Generational Dynamics Forum - New Site

"Years ago my mother used to say to me, she'd say, "In this world, Elwood, you must be" - she always called me Elwood - "In this world, Elwood, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant." Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. You may quote me." ~Harvey

Oakwood, you've no choice, the quicker you learn to be pleasant the better off you'll be.

Tom Acre wrote: "Years ago my mother used to say to me, she'd say, "In this world, Elwood, you must be" - she always called me Elwood - "In this world, Elwood, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant." Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. You may quote me." ~Harvey Oakwood, you've no choice, the quicker you learn to be pleasant the better off you'll be.

Why am I the bad guy here? I think I know. All you devoted followers have sparkles in your eyes when you look at John and can't see the reality. As I said in my previous post to John, "I can't find a single example where I've called you a derogatory name, yet you have called me an imbecile, an idiot, a troll, "the worst," and perhaps some other things." He says I'm a bigot (the worst kind, yet) and implies I'm on par with the KKK and Nazis! Throughout his posts he rarely answers my posts with facts, but instead attacks me repeatedly. I say that there's been an upsurge of left-wing violence and he says my examples (murder) don't count because he doesn't like my source. And yet he offers no counter source. He claims that he has no political agenda but it should be obvious to everyone that John dresses on the right. He repeatedly talks about the loony left but never criticizes the right. That's about as fair and balanced as Fox News. By the way, when I say that John is showing a failure of logic or is being concrete I'm not saying that to be cruel or to put him down--I'm really try to point out that there's an error in his thinking. And hopefully I explain exactly what I mean, unlike John who just calls me a name.

I'll admit I've tweaked John's nose a bit. It didn't start out that way, but when somebody starts attacking you in a way that feels unprovoked, you have to respond. I don't feel that the things I said in my original posts deserved the kind of response I got. I can only conclude that John is overly sensitive to criticism. I also found it humorous that he was so offended by the vision of teabagging. Heads up--I'm planning to start my own party dedicated to zero population growth called the Stopcock Party. Just so you guys don't get the wrong idea a stopcock is a "faucet consisting of a rotating device for regulating flow of a liquid."

It only takes a half hour of so of research on the internet to blow
apart all this nonsense about the SPLC.

• The SPLC is a hate group
  
  The following was posted on Huffington Post by Carol M. Swain, a black
  woman, Political Analyst, Professor of Political Science and Law at
  Vanderbilt University, and also Advisor to U.S. Commission on Civil
  Rights:
  

  Carol M. Swain wrote: > There is a name for what has happened. It is called "mission
  > creep." Mission creep occurs when an organization strays beyond
  > its original purpose and engages in actions antithetical to its
  > goals. Rather than monitoring hate groups, the Southern Poverty
  > Law Center has become one.
  > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carol-m-s ... 55029.html

• SPLC's statistics are mathematically impossible
  

  Oakwood wrote: > The bottom line is there has been a dramatic increase in right
  > wing violence (especially murder) in the past few years). I'm
  > willing to bet I'm right. How about you make a list of incidents
  > of serious left and right-wing violence in the U.S. in the past
  > two or three years. If the number of right wing episodes exceeds
  > left-wing episodes, I win. Otherwise you win. Or even better, we
  > can test your predictive powers. Let's study the number of
  > incidents over the next year. Again, I bet the number of right
  > wing events exceed the number of left-wing episodes of violence in
  > the U.S. If you win, I'll donate $100 to the charity of your
  > choice. If I win you donate to the charity of my choice.

  Asking me to make a list of left and right wing episodes over the last
  few years when I barely have time to work and post to my web log is
  really a cute stunt.
  
  However, I think I've won the bet anyway.
  

  Reuters wrote: > WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Violent crime in the United States,
  > including murder and robbery, dropped 4.4 percent in the first
  > half of 2009 and property crime like car thefts also dropped, the
  > Federal Bureau of Investigation said on Monday.
  
  > The latest statistics suggest U.S. violent crime could drop for a
  > third full year in a row, a steady decline despite the harsh
  > economic recession that some policymakers and police groups had
  > feared would lead to an upward spike.
  
  > The FBI report did not offer an explanation for the declining
  > crime rates.
  
  > The number of murders fell 10 percent compared to the same
  > six-month period in 2008, while robbery declined 6.5 percent and
  > forcible rape dropped 3.3 percent, according to preliminary
  > statistics released by the FBI.
  
  > Violent crime in all of 2008 fell 1.9 percent from 2007.
  > http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BK2KI20091221

  Now here's the problem: If your claim is true that right-wing murders
  have been going up, while the total number of murders have been
  plunging, then it must be true that around the middle of the decade,
  the number of left-wing murders must have been through the roof.
  
  So pick one of two choices:
  • Explain why so many left wing people had "Bush derangement
    syndrome" in the mid-decade that they went out and committed huge
    numbers of murders, and why left-wing violence at mid-decade was MUCH
    HIGHER than right-wing violence today; or
  • Send $100 to my mother's favorite charity, the Salvation Army.
  You are a moron.
• Confusing right-wing violence with a dog urinating on the floor
  
  One of the examples that the SPLC claims as "proof" of the increase in
  right wing violence, as quoted by Oakwood, is Richard Poplawski.
  However, it's not so simple:
  

  PrisonPlanet wrote: > The preparatory conditioning for a domestic false flag terror
  > attack to be blamed on “right-wing extremists” has reached fever
  > pitch, with the Southern Poverty Law Center issuing yet another
  > lurid report which smears their mainstream political opposition as
  > violent extremists.
  
  > “The radical right caught fire last year, as broad-based populist
  > anger at political, demographic and economic changes in America
  > ignited an explosion of new extremist groups and activism across
  > the nation,” states the SPLC report, which goes on to mention the
  > OKC bombing and warns that there are, “Signs of similar violence
  > emanating from the radical right.”
  
  > The only examples of such violence include a vague reference to
  > the murder of six law enforcement officers, which presumably
  > includes the Richard Poplawski incident, an event that arose not
  > as a result of Poplawski’s political bent, but because of a
  > domestic dispute with his mother.
  
  > As a USA Today report reveals, Poplawski’s slaying of three
  > Pittsburgh police officers was prompted not by some kind of
  > fanatical political belief, but as a consequence of the somewhat
  > more mundane explanation that his mother was trying to kick
  > Poplawski out of the house because his dog had urinated on the
  > floor.
  
  > Other examples of violence as a consequence of “right-wing
  > extremism” cited in the report are thin on the ground, but the
  > scope of the hit piece is not about exploring actual facts, its
  > almost exclusively about tarring increasing opposition to big
  > government as a portend of domestic terror.
  
  > http://www.prisonplanet.com/splc-report ... facts.html

  It shows how shoddy (shitty) the SPLC "research" is to be confusing
  right-wing violence with a domestic dispute over a dog urinating on
  the floor.
• The SPLC is an anti-Catholic, anti-Christian hate group
  

  Catholic Family News wrote: > The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Hate-Mongers
  >
  > Saint Augustine once said that in the case of some individuals, an
  > intellect may be capable of forming an objection without being
  > capable of understanding the argument that meets that
  > objection. Is the Southern Poverty Law Center, supposedly staffed
  > by intelligent people, truly incapable of grasping basic rudiments
  > of Catholicism? Or are they willfully malicious in their refusal
  > to understand the Catholic Faith, and in their refusal to admit
  > the most fundamental distinctions? My guess, it is a combination
  > of both.
  
  > In its Winter 2007 Intelligence Report, the Southern Poverty Law
  > Center [SPLC], an enormously wealthy left-wing organization that
  > sets itself up as a watchdog of hate-groups, racism and
  > anti-Semitism, published a brutal attack on traditional
  > Catholics. For years, SPLC monitored scurvy groups such as
  > Neo-Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan, Skinheads and White
  > Supremacists. More recently it targeted the so called “Christian
  > right”. The SPLC accused Pat Buchanan of "hawking racism",
  > calling his State of Emergency book a "white nationalist
  > screed". Two years ago, its Winter 2005 Intelligence Report
  > disparaged the “Christian Right” for its opposition to
  > homosexuality, gay marriage and the gay agenda, after which the
  > homosexual New York Blade celebrated with the headline: “Report
  > Labels Religious Right as Hate Group”.
  
  > Now the SPLC has targeted traditional Catholics, claiming various
  > “radical traditionalist” organizations “are preaching
  > anti-Semitism to as many as 100,000 followers.” Twelve traditional
  > Catholic groups, which the SPLC calls “The Dirty Dozen”, have been
  > “added to the Southern Poverty Law Center’s list of hate groups.”
  > Catholic Family News is listed as one of the “Dirty Dozen”, along
  > with the Remnant, the Fatima Crusader, Catholic Apologetics
  > International, the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart in New
  > Hampshire, Tradition in Action and others, including at least one
  > sedevacantist organization. The Society of Saint Pius X was also
  > lambasted, independently from the “Dirty Dozen” section, as a
  > “Radical Powerhouse”
  > http://www.cfnews.org/SPLC.htm

• The SPLC is a financial con organization
  

  Ken Silverstein, Harpers, 2000 wrote: > Today, the SPLC spends most of its time--and money--on a
  > relentless fund-raising campaign, peddling memberships in the
  > church of tolerance with all the zeal of a circuit rider passing
  > the collection plate. "He's the Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker of the
  > civil rights movement," renowned anti- death-penalty lawyer
  > Millard Farmer says of Dees, his former associate, "though I don!t
  > mean to malign Jim and Tammy Faye." The Center earned $44 million
  > last year alone--$27 million from fund-raising and $17 million
  > from stocks and other investments--but spent only $13 million on
  > civil rights program , making it one of the most profitable
  > charities in the country.
  
  > The Ku Klux Klan, the SPLC's most lucrative nemesis, has shrunk
  > from 4 million members in the 1920s to an estimated 2,000 today,
  > as many as 10 percent of whom are thought to be FBI informants
  > <http://www.servtech.com/~grugyn/kkk-5.htm> . But news of a
  > declining Klan does not make for inclining donations to Morris
  > Dees and Co., which is why the SPLC honors nearly every nationally
  > covered "hate crime" with direct-mail alarums full of nightmarish
  > invocations of "armed Klan paramilitary forces" and "violent
  > neo-Nazi extremists," and why Dees does legal battle almost
  > exclusively with mediagenic villains-like Idaho's arch-Aryan
  > Richard Butler-eager to show off their swastikas for the news
  > cameras.
  
  > http://www.americanpatrol.com/SPLC/Chur ... 01100.html

  Fairfax Journal, December 16, 2003 wrote:
  > ... human nature being what it is, there always seems to be a lump
  > of coal lurking among the sugarplums.
  
  > We were reminded of this unpleasant fact again by a Journal reader
  > in Arlington who considered making a contribution to the Southern
  > Poverty Law Center, listed as No. 0454 in the Combined Federal
  > Campaign...
  
  > In fact, unknown to most CFC donors, the tax-exempt SPLC flunked
  > an audit by the Arlington-based Better Business Bureau's Wise
  > Giving Alliance, which requires that "a reasonable percentage, at
  > least 50 percent of total income from all sources, should be
  > applied to programs and activities directly related to the
  > purposes for which the organization exists."
  
  > ...SPLC...spent 89 percent of its total income on fund-raising and
  > administrative costs...
  
  > Granted, administrative costs tend to run high when executive
  > salaries are in the six-figure range. For example,... Morris Dees,
  > SPLC's chief trial lawyer, pulls down a cool $280,699...
  
  > ... give your hard-earned dollars to a real charity, not a bunch
  > of slick, parasitic hucksters who live high on the hog by raising
  > money on behalf of needy people who never see a dime of it.
  > http://www.johntanton.org/answering_my_ ... ec16b.html

• SPLC dupes and screws its own employees, especially blacks
  

  Jim Tharpe, Deputy Metro Editor, The Atlanta Constitution wrote: > Our findings were essentially these:
  
  > The [SPLC] was building up a huge surplus. It was 50-something
  > million at that time; it’s now approaching 100 million, but
  > they’ve never spent more than 31 percent of the money they were
  > bringing in on programs, and sometimes they spent as little as 18
  > percent. Most nonprofits spend about 75 percent on programs.
  
  > A sampling of their donors showed that they had no idea of the
  > center’s wealth. The charity watchdog groups, the few that are in
  > existence, had consistently criticized the center, even though
  > nobody had reported that.
  
  > There was a problem with black employees at what was the nation’s
  > richest civil rights organization; there were no blacks in the top
  > management positions. Twelve out of the 13 black current and
  > former employees we contacted cited racism at the center, which
  > was a shocker to me. As of 1995, the center had hired only two
  > black attorneys in its entire history.
  
  > We also found some questionable fundraising tactics. One of the
  > most celebrated cases the center handled was the case of a young
  > black man, Michael Donald, who was killed by Klansmen in Mobile,
  > Alabama, and his body suspended from a tree, a very grotesque
  > killing. The state tried the people responsible for the murder and
  > several of them ended up on death row, a couple ended up getting
  > life in prison.
  
  > The center, after that part of the case took place, sued the Klan
  > organization to which they belonged and won a $7 million
  > verdict. It was a very celebrated verdict in this country. The
  > problem was the people who killed this kid didn’t have any
  > money. What they really got out of it was a $51,000 building that
  > went to the mother of Michael Donald. What the C enter got and
  > what we reported was they raised $9 million in two years using the
  > Donald case, including a mailing with the body of Michael Donald
  > as part of it.
  
  > The top center officials, I think the top three, got $350,000 in
  > salaries during that time, and Morris got a movie out of it, a TV
  > movie of the week. I think it was called, "The Morris Dees Story."
  
  > As I said, being the editor on this series really raised my
  > eyebrows. I never knew anything about nonprofits before this. I
  > thought we would have complete access to their financial records;
  > we didn’t. We had access to 990’s, which Doug mentioned earlier,
  > which tell you very little, but they are a good starting point.
  > Organizations Monitor Nonprofits
  
  > I also learned that there are organizations out there that monitor
  > nonprofits. A couple of these that might be worth your time are
  > the National Charities Information Bureau, the American Institute
  > of Philanthropy, and the Charities Division of the Better Business
  > Bureau. They have rather loose guidelines, I think, for the way
  > nonprofits operated, and even with those guidelines, they had
  > blasted the center repeatedly for spending too little on programs,
  > for the number of minorities in management positions, just very
  > basic stuff that they’d been criticized for but nobody had
  > reported.
  
  > http://niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fus ... 20May%2099

The Prison Planet article quoted above says the following:

PrisonPlanet wrote: > The SPLC couldn’t give a damn about preventing domestic terrorism,
> indeed, their funding and prestige will only increase if such
> attacks were to take place. The SPLC is begging for an incident
> that can be blamed on their political opposition which they will
> then exploit to silence dissent, so don’t be surprised if such an
> attack is dutifully provided by the network of federal government
> provocateurs who are routinely caught steering rag-tag terror
> groups in every major case.

This is exactly right, and I know it because I saw the same then when
I was writing about feminist groups in the 1990s. I researched one
feminist policy after another and found that their only purpose was to
make money for feminist organizations, usually through false
allegations against men. I concluded that feminist organizations
couldn't care less if kids were being fed to meat grinders, or as many
women as possible were being raped and battered -- the more there
were, they more the feminists liked it, because that's how they make
money. The SPLC is no different.

The SPLC is a left-wing, racist, racially bigoted, religiously bigoted
hate group, one of the worst in the country. It's a sign of the
dramatic rise of left-wing hate groups in America, matching the
dramatic rise of organized left-wing violence around the world.

John

Oakwood wrote: > Why am I the bad guy here? I think I know. All you devoted
> followers have sparkles in your eyes when you look at John and
> can't see the reality.

It's been several decades since anyone's looked at me with sparkles in
their eyes.

John

John wrote: As far as I know, there is no web site or analyst or journalist in the world with anything remotely close to the predictive success of this web site, for the last 8 years. Assuming that's true (and I believe it is), then this is the only web site in the world that will tell you what's really going on in the world.

Following that commentary I systematically showed where John had made numerous inaccurate predictions about the economy. Sure, he predicted the stock market would fall, but his timing and accuracy has been way off. He certainly has not been unique in predicting the demise of the stock market or the housing crisis. He has failed to see the rise of gold and precious metals. What is John's response to my well-documented criticisms (what he calls rants)?

John wrote: Despite all your tirades and rants, you still have not named any
web site in the world with anything close to the predictive success of
this web site. The following is still true: As far as I know, there
is no web site or analyst or journalist in the world with anything
remotely close to the predictive success of this web site. Assuming
that's true (and I believe it is), then this is the only web site in
the world that will tell you what's really going on in the world

Now John, we have a problem. First of all, we have the problem of what a prediction is. As I noted previously a lot of the time you phrase your predictions as questions so that you can then say in retrospect that your predicted something if it came true, but if it didn't then you can deny that you predicted it (after all, you were only raising a question). Then there's the time frame issue. If you say the stock market is going to crash next year and it crashes in two years, is that a correct prediction? And if you say the Dow is going to fall to 3000 and it only falls to 6600 is that a correct prediction? In my opinion John's financial predictions have been abysmal, but they may have the appearance of accuracy to the uninitiated, particularly those who mainly read the MSM. In fact, to the viewers of CNBC he may even look like a genius.

There's another problem with trying to find a web site with a similar predictive ability. You cover a unique mix of topics that I'm sure no other web site tries to make predictions about. Last time I checked there wasn't a whole lot of global interest in the Tamil Tigers. So you make predictions in areas of economics, politics, social movements, etc. Except for newsreporting websites, most websites don't report on such a broad mix of topics. On the one hand it's nice that you can do this; on the other hand it spreads you a bit too thin. Let's face it-- when you say you have the best predictive success in the world you're talking out your a$$. You've never measured your batting average nor the batting average of other sites. So you've just made a guess. But of course we can be reassured that you've been totally objective, just like you're website masthead says. You have no bias (except for America, not even for yourself).

Now for those readers who would really like some sound financial advice I recommend Bill Fleckenstein (who's been around since 1996 and is a very well-know contrarian with no known political bias as far as I know). (No, I'm not getting paid to shill for him). Here's what one of his readers said recently:

Dear Bill,
I'm sure that you're likely to get a number of emails like this in response to the reader who said that he's found little in your reports which inspire action. Well, as you know, I've been a daily reader of yours for over a decade, and I've benefited through the following:
1) As you chronicled the internet bubble, I sold the Nasdaq (specifically DELL, CSCO, and JNPR which were BIG positions for me) at 4400 and then shorted the Qs at 4700 on the way down. After I covered in 2001, I rode the next upturn for a nice gain.
2) I sold my Florida beach house (with my brother) in 2006 for $1.3 million. It is now on the market again for $455 thousand. I also made some very good friends when I advised them to stay out of real estate when it was going crazy and was able to give them sound reasons for doing so. They thank me frequently now.
3) After some points made by you, I did my own due diligence and put 1/3 of my portfolio in gold in 2002, and I still own every ounce.

Oakwood wrote: > Why am I the bad guy here? I think I know. All you devoted
> followers have sparkles in your eyes when you look at John and
> can't see the reality.

If you really want to know why you're the "bad guy," I'll try to
explain it to you.

You came into this forum, guns blazing, accusing me of bias and other
things, and exhibiting a tone that indicated that you were right and
everyone else is wrong, and you were going to show everyone in this
forum a thing or two.

I called you a troll because you evinced no apparent reason for being
here except to start a shrill argument. However, I also took a lot of
time and went to a lot of trouble to post lengthy responses to your
questions and criticisms.

However, instead of backing off, you simply went back on the attack
with other things.

So here's the first mistake you made: Somewhere along the way, it
should have occurred to you that in eight years I've responded to
thousands of questions and criticisms, in e-mail, in the fourth
turning forum, and in this forum. Thus, it was unrealistic for you to
believe that you're so much more brilliant and clever than -- not only
me, but also everyone else that I've ever interacted with.

That display of contempt and arrogance was an insult to the members of
this forum, since you were essentially claiming that you're smarter
than all of them. So that would be the first time that you insulted
the people of this forum.

Your next misjudgment was to assume that the other forum members
wanted to read your rantings. When I was in the fourth turning forum,
for years several I had to deal with a few really nasty a--holes who
were constantly attacking me with the same contemptuous questions and
insults over and over. I put up with that for several years, and
finally quit in disgust and started this forum. The people in this
forum do not appreciate that kind of contemptuous approach, and I
don't have the time to be bothered with it.

Your third mistake was to start referring to Tea Party movement
members as "teabaggers." There are people in this forum who
sympathize or are members of the Tea Party movement, and your use of
that word was offensive to those forum members. The word "teabagger"
is an epithet that's just as offensive to Tea Partiers as the word
"n----r" is to blacks, and those kinds of hate epithets are not going
to be tolerated in this forum.

Your fourth mistake is the ridiculous statement I quoted above. "I
think I know. All you devoted followers have sparkles in your eyes
when you look at John and can't see the reality."

That statement is so utterly ridiculous and laughable that I'm sure no
one else would even bother to respond to it, which is why I'm doing
it.

Almost every person in this forum has disagreed with me at some time
or other. There are a few who have made it clear that they completely
disagree with generational theory I've presented. The
inflation/deflation question is an obvious example -- it's possible
that a poll would reveal that most people are on the inflation side.

There isn't a single member of this forum who has "sparkles" in his
eyes and "can't see the reality." (By the way, don't your eyes itch
when they have sparkles in them?)

So once again, you've completely insulted almost every other member of
this forum.

So that's why you're the "bad guy." Because you've insulted every
one, over and over.

The only thing that baffles me about you is why I have to explain this
to you. Surely some part of your brain must realize that when you
repeatedly insult people, they won't like you.

Also, contrary to what you think, I'm not afraid of difficult
criticisms and questions, and I welcome the chance to be proven wrong,
because every time someone catches me making a mistake, it means that
I'm able to improve the Generational Dynamics theory, which is what I
want.

Now, you can take my advice or not, as you wish. And my advice is
that you catch your breath and get to know some of the people in the
forum, and then pose your questions and criticisms in a respectful
manner.

John

P.S.: I see you're already back at it in the Financial Topics thread.
Good luck with that.

JR wrote: > John, I wonder if the people who created this website:
> http://teabagparty.org/ might, perhaps, have a lot to learn about
> politics? Whoever picked the teabag name, picked it, and no blame
> to anyone but themselves.

Just as only blacks are permitted to use the "n----r" epithet, only
Tea Partiers are permitted to use the "teabagger" epithet.

John

A partial quote from Oakwood's May 31, posting

"and Oath Keepers, a Patriot outfit formed last year that suggests, in thinly veiled language, that the government has secret plans to declare martial law and intern patriotic Americans in concentration camps"

Things like the attached video may be one of the reasons why SOME of the more extreme "so called right " may be getting riled up.
What does the video mean? is it legitimate?, does it have ANY truth in it? I don't know, you decide. It has apparently been viewed almost 2 million times.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0P-hvPJPTi4

John wrote: You came into this forum, guns blazing, accusing me of bias and other
things, and exhibiting a tone that indicated that you were right and
everyone else is wrong, and you were going to show everyone in this
forum a thing or two.

John there you go again, distorting reality. If I'm not mistaken, the only person I alleged to be wrong was you, not "everyone." Who else in this forum did I accuse of being wrong? I may have disagreed with one or two other posters but I believe I was very respectful of them. Moreover, as I have stated repeatedly, I did not start disagreeing with you "guns blazing," but rather I was quite respectful in the beginning (look at the chronology of my posts--I know, you don't have the time), and only became churlish as you yourself quickly became irritated at my statements.

It seemed to me that you did not like me criticizing Fox news or Glenn Beck. Perhaps you were offended when I said this:

I nearly bust a gut when you said Fox is "the only mainstream news channel that presents both sides of the health care issue." Fox gives the appearance of presenting both sides, but they are the most biased network bar none. You seem to be equating their popularity with the idea that the American people can somehow recognize that they're the best outlet for the unvarnished truth. Glenn Beck? What a melodramatic moron....As for hysterical media, you must have missed the segments where Glenn Beck compared Obama's health care plan to Nazi eugenics (while showing an overlay of Nazi video montages). Only at Fox can an "ultra-liberal" become a murdering fascist. That is moronic. By the way, the whole idea of voluntary counseling for end of life care (not death panels) was put in the original bill by a Republican. As for both sides of the story, I have not heard Fox mention that they're really is no mention of death panels in the bill and that the provision was inserted by a Republican (which I have heard on CBS and NBC).

But note, I didn't call YOU a moron or anything else derogatory for making the statement that you thought Fox news presented both sides of the health care issue. (If the situation was reversed you would not have hesitated to call me an imbecile or a moron or whatever people with limited vocabularies use). Just as you believe that the SPLC is a far ultra left wing hate organization I think there is little doubt that Fox news is a far ultra right wing "news" hate organization. The idea that they could be fair and balanced about any issue is ridiculous. But of course you will say I'm biased and bigoted for saying that.

I will admit to having made a serious mistake though. In one of my posts I said something about your "love of Glenn Beck." You then called me an imbecile. In fact I have not been able to find anything that you've written where you actually endorse Beck, so I must've imagined it (unless I missed it). Apparently this offended you and I sincerely apologize. I doubt that will make any difference at this point, but take it for what it's worth.

John wrote: You came into this forum, guns blazing, accusing me of bias and other
things, and exhibiting a tone that indicated that you were right and
everyone else is wrong, and you were going to show everyone in this
forum a thing or two.

Here's the other thing John. You love to call world leaders stupid, you love to call them liars, dishonest, etc. You find most of the people running the world are incompetent, am I not right? At least I gather that from reading your commentary. Unlike a magazine such as Newsweek, you don't just report and analyze the news, you editorialize. You talk about the loony left, etc. In fact you say things that couldn't really be said in a mainstream paper, although they could be said in a conservative paper (I know, you've said you tend to comment on things that the liberal media won't comment on). So I hold you to a higher standard of reporting. So when you make errors of predicting you should be held responsible. You should maintain a scorecard. You're eager to criticize the bubbleheads on CNBC and you say you have great predictive powers, but so does Jim Cramer. Are you really any better than he is? So when you make the outlandish grandiose claim that you have the best predictive accuracy of any website in the world and don't back it up with statistics I'm immediately suspicious. If you want to know, that's the real heart of our disagreement. In my opinion, at this point you're looking very defensive and more and more like you're a fraud and a shyster. (I know all your kool-aid drinkers aren't going to like me saying that). I would think you would be eager to prove to me and to the world the accuracy of your predictions. Statistical proof is a requirement in any other scientific field--why not in yours? It shouldn't be a chore to show that you're right--it should be a labor of love. In fact, maybe one of your devoted followers would be willing to do the legwork. Maybe then you could get a book contract, give up your current day job, and get a teaching job.