Bruce Dignan's Anger Issues 07 -- Threatens Victor with Face-To-Face Confrontation

Bruce Dignan: My friends were right, you are just a basic internet troll, and I should stop wasting five to ten minutes of typing, but I am so bored.

Your friends and family know that you have anger management issues. They know that confronting you directly about these anger management issues would only get more anger outbursts from you.

They know, more than I do, how intense your anger management breakdown is. They may have seen you having aneurysms. They probably suspect that you are screaming at your computer screen right now.

They know you. They're trying to encourage you to ignore me. They are hoping that if you ignore me, you won't have your aneurysms. If you don't ignore me, they envision you yelling and screaming at the computer screen.

This isn't about you being "bored." This about you having an excessive need for control. This is about you losing control of your anger easily.

Bruce Dignan: Speaking of people across the country, one more point, I have volunteered several times as co driver for long haul truck driving,

How about volunteering your time to an anger management therapist? And to an anger management class? Imagine a goal of better anger management control as a long-distance truck driving trip.

Controlling your anger is not going to happen overnight. It's going to involve years with the therapist. It's going to involve you attending anger management classes, as well as stress management classes. 

It will take a long time, but you have the ability, and should have the patience, to do it.

Bruce Dignan: I worked out a auction problem once in arkansas, well, I called the guy twenty miles away for a face to face to work out a problem and it was solved right there on the phone,

Well, if you were to call me on the phone... and you approached me with your anger management problem... I highly doubt that we would get anything done or resolved over the phone. 

If you want to have a face-to-face, I look forward to it.

Bruce Dignan: I mean, "if", haha, you were indeed on the east coast, I could call and get into some long haul deliveries anywhere in the country,

"If," haha, your "veteran friend" did some research and found out about me, you would not be laughing at my statement that I live in the East Coast. But, since you're laughing at the idea that I live on the East Coast, I highly doubt that you have anybody that has done research on me... And who has provided you with information on me.

This just proves, again, that you know no bounds when it comes to lying about things. You lie as part of your effort to regain control.

However, since you talk about the ability to go anywhere in the country, what are you waiting for? How about you quit bragging about what you're capable of doing, and you actually do what you say you intend to do?

Volunteer for a delivery to the East Coast. I will gladly meet you face-to-face. Chop chop, I'm waiting.

Bruce Dignan: I'm still licensed, bonded, no longer personally insured, and the companies generally provide the insurance depending on deiivery of item/items, primary or co driver status. I like to co-drive deliver down south though, jumbolia, souther cooking, all expenses paid, ah well, ya know, I have some old injuries that make driving regular almost impossible, due to neck problems and pain on one side of my body. But my point is, yeah, I can indeed travel, I even have a passport and certification for delivering freight across the border north.

Okay, how about you quit bragging and you do what you say you're capable of doing? Actually get one of these things going so you could come over to the East Coast. You can't accomplish that if you just sit there and brag about things. 

I don't buy into this statement that you suffer pains that prevent you from traveling... When you close that same statement by saying that you're capable of traveling.

Again, I will gladly meet you face-to-face.

Bruce Dignan's Anger Issues 08 -- Defeated, Deflects His Own Traits onto the Victor

Bruce Dignan: Oh my lord, ...."scary",

What's "scary" to you is that I refuse to let up on you. Also, I'm presenting my replies to you in a way that's causing you to question your own opinion of yourself. You put yourself on a pedestal, but my replies are forcing you off that pedestal.

I use analytical reasoning to knock you off your pedestal.

Bruce Dignan: you suffer from a psychiatric term called "transferrence",

The only person, in this exchange, that's guilty of engaging in transference is you. Your reactions indicate a sort of panic. I hammer the crap out of you, you end up replying by borrowing many things I said about you... Then turning that around to use them on me.

Transference, in this case, is you applying to me the emotions that you had against someone else in your life.

Your behavior suggests someone that was abused as a child. When I hammered the crap out of you on this thread, I triggered a series of emotions out of you that made you feel like when you were a kid. You may have been abused as a kid, or you may have been picked on by the other kids when you were growing up.

It's like what I said in my previous reply, there's a good chance that you were picked on when you were a child. You felt helpless back then, and you're feeling helpless now.

I wouldn't be surprised if your attitude toward the other posters here is you "paying society back."

Bruce Dignan: which is getting crazy radically angry saying I might have the symptom,

You're the one engaging in deflecting. Someone accurately points out certain characteristics that you've been displaying. Instead of acknowledging that you have those characteristics, you "deflect" and suggest otherwise. In this case, instead of coming to terms with your demons, you're suggesting that I have those issues.

That's not the case.

Bruce Dignan: but really you suffer from rage, a dangerous rage, I don't doubt you have a criminal record. I mean, the police were right in a way, I shouldn't get involved myself due to the dangers of the internet, the nutjobs, the psychos out there, etc. You aren't normal, ....you know that right? get help,

Bruce, with the volume of my replies, I subjected you to what you subjected to the others. Other people on this thread provided you with recommendations. In response, you replied with volumes.

I turn around and reply to you in volume. I gave you the same treatment that you gave the others. Your response? You applied attributes to me the others have applied to you. In other words, I subjected you to the taste of your own medicine. 

In response, you came up with the analysis, and recommendation, that I've previously given to you.

There was a purpose behind my replying to you the way I did. Now you see why others are saying that you need help with your anger management issues. You have anger, emotional, control, stress, etc. issues. You need to resolve those.

I don't suffer from any rage, and I do not have a criminal record. However; there's an excellent chance that you have a criminal record. There's a very good chance that you were temporarily banned from using VA hospital services because of your anger.

Your attitude on this thread indicates someone that gets belligerent when he doesn't get his way. This usually extends toward antisocial behaviors which includes breaking the law.

It's like what I indicated earlier in this thread in my replies to you. You are deflecting your own traits onto me and onto others on this thread. What you describe of me, and of others that don't do things your way, is an accurate analysis of who you are.

My impression from you is that you are full of rage. This stems from your failure to control your anger. Your failure to control your anger stems from your failure to manage your anger. Your failure to manage your anger stems from your failure to manage your stress.

Again, you need help. You need help managing your anger and stress. You have all this rage built up inside of you. I'm not the one that you are describing on this thread. You're describing yourself. Your opinion of me is the opinion that people have of you here and elsewhere.

Bruce Dignan: maybe you have ptsd psychotic episodes, I know you do.

I utilize the volume reply tactics to you that you utilized against others. This is one of your conclusions. Based on your statement, you perfectly understand why the folks at the VA suggested that you get help: 

"you war veteran, you needy councelling/ptsd, where I declined, punished about fifteen minutes later with a second drug test, and a bogus trip up to portland supposedly for a heart stress test and talk to doctor concerning my new catscan, only it turns out to be a psych test." - Bruce Dignan

"and the psych talk, straight out of something I'd have expected to hear from the ptsd band wagon at the VA," -- Bruce Dignan

Again, you're describing in me what others see in you. Your conclusions, based on what you describe of me? These are some of the same conclusions that others have come with regards to you.

You don't realize it, but your subconscious is coming up with solutions for you. What is your subconscious really telling you? It's telling you that you have all those anger and rage issues that you accuse me of having. Your subconscious is telling you that you need help.

We've also been telling you that you need help for it. The folks at your VA hospital/outpatient clinic, and I, came to this conclusion independently of each other. We are not associated with each other.

When you have two independent conclusions... made by people not having anything to do with each other... saying that you need help... that should tell you that you need help.

The more I hammer you, the more your subconscious comes out.

Bruce Dignan: You shouldn't be allowed use of the internet,

What you're really saying is that I should not be allowed to continue to hammer you. You're saying that I should not be allowed to continue to present an argument that forces you to question your own opinion about yourself. I present this argument in a way that forces you to see that you're wrong, and that you have all these issues.

The more I hammer you, the harder it is for you to suppress what your subconscious is trying to tell you.

Bruce Dignan's Anger Issues 09 - His Sub-consciousness Is Trying to Tell Him to Get Help

Bruce Dignan: it aint good for you.

What you're really saying is that it's not good for you... That my hammering you, and forcing you to see that you are the one with the problem, is "not" good. However, I see it as being good.

The more I hammer you, the more your subconscious tells you the very things that others have been telling you.

Bruce Dignan: And if you feel like hurting yourself, or hurting others, you need to call that veterans hotline, and I mean soon, that is my "caring" side accidently coming out, I mean, this aint normal coming from someone, what you are doing.

The only "hurting" that's being done is me hurting your opinion of yourself. Understand that when you describe me in such a way, your subconscious is describing you. What's really going on here is that you feel like you were hurt by me, or by someone, for my hammering you here.

You want me to stop doing this. You've even threatened or suggested that you would come meet me face-to-face. I'm still waiting for you to come over to meet me face-to-face.

I would not be surprised if your VA health team told you to not give up taking your medicines.

Bruce, your subconscious is telling you what you should be doing. How about doing what you subconscious is telling you? Call that hotline and get yourself some help.

Bruce Dignan: Here, make sure to call your local va, IF you are a veteran, they start out with some sort of suicide/ptsd hotline 1 800 number, I mean, call them and get some help, I mean, if you are suffering,

You do realize that you proved the following statements of yours false, do you? What you said earlier:

"Technically, one of my veteran friends, one who has done research on the net and skilled,  gave me some interesting information about "you", a few people are concerned about this, as well they should be, but it aint important for me to talk about your race, marriage status, kids, and where all this is coming from, and a few other things," -- Bruce Dignan

"and its easy for someone to harass other folks when they like joseph don't have his real name, address, and nothing else, I mean, I could do it to if I wanted to. I mean, how do you know I haven't tracked you down for a personal one on one conversation?" -- Bruce Dignan

You see, if it was easy to track down somebody on the Internet, and to find out who they are, you would've found that I'm a veteran. You would not be expressing doubt. What's interesting is that you're describing your own traits as those of the person that you are arguing with.

That's you piling your lies one on top of each other. You're not all that you're bragging about. You're just fluffing up feathers in an attempt to stop me. I will continue to hammer you, I will continue to dismantle your arguments.

In reality, the advice that you're giving me, consciously, on this thread, is advise that your subconscious is giving to you. My arguments are forcing what your subconscious knows about you towards your consciousness.

That's a start.

Bruce Dignan: I don't get any pleasure from riling you up,

No, you are not here trying to "rile" me up. You are here hoping that your rants will "shut me up." You are getting frustrated that your rants are not doing that. You make it sound like what you're doing is a necessity, but it's you trying to pad your ego.

You don't get any pleasure from my forcing you to see yourself as you actually are.

Bruce Dignan: but you have got to stop these tirades, it scares other people and you might not realize it.

You want me to stop because I'm presenting my argument in the way that is forcing you to abandon how you would like to see yourself. It's forcing your subconscious to the consciousness. You want me to stop before you lose more control.

You're scared because your losing control will lead to you seeing yourself in a way that you do not want to see yourself... You are afraid that you will have to come to terms on your true nature.

I know precisely what I'm doing here. You will benefit in the long run from what I'm doing. The sooner you see yourself as you actually are, the sooner you'll see that you are the very things that you describe me.

The sooner you see that, the sooner you will seek help and guidance. The VA can help you if you are in the system.

It's you who does not realize that you are scaring people around you. Again, I won't be surprised if people are isolating you both in the real world and online. All roads lead to your behavior and to your inability to control your anger.

Bruce Dignan: Oh my lord, I actually read some of your stuff, and you are sick, you are basically using transferrence for sure, I mean, you need help, and I mean, bad bad. Everything you are like hypothesizing and fibbing about me, IT REALLY IS ALL YOU, meaning you are describing yourself.

My last series of replies got you closer to seeing yourself as you actually are, and not for what to see yourself as. 

When you say, "oh my Lord," you're in a panic mode. You would like for me to stop, and for me to go away. I'm refusing to do that. Instead, I keep hammering you hard and forcing you to see you for what you actually are.

So, to defend yourself, you accuse me of describing "myself" in the process of me describing you. What you are doing here is defensive. You're deflecting your own traits onto me. Listen to yourself. Read your series of replies and know that you are talking about yourself. 

Know that your subconscious is trying to tell you something. It tried to tell you that you are not what you see yourself as. My replying to you is helping your sub-consciousness tell you who you really are.

I'm not the only one here that sees that you are in terrible need of help. I'm not the only one here that sees that you tend to project your traits onto others. The fact that you complained that your VA suggests that you do get counseling speaks volumes.

When you turn around and project your traits onto me, and demand that I get some help, you're telling yourself to get help. In your mind, if you see that I have the problems that you actually display, you could convince yourself that the problem is not with you.

More than one person have told you that you have the problems that you accuse me of having. These people are independent of each other. You refuse to see yourself for what you actually are. My replies to you are forcing you closer in that direction.

This scares you. Your ego does not want to let it happen. I do know that the more I hammer you, the more you see yourself for what you are and not for what you want to see yourself as.

You're the one that needs help, bad. You need help managing anger, stress, desire for control, etc. You have low self-esteem issues. My saying to you what you don't want to hear about yourself is putting a lot of stress on you. You're accusing me of having the very traits that you have is your way of coping.

Bruce Dignan's Anger Issues 10 -- Possibly "Cheeking" His Psychotropic Medications

Bruce Dignan: You need to get some help, before you either hurt yourself or hurt others, its that simple.

No Bruce, you're the one that needs to get help. Which one of us is posing for a Facebook picture with weapons in the background? 

You're taking an aggressive posture with that photo. You demonstrate anger issues in a lot of your replies. You are displaying anger issues and are sporting weapons. That's a bad combination.

If anybody's going to hurt anybody, it's your wanting to hurt someone or something when you don't get your way. You need to get help for your anger, stress, and control issues before you hurt someone or something.

The sooner that you see yourself as you really are, and not as you want to see yourself as, the sooner you could get that help.

Bruce Dignan: I mean, if you have taken medicines previously and have elected to stop, start taking them again,

I'm not taking any psychotropic medications. Hate to burst your bubble, but as usual you are wrong. However, I will not be surprised if you've been issued psychotropic medications. I would not be surprised if you have neglected to take those psychotropic medications.

This means that whatever it is that you're accusing me of having, you have it. Whatever behaviors you accuse me of having, you're displaying. Your subconscious is throwing you under the bus with regards to who you are.

If you've been issued psychotropic medications, there's a good chance that you're not taking them. This goes back to what I said about you earlier. You see yourself in a way that does not reflect reality. You want to continue doing what others do, so you go without said medication.

If you have been issued psychotropic medications, do not hesitate to take them as prescribed. 

Understand that you are not like everybody else, you are different. You need help, both medically and psychologically. The sooner you get that help, the sooner the quality of life will get better.

Bruce Dignan: I mean, look at what that germanwings co pilot did to 150 passengers recently, due to mental illness, many people died in the plane crash,

Again, I'm not the one with an avatar posing with weapons. I'm not the one demonstrating a lot of anger like you are. If anybody should be seen as a danger, or potential danger to society, it's you. The folks at your VA center see that. I see that on this thread.

You claimed that you are qualified to travel, or to drive trucks. What's stopping you from trying to ram the truck in a way that causes a lot of deaths because you are misguided?

Seek that help Bruce Dignan. The sooner you do that, the better you will be.

Bruce Dignan: and who knows what responsibilities you have, you need treatment for your rage, I mean, this internet rage, it aint right.

One of my responsibilities involves firing an M4 on the firing range. No worries, I'm not like you. I'm psychologically, mentally, and medically cleared to do things like that.

You're guilty of doing what you accuse me of doing, deflecting your traits. Again, get treatment for your anger management problems, your stress management problems, your control issues, etc. The sooner you do that, the sooner you will enjoy life. 

The advice that you were giving to me is actually the advice that your subconscious voice is trying to give to you.

You are the very things that you accuse me of being. The more I reply to you, the more your sub conscience throws you under the bus. The more you start seeing that your views of yourself are just an illusion.

Here Bruce Digan, I'll help you along. Look in the mirror and sing the song, "I'm so special, there's nobody else like me." Keep singing that song until you feel better.

Mac et al, The Troops are Welfare Whores, Interview Part I

Good Idea Fairy: The focus of this group Facebook TV interview is to get to the bottom of the anti-military aspects of Mac's goals with his websites, and to cover the interest areas of a couple other groups here... Looks like we have one or more interviewees running late.

I'd like to get started with the interview.

I'm the Good Idea Fairy. One of our guests didn't want to come in if this interview were to be done by Hans Fallada over at "This Ain't Hell." So, I'm filling in for him. This interview was moved over to one of the Facebook studios.

Starting with Mac, were going to go around the table and let the guests introduce themselves. So Mac, tell us a little about yourself.

Mac: I'm Mac, I run the following Facebook groups:

The Troops Are Welfare Whores
The Police Are Welfare Whores
The Constitution Sucks
Americans against the United States of America

I also run other similar-nature Facebook pages.

Linda Kay: I'm Linda Kay, main investigator of Kay and Associates. We investigate the paranormal. Here are my associates: Robert Quentin, David Cooper, Rhonda Langston, and our honorary associate, Amber Lamps.

Good Idea Fairy: What kind of paranormal activities do you guys investigate?

Linda Kay: We investigate ghosts, demons, UFOs, extraterrestrial surface anomalies, underwater anomalies, etc.

Good Idea Fairy: Awesome, can't wait to hear what you have to say... on to Psul of the Ballsacks...

Psul of the Ballsacks: I'm here for Ballsacks and Associates. We're a group that goes on the Internet trolling people that harass pretend veterans as phonies. My associates are all basically trolling the Internet right now; however, my counsel Daniel Alan Bernath is with me.

Daniel Alan Bernath: You forgot to say, "Over"!

Good Idea Fairy: Over...

Daniel Alan Bernath: Not you Mrs. Fairy, Mr. Ballsacks! This is like what we do in naval communications.

Psul of the Ballsacks: Over...

Daniel Alan Bernath: My clients are being terrorized by those out to get them. These are bullies, terrorists, thugs, etc. I want to get this Valor Vulture conspiracy out in the open. The other client, Dallas Wittgenfeld, will be here, he's running late... Over...

Good Idea Fairy: Late over what?

Daniel Alan Bernath: You're supposed comment when I say "over"!

Good Idea Fairy: Okay, Mac, let's go back to you. Please tell us what your websites are all about.

Mac: There's this unnatural hero worship going on. I want to fight against that because it's unhealthy. To fight against troop worship, I created "The Troops Are Welfare Whores" Facebook group. I did this to combat people worshiping the troops. I also created an open page called "Police Are Welfare Whores."

Good Idea Fairy: But how can they be that, how could they be welfare whores if they get paid?

Mac: With the government dime... I don't need the military, state organized militias, the police departments, etc. We can protect ourselves. They're doing for us what we can do for ourselves. The government steals from us so that they could run these welfare programs at all government levels.

Narrator: Sound enters the room. It starts off light and gets louder... Whomp clunk... Whomp clunk... whomp clunk... whomp clunk...  It sounded like it was coming down from the hall and getting closer to the room.

Good Idea Fairy: That noise is getting intrusive, can security go out there and see what's going on?

Narrator: Daniel Alan Bernath looks at Mac and starts commenting.

Daniel Alan Bernath: As an Honorary Chief Petty Officer, I say that you're saying that under the banner of the freedom that we provided you...

Narrator: The "whomp clunk" noise stopped.

Mac: Pipe down welfare whore, I served in Desert Storm. I did 10 years in the welfare whore active military and another two years at the welfare whore reserve center that should be destroyed!

Daniel Alan Bernath: Well I'm a Vietnam veteran. You better show some respect before my client, Dallas Wittgenfeld gets here. He has no patience for what he calls "millennial veterans," which is what he would categorize you.

Narrator: Psul of the Ballsacks turns toward Mac.

Psul of the Ballsack: If they have This Ain't Hell posters there, that could be arranged! Do you know when your former reserve center drills next? I'll just accuse them of being phonies!

Narrator: At this moment, security shows up, flanking Adrian Parks. Adrian Park's eyes were wide and his teeth bearing smile was ear to ear. That smile and teeth bearing stare were frozen on his face. Adrian Parks wore a colander on his head. He just stood there with that stare and smile frozen on his face.

Security 1: We found this guy in the hallway, walking into the walls paramecium/gnat stile, slowly making his way over to this room's door.

Good Idea Fairy: There's an empty seat next to Mac, go ahead and help yourself to that seat.

Narrator: The security guards walked Adrian Parks over to his seat. Adrian Parks stops before getting to his seat though. With security still flanking him, Adrian Parks turns to Mac. With ear to ear smile, and wide stare, he asks Mac a question.

Adrian Parks: Do you guys serve beans on Tuesday night at The Troops Are Welfare Whores Cafeteria? Every Tuesday night at the place where authorities wear white lab coats, they serve beans on Tuesday night. I live in that nice place. I LOOOOVE BEEEAAAANS!

Narrator: Security sits Adrian Parks. While he is going through the motion of sitting down, Adrian Parks keeps staring at Mac. At this moment, everybody in the room hears a loud "Thud" on the roof. It's followed by a "THUD, WHAM, THUD," followed by a dragging sound across the roof.

Daniel Alan Bernath: That should be my client, Dallas Wittgenfeld.

Good Idea Fairy: Tell us about yourself Adrian Parks!

Adrian Parks: Bee Dee Bee Dee... I served in the Gulf War as a Marine, then I later ran Adrian Parks Incorporated. When the free market economy didn't cooperate with me, I switched to becoming a key religious leader at voluntarism.

Mac et al, The Troops are Welfare Whores, Interview Part II

Good Idea Fairy: What's with the colander in your head? Are you a Pastafarian?

Narrator: With the wide frozen smile and wide eye stare, Adrian Parks replied...

Adrian Parks: Bee Dee Bee Dee... I'm protecting my brains from PSYOPs!

Narrator: Adrian Park's eyes get wider when he says "PSYOPs!"

He turns to Mac and lifts his hands up. He pushes the palms of his hands toward Mac's face and randomly moves his hands all over the place inches from Mac's face. With wide ear to ear teeth bearing smile, and wide eyes, he kept moving his hands at random locations but remaining within inches of Mac's face.

Adrian Parks: Psy OPS!  PSSSY OOHHHPS!   PSSYYYYY OOHHHHPPPSSSSSSS!

Narrator: Mac adopts the "you're crazy look" on his face as he looks at Adrian Parks. Right then, everybody heard something repeatedly hitting the walls in the hallway... wham clunk... wham clunk... wham clunk... It got louder.

Daniel Alan Bernath's coffee showed ripples in response. The noise just got louder...WHAM CLUNK... WHAM CLUNK... WHAM CLUNK....

The noise got louder and came closer to the door.

Adrian Parks: Bee Dee Bee Dee, that must be the idiot that I sold my useless tinfoil hat to. You see, I was outside looking at the holes in the ground to find out which one of them was my azzhole.

Good Idea Fairy: You should've taken a shower before coming here! You would've found it!

Narrator: WHOMP CLUNK... WHOM CLUNK... WHOMP CLUNK...

Adrian Parks: Bee Dee Bee Dee, it's a shame that the meaning behind your name seems to escape you.

But, onto my story. So there I was, in the parking lot looking for my azzhole among the holes in the ground. This man showed up. Apparently, he had the same problem I had. He was looking for his azzhole among the holes in the ground.

Good Idea Fairy: Then what happened?

Adrian Parks: He approached me and started talking about how he was a retired United States Air Force Lieut. Col. I'm a prior Marine. I know a poser when I see one. I had a spare hat that was not working. It was an old colander that I purchased for $10.00. I wrapped tin foil all over it. I asked him why retired Air Force officers wore tinfoil hats at times.

The guy told me that he was not a poser. He tells me that he was in the Air Force and that he was a Lt. Col. He told me that he was a retired Air Force combat pilot, and that combat pilot veterans wore those things to remind them of their combat pilot time.

So, I sold him my spare colander tinfoil hat for $100.00.

Narrator: At the moment, the big screen in a room captured a video of the hallway. They saw a huge man consistently walking into the walls slowly progressing toward the door. He was wearing a U.S. Air Force pilot hat. In the back, it said, "Hollywood."

Right at the moment, Dennis Howard Chevalier showed at the door. He walked towards the group.

Good Idea Fairy: So Dennis Howard Chevalier, why are you wearing your combat pilot hat and not the one that Adrian Parks sold to you?

Dennis Howard Chevalier: Right when that guy [pointing to Adrian Parks] gave up looking for his azzhole in the ground, he entered the building. I was out there by myself looking for my azzhole from among the holes in the ground.

I was doing pretty good, attention focused on the ground, when all of a sudden a guy in a purple skydive suit bounced off the roof and fell onto me.

He apologized for doing that. He called himself "Thunder Chicken". He wanted to know what he could do to make it up.

Good Idea Fairy: So what did you say?

Dennis Howard Chevalier: He pointed to the tinfoil hat that I had just purchased, and asked me how much? I told him that it would either cost $400.00 or a 7 pound block of government cheese. He quickly gave me $400.00 in cash.

Daniel Alan Bernath: That son of a bitch! That was my retainer fee for appearing for this show! That idiot in the purple suit is Dallas Wittgenfeld, OVER!

Narrator: Dennis Howard Chevalier slumbers over to the empty chair by Adrian Parks. He takes a seat. The material in the seat makes protesting noises as if they were going to buckle in.

Good Idea Fairy: Okay Mac, let's get back to you. Why do you say that the troops are welfare whores?

Mac: In society, you have the wealth generators, and the leeches. The military is part of the leach group. They get paid with the money forcefully taken from the wealth generators.

Narrator: Right at this moment, the noise of Dennis Howard Chevalier's chair started to get stronger. When, all of a sudden, CRRAAACK, WHOOMP BUMP...

Dennis Howard Chevalier's chair breaks and Dennis Howard Chevalier's chair collapsed onto the floor. Dennis Howard Chevalier falls back. His combat pilot hat falls off his head and skitters across the floor. Everybody sees the "Hollywood" label on it rotate into and out of view.

Dennis Howard Chevalier: Someone call the Amber Lamps!

Amber Lamps: You're fine, get up and get a stronger chair.

Narrator: The studio staff help Dennis Howard Chevalier into a stronger chair. They clean up the old chair's residue. At this moment, people hear another noise down the hall... whomp clunk... whomp clunk... whomp clunk... whomp clunk...

From the peanut gallery, someone said, "You're full of crap!" Everybody turned towards the peanut gallery.

A giant peanut walks into the studio.

Peanut Gallery Spokes Nut: Mac is full of scrap.

Narrator: The Giant Peanut takes a seat by the Good Idea Fairy. He continues with his statement.

Mac et al, The Troops are Welfare Whores, Interview Part III

Peanut Gallery Spokes Nut: First, Mac didn't serve 10 active duty years in the military. He didn't serve in the combat theater during the Gulf War. He was a USMC Marine, in the reserve. I wished I could say that he served "honorably", but his service was other than honorable.

He got kicked out with an Other Than Honorable, or OTH, discharge for failing to participate satisfactorily. He failed to attend his regularly scheduled drill weekends.

He received way too many "Unexcused Absence Letters." He ignored those letters, as well as his notice of separation packet. He eventually got kicked out, reduced to E1, and was given on OTH.

Mac has been sore about this ever since.

Now, as to why he runs his sites? No. His poor experiences with the USMC Reserve helped fuel his telling lies to his followers. Those sites that he runs aren't really for the purposes that he sets them up for. Well, at least, not for the reason he lets on.

The real reason for his sites is to get attention. He knows exactly what to say to stir emotions. He knows that the title of his pages will inflame emotions and cause debate. When you have activity under those pages, you increase the chances that traffic flows to where you want it to flow.

In this case, Mac wants traffic to flow to his bit coin links.

Narrator: Adrian Parks gets tired of swiftly moving his hands inches from Mack's face. He stands up and walks around the group while sliding his hands inches from their faces while repeatedly saying, "PSY OHPS". Throughout this time, his teeth baring smile, and wide eyes, remain on his face.

Finally, Adrian Parks gets to the giant peanut. But, before he could get his hands towards the giant peanut's face, Peanut Gallery Spokes Nut quickly gets up and utilizes martial arts moves. From the others' perspectives, the giant peanut's arms and legs looked like they were going through the strobe light effect.

But, to Adrian Parks, it was anything but a strobe light effect. It was a painful, humiliating, and sobering effect. Adrian Parks collapsed onto the floor, his colander fell from his head and bounced across the floor. When Big Peanut got done, he put 1 foot on top of a crumpled Adrian Parks.

Dennis Howard Chevalier: Someone get the Amber Lamps.

Amber Lamps: I got this...

Narrator: Amber Lamps shines a tactical amber light on Adrian Parks, and Adrian Parks comes up. A lot wiser than he was, and without the wide eyes and frozen smile. Adrian Parks slumbers to his chair. He takes a seat.

Big Peanut resumes.

Peanut Gallery Spokes Nut: Well anyway, before I was rudely interrupted, Mac is drawing attention to his links. All those people that post on his pages are stooges.

Narrator: The noise in the hallway gets louder. Whomp clink... whomp clink.... Whomp clink...

They could hear the noise in the hallway just outside the room. Next thing you know, the part of the wall that the noise is concentrated on comes crashing down. Dallas Witgenfeld falls into the room and collapses onto the floor. His colander tinfoil hat skitters across the floor.

Adrian Parks says, "Excuse me." He gets up to get his own colander and puts it back in his head. He walks back to his chair and takes a seat.

Dallas Wittgenfled gets up, brushes his purple sky diving suit down, picks up his colander tinfoil hat and puts it on. He walks over and sits right next to Dennis Howard Chevalier.

Peanut Gallery Spokes Nut: Ahem...

Narrator: Both Peanut Gallery Spokes Nut and the Good Idea Fairy looked at the trio with colanders/brain buckets on their heads... The 3 colander stooges, sitting side-by-side.

Peanut Gallery Spokes Nut was tempted to smack Adrian Parks right upside the head to see if it would create a Newton's cradle affect with the other 2. He reserved that as a disciplinary tool in case one of them misbehaved.

Peanut Gallery Spokes Nut: Well anyway, Mac has successfully suckered a bunch of people into continuously participating on his Facebook groups.

He is living very much like the welfare whores that he accuses other people of being. He has no job. He's living in his relative's basements, eating their food, drinking their water, clogging up their toilets, causing drama, and is basically being a middle-aged kid.

Narrator: At this moment, Mac quickly reaches into his pocket and pulls out his phone. He puts it to his ears.

Mac: Hello? Teal?

Peanut Gallery Spokes Nut: You're a phony aren't you? You never deployed to the Persian Gulf!

Mac: But I did! In Saudi Arabia, I don't know if you boys have all been there, but in Saudi Arabia, it's all classified!

Narrator: Mac gets up and walks toward the door. He holds his phone to his ears and pretends to have a phone conversation with his sock puppet, Teal.

Mac: Yeah... yeah... I'm coming over...

Peanut Gallery Spokes Nut: There's nothing on the guy's phone. As with anything else he does, he's faking it.

Narrator: Mac leaves the room, his pace quickens as soon as he is in the hallway headed toward the exits.

Adrian Parks: Bee Dee Bee Dee... He's taken off to eat all the beans, he will NOT hoard all the beans!

Narrator: With that, Adrian Parks leaves the room and takes off after Mac.

Peanut Gallery Spokes Nut: Whose idea was it to bring everybody into this interview? This whole thing went all over the place and then fell apart.

Good Idea Fairy: Well, I thought it was a good idea. I guess it wasn't. This concludes the first interview. We will take care of the rest of our guests during the follow on interviews. Thank you for tuning in.

Erin Conley Fogelberg Destroyed in Debate, Unfriends Victor Part I

Erin Conley Fogelberg: Well no wonder some of your old Facebook friends and some family of yours has unfriended and blocked you,

Woe be unto me! :roll: Someone blocks me in response to getting their azz handed to them in debate... that should show me a thing or two! NOT! 

There are common trends among those friends and family that unfriended me.

First, they are mostly radical liberals that argue based on emotion. They think they're right, but they do not have the facts to support their arguments. When confronted with a reasoned, fact-based, argument, they demand that this argument stop.

They reply with an emotional base rant, and expect you to buy into their hysteria or misguidedness. They expect you to abandon the facts and to abandon reason. Or, they expect you to let them have the last word despite their losing the argument. 

When you refuse, they unfriend you.

Second, [Radical Liberal Brother] lobbied those, that I was arguing with, to unfriend me. Those, in my family, that blocked me, did so largely due to his influence. Both you guys have been close to each other for decades. I knew that once our argument got underway, he would be encouraging you to block me.

Third, they unfriended me as compensation for their failure to argue their point against me. Some unfriended me without getting into a debate with me... because that they couldn't take me on in debate without getting their azzes handed to them. 

I know exactly who in my family unfriended me, and why. It had everything to do with their being butthurt about getting destroyed in debate. They were also radical liberals.

I blocked them in response so that they never come up as a friend suggestion on Facebook. [Radical Liberal Brother] blocked me a second time when I destroyed him in debate on one of our brother's threads. 

When [Radical Liberal Brother] lobbies fellow radical liberals in the family, or among our mutual friends list, to unfriend me, you can't use the "others in his family" angle. More on that later.

Sorry, but such actions aren't going to change who I am.  I will continue to exercise my freedom of speech. I will continue to dismantle liberal/progressive arguments. I will not be silenced. 

Erin Conley Fogelberg: you sound like a uninformed little boy having a tantrum like my 4 year old could have. Just waiting for you to stomp your feet.

Says the person that said this: 

"you just anger me" -- Erin Conley 

Then follow it up with this:

"No need for your novels, just make it short and to the point," -- Erin Conley 

Then follow it up with this when you don't get your way:

"He may be a old classmate of mine but after this last novel I unfriended him and even blocked him." -- Erin Conley

I'm not the one that's pulling a tantrum here. Your own words indicate that you're getting angry and pulling a tantrum. When you don't get your way, you do the equivalent action of stomping your feet. In this case, you both unfriended and blocked me... Actions done in anger.

As with others that I've debated against, you tend to accuse me of having your traits.

Erin Conley Fogelberg: Sorry all just so po'd

Yes, you're pissed off that someone would dare dismantle a propaganda post that you made. You thought you had a good argument, that was until you saw my comment. It was a comment that did the equivalent of posting a Snopes article in response to a misconception post. You couldn't handle that.

How dare someone disagree with you by destroying what you thought was sound logic.

And you don't see your own contribution to this, do you? You reacted with anger. Your actions on that thread, to include your ultimately blocking me, indicate the actions of someone acting in anger. 

This uncovers another problem that I detected in your replies... you have control issues. You couldn't control me, so you blocked me. By logical extension, if I did exactly what you told me to do, and if I didn't hand you your azz in debate, you wouldn't have taken those actions. 

Erin Conley Fogelberg: I know domestic abuse can go both ways

You didn't realize that in the beginning, te wit:

"If all men thought as proper as these young men there wouldn't be domestic violence in the world." -- Erin Conley

Key word... ALL

That's not the statement that someone makes if they think that it cuts both ways. That's the assumption that someone makes if they think that only men cause domestic violence.

Erin Conley Fogelberg: but damn so tired of him going on tangents or even tantrums like a small child,

No, you're pissed off at the fact that you got your azz handed to you in debate. I jump onto your thread and questioned that video's validity as a representation of "what could happen" or of "what actually happens." 

That video assumes that men willingly attack women, unprovoked, when there's a large percent of the domestic violence cases where the men were provoked. 

What you dismiss as "tangents" is me disagreeing with the underlying themes of your video and with your arguments. I did this in a way that forced you to question your own argument.

One of two things is happening here. You're actually clueless about the topics we are arguing about, and you are only seeing this from an emotional standpoint. Or, you're reacting completely from an anger standpoint.

Again, your own words indicate you as someone pulling tantrums like a small child. 

Erin Conley Fogelberg: I may be being harsh

No, this isn't something that's out of the ordinary for you.

Your attitude on your thread indicates that you're the very person that you're accusing me of being. You're acting like a 4-year-old that's pulling a tantrum and stomping his feet. Except in this case, you reacted that way on the threads, and you capped that tantrum by moving to unfriend and block me.

You're blaming your attitude on something else instead of recognizing the actual problem. You have anger, control, stress, low self-esteem, etc., issues. Instead of recognizing that you have a problem, you hint that something else is the problem... and that this is "not" normally "you."

Erin Conley Fogelberg: and I think I know it all so I'm going to write several novels. 

Wrong. This is not a case where I "think" that I "know it all." This is a case where I KNOW that I'm right. Again, I argued from the standpoint experience as well as research I've done on the topic.

You accuse me of "writing novels," when one or two of your follow-on posts constitute being "novels."

This is yet another example of you accusing me of being very thing that I see in you. You accuse me of acting like the "know it all," yet here you are acting like a know it all.

Erin Conley Fogelberg Destroyed in Debate, Unfriends Victor Part II

Erin Conley Fogelberg:  but this is not my first rodeo with him

The last one was when I commented on your photo involving Ms. Piggy and Kermit the Frog. In the photo, they were engaged in BDSM, ala 50 Shades of Grey. Kermit was completely suited up in a privacy costume. I explained the purpose of the privacy costume, and how he didn't need it this time. 

In part of your reply, you said, "Buzz kill." That's right after you said that this photo was for humor purposes. 

I didn't reply to you then, and look at what happened... I stayed on your friend's list. I dare to argue with you this time, and "whack," the ban hammer. 

Again, you demonstrated yourself to have anger, stress, and control issues. The sense that I'm getting, from your attitude on your threads, is you saying this, "Better do as I say or there will be consequences."

Erin Conley Fogelberg:  He may be a old classmate of mine but after this last novel I unfriended him and even blocked him.

No, you unfriended me and blocked me because you didn't like the fact that I destroyed you in argument. You couldn't handle my consistently destroying you in argument despite your demands that I restrain my responses.

The fact that you wrote a novel or two in response to me, after blocking me, shows that you have control issues. It also shows that you are the very thing that you accuse me of being.

The difference between us is that I presented a reasoned, logical, fact-based argument. This is what drives the volume in my replies. You ranted off in tangents because you were emotionally charged. 

You couldn't handle disagreement, you didn't like the fact that I called your video's argument to question.

Erin Conley Fogelberg:  I know of several others that have done the same,

There's one common denominator in all of them, they couldn't "control" the situation in a debate with me. They couldn't handle being destroyed in debate. They wanted me to stop hammering them, when all they had to do was to stop replying to me.

In fact, if you did not attack me for my first response, the entire argument would not have happened. 

They wanted to have the last word, and retaliated by preventing me from replying to them continually when I refused to back down.

People unfriending and blocking me are not going to stop me from destroying their arguments. There not going to stop me from being who I am; from destroying their arguments; and from exercising my freedom of speech. 

The mere fact that they took action to unfriend and/or block me proves that their action did not work to "change me." They most certainly did not stop me from replying to them. These batches of replies on this blog are a cleaned up version of what I posted on Facebook my wall.

I will not be silenced. You'll get your azz handed to you, and you will get proven wrong in other forums. 

You love to "dish it," but you're not woman enough to take it. Also, like these others, you saw that you "lost control" during the debate. The move to "unfriended" was your way of feeling like you "regained control."

Erin Conley Fogelberg:  even one of his relatives have unfriended him and blocked him because of the novels

That one relative that you talk about is [Radical Liberal Brother]. I unfriended him for refusing to stick to the topic of my thread, for refusing to answer my simple straight forward questions, and for actually being the very thing that he accused me of being. 

He responded by blocking me. He eventually unblocked me. Then he blocked me again when I destroyed him in another debate on one of our brother's threads... Despite his claiming that he could not see my posts. 

My other brothers pointed out that he got destroyed. He blocked me in response. Whenever I get into a debate with a radical liberal family member, or someone in our mutual friends list, he lobbies them to block me.

I guess it's easier to "make that mean guy disappear" than it is to come to terms with the fact that you people simply don't know what you're talking about. 

Oh yeah, [Radical Liberal Brother] has been blocked by multiple family members as well. You shouldn't be using him as a reference. 

Erin Conley Fogelberg:  and ignorance on certain issues.

No, you didn't block me for that ignorant assumption. You unfriended and blocked me because you were getting your azz handed to you. My argument forced you to question your own argument, thus putting you in a situation that you couldn't control. 

Unfriending and blocking me was a way for you to gain "control" of the situation. You have control issues. It was also a way to compensate for your inability to stand your ground in debate.

Again, I will not argue an issue unless I've done extensive research on it. You failed to do anything remotely close to proving anything that I said as "wrong." All you did was ranted your opinion about my "acting" like a "know it all," quotation marks used strongly. 

In no instance did you prove that I was the very things that you accused me of being. More importantly, in no instance did you prove that I was "ignorant" of the issue that we were debating. 

Even you acknowledged one or two of my counter points in contradiction to your main theme... of the post that I disagreed with. 

All you've done was get emotional and acted like a control freak. 

You can't accuse someone of being "ignorant" of certain issues simply because they disagree with you. You have to prove it with a reasoned, logical, and fact based argument. I presented the facts, facts that you did not try to counter with your own sources... Sources that I would've also dismantled.

The argument, on this topic, indicates that your "knowledge" of the issue is emotionally driven based on your own experience and your own biases... To hell with what the actual facts say... or with other people's experiences if they contradict yours.

Erin Conley Fogelberg:  Yes in tons of pain with broken leg but this has nothing to do with dealing with someone that thinks they know it all and is ignorant and uninformed. (REPEAT POINT)

You've repeatedly expressed your opinion about what "I don't know," while at the same time repeatedly failed to prove that point. Instead of accusing me of being "ignorant and uninformed," quotation marks used strongly, how about sticking up for your opinion and argue your point using logic, reason, and facts? 

Nowhere in your thread did you do so. You couldn't, because the facts were not on your side. You did; however, have lots of propaganda in your arsenal. You were completely driven by emotion, anger, and the need to control.

You repeatedly demonstrated that you have anger, control, and stress management issues. I would not be surprised if these were contributors to the fallouts you've had in your previous relationships.

I would not be surprised that, in the abusive relationships that you had, you contributed greatly by "poking the bear." 

Erin Conley Fogelberg Destroyed in Debate, Unfriends Victor Part III

Erin Conley Fogelberg: Thanks [Lapdog], just had to vent about his you know. God that pissed me off. Sorry.......

Two things pissed you off. One, you saw a reasoned argument destroying your original post, and your intent. Two, I refused to do what you told me to do. 

You repeatedly made demands on me. Instead, I persisted in destroying your argument. You couldn't handle that. Your ego kicked in overdrive and fired up your emotional hysteria.

The cold hard reality is that I destroyed your argument. One way to describe this is that I cut your azz off and shoved it down your throat. This put you in a situation where you felt that you had lost control. 

You unfriended and blocked me to compensate for your inability to stand your ground. It helped you get a sense of "regaining" that control.

More importantly, you thought that the video communicated the basic "fact." I demonstrated how it didn't. I showed you, via reasoned argument, how their video did not communicate what you thought it did.

I rebutted you as if someone rebutted an urban legend post with a Snopes article.  

Erin Conley Fogelberg: Yes I know, I'm related to one that it went the other way, but there is no way he'd write a novel about what happened.

I wrote about my experiences because you said this:

"I'm not stupid but learn the facts of the person posting this before you go on one of you tangents." -- Erin Conley

My reply made you feel and look stupid, didn't it? :D This is the crux of your butthurt in our exchange. 

That "novel" happened to be me giving you the very facts about my situation that you're demanding of me here. You demand that I do this for you, but when I put you in the situation where you had to do what you demand I do, you accused me of writing novels.

Erin Conley Fogelberg: I hope my throbbing broken leg isn't clouding my judgment

No, don't blame your throbbing broken leg for your clouded judgment. It's not clouding your judgment. I sensed this in your posts in your previous emotional rants that you've posted.

Blame your inability to deal with stress, anger, and your need for control for your clouded judgment. Blame your sense of low self-esteem.

I have a 60% service connected disability with the VA. I recently was involved in an accident where a driver rear-ended me not once, but twice. I consequently was not able to do my military duties that was scheduled in the next few days. That accident aggravated part of that 60% service connected disability.

First, I'm not blaming that for anything that I'm doing on Facebook. Heck, I'm not blaming that for anything else I do based on whatever I decide. Woman up and take responsibility for your actions instead of blaming someone or something else. 

So can it with your trying to gain sympathy for your condition in order to justify your inability to control your anger, stress, control, low self-esteem, and other issues. 

Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier Uses his Phony PhD to justify his Wearing a Lab Smock

Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier poses while wearing a phony lab smock after he received his phony PhD from Kennedy Western University. KWU was a university that didn't have accreditation when Denny Chevalier was working on his phony PhD.  Consequently, Dennis Chevalier didn't do valid doctoral work while "matriculated" at KWU. 

Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier "earned" his "PhD" at Kennedy Western University. Throughout the entire time that Denny was working on his "doctorate degree", Kennedy Western University did not have accreditation.

This means that whatever work Dennis Chevalier did for Kennedy Western University didn't count. There's a reason to why they did not have accreditation during the time that Dennis Howard Chevalier was "matriculated" there.

When Denny Chevalier "completed" his "doctorate" degree, he received a card with a bunch of congratulatory statements. These weren't the statements that one would make congratulating someone else for completing a doctorate degree.

Rather, these were comments that you'd make to pat someone in the back... for doing something they originally were expected to be able to do. It's as if they were congratulating a former "problem child".

Dennis (Denny) Chevalier likes to brag about having a "PhD" under his belt. The reality is that he never had one. He had his "dissertation" copyrighted, then he had it registered into the Library of Congress. His "work" has since dropped from their list of stored works. That won't stop Denny Chevalier from bragging that he did "doctoral level work," then bragging that it got accepted into the Library of Congress.

This is all a sham.

Denny Howard Chevalier likes to argue that Kennedy Western University doesn't "now" have the license or accreditation. He's trying to imply that it "had" one when he was working on his "dissertation." The reality is that it never had accreditation. It didn't have one when he was "earning" his "PhD." It doesn't have one now.

Consequently, the degree that he received from Kennedy Western University was not worth the paper that it was printed on.

That didn't stop Dennis Howard Chevalier from nicknaming himself "Doc Chevy." He proceeded to get himself a white lab coat. With this phony PhD degree, he donned his white lab coat and had a photo taken of himself in it.

Jim Parker investigated Dennis (Denny) Chevalier's academic claims. His research concluded that many of Dennis's academic claims were false. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that Dennis's claims of having a "PhD" were false.

Here is part of what he said:

"For one thing, the 'complaint' he posted appears to be altered (as some have clearly noticed.) That last sentence he circled has been added recently. I'm sure I have the original complaint filed away somewhere and it didn't have that part on it, and there's no reason it would have, as the site I dedicated to him only addressed his phony academic credentials -- I hadn't even touched on his military (or lack thereof) credential yet." -- Jim Parker

An ex-girlfriend also saw him and refused to believe that he had a doctoral degree in psychology:

"As a health care professional, I found his claims for having a PhD in psychology a real stretch. There's NO WAY he has a PhD in Psych. most doctoral professionals have lots of educational and training materials for referencing diagnoses. There was nothing of that sort in the house. All he talked about was how 'educated' he was, how valiant a warrior he was, how he was a 'serial rapist profiler', how he was investigating all these 'stolen valor' 'posers'." -- flyonthewall

His writings across the Internet, on behalf of his business, don't reflect well on somebody that claims to have a PhD. They don't reflect well on someone that allegedly ran a business related to law enforcement.

Ladies, Dennis (Denny) Howard Chevalier received a phony PhD from a diploma mill that was not accredited to award academic degrees. He's a phony doctor, phony veteran, phony SWAT veteran, phony PhD holder, etc.

Not only is Dennis Chevalier guilty of stolen valor, he's also guilty of stolen scholar.

Lyle Andersen Proves That He's Clueless about How the Economy Works

Lyle Andersen: They done more to help the economy than you and I have.

Actually, President Obama and the Democrat's progressive "economic policies" acted as a "major headwind" to our economy. Their policies have definitely not been the tailwind behind our current economic performance, wherever people think it lays.

The fact that our economy still shows movement is testament to many things. One of them is that Obama's policies can't destroy the free market as fast as he wants to destroy it.

History has shown that the best thing that the government could do, to help the economy, is to get out of the way and to do virtually nothing.

Progressive economic policies is to the economy what laxatives are to diarrhea.

Obama's policies didn't get the economy to where it is at now. Without his policies, the economy would be further ahead in growth than where it is now. Lowered unemployment numbers resulting from people dropping out of the workforce is nothing to be proud of.

He is the most incompetent president in modern times.

Lyle Andersen: [name redacted] what did you personally do to help the economy,give three points please,note getting up and going to work is honorable but is a Basic step. (STRAWMAN FALLACY)

Lyle, what I personally did for the economy isn't relevant. The argument is on whether Democrat policies were effective for the economy or not. Matter of fact, your initial reply had nothing to do with the initial post on this thread.

The reason I jumped on the Obama angle is because you made it about President Obama allegedly doing something for the economy.

The fact of the matter is that Democrats in general didn't do anything substantial to help the economy along. If anything, their policies created an environment that caused the rich, super rich, and business owners... the people that create the most jobs in the free market... to hold onto their earning instead of invest it.

His "solutions" were aimed at giving money back to the "poor" or "middle-class." The problem is that the economic engine happens to be the very people that the Democrats and progressives demonize, the rich and super rich. These are the people that contribute the bulk of consumer spending. They also pay the majority of personal income tax to the government.

Jobs don't exist so that people could put food on the table. They exist because some rich guy/gal, or someone hoping to get rich, saw that job as a necessity to his/her efforts to get richer. When you create an economic environment that discourages them from hiring more people, or from keeping most of their employees, you hamper good job growth. In fact, you contribute to job market contraction.

Apparently, you fell asleep in class when they were trying to teach you economics back in the 1960s and 1970s.

Lyle Andersen: (2 ) blankety blaming somebody without naming Pacific issues, is not stating a fact. and I suspect there is a bias on your part because you're hate black people because there black. (3)so I will stay with the facts I was taught in the 60s and 70s. 

Lyle, how about advancing some facts instead of just talking about them? All you've done was talk about "staying with facts," however, you have not advanced any facts. Not a single part of your post, or the one before, contained relevant facts. You've talked the talk, now how about walking the walk?

I provided you with facts in the previous post. Apparently, whatever it was that you were taught in the 1960s and 1970s, it didn't include researching the topic that you choose to argue.

Earlier, I talked about how the best thing that the government could do with regards to the economy is "nothing." That's a fact. Read about the depression that took place in the 1920s. It lasted approximately 1 year. The following decade, we had the Great Depression. That lasted for years.

What was the difference between the depression that took place in the 1920s, and the one that took place in the 1930s? The answer is what I stated in my earlier post, government did "nothing". The government did nothing significant, with regards to addressing the 1920s depression, in order to get us out of the depression.

That following decade? The government got involved to try to "solve the problem." Government action resulted in the worst economic crisis in US history.

That's just one of the facts that I talked about in my previous post. Certainly, someone should have told you about that part of our history... back when you were "learning" to "stick with the facts" in the 1960s or 1970s.

Also, for someone that likes to lecture about facts, but doesn't use them, your opinion about what I said doesn't constitute refutation. It also doesn't constitute fact.

Accusing me of being racist, because I disagree with many of the president's policies, demonstrates your bias in favor of progressives and against conservatives. In fact, it demonstrates you as being a "sheep." Who, in their right mind, would actually believe that we disagree with the president because he's "black"?

The fact of the matter is that I'd support people like Herman Cain, Condoleezza Rice, Michael Steele, Clarence Thomas, Allen West, etc. against any white, brown, red, green, blue, black, etc., liberal any time.

Your assumption that I "hate" the president because he's "black," arrogantly assumes that his policies, policies that you agree with, are "fact." If you are someone that was taught to "stick with the facts," you failed those that taught you.

Here's a fact for you: I disagree with the president, and the Democrats, on many of their policies. I would have the same disagreement if we had a white president advancing the same policies. This disagreement doesn't constitute hate.

Either they didn't teach you to "stick with the facts" back in the 1960s and 1970s... or you fell asleep when they tried to teach you guys that. Whether you like it or not, I brought up specific issues specific to the argument on this thread. Those are facts. Since you insist that they're something other than facts, I seriously doubt that you "stick with the facts."

I stated the facts. Your arrogance is insisting that these facts are something else.

Lyle Andersen Ignores His Golden Boy's Wars

Lyle Andersen: The Great Depression came to an end when our economy got railroaded by World War II. Great recession is doing better with out starting a world war. (STRAWMAN FALLACY) 

Again, you deliberately missed the point. In fact, without realizing it, your first statement here backed something I said in my previous post.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, the Great Depression resulted mainly from government intervention into the economy. World War II forced the kind of demand that was needed to really jolt us out of the depression.

Great Recession? The reality is that we entered a recession in the latter half of 2008, then we plunged into a depression in 2009. We remained in an economic depression until 2012.

"Great Recession" is a political play on words.

When used by the liberals, its intent is to tie this around President Bush's neck. The reality is that decades of government intrusion into the free market brought about this economic crisis.

For those that see that we had actually entered a depression, the term "great recession" is just a "feel good" moniker. Heaven forbid that your "golden" guy be tied to that depression.

As for starting wars... Have you not paid attention to the news?

Does "Libya" ring a bell? How about ISIS in Iraq and Syria? Do they ring a bell? Anybody paying attention to the news would know that we've been in a state of war throughout President Obama's presidency.

This is not about a "war" pulling us out of or into a depression or recession. This is about the negative, or positive, impact a specific policy has on the economy. THAT's what I'm arguing to counter your insinuation that President Obama did "something" positive for the economy.

Here's reality. The economy moved "forward" despite, and not because of, President Obama's policies.

Lyle Andersen: It just boggles my mind how hard-core Republicans think Americans have the right to demand a golden Robust economy going all the time. (STRAWMAN FALLACY) 

You mean, like how hard-core Democrats/progressives/liberals demanded a golden, robust economy going on all the time? They love to demand this when a Republican is in office.

Your actual statements on this thread counters your claim that you were taught to "stick to the facts." Nowhere in my replies on this thread did I "demand" a "golden robust economy" going on "all the time."

My statements were specific.

I said that the best thing that the government could do in relation to the economy is "nothing". That's a historical fact. [Redacted], [redacted], and [redacted] could tell you that I'm in favor of the free market controlling the economy, not the government.

What should boggle your mind is how you're a textbook example of a mindless drone... someone that simply repeats liberal talking head talking points in an argument instead of advancing his own arguments.

This post brought to you courtesy of Dragon Naturally Speaking Version 13. :D

Lyle Andersen: Sorry ,if you think I'm going read all that ranting you are nuts. Good night Learn the 4 W's of journalism. And keep it Short and quick.

You're not the first one to say that to me over the decade I've been debating against liberals online. You're definitely not going to be the last one to say that. In fact, my brother [redacted], and cousin [redacted], told me the same thing. I did what I wanted to do, which is the opposite to what they wanted me to do back then, and to what you told me here.

The reality is that like the majority of liberals that I've argued with... You can't stand seeing a logical, reasoned, fact-based argument destroying your argument, assumptions, and opinions. Especially one that makes you realize that you're wrong, or one that starts to make you question your own argument. The longer the response, the more you see that you're wrong, and the more you start questioning your own argument.

I guarantee you that if I were to use a similar post length, in an argument supporting your argument, you'd be congratulating me. You'd be telling me how I present a well thought out, reasoned, post.

Heck, compared to the other posts that I've generated, that last post was not "long." My brothers could tell you about my reply lengths here. But, even what they've seen is nothing compared to what I've posted elsewhere in arguments against liberals.

Normally, when people are taught to stick with the facts, they're taught to do the research behind the facts. They're taught to do a lot of reading in addition to that research. Apparently, you forgot that part of "sticking to the facts."

Your posts above fall short of the, "who, when, what, where, and why", also known as the 5 Ws of journalism. Not 4. All you've done was ask "what." So much for your claims that you "learned to stick with the facts."

I'm going to tell you what I told the others that made demands similar to yours. I don't accommodate those that I debate with. I'm going to generate however long a post I need to destroy your argument.

Lyle Andersen: [redacted],your brother [redacted] is basically ask me to be more open minded. 

Wrong, Lyle, I'm not telling you to be more open minded.  I'm telling you to actually do your research. I'm also telling you to advance an augment based on reason, facts, and logic.  I also told you to start using the facts, instead of just talking about "sticking to the facts."

Lyle Andersen: While at the same time Blame liberals for all that is wrong in the world. 

First, where, in in my posts, do I specifically blame liberals for everything going wrong in the world? Where?

Second, I didn't blame liberals for everything that was wrong in the world.  I accurately pointed out the negative impacts of progressive/democrat economic policies.  Those are facts, not opinion.

Lyle Andersen: Sorry that is way to simple an idea to fix what is wrong in the world.

First, wrong. The only "simple" I'm seeing here is your interpretation of what I said. You're advancing a strawman, you're addressing something I didn't address.

Second, it helps to understand what you are reading. I know for fact that a fifth-grader could understand what I'm saying here. I know this because I had a fifth-grader understand me when I generated things like this before.

If you cannot understand a post that a fifth-grader could understand, that speaks volumes about your failure at reading comprehension.

This reading comprehension failure argues against your claims of having learned to "stick to the facts." Hence, my demanding for you to advance the facts instead of talking about them.

Lyle Anderson Wouldn't Recognize the Fact Even if it Hit Him on the Face

Lyle Andersen: The only facts I see are ,way to many people truly believe if they truly believe in an pinons hard enough and deep enough that makes them true, or as [redacted] says a fact. [Redacted] believe in himself,a lot which can be a good thing some of the time. I come to this conclusion by his use of the 'I' word almost 40 times. 

I'm not advancing opinion, I'm advancing the facts. This isn't a case where I am "insisting" that I'm "right" because that's what "I want." For example, I pointed out facts about government intervention in the free market. This is historical fact. I'm not making this up, and I'm not just voicing it because it harms the Democrats/progressives.

I'm mentioning it because it happened in history. I'm repeating FACTs. It's a fact that we had a depression in the 1920s. It's a fact that that depression that did not last the entire decade back then. In fact, it was approximately a year in duration. The government did little to nothing to try to bring that economy back. The free market corrected the economy, and it came right back.

The following decade, we had the Great Depression. This largely resulted from government intervention into the economy when the free market was trying to "correct" the economy.

Again, you have to be extremely delusional if you're going to insist that this is nothing but "opinion." It's not.

Study after study has been done on the government's impact on the economy. It's simply human nature. If you threaten the rich, superrich, business owners, etc., with more taxes, they're going to have less incentive to spend money. Or, they'll sit on their money more and invest in economy less.

That's a fact, not opinion.

Lyle Andersen: The only fact I openly embrace is ,JFK openly embrace brings being called a liberal. JFK turn Cuba missile crisis , without firing a shot. A liberal idea. Therefore I don't mind being called a liberal.

That resulted from JFK botching up of a major foreign policy decision.  His predecessor had authorized a joint Cuban immigrant and us military operation that would've toppled Fidel Castro.

All that was needed was the Navy's air power. At the last minute, JFK called it off.

Had the Navy pilots been able to do their part, they would've destroyed Cuban Air power and destroyed Cuban armor on the ground. The Cuban immigrants were destroying the Cuban military on the ground during the battle.

Unfortunately, JFK called off the air power.

It was JFK's decision, to not to carry out the United States' part of the operation, that emboldened Nikita Khrushchev to deploy nuclear weapons to Cuba. He rightfully saw that the United States was a paper tiger under JFK. He saw JFK as a weak leader.

In order to get the Russians to withdraw their missiles, the United States had to give up a forward nuclear missile position. At the end of this scenario, the United States was "weaker" relative to the USSR.

Lyle Andersen: You didn't destroy any thing. 

I thoroughly destroyed your arguments above. For example, you showcased JFK in the way he handled the "Cuba Missile Crisis." You demonstrated your lack of knowledge of history. By ignoring the fact that had it not been for John F. Kennedy's backing down, we would not have had that crisis in the first place.

You also completely forgot that at the end of that crisis, we were in a slightly more disadvantaged position than what we were in before.

This is one example of how I went through and destroyed your arguments point by point. You refused to acknowledge that. However, your refusing to acknowledge that does not dismiss the fact that you've totally been discredited on this thread... And that you've been destroyed in this argument.

Lyle Andersen: [redacted] flaws with your argument. 

No, my argument is solid. It has been solid throughout this thread.

You claimed that my argument has "flaws," quotation marks used strongly, however you didn't advance an argument addressing my rebuttals. You did nothing to prove me "wrong." All you're doing is talking about your opinion about what I did.

How about advancing the facts to "prove" me "wrong"? So far, you failed. You exposed NO flaws in my argument.

Lyle Andersen: You Most likely have a business degree an not journalism. 

The kind of degree that I have has no bearing on the topic of this thread outside of any discussion of the economy. When it comes to the parts of this thread that have nothing to do with the economy, it doesn't matter if I have a business degree or not. What matters is that I have the relevant facts.

For someone that claims that he likes to "stick with the facts," you continue to fail to do your research to see whether or not I'm "wrong." Again, quotation marks used strongly.

Lyle Andersen: And I do complement you on your typing skills. 

What part of the following statement did you not understand?

"Brought to you by Dragon NaturallySpeaking 13." -- [Redacted]

"NaturallySpeaking" suggests that there was "speaking" involved in generating these posts. You, having claimed that you learned to, "stick with the facts," would've seen that as my generating these posts using "speech to text."

Using dictation software on online debates is my standard operating procedure. Next time, pull your head out of your poop chute and remove your horse blinders before you fart out of your mouth.

Lyle Andersen: It is call the four W's you simple minded BS Degree. 

Wrong, Stupid, it's called the FIVE W's of journalism.

Also, for someone that claims to "stick to the facts," I don't have a BS Degree. In fact, you apparently know who [redacted] is. Why don't you just ask [redacted] what degrees I have? Why don't you just ask any of my brothers on this thread what kind of degree I have?

Hint: It's a graduate-level degree, and it's not a "BS."

The only BS that I'm seeing here is I what I see you posting.