Are liberals pro equality?

[Debra K]

Let's examine your signature quote: "On the Internet, you can choose to be anything. I'm just amazed how many people choose to be stupid."

Isn't it stupid for you to portray yourself as an expert on "liberals" or "liberalism"?

Your diatribe discloses that you went to the fountain of knowledge and took one little sip ... and that lone sip was from a page of somebody else's hate manual.

That's stupid.

Making broad unsupported conclusions and hateful generalizations about an entire class of people is stupid.

Why do you choose to be stupid?

Rule No. 4. When lacking a coherent or cogent counter-argument, attack your opponent, not the issue.

Well done.

Spare_Change:

Earlier in this thread, I responded to another person's diatribe as follows:

"A little learning is a dangerous thing;
drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
and drinking largely sobers us again."

If you would be willing to engage in a little self education, can you tell me the source of those words and what they mean? wasn't your diatribe the product of "intoxication"?

Furthermore, because you're the one making the conclusions, you're the one that has the burden of proof. In other words, you need to actually make an argument in support of your conclusions before you may expect anyone else to come forward with a counter-argument.

I would simple point you to your own post #46, in which you, I assume intentionally, attempted to deflect the focus away from the issue at hand, and to turn that light on my personal characteristics. By doing so, you changed the direction of the discussion - not because it was an attempt to broaden the discussion, but rather, an attempt to conceal the simple truth that you didn't have a cogent response.

When one offers an opinion, it is his prerogative whether or not he wishes to provide proof. An opinion is just that - it is not a educational treatise, designed to lead you out of the darkness. It is a statement of position - an ideological stake driven in the ground, if you will Given the broad breadth of the subject originally under discussion (before your digression), the character limit forbade me expanding in sufficient depth.

However ... if you wish, I will be more than happy to expound on my opinion in any of the areas you wish to discuss. (Make sure you pick one you know something about). Which will it be?

1) Liberals are concerned with equal result, not equal opportunity.
2) Liberal are concerned with compensation, not contribution.
3) Liberals are concerned with creating an environment in which all people are rewarded equally, regardless of effort.
4) Liberals are concerned with mediocritizing the educational system, rather than maximizing the growth of each individual.
5) Liberals are concerned with centralization of power, rather than maximizing individual growth.
6) Liberals are inherently egotistical and arrogant. (I'll throw that one in for free.)

Pick one and let me know ...

By the way ... citing a quote by Alexander Pope, out of context, serves no purpose other than to contribute to validating No. 6 above. It proves nothing about your intellectual capabilities, other than your ability to plagiarize someone else (without attribution) when your own words fail you. To try to paint yourself with this false patina of knowledge is, in a phrase, intellectually dishonest. Pope's poem was a dissertation on the damage done by critics - to the point that he even said that bad critiques do more damage to the art of poetry than bad poets . Your misrepresentation is reprehensible..

Or, as my ol' daddy used to say ... bring it on, sweet cheeks, but you better be willing to stay for the whole ride..

Stupid Definition of stupid by Merriam-Webster

Stupid: marked by or resulting from unreasoned thinking or acting


Like every other member on this board, you take your signature space with you everywhere you post. The words or images you choose to place in your signature space are a reflection upon you. In that space, you state, “On the Internet, you can choose to be anything. I’m just amazed how many people choose to be stupid.” Thus, you claim some special ability to recognize “stupid”, but fail to recognize it in yourself. Amazing, indeed.

In my opinion, your diatribe on liberals was stupid. I gave you my reasons for stating your diatribe was stupid.

Then you stupidly said that I didn’t make a counter-argument. You have to make an argument first before you can expect someone to make a counter-argument. Where was your argument? It didn’t exist.

It took you two days to come up with a response. Now you claim you just offered an opinion. In that regard, you claim that you’re not required to substantiate your opinion.

What little bit of learning you have had is dangerous because you now think you’re an expert and can sit in judgment of other people’s stupidity. And that is stupid. If you don’t want that word used against you, then take it out of signature space and start educating yourself.

I have had a ton of education … a ton … and the more I learn, the more I realize how much I don’t know. But I’m thirsty for knowledge. But you have no thirst at all. You would rather make brainless generalizations and contribute nothing to the world of critical thinking. That’s stupid.

Stick your silly bravado where the sun doesn’t shine. Your “bring it on, sweet cheeks” doesn’t impress anyone but yourself. If you have a valid argument to make, make it. If you don’t know the components of a valid argument, look it up.

Rule No. 4. When lacking a coherent or cogent counter-argument, attack the poster.

You didn't make an argument. You don't even know what an argument is. You spewed forth unsupported conclusions and hateful generalizations. How many times do you have to be told that no one has any obligation to make a counter-argument until you have first made an argument. In response, here's what you wrote: "When one offers an opinion, it is his prerogative whether or not he wishes to provide proof."

In my opinion, that is stupid. See definition of "stupid" above.

Well done. I directly challenged you, and the best you can do is attack my signature? Seriously? And, you want to match degrees? Isn't that a bit childish? Then, you want to make a big deal out of the fact that it took two days to respond? Damn - I have a life. Don't you? Another adolescent attack.

If you can't justify your conclusions, just say so ... You have no problem declaring others to be stupid, so I find it AMUSING that you can dish it out but can't take it. If you have a valid argument to support any one of your conclusions, make it. Apparently, you think you already know everything ... and that is stupid.

If you don't want to discuss the suppositions offered, I understand. You want to talk trash, but obviously, you're unwilling to talk issues and facts. Pick a supposition and challenge it - until then, your childish little tirade is b-o-r-I-n-g.

The topic of this thread is this: "Are liberals pro equality?" Respond to that with a simple yes or no and then set forth a valid argument to support your conclusion.

If your only intent was to jump onto a "bash liberals" bandwagon, then just say so.

I'm not stopping you from placing your alleged expertise on display ... when is that going to happen?

 

[Spare_change]

Rule No. 4. When lacking a coherent or cogent counter-argument, attack your opponent, not the issue.

Well done.

Spare_Change:

Earlier in this thread, I responded to another person's diatribe as follows:

"A little learning is a dangerous thing;
drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
and drinking largely sobers us again."

If you would be willing to engage in a little self education, can you tell me the source of those words and what they mean? wasn't your diatribe the product of "intoxication"?

Furthermore, because you're the one making the conclusions, you're the one that has the burden of proof. In other words, you need to actually make an argument in support of your conclusions before you may expect anyone else to come forward with a counter-argument.

I would simple point you to your own post #46, in which you, I assume intentionally, attempted to deflect the focus away from the issue at hand, and to turn that light on my personal characteristics. By doing so, you changed the direction of the discussion - not because it was an attempt to broaden the discussion, but rather, an attempt to conceal the simple truth that you didn't have a cogent response.

When one offers an opinion, it is his prerogative whether or not he wishes to provide proof. An opinion is just that - it is not a educational treatise, designed to lead you out of the darkness. It is a statement of position - an ideological stake driven in the ground, if you will Given the broad breadth of the subject originally under discussion (before your digression), the character limit forbade me expanding in sufficient depth.

However ... if you wish, I will be more than happy to expound on my opinion in any of the areas you wish to discuss. (Make sure you pick one you know something about). Which will it be?

1) Liberals are concerned with equal result, not equal opportunity.
2) Liberal are concerned with compensation, not contribution.
3) Liberals are concerned with creating an environment in which all people are rewarded equally, regardless of effort.
4) Liberals are concerned with mediocritizing the educational system, rather than maximizing the growth of each individual.
5) Liberals are concerned with centralization of power, rather than maximizing individual growth.
6) Liberals are inherently egotistical and arrogant. (I'll throw that one in for free.)

Pick one and let me know ...

By the way ... citing a quote by Alexander Pope, out of context, serves no purpose other than to contribute to validating No. 6 above. It proves nothing about your intellectual capabilities, other than your ability to plagiarize someone else (without attribution) when your own words fail you. To try to paint yourself with this false patina of knowledge is, in a phrase, intellectually dishonest. Pope's poem was a dissertation on the damage done by critics - to the point that he even said that bad critiques do more damage to the art of poetry than bad poets . Your misrepresentation is reprehensible..

Or, as my ol' daddy used to say ... bring it on, sweet cheeks, but you better be willing to stay for the whole ride..

Stupid Definition of stupid by Merriam-Webster

Stupid: marked by or resulting from unreasoned thinking or acting


Like every other member on this board, you take your signature space with you everywhere you post. The words or images you choose to place in your signature space are a reflection upon you. In that space, you state, “On the Internet, you can choose to be anything. I’m just amazed how many people choose to be stupid.” Thus, you claim some special ability to recognize “stupid”, but fail to recognize it in yourself. Amazing, indeed.

In my opinion, your diatribe on liberals was stupid. I gave you my reasons for stating your diatribe was stupid.

Then you stupidly said that I didn’t make a counter-argument. You have to make an argument first before you can expect someone to make a counter-argument. Where was your argument? It didn’t exist.

It took you two days to come up with a response. Now you claim you just offered an opinion. In that regard, you claim that you’re not required to substantiate your opinion.

What little bit of learning you have had is dangerous because you now think you’re an expert and can sit in judgment of other people’s stupidity. And that is stupid. If you don’t want that word used against you, then take it out of signature space and start educating yourself.

I have had a ton of education … a ton … and the more I learn, the more I realize how much I don’t know. But I’m thirsty for knowledge. But you have no thirst at all. You would rather make brainless generalizations and contribute nothing to the world of critical thinking. That’s stupid.

Stick your silly bravado where the sun doesn’t shine. Your “bring it on, sweet cheeks” doesn’t impress anyone but yourself. If you have a valid argument to make, make it. If you don’t know the components of a valid argument, look it up.

Rule No. 4. When lacking a coherent or cogent counter-argument, attack the poster.

You didn't make an argument. You don't even know what an argument is. You spewed forth unsupported conclusions and hateful generalizations. How many times do you have to be told that no one has any obligation to make a counter-argument until you have first made an argument. In response, here's what you wrote: "When one offers an opinion, it is his prerogative whether or not he wishes to provide proof."

In my opinion, that is stupid. See definition of "stupid" above.

Well done. I directly challenged you, and the best you can do is attack my signature? Seriously? And, you want to match degrees? Isn't that a bit childish? Then, you want to make a big deal out of the fact that it took two days to respond? Damn - I have a life. Don't you? Another adolescent attack.

If you can't justify your conclusions, just say so ... You have no problem declaring others to be stupid, so I find it AMUSING that you can dish it out but can't take it. If you have a valid argument to support any one of your conclusions, make it. Apparently, you think you already know everything ... and that is stupid.

If you don't want to discuss the suppositions offered, I understand. You want to talk trash, but obviously, you're unwilling to talk issues and facts. Pick a supposition and challenge it - until then, your childish little tirade is b-o-r-I-n-g.

The topic of this thread is this: "Are liberals pro equality?" Respond to that with a simple yes or no and then set forth a valid argument to support your conclusion.

If your only intent was to jump onto a "bash liberals" bandwagon, then just say so.

I'm not stopping you from placing your alleged expertise on display ... when is that going to happen?

That's right .. I posted conclusions ... several of them. I can, and will justify any one of those you desire.

Then, I challenged you to pick one - just one - and we'll discuss it. As I said, I will be more than happy to prove my point. Just pick one ... it's really not that difficult.

Pick it --- argue it --- and then, duck. Because you won't like what I have to say.

 

[Syriusly]

I think, they are not. They only pretend to believe into the freedom of speech and self-expression while in fact they are just fascists (though they don't understand it). They can't understand any other opinion apart from their own, they constantly bash conservatives for being intolerant while they are intolerant towards conservatives themselves. The most tolerant person ever living on our planet was Jesus and they don't tolerate the idea of his existence.
That's sad America is turning into a fascist state.

What an intolerant post.

LOL

Most liberals are Christians. Even I- an atheist- can accept the idea that a person named Jesus lived- and either him or someone using his name had some amazing ideas and wisdom.

What far too many Conservatives like yourself confuse is that your freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism.

 

[Syriusly]

Spare_Change:

Earlier in this thread, I responded to another person's diatribe as follows:

"A little learning is a dangerous thing;
drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
and drinking largely sobers us again."

If you would be willing to engage in a little self education, can you tell me the source of those words and what they mean? wasn't your diatribe the product of "intoxication"?

Furthermore, because you're the one making the conclusions, you're the one that has the burden of proof. In other words, you need to actually make an argument in support of your conclusions before you may expect anyone else to come forward with a counter-argument.

I would simple point you to your own post #46, in which you, I assume intentionally, attempted to deflect the focus away from the issue at hand, and to turn that light on my personal characteristics. By doing so, you changed the direction of the discussion - not because it was an attempt to broaden the discussion, but rather, an attempt to conceal the simple truth that you didn't have a cogent response.

When one offers an opinion, it is his prerogative whether or not he wishes to provide proof. An opinion is just that - it is not a educational treatise, designed to lead you out of the darkness. It is a statement of position - an ideological stake driven in the ground, if you will Given the broad breadth of the subject originally under discussion (before your digression), the character limit forbade me expanding in sufficient depth.

However ... if you wish, I will be more than happy to expound on my opinion in any of the areas you wish to discuss. (Make sure you pick one you know something about). Which will it be?

1) Liberals are concerned with equal result, not equal opportunity.
2) Liberal are concerned with compensation, not contribution.
3) Liberals are concerned with creating an environment in which all people are rewarded equally, regardless of effort.
4) Liberals are concerned with mediocritizing the educational system, rather than maximizing the growth of each individual.
5) Liberals are concerned with centralization of power, rather than maximizing individual growth.
6) Liberals are inherently egotistical and arrogant. (I'll throw that one in for free.)

Pick one and let me know ...

By the way ... citing a quote by Alexander Pope, out of context, serves no purpose other than to contribute to validating No. 6 above. It proves nothing about your intellectual capabilities, other than your ability to plagiarize someone else (without attribution) when your own words fail you. To try to paint yourself with this false patina of knowledge is, in a phrase, intellectually dishonest. Pope's poem was a dissertation on the damage done by critics - to the point that he even said that bad critiques do more damage to the art of poetry than bad poets . Your misrepresentation is reprehensible..

Or, as my ol' daddy used to say ... bring it on, sweet cheeks, but you better be willing to stay for the whole ride..

Stupid Definition of stupid by Merriam-Webster

Stupid: marked by or resulting from unreasoned thinking or acting


Like every other member on this board, you take your signature space with you everywhere you post. The words or images you choose to place in your signature space are a reflection upon you. In that space, you state, “On the Internet, you can choose to be anything. I’m just amazed how many people choose to be stupid.” Thus, you claim some special ability to recognize “stupid”, but fail to recognize it in yourself. Amazing, indeed.

In my opinion, your diatribe on liberals was stupid. I gave you my reasons for stating your diatribe was stupid.

Then you stupidly said that I didn’t make a counter-argument. You have to make an argument first before you can expect someone to make a counter-argument. Where was your argument? It didn’t exist.

It took you two days to come up with a response. Now you claim you just offered an opinion. In that regard, you claim that you’re not required to substantiate your opinion.

What little bit of learning you have had is dangerous because you now think you’re an expert and can sit in judgment of other people’s stupidity. And that is stupid. If you don’t want that word used against you, then take it out of signature space and start educating yourself.

I have had a ton of education … a ton … and the more I learn, the more I realize how much I don’t know. But I’m thirsty for knowledge. But you have no thirst at all. You would rather make brainless generalizations and contribute nothing to the world of critical thinking. That’s stupid.

Stick your silly bravado where the sun doesn’t shine. Your “bring it on, sweet cheeks” doesn’t impress anyone but yourself. If you have a valid argument to make, make it. If you don’t know the components of a valid argument, look it up.

Rule No. 4. When lacking a coherent or cogent counter-argument, attack the poster.

You didn't make an argument. You don't even know what an argument is. You spewed forth unsupported conclusions and hateful generalizations. How many times do you have to be told that no one has any obligation to make a counter-argument until you have first made an argument. In response, here's what you wrote: "When one offers an opinion, it is his prerogative whether or not he wishes to provide proof."

In my opinion, that is stupid. See definition of "stupid" above.

Well done. I directly challenged you, and the best you can do is attack my signature? Seriously? And, you want to match degrees? Isn't that a bit childish? Then, you want to make a big deal out of the fact that it took two days to respond? Damn - I have a life. Don't you? Another adolescent attack.

If you can't justify your conclusions, just say so ... You have no problem declaring others to be stupid, so I find it AMUSING that you can dish it out but can't take it. If you have a valid argument to support any one of your conclusions, make it. Apparently, you think you already know everything ... and that is stupid.

If you don't want to discuss the suppositions offered, I understand. You want to talk trash, but obviously, you're unwilling to talk issues and facts. Pick a supposition and challenge it - until then, your childish little tirade is b-o-r-I-n-g.

The topic of this thread is this: "Are liberals pro equality?" Respond to that with a simple yes or no and then set forth a valid argument to support your conclusion.

If your only intent was to jump onto a "bash liberals" bandwagon, then just say so.

I'm not stopping you from placing your alleged expertise on display ... when is that going to happen?

That's right .. I posted conclusions ... several of them. I can, and will justify any one of those you desire.

Then, I challenged you to pick one - just one - and we'll discuss it. As I said, I will be more than happy to prove my point. Just pick one ... it's really not that difficult.

Pick it --- argue it --- and then, duck. Because you won't like what I have to say.

Oh this should be fun-
#1
They only pretend to believe into the freedom of speech and self-expression while in fact they are just fascists (though they don't understand it).

I am a liberal- prove that I am a fascist- and not just your definition of a fascist

 

[Syriusly]

Spare_Change:

Earlier in this thread, I responded to another person's diatribe as follows:

"A little learning is a dangerous thing;
drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
and drinking largely sobers us again."

If you would be willing to engage in a little self education, can you tell me the source of those words and what they mean? wasn't your diatribe the product of "intoxication"?

Furthermore, because you're the one making the conclusions, you're the one that has the burden of proof. In other words, you need to actually make an argument in support of your conclusions before you may expect anyone else to come forward with a counter-argument.

I would simple point you to your own post #46, in which you, I assume intentionally, attempted to deflect the focus away from the issue at hand, and to turn that light on my personal characteristics. By doing so, you changed the direction of the discussion - not because it was an attempt to broaden the discussion, but rather, an attempt to conceal the simple truth that you didn't have a cogent response.

When one offers an opinion, it is his prerogative whether or not he wishes to provide proof. An opinion is just that - it is not a educational treatise, designed to lead you out of the darkness. It is a statement of position - an ideological stake driven in the ground, if you will Given the broad breadth of the subject originally under discussion (before your digression), the character limit forbade me expanding in sufficient depth.

However ... if you wish, I will be more than happy to expound on my opinion in any of the areas you wish to discuss. (Make sure you pick one you know something about). Which will it be?

1) Liberals are concerned with equal result, not equal opportunity.
2) Liberal are concerned with compensation, not contribution.
3) Liberals are concerned with creating an environment in which all people are rewarded equally, regardless of effort.
4) Liberals are concerned with mediocritizing the educational system, rather than maximizing the growth of each individual.
5) Liberals are concerned with centralization of power, rather than maximizing individual growth.
6) Liberals are inherently egotistical and arrogant. (I'll throw that one in for free.)

Pick one and let me know ...

By the way ... citing a quote by Alexander Pope, out of context, serves no purpose other than to contribute to validating No. 6 above. It proves nothing about your intellectual capabilities, other than your ability to plagiarize someone else (without attribution) when your own words fail you. To try to paint yourself with this false patina of knowledge is, in a phrase, intellectually dishonest. Pope's poem was a dissertation on the damage done by critics - to the point that he even said that bad critiques do more damage to the art of poetry than bad poets . Your misrepresentation is reprehensible..

Or, as my ol' daddy used to say ... bring it on, sweet cheeks, but you better be willing to stay for the whole ride..

Stupid Definition of stupid by Merriam-Webster

Stupid: marked by or resulting from unreasoned thinking or acting


Like every other member on this board, you take your signature space with you everywhere you post. The words or images you choose to place in your signature space are a reflection upon you. In that space, you state, “On the Internet, you can choose to be anything. I’m just amazed how many people choose to be stupid.” Thus, you claim some special ability to recognize “stupid”, but fail to recognize it in yourself. Amazing, indeed.

In my opinion, your diatribe on liberals was stupid. I gave you my reasons for stating your diatribe was stupid.

Then you stupidly said that I didn’t make a counter-argument. You have to make an argument first before you can expect someone to make a counter-argument. Where was your argument? It didn’t exist.

It took you two days to come up with a response. Now you claim you just offered an opinion. In that regard, you claim that you’re not required to substantiate your opinion.

What little bit of learning you have had is dangerous because you now think you’re an expert and can sit in judgment of other people’s stupidity. And that is stupid. If you don’t want that word used against you, then take it out of signature space and start educating yourself.

I have had a ton of education … a ton … and the more I learn, the more I realize how much I don’t know. But I’m thirsty for knowledge. But you have no thirst at all. You would rather make brainless generalizations and contribute nothing to the world of critical thinking. That’s stupid.

Stick your silly bravado where the sun doesn’t shine. Your “bring it on, sweet cheeks” doesn’t impress anyone but yourself. If you have a valid argument to make, make it. If you don’t know the components of a valid argument, look it up.

Rule No. 4. When lacking a coherent or cogent counter-argument, attack the poster.

You didn't make an argument. You don't even know what an argument is. You spewed forth unsupported conclusions and hateful generalizations. How many times do you have to be told that no one has any obligation to make a counter-argument until you have first made an argument. In response, here's what you wrote: "When one offers an opinion, it is his prerogative whether or not he wishes to provide proof."

In my opinion, that is stupid. See definition of "stupid" above.

Well done. I directly challenged you, and the best you can do is attack my signature? Seriously? And, you want to match degrees? Isn't that a bit childish? Then, you want to make a big deal out of the fact that it took two days to respond? Damn - I have a life. Don't you? Another adolescent attack.

If you can't justify your conclusions, just say so ... You have no problem declaring others to be stupid, so I find it AMUSING that you can dish it out but can't take it. If you have a valid argument to support any one of your conclusions, make it. Apparently, you think you already know everything ... and that is stupid.

If you don't want to discuss the suppositions offered, I understand. You want to talk trash, but obviously, you're unwilling to talk issues and facts. Pick a supposition and challenge it - until then, your childish little tirade is b-o-r-I-n-g.

The topic of this thread is this: "Are liberals pro equality?" Respond to that with a simple yes or no and then set forth a valid argument to support your conclusion.

If your only intent was to jump onto a "bash liberals" bandwagon, then just say so.

I'm not stopping you from placing your alleged expertise on display ... when is that going to happen?

That's right .. I posted conclusions ... several of them. I can, and will justify any one of those you desire.

Then, I challenged you to pick one - just one - and we'll discuss it. As I said, I will be more than happy to prove my point. Just pick one ... it's really not that difficult.

Pick it --- argue it --- and then, duck. Because you won't like what I have to say.

#2
They can't understand any other opinion apart from their own, they constantly bash conservatives for being intolerant while they are intolerant towards conservatives themselves.

Again- I am a liberal- prove that I do those things.

 

[Syriusly]

I would simple point you to your own post #46, in which you, I assume intentionally, attempted to deflect the focus away from the issue at hand, and to turn that light on my personal characteristics. By doing so, you changed the direction of the discussion - not because it was an attempt to broaden the discussion, but rather, an attempt to conceal the simple truth that you didn't have a cogent response.

When one offers an opinion, it is his prerogative whether or not he wishes to provide proof. An opinion is just that - it is not a educational treatise, designed to lead you out of the darkness. It is a statement of position - an ideological stake driven in the ground, if you will Given the broad breadth of the subject originally under discussion (before your digression), the character limit forbade me expanding in sufficient depth.

However ... if you wish, I will be more than happy to expound on my opinion in any of the areas you wish to discuss. (Make sure you pick one you know something about). Which will it be?

1) Liberals are concerned with equal result, not equal opportunity.
2) Liberal are concerned with compensation, not contribution.
3) Liberals are concerned with creating an environment in which all people are rewarded equally, regardless of effort.
4) Liberals are concerned with mediocritizing the educational system, rather than maximizing the growth of each individual.
5) Liberals are concerned with centralization of power, rather than maximizing individual growth.
6) Liberals are inherently egotistical and arrogant. (I'll throw that one in for free.)

Pick one and let me know ...

By the way ... citing a quote by Alexander Pope, out of context, serves no purpose other than to contribute to validating No. 6 above. It proves nothing about your intellectual capabilities, other than your ability to plagiarize someone else (without attribution) when your own words fail you. To try to paint yourself with this false patina of knowledge is, in a phrase, intellectually dishonest. Pope's poem was a dissertation on the damage done by critics - to the point that he even said that bad critiques do more damage to the art of poetry than bad poets . Your misrepresentation is reprehensible..

Or, as my ol' daddy used to say ... bring it on, sweet cheeks, but you better be willing to stay for the whole ride..

Stupid Definition of stupid by Merriam-Webster

Stupid: marked by or resulting from unreasoned thinking or acting


Like every other member on this board, you take your signature space with you everywhere you post. The words or images you choose to place in your signature space are a reflection upon you. In that space, you state, “On the Internet, you can choose to be anything. I’m just amazed how many people choose to be stupid.” Thus, you claim some special ability to recognize “stupid”, but fail to recognize it in yourself. Amazing, indeed.

In my opinion, your diatribe on liberals was stupid. I gave you my reasons for stating your diatribe was stupid.

Then you stupidly said that I didn’t make a counter-argument. You have to make an argument first before you can expect someone to make a counter-argument. Where was your argument? It didn’t exist.

It took you two days to come up with a response. Now you claim you just offered an opinion. In that regard, you claim that you’re not required to substantiate your opinion.

What little bit of learning you have had is dangerous because you now think you’re an expert and can sit in judgment of other people’s stupidity. And that is stupid. If you don’t want that word used against you, then take it out of signature space and start educating yourself.

I have had a ton of education … a ton … and the more I learn, the more I realize how much I don’t know. But I’m thirsty for knowledge. But you have no thirst at all. You would rather make brainless generalizations and contribute nothing to the world of critical thinking. That’s stupid.

Stick your silly bravado where the sun doesn’t shine. Your “bring it on, sweet cheeks” doesn’t impress anyone but yourself. If you have a valid argument to make, make it. If you don’t know the components of a valid argument, look it up.

Rule No. 4. When lacking a coherent or cogent counter-argument, attack the poster.

You didn't make an argument. You don't even know what an argument is. You spewed forth unsupported conclusions and hateful generalizations. How many times do you have to be told that no one has any obligation to make a counter-argument until you have first made an argument. In response, here's what you wrote: "When one offers an opinion, it is his prerogative whether or not he wishes to provide proof."

In my opinion, that is stupid. See definition of "stupid" above.

Well done. I directly challenged you, and the best you can do is attack my signature? Seriously? And, you want to match degrees? Isn't that a bit childish? Then, you want to make a big deal out of the fact that it took two days to respond? Damn - I have a life. Don't you? Another adolescent attack.

If you can't justify your conclusions, just say so ... You have no problem declaring others to be stupid, so I find it AMUSING that you can dish it out but can't take it. If you have a valid argument to support any one of your conclusions, make it. Apparently, you think you already know everything ... and that is stupid.

If you don't want to discuss the suppositions offered, I understand. You want to talk trash, but obviously, you're unwilling to talk issues and facts. Pick a supposition and challenge it - until then, your childish little tirade is b-o-r-I-n-g.

The topic of this thread is this: "Are liberals pro equality?" Respond to that with a simple yes or no and then set forth a valid argument to support your conclusion.

If your only intent was to jump onto a "bash liberals" bandwagon, then just say so.

I'm not stopping you from placing your alleged expertise on display ... when is that going to happen?

That's right .. I posted conclusions ... several of them. I can, and will justify any one of those you desire.

Then, I challenged you to pick one - just one - and we'll discuss it. As I said, I will be more than happy to prove my point. Just pick one ... it's really not that difficult.

Pick it --- argue it --- and then, duck. Because you won't like what I have to say.

#2
They can't understand any other opinion apart from their own, they constantly bash conservatives for being intolerant while they are intolerant towards conservatives themselves.

Again- I am a liberal- prove that I do those things.

#3
The most tolerant person ever living on our planet was Jesus and they don't tolerate the idea of his existence

Prove that 'liberals' don't tolerate the existence of Jesus. Remember- arguing that religious symbols don't belong on public property is not an example of not tolerating the existence of Jesus.

 

[Syriusly]

Stupid Definition of stupid by Merriam-Webster

Stupid: marked by or resulting from unreasoned thinking or acting


Like every other member on this board, you take your signature space with you everywhere you post. The words or images you choose to place in your signature space are a reflection upon you. In that space, you state, “On the Internet, you can choose to be anything. I’m just amazed how many people choose to be stupid.” Thus, you claim some special ability to recognize “stupid”, but fail to recognize it in yourself. Amazing, indeed.

In my opinion, your diatribe on liberals was stupid. I gave you my reasons for stating your diatribe was stupid.

Then you stupidly said that I didn’t make a counter-argument. You have to make an argument first before you can expect someone to make a counter-argument. Where was your argument? It didn’t exist.

It took you two days to come up with a response. Now you claim you just offered an opinion. In that regard, you claim that you’re not required to substantiate your opinion.

What little bit of learning you have had is dangerous because you now think you’re an expert and can sit in judgment of other people’s stupidity. And that is stupid. If you don’t want that word used against you, then take it out of signature space and start educating yourself.

I have had a ton of education … a ton … and the more I learn, the more I realize how much I don’t know. But I’m thirsty for knowledge. But you have no thirst at all. You would rather make brainless generalizations and contribute nothing to the world of critical thinking. That’s stupid.

Stick your silly bravado where the sun doesn’t shine. Your “bring it on, sweet cheeks” doesn’t impress anyone but yourself. If you have a valid argument to make, make it. If you don’t know the components of a valid argument, look it up.

Rule No. 4. When lacking a coherent or cogent counter-argument, attack the poster.

You didn't make an argument. You don't even know what an argument is. You spewed forth unsupported conclusions and hateful generalizations. How many times do you have to be told that no one has any obligation to make a counter-argument until you have first made an argument. In response, here's what you wrote: "When one offers an opinion, it is his prerogative whether or not he wishes to provide proof."

In my opinion, that is stupid. See definition of "stupid" above.

Well done. I directly challenged you, and the best you can do is attack my signature? Seriously? And, you want to match degrees? Isn't that a bit childish? Then, you want to make a big deal out of the fact that it took two days to respond? Damn - I have a life. Don't you? Another adolescent attack.

If you can't justify your conclusions, just say so ... You have no problem declaring others to be stupid, so I find it AMUSING that you can dish it out but can't take it. If you have a valid argument to support any one of your conclusions, make it. Apparently, you think you already know everything ... and that is stupid.

If you don't want to discuss the suppositions offered, I understand. You want to talk trash, but obviously, you're unwilling to talk issues and facts. Pick a supposition and challenge it - until then, your childish little tirade is b-o-r-I-n-g.

The topic of this thread is this: "Are liberals pro equality?" Respond to that with a simple yes or no and then set forth a valid argument to support your conclusion.

If your only intent was to jump onto a "bash liberals" bandwagon, then just say so.

I'm not stopping you from placing your alleged expertise on display ... when is that going to happen?

That's right .. I posted conclusions ... several of them. I can, and will justify any one of those you desire.

Then, I challenged you to pick one - just one - and we'll discuss it. As I said, I will be more than happy to prove my point. Just pick one ... it's really not that difficult.

Pick it --- argue it --- and then, duck. Because you won't like what I have to say.

#2
They can't understand any other opinion apart from their own, they constantly bash conservatives for being intolerant while they are intolerant towards conservatives themselves.

Again- I am a liberal- prove that I do those things.

#3
The most tolerant person ever living on our planet was Jesus and they don't tolerate the idea of his existence

Prove that 'liberals' don't tolerate the existence of Jesus. Remember- arguing that religious symbols don't belong on public property is not an example of not tolerating the existence of Jesus.

#4
That's sad America is turning into a fascist state.

Prove it.

4 unsubstantiated claims- 4 opportunities for you to prove what you claimed.

 

[Spare_change]

I would simple point you to your own post #46, in which you, I assume intentionally, attempted to deflect the focus away from the issue at hand, and to turn that light on my personal characteristics. By doing so, you changed the direction of the discussion - not because it was an attempt to broaden the discussion, but rather, an attempt to conceal the simple truth that you didn't have a cogent response.

When one offers an opinion, it is his prerogative whether or not he wishes to provide proof. An opinion is just that - it is not a educational treatise, designed to lead you out of the darkness. It is a statement of position - an ideological stake driven in the ground, if you will Given the broad breadth of the subject originally under discussion (before your digression), the character limit forbade me expanding in sufficient depth.

However ... if you wish, I will be more than happy to expound on my opinion in any of the areas you wish to discuss. (Make sure you pick one you know something about). Which will it be?

1) Liberals are concerned with equal result, not equal opportunity.
2) Liberal are concerned with compensation, not contribution.
3) Liberals are concerned with creating an environment in which all people are rewarded equally, regardless of effort.
4) Liberals are concerned with mediocritizing the educational system, rather than maximizing the growth of each individual.
5) Liberals are concerned with centralization of power, rather than maximizing individual growth.
6) Liberals are inherently egotistical and arrogant. (I'll throw that one in for free.)

Pick one and let me know ...

By the way ... citing a quote by Alexander Pope, out of context, serves no purpose other than to contribute to validating No. 6 above. It proves nothing about your intellectual capabilities, other than your ability to plagiarize someone else (without attribution) when your own words fail you. To try to paint yourself with this false patina of knowledge is, in a phrase, intellectually dishonest. Pope's poem was a dissertation on the damage done by critics - to the point that he even said that bad critiques do more damage to the art of poetry than bad poets . Your misrepresentation is reprehensible..

Or, as my ol' daddy used to say ... bring it on, sweet cheeks, but you better be willing to stay for the whole ride..

Stupid Definition of stupid by Merriam-Webster

Stupid: marked by or resulting from unreasoned thinking or acting


Like every other member on this board, you take your signature space with you everywhere you post. The words or images you choose to place in your signature space are a reflection upon you. In that space, you state, “On the Internet, you can choose to be anything. I’m just amazed how many people choose to be stupid.” Thus, you claim some special ability to recognize “stupid”, but fail to recognize it in yourself. Amazing, indeed.

In my opinion, your diatribe on liberals was stupid. I gave you my reasons for stating your diatribe was stupid.

Then you stupidly said that I didn’t make a counter-argument. You have to make an argument first before you can expect someone to make a counter-argument. Where was your argument? It didn’t exist.

It took you two days to come up with a response. Now you claim you just offered an opinion. In that regard, you claim that you’re not required to substantiate your opinion.

What little bit of learning you have had is dangerous because you now think you’re an expert and can sit in judgment of other people’s stupidity. And that is stupid. If you don’t want that word used against you, then take it out of signature space and start educating yourself.

I have had a ton of education … a ton … and the more I learn, the more I realize how much I don’t know. But I’m thirsty for knowledge. But you have no thirst at all. You would rather make brainless generalizations and contribute nothing to the world of critical thinking. That’s stupid.

Stick your silly bravado where the sun doesn’t shine. Your “bring it on, sweet cheeks” doesn’t impress anyone but yourself. If you have a valid argument to make, make it. If you don’t know the components of a valid argument, look it up.

Rule No. 4. When lacking a coherent or cogent counter-argument, attack the poster.

You didn't make an argument. You don't even know what an argument is. You spewed forth unsupported conclusions and hateful generalizations. How many times do you have to be told that no one has any obligation to make a counter-argument until you have first made an argument. In response, here's what you wrote: "When one offers an opinion, it is his prerogative whether or not he wishes to provide proof."

In my opinion, that is stupid. See definition of "stupid" above.

Well done. I directly challenged you, and the best you can do is attack my signature? Seriously? And, you want to match degrees? Isn't that a bit childish? Then, you want to make a big deal out of the fact that it took two days to respond? Damn - I have a life. Don't you? Another adolescent attack.

If you can't justify your conclusions, just say so ... You have no problem declaring others to be stupid, so I find it AMUSING that you can dish it out but can't take it. If you have a valid argument to support any one of your conclusions, make it. Apparently, you think you already know everything ... and that is stupid.

If you don't want to discuss the suppositions offered, I understand. You want to talk trash, but obviously, you're unwilling to talk issues and facts. Pick a supposition and challenge it - until then, your childish little tirade is b-o-r-I-n-g.

The topic of this thread is this: "Are liberals pro equality?" Respond to that with a simple yes or no and then set forth a valid argument to support your conclusion.

If your only intent was to jump onto a "bash liberals" bandwagon, then just say so.

I'm not stopping you from placing your alleged expertise on display ... when is that going to happen?

That's right .. I posted conclusions ... several of them. I can, and will justify any one of those you desire.

Then, I challenged you to pick one - just one - and we'll discuss it. As I said, I will be more than happy to prove my point. Just pick one ... it's really not that difficult.

Pick it --- argue it --- and then, duck. Because you won't like what I have to say.

Oh this should be fun-
#1
They only pretend to believe into the freedom of speech and self-expression while in fact they are just fascists (though they don't understand it).

I am a liberal- prove that I am a fascist- and not just your definition of a fascist

Ok - I'll take your challenge - but, do you have the balls to do it?

Define the liberal position on the First Amendment. And, I will tell you where you are lying thru your teeth - and prove it.

By the way --- nice deflection. Your '4 opportunities' are your creation, not mine. Let's be clear about what I said.

1) Liberals are concerned with equal result, not equal opportunity.
2) Liberal are concerned with compensation, not contribution.
3) Liberals are concerned with creating an environment in which all people are rewarded equally, regardless of effort.
4) Liberals are concerned with mediocritizing the educational system, rather than maximizing the growth of each individual.
5) Liberals are concerned with centralization of power, rather than maximizing individual growth.
6) Liberals are inherently egotistical and arrogant. (I'll throw that one in for free.)

Now ... pick one and let's discuss it. If you have the courage ...

 

[Debra K]

Spare_Change:

Earlier in this thread, I responded to another person's diatribe as follows:

"A little learning is a dangerous thing;
drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
and drinking largely sobers us again."

If you would be willing to engage in a little self education, can you tell me the source of those words and what they mean? wasn't your diatribe the product of "intoxication"?

Furthermore, because you're the one making the conclusions, you're the one that has the burden of proof. In other words, you need to actually make an argument in support of your conclusions before you may expect anyone else to come forward with a counter-argument.

I would simple point you to your own post #46, in which you, I assume intentionally, attempted to deflect the focus away from the issue at hand, and to turn that light on my personal characteristics. By doing so, you changed the direction of the discussion - not because it was an attempt to broaden the discussion, but rather, an attempt to conceal the simple truth that you didn't have a cogent response.

When one offers an opinion, it is his prerogative whether or not he wishes to provide proof. An opinion is just that - it is not a educational treatise, designed to lead you out of the darkness. It is a statement of position - an ideological stake driven in the ground, if you will Given the broad breadth of the subject originally under discussion (before your digression), the character limit forbade me expanding in sufficient depth.

However ... if you wish, I will be more than happy to expound on my opinion in any of the areas you wish to discuss. (Make sure you pick one you know something about). Which will it be?

1) Liberals are concerned with equal result, not equal opportunity.
2) Liberal are concerned with compensation, not contribution.
3) Liberals are concerned with creating an environment in which all people are rewarded equally, regardless of effort.
4) Liberals are concerned with mediocritizing the educational system, rather than maximizing the growth of each individual.
5) Liberals are concerned with centralization of power, rather than maximizing individual growth.
6) Liberals are inherently egotistical and arrogant. (I'll throw that one in for free.)

Pick one and let me know ...

By the way ... citing a quote by Alexander Pope, out of context, serves no purpose other than to contribute to validating No. 6 above. It proves nothing about your intellectual capabilities, other than your ability to plagiarize someone else (without attribution) when your own words fail you. To try to paint yourself with this false patina of knowledge is, in a phrase, intellectually dishonest. Pope's poem was a dissertation on the damage done by critics - to the point that he even said that bad critiques do more damage to the art of poetry than bad poets . Your misrepresentation is reprehensible..

Or, as my ol' daddy used to say ... bring it on, sweet cheeks, but you better be willing to stay for the whole ride..

Stupid Definition of stupid by Merriam-Webster

Stupid: marked by or resulting from unreasoned thinking or acting


Like every other member on this board, you take your signature space with you everywhere you post. The words or images you choose to place in your signature space are a reflection upon you. In that space, you state, “On the Internet, you can choose to be anything. I’m just amazed how many people choose to be stupid.” Thus, you claim some special ability to recognize “stupid”, but fail to recognize it in yourself. Amazing, indeed.

In my opinion, your diatribe on liberals was stupid. I gave you my reasons for stating your diatribe was stupid.

Then you stupidly said that I didn’t make a counter-argument. You have to make an argument first before you can expect someone to make a counter-argument. Where was your argument? It didn’t exist.

It took you two days to come up with a response. Now you claim you just offered an opinion. In that regard, you claim that you’re not required to substantiate your opinion.

What little bit of learning you have had is dangerous because you now think you’re an expert and can sit in judgment of other people’s stupidity. And that is stupid. If you don’t want that word used against you, then take it out of signature space and start educating yourself.

I have had a ton of education … a ton … and the more I learn, the more I realize how much I don’t know. But I’m thirsty for knowledge. But you have no thirst at all. You would rather make brainless generalizations and contribute nothing to the world of critical thinking. That’s stupid.

Stick your silly bravado where the sun doesn’t shine. Your “bring it on, sweet cheeks” doesn’t impress anyone but yourself. If you have a valid argument to make, make it. If you don’t know the components of a valid argument, look it up.

Rule No. 4. When lacking a coherent or cogent counter-argument, attack the poster.

You didn't make an argument. You don't even know what an argument is. You spewed forth unsupported conclusions and hateful generalizations. How many times do you have to be told that no one has any obligation to make a counter-argument until you have first made an argument. In response, here's what you wrote: "When one offers an opinion, it is his prerogative whether or not he wishes to provide proof."

In my opinion, that is stupid. See definition of "stupid" above.

Well done. I directly challenged you, and the best you can do is attack my signature? Seriously? And, you want to match degrees? Isn't that a bit childish? Then, you want to make a big deal out of the fact that it took two days to respond? Damn - I have a life. Don't you? Another adolescent attack.

If you can't justify your conclusions, just say so ... You have no problem declaring others to be stupid, so I find it AMUSING that you can dish it out but can't take it. If you have a valid argument to support any one of your conclusions, make it. Apparently, you think you already know everything ... and that is stupid.

If you don't want to discuss the suppositions offered, I understand. You want to talk trash, but obviously, you're unwilling to talk issues and facts. Pick a supposition and challenge it - until then, your childish little tirade is b-o-r-I-n-g.

The topic of this thread is this: "Are liberals pro equality?" Respond to that with a simple yes or no and then set forth a valid argument to support your conclusion.

If your only intent was to jump onto a "bash liberals" bandwagon, then just say so.

I'm not stopping you from placing your alleged expertise on display ... when is that going to happen?

That's right .. I posted conclusions ... several of them. I can, and will justify any one of those you desire.

Then, I challenged you to pick one - just one - and we'll discuss it. As I said, I will be more than happy to prove my point. Just pick one ... it's really not that difficult.

Pick it --- argue it --- and then, duck. Because you won't like what I have to say.

If you had an argument in support of your own damn conclusions, you would have put one forth by now. I'm not going to create a man of straw and knock that down. Create your own argument, you lazy fool.

 

[Toro]

Liberals believe in equal results, not equal opportunity.

And where, exactly, did you get that utter nonsense from? That's what it is BTW, nonsense.

The reason we like the box on the right, all of them can see the game. Who they bet on, and how much, that's on them.

A better representation would be the first picture stays the same, then in the second picture, everything would be the same except there'd by no baseball game.

 

[Spare_change]

I would simple point you to your own post #46, in which you, I assume intentionally, attempted to deflect the focus away from the issue at hand, and to turn that light on my personal characteristics. By doing so, you changed the direction of the discussion - not because it was an attempt to broaden the discussion, but rather, an attempt to conceal the simple truth that you didn't have a cogent response.

When one offers an opinion, it is his prerogative whether or not he wishes to provide proof. An opinion is just that - it is not a educational treatise, designed to lead you out of the darkness. It is a statement of position - an ideological stake driven in the ground, if you will Given the broad breadth of the subject originally under discussion (before your digression), the character limit forbade me expanding in sufficient depth.

However ... if you wish, I will be more than happy to expound on my opinion in any of the areas you wish to discuss. (Make sure you pick one you know something about). Which will it be?

1) Liberals are concerned with equal result, not equal opportunity.
2) Liberal are concerned with compensation, not contribution.
3) Liberals are concerned with creating an environment in which all people are rewarded equally, regardless of effort.
4) Liberals are concerned with mediocritizing the educational system, rather than maximizing the growth of each individual.
5) Liberals are concerned with centralization of power, rather than maximizing individual growth.
6) Liberals are inherently egotistical and arrogant. (I'll throw that one in for free.)

Pick one and let me know ...

By the way ... citing a quote by Alexander Pope, out of context, serves no purpose other than to contribute to validating No. 6 above. It proves nothing about your intellectual capabilities, other than your ability to plagiarize someone else (without attribution) when your own words fail you. To try to paint yourself with this false patina of knowledge is, in a phrase, intellectually dishonest. Pope's poem was a dissertation on the damage done by critics - to the point that he even said that bad critiques do more damage to the art of poetry than bad poets . Your misrepresentation is reprehensible..

Or, as my ol' daddy used to say ... bring it on, sweet cheeks, but you better be willing to stay for the whole ride..

Stupid Definition of stupid by Merriam-Webster

Stupid: marked by or resulting from unreasoned thinking or acting


Like every other member on this board, you take your signature space with you everywhere you post. The words or images you choose to place in your signature space are a reflection upon you. In that space, you state, “On the Internet, you can choose to be anything. I’m just amazed how many people choose to be stupid.” Thus, you claim some special ability to recognize “stupid”, but fail to recognize it in yourself. Amazing, indeed.

In my opinion, your diatribe on liberals was stupid. I gave you my reasons for stating your diatribe was stupid.

Then you stupidly said that I didn’t make a counter-argument. You have to make an argument first before you can expect someone to make a counter-argument. Where was your argument? It didn’t exist.

It took you two days to come up with a response. Now you claim you just offered an opinion. In that regard, you claim that you’re not required to substantiate your opinion.

What little bit of learning you have had is dangerous because you now think you’re an expert and can sit in judgment of other people’s stupidity. And that is stupid. If you don’t want that word used against you, then take it out of signature space and start educating yourself.

I have had a ton of education … a ton … and the more I learn, the more I realize how much I don’t know. But I’m thirsty for knowledge. But you have no thirst at all. You would rather make brainless generalizations and contribute nothing to the world of critical thinking. That’s stupid.

Stick your silly bravado where the sun doesn’t shine. Your “bring it on, sweet cheeks” doesn’t impress anyone but yourself. If you have a valid argument to make, make it. If you don’t know the components of a valid argument, look it up.

Rule No. 4. When lacking a coherent or cogent counter-argument, attack the poster.

You didn't make an argument. You don't even know what an argument is. You spewed forth unsupported conclusions and hateful generalizations. How many times do you have to be told that no one has any obligation to make a counter-argument until you have first made an argument. In response, here's what you wrote: "When one offers an opinion, it is his prerogative whether or not he wishes to provide proof."

In my opinion, that is stupid. See definition of "stupid" above.

Well done. I directly challenged you, and the best you can do is attack my signature? Seriously? And, you want to match degrees? Isn't that a bit childish? Then, you want to make a big deal out of the fact that it took two days to respond? Damn - I have a life. Don't you? Another adolescent attack.

If you can't justify your conclusions, just say so ... You have no problem declaring others to be stupid, so I find it AMUSING that you can dish it out but can't take it. If you have a valid argument to support any one of your conclusions, make it. Apparently, you think you already know everything ... and that is stupid.

If you don't want to discuss the suppositions offered, I understand. You want to talk trash, but obviously, you're unwilling to talk issues and facts. Pick a supposition and challenge it - until then, your childish little tirade is b-o-r-I-n-g.

The topic of this thread is this: "Are liberals pro equality?" Respond to that with a simple yes or no and then set forth a valid argument to support your conclusion.

If your only intent was to jump onto a "bash liberals" bandwagon, then just say so.

I'm not stopping you from placing your alleged expertise on display ... when is that going to happen?

That's right .. I posted conclusions ... several of them. I can, and will justify any one of those you desire.

Then, I challenged you to pick one - just one - and we'll discuss it. As I said, I will be more than happy to prove my point. Just pick one ... it's really not that difficult.

Pick it --- argue it --- and then, duck. Because you won't like what I have to say.

If you had an argument in support of your own damn conclusions, you would have put one forth by now. I'm not going to create a man of straw and knock that down. Create your own argument, you lazy fool.

Quit whining and step up ... or shut up.

I asked you to enumerate your position, and you don't seem to be willing to do that. Is that because you can't, or is it because you don't have one? Are you another of the mindless liberal soldiers, who salute smartly, and march off the cliff? We can't have a reasonable discussion until you establish the baseline. Establish the baseline, and we will discuss it.

But, hey, just keep complaining. It really demonstrates the shallowness of your position, and the inability of the left to articulate a definitive position..

 

[Spare_change]

Liberals believe in equal results, not equal opportunity.

And where, exactly, did you get that utter nonsense from? That's what it is BTW, nonsense.

The reason we like the box on the right, all of them can see the game. Who they bet on, and how much, that's on them.

Childish, simplistic, and ever so incorrect. Equal pay for equal effort, right?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Liberals believe in equal results, not equal opportunity.

And where, exactly, did you get that utter nonsense from? That's what it is BTW, nonsense.

The reason we like the box on the right, all of them can see the game. Who they bet on, and how much, that's on them.

Childish, simplistic, and ever so incorrect. Equal pay for equal effort, right?

Nope. The brain surgeon can charge more than the roofer. Capitalism baby, love it or leave it.

My bleeding heart, charges by the minute, with travel time at 50%.

 

[Debra K]

Stupid Definition of stupid by Merriam-Webster

Stupid: marked by or resulting from unreasoned thinking or acting


Like every other member on this board, you take your signature space with you everywhere you post. The words or images you choose to place in your signature space are a reflection upon you. In that space, you state, “On the Internet, you can choose to be anything. I’m just amazed how many people choose to be stupid.” Thus, you claim some special ability to recognize “stupid”, but fail to recognize it in yourself. Amazing, indeed.

In my opinion, your diatribe on liberals was stupid. I gave you my reasons for stating your diatribe was stupid.

Then you stupidly said that I didn’t make a counter-argument. You have to make an argument first before you can expect someone to make a counter-argument. Where was your argument? It didn’t exist.

It took you two days to come up with a response. Now you claim you just offered an opinion. In that regard, you claim that you’re not required to substantiate your opinion.

What little bit of learning you have had is dangerous because you now think you’re an expert and can sit in judgment of other people’s stupidity. And that is stupid. If you don’t want that word used against you, then take it out of signature space and start educating yourself.

I have had a ton of education … a ton … and the more I learn, the more I realize how much I don’t know. But I’m thirsty for knowledge. But you have no thirst at all. You would rather make brainless generalizations and contribute nothing to the world of critical thinking. That’s stupid.

Stick your silly bravado where the sun doesn’t shine. Your “bring it on, sweet cheeks” doesn’t impress anyone but yourself. If you have a valid argument to make, make it. If you don’t know the components of a valid argument, look it up.

Rule No. 4. When lacking a coherent or cogent counter-argument, attack the poster.

You didn't make an argument. You don't even know what an argument is. You spewed forth unsupported conclusions and hateful generalizations. How many times do you have to be told that no one has any obligation to make a counter-argument until you have first made an argument. In response, here's what you wrote: "When one offers an opinion, it is his prerogative whether or not he wishes to provide proof."

In my opinion, that is stupid. See definition of "stupid" above.

Well done. I directly challenged you, and the best you can do is attack my signature? Seriously? And, you want to match degrees? Isn't that a bit childish? Then, you want to make a big deal out of the fact that it took two days to respond? Damn - I have a life. Don't you? Another adolescent attack.

If you can't justify your conclusions, just say so ... You have no problem declaring others to be stupid, so I find it AMUSING that you can dish it out but can't take it. If you have a valid argument to support any one of your conclusions, make it. Apparently, you think you already know everything ... and that is stupid.

If you don't want to discuss the suppositions offered, I understand. You want to talk trash, but obviously, you're unwilling to talk issues and facts. Pick a supposition and challenge it - until then, your childish little tirade is b-o-r-I-n-g.

The topic of this thread is this: "Are liberals pro equality?" Respond to that with a simple yes or no and then set forth a valid argument to support your conclusion.

If your only intent was to jump onto a "bash liberals" bandwagon, then just say so.

I'm not stopping you from placing your alleged expertise on display ... when is that going to happen?

That's right .. I posted conclusions ... several of them. I can, and will justify any one of those you desire.

Then, I challenged you to pick one - just one - and we'll discuss it. As I said, I will be more than happy to prove my point. Just pick one ... it's really not that difficult.

Pick it --- argue it --- and then, duck. Because you won't like what I have to say.

If you had an argument in support of your own damn conclusions, you would have put one forth by now. I'm not going to create a man of straw and knock that down. Create your own argument, you lazy fool.

Quit whining and step up ... or shut up.

I asked you to enumerate your position, and you don't seem to be willing to do that. Is that because you can't, or is it because you don't have one? Are you another of the mindless liberal soldiers, who salute smartly, and march off the cliff? We can't have a reasonable discussion until you establish the baseline. Establish the baseline, and we will discuss it.

But, hey, just keep complaining. It really demonstrates the shallowness of your position, and the inability of the left to articulate a definitive position..

Stupid, lazy fool: They are YOUR conclusions, not mine. The burden of proof is on you, not me. You said you could prove your conclusions, yet you make no effort to do so. Instead, you ask me to play the part of Don Quixote and go about tilting at windmills. That's stupid and I'm not joining your stupid club. They are YOUR conclusions, so YOU quit whining and step up and support YOUR conclusions ... or shut up.

 

[Spare_change]

Rule No. 4. When lacking a coherent or cogent counter-argument, attack the poster.

You didn't make an argument. You don't even know what an argument is. You spewed forth unsupported conclusions and hateful generalizations. How many times do you have to be told that no one has any obligation to make a counter-argument until you have first made an argument. In response, here's what you wrote: "When one offers an opinion, it is his prerogative whether or not he wishes to provide proof."

In my opinion, that is stupid. See definition of "stupid" above.

Well done. I directly challenged you, and the best you can do is attack my signature? Seriously? And, you want to match degrees? Isn't that a bit childish? Then, you want to make a big deal out of the fact that it took two days to respond? Damn - I have a life. Don't you? Another adolescent attack.

If you can't justify your conclusions, just say so ... You have no problem declaring others to be stupid, so I find it AMUSING that you can dish it out but can't take it. If you have a valid argument to support any one of your conclusions, make it. Apparently, you think you already know everything ... and that is stupid.

If you don't want to discuss the suppositions offered, I understand. You want to talk trash, but obviously, you're unwilling to talk issues and facts. Pick a supposition and challenge it - until then, your childish little tirade is b-o-r-I-n-g.

The topic of this thread is this: "Are liberals pro equality?" Respond to that with a simple yes or no and then set forth a valid argument to support your conclusion.

If your only intent was to jump onto a "bash liberals" bandwagon, then just say so.

I'm not stopping you from placing your alleged expertise on display ... when is that going to happen?

That's right .. I posted conclusions ... several of them. I can, and will justify any one of those you desire.

Then, I challenged you to pick one - just one - and we'll discuss it. As I said, I will be more than happy to prove my point. Just pick one ... it's really not that difficult.

Pick it --- argue it --- and then, duck. Because you won't like what I have to say.

If you had an argument in support of your own damn conclusions, you would have put one forth by now. I'm not going to create a man of straw and knock that down. Create your own argument, you lazy fool.

Quit whining and step up ... or shut up.

I asked you to enumerate your position, and you don't seem to be willing to do that. Is that because you can't, or is it because you don't have one? Are you another of the mindless liberal soldiers, who salute smartly, and march off the cliff? We can't have a reasonable discussion until you establish the baseline. Establish the baseline, and we will discuss it.

But, hey, just keep complaining. It really demonstrates the shallowness of your position, and the inability of the left to articulate a definitive position..

Stupid, lazy fool: They are YOUR conclusions, not mine. The burden of proof is on you, not me. You said you could prove your conclusions, yet you make no effort to do so. Instead, you ask me to play the part of Don Quixote and go about tilting at windmills. That's stupid and I'm not joining your stupid club. They are YOUR conclusions, so YOU quit whining and step up and support YOUR conclusions ... or shut up.

I got it .... you really DON'T have a response, do you? You have no desire to state your position, knowing that it will be refuted. They're not windmills ---- they are your position on the issues. Just pick one - any one.

But, we understand ... you have uncovered the liberals' dirty little secret. No problem ... have a nice day.

Or ... we can try it this way.

What is your position on equal compensation based on effort vs. equal compensation based on contribution?

There ... a nice, easy, simple question, very specific in nature. NOW, can you at least pretend to have a position?

BTW --- the name calling is really childish.

 

[Spare_change]

Liberals believe in equal results, not equal opportunity.

And where, exactly, did you get that utter nonsense from? That's what it is BTW, nonsense.

The reason we like the box on the right, all of them can see the game. Who they bet on, and how much, that's on them.

Childish, simplistic, and ever so incorrect. Equal pay for equal effort, right?

Nope. The brain surgeon can charge more than the roofer. Capitalism baby, love it or leave it.

My bleeding heart, charges by the minute, with travel time at 50%.

So, you believe that compensation should be based on contribution, right? Then, of course, this means you don't categorically endorse the concept of minimum wage, right?

Maybe you're not as liberal as you pretend to be.

 

[BULLDOG]

You didn't make an argument. You don't even know what an argument is. You spewed forth unsupported conclusions and hateful generalizations. How many times do you have to be told that no one has any obligation to make a counter-argument until you have first made an argument. In response, here's what you wrote: "When one offers an opinion, it is his prerogative whether or not he wishes to provide proof."

In my opinion, that is stupid. See definition of "stupid" above.

If you can't justify your conclusions, just say so ... You have no problem declaring others to be stupid, so I find it AMUSING that you can dish it out but can't take it. If you have a valid argument to support any one of your conclusions, make it. Apparently, you think you already know everything ... and that is stupid.

The topic of this thread is this: "Are liberals pro equality?" Respond to that with a simple yes or no and then set forth a valid argument to support your conclusion.

If your only intent was to jump onto a "bash liberals" bandwagon, then just say so.

I'm not stopping you from placing your alleged expertise on display ... when is that going to happen?

That's right .. I posted conclusions ... several of them. I can, and will justify any one of those you desire.

Then, I challenged you to pick one - just one - and we'll discuss it. As I said, I will be more than happy to prove my point. Just pick one ... it's really not that difficult.

Pick it --- argue it --- and then, duck. Because you won't like what I have to say.

If you had an argument in support of your own damn conclusions, you would have put one forth by now. I'm not going to create a man of straw and knock that down. Create your own argument, you lazy fool.

Quit whining and step up ... or shut up.

I asked you to enumerate your position, and you don't seem to be willing to do that. Is that because you can't, or is it because you don't have one? Are you another of the mindless liberal soldiers, who salute smartly, and march off the cliff? We can't have a reasonable discussion until you establish the baseline. Establish the baseline, and we will discuss it.

But, hey, just keep complaining. It really demonstrates the shallowness of your position, and the inability of the left to articulate a definitive position..

Stupid, lazy fool: They are YOUR conclusions, not mine. The burden of proof is on you, not me. You said you could prove your conclusions, yet you make no effort to do so. Instead, you ask me to play the part of Don Quixote and go about tilting at windmills. That's stupid and I'm not joining your stupid club. They are YOUR conclusions, so YOU quit whining and step up and support YOUR conclusions ... or shut up.

I got it .... you really DON'T have a response, do you? You have no desire to state your position, knowing that it will be refuted. They're not windmills ---- they are your position on the issues. Just pick one - any one.

But, we understand ... you have uncovered the liberals' dirty little secret. No problem ... have a nice day.

Or ... we can try it this way.

What is your position on equal compensation based on effort vs. equal compensation based on contribution?

There ... a nice, easy, simple question, very specific in nature. NOW, can you at least pretend to have a position?

BTW --- the name calling is really childish.

The two criteria are bogus as forms for fairly determining compensation.
1.
The first....effort..... can be demonstrated by comparing the compensation received by Trump compared to that of every average worker in the country. Do you really think his effort is equal to the combined effort of so many thousand average workers? His compensation is.

2. Contribution.....The amount contributed is purely subjective and will be determined differently by each person who makes the determination. With no objective criteria, no valid decision can be made.

That specific enough?

 

[Debra K]

You didn't make an argument. You don't even know what an argument is. You spewed forth unsupported conclusions and hateful generalizations. How many times do you have to be told that no one has any obligation to make a counter-argument until you have first made an argument. In response, here's what you wrote: "When one offers an opinion, it is his prerogative whether or not he wishes to provide proof."

In my opinion, that is stupid. See definition of "stupid" above.

If you can't justify your conclusions, just say so ... You have no problem declaring others to be stupid, so I find it AMUSING that you can dish it out but can't take it. If you have a valid argument to support any one of your conclusions, make it. Apparently, you think you already know everything ... and that is stupid.

The topic of this thread is this: "Are liberals pro equality?" Respond to that with a simple yes or no and then set forth a valid argument to support your conclusion.

If your only intent was to jump onto a "bash liberals" bandwagon, then just say so.

I'm not stopping you from placing your alleged expertise on display ... when is that going to happen?

That's right .. I posted conclusions ... several of them. I can, and will justify any one of those you desire.

Then, I challenged you to pick one - just one - and we'll discuss it. As I said, I will be more than happy to prove my point. Just pick one ... it's really not that difficult.

Pick it --- argue it --- and then, duck. Because you won't like what I have to say.

If you had an argument in support of your own damn conclusions, you would have put one forth by now. I'm not going to create a man of straw and knock that down. Create your own argument, you lazy fool.

Quit whining and step up ... or shut up.

I asked you to enumerate your position, and you don't seem to be willing to do that. Is that because you can't, or is it because you don't have one? Are you another of the mindless liberal soldiers, who salute smartly, and march off the cliff? We can't have a reasonable discussion until you establish the baseline. Establish the baseline, and we will discuss it.

But, hey, just keep complaining. It really demonstrates the shallowness of your position, and the inability of the left to articulate a definitive position..

Stupid, lazy fool: They are YOUR conclusions, not mine. The burden of proof is on you, not me. You said you could prove your conclusions, yet you make no effort to do so. Instead, you ask me to play the part of Don Quixote and go about tilting at windmills. That's stupid and I'm not joining your stupid club. They are YOUR conclusions, so YOU quit whining and step up and support YOUR conclusions ... or shut up.

I got it .... you really DON'T have a response, do you? You have no desire to state your position, knowing that it will be refuted. They're not windmills ---- they are your position on the issues. Just pick one - any one.

But, we understand ... you have uncovered the liberals' dirty little secret. No problem ... have a nice day.

Or ... we can try it this way.

What is your position on equal compensation based on effort vs. equal compensation based on contribution?

There ... a nice, easy, simple question, very specific in nature. NOW, can you at least pretend to have a position?

BTW --- the name calling is really childish.

Again, your conclusions ... your burden of proof.

Despite ample opportunity to do so, you can't support any of your conclusions with facts or logic.

Therefore, you stupidly claim that it is my responsibility, somehow, to develop a counter-argument to the arguments you never made.

All of the above discloses that you're a lazy stupid fool.

Why do you choose to be stupid?

Pick just one of your conclusions and at least attempt to support it with facts and logic. If you can't do it, admit it.

 

[Spare_change]

That's right .. I posted conclusions ... several of them. I can, and will justify any one of those you desire.

Then, I challenged you to pick one - just one - and we'll discuss it. As I said, I will be more than happy to prove my point. Just pick one ... it's really not that difficult.

Pick it --- argue it --- and then, duck. Because you won't like what I have to say.

If you had an argument in support of your own damn conclusions, you would have put one forth by now. I'm not going to create a man of straw and knock that down. Create your own argument, you lazy fool.

Quit whining and step up ... or shut up.

I asked you to enumerate your position, and you don't seem to be willing to do that. Is that because you can't, or is it because you don't have one? Are you another of the mindless liberal soldiers, who salute smartly, and march off the cliff? We can't have a reasonable discussion until you establish the baseline. Establish the baseline, and we will discuss it.

But, hey, just keep complaining. It really demonstrates the shallowness of your position, and the inability of the left to articulate a definitive position..

Stupid, lazy fool: They are YOUR conclusions, not mine. The burden of proof is on you, not me. You said you could prove your conclusions, yet you make no effort to do so. Instead, you ask me to play the part of Don Quixote and go about tilting at windmills. That's stupid and I'm not joining your stupid club. They are YOUR conclusions, so YOU quit whining and step up and support YOUR conclusions ... or shut up.

I got it .... you really DON'T have a response, do you? You have no desire to state your position, knowing that it will be refuted. They're not windmills ---- they are your position on the issues. Just pick one - any one.

But, we understand ... you have uncovered the liberals' dirty little secret. No problem ... have a nice day.

Or ... we can try it this way.

What is your position on equal compensation based on effort vs. equal compensation based on contribution?

There ... a nice, easy, simple question, very specific in nature. NOW, can you at least pretend to have a position?

BTW --- the name calling is really childish.

The two criteria are bogus as forms for fairly determining compensation.
1.
The first....effort..... can be demonstrated by comparing the compensation received by Trump compared to that of every average worker in the country. Do you really think his effort is equal to the combined effort of so many thousand average workers? His compensation is.

2. Contribution.....The amount contributed is purely subjective and will be determined differently by each person who makes the determination. With no objective criteria, no valid decision can be made.

That specific enough?

Thank you. I'ts nice to know that somebody is able to articulate their position - even if you didn't. But, I'll try to work with it.

I will address item no.1 eventually, but the kernel in no. 2 comes closest to articulating your position. You attacked the concept that your compensation should be tied to your contribution, by claiming it was impossible to measure contribution. This is, of course, incorrect. There are several ways to determine contribution. I'll just give you one to mull over.

a. The assumption that your compensation is directly related to the value of the output. Let's assume, for example, that the production line lady at the automobile plant earns $10/hour. That $10 is .00005% of the cost of production of a new car, to which we will assign a value of $10,000 (which means she earned the company $5 during that hour). Obviously, then she needs to participate in two vehicles an hour in order to not be a drain on the company.

This gets much more diverse (but not difficult) when you consider her vacation costs, her sick time costs, her health insurance costs, her FICA costs, the cost in taxes as a result of her efforts, and on and on. It's been a while, and I'm sure some of our business members can be more accurate, but we used assign an "overhead wrap" rate of 53% for each labor hour. That means that this lady actually cost the company $15.30/hour to have on staff. But, we'll disregard that.

Now, layer that single hour in a single plant with the overriding structure - the plant costs, the real property costs, profit, etc., etc., and we have a car that is sold to the dealer for $18,000. The dealer, in turn, has to pay for his property, his people, his taxes, his health care, etc., and now you know why you have to pay $26.000 - and nobody gets rich.

But, I digress. We do have a method to measure her 'contribution'.

Now, another example - the retail food industry works on what is called the '30-30-30' model. Simply, the goal is to have your materials (food) cost you 30% of the sales price, labor cost 30% of sales price, and support costs (facility, utilities, franchise fees, advertising, etc) cost 30% of sales price. The other 10% is profit (in theory). Tell me how many $5 hamburgers would a $15/hour worker have to produce to break even? (I'll give you a hint - the answer is 15). How many people do you see working at the local McDonalds? 6-8-10? Think they sell 150 hamburgers per hour? Compensation needs to be directly correlated to contribution ...

b. You asked about Donald Trump, and whether his compensation is commensurate with his contribution. The answer is, obviously, yes. With Mr. Trump, those "many thousand average workers" wouldn't be getting any compensation at all. I'm sure you agree that the floor foreman (who has 10 people working for him) deserves more money than the floor workers - even though the effort is the same (we will laughingly assume that all workers are putting out 100%). The plant manager, who has 300 people working for him, most assuredly, deserves more compensation than the floor foreman. Just keep moving up the chain - Trump has thousands of people working for him. Why would you think he doesn't earn that money?

There is a management concept called "sphere of influence". It's really pretty simple. Never try to manage more people than you can handle. The floor foreman manages 10 people (who have a production value of $50K) - the plant manager manages 10 people (who have a production value of $750,000) - and Trump handles 10 people (who have a production value of $3 billion).

So, people should be rewarded for their contribution - not their effort. Paying you a million dollars to work 12 hours a day and produce $0.50 of income/year makes no sense whatsoever.

Now, let's ask the last question - your grandmother has 5000 of $200 shares of XYZ Mutual Funds, which has a 3% equity in McDonald's Corp?. She realizes a 10% profit annually on her investment, which means that McDonald's contributed $3,000 to her annual income. Is she being overcompensated? After all, she's not making hamburgers, frying onion rings. Why should she get anything at all?

As you can see, your supposition makes no sense at all.

 

[Spare_change]

That's right .. I posted conclusions ... several of them. I can, and will justify any one of those you desire.

Then, I challenged you to pick one - just one - and we'll discuss it. As I said, I will be more than happy to prove my point. Just pick one ... it's really not that difficult.

Pick it --- argue it --- and then, duck. Because you won't like what I have to say.

If you had an argument in support of your own damn conclusions, you would have put one forth by now. I'm not going to create a man of straw and knock that down. Create your own argument, you lazy fool.

Quit whining and step up ... or shut up.

I asked you to enumerate your position, and you don't seem to be willing to do that. Is that because you can't, or is it because you don't have one? Are you another of the mindless liberal soldiers, who salute smartly, and march off the cliff? We can't have a reasonable discussion until you establish the baseline. Establish the baseline, and we will discuss it.

But, hey, just keep complaining. It really demonstrates the shallowness of your position, and the inability of the left to articulate a definitive position..

Stupid, lazy fool: They are YOUR conclusions, not mine. The burden of proof is on you, not me. You said you could prove your conclusions, yet you make no effort to do so. Instead, you ask me to play the part of Don Quixote and go about tilting at windmills. That's stupid and I'm not joining your stupid club. They are YOUR conclusions, so YOU quit whining and step up and support YOUR conclusions ... or shut up.

I got it .... you really DON'T have a response, do you? You have no desire to state your position, knowing that it will be refuted. They're not windmills ---- they are your position on the issues. Just pick one - any one.

But, we understand ... you have uncovered the liberals' dirty little secret. No problem ... have a nice day.

Or ... we can try it this way.

What is your position on equal compensation based on effort vs. equal compensation based on contribution?

There ... a nice, easy, simple question, very specific in nature. NOW, can you at least pretend to have a position?

BTW --- the name calling is really childish.

Again, your conclusions ... your burden of proof.

Despite ample opportunity to do so, you can't support any of your conclusions with facts or logic.

Therefore, you stupidly claim that it is my responsibility, somehow, to develop a counter-argument to the arguments you never made.

All of the above discloses that you're a lazy stupid fool.

Why do you choose to be stupid?

Pick just one of your conclusions and at least attempt to support it with facts and logic. If you can't do it, admit it.

Don't worry about it ... Bulldog at least stepped up. You can sit on the curb and watch the parade go by .... and throw rocks at the floats.