Originally Posted by Odin

I've decided to just ignore him on the topic, now, since he only cares about insulting me and accusing me of making things up.

Quit making shit up and you won't be accused of it. Seriously when your talking points are deflected with a well placed youtube vid it's time to get new talking points.

Also, who started calling me the reactionary because I don't take my queues from the People's Party of Riddit?

Originally Posted by Kinser79

The Factual Feminist disagrees with you.



And yes, I know the American Enterprise Institute pays for this....

The CDC study that Annla899 cites is not what the Factual Feminist is refuting. The Factual Feminist is refuting the claim that one on five college women are raped in college; the CDC study admits that the 1 in 5 figure includes attempted assault as well as non-rape assault and rape. The CDC study claims that among all women, 1 in 5 have been raped. This covers a much broader spectrum of women and over a longer period of time.

Originally Posted by Odin

I've decided to just ignore him on the topic, now, since he only cares about insulting me and accusing me of making things up.

EDIT: and now he is using a known right-wing anti-feminist hack as a source. He's just proving more and more that he is a right-wing authoritarian at heart. a "Brocialist".

He believes that the best way to destroy capitalism is to make it unconscionably brutal, which itself is unspeakably evil. The hard reality is that we must get through the current reality if we are to get to the next one. I am reminded of one Communist who took delight in the rise of fascism and Nazism as the sorts of political orders that would themselves collapse in the end and discredit capitalism so that the inevitable result is Marxist-Leninist "socialism". After over thirty million people murdered by the fascist Axis Powers, the only replacement of fascism came with the Soviet armed forces or (three rare cases) the Viet Minh in northern Vietnam, and the partisans of Albania and Yugoslavia, with the military defeat of fascism.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

The CDC study that Annla899 cites is not what the Factual Feminist is refuting. The Factual Feminist is refuting the claim that one on five college women are raped in college; the CDC study admits that the 1 in 5 figure includes attempted assault as well as non-rape assault and rape. The CDC study claims that among all women, 1 in 5 have been raped. This covers a much broader spectrum of women and over a longer period of time.

The only "one in four" women being raped at some time in their lives that I have heard of was on Indian Reservations in an argument for giving Tribal Police the authority to arrest non-Indians for overt crimes on a Reservation.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Sorry, M&L to call you out on this, but your $250K is one of those bullshit presentation of facts designed to mislead, worthy of a Faux News hit piece or from some angry Far Left Clinton hater - not your more typical class act.

The $250K is the UPPER LIMIT on Clinton's promise to not raise anyone's taxes if elected. That reflects HC's hard nose political reality we need that BOTH new programs and new tax cuts come hand-in-hand with either raising someone else's taxes or cutting someone else's programs - its actually a requirement in the Congressional budget process.

Until someone comes out and says they're an MMT adherent and that federal deficit spending is a blessing not a bane, then proposal for new programs from the Left (including most of Sanders') is simply pandering to the politically ignorant and painless tax cuts from the Right is outright lying.

Moreover, Clinton has put forward specific tax relief for lower incomes that would phase out at income levels far below the $250K upper limit of her no-tax pledge. If history is any guide, individuals with incomes below $60K would get the full credit but that would be phased down with $10K increments of additional income until likely phased out in its entirety around $100K of individual incomes.

And she's come out with specifics on raising taxes on the rich that go at the heart of income disparity - capital gains, high-frequency trading, inversions - and has embraced going further than the Buffet Rule. If one is familiar with how the rich really make their money, one can only conclude she knows what's she's doing.

Contrast that with the horseshit on the Right of across-the-board cuts like flat tax proposals, and THEN be realistic and think about how that will get paid for under a drown-the-baby-in-the-bath-tub GOP President and Congress - it ain't gonna be Defense - can you say, "bye-bye social safety net?"

And from the Left, do the current Hot-for-Bernie (you know, former 2008-Obamabots-so-disappointed-by-2010) really believe that a gruffer magic pony savior in the WH is going to overcome this Nation's fetish over federal deficit spending? I'm sure they do... but fortunately a lot of Progressives are grown-ups.

I find Hillary either remarkably naïve or excessively coy. Here's a woman who's been under a laser-focused spotlight for decades, yet she elects to use a personal email server for DOS business. There is no good answer for this. She's also been a straw in the wind: Goldwater Girl, Feminist Crusader, Bill's hatchet wielder, his policy wonk -- left, right and center. I can't get comfortable with her. She's smarmy.

So you look at her current policy positions; I look back.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Sorry, M&L to call you out on this, but your $250K is one of those bullshit presentation of facts designed to mislead, worthy of a Faux News hit piece or from some angry Far Left Clinton hater - not your more typical class act.

The $250K is the UPPER LIMIT on Clinton's promise to not raise anyone's taxes if elected. That reflects HC's hard nose political reality we need that BOTH new programs and new tax cuts come hand-in-hand with either raising someone else's taxes or cutting someone else's programs - its actually a requirement in the Congressional budget process.

Until someone comes out and says they're an MMT adherent and that federal deficit spending is a blessing not a bane, then proposal for new programs from the Left (including most of Sanders') is simply pandering to the politically ignorant and painless tax cuts from the Right is outright lying.

Moreover, Clinton has put forward specific tax relief for lower incomes that would phase out at income levels far below the $250K upper limit of her no-tax pledge. If history is any guide, individuals with incomes below $60K would get the full credit but that would be phased down with $10K increments of additional income until likely phased out in its entirety around $100K of individual incomes.

And she's come out with specifics on raising taxes on the rich that go at the heart of income disparity - capital gains, high-frequency trading, inversions - and has embraced going further than the Buffet Rule. If one is familiar with how the rich really make their money, one can only conclude she knows what's she's doing.

Contrast that with the horseshit on the Right of across-the-board cuts like flat tax proposals, and THEN be realistic and think about how that will get paid for under a drown-the-baby-in-the-bath-tub GOP President and Congress - it ain't gonna be Defense - can you say, "bye-bye social safety net?"

And from the Left, do the current Hot-for-Bernie (you know, former 2008-Obamabots-so-disappointed-by-2010) really believe that a gruffer magic pony savior in the WH is going to overcome this Nation's fetish over federal deficit spending? I'm sure they do... but fortunately a lot of Progressives are grown-ups.

So, she's going to run as Bill Clinton. Makes sense. She doesn't have any significant accomplishment of her own to run on. BTW, the primary social safety net has already been spent. What's an IOU worth? Evidently, IOU's are worth running on if your a Democrats who knows the bulk of their base are pretty much clueless and traditional voters. You're a pretty good player. I'll give you credit for that.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

The Factual Feminist disagrees with you.

And yes, I know the American Enterprise Institute pays for this....

The irony is so overwhelming, it's almost a waste of time to comment.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I find Hillary either remarkably naïve or excessively coy. Here's a woman who's been under a laser-focused spotlight for decades, yet she elects to use a personal email server for DOS business. There is no good answer for this. She's also been a straw in the wind: Goldwater Girl, Feminist Crusader, Bill's hatchet wielder, his policy wonk -- left, right and center. I can't get comfortable with her. She's smarmy.

So you look at her current policy positions; I look back.

She's excessively coy. Democratic women can afford to be excessively coy with all the protections and special rules and handicaps that they have become accustomed to receiving.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

So, she's going to run as Bill Clinton. Makes sense. She doesn't have any significant accomplishment of her own to run on...

On this your simply wrong. Of all the candidates, she's the only one with substantial official cred. Trump argues that building casinos is transferable, but really? Other than Trump, you have several governors who have no chance of getting nominated and three Senators with a shot, but none with much gusto ... except Bernie. He's got some experience worth noting.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

The CDC study that Annla899 cites is not what the Factual Feminist is refuting. The Factual Feminist is refuting the claim that one on five college women are raped in college; the CDC study admits that the 1 in 5 figure includes attempted assault as well as non-rape assault and rape. The CDC study claims that among all women, 1 in 5 have been raped. This covers a much broader spectrum of women and over a longer period of time.

Wonkette,

All the studies that come up with that statistic use poor sampling, poor definitions and use flawed methodology. The fact that she didn't refute that specific article means little. I've compared the methodologies of both and have found them extremely wanting just form the abstracts.

As Mark Twain is reputed to have said. There are three kinds of lies: lies, goddamn lies, and statistics.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

The irony is so overwhelming, it's almost a waste of time to comment.

The only irony I see is someone who is factual claiming to be a feminist. That being said, she is a feminist of the old order--that is to say a Gender Egalitarian.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

On this your simply wrong. Of all the candidates, she's the only one with substantial official cred. Trump argues that building casinos is transferable, but really? Other than Trump, you have several governors who have no chance of getting nominated and three Senators with a shot, but none with much gusto ... except Bernie. He's got some experience worth noting.

Hillary Clinton ran against someone....oh what was his name...I can't seem to remember...who had far less experience than she back in 2008. She still lost the Democratic Primary to him.

Experience is not the end all and be all of selecting a presidential nominee. When you have experience, you also have a record. Hillary's record is not good...well let me say it plainly. Not good for her. For the GOP she's their dream candidate. I'm sure even Bob Dole gets hard (without Viagra) at the thought of Hillary running, and I'm not saying he finds her attractive. He's ancient but as far as I'm aware he hasn't gone blind and deaf....well at least not yet.

Originally Posted by Odin

EDIT: and now he is using a known right-wing anti-feminist hack as a source. He's just proving more and more that he is a right-wing authoritarian at heart. a "Brocialist".

Odin, as a Marxist-Leninist all of those who are not Marxist-Leninists are to me right-wingers. That being said, if being a "Brocalist" is the price for not having to suffer the Infantile Disorder known as Ultra-Leftism I welcome it.

Lenin warned us over and over about ultra-leftism and its inherent contradictions.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

The problem you have is that the Obama Coalition is not going to go for Hillary as the primaries in 2008 has proved already.

It will go with whoever wins the Democratic nomination in 2016, whether Clinton or Sanders.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Odin, as a Marxist-Leninist all of those who are not Marxist-Leninists are to me right-wingers. That being said, if being a "Brocalist" is the price for not having to suffer the Infantile Disorder known as Ultra-Leftism I welcome it.

Lenin warned us over and over about ultra-leftism and its inherent contradictions.

Lenin is your Jesus. You have the wrong Savior.

I'll take being called an "ultra-leftist" as a badge of honor.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

It will go with whoever wins the Democratic nomination in 2016, whether Clinton or Sanders.

I doubt that. Hillary will suppress the Democratic votes, and energize the GOP base. It is that simple. She runs, the GOP wins.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Lenin is your Jesus. You have the wrong Savior.

Lenin is better than Jesus. He isn't a third-rate hippie.

Originally Posted by Odin

I'll take being called an "ultra-leftist" as a badge of honor.

Sounds like my attitude about being called a reactionary by you then. Considering you are an ultra-leftist, that must mean I'm on the right track.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Lenin is better than Jesus. He isn't a third-rate hippie.

Lenin is worse than the third-rate hippie Charles Manson.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Sounds like my attitude about being called a reactionary by you then. Considering you are an ultra-leftist, that must mean I'm on the right track.

I've been wondering, what is a reactionary and why is being called one an insult?
Serious question.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Lenin is worse than the third-rate hippie Charles Manson.

PBR, I don't think you quite understand where I'm coming from. Lenin actually managed to accomplish things, things you aren't even capable of having wet dreams about. To be half the man he was would see my life fulfilled. Naturally of course such greatness has its price. I'm willing to pay it, but then again I also left my home town too, so there is that.

Marxism-Leninism is now reactionary.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

I've been wondering, what is a reactionary and why is being called one an insult?
Serious question.

A reactionary would be someone opposed to one's political view point or social liberalization or reform. It is used as a way of calling someone a right-winger, and as such some here would think I'd be insulted by it. I would be--if they were Marxist-Leninists, but they aren't.

Because I oppose female supremacism (that ideology that passes itself off as Feminism these days) Odin is convinced therefore I'm a reactionary. Essentially I'm a reactionary because I don't follow the line of his particular hive mind, the very crime he accuses so-called Stalinists of doing. That he fails to see the irony of the situation is not surprising.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Marxism-Leninism is now reactionary.

Says the aging boomer liberal who actively opposes any measure of social reform with actual teeth.

Maybe I should create a Political see and say toy. Train the Red Diapers early.