009 @ 9:22 pm

    How about this?

    The unenlightened, and deeply paranoid, part is where you brag about not having a conscience, saying you could accidentally kill a detainee and then not lose any sleep over it.

    Now, show where I’m bragging about anything. Then show where that bragging is about not having a conscience. Then show where I said anything about it would be accidental. Then show where I said I wouldn’t lose sleep over it.

    You want to constantly split hairs, say vile things, accuse people of bad faith, flat-out lie, state your opinions are undisputed facts and it’s “case closed”, and otherwise employ slimy rhetoric. Now, you’ve stated that you’ll never post here again if there is one example of you lying. In that one sentence you lied four times (at least). Buh-bye.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  176. EB – It said that we could not produce even one instance of it lying, and if we could, it would never post here again. I did. So, were it to actually be honest, we would never hear from it again. If it continues, that is yet another example of its dishonesty, which should also cause it to never post here again.

    It is banning itself.

    JD (45da85)

  177. Hax said:

    Thanks Ag: See Karl, here it comes again. The market drops and, low and behold, it’s Obama’s fault.

    Did you read my post? I don’t believe that the market rises or falls on what Obama says. It rises and falls on what his administration says it will do. That is indisputable. And it would be the same whether that administration is Democratic or Republican.

    The market is going to respond to what any politician says that may affect the flow and investment of money.

    If an administration official says that he’s going to punish people for making wrong decisions, the market will place it’s money where it believes it will be protected from those threats.

    Money ebbs and flows in the direction that it can increase wealth. This is isn’t about Obama, it’s about economics.

    Maybe, the market will react strongly to his press conference tonight. I don’t know, but I hope it does.

    Stop trying to make me a whipping boy for your confidence in the President’s selections for the Cabinet or his philosophy on what is right or wrong in a free market system.

    Ag80 (d205da)

  178. Buh-bye.

    JD (45da85)

  179. Stash, you have the fellow. Maybe Patterico will become involved. I know that reading things like

    “…You have no idea, nor any way of learning, whether my apology was sincere….”

    would make Bill Clinton blush with the sophistry.

    But it doesn’t matter, Stash, when you hoist the fellow by his own petard. He didn’t mean this statement:

    “Give one example of dishonesty, Mach. Just one. You give one example where I’m lying and I’ll never post here again.”

    Or he’ll claim it only applies to Machinist, or depends on your definition of “one” and so on.

    It’s just about, as Patterico pointed out with another poster, stirring up trouble, moving goalposts, and being unpleasant.

    Ask Karl.

    Eric Blair (55f2d9)

  180. “it’s that they ban ALL liberals”

    “They drop by and they either get disgusted with the juvenality and leave ”

    “flee chicagoboyz on their own.”

    #1 and #2 and 3 are mutually exclusive. You were not telling the truth. I don’t know which one was the lie but one had to be.

    I could also point out your dishonest treatment of Stash’s words but there is no point. I tried to debate with you before, though respected people warned me not to. Instead of debating ideas, you played word games, so I told you then I would not debate you again. I will feel free to comment when I see you distort the truth and step on your own mendacity.

    My honesty and honor stand on their own. Those who know me can make their own calls on them. Those who don’t know me I don’t care about. Your opinion is of no concern to me at all. I once gave you the benefit of a doubt and you proved it a mistake.

    Machinist (c5fc28)

  181. No dice Mach. I already explained clearly to you what I meant by “ban ALL liberals.” Here’s what I wrote in #137, 50 comments ago!!

    “Good catch, Machinist. I didn’t mean to say that that they ban all liberals. They certainly allowed me to post there a few times, right up until I started winning the argument. Rather, I meant that any liberals who systematically engage them are banned and that the net result is that there is no liberal representation on the blog.”

    You call that dishonest? Talk about word games.

    You’re down to characterizing imprecise wording as “lying” even when the author clarifies. And that’s all you’ve got. Yet you feel free to repeatedly accuse me of lying and to repeat accusations you admit you’re not familiar with. Pathetic!

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  182. This would be funny, if it wasn’t so very sad.

    Stash called it.

    Eric Blair (55f2d9)

  183. I know Eric,

    I honestly despise Hax. I’ve consistently challenged anyone to show where I’ve lied (or even been factually mistaken) about Guantanamo. When I have made mistakes here on other topics, usually by misreading what someone has written, I’ve apologized without qualification and it was clearly sincere. Hax is such a vile character that he makes actus, alphie, and lovey appear reasonable. Accusing the posters here of a collective willingness to assassinate a political leader they don’t agree with, implying that I’m a sociopathic/homicidal paranoid, and calling Mac dishonest is (IMO) beyond the pale.

    I know Machinist IRL and have never met a more honorable man, and few to equal him. I don’t wish harm upon Hax, so all I can wish for is to never hear from or about him again.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  184. They are banned or they leave of their own accord. These are not the same. Your “explanation” was just squirming because you were caught in a contradiction.

    This is what I expected from you. If I am so pathetic then my words or opinions should not be a concern to you. Good day.

    Machinist (c5fc28)

  185. Stashiu3,

    Thank you, Sir. You are overgenerous I think. Everyone that matters here knows you are a man to respect, I think.

    Machinist (c5fc28)

  186. Not overgenerous at all Sir, not one bit. Mac haz email! G’night all.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  187. Stash, the guy is just a Keyboard Kommando, playing games to feel all strong and righteous. It’s a game. A childish one, but a game.

    But you proved the point: he made his bet, you demonstrated he indeed lied—about you—and now he refuses to “pay up.”

    He never intended to. His word is worthless. But are you surprised, after all the word games, insults, and goal post games?

    I’m just surprised that he hasn’t been banned. The statements about you are every bit as bad as things I have seen folks banned for in the past. I would say that he has banned himself, but he refuses to “pay up” on his own bets. Again, no surprise.

    Machinist indeed seems like a quality person.

    Eric Blair (55f2d9)

  188. It’s like the lie bunkertrollHax told about Limbaugh allowing “zero” dissent or criticism from liberals on his show. I posted a transcript showing that far from banning them, Limbaugh actually takes liberals first. The trollopus didn’t have the honesty to admit it was wrong.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  189. Thank you, Eric Blair. I did not bother to taunt him about leaving because I expected his response. I will certainly not go back through his comments to find another example. Life is too short to wallow in that. There are much more credible and worthy thoughts to take in from other posters here.

    Machinist (c5fc28)

  190. Stash writes:

    “Now, show where I’m bragging about anything.”

    Whether you were bragging, or lamenting, or celebrating or plainly stating your willingness to kill detainees is clearly not a factual matter, but one of interpretation.
    My interpretation might well be wrong. But that wouldn’t make me a liar, it makes me an imperfect interpreter of your comments. If someone says Obama was happy to see Bush’s failure, can we call the person a “proven liar” if Obama then says he wasn’t happy?

    Stash claims:

    “Then show where that bragging is about not having a conscience.”

    You say that you could kill a detainee, because you’d be afraid that he wanted to kill you. Then you add that, if the person detainee wasn’t actually out to kill you, it wouldnt’ bother you that you’d killed him anyway.

    Clearly, you’re saying you don’t have a conscience. Any person with a conscience would feel horrible if they killed an innocent person. And again, the bragging point is strictly a matter of interpretation.

    If you want to re-interpret your own comment differently, feel free. But by calling me a “proven liar” all you demonstrate is that you are unable or unwilling to distinguish between matters of fact and matters of interpretation.

    Hax Vobiscum (4012df)

  191. Hax,

    All of those parts were lies you told and any reasonable person would agree. You have now (again) tried to weasel your way out, but you can’t do it. You stated I bragged about not having a conscience. Not an interpretation, you made a statement that I did so. Where? At what point did I express any opinion as to whether I had a conscience or not, in any fashion? You made an untrue statement… we in the real world call those lies.

    The rest are lies also, amongst the multitude you’ve told. But you stated that a single lie would make you leave and never return. Where is the statement I made about not having a conscience that you interpreted as a brag? Either I made a statement about my conscience or I didn’t. Drawing a conclusion from an interpretation of an inference does not call for a statement of fact, which is what you did. You didn’t call it an opinion, you declared it to be true. That is a lie.

    Everything you’ve said about me is a lie, but you set the bar at one. Buh-bye.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  192. Clearly, you’re saying you don’t have a conscience.

    By the way, don’t put words in my mouth.

    Any person with a conscience would feel horrible if they killed an innocent person.

    Not necessarily true. You don’t get to make up your own definitions of conscience or horrible to support your own points.

    And again, the bragging point is strictly a matter of interpretation.

    Unless the interpretation is unreasonable. I can’t say that “Hax is happy because his dog just died” right after you make that comment. It’s not a reasonable interpretation. What element of my statement gives you reasonable (or any, really) cause to assume it is bragging? Especially to the extent where you originally made it a statement of fact, not opinion.

    Keep your word and leave. You can’t admit error, you can’t apologize without immediately attacking back, you don’t comment honestly, and you’re a liar. Begone.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  193. Stash: You seem confused.

    Is your point that my interpretation is unreasonable, or that I’m a liar?

    Or are you denying that there’s a distinction between the two?

    All you’ve got is word games going here. And you’re losing them badly.

    If you were really concerned that I’d misinterpreted your comments, you’d be willing to clarify and disprove my remarks. Instead, you’ve repeated ad nauseum the assertion that I’m a “liar,” and then, eventually, acknowledge that all you’ve really got is a claim that my interpretation isn’t “reasonable.”

    I merely quoted you from Pat’s interview and you’re upset about that, understandably. It’s pretty shameful stuff that destroys any credibility you have and may well even, at some point, lead to some legal unpleasantness for you.

    Here’s the quote again:

    Stash said:
    ““I can tell you that if I ever saw a detainee face-to-face here in the States, I would immediately assume that I was targeted and do my best to kill them without further warning. If I turned out to be wrong about their intent, I could live with that.”

    What I really don’t get is where you get off imagining such an obviously paranoid scenario, then blithely declaring “I could live with that.” That’s some sick stuff, man. You really should be ashamed.

    Hax Vobiscum (4012df)

  194. Wow, that is pretty scary stuff Hax. I guess 8 years of swallowing everything Bush crapped out really will rot your insides out.

    Ed from PA (6d3080)

  195. Any person with a conscience would feel horrible if they killed an innocent person.

    Not necessarily true. You don’t get to make up your own definitions of conscience or horrible to support your own points.

    Uh, yeah that is completely and totally true, you ignorant sociopath.

    Ed from PA (6d3080)

  196. Add EfP to the pile of refuse.

    Hax – Explain away how everyone here has murderous intent.

    You also lied about banning yourself if we could show where you were dishonest. This thread has provided ample evidence of same, yet here you remain. So, your original claim was dishonest.

    JD (a71690)

  197. 196, Too bad Mary Jo Kopechne can’t comment upon Ted Kennedy feeling horrible about her death. Ted only felt horrible about her death costing him the Presidency.

    PCD (02f8c1)

  198. JD: Why don’t you explain how someone can consciously murder an innocent without any regret? Are you really ready to defend that position?

    Ed from PA (6d3080)

  199. I merely quoted you from Pat’s interview and you’re upset about that, understandably. It’s pretty shameful stuff that destroys any credibility you have and may well even, at some point, lead to some legal unpleasantness for you.

    And this is the same interpretation that nearly got you banned before. Yet you claim your apology was sincere and we can’t prove otherwise.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  200. Why don’t you explain how someone can consciously murder an innocent without any regret? Are you really ready to defend that position?

    That would be difficult… fortunately, that’s not what I said.

    Ed from PA: Reading comprehension = FAIL!

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  201. JD: um, perhaps you could show where I said everyone here has murderous intent?

    And we both know you can’t show that.

    And now you’re going with: I’m a liar because I said I wasn’t a liar. Wow. I know you’re desperate, but I did think you could do a little better than that.

    Hax Vobiscum (4012df)

  202. If you were really concerned that I’d misinterpreted your comments, you’d be willing to clarify and disprove my remarks.

    I’m not concerned you misinterpreted my remarks. You willfully and knowing lied about them using “interpretation” as an excuse to do so. Apparently you interpret reality at your convenience, so in that sense you will never lie about anything. Just misinterpret things.

    Doesn’t fly. Keep your word. Begone.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  203. Like you expected either honor or honesty from trolls, Stash?

    But it is funny watch HV wriggle like a worm on the hook of his own words. Not that he will follow his own promise and leave.

    Eric Blair (55f2d9)

  204. And Quintilian had the final word on that character, Stash and JD.

    Mendacem oportet esse memorem.

    Eric Blair (55f2d9)

  205. JD: um, perhaps you could show where I said everyone here has murderous intent?

    And we both know you can’t show that.

    Right here.

    The bullet-proof SUV? C’mon, you can’t seriously expect him to drive around in a Saturn convertible with people like the nutcases on this blog on the loose, do you?

    Comment by Hax Vobiscum — 3/10/2009 @ 6:00 pm

    That’s the difference between a reasonable interpretation and your kind Hax. You made that comment in response to President Obama getting a new armored SUV while telling others not to drive SUV’s. Nobody said anything that could be interpreted as an intent to harm the President, yet you say the armored SUV is necessary because of nutcases like us. We can reasonably interpret that as saying that you would expect us to be willing to do harm. You had no basis for that interpretation. It was a lie.

    Keep your word. Begone.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  206. Try again Stash. My first comment about you — the one Pat asked me to apologize for — had nothing to do with your sick claim that you could “live with” murdering an innocent person.

    The best part is that, you literally couldn’t live with it, since you’ve now confessed in public to premeditation, which would make it first-degree murder, and you’d get fried in a lot of states for that. That doesn’t make you a liar, of course, but it does make you look pretty stupid.

    Hax Vobiscum (4012df)

  207. Silence is golden, Hax. Remember how much respect Patterico has stated he has Stash, and what you are writing.

    On the other hand, pour it on!

    Eric Blair (55f2d9)

  208. No, your comment that nearly got you banned was that I had no credibility… “case closed”. You just repeated it. Hence, your apology was not sincere.

    As far as premeditation, good thing you’re not a lawyer. Although I highly recommend you represent yourself if you ever have the opportunity. The judge will just adore you.

    Keep your word. Begone.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  209. Also, Patterico didn’t “ask” you to apologize… he demanded it on threat of being banned. He decided your apology, lame as it was, was sufficient. Keep stabbing him in the back like this. I really do want you gone by banning instead of voluntary (you would probably change your mind and come back… wait, you did that one already, didn’t you?)

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  210. Re: #206. Not even close, Stash.

    Note that I said “you can’t seriously expect him to ride around in a Saturn convertible.”

    Now. You could try to interpret that as me suggesting that Obama might actually ride around in a Saturn convertible, and thereby call me a liar, since there’s no evidence that he would ride around in a Saturn convertible. That would be no less credible than your assertion that I was calling every blogger here a potential assassin of the president.

    My reference to the Saturn was a bit of rather obvious example of hyperbole. When reasonable people encounter obvious hyperbole, they assume that they are dealing with a rhetorical, not a literal, statement.

    Jeez, I really can’t believe I’m even pointing this out to you, Stash.

    Bottom line is you’ve got nothing and you probably even know it.

    Move on. Better yet, get help. You’re little paranoid hypothetical murder threat is quite the cry for help.

    Hax Vobiscum (4012df)

  211. You’re little paranoid hypothetical murder threat is quite the cry for help.

    Hax’s First Rule of Holes: Keep Digging!!!

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  212. The fact is, I.left.you.alone. Completely. You felt the need to re-start your vile insinuations. Fine, I felt the need to let you dig your own hole. Thank you for being so obliging.

    BTW, do you remember my profession? Specifically? And just a few of the things in the articles that Patterico shared to establish my bona fides? Probably still haven’t read all the articles, have you? Taking one statement out of context gives the “journalist” and EdfPA enough information to diagnose Sociopath. Amazing.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  213. Stash writes: “I really do want you gone.”

    I suspect you’ve pretended to win a lot of arguments that way. And it must really bother you that you just can’t make it happen here. Pathetic.

    Hax Vobiscum (4012df)

  214. You being gone doesn’t win the arguments, that’s already done. You being gone is just “Win” all-around.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  215. Stash: I never called you a sociopath. You’re getting more confused by the minute.

    Nor did you “leave me alone.” There are numerous comments from you directing all manner of clumsy ad hominem at me for the past few days. How can you possibly claim to have left me alone?

    Get help!

    Hax Vobiscum (4012df)

  216. While I think that the commenter is doing a good enough job in making the case, I just thought I’d remind y’all of his own words. He has, quite literally, begged to be banned from this site, and under three different aliases to boot. I am pretty sure that is the reason Patterico hasn’t banned him, no matter how mendacious and dishonest his approach to argument can be. Much like a certain non-specific religious group that just happens to have a few hundred million violent adherents, he wants to be a martyr.

    #

    Banning is essential to the maintenance of the right-wing blogosphere. It would not and could not be the same without it.

    Wherever liberals are allowed to debate freely, they trash conservatives soundly. Every time, every place.

    This what creates such huge audiences for talkradio’s one-side, unopposed bloviating and for blog sites that ban all dissent, the second it begins to get the upper hand.

    This is also the great beauty of the patterico.com and sites like it. They have created an inert echo chamber where ideas only fold in on themselves.

    Take a look at the moaning around here. It goes nowhere.

    Comment by McLovin — 7/24/2008 @ 10:55 pm

    (For those of you with actual lives and thus no time to follow such nonsense, McLovin = bunkerbuster = Hax Vobiscum)

    I think that, sunlight being the best disinfectant and all, he will most likely stay. His disingenuous approach will continue to madden those of you who choose to engage. Whether his contribution to comment devolution warrants banning is up to the host. I suspect that he is inclined to let Hax continue to soundly “trounce” you all. I mean, notice how he posted that link which showed how he was ‘winning’ the argument over at chicagoboyz? You can’t beat him – any time, any place, any nickname.

    carlitos (efdd90)

  217. Uh, yeah that is completely and totally true, you ignorant sociopath.
    Comment by Ed from PA — 3/25/2009 @ 5:34 am

    Ed from PA: If I can show that it is not always “completely and totally true”, will you agree to being banned as well? I’m not asking for you to be banned, nor will I. But, if I can show that it is not always “completely and totally true”, will you agree to let Patterico ban you for it?

    As far as “ignorant sociopath” goes, you really don’t know me. What do you say? Hmmm…? (Don’t mind that silver flash of light, doesn’t that worm look tasty? How much harm could there be? What could go wrong?)

    😉

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  218. You say you didn’t call me a sociopath… technically true. You did say I didn’t have a conscience which is the major criteria for what used to be called a Sociopath (it’s not anymore). You stated the absence of conscience, EdfPA named it “sociopath”. Technical correction noted and accepted. Is there a difference? Not so much.

    As far as leaving you utterly and completely alone, that’s a fact. Until this comment of yours, I hadn’t spoken to, about, around, or even in reference to you for over a week. You decided to jump back in the hole and start digging again rather than leave well enough alone.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  219. Hack is still gnawing on the ankles of his betters I see.

    Classless little git.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  220. There are numerous comments from you directing all manner of clumsy ad hominem at me for the past few days.

    Hax, please point out ad hominem from me towards you within the “past few days”. Everything I’ve said is factual or opinion… no insults. According to your own reasoning, my interpretation of your online behavior trumps any interpretation you might have intended, no matter what context. Even so, I haven’t cursed at you, called you names, or anything else that would be considered ad hominem… calling someone who lied a “liar” is descriptive. Calling someone who behaves in a vile manner “vile” is descriptive and merely my interpretation. Same goes for anything else.

    You can’t have it both ways Mr. “journalist”. Either I’m right about what I’ve said (I am), or if we accept your methodology of interpretation (I don’t, but for arguments sake and to hoist you by your own petard we’ll suppose it for a moment), you lied about the ad hominem, clumsy or otherwise. Either way, you lied… so keep your word and begone.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  221. See if you can follow it this way. You can comment with your “Intentionalism nose on” or “Intentionalism nose off”, but not both. Whichever one you choose, we can point out the lie. Now keep your word and begone.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  222. Wherever liberals are allowed to debate freely, they trash conservatives soundly.

    The first several times I read this, I inferred the intent as “trounce” rather than the actual word “trash.” Maybe it was meant literally.

    trash
    –verb (used with object)
    10. Slang. to destroy, damage, or vandalize, as in anger or protest: The slovenly renters had trashed the house.
    11. to condemn, dismiss, or criticize as worthless: The article trashed several recent best-sellers.

    #11 above sums up the approach pretty nicely. Dismissing, condemning and criticizing grand swaths of imagined wingnut-land while ignoring direct questions or debate.

    carlitos (efdd90)

  223. carlitos – I still can’t find where he was winning a debate over there and he declines to help people find it. I am forced to conclude it never happened.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  224. This letter of resignation describes the betrayal felt by AIG employees to the Democratic demagogues and the failure of Liddy to stand up to them.

    SPQR (72771e)

  225. Just as a point of clarity for EfP’s benefit:

    If, in the course of my duties, I am working in a clinical setting in a lock-up 3000 miles east of my home, dealing with captured suspected terrorists who are 5000 miles west of their homes and some of them threaten to find me at my home and kill me and my family, I would remember that. If they did, indeed, show up in my neighborhood, I very well might pro-actively defend myself from the grave danger presented to me.

    That is not murdering innocents. That is self-defense in the face of a very serious possibility of a life-and-death situation.

    And the fact Max Vomitron chooses to dissemble in an effort to “win by falsehood” is the whole point behind needing Max Vomitron gone.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  226. Heh, well, my post got caught, it seems.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  227. daley, I think he started winning when he said (paraphrasing here) “Shannon, I doubt you would last 30 minutes working on a farm,” and Shannon replied “well, gee, I grew up on a farm doing jobs like that…”

    Remember, it’s just a game.

    One reason I relentlessly argue with people is that I just enjoy the challenge of it. Maybe a little perverse, but there you have it.

    The second reason is that, on almost every issue, I’m almost certain that I’m wrong, I just haven’t yet discovered exactly how I’m wrong.

    carlitos (efdd90)

  228. Obama’s ridiculous budget deficits should be causing everyone concern. For the first time in history, Great Britain’s treasury failed to sell all of the securities they were auctioning this week, a warning signal that may have implications on this side of the Atlantic.

    SPQR (72771e)

  229. I’m feeling quite a sense of moderation myself. My last 2 comments are gone, I think.

    carlitos (efdd90)

  230. Comment by John Hitchcock — 3/25/2009 @ 10:02 am

    What if, in the same situtation, you opened fire on a ‘Muslim looking guy’ because you thought they were going to attack you. It turns out, it was the director of the local food pantry canvassing the neighborhood for local donations. He just happened to be Muslim, but I guess that doesn’t matter if you’re ‘protecting your family’, right?

    We can play hypotheticals all day, Hitch.

    Ed from PA (c313be)

  231. Hax,
    I did not call for you to ban yourself because I knew your offer was disingenuous to begin with. I don’t think I have ever called for you to be banned.

    When you smear the character and honor of a man like Stashiu3, you cross a line and I feel I must tell you and others what kind of man you have smeared. Perhaps you could explain to us all what you have ever done that puts you in a position to spit on a man like Stashiu3?

    Aside from over two decades of service to his country he has placed his own life in jeopardy to save others. This was not as part of his duties as a medical professional but real hero stuff, as in “I will save this man or die trying”. Perhaps you would care to give us an idea of the service you have rendered that earns you the right to hold him in contempt? As I can’t give details since Stashiu3 must protect his privacy due to the threats against his life and family resulting from his service to his country I won’t ask you to be too specific, just tell us how many lives you have saved through your direct action in dangerous circumstances.

    You have taken his remark out of context and used it to say he has no conscience or respect for life. I do not call this dishonest so much as dishonorable. For those who are not familiar with the articles I will tell you that the “innocent” person Hax is so concerned about would be a terrorist from Gitmo that had threatened to find and kill Stashiu3’s family in front of him before killing him. Hax’s position seems to be that if one of these killers shows up in Stashiu3’s hometown he must let him find and try to kill his family before acting or he is killing an “innocent” man. Stashiu3 was not a guard or interrogator there, he was a medical professional trying to help those detainees who were depressed and suffering. This man personifies the best in mankind. The character and honor of this man is reflected in his children. They don’t come any better.

    Hax,
    You owe Stashiu3 a clear and unqualified apology. Until this is given you are not fit to polish his boots and you should be shunned by any man of honor or any man who respects honor.

    Machinist to Hax (c5fc28)

  232. What if, in the same situtation, you opened fire on a ‘Muslim looking guy’ because you thought they were going to attack you

    That’s not at all the situation Stashiu or John described. It’s completely dishonest of you to compare your contrived example to Stashiu’s comment.

    Steverino (69d941)

  233. I think that Ed from PA is feeling it lately. He has lapsed from just being obtuse to straight-up dishonesty. Shooting a “Muslim-looking guy?” What the hell?

    carlitos (efdd90)

  234. Complete dishonesty is par for the course for our boy Eddy – classic example of the Mangina brigade.

    Dmac (49b16c)

  235. Edpa – How would you describe a “Muslim looking guy?”

    They don’t all wear diapers and fanbelts on their heads yannow.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  236. Steverino—it’s just a game, remember.

    I doubt that any of these people would actually speak that way to Stash or John in person.

    Just Keyboard Kourage speaking Troof to Powder, and shaving definitions and moving goalposts.

    A game.

    Eric Blair (55f2d9)

  237. Steverino—it’s just a game, remember.

    I doubt that any of these people would actually speak that way to Stash or John in person.

    Just Keyboard Kourage speaking Troof to Powder, and shaving definitions and moving goalposts.

    A game.

    Eric Blair (55f2d9)

  238. Machinist, your comments are correct, but they are wasted on people who no doubt believe that “honor” is pre-postmodern. As my unintentional double post suggests, this is all some kind of poindexter game to them.

    Again: I have seen Patterico eject people for much less than this. I don’t know what this is about. But Hax and Ed have been truly odious in their statements and implications.

    They ought to apologize (and genuinely apologize, instead of the Clintonian nonsense). But it appears that this isn’t a big deal. And Hax is rather smug about it, in fact.

    I think it should be a big deal, but it ain’t my blog.

    Eric Blair (55f2d9)

  239. EfP, my scenario is a direct link to the multi-part interview aired on this station a couple years back (I think). I accidentally found them one day back in January as I was watching the “new comments” section. I found a ping-back or track-back that led me to the interviews.

    I spent the better part of a day reading all the articles and all the comments, soaking up the information as I could.

    And I drew directly from that. As did Max Vomitron, who perverted what the honorable Stashiu3 said in an attempt to defame the honorable Stashiu3 while supposedly lifting his own name to the upper echelons of liberalness.

    In all, Max Vomitron’s work at proclaiming himself a well-educated, successfully-employed, highly-capable liberal has done nothing to improve the status of anyone in that intersection of categories in the minds of anyone with half a brain.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  240. Hey, Ed from PA:

    What if you stepped on a spider but upon death the magical spell it was under wore off and it turned out you really stomped the life out of an 18 year old cheerleader? Are you guilty of homicide or insecticide?

    We can play hypotheticals all day, Ed.

    Steverino (69d941)

  241. I think the funniest part about this is how a person who main job was facilitating the torture of the “worst of the worst” is held up as an icon. In days of yore, honorable men didn’r claim being a party to dishonorable actions as honor, no matter how related to their duty and what orders they were under. Eric Blair is right, dishonor called honor is very postmodern.

    Ron B (62b020)

  242. Oh my God. Did you see the image that Instapundit posts in that article? It shows the JournoList Yglesias’ campaign to belittle and dismiss the ‘fake’ currency story, juxstaposed with Geitner talking about the real story, and tanking the dollar. Priceless.

    carlitos (efdd90)

  243. I haven’t seen Ron B here before. New brain-dead lib troll or drive-by brain-dead lib?

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  244. think the funniest part about this is how a person who main job was facilitating the torture of the “worst of the worst” is held up as an icon. In days of yore, honorable men didn’r claim being a party to dishonorable actions as honor, no matter how related to their duty and what orders they were under. Eric Blair is right, dishonor called honor is very postmodern.

    Comment by Ron B — 3/25/2009 @ 3:44 pm

    Where the hell did that come from?

    labcatcher (cbe1ae)

  245. Comment by John Hitchcock — 3/25/2009 @ 3:35 pm

    I was just giving you another scenario to add to that hypothetical you gave me. I mean, if we are playing the ‘what if’ game, why not extend that even further, you know? I think we ought to explore all the possibilities of the situation before we open fire on any person of middle eastern descent who happens to set foot on our lawns, yes?

    Ed from PA (c313be)

  246. EfP, and any other libs who haven’t done the research, I suggest you actually do the research before making any more foolhardy posts.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  247. And, EfP, the only hypothetical in the situation I gave you was placing myself in Stashiu3’s boots concerning direct threats he received in person while doing his duty.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  248. The funniest part to me is how someone who’s never posted here before miraculously found this thread to make a specific comment about Stashiu.

    Steverino (69d941)

  249. Sockpuppet!

    AD - RtR/OS (10cf6d)

  250. Ed from PA,

    Seems like I’ve run into a lot of Muslim guys since I came back. Haven’t tried to kill anyone yet. Why might that be?

    Maybe because I’m a nurse, not the movie-version Green Beret psycho (your idea of Army guys I guess). If you read the articles, I was specifically talking about the terrorists (yes, that’s what they were) who specifically threatened my family and me in a particularly grotesque but typical fashion. I was not the only one who was threatened either. Should I ignore that threat? None of them are here in the States (yet… as far as we know), so what’s the big deal, right?

    Read the stories about how they want to bring some of them to Virginia or Pennsylvania. Have some thug threaten to decapitate your family while you watch before they kill you, then invite them to move in down the street. I haven’t threatened anybody, get it? They made the threats. I will likely keep a low profile the rest of my life because they were absolutely serious, especially the one who knew Zarqawi. Then think about trying to help people who are saying these things to you, throwing bodily fluids, or trying to catch you off-guard so they can assault you (knowing you won’t retaliate).

    Now, are you willing to take the challenge I offered earlier? If not, and considering your last comment, please take all your accusations, innuendo, and vitriol… and shove’m.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  251. Hax to Machinist: You have no idea who I am, what I have done or haven’t done. For all you know, I could be a “decorated” war hero or Mother Theresa’s unsung assistant or some guy who embezzles from the VA.

    That’s what makes your assertions so hilariously telling. You purport that I shouldn’t criticize Stash because I just don’t have the proper status, while you have absolutely no information on what my status is. Zero.

    Hilarious…

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  252. Cool, Hack found some other trolls to slander Stash … or is there sock lint on that comment?

    SPQR (72771e)

  253. Now consider this:

    “…while you have absolutely no information on what my status is. Zero….”

    I guess he answered his own question.

    That ranks right up there with “I work here is done.”

    Apologize or leave, Hax. You have been caught in a lie, and all the wriggling you do does not help.

    Frankly, I don’t care if Patterico likes you. You are not a good person, regardless of your job description. Your actions have made that abundantly clear.

    The fact that you refuse to take responsibility for your own statements says it all. No matter who you are. Or more tellingly, who you are not.

    Eric Blair (55f2d9)

  254. I invited you to educate us on this. Even if you are all you suggest this does not give you the right to smear Stashiu3 as you have done. If you don’t know “criticize” from smear then I find that telling.

    Machinist (c5fc28)

  255. My main job was facilitating torture? Really? I sucked.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  256. “my status is. Zero.”

    Hax – We agree with you.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  257. Rob B. is prolly somebody Hax rides bikes with in Alameda.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  258. Can someone tell me if Hax has his “Intentionalism nose on” or “Intentionalism nose off”? I lost my scorecard.

    If he hasn’t dug himself deep enough yet, so be it. I won’t even speculate on why he’s still here, but I trust Patterico has a reason and that’s good enough for me. If I do mention Hax again, or comment to him, I’ll try to remember the postscript.

    “Keep your word… begone.”

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  259. Machinist: What gives you the right to smear me?

    What a hypocrite.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  260. When I have made mistakes here on other topics, usually by misreading what someone has written,, I’ve apologized without qualification and it was clearly sincere.

    I can attest to that. Stashiu3 and I have tangled on several occasions, and in some of those it was the result of a misunderstanding or misreading on his part, and he has always apologized sincerely once the error has become known. It’s one of the things, IMO, which makes him one of the better commenters on the site.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  261. And indeed.

    The Nurse Stash Imbroglio is turning into some comedy gold.

    One could not make this stuff up.

    Too funny.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  262. How have I smeared you, Hax?

    Have I taken your words out of context and used them to mischaracterize you?

    Machinist (c5fc28)


  263. What if you stepped on a spider but upon death the magical spell it was under wore off and it turned out you really stomped the life out of an 18 year old cheerleader? Are you guilty of homicide or insecticide?

    Hmm. I didn’t intend to kill a human being, but I did, but I was doing something otherwise legal, and I was not reckless or negligent (as there’s no way I could have known it was a human being) … there’s no malice, implied or express, but still a human being died. I think this comes out as manslaughter.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  264. Smearing a serial liar and fabulist like bunkertrollHax is pretty damn difficult.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (f34d89)

  265. I think the funniest part about this is how a person who main job was facilitating the torture of the “worst of the worst” is held up as an icon.

    Do these fuckers know how to read? EfP, until today, had been a garden variety asshat, but decided to go full Monty on the douchebaggery today. We all knew what Hackey Sack was/is, and today it has proven its mendoucheity beyond a shadow of a doubt. Ron B decided that his opening salvo should be odious, and any response to it should be nothing short of same.

    for all you know, I could be a “decorated” war hero

    It is a pretty safe bet that you are not.

    JD (e54d51)

  266. Thank you, aphrael, for defining the difference between honest disagreements and trollery.

    Eric Blair (55f2d9)

  267. And…more tellingly…the definition of the nature of a sincere apology.

    Eric Blair (55f2d9)

  268. The Nurse Stash Imbroglio is turning into some comedy gold.

    This fucking asshat thinks that it is funny to smear and lie about Stash. Fuck you, Hackey Sack. Fuck you.

    JD (e54d51)

  269. Machinist: c’mon. you’ve got to be kidding. You wrote:

    “You are not fit to polish his boots and you should be shunned by any man of honor or any man who respects honor.”

    Indeed, you didn’t “mischaracterize” my position, you invented it wholecloth:

    “Hax’s position seems to be that if one of these killers shows up in Stashiu3’s hometown he must let him find and try to kill his family before acting or he is killing an “innocent” man.”

    Nothing whatsoever in any of my comments suggests that would be my position.

    Take the mote out of your own eye, Mach.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  270. “You are not fit to polish his boots and you should be shunned by any man of honor or any man who respects honor.”

    This is not a smear, or a mischaracterization. It is a fact, an objective assessment based entirely on the words you chose to type, and the choices you made in maliciously attacking Stashiu. Fuck you, journolist. Fuck you.

    JD (e54d51)

  271. I think it is much more interesting to compare the posts made by Stash to the posts made by HV. Kind of says it all.

    I think that HV should just knock it off for a while, and instead spend the time and energy writing a serious post without invective about his own life experiences and views. I mean that sincerely.

    Unless this is all a game of Keyboard Kommando.

    Deflecting the issue or insulting me (or anyone else) won’t help. Hax is the fellow who has repeatedly maligned Stash. We also know how Stash caught Hax out in one of his lies, and we all got to watch Hax wriggle and dance to avoid responsibility for his own hasty post (the “if you catch me in one lie I won’t post anymore” business).

    We know Stash, based on his posts. We don’t know Hax (by any of his prior names).

    Maybe we should know Hax better, especially if he is going to act all snotty toward someone whom we know has done positive things for the country. Maybe Hax has, as well.

    Eric Blair (55f2d9)

  272. You are back to the disingenuous smear. You said Stashiu3 was speaking of killing an innocent man, when he was speaking of these terrorists. How else could you mean the man was “innocent”?

    I stand by my position, based on your words and actions as I have seen them on this site.

    Most of the people here know nothing about me. I am content to put what they have seen of me against what they have seen of you and have them judge me. As I said before, your opinion of me is of no concern to me.

    Machinist (c5fc28)

  273. “Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.”
    FIFY

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (f34d89)

  274. Comment by aphrael — 3/25/2009 @ 4:37 pm

    Thanks for a sincere answer, aphrael. I was merely ridiculing Ed from PA with an impossible hypothetical, mostly because he deliberately changed the conditions of what Stashiu and Hitch were commenting on.

    Steverino (69d941)

  275. We don’t know Hax

    I beg to differ, Eric. From his chosen words, we know quite a bit about him. And none of it is good.

    JD (e54d51)

  276. I thought that was a nice Freudian slip (King James version) of bunkertrollHax.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (f34d89)

  277. I can attest to that. Stashiu3 and I have tangled on several occasions, and in some of those it was the result of a misunderstanding or misreading on his part, and he has always apologized sincerely once the error has become known.

    Sure aphrael, rub it in…. 😉 Do we have to mention the times where I didn’t make a mistake and was just flat-out wrong? No? Thanks, you’re a pal. 😉

    Good to see you again. If we could clone 50 of you and 50 of Machinist, we could fix the Senate.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  278. Oh, but JD, HV lives to get people livid. I think it would be interesting to learn why he acts the way he does.

    Eric Blair (55f2d9)

  279. Steverino, of course you were ridiculing. But sometimes it’s fun to play along with the joke just to see where it leads. :)

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  280. I know this, from what I know of Stashiu and Machinist, they have more honor and decency in their toenail clippings than Hax has in its entire body.

    JD (e54d51)

  281. Eric – I have no desire to learn why it chooses to smear and lie about honorable people. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. It is vile and disgusting.

    JD (e54d51)

  282. JD, Thank you but you should not put my in the same context with Stash. None of the things I mentioned apply to me. In all honesty, Hax’s smears could be more honestly applied to me than to Stash. Unfortunately they would not bother me.

    Machinist (c5fc28)

  283. aphrael,

    What if the spider was trying to kill your family?

    Machinist (c5fc28)

  284. Machinist – You likely sell yourself short. On the other hand, it would be impossible to sell Hackey Sack short.

    JD (e54d51)

  285. Steverino, of course you were ridiculing. But sometimes it’s fun to play along with the joke just to see where it leads.

    Well, I’d say at worst you were guilty, not of insecticide, but of arachnicide, since spiders aren’t insects. But something about that question really bugs me :)

    Steverino (69d941)

  286. All bugs are insects but not all insects are bugs. No arachnids are bugs.

    Unless we’re talking about peoplecars, then forget everything I just said.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  287. They’re all arthropods, animals and eukaryotes. Eric Blair or Mike K. will correct me if I’ve missed a taxonomic level.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (f34d89)

  288. To return to the topic of the President….
    Can someone tell this slob to stop walking about with his hands stuffed into his trouser pockets?

    AD - RtR/OS (10cf6d)

  289. This is a very interesting thread. I like Eric’s suggestion that Hax Vobiscum tell us a bit more about himself and his service to our country.

    Failing that, my suggestion is simple. I think HV should leave as he’s clearly uninterested in honest discussion.

    If he will not, I suggest he go back to his practice of writing “by HV” on top of every post. May have lost track since he posts so often and keeps contradicting himself but I think he’s still complaining lately that people won’t “ignore” him. Maybe we should strive to make him feel more welcome around here by doing just that.

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  290. #261 – projection.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  291. Can someone tell this slob to stop walking about with his hands stuffed into his trouser pockets?

    Comment by AD – RtR/OS — 3/25/2009 @ 5:29 pm

    I’d be happy if he kept his hands out of mine, to be quite honest. He can keep them in his own all he likes. :)

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  292. Let’s have another look at that quote:

    “I can tell you that if I ever saw a detainee face-to-face here in the States, I would immediately assume that I was targeted and do my best to kill them without further warning. If I turned out to be wrong about their intent, I could live with that.”

    From what Stash wrote, it’s crystal clear that Stash himself assumes his victim could be innocent. His statement is clear on three things: He would try to kill the person. He would ignore the possibility that they were innocent. His conscience wouldn’t be troubled much about that.

    1. Stash says “a detainee,” not, “one of the detainees that threatened my family.” When you’re talking about killing people, you need to very specific about your targets. You should not be allowed to get away with blurring the distinction. Were that the extent of the threat, we could easily be charitable enough to allow that “a detainee” refers to someone who’s made a credible threat to harm Stash’s family. But alas, there’s more:

    2. Stash goes as far as pointing out that his assumption of guilt would be “immediate” and that he would kill “without further warning.” There is no way that can be interpreted as self-defense. Stash’s confession that his assumption of guilt would be immediate confirms that he’s aware of the possibility that the person might not actually be guilty, but would choose to ignore that possibility.

    Stash goes on to admit that he could “live with it” if indeed the person turned out to be innocent — a possibility he’s already said he would deliberately ignore.

    case closed.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  293. Only clear to you. Your behavior is dishonorable and inexcusable. You owe an apology to a better man than yourself.

    Machinist (c5fc28)

  294. um, Mach, you already said that. It was tiresome the first time. Now it’s just sad…

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  295. You should be shunned until you have apologized to Stashiu3. The only thing I will have to say to you is “You owe Stashiu3 an apology”.

    Machinist (c5fc28)

  296. Comment by no one you know — 3/25/2009 @ 5:36 pm

    Metaphorically, I agree; I don’t want his hands in my pockets either.
    But, the old-soldier in me rebels every time I see him on the news walking around with his hands stuffed into his pockets, shoulders hunched forward, suit-coat awry. What kind of image is this to project to the World?
    A leader stands straight, and walks tall.
    Instead, we have someone who shuffles along like a ‘banger from the ‘hood.
    What a ….ing disgrace!

    AD - RtR/OS (10cf6d)

  297. What’s crystal clear to me is Max Vomitron is among the most prolific of liars I’ve ever seen on the net. Max Vomitron is also among the most disrespectful and most disreputable.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  298. Only clear to you. Your behavior is dishonorable and inexcusable. You owe an apology to a better man than yourself.

    Comment by Machinist — 3/25/2009 @ 5:42 pm

    You are so right. Did the dishonest commenter think we wouldn’t notice the gaping, drive-a-truck-through-it non-sequitur in his comment that invalidates his whole argument?

    I repeat my suggestion that “by HV” appear before all his posts. Except the one where he apologizes to Stashiu3 for deliberately misrepresenting him.

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  299. I will make you this offer. Let us ask the commenters here which of us is the hypocrite. If more say I am I will never comment on Patterico’s again, under any name. Will you commit to the same thing? If more say you are the hypocrite then you will never comment on Patterico’s blog, under any name? You have been here longer and are better known. Let them judge on our words here.

    Machinist (c5fc28)

  300. Hax Vobiscum
    Is that Latin for haven’t a clue, nor any idea how to find one?

    Or, is it actually: Hackoff, you’re scum?

    AD - RtR/OS (10cf6d)

  301. Machinist, how can he “never comment again” twice? He already guaranteed he would “never comment again” but hasn’t stopped yet.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  302. Come, Hax!

    You will have the support of people like Ed from PA and you might get support from PW commenters as Stash is mud there now. You can use your superior debate skills to sway the voters while I stand silent.

    Or are you not only a troll, but a craven troll?

    Machinist (c5fc28)

  303. John Hitchcock, I knew he would not honor his promise but I wanted to see him disgrace himself openly, which he did. This would not require honesty on his part. It would be the votes of others. If he does not leave then he is exposed as the liar he is. One more step along the same path.

    Machinist (c5fc28)

  304. i tried the HV thing, no one, and nothing changed. I was still the most interesting thing the Whine Club could find to comment about, day in, day out. So I stopped doing it. But, hey, I don’t mind starting again…

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  305. But, hey, I don’t mind starting again…

    Comment by Hax Vobiscum — 3/25/2009 @ 6:08 pm

    Thank you. Would appreciate it if you would.

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  306. by Hax Vobiscum
    Mach isn’t it much simpler than that? If you don’t like my comments: DON’T READ THEM! You’ll have nothing to complain about.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  307. You have smeared a better man than yourself. You owe Stashiu3 an apology.

    If I’m wrong, accept my challenge.

    Machinist (c5fc28)

  308. Comment by AD – RtR/OS — 3/25/2009 @ 5:48 pm

    Agree with you – a stance like that looks slovenly and not at all presidential. To be honest hadn’t noticed that happening a lot though w/ Obama. When does he do that – at podiums, walking along, etc?

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  309. I’m willing to submit to outside judgment. Why aren’t you?

    Machinist (c5fc28)

  310. I have a better idea, Hax.

    Post on your own blog. You spend a lot of time and energy being argumentative and playing games here, on someone else’s blog. You have insulted any number of people, misrepresented various statements, and lied several times. And when called on the latter, all you can do is start shifting definitions.

    I like the idea of a vote among the posters here.

    Or—and here is the interesting part—let’s let Patterico decide. It’s his blog. Or is it Hax’s?

    Keep in mind the kinds of people and actions that have led to Patterico banning people in the past.

    But yes, it is Patterico’s blog. If he likes what Hax brings to discussion, great.

    You don’t have any fear of that, do you Hax?

    Eric Blair (55f2d9)

  311. Mach: where are you getting that you’re willing to submit to “outside” judgment? I think what you mean is that you’re willing to submit to the highly inside judgment of the Whine Club, who’ve been saying they’d love to see me banned for weeks.

    It’s bad enough that you insist on playing word games, but do you really have to keep losing?

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  312. Frankly, if I found Hack on my shoe, I’d scrape him off and then whack my dog on the nose.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  313. Mach: if you meant what you said, then you’ll be happy to submit Stash’s quote, along with his entire interview for context, to a liberal blog for “outside” judgment.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  314. It’s only been weeks? It’s felt like years to me.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  315. But, hey, I don’t mind starting again…

    Comment by Hax Vobiscum — 3/25/2009 @ 6:08 pm

    playing word games,
    Comment by Hax Vobiscum — 3/25/2009 @ 6:25 pm

    If memory serves, the literary folk call this “dramatic irony.” Eric, what say you?

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  316. Hax, there are other trolls here that would support you and you can bring in your friends from other sites if you have any. There are other sites where I am known and welcome. I do not need or want to go to infest a place where I know I am not welcomed. Is this the only place you are not banned? And you called me pathetic?

    What outside judgment would you accept, Hax?

    Who would you have judge which of us is a hypocrite?

    Machinist (c5fc28)

  317. My first response is “cognitive dissonance,” yes.

    But, trying to find humor, I say this:

    Stash. Hax. Thunderdome!

    What do you think?

    I could add: break the deal, face the wheel…but that apparently isn’t going to happen.

    Eric Blair (55f2d9)

  318. Hax, This is between you and me as to who is a hypocrite, based on what we have said here. Why do you hide behind Stash?

    You and me. Who is the hypocrite. Simple and direct.

    Machinist (c5fc28)

  319. Comment by Eric Blair — 3/25/2009 @ 6:32 pm

    As you know, I love that film….And the allusion is most appropriate, it seems to me. Stashiu3 with only the simple silver whistle of truth on his side, and the opponent who seems (at least to himself) to be unmatchable turns out to be, on his unmasking, a grinning, pitiable, powerless thing.

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  320. I challenged, not Stash, not my wife, not some girl down the street. Me!

    Machinist (c5fc28)

  321. Okay, Machinist. My money is on you, as well.

    But I do like the idea of the Wheel from that movie.

    Eric Blair (55f2d9)

  322. Comment by Eric Blair — 3/25/2009 @ 6:38 pm

    “Gulag…Gulag…Gulag” = wasn’t it? LOL

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  323. Such a simple challenge. So much squirming. Is it too simple for you to twist out of if you lose?

    I’ll be happy to accept Patterico’s decision if you feel this group is all jealous of your superior intellect, or do you include him in the “Whiners”?

    Machinist (c5fc28)

  324. Machinist, bunkertrollHax is doing you a favor! He fancies he spots a mote in your eye.

    The least you can do is return the favor by helping our biblical scholar take out the splintered, rusty-nailed beam from his own eye.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  325. From the movie, NOYK:

    …who’s the bunny?…”

    Eric Blair (55f2d9)

  326. What he says about me does not matter, but he has no business smearing a better man than himself. It may ease his ego to try to bring a good man down a notch but I will not let it pass silently. If he makes a proper apology I will just shun him in future, but I will continue to call for that apology and if he does not like it he can accept the challenge. It’s simple and straightforward.

    Him or me, who is the hypocrite based on our writings here at Patterico’s. We must keep it simple to reduce the wiggle room for those who do not deal in good faith.

    Machinist (c5fc28)

  327. Comment by Eric Blair — 3/25/2009 @ 6:45 pm

    Loved that exchange w/ Aunty because it gave us in so few words such a complete picture of Max’s pre-children-meeting character: IIRC she said just before that “Today it’s necessary to kill a man” and his response was a quick and casual “What do you pay?” Yet by the end of the movie he becomes a man of honor, sacrificing himself to save a few of the children and get them to safety. Great flick.

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  328. I’d prefer to hear our host’s reasoning for this commenter’s continuous presence – after being banned previously, he was allowed back in, after a non – apology “apology,” and proving his journalistic bona fides (whatever the hell they are).

    Dmac (49b16c)

  329. Since you clearly (heh) didn’t read the articles and comments Hax, let me help you.

    If you read all of the posts, and don’t take things out of context, I explain why I would consider myself targeted if I ran into a detainee here. If you had been threatened with the death of your family while you watch, followed by your own death, you might feel a bit protective of their safety as well. I never said I wouldn’t feel guilty, but I also never said I would… just that I could live with it. But yes, my not having guilt over it would still be better… I didn’t start this fight. Jihadists want to kill, convert, or subjugate us, not compromise. Live and let live is not doctrine for them. Take them at their word on that. And yes, I honestly say my view of these detainees is fair and humane. But sometimes calling a person a sociopath is fair, as is condemning their behavior. That doesn’t mean you treat them inhumanely, just that you don’t have to turn the other cheek and give them another chance to kill you or your brothers-in-arms. I think most of us would love to be able to let them go and sin no more. Too many of them wouldn’t follow the same plan though, and many who were already released have rejoined the fight. Doesn’t that suggest that, if anything, release criteria may be too loose? Not my place to say, that’s for people much higher than I will ever be. We just do the best job possible under very difficult circumstances.
    Comment by Stashiu3 — 10/16/2006 @ 11:17 pm

    That’s from here. Now, from here.

    As to how I reconcile that with the statement about defending myself… I see no conceivable reason that I could “run into” a former detainee. Why? The chances of one ever being allowed into the U.S. is nearly nil (admittedly, not zero). But, the chances that one was allowed in the U.S. and “just happened” to be in the State, City, and close proximity to me is so small that it would be foolish to consider it. The only reasonable conclusion I could make would be that it was intentional. After specific threats to my family, I would take whatever steps I could to protect myself and them. Fortunately, I rarely go anywhere but work, and that ends soon. So, the chances of one showing up at my house? (’Cause that’s pretty much where I’ll be.) Yes, I’m pretty sure if that happens, it’s no accident.

    So your conjecture and conclusions are worthless, just like your presence here (IMO).

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  330. Sorry all, I forgot. (I’m trying to turn in but I wanted to finish that first)

    Hax, Keep your word… begone.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  331. If bunkertrollHax were honorable enough to keep its word, it wouldn’t be liar in the first place.

    So of course that “journalist” won’t leave.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407)

  332. Hax, Patterico has supported you before. Are you thanking him by saying he’s prejudiced against you and unfair?

    Machinist (c5fc28)

  333. Is he jealous of your superior intellect and reasoning?

    Machinist (c5fc28)

  334. On a lighter note, NOYK, here is the infamous (and VERY non-PC) Joe Bob Brigg’s classic review of “Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome.”

    http://www.joebobbriggs.com/mvtranscripts/madmaxbeyondthunderdome.html

    The ironic part is that the review is accurate!

    Eric Blair (55f2d9)

  335. I will accept Patterico’s call on this if he will make it. Will you? Why not?

    You owe Stash an apology.

    Machinist (c5fc28)

  336. And now I wonder: is the goal of EdfPA and HV to get banned, to show how “intolerant” this blog comments section is?

    Eric Blair (55f2d9)

  337. The ironic part is that the review is accurate!

    Comment by Eric Blair — 3/25/2009 @ 7:05 pm

    Ohm’gosh, that’s hysterical. Thanks much for the link; bookmarked it. And you’re right.

    The prize is being condemned to put on a Mickey Mouse head and sit backwards on a horse. Would someone please remind me why he agreed to fight the giant gladiator to the death when the guy who stole his camels was right there, and Max had, oh, about 46 weapons on him? Just wondering.

    LOLOL

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  338. Stash: your explanations only cover why you’d assume that you were being targeted.

    As I noted before, if you had only said that you’d defend yourself, your comment would have been wholly unremarkable.

    But you didn’t limit it to that. You acknowledged the possibility that the person could be innocent and not out to get you. You then asserted that you’d kill them anyway and that you could “live with it.”

    Wiggle all you want, but your comments are clear: you admitted that you’d kill a person, even if you weren’t sure whether they were actually out to get you. And then you wouldn’t feel too bad about it.

    That’s a pretty hateful attitude, however you want to try and spin it.

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  339. Comment by no one you know — 3/25/2009 @ 6:21 pm
    Mostly when he is walking the WH grounds, or outside at the Capital.
    Originally, I put it down to the cold weather, and the fact that he doesn’t appear to like to wear an overcoat. But, he even did it with an overcoat on, and the weather lately has been mild.
    I guess no-one has ever mentioned to him that perhaps he should wear gloves?

    AD - RtR/OS (10cf6d)

  340. AD: that’s plain weird. slagging the way a president walks? WTF??? The way he holds his hands.

    Creepy!

    Hax Vobiscum (23258e)

  341. Comment by AD – RtR/OS — 3/25/2009 @ 7:12 pm

    Interesting. Hadn’t noticed that. Maybe fingering the security blanket, I mean BlackBerry, in his pocket?

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  342. Bradley #337: I guess it depends if you are not acting in good faith, right?

    Eric Blair (55f2d9)

  343. Comment by no one you know — 3/25/2009 @ 7:20 pm

    Walking around with your hands in your pockets is something that those in the military get sensitive about – especially after a few extra guard-duty tours or K-P!
    And then, there is the D.I.’s favorite cure: taking all your trousers to the laundry and having the pockets sewn shut.

    AD - RtR/OS (10cf6d)

  344. Comment by AD – RtR/OS — 3/25/2009 @ 7:31 pm

    Yet another, albeit very minor, reason why, as someone on (I think) these boards suggested, that it would do all presidents good to have given at least a couple of years’ service to their country in the military, no? :)

    no one you know (1ebbb1)

  345. In fact, ever since my return stint to the halls of academe, I have advocated that some form of service should be interjected between HS graduation, and entrance into college.
    It gives you a very different perspective on the world.
    I’m sorry that these responses take so long, I have to type this blind, and then wait several minutes to see the result on my monitor before I can post them.

    AD - RtR/OS (10cf6d)

  346. That would eliminate Presidents like Lincoln and Reagan, while people like Carter, Gore, and Kerry could run. I like the concept but that price is too high. I’d rather see voters serve.

    Machinist (c5fc28)

  347. Hax,

    Nothing more on this topic.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  348. Correction: Ronald Reagan did serve, and was a Commissioned Officer, making “propaganda” films for the war-effort. And Lincoln was a member of the Illinois Militia, and served on the Frontier.

    AD - RtR/OS (10cf6d)

  349. I knew Reagan tried to serve and was not accepted. I knew he made films for the service but did not know it had official status.

    I stand corrected about Lincoln. I was just wrong there.

    Thank you on both counts!

    Machinist (c5fc28)

  350. Good luck, Patterico. The jackass does not take advice.

    nk (8b95c5)

  351. I hadn’t read the thread.

    I merely quoted you from Pat’s interview and you’re upset about that, understandably. It’s pretty shameful stuff that destroys any credibility you have and may well even, at some point, lead to some legal unpleasantness for you.

    Bye Hax.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  352. Uh, yeah that is completely and totally true, you ignorant sociopath.

    Everybody gets one chance. Take it back, Ed from PA, and apologize. Or you’re next.

    No waffling. Next comment from you takes it back and sincerely apologizes, or you’re gone.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  353. Sorry guys. I hadn’t been monitoring the threads and I had missed what Hax had said.

    I recognize that style, too. Intelligent writing style, no regard for the truth, spurious accusations of dishonesty. I wouldn’t stand for that crap to be leveled at me and I won’t stand for it to be leveled at Stashiu.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  354. Sadly, the creep (and his 3 aliases) is happy with his banned status. He was begging for it for weeks. Kudos to the proprietor for not being the kind of place that bans folks arbitrarily.

    carlitos (efdd90)

  355. Nobody as calm as Stashiu should have to endure repeated spurious accusations of dishonesty, even as the accuser twists his words.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  356. I would rather that they had genuinely apologized, and posted without all the nonsense.

    But that isn’t why they were posting, was it?

    I mean, they don’t even know Stashiu. It was about Truth to Power, again. Sigh.

    Eric Blair (55f2d9)

  357. #357 Patterico:

    I won’t stand for it to be leveled at Stashiu.

    I knew I liked you.

    Thanks.

    EW1(SG) (e27928)

  358. Ed sounds like a seminar troll. No useful purpose that I see.

    MIke K (2cf494)

  359. That wasn’t your original assertion and moving the goalposts doesn’t make you right. You jumped on Hax’s bandwagon without thought and made an asinine assertion. Now, you’re too cowardly to admit it.

    Where did I ever assert that killing innocent people was right? Didn’t happen. You’re as dishonest as Hax was. You hoped that by staying away a few days everybody would forget your lies, but your past will always catch up with you… even if you never comment here again.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  360. No. Eat it, Patty-boy. I refuse to take back my assertion that killing innocent people is wrong. Ban me. Come on, patty, tell all these nimrods on your site that you condone killing innocents. Moron.
    Comment by Ed from PA — 3/30/2009 @ 9:44 am

    You will be hard-pressed to find anyone on this site more pro-life than I. (I don’t even believe in the death penalty except unless a person poses a continued uncontainable threat to others’ lives, say in the prison where he or she resides.)

    But killing innocent people is not always wrong.

    Here is just one example: A mentally ill woman, with no idea what she is doing, is swinging an axe around your two year old child and you truly believe that the only way you can stop her before she hurts your child is to kill her. So you shoot her.

    She is innocent. You have killed her. Have you done anything wrong?

    My opinion is that you owe an apology to both Patterico and to Stashiu3 for speaking too hastily, and for misrepresenting what Stashiu meant, whether the latter was intended or not.

    no one you know (65b7aa)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.8528 secs.