Bryan

Heh. See WilliamK's post. http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=84608 In expecting your apology, where shall I mark my calendar? Unfortunately we don't yet have an effective treatment for Bush Derangement Syndrome.

All the more reason to have nations friendly to the U.S. as part of OPEC. Until the price for each is comparable (right now recycling plastic is an economic loser), it would be economically foolhardy to use recycled product instead of virgin plastic. Market demand for recycled product might mitigate the situation to a degree ... but mainly that amounts to a democratic decision to give foreign nations a trade advantage internationally.

Good work, WilliamK. It's also worth pointing out that presenting the quotation as though Bush really doesn't care about Osama bin Laden at all is probably misleading (see the context of the exchange).

The LaClairs did that, chiefly via misrepresentation. The LaClairs have likewise made themselves symbolic of overzealous proselytizers. Case in point. Call: You've got to think for yourselves! Response: We've got to think for ourselves. It's a good time to revisit the fallacious arguments presented by the LaClairs and the sock puppet army. If that's what thinking for yourself is, is that really what you should be doing?

It may surprise you to learn that the "local forum" is published pretty much across the globe on the World Wide Web. If the forum is so terrible that no self-respecting non-local could possibly take an interest then what does that say about your involvement, BTW?

You are mistaken. You are not serious. I never defend anything that I consider indefensible. To act otherwise would be to deliberately contradict myself. Hitler was a genius, albeit an evil genius. And not very good at war strategy, when it came to that. Germany could have won WW2 simply by attacking Russia differently (even as stupid as the timing was). Hitler's strategic meddling was the primary key to Germany's military failure on the Eastern front. That's the argument I keep seeing, but it's just not that convincing. It kind of smacks of argument by assertion, don't you think? I don't argue that Matthew's actions justify any of the classroom actions of Mr. Paszkiewicz (which are justifiable in their own right with minor exceptions). On the other hand, Matthew's behavior, including his speech, sheds a great deal of contextual light on quite a number of things that were said. You probably don't detect the irony of attacking me based on zero substance while claiming that I browbeat others. Review what you wrote. You've got a straw man plus ad hominem at best--the kind of thing browbeating is made of.

JFK does get props for the space program among other things (such as slashing the highest income-tax bracket). http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...;pagewanted=all Energy self-sufficiency is a good policy in a dangerous world, but economic inter-reliance also serves as one of the main levers for cultural and economic change. Even if we stop using fossil fuels for energy we'll still be using oil for plastics and other applications. Trade is one of the tools of peace.

Apparently you find Keith's out-of-the-frying-pan-and-into-the-fire! speech inspirational. Turnabout is fair play. Your side has been just as active in citing ephemeral polling data (while feverishly attacking McCain while in the same breath claiming that the Republicans plainly fear Obama which accounts for the attacks on Obama). You'd better hope that Parsley can come up with something a whole lot better than what Wright has been spouting. Have you been reading Wright's magazine "The Trumpet Call" lately? McCain is receiving coverage. The mainstreamers are probably just sticking with their tradition of waiting until November with anything they think will move the electorate. Your "no matter" comment is well taken, however. Not necessarily. The country's doing fine (because there's always something to complain about). Implementing the insane Democratic policies (ignore nuclear power and native oil/gas reserves in favor of inefficient biofuels, bring health care under control of the federal government, withdraw prematurely from Iraq, etc.) will leave us in far worse shape than we are now, but even then the U.S. will probably remain in good enough shape (thanks to the American people) to survive until the GOP can restore us to the proper course. Though that Social Security and Medicare mess that the saints of the Democratic Party cooked up for us seems to be hovering on the horizon faster than expected. Better hope for only four years of nanny-stater control, people. Taking a page from Obama and staying away from specifics in hopes that the reader will supply his own examples, eh? Good idea. Your side loses consistently on policy discussion. Are you concerned about the ballooning federal deficit? Are you aware of how much additional federal spending has been promise by Obama? Clinton? No? Who cares, anyway! We're having a hate on Republicans party!

I gave my view of the OP and and a subsequent argument at length. The sock puppet howled without addressing the critique. And now here comes a stinky little sock puppet claiming that I don't subject my views to "any real scrutiny." My views are there in print. If they aren't receiving real scrutiny then perhaps the problem is with the would-be scrutinizers.

... and no doubt what I failed to notice was so obvious that you are prevented from cutting and pasting it into your reply. Or is it that you're just as pathetic as the rest of the sock puppets that populate KOTW?

Wow you sure showed me. Way to go. Semper Fi. Marines.com

Never mind. If it appears in a number of places then it must be real.

Nice try, but I've never been to New Jersey and I've never served as a altar boy (that's rather rare in Southern Baptist churches anyway). You're just another loser who won't admit that the argument in the OP was a stinker. Why would that insult your intelligence? Are you waiting for a scientist to tell you that it happens before you'll believe it?

No, I can't, because there's no such thing as a definitive proof of any temporal occurrence. It's like you're not even embarrassed about obviously trying to shift the burden of proof, Keith. The argument that started this thread has been shown a fraud. So you show up to save the day by making an irrelevant point. Congratulations. Semper Fi. Marines.com

In other words, you don't know so you'll keep right on dodging. In terms of logic and my question to you, that's a red herring. I'd prefer real logic, please. I guess you're trying to make the point that the businesses are preferring socialism. So they don't have to pay the loans back? So you're saying that if the subprime market had remained completely stable that Bear Stearns would be in more or less the exact same trouble that it is in now? Seriously? Do I? Where did I say that, or do you just prefer to stick with red herrings and straw men while stabbing at logic? I said that government regulation that encouraged risky loans was the key cause of the problem. The banks who gave out risky loans are somewhat at fault--but the govermment (starting with Clinton) clearly encouraged that behavior. The problem would not be of its current magnitude without the derivatives market, but you've spent paragraph after paragraph dancing around the root cause. That's appropriate. The government shouldn't be in the business of underwriting everybody's risk. If you can't afford an adjustable rate mortgage, don't get one. And try not to forget how the adjustable rate mortgage got its name.

Well, now that we have the fallacy of poisoning the well out of the way ... So it's impossible that Paszkiewicz was simply dissappointed that Matthew had an agenda to get him? On what basis? Or do you intend to argue your point by simply ignoring the counterargument? Sorry--the irony in your statement was just so outstanding. If he was trying to blame Matthew for his actions, doesn't it still make sense to interpret "you got the big fish" in the manner I suggested? Or does that argument only apply when it is convenient for you? "... master mental contortionist ..." Seriously, you have to be blinded by bias to hold the opinion that Paszkiewicz admitted any guilt by saying "you got the big fish." Paszkiewicz frankly admitted making some statements and denied some others (based on Matthew having taken them out of context). If he's a master mental contortionist why not deny everything? I failed to notice any statement on Paszkiewicz's part that indicated any displeasure about the existence of the recordings. You should stop for a moment to consider how Matthew appeared to the school officials after pretending to be uncertain about what Paszkiewicz had said "Just say you didn't say them --and I will omit them" (a close paraphrase, if not quoted accurately from memory). Matthew proved at that instant that his participation in the meeting was in bad faith. The real master mental contortionists will not be able to conceive of that, I expect. This is from very early in the meeting transcript: "I almost feel like I was set up. I feel like there was deception. If you want to talk about trust, I was, I was devastated by it." That thread recurs throughout the meeting, and it is overwhelmingly likely that it explains the "big fish" comment in the context I supplied. You're blind if you don't see it, and Paul LaClair either carries the same type of bias due to blindness (understandable since his son was involved in this) or else is simply an utterly despicable liar. LaClair's willingness to make accusations based on his bias also makes him despicable, but at a much more respectable and understandable level.

I receive plenty of support for my positions on a variety of things. Not that it matters. A person can be right and have nobody else agree. I notice that you're not really talking about the issue of etymology in your reply, Keith. Why is that? Should I expect another "Semper Fi" since that is always the topic (especially when you've flubbed up yet another argument)? So apparently you think I'm wrong about the etymology issue. Would you care to explain why, keeping the Semper Fi's to the absolute minimum required? I'm certainly willing to entertain an argument as to why I'm wrong about the current etymological issue. Even if your attempt is long-winded. Like LaSquid? That's not a name. It's an adjective. Correct. I don't use it unless I can make a pretty much airtight case for it. Like with Melanie, who out of the blue asserted that I don't know anything about evolution. I can make an objective case for somebody having lied more effectively than you can make an objective case for somebody being a prick. You use the term because you're a loser (in terms of repeatedly ending up on the short end of the argument) and you're a little soft in the self-control department. The examples abound, with this etymological issue simply being the latest. Unless you'd like to point me to your rebuttal? Please tell me its not the line where you call me a "prick" for the umpteenth time.

That simply stems from Keith's inability to reason.

I'd be skeptical that a "great post" could be based on a fundamental error of reasoning. I guess your Faith exceeds mine in this case. One need not be an etymological expert to recognize that the origins of a English word will not likely have any relevance to the use of a Hebrew word used hundreds of years prior. A passing knowledge of logic is more than enough. Sure. Silly little children named "Keith" came up with the word as a defensive reaction when they were repeatedly shown wrong during arguments. Keiths use a number of terms for similar reasons.

Riiiiight. Because one can't know anything about the government or WMDs without watching a certain video. I remember one video you recommended, Keith. I watched a segment of the video and critiqued it, and you would not address the critique (I assume you read it! ). But apparently you ruled it illegal to critique only part of the video. I have to search out the whole thing to be able to do that. Do I have to read all the credits, also? Semper Fi. Marines.com

OK, I suppose that there are no Democrats who favor socialist policies. I stand corrected. I didn't see the part where the government is bailing out Bear Stearns because of its excessive profits. And it is downright odd that you would use this example to prove that the government is giving away the people's money. Bear Stearns is receiving a loan from the federal reserve, which is one of the main things the federal reserve was set up to do (if you understood the money system you'd have an idea why). Using that logic, Keith, you should be completely outraged at well-to-do students who obtain the benefit of student loans. They're just soaking the proletariat, wouldn't you say?

Of course it evolved just like the bombardier beetle's defense system. You're the one who comes up with those entirely illogical etymological arguments, so you have absolutely no room to talk.

Paul LaClair: As for Paszkiewicz, he did deny making many of the statements, until Matthew produced the recordings, at which point he essentially admitted he had been caught, saying "you got the big fish." http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=39353 Even Matthew LaClair seems to disagree with that take. Matthew LaClair: Now, you would think that if Mr. Paszkiewicz was upset that his comments had been taken out of context, he would be delighted to see that there were recordings of the class that would vindicate him and prove that I was not telling the truth. That certainly did not occur. Mr. Paskiewicz and Mr. Somma immediately started discussing whether the recordings were legal and admissible (I guess they meant in court, though I hadn’t said anything about court), and Mr. Paszkiewicz decided that he should say no more without his union representative. That was excellent self-counsel, which he promptly ignored. The last thing he said in that meeting was “To be honest with you, Matt, I’m disappointed because I think that you got the big fish. You’re trying to hurt somebody, maybe you are an atheist, you got the big Christian guy that’s a teacher, known and loved for 15 years and I brought him down – that’s my gut feeling.” I felt terrible. http://www.secularstudents.org/node/1773 Regardless of Matthew's view, the context strongly indicates that Paszkiewicz was expressing (not for the first time in that meeting) the view that young LaClair was out to get him. And regardless of how Matthew wraps himself in the Constitution while justifying his actions, Paszkiewicz's suspicion appears fully vindicated by the subsequent events. Matthew somewhat botched the quotation, by the way. Here is a more accurate transcription: I just feel—to be honest with you, Matt, I’m disappointed because I think that, uh, you know, you got the big fish, you know, you’re trying to hurt somebody that uh, you know, maybe you are an atheist, you got the big Christian guy that’s a teacher, known and loved for fifteen years, and Matt brought him down. That’s my gut feeling. Up to you, Champ. Do you think it makes more sense for Paszkiewicz to be "disappointed" that he's supposedly been caught, or "disappointed" because his student is gunning for him?

Speaking of lies, I don't think your quotation of President Bush is accurate.

It's almost as good as pinko Democrats who decry the predatory profits of lenders while ignoring the fact that the lenders are going out of business. Going out of business because the profits are too good, I guess.