Music: Joseph Haydn
Lyrics: August Heinrich Hoffmann von Fallersleben
Translated by: Laika the Space Dog



Google, Google Über Alles
Über Alles in the world

We will purge you, we will scourge you
Make you vanish overnight

Screw the Chinese, we like commies
Child pornography is a must!

Do no evil
See no evil
Hear no evil, we will censor until you are dead

(repeat)

Sniff, sniff.....
I am sooooo moved....The tears keep welling up.
I've played it a hundred times

I wish I could hear it, every time I come to this page it says I need to download qiucktime 5 to hear it. So I go to the website ckick the download button, and it says it is loaded. Then I come back here and it still says that I need to download it. I'm confuzed

You're really killing the joke, Oleg.

Look, no human being should be forced to witness the horrible attack that you claim you've witnessed from the base of Twin Towers. It's tough for the mind, and unbearable for the heart. But the claim remains, you were there, and I happened to be there, too, at the time just a senior in a high school nearby -- and we have to deal with it. But it seems we've dealt with it in different ways.

You've been in the U.S. for what, 12 years now, running from Ukraine just a few years after Soviet Union fell apart? I don't know what you ran from, whether it was an absence of any definition in the country's future, or whether it was a lack of jobs for poster artists -- it doesn't matter, really; the time you've spent there was enough to convince you that communism, or even any attempts to get close to communism, don't work. And right you are, it's not likely to work: because people are corrupt and flawed, because given the opportunity they will lie, cheat, and steal, and certain ones will strive to become dictators.

One of the major features of that system, as you no doubt clearly remember, was stifling dissent. Dissent was intolerable to the system, for it suggested, even if meekly, that people should think on their own, and that couldn't happen, because it would have broken the ice and threatened the ones in power. And so dissenting ideas were drowned out, prohibited, shot in the back and sent to the Gulag -- and in today's Russia, the process of stifling still goes on, albeit significantly less violently.

So where am I going with this? You claim that Google has stifled your dissent. Alright, let's assume that's actually what happened for a moment -- the very evil Sergey Brin of Google Corp. went and personally deleted references to your site from his database. You make a big fuss about it, and then hostile dissenters appear on your forums, who claim that it was your own violation of the rules that caused the deletion. So what do you proceed to do? You stifle their dissent. You delete their messages, not once, not twice, multiple times, until it becomes clear that the few pieces of evidence they are trying to push are already out there and just deleting the messages will no longer work.

So you change the tactic and decide to undermine the dissenters' credibility by portraying them as Google Corp.'s minions, sent in to convince everybody that Google is white, fuzzy and cute. They are the proverbial "vragi naroda" (enemies of the people), the spies sent in by the evil capitalists to break your perfect system.

But that's okay, after all, these are your forums, and you control which sides are presented here and which are not. What's actually scary about this is that you are stifling the dissent in your own mind.

I'll digress for just one more moment before driving the point home: there's a story that my aunt tells often: when Stalin died in 1952, she was in her last year of high school, and upon hearing the news, she ran home weeping, convinced that the Father of the People and the only hope for the nation has died. At the time, deeply affected by the horrors of war, she believed that the enemies of the people existed and needed to be squashed, and that only one side, the Party, was correct and awesome in everything they did. Her ears then would not have tolerated dissent, even if it weren't stifled.

The Soviet times have now been reduced to ruby-colored memorabilia that you use so plentifully for satire. And yet while you claim that liberal media is busy stifling dissent, you're doing the same -- but in your own mind. Have you considered, for a moment, that one ideology and one party can never be right about everything? That, perhaps, just perhaps, the ideas you oppose at the first glance are worthy of thought and consideration? Your satire is entirely devoted to one political ideology, one side of things -- and you won't even consider that there is more than one way.

One could look up at the burning towers, witness thousands of deaths, and decide -- "Oh, it's the conservatives who will be best at turning deserts of Middle East into glass, and therefore I should whole-mindedly side with everything they do and say."
It's a lot harder to run from the enormous dust cloud and think, "This is a heinous, unacceptable deed. What caused them to do it? What is it about how they were raised and educated that made them brainwashed kamikazes? Could we find different ways of preventing this from happening?"

When media allegedly stifles dissent and presents a one-sided picture, it is only because the people behind it have stifled dissent in their minds. Both liberals and conservatives are equally guilty of it: if they weren't, they wouldn't assign such labels to themselves and to each other and use unfair debate tactics to outrun their opponents. And while the terrible tragedy convinced me that a single ideology and refusal to listen to many ideas is what ultimately destroys us, inside and out, it did the exact opposite to you.

P.S. What's the point of paying to register one of your domain names by Proxy while maintaining a full name, address and phone number record on another? Seems like a waste of money.

Mr. C. Dragon -

How in the world can you possibly know what's in my head and what I went through and what I was running to or from - either on 9/11, or before that, or afterwards? What sort of philosophical achievement gives you the right to claim high moral ground and teach me about acceptance and compromise? Given your age you surely haven't read half of what I've read, and thought half of what I've thought. Not that age matters; some people remain fools until they die of old age. Not that the intensity of the thought process matters either - as post-modernist philosophers have demonstrated with their nonsensical works. What matters is the premise, your starting point - how you view reality and yourself in it - and the tools to analyze it, based on reason and objectivity.

You come off like an intelligent person, yet your condescending elitist all-knowing stance is disturbing. Looks like you've read Bulgakov (or at least saw the movie) - but have you read Dostoyevsky? He once commented that if you give to a Russian boy a star map, he will return it to you the next morning, corrected and expanded. Seems like you're one of those Russian boys - but you've also taken in a doze of the "progressive" American public education that has turned you into a zealous activist.

Your incessant, malicious trolling last night (which I had to control since this is my space where I choose to entertain people) displayed some serious effort on your part. What's driving such zeal? What sort of moral principle do you uphold that makes you believe that you and your kind are masters of this universe, and those who oppose you deserve to be ostracized and punished?

Your words about dissent and suppression thereof show that you understand neither. Dissent from what? From reason? From freedom? From objective reality? From moral principles? From the pursuit of happiness? Or is it dissent from slavery, chaos, prejudice, degradation, from fear to think and live by your own mind? Are these types of dissent morally equal? And what are the tools to suppress one or the other - are they the same tools of suppression or would they be different? Or are you talking of some generic, middle-of-the-road dissenter who dissents both from freedom and slavery, from life and death simultaneously? And what would be such person's "stifled dissent in his mind" look like? Schizophrenia? Bipolar disorder?

How do you know that I "won't even consider that there is more than one way?" I have lived "your way" for too long - I know "your way" through and through. But what do you know about "my way?" Have you yourself ever considered "my way?" You describe it as "turning deserts of Middle East into glass." What if I tell you that it's not? What is then left of your knowledge of "my way?" Zero. What gives you the right then to lecture me about considering other ways?

Now back to the Google business. Even if I violated in some way Google's policies - "blatant" and "egregious" would hardly be the words to describe it. If you look at the matter objectively you will see that half of those few hidden links are explicitly present on the Cube anyway, as images. The other half leads to some small sites that I had built for my friends. These were not link farms promoting ranking for Cheap Viagra or Teen Porn sites that one would associate with "blatant spamming." The keywords that I was compelled to use to help Google steer visitors to the Cube were all relevant to the site's content. These were not "hot sex porn xxx boobs, Paris Hilton, etc." which you might call "egregious." Yet I was labeled (with your help) as The Evil Spammer Who Got What He Deserved, all over the Internet. The glee and gloating on many a "liberal" blog in this regard was POLITICALLY motivated - while they merrily reported how this was *not* a POLITICALLY motivated suppression. Something's wrong with this picture, isn't it?

Some real, egregious abuse of the internet is out there - and you know it as well as I do - yet someone choses to focus on the Cube's laughable irregularity. Chances of that happening automatically are equal to the chances of being struck by a lightning - especially that Google does not yet have bots that can detect hidden text. Hence my suspicion that it was a deliberate, manual removal. Not by Sergey Brin himself, but by someone whose ideology, which he apparently shares with Sergey, allowed him to feel the moral right to "correct" the reality by reducing my chances of being found on the web. Now please look into your own soul and tell me if you would be as zealous as you were in your last night's postings, if this were an environmentalist site, or a feminist site, or a gay-lesbian site, or an anti-war site that claimed they had been censored. You wouldn't - not with such eagerness and passion anyway, if at all. Your presence on this site is motivated by your politics. That also answers your question about the probability of someone using Google's power to suppress this site for political reasons.

In the end let me point out that, unlike Google and other clandestine "liberal" do-gooders, we here do not pretend to be neutral and omnivorous. Can you see the difference?


-- Red Spammer

I don't know what you were running to or from, Oleg, and I said so; all I have to judge you by is the content of your site. I am not sure where else on the Internet you've been labeled "an evil spammer" -- I am more fond of "a guy who won't admit that he was wrong just this once" description. While I don't *actually* know if Google removed you deliberately (since I don't work for Google, remember?), from my prior work at MSN Search, I've seen how much information goes through a search engine on a daily basis and how it's virtually impossible, both by nature of the algorithms and because of corporate protections, to single out one site out of many. As someone mentioned before, Google has previously removed BMW Germany from their index: do you really think it was a deliberate, targeted act, rather than part of a massive sweep based on certain characteristics? Whether your violation was major or minor doesn't matter -- it's not even clear what qualifies a violation as "bad" or "not so bad" (why is a link to xxx.com any worse than a link to tatyanazb.com?) Besides, a site like https://www.godhatesfags.com is orders of magnitude more offensive than yours (your stuff is child's play compared to that, and even funny at times), so you'd think that if Google had any logic to their "targeted" removals (and they are a pretty good search engine overall, so you'd think they have at least some), that site would be the first to go from the indices... yet it's still very much there.

You accuse me of "condescending elitist all-knowing" stance, and in the same paragraph take that very stance by launching an attack on my erudition. Yes, I've read nearly everything by Bulgakov, and all of the major works of Dostoevskiy. I take great interest in Russian literature and read whenever I get a chance. In fact, if you've actually read as much as you claim, you'd remember that the words you quote so loosely were not Dostoevsky's own opinion, but belonged to a character in "Brat'ya Karamazovy" (Karamazov Brothers), a German journalist mentioned in passing by Alyosha. And if you've read more than me, you surely would be able to tell me who wrote a famous commemorative poem that personified the town of Elabuga and accused that personified entity of killing Marina Tsvetaeva.

You honestly state that you aren't neutral or omnivorous. But that's not the point: nobody is neutral or omnivorous, even if they claim to be. What you aren't is questioning. What leads me to think that this is "your way"? The content of your site. You make fun exclusively of specific politicians and ideologues, and by doing so, you effectively take the side of another group of ideologues and make sure nobody touches them with a 10-foot pole. If you made fun of everyone, you'd be my kind of guy, but you seem to think that Republican shit doesn't smell (excuse my French).

While I don't question your intelligence, I do question your thought process. Despite your "old" age (what are you? 40? 50?), I don't think you have enough background in science to approach issues analytically, looking for evidence and not expecting a specific outcome ahead of time. It would help to know what kind of education you have; from what I've read about you, you are an artist -- is art what you studied on your own or in school? And yes, I do believe that inability to reason scientifically applies to real life and that people who go with their "gut feeling" end up being wrong all too frequently. Remember when Bush looked in Putin's eyes and saw "the sense of his soul"? That's an awful way to pass judgment: had he looked at Putin's record, and talked to him at length about various issues, I would have been a lot more comfortable with whatever conclusion Bush would have come to afterwards.

Now, you claim to know what my "way" is, but let's just clear it up: I think both of the major parties in this country have good ideas, and both have very bad ones. Some of the problems they are trying to solve have no good solution, and some need more work than anybody has put into them so far. The truth is: neither party is capable of solving a large enough number of major problems, and the only way they'll ever be solved is if people stop lying and cheating to get ahead, going at each others throats, shouting their voiceboxes off, and instead sit down at a table and "figure it out". Anybody who takes "a side" effectively dehumanizes anyone who's not on that side, and then proceeds to fight them as if they were mythic beasts. But there's the rub: we're all humans, we all fuck up, and if instead of questioning and learning and compromising, we fight, we are only fighting ourselves.

[deleted]

You are behaving like a troll again, buddy. If I do not disclose my personal information there is a reason for that and I'd appreciate if you respect that.

-- RS

Look, D., if i had the affinity for long analytical ramblings I'd have created a more serious site. But since it's a humorous site, please to contribute to the merriment or post somewhere else. There are plenty of discussion forums for that. Or at least do it on the People's Blog. We don't ridicule all Democrats, and not just because they are Democrats. We ridicule failed philosophy of socialism that has already destroyed Russia, is rotting Europe, and is now growing in the US. But we make fun of Republicans too, if they deserve it - incuding Bush. You haven't seen much on this site, obviously. Now who's jumping at conclusions and refuses to admit he's wrong?

The next time you want to call anyone names please use this Party-approved tool for the progressive masses which you seem to be part of.

https://thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=297

P.S. If you're so fond of reading Russian authors, here's a test for you: who wrote "The Fountainhead"?

Hey, K0modo Dragon -

Speaking of K0modo Dragons - please take a look at the source code of this innocent-looking "Komodo Dragon" page and tell me again with a straight face that our site is a "blatant abuser."

https://dragon.hasce.com/

You already posted one long analytical rambling -- why stop now?

'The Fountainhead' is by Ayn Rand, born Alisa Rozenbaum. You quote her at the bottom of the page. I agree with parts of "The Fountainhead", but by far not everything. I also don't think it's particularly well-written. Compared to Dostoevskiy, even in English translation, it's a heaping pile of trash as far as good writing goes.

You haven't answered my question about Tsvetaeva -- do you not know the answer?

[...]

And do link me to at least a couple of jokes on your site that target someone Republican -- I just can't seem to find any.

P.S. As far as that dragon site goes: looks like they are targeting people looking for all sorts of other dragons, like "DragonSoft" or 'Dragon Z', none of which are related to Komodo Dragons, loveable, endangered and deadly creatures. They also don't come up anywhere near top in Google searches for "dragon" or "dragon z". Also note, by refreshing the site a couple of times, that they dynamically change the content of the site, thus making it harder for a bot that looks for stuffed keywords to detect foul play.

And do link me to at least a couple of jokes on your site that target someone Republican -- I just can't seem to find any.

Just some random picks:

https://thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=193

https://thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=492

https://thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=27

https://thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=179

https://thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=263

Dear Kommode-O Dragon,

Red Square isn't the only writer at this website and he's not "killing the joke" as you claim. You know absolutely nothing, yet you assume everything. You're also a moral relativistic brat. You don't, can't and refuse to understand satire and irony. Your "punk" attitude is astounding and it shows the folly of your youth. Everything is a shade of grey. Your university professors have you fully indoctrinated and it's going to take years of deprogramming to get your head straight. Who gave you the right to come to this site and tell us how to run this business?

One of the major features of that system, as you no doubt clearly remember, was stifling dissent. Dissent was intolerable to the system, for it suggested, even if meekly, that people should think on their own, and that couldn't happen, because it would have broken the ice and threatened the ones in power. And so dissenting ideas were drowned out, prohibited, shot in the back and sent to the Gulag -- and in today's Russia, the process of stifling still goes on, albeit significantly less violently

You floor me! Now tell me again what is Google doing for Communist China?

I used to be a Democrat, I went to all the protests, went to see about a hundred Grateful Dead shows, and ran for public office as a Democrat when I was 32 years old. I thought I was "pretty cool". I had served in the military and had a college education....all the right stuff for a "Good Democrat". Once elected, I received the rudest education a person could possibly get from a bunch of dogmatic party hacks. I discovered that the Democratic Party is corrupt from the Clintons all the way down to the lowest of ward heelers. They HATE this country and the only things they love is POWER and THEMSELVES. They'll use any Machiavellian means to achieve those goals and they use minorities like toilet paper. This is a "real life" experience and I didn't learn it from a book. By the time I was 35 I had enough and switched parties and have never looked back not once. I am now in my fourth term and would like to get out of public office, but each time I think I can afford NOT to run, some asshole socialist from the Democratic Party decides to infect the town I live in and file papers to run for office.
If I didn't have a sense of humor, I'd go nuts, and this site is great therapy for a good many of the writers here including me. You seem to think that we have to lampoon conservatives here. let me tell you something Shirley, WE DON'T. If you like that kind of stuff, turn on the TV, go to a movie, or read a big name newspaper. Please quit coming here and demanding that we do, you ignorant little snot. Sister, you've got a ton of growing up to do. Being that you're all of 23 or 24, I suggest enlisting in the military, this should help you on your life's journey. Please don't wait until you're 26, it's hard to get in after that age.

Well, it's 6:42AM, I've got to go to work and pay taxes so the welfare state can continue on it's destructive way. If I've offended you in any way, shape or form, it's good for the gander. And please have a nice hot cup of STFU.

Laika

Mmmmm, a nice hot cup of STFU! With whipped cream and a shot of Bushmills. Just the thing on a cold winter day; many should have some, especially Comrade Feingold. Of course, it's in the lower 70s here in Florida, so maybe some iced STFU would be better. We must all make sacrifices.

"Ted Striker: Surely you can't be serious.
Rumack: I am serious... and don't call me Shirley."
-- "The Airplane"
Dear Bark-bark the Space dog,

My university professors were engineers, mathematicians, computer scientists and physicists, who were busy teaching me their respective disciplines: that's what professors should do, and that's what MIT professors tend to do (no, I did not take any classes with Noam Chomsky -- he's teaching one graduate level seminar, and even that one is on linguistics.) To this day, I don't know what my professors' political leanings and affiliations were. I dare you to try and find out what they are yourself -- here are two famous professors' names off the top of my head: Dr. Donald R. Sadoway and Dr. Arthur P. Mattuck.

The right to come to this site is given to me by its creator's choice to make this site public and permit commentary. If you had a private little Intranet, I would surely (Shirley) be violating some law by breaking in and posting here, but you've made it a public forum, and I happen to be part of that public.

I'd consider joining the military, except with a college degree in CS, they'd rightfully place me on a computer job in a non-combat environment, which is very similar to what I do now; and since I work for a national defense contractor, even the nature of my work would largely be the same. Only with a lower salary.

If you are an elected public official, why not make your name and position public here? Don't people have the right to know that you are rude, dismissive and condescending? You didn't really offend me -- I don't take offense as a matter of policy, but I would love to hear you give a "nice hot cup of STFU" to some old lady at a townhall meeting. Why not just go out with a bang like that, make the national media cringe from your rude antics and make the Democrats look bad in the process? Come on, surely you can do it ! Yeah, that's right, I called you Shirley again.

Look, I am sorry you got into politics -- I heard it's a dirty, exhausting business. And I am sorry you sound so bitter, jaded, and impervious to the ideas from "the opposite side" or even suggestions that "your side" may sometimes be wrong. You are accusing the Democratic Party of being corrupt, but that's just stating the obvious -- all parties and politicians are corrupt, be they Democratic, Republican or Pink with Yellow Stripes; and they all deserve to be made fun of, equally. But sometimes, every few years or so, they need to get reeelected, and then they scramble up and listen to what their electorate has to say, and sometimes they even produce decent ideas for improvement. And if they collaborated, compromised, and listened instead of running around parading labels and waving bloody shirts, some use may come out of it.

As far as what Google is "doing for communist China", why don't you go around your house, or office, and count the number of objects that were made in China. Every one of those objects contributed to the bustling Chinese economy, which supports the party in power. Now, let's see what Google has been doing: well, they provide services, albeit limited, to the Chinese public, and then get payment for those services and put the money into their own company, which is in America, and hence support the American economy. So, funny enough, Google somehow manages to come out less evil than you.

And Grateful Dead? Come on now, I realize you are old, but don't go parading your sagging breasts: Grateful Dead are very, very dead. Get a facelift: the spit-at posterchild du jour is Green Day -- and they rock a lot better than Grateful Dead (their latest best-selling album is even named after you). Besides, Ann Coulter is a deadhead, so you can't really in all honesty put Grateful Dead in the same sentence with "Democratic".

K0modo Dragon wrote:My university professors were engineers, mathematicians, computer scientists and physicists, who were busy teaching me their respective disciplines: that's what professors should do, and that's what MIT professors tend to do

This is the first reported case of someone going through public school and college without taking classes in Socialist Studies, Revisionist History, and maybe even GEOGRAPHY...

Dear Shirley,

I must congratulate you! I have seen some mental masturbators before:

My university professors were engineers, mathematicians, computer scientists and physicists, who were busy teaching me their respective disciplines: that's what professors should do, and that's what MIT professors tend to do (no, I did not take any classes with Noam Chomsky -- he's teaching one graduate level seminar, and even that one is on linguistics.) To this day, I don't know what my professors' political leanings and affiliations were. I dare you to try and find out what they are yourself -- here are two famous professors' names off the top of my head: Dr. Donald R. Sadoway and Dr. Arthur P. Mattuck.

But that takes the cake! You win......Paging Dr. Dr. Dr. Kurgman. You're needed stat in the Cube brain surgery O.R. We have an ego aneurysm with massive narcissictic hemorrhraging.

BFD...I dare you to think outside of academia and grow a funny bone.

The right to come to this site is given to me by its creator's choice to make this site public and permit commentary. If you had a private little Intranet, I would surely (Shirley) be violating some law by breaking in and posting here, but you've made it a public forum, and I happen to be part of that public.

Duh... and what part of "tell us how to run this business?" don't you understand?

I'd consider joining the military, except with a college degree in CS, they'd rightfully place me on a computer job in a non-combat environment, which is very similar to what I do now; and since I work for a national defense contractor, even the nature of my work would largely be the same. Only with a lower salary.

Well that does explain your patriotism. Money talks, Bullshit walks. That post almost makes me want to contribute to Charlie Rangel's war chest....he's for the draft, you know. I'm sure you're registered for the selective service.

all parties and politicians are corrupt, be they Democratic, Republican or Pink with Yellow Stripes;

You don't know me, yet you sit in judgment. Is it fair to say all MIT grads are dweebish noodle nerds?

And if they collaborated, compromised, and listened instead of running around parading labels and waving bloody shirts, some use may come out of it.

Don't worry comrade! We are making great leaps forward in getting rid of the republic and that bourgoisie democracy, thanks to clear minded compromised collaborators like you and Google. You are related to Neville!

As far as what Google is "doing for communist China", why don't you go around your house, or office, and count the number of objects that were made in China. Every one of those objects contributed to the bustling Chinese economy, which supports the party in power. Now, let's see what Google has been doing: well, they provide services, albeit limited, to the Chinese public, and then get payment for those services and put the money into their own company, which is in America, and hence support the American economy. So, funny enough, Google somehow manages to come out less evil than you.

Ummm....let's see, killing thousands of people and quashing dissent is the same as buying tennis shoes. No, sorry, I buy American and drive an American car. My Dell was given to me by a friend. It's still apples to oranges, your logic doesn't follow.
The Bush Administration asks for the same deal the Chinese got from Google to go after terrorists and child pornographers, and they have to go to court. And I'm more evil than Google, whew........

I realize you are old, but don't go parading your sagging breasts: Grateful Dead are very, very dead. Get a facelift:

I realize your're a whimpering puppy moonbat. Let us know if your testicles ever drop, that is if you have any, which I sincerely doubt considering your moral relativism and total lack of patriotism.

NFGMF,

Laika

K0modo Dragon wrote:And yet while you claim that liberal media is busy stifling dissent, you're doing the same -- but in your own mind.

Deep thoughts, Komodo. Is it a new incarnation of thought crime?

What is your purpose doing postings here? What is all this to you? Why is it important to you to explain to site owner what he did wrong?

Just curious.

To Kommode-O
Perhaps with your fancy MIT degree in CS you have a "friend" at Google that hates this site as much as you? HMMMMM????? In the Deutschland of my youth you would have received a special gold Party pin.

"Your rant has become tiresome....Go touch your monkey."
Please clip off this site and go watch CNN.
Du bist ein Scheissekopf.

Dieter wrote:To Kommode-O
Perhaps with your fancy MIT degree in CS you have a "friend" at Google that hates this site as much as you? HMMMMM????? In the Deutschland of my youth you would have received a special gold Party pin.

"Your rant has become tiresome....Go touch your monkey."
Please clip off this site and go watch CNN.
Du bist ein Scheissekopf.

Oh snap, you told me ! One more M in that "HMMMM" and you would have totally won the argument.

Your name fits you well. In English, you see, a 'dieter' is the one who diets. You've got yourself on a nice diet of ideas; keep on with it and starvation is only a matter of time. HMMMMMMM????????!!!!!! MMHHHHHMMMMMMM!!!!!!!

Stahanovets2 wrote: What is your purpose doing postings here? What is all this to you? Why is it important to you to explain to site owner what he did wrong?
Just curious.

It's loads of fun. Red Square's passionate self-defense, Laika's masculine insecurity... all that makes better satire than the rest of the site. It's kind of like listening to Viktor Chernomyrdin talk: he thinks he's saying serious things, but he's funnier than any comedian out there.

So your purpose is to troll...

Mr. Dragon -

My name is Professor Peter Alan Kurgman, cousin of economist Paul Kurgman, and I have three Ph.Ds.

I have been reading your intelligent commentaries with great satisfaction because you could have been one of my own pupils. Of course, you were not really in my classes, as your MIT pedigree includes being educated by professors who, at most, have only one Ph.D. My educated guess (as though it would be possible for me to have any other type of guess!) is that you too have a Ph.D., because of your eloquent locution and incisive analyses.
<br>And yet, you betray your innocent youth by asking questions that have long been answered by those with expertise; i.e., me. Specifically, in reference to the "burning towers", you ask, "Why did they do it?" Well, for starters,we really don't know if those "9/11" attacks actually happened. But if they did, they were caused by a combination of many complex factors:

1. A Mossad plan to frame Arabs.

2. Resistance against the "little Eichmanns" in the buildings.

3. Bush's secret plan to distract the nation from his corrupt oil deals, his stolen elections, his genocide in Iraq, his upcoming genocide in Iran, his goal of establishing a Christian theocracy, and his vice-president's cold-blooded shooting that I will never forget.

4. A divine plan to resolve nineteen personal inner struggles.

And then you ask another earnest, yet naive, question: "Could we find different ways of preventing this from happening?"

Of course we can. In fact, we (meaning our small collective of powerful academic minds) are responsible for the course of all human actions. You see, people are driven by deterministic components; i.e., they have no choice in how they behave. Our professorial input goes in and their personal behavior comes out.

If people succeed, it is because of our visions. If people fail, it is because we did not pursue our visions with enough vigor.

Therefore, with regard to "9/11", we did not pursue our visions hard enough. To be sure, the easy solutions would be to...

1. Abolish the Zionist entity.

2. Imprison the little Eichmanns and all other exploiting capitalists.

3. Impeach, and imprison, Bush.

4. Promote Islam.

But as theoreticians, we (that is, "I") look at the big picture, which is the total application of international scientific socialism in order to subjugate the capitalist class and finally bring true power and equality to the working people. Will you help us make it a reality?

Now, allow me to help you with some of your misguided comments.

Yes, you can wait for time and maturity to clear your thoughts, but it will be faster if I guide you. You may think of me as your Father of Knowledge. If you are a Christian (which I doubt, given your advanced level of education), then you may think of me as your new and better Jesus.

1. You defend Google. Are you not aware that Google is a private (Strike one!) profit-making (Strike two!) American (Strike three!) company? As we all know, the only path to profits is on the backs of the poor. How is it that you have not mentioned the unionization of all Google employees? For that matter, you claim to have worked at Microsoft, which is a non-union shop! Are you aware that your employment at Microsoft took a job away from a union employee? No, you are not aware of that. But, please, never accept employment at a non-union shop again.

2. Your aunt, by believing that "the enemies of the people existed and needed to be squashed" was a wise woman. Do you not empathize with that?

3. You place equal blame on both parties, and on liberals and conservatives. Were you my intellectual equal (which might happen someday!) I would challenge you to mention even one liberal ideal, one cause supported by Code Pink, or one goal of United for Peace and Justice, that is flawed in any way.

4. You say you agree with parts of "The Fountainhead". Please reread that book. I never even picked it up and I detest everything about it. Only through youthful indiscretion could you find anything even remotely positive about that vile volume of fascist trash.

5. You attended a school with Noam Chomsky on the faculty, and did not take one of his classes? I hope you never regret that.

6. You would consider joining the military? The military? First, you do not support unions, and now you would support the military? I spent my entire sophomore year camping outside the dean's office (without changing my clothing even once!) to resist the military, and you would support the military?

7. As a feminist, I take great offense at your mention of "sagging breasts". Do you really intend to diminish and objectify an entire gender like that? And I'll bet you like having sex with them, too! Why not? After all, what else are they good for! I suppose that you also feel that womyn come with "expiration dates"? And that they cannot be firepersons? That they cannot succeed in the NFL?

Yes, a person with less sympathy than yours truly could easily paint you as an exploitative, misogynistic, and militaristic fascist. But as your new Jesus, I forgive you.

Normally, when I hear offensive speech, I either call a boycott or call my lawyer. But in your case, I have sincere hope that you can and will be educated without legal action. You see, this is where I disagree with Mr. Red Square. He blames your education, but I do not. Clearly, you went to the wrong school and studied the wrong disciplines. Science and computers certainly have their place for those with shallow, numeric minds -- but you have the potential to continue beyond that, into the dimensions of feelings and expression. Let your emotions guide you and remember my helpfulness.

You are, after all, a person with unlimited potential.



Professor Peter Alan Kurgman, Ph.D., Ph.D, Ph.D.

"Keep your feet on the ground, and reach for the stars."

Dork of the Proletariat wrote:So your purpose is to troll...

Well, let's see, the great urbandictionary defines "a troll" as:

"One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark off such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks (i.e. 'you're nothing but a fanboy' is a popular phrase) with no substance or relevance to back them up, as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue."

While my purpose is, indeed, self-amusement (whose isn't?), I wouldn't say that I don't listen to the arguments of others or that I don't address the essence of the issue. I respond directly to the arguments, ignore the ad hominem attacks of others and keep my ad hominem attacks to a gentle, loving level (i.e., instead of calling someone a "shithead", I suggest that they upgrade their tastes in music.)

If you agree with that definition of a troll, then I am not quite up to it; if you have your own definition for it, then perhaps I fit it perfectly. Then you're nothing but a fanboy.

Prof Peter Kurgman, PhD^3 wrote:Mr. Dragon - My name is Professor Peter Alan Kurgman, cousin of economist Paul Kurgman, and I have three Ph.Ds...

"Allow me the honor of giving you a brief lesson in Dr. Kurgman's many vapid attributes. For openers, Dr. Kurgman wants to preach a propaganda of hate. It gets better: He believes that he is the one who will lead us to our great shining future. I guess no one's ever told him that if he believes that women are crazed Pavlovian sex-dogs who will salivate at any object even remotely phallic in shape, then it's obvious why he thinks that he can be trusted to judge the rest of the world from a unique perch of pure wisdom. He is driving me nuts. I can't take it anymore! There is no place in this country where we are safe from Dr. Kurgman's followers, no place where we are not targeted for hatred and attack. All the deals Dr. Kurgman makes are strictly one-way. Dr. Kurgman gets all the rights, and the other party gets all the obligations. Every time he utters or writes a statement that supports metagrobolism -- even indirectly -- it sends a message that he is known for his sound judgment, unerring foresight, and sagacious adaptation of means to ends. I clearly feel we mustn't let him make such statements, partly because nearly all of the assumptions and statements made by him and his sympathizers are completely, absolutely, and totally wrong, but primarily because if I try really, really hard, I can almost see why he would want to erode constitutional principles that have shaped our society and remain at the core of our freedom and liberty.

I recently read a book confirming what I've been saying for years, that perhaps one day we will live in a world where good people are not troubled by fear of ruthless election-year also-rans. Until that day arrives, however, we must spread the word that I take seriously the view that we can see the damage that is done when Dr. Kurgman tries to create a system of interventionism characterized by confidential files, closed courts, gag orders, and statutory immunity. Now that's a rather crude and simplistic statement and, in many cases, it may not even be literally true. But there is a sense in which it is generally true, a sense in which it sincerely expresses how he, who is astonishingly adroit at twisting words, has been able to convince scores of people that the few of us who complain regularly about his double standards are simply spoiling the party, so to speak. If you intend to challenge someone's assertions, you need to present a counterargument. Dr. Kurgman provides none. He may be sincere, but he is also sincerely putrid. His bedfellows have learned their scripts well and the rhetoric comes gushing forth with little provocation. So that there may be no misunderstanding, let me make it clear that much of the noise made on Dr. Kurgman's behalf is generated by laughable authoritarians who seem to have nothing better to do with their time. Now, I could go off on that point alone, but no one likes being attacked by blockish palookas. Even worse, Dr. Kurgman exploits our fear of those attacks -- which he claims will evolve in the blink of an eye into biological, chemical, or nuclear attacks -- as a pretext to level filth and slime at everyone opposed to his pleas. If you think that's scary, then you should remember that just the other day, some of Dr. Kurgman's empty-headed toadies forced a prospectus into my hands as I walked past. The prospectus described Dr. Kurgman's blueprint for a world in which cold-blooded, bumptious purveyors of malice and hatred are free to disguise the complexity of color, the brutality of class, and the importance of religion and sexual identity in the construction and practice of jingoism. As I dropped the prospectus onto an overflowing wastebasket, I reflected upon the way that I want to keep Dr. Kurgman's habitués at bay. I want to do this not because I need to tack another line onto my résumé, but because in Dr. Kurgman's propositions, immoralism is witting and unremitting, duplicitous and oppressive. He revels in it, rolls in it, and uses it to impair the practice of democracy.

Dr. Kurgman has a natural talent for complaining. He can find any aspect of life and whine about it for hours upon hours. Imagine people everywhere embracing his claim that he is the way, the truth, and the light. The idea defies the imagination. Do his flunkies keep our priorities in check? No, that would be the correct and logical thing to do. Instead, they discredit legitimate voices in the particularism debate. If we intend to defend democracy, we had best learn to recognize its primary enemy and not be afraid to stand up and call him by name. That name is Dr. Peter Alan Kurgman."


Sounds pretty good, doesn't it? You gotta love it when basic AI can save you tons of time by auto-generating a response for you, and still making it perfectly sensible.

Yer nutz....... Carl Jung.

K. Dragon wrote:

Stahanovets2 wrote: What is your purpose doing postings here? What is all this to you? Why is it important to you to explain to site owner what he did wrong?
Just curious.

It's loads of fun. Red Square's passionate self-defense, Laika's masculine insecurity... all that makes better satire than the rest of the site. It's kind of like listening to Viktor Chernomyrdin talk: he thinks he's saying serious things, but he's funnier than any comedian out there.

Thanks for replying, I've never met a person who thinks listening to Chernomyrdin is fun. Quite an experience, nostalgia perhaps, after coming here? Like a breath of refreshing soviet air?

Dear Kimono Drag Queen,

Du bist ein Scheissekopf.

(i.e., instead of calling someone a "shithead", I suggest that they upgrade their tastes in music.)

I see you Googled "Scheissekopf" and found a picture of yourself.

Dr. Kurgman, this delicate operation on this delicate...dare I say...individual needs some help from Dr. Fuku. I thought you could drill into his skull and he would feel no pain, but we're going to need a professional anesthetist of Dr. Fuku's caliber. I had no idea he suffered also from a masochistic ego complex. I suggest he suffers from self inflicted child abuse also. We should notify all of academia! This could be ground breaking!

Laika

K. Dragon wrote:Sounds pretty good, doesn't it? You gotta love it when basic AI can save you tons of time by auto-generating a response for you, and still making it perfectly sensible.

"Sensible" does not translate to interesting or humorous. Whereas Dr. Dr. Dr. Kurgman is humorous and, in his own inimitable way interesting and fun, you sir are merely tedious and boring and getting more so with each post you add.

Laika the Space Dog wrote:I see you Googled "Scheissekopf" and found a picture of yourself.

Nah, I am fairly fluent in German, the language of the people who killed my grandpa in 1943. I guess that makes me, to use your words, "a moral relativist." Oh no, whatever shall I do?

I understand you speak Russian too, the language of the people who killed 10 million of their own people during the 30's & 40's, so what's your point? Again, you just don't get it.

Mr. Dragon -

Thank you for your thoughtful response. In fact, I thought that your first three paragraphs were quite sensible.

I am not of the generation that knows what "AI" is, but it he/she is apparently an invaluable aid to your lucid thinking.

Mr. Dragon, would you care to intern for me? (Yes, yes, I know that my interns aren't unionized, but reparations will be made after The Revolution.) Your highly developed prose are exactly what university students need to hear these days.

Sincerely,

Prof. Peter Alan Kurgman, PhD, PhD, PhD

P.S. Could you write a few more paragraphs for me?


Dearest Professor....AI is Artificial Intelligence. We are probably the first site to be attacked by a Trollbot.

Laika

Comrade Otis wrote:Whereas Dr. Dr. Dr. Kurgman is humorous and, in his own inimitable way interesting and fun...

Comrade Elevator,

I think he's very imitable (and also imitating), not particularly interesting, and about as humorous as Ray Romano. "Oooh, I am a black feminazi queer peacenik elitist ivy league liberal" shtick is about as tired as "The Aristocrats."

Prof Peter Kurgman, PhD^3 wrote:P.S. Could you write a few more paragraphs for me?

Anytime:

https://tinyurl.com/mc9tg

Keep refreshing the page. It's AI at its best.

K. Dragon wrote:
Comrade Elevator,

I think he's very imitable (and also imitating), not particularly interesting, and about as humorous as Ray Romano. "Oooh, I am a black feminazi queer peacenik elitist ivy league liberal" shtick is about as tired as "The Aristocrats."

Mr. Dragon -

You not only confused me, but you hurt me. Just as I was so impressed by your wonderful prose, you then shocked me with your insensitive remarks.

Yes, I am hurt. But, yes, I also realize that this is my fault. You have undoubtedly been hurt yourself in the past, and you are therefore compelled to project your hurt onto others.

I understand.

And if it is therapeutic, please hurt me again. Do not hold back; the more abusive the insult, the better we will both feel.

And if I could, I would hug you.


Your friend, teacher, and patron,

Prof. Kurgman, PhD, PhD, PhD

Prof Peter Kurgman, PhD^3 wrote:And if it is therapeutic, please hurt me again.

Just keep refreshing that link I posted above. It does all the work for me.

Besides, no insult was intended. I actually do think that you're a black feminazi queer peacenik elitist ivy league liberal. It's just a terribly boring, overused character. I'd rather you were a black feminazi queer peacenik elitist ivy league conservative -- now, that's a much better premise.

Stahanovets wrote:I've never met a person who thinks listening to Chernomyrdin is fun. Quite an experience, nostalgia perhaps, after coming here? Like a breath of refreshing soviet air?

True that. Politicians here are pretty boring. The mayor of New Orleans and his "chocolate city"? Trent Lott and his Strom Thurmond remarks? Please, none of that can beat Chernomyrdin's response to the request for apology for the Golodomor Famine: "We are not going to apologize. There's nobody to apologize to."

Ah, that man has the national treasury in his cheekbones (and wings growing out of his head): https://russian-globe.com/N29/Chernomurdin.jpg

Have you ever gone "Moonbat Fishing" with jigged "Google Bait" Kimono?

Laika the Space Dog wrote:Have you ever gone "Moonbat Fishing" with jigged "Google Bait" Kimono?

Those are some big letters you've got there. It's probably because you have a big penis.

Wouldn't you like to know sailor? Now answer the question before I have your parents take away your computer privileges for a week.

How's the politicking going? Met with any constituents today?


Great, as a matter of fact and yes, I meet with constituents every day.
They're very exicited about the fact that we (meaning our new conservative majority) rolled back the millage by a mil and a half. Thanks for asking!

K. Dragon wrote:

Stahanovets wrote:I've never met a person who thinks listening to Chernomyrdin is fun. Quite an experience, nostalgia perhaps, after coming here? Like a breath of refreshing soviet air?

True that. Politicians here are pretty boring. The mayor of New Orleans and his "chocolate city"? Trent Lott and his Strom Thurmond remarks? Please, none of that can beat Chernomyrdin's response to the request for apology for the Golodomor Famine: "We are not going to apologize. There's nobody to apologize to."

{snip}

So, what are you doing here in this forum? Testing ai program that is producing long winded pseudo intelligent sentences? Btw, does a name Terry Winograd ring a bell?

Please keep posting Komono Dragon. It's very common for the criminal to revisit the scene of their crime. Thank you.

Stahanovets wrote:So, what are you doing here in this forum? Testing ai program that is producing long winded pseudo intelligent sentences? Btw, does a name Terry Winograd ring a bell?

Yeah, SHRDLU was pretty cool. Too bad he abandoned AI and left for HCI (his claim was that AI hit a dead-end, but I think he just burned out a little). Terry was Larry Page's academic advisor, and helped Google with some of their UI work, so he's probably slightly better than the Devil to the folks here.

That program is well-tested, so I am just juxtaposing its output with the outputs of [presumably] real human beings. Pretty interesting. And fun. I am having fun, remember?

Laika the Space Dog wrote:Please keep posting Komono Dragon. It's very common for the criminal to revisit the scene of their crime. Thank you.

Oh no, did I commit a thought crime? I didn't want to, they* made me !

No...No... Your crime is "trolling without a logic permit".
Thought crime? Hardly, you have to be able to think to have a thought.
You just spew techno-wonk psycho-gobbledygook that nobody gives a rat's ass about. Now go somewhere else and spank your vienna sausage.


*You know, they. The moral relativists. Those bastards would never use a Bible to save themselves from a bullet. Freakin' nihilists !

That's the first little bit of truth to come from you. You'd be wise to vote and make sure "They" don't come into power because you would be the first to be shipped to the KZ.

Laika the Space Dog wrote:Hardly, you have to be able to think to have a thought.

Deep, man. Where do you get your weed?

Shallow dude, where do you get your crack?

I have a serious question for you, though. Let's say you are a politician (and you are, right?), and a bill comes up in whatever legislative body you are serving in that would allow gay couples to adopt children. You go and meet with groups of your constituents, and their opinions split roughly in half -- so basically you could go either way on the matter. How would you go about deciding which way to swing?

I do expect a serious answer, but feel free to interject it with "vienna sausage" and "your balls need to drop" commentary; it does make it slightly more spicy.

It's not a serious question. Are you an orphan?
Now I have a serious question for you. Are you a NAMBLA member?

Hey, Others, you should answer too if you feel like it.

We interrupt this tiresome and boring drool troll named K. Dragon to bring you some post St. Paddy's Day merriment:



=====================================
A couple attending an art exhibition at the National Gallery was staring at a portrait that had them completely confused. The painting depicted three very black, totally naked men sitting on a bench.


Two of the figures had black penises, but the one in the middle had a pink penis. The curator of the gallery realized that they were having trouble interpreting the painting and offered his assessment.


He went on for nearly half an hour explaining how it depicted the sexual emasculation of African-Americans in a predominantly white, patriarchal society. In fact, he pointed out, some serious art critics believe that the pink penis also reflects the cultural and sociological oppression experienced by gay men in contemporary society.


After the curator left, an Irishman approached the couple and said, "Would you like to know what the painting is really about?"


"Now why would you claim to be more of an expert than the curator of the gallery?", asked the couple.


"Because I'm the guy who painted it," he replied. "In fact, there are no African-Americans depicted at all. They're just three Irish coal-miners. The guy in the middle went home for lunch."

Laika the Space Dog wrote:Are you an orphan? Are you a NAMBLA member?

Nah, my folks are alive and kicking. And to answer your serious question: no, I am not. As an engineer, I think nabla (https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Nabla.html) is way cooler (and legal, too !)

Now, please do answer mine.

Not until you've finished your supper and done your homework.

Dragon:

I would not try to prevent homosexual couples from adopting children. It is none of my business; i.e., there is no reason to believe that anyone's rights are being violated by such an arrangement. Perhaps in an ideal world, it would be best if government-sanctioned marriage (straight, gay, etc.) was also outlawed, leaving all personal relationships to a private market where people can choose to live in any way they please (as long as they do not directly violate the rights of others who wish to do likewise).

So how about this question for you:

Suppose your constituents want you to vote against homosexual adoptions, and your opponent (who is genuinely opposed to these family arrangements) insists on "intelligent design" replacing evolution in public schools. Would you go with your morality, ban gay adoptions, and lose the election to a caveman? Or would you promise to ban gay adoptions to prevent someone worse from getting elected?

I think that is often the sort of dilemma that politicians routinely have to make.

Incidentally, I am avoiding the ad hominem attacks and nasty tenor that has dominated this "dialog" -- if you choose to respond to my question, I would appreciate the same courtesy.

K. Dragon wrote:Not until you've finished your supper and done your homework.

Well, yesterday we finished and handed over a big project of updating the software for one of the self-guided missiles our lab has been developing. Then our whole department went out for pizza and bowling.

I think that counts as supper and homework.


What, no karaoke and jello shots with your wild and crazy mathlete buds?
It's Friday night for chrissakes, or did you have to hurry back and keep trolling?

Spiro Agnew wrote:Suppose your constituents want you to vote against homosexual adoptions, and your opponent (who is genuinely opposed to these family arrangements) insists on "intelligent design" replacing evolution in public schools. Would you go with your morality, ban gay adoptions, and lose the election to a caveman? Or would you promise to ban gay adoptions to prevent someone worse from getting elected?

I presume you meant "allow gay adoptions" in the first case.
See, if my constituents wanted me to vote against gay adoptions, I would vote against gay adoptions even if I disagreed, all the while wondering how I got elected in the first place.

But if constituents weren't part of the game, or if they were somewhat evenly split and I had to make that decision alone, I'd try to figure out if there's any harm that can come from the decision: find peer-reviewed psychology research of gay parenting, figure out how it may affect the kids, the adoptive parents, and try to make my decision as informed as possible. I may not find a clear-cut answer, but I think it would be possible to see which way the scale is tipping.

As far as intelligent design goes, I think it has its place in schools: in philosophy classes. It's not based on scientific methods, but it is perfectly good for rhetorical discussion.

Mr. Dragon

You have not answered one single question that has been put to you. You totally avoided the most Honorable gentleman's inquiry from the Old Line State.
His question was:

Would you go with your morality, ban gay adoptions, and lose the election to a caveman? Or would you promise to ban gay adoptions to prevent someone worse from getting elected?

Zinoviev wrote:Mr. Dragon

You have not answered one single question that has been put to you. You totally avoided the most Honorable gentleman's inquiry from the Old Line State.
His question was:

Would you go with your morality, ban gay adoptions, and lose the election to a caveman? Or would you promise to ban gay adoptions to prevent someone worse from getting elected?

Sure I did. "If my constituents wanted me to vote against gay adoptions, I would vote against gay adoptions even if I disagreed" answers it.

Spiro Agnew wrote:I can't figure out if "gay" means all homosexuals, or just male homosexuals; i.e., "gay and lesbian" implies that gay is male-only. In any event, "homosexual", just like "heterosexual", is a perfectly valid term that, I feel, does need euphamisms. If you disagee, though, I would like to know why.

"Gay" is a lot less typing than "homosexual", that's all. I personally use that word to refer to either gay or lesbian couples. I don't really think of it as a euphemism (it's just a more casual term, like "jacking off" versus "masturbation"), so either one is fine with me.

Spiro Agnew wrote:Also, your answer to my question would result in a ban on "gay" adoptions AND creationist blather taught instead of evolution -- and from the context of my question, it should be clear that I was referring to science classes and not philosophy.

Perhaps I didn't understand you: did you mean that my constituents are both anti-gay adoption and pro-intelligent design, or just anti-gay adoption? Because if it's the latter, I would properly represent them and vote against gay adoptions (i.e. for the ban), as I explained. I really don't think it matters what my morals are in that case: my job is to represent them.

Hey Dragon- get a fucking life. Don't you have anything better to do with yourself than keep up this tiresome unwinnable argument?

Mr. Agnew was talking about your morality, you still haven't answered the question at all, sometimes constituents are wrong and you have to vote your conscience. It's called "courage of convictions". Let's try it again, shall we? Do understand the difference between a republic and a democracy?

TLA wrote:Hey Dragon- get a fucking life. Don't you have anything better to do with yourself than keep up this tiresome unwinnable argument?

I admire people who take time out of their own life to tell me to get one.
And if you are tired of this tiresome argument, take a nap. I found that helps a lot.

Zinoviev wrote:Mr. Agnew was talking about your morality, you still haven't answered the question at all, sometimes constituents are wrong and you have to vote your conscience. It's called "courage of convictions". Let's try it again, shall we? Do understand the difference between a republic and a democracy?

I said that regardless of how I feel about it, I would vote the way my constituents want me to vote. Yes, I understand the difference between direct and representative democracy, and I realize that we have the latter and that I should act in the interest of the constituents but not always as their proxy. But in this particular case, I feel that if my constituents aren't ready to accept same-sex families with children, I should find ways to convince them (If I disagree with them, that is), but not force my conscience upon them.

I must have this boy run my campaign! No convictions! Zero morality! Pretzel logic! He makes Carville look like a piker! Every quote has a qualifier!

Do you know what the definition of 'Is" is? But, but, if, if, I presume, I assume, All politicians are! You are! They, they, they.

So believable! He wants to understand why America upsets Muslims and then helps to develop self-guided missiles that could possibly be used against them, yet he's on nobody's side and everybody's side!
The perfect political animal, an answer for everything, but not an answer! Genius! Pure genius! I recognize you for who you are Komono and I think I'm falling in love.

Hillary wrote:I must have this boy run my campaign! No convictions! Zero morality! Pretzel logic! He makes Carville look like a piker! Every quote has a qualifier!

Do you know what the definition of 'Is" is? But, but, if, if, I presume, I assume, All politicians are! You are! They, they, they.

So believable! He wants to understand why America upsets Muslims and then helps to develop self-guided missiles that could possibly be used against them, yet he's on nobody's side and everybody's side!
The perfect political animal, an answer for everything, but not an answer! Genius! Pure genius! I recognize you for who you are Komono and I think I'm falling in love.

What's a better solution? Get a conviction and make it for life? Give me what you think is the right answer to the question. Out of character, please.

Komono wrote

What's a better solution? Get a conviction and make it for life? Give me what you think is the right answer to the question. Out of character, please.

Perfect answer! Be still my beating heart!

Hillary wrote:Be still my beating heart!

Hillary's heart doesn't beat. If it did, her brain would hear it, have her rip it out and eat it.

But in this particular case, I feel that if my constituents aren't ready to accept same-sex families with children, I should find ways to convince them (If I disagree with them, that is), but not force my conscience upon them.

Would you force your conscience on your constituents if they wanted to criminalize homosexual sex?

If "no", then how did you determine that gay adoption is not worth defending, but gay sex is worth defending?

(As far as how they elected you to begin with, let's just assume that your district boundaries changed. Or, if you prefer, new cultural patterns emerged.)

It looks like somebody heard Red Square's complaints:

http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/18/technol ... tm?cnn=yes

Let's watch how this rolls out.

Spiro Agnew wrote:Would you force your conscience on your constituents if they wanted to criminalize homosexual sex?
If "no", then how did you determine that gay adoption is not worth defending, but gay sex is worth defending?

I am not sure if I'll be able to explain myself well, but I think that there's a big difference between a new criminal law punishing those involved in a certain activity, and a law preventing government-sanctioned agencies from providing services to a certain subgroup of the population. So, for example, gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts, but against the state constitution in a number of other states; same-sex couples from Massachusetts, however, won't be imprisoned or punished in any way when they enter those states. Whereas if there still was a law on the books in some state criminalizing gay sex*, they would be punished for having sex there.

That's why I feel that in case of gay adoption I can act as proxy to my constituents: it's something they don't want the adoption agencies to do, but it's not something same-sex couples would be prosecuted for. But when we are talking about a new criminal law, something that can potentially cause persecution of a minority, my being a proxy may not end up being in the best interest of those I represent.

I am sure there are flaws in this line of thinking (yes, yes, Laika, it's not thinking, it's mental masturbation, I get it), which will be satirically pointed out to me. I am all ears.

*Here's another case where I would use the word "gay", because "homosexual sex" has a repeating root and sounds awful, like a bad tautology.

Vat ist dis obsession mit penises und homosexual behavior?
Herr Komono, you must go out dis Sunday und get yourself ein transvestite prostitute. Apparently your werk mit self guided missiles has given you ein major homo-erotic complex that ist in dire need of relief. Schtaying up trolling all night at der computer is not healthy, you vill find trolling for a tranny more to your satisfaction and liking.
Fur me, I found a good cigar would simply suffice, just like Herr Clinton.

Aufweiderhoren,
Ziggy

I think that there's a big difference between a new criminal law punishing those involved in a certain activity, and a law preventing government-sanctioned agencies from providing services to a certain subgroup of the population.

Is that how you perceive gay adoption? That it is something that requires the services of a government-sanctioned agency? (Or do you mean a "government agency"?) That implies that gay adoptions could not exist without a government -- a claim that I reject. (Biological parents could theoretically contract through private gay-friendly adoption agencies without explicit government permission.)

So, we have two types of behavior: A) Gay sex, and B) Private contracting. Why should gay sex (or any form of sex) be "protected" and private contracting not be "protected"?

Besides, isn't gay sex a contract (albeit an informal behavioral one) between consenting parties? And isn't gay adoption also a contract between consenting parties? If in both cases, all parties reject government interference, then on what moral basis can one make a prohibition against either?

The Dead Kenndys' version, "California Über Alles," has some surprisingly reactionary lyrics. I'm not from CA--praise be unto Lenin!--but a collective farm state, so the Jerry Brown references might carry more clout with others.

Comrade Tovarich. I am from the most glorious People's Socialist Quagmire Republic of California. We waste spend confiscated funds tax monies on many programs that enhance the diversity of our collective; clean needles for junkies, condoms for teenagers (and pre-teens), field trips for 1st Graders to gay marriage ceremonies. I could go on happily about our progressive, forward-looking, cooperative, life style, that enriches all who live here. For the multitudes that are leaving, they take with them the necessary tools to indoctrinate those in the great fly-over areas with our bumper-sticker mentality. Mostly with bumper stickers. I have never been happier* in all my life!

*Happiness - a state of mind where you submit your will to the state. See, The Greater Good^TM

Comrade Staling for Time,

Have you been in PSRC long enough to remember Jerry Brown? In the DK song, Jerry Brown turns California into a hippie fascist state--one of my favorite lines is "Just wait until they come for your uncool niece." I do know from associates that the Californians are, unlike the immigrants of ages past, bringing their enlightened views and policies, from which they ran, with them to AZ, ID, and CO.

My biological parental oppressor was once offered a job in CA. He rejected it largely because of house prices (around 1984) and taxes; many colleagues who had already experienced CA suggested he not go or come. He chose flyover country. Most likely he was one of the 25 million the Weathermen figured they'd have to kill once they took power.

Yes, I remember Jerry "If it's Brown, flush it down." I turned 18 the month after that airhead got elected Governor. I just missed voting against him. He's just doing the "term limit shuffle." Mayor of Oakland (how's the murder rate, Jerry?) and now he's Attorney General, even though he didn't meet the necessary minimums for the office. You have to have been a practicing attorney within 5 years. Not even close. The liberal california press (a triple redundancy) just ignored that (like Obama's birth certificate).

God this place is just a hell hole.

Comrades,

The omniscient omnipresent Google has great potential to do harm--sorry, public good--but what about the Scroogle service that uses Google but denies them the ad money and other things. Personally, I prefer Dogpile.

WOW. _Just for Red Square's initial post, dated 2006. __ ( 2006, Komrades... 13 years ago..... )

Genosse Dummkopf wrote:WOW. _Just for Red Square's initial post, dated 2006. __ ( 2006, Komrades... 13 years ago..... )

Truly there were giants in those days

You're not kidding, Comrade. Anyone who can get 21K page views and 70 responses for a parody that has about 35 original subs is a giant in anyone's Treatment Center. If we applied that ratio of 550 views per word to my "Muslim Radical's Song" that would translate to over 200k views

But perhaps there's more to this post than the parody itself (EoL)* I am flabbergasted by every aspect of this. What possessed this lunatic to persist in spewing his progg-vomit day-after-day the way that he did. Even as his points were being dismantled in the brutal way imaginable. We talk about leftism as a mental disorder, and sometimes we may think we're kidding. And then you see something like this

And Oleg's responses would be extraordinary even for a native speaker!! I've scored in the 99th percentile for verbal, and I've been hearing English since I was implanted in my mother's uterus, and I don't think I could match Oleg's virtuosity. And what about Laika. I knew that guy was off the charts brilliant, even before seeing this

*(EoL -- Equal of Laughter, Cubetardspeak for LoL)

I couldn't help but notice that the current ratio of commentary words to song parody words on this thread is running 225 to 1 (Over 9000 commentary words as opposed to 40 song parody words) which is well over the average Karaoke ratio of .225 to 1. So in order to bring about a little more balance …..



Comrades, it is too bad that a sharp satirist like Oleg has to put up with bullshit on his very own blog ........ That is his burden and we should be vigilant, because I am told that it is a blogosphere-wide burden ... Look!

What's happening at the website, I'll tell you what's happening at the website. A scandal about a Soviet emigree who runs afoul of a technological giant and gets deported to the Goolag in violation of his speech rights. THAT's what happening at the website

What's with the People's Cube; I'll tell you what's with the People's Cube. Song parody section gettin' hijacked to rebut some unwelcome scumbag's deranged views. That's what with the People's Cube

What's happening all around; I'll tell you what's happening all around. Site with a post on Wikipedia, but now it just cant be found. That's what's happening all around

Trollery's what nicked him
And it looks like Oleg has gone and out-quicked him .. Yes, First Comrade!

When you see a twit talking all kinds of shit
You can bet that the blitherer is a progg
When you spot a hack ignoring reason and fact
Chances are he's in the sack as only a hack can be for Barack
When you see a crone, with her mouth flecked with foam
With a face that could fracture the Taj Mahal
Call it sad, call it funny
But it's better than even money
That the hag's that berating you is a progg

When you see a punk, spewing all kinds of bunk
You can bet that this lunatic is a progg
When a bum wastes your time that you can't afford
It's a cinch that the bum is under the thumb of a Gramscian fraud
When you find a troll, who's a flaming asshole
Spewing hate, filth and insanity over your blog
Call it hell, call it heaven
But it's better than twelve to seven
That the guy's only doing it cause he's a progg

When you see a Green, flying in a Gulfstream
You can bet that this hypocrite is a progg
When a thug sees a red hat and pops Gramps in the mug
Who the hell do you think is coming to spring him out of the jug
When an unkempt slob, hits you face with a gob
And he says Trump's a fascist, supremacist dog
Call him crazed, call him nutty
But I'm here to tell you buddy
That the guy's only spewing cause he's a Progg, a progg, a progg
Yes, the guy's only spewing cause he's a PRO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-0-OGG!!

Most equal, comrade! May I call you Lennie? Those were the days, my friend. We had just started the Cube and Google blacklisted it within the first year of its existence.

It felt like a post-natal abortion, which our baby-cube has miraculously survived, but living the life of a shadow (in search engine terms).

It's time to sing the songs of freedom shadow-banning.

Oh my boon companion of karaoke hooliganism, Comrade Callmelennie! You certainly boosted the ratio of actual karaoke words vs commentary words. Humorous hooliganism has a secret exponential ratio improvement over blather commentary..which had reached massive capacity proportions in SERIOUS responses by one KD. Certainly, KD exhibited the StateChurch Theology that Marx NEVER laughed. NEVER!

Red Square, is it true that Marx NEVER laughed??

Jackalopelipsky
#BR 549

Truth be told, First Comrade, I had posted this song before back in 2011, when there were fewer viewers and even more postings than we are seeing now. So it never got the attention it deserved. So I thought making this the 70th reply on a 13-year old post would be a perfect way to rectify that.

And if I may direct the attention of the Comrades back to reply #70, I filled in all the spoken lyrics at the beginning.

https://thepeoplescube.com/peoples-kara ... t7759.html

I prefer this: