Douggie Sez

I've finally drummed up the motivation to "fisk" the giant wall of text that Doug left in a comment the week before last.

Douglas V. Gibbs said...
You know, I have been stewing over the "formula for success" statement, and have decided that even though you don't have a need to know, just to keep you from continuing with your innacurate statements about my little part of the world, and how because I am a heavy equipment operator you assume (stereotyping?) I'm some big dumb consruction worker.

Well, that's a sentence fragment, but I think I understand what he's trying to say.

Interesting that Doug continually claims that I'm "inaccurate", however he never actually demonstrates how. I've never claimed that heavy equipment operators are dumb. I'm saying that Doug is dumb.. as a box of rocks.. and that has no relation to other heavy equipment operators. It's not the job that makes one really stupid. It's just an inherent trait in some people.. the constant use of straw man arguments, continually getting factual assertions wrong, paraphrasing arguments out of context, using inappropriate analogies over and over, and dealing with criticism by deleting it.

It's not unexpected that a person that I call "dumb as a box of rocks" takes exception to it. I simply quote Doug, add my view, and people are free to decide for themselves how completely inarticulate and incapable of properly framing an argument Doug is.. or not.

So, in a nutshell (pistachio? ha ha, that was a joke, lighten up a wee bit, will ya?), because of my disabilities my doctor recommended I go on permanent disability.

And as the irony abounds with everything related to Doug, disability is one of those "nanny state" provisions that Doug rails about constantly. I understand the point is that some people abuse the system, or use something like food stamps in a way that Doug does not approve, but because Doug is substance free, he never explains, specifically, what changes he wants in government "entitlements". Which programs to do away with? How do you tell the the difference between the "deserving" recipients (i.e. his son or Jennifer) and the people who do not deserve it?

All Doug ever does is talk in generalities - because that's where the good propaganda is found. The more specific he is, the easier it is for me to demonstrate how bad his policy is. Never - ever ever ever will Doug simply get specific. He can't. All he reads is broad insanity, and all he parrots is broad insanity.

Naturally, I sought a second opinion. That doctor too said I am too disabled to work, and the stress of work will kill me before age 30. Being the self-reliant person that I am, I went against doctor's orders and remained in the work force.

Which is more than anybody really wanted to know.. but Doug, being the ever narcissistic freak that he is, feels the need to make sure we all know about his trials and tribulations, and how he rose above them to be "self-reliant".

Statements like that are Doug's bread and butter, and a casual reading will observe that his constant use of phrases like "self-reliant" implies that other people are not. That is his central argument about government "entitlements".

After the military I was a banker, which eventually led me to becoming a financial advisor (medical and life insurance sales, as well as investments/securities), and then a credit collector on the side. When I had the opportunity to work for a city, and move closer to getting into politics, I took it at a slight loss of money, working for Building and Safety, Planning and Development, and Business License. After a few years of that, I moved to construction. Hmmm, that's a strange jump, isn't it? Well, it was more lucrative to get into construction. The trencher I operate cost 100K. My brother and I worked together. The charge is $1.75 per foot, and I usually dig about 5,000 feet per day. Price per foot goes up as the ditches get deeper, and of course there is a moving charge with the big rig moving the equipment to the job, tractor charge, and lay out charge since being able to read blueprints/plans takes more brains than most people have, and more ability than most people discover. On straight ditch jobs I dig about 15,000 feet per day, my brother, on the other machine, is slightly faster. He's more eye-hand coordinated than I am, but hey, we all have our strengths and weaknesses. Anyway, to figure out my finances, you can do the math. Remember, that is average 5,000 feet per day at $1.75 per foot minimum, working when it is busy six days per week.

Which is far more than anybody really cares about.

The issue - and I'm quite aware that Doug has absolutely no idea how it's even relevant - is that when a person argues a financial policy position, it's important to understand that persons frame of reference to judge a potential bias.

In other words, if a person is arguing a tax policy that favors wealthy individuals, it is important to know whether or not the person making the argument is wealthy.

That's why I laugh at your elitist attempts to proclaim how well you and your other does and how you spent 10,000 bucks at a Rush concert, and about the cars you can buy (with a loan). I have never had a car loan, can't tell you about them. As for education, I have more than I will tell you.

"Elitism" had nothing to do with it. I was merely offering full disclosure. I'm also not ashamed that my job is going well, or John's business is very successful. Much of what I write about (at least in terms of the 911's) is an inside joke anyway. For the record, the concert wasn't 10 grand.. our last trip to Hawaii was.

It wasn't like I wanted to make it some sort of financial contest in the first place. It was all about disclosure. However, laugh all you want Doug. If you want to make the issue about financial resources, you will lose. We don't have to buy cars "on loans" as you say. We don't even have to have a mortgage on any of the residential properties we own - the write-off is nice. If I really wanted to spend 150k on a car, we could write a check today, and it wouldn't be a big deal. Without writing down a number of our combined net wealth, that's pretty much the only way I know how to say it. And again, this is mostly due to the success of John's business. I'm just working my engineering job.

I'm going to write this really slowly so you might understand.

When I advocate rolling back the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, people know that I'm arguing a position that does not appear to even be in my self interest. That's why disclosure is important. However, I think in the long run, it benefits everyone regardless of economic status.

I do like the "can't tell you" and "more than I will tell you" insanity. Doug lives in a world of weird made-up-bullshit, and "I can't tell you" hallucinations bordering on the psychotic. Ultimately, it doesn't matter if he has a degree or not. That never matters. What matters is that Doug has zero expertise in the subjects that he makes himself out to be an expert in. He's not citing subject matter experts and offering opinion on their views, he's making factual assertions (that are more often than not invalid) as if he is the subject matter expert himself.

My wife has five degrees, and I helped her with her homework. Does that give you a clue?

Actually, the clue is that she can barely form a grammatically correct sentence. You're thinking I'm impressed because you helped somebody with homework?

As for my writing ability? I actually am a good writer, with little time to proof read my blogs. I say what I mean, but you are so subjective in finding something wrong that you miss the point.

No, you're a shitty writer with inferior mechanical skills, and a singular inability to clearly articulate a point.

Look, you didn't even use the word "subjective" correctly in that sentence. I'm not "subjective in finding something wrong". Properly stated, I am "predisposed to find(ing) something wrong".

Remember that disabled soldier article that was being sent back to Iraq? You got all hot and bothered over the VA benefits that you missed the point - my point was the soldier signed a contract, and he was unwilling to fufill it.

I wasn't "hot and bothered" over VA benefits. I merely pointed out that you were factually wrong.. again! Your point is irrelevant when you base it on factually incorrect information, and you do it over and over. You even suggested that because the news report was "wrong", other things in the report were wrong. It turned out you had no idea what you were talking about, didn't spend the 30 seconds I did to look it up, and then never corrected your post.

Is that what you accuse me of being "hot and bothered" about? I'm hot and bothered because you were full of shit again, then started accusing the reporter of being dishonest, when all along it was you? Color me guilty.

My issue with that whole sad story had nothing to do with VA benefits. You're the one that made them an issue (while getting it wrong in the process). My issue was with the environment that necessitated that soldier having to go back to Iraq after he'd already done a tour and been wounded. My disgust is with the right wing assholes that cheer on the war from the sidelines, while that guy had to quit college and go back. It had nothing to do with the requirements of the contract, and everything to do with the reason he was even called by the military and yanked out of college, forced to go back.

I was also pissed off about your tone, and accusations, calling the soldier "poor". What you actually wrote was offensive.

Sounds like those mortgage busts, they signed a contract and now they want to be bailed out. Aren't contracts important to you? Shouldn't the soldier fulfill his contract?

Have you read a single post I've written about the foreclosures? You pull out your straw man bullshit "don't you care about contracts", when I've written post after post after post about the exact same issue.

You're just stupid as fuck.

I'm sure you think you're making some kind of point that I am not concerned with contractual law. Like virtually every argument you make, you're wrong. I've said, time and again, that there should be no bailouts of financial institutions or borrowers what-so-ever. I've said many times that stupidity can't be bailed out. I've written at least 10 separate posts about the issues of the mortgage industry, and how it must correct itself.

And still, you ask, "don't you care about contracts?" It's maddening how vapid your arguing style is. Then you'll turn around and make up these absurd claims about housing starts, that turn out to be total bullshit.. yet again.

My issue, again, with the soldier was not the terms of his deal with the military, but the system that actually puts a disabled combat veteran back into a combat zone, instead of.. say.. drafting a bunch of Young Republicans.

After all, my disability is more than his ten percent and I fought to stay in the military.

Nobody cares about your "disability" or unsubstantiated claim that you want to be in the military that you are not in.

As for the fact that you call me a shitty writer, I find it interesting, when I sent you the link to my Conservative Crusader Story you didn't bitch how badly it was written - that's because I took a little more time with it. Unlike you, I normally don't spend hours upon hours at my computer trying to make sure everything is just perfect so that no one will think I am stupid.

Your "Conservative Crusader" story was something I just glanced at, found uninteresting, and moved on. You offer up 1 example of an essay where it wasn't a complete pile of shit, and I'm supposed to be impressed? Maybe I need to go back and have a look. Would you be surprised if I find piles of errors in it?

Hey.. if you can't put the time or effort into writing a decent piece, that's not my problem. What I'm reading of yours sucks, both from a simple grammar perspective as well as an arguing style. I've already criticized your complete lack of substance, continual reliance on far right propaganda outlets for sourcing, frequent factual errors, constant use of straw man arguments, inappropriate paraphrasing, red herrings, and a maddening inability to actually articulate a point clearly. That you can't get the mechanics right is trivial by comparison.

Good god man.. first you claim you're not a shitty writer, and then you claim your writing is shit because you don't have the time to put into it. And then you wonder why I think you're a shitty writer.

That's just too funny.

Are you that worried that someone like you might start harping on your writing?

I invite it. I insist on it. If somebody wants to fact check my claims, follow my source linking, show me how I'm wrong. I'm all for that. If they want to criticize anything, that's great. They're welcome to do it. Post a comment, and if I'm wrong, I'll correct my post.

You, because you're a propagandist freak, refuse to correct, and simply delete the comments from your blog...

Oh, and as for your remark about my article regarding the housing industry and my little corner of the world, I am big enough in this business that I have my finger on the pulse of the housing industry.

Are you big enough to admit you don't fact check anything you claim? It's not like it took me more than 30 seconds to verify you were full of shit, yet again. I think that one was about a minute or so to google the housing statistics.

The larger point, of course, is that you refuse to correct your post. The reason you refuse, is because your entire argument is premised on the assumption that your facts are correct. If they are not, your argument crumbles. Therefore, you ignore the factually correct information, delete any comments to the contrary from your blog, and go on as if nothing happened. Fortunately, you cannot delete my posts here, and so I will continue to expose you for the lying hypocrite and propagandist that you are.

Don't make assumptions, it makes you look like an ass.

Oh.. I don't make assumptions. As I've said many times, I quote what you wrote, completely, and without editing, and then, as the Observer says, "savage an argument and scatter the tattered remnants to the four corners of the internet."

By the way, I don't go around telling people all this because I am not one that thinks I am higher than everyone else. I am no different than the other bloggers, and my income, or family, or whatever, does not define who I am. I have only gone into these details so that you will quit making false assumptions and quit continuously lying about me in your ill-founded, rants.

Of course you think you're "higher" than everyone else. That's the entire point of all your narcissistic tirades. Your "self-reliance".. your brush with death.. your agonizing disabilities that are keeping you from the glorious war in Iraq that you so desperately wish you could be fighting.. your disdain for people receiving public assistance.. your disdain for gays.. your hatred for Muslims.. your insistence liberals are Nazis that want to destroy America.. your "belief" that everyone not Christian is committing some sort of unpardonable sin, and other religious nutbaggery.

Every single word on your blog does nothing but cast disdain on everyone else not like you. And then you turn around and call me an "elitist" - which is the adjective du jour lately.

And I don't point a finger of condemnation at others, as you proclaim. That is just how you see it. I point out what is right and wrong. Absolute right and absolute wrong in some cases. Of course, often there are exceptions, like killing is murder, but not in war, or involuntary manslaughter. Oh, and by the way, Jenn is right, the only unpardonable sin is rejection of Christ, but I am planning a big post for that soon so be on the lookout. You will love it, and as always, your angry tirade in response will be amusing and entertaining, I don't doubt.

Oh yes, that particular point of view is stunning in it's insanity. Most people in the world are not Christians, and I do look forward to your insulting them.

Onc sentence proclaims you don't condemn, and the next condemns people for "rejecting Christ".

It is the perfect aggregate of the Gibb's insanity - remarkable in it's contradiction and lunacy.

Looking forward to you freaking out because the big bad Christian told you that it is wrong to "choose" homosexual conduct. . .

The "big bad Christian" is a science denying freak, and you offer no evidence what-so-ever that being gay is a "choice" because there is no evidence. The science is clear on that point.

And that's really my central point in all of this. It's not a big deal that English isn't your strong suit. I'm not really bothered by your inability to articulate, even though I do enjoy making fun of it. Ultimately, what it comes down to is your complete lack of substance, and continual reliance on factual errors. Do you feel embarrassed for yourself when you keep having to make things up, or justify your arguments based on bad information?

oh, and I will explain that "choose" part too, since you are too shallow to understand that I don't think you just woke up one morning and decided, "Hey, I think I'll be gay!" Until then, continue to rant about me and Jenn and Jon and all of the other loons out there, I am enjoying reading your idiocy.

Can't wait for that one Doug.. I'm sure you've got the whole "gay" thing completely figured out. I'd imagine you understand the feelings of being aroused by the yearnings of man-sex, but you've chosen to ignore those feelings. You probably think everyone else should as well.

It's going to be wonderful.. please.. do tell. I know I was "too shallow" to understand what you meant by "choosing" when you didn't offer one single word as to why. I understand you think I should have been able to read your mind and understand what that meant - despite the total lack of clarifying information.

I await the brilliance that is the completely factually devoid Douglass V. Gibbs explanation of why some people choose to be gay. I just can't wait.