Left or right : Do you support these five ideas?

[PubliusInfinitum]

Well, yes... "liberal" as in that which is established upon the shifting sands of moral relativism; a species of reasoning common to secular humanism: AKA: Realism... OKA: LEFT-THINK... I.e.: A species of reasoning hostile to the concept known as America: Anti-Americanism.

The US Constitution does not fall into this category.

The US Constitution rests upon the framework of immutable principles which were established as such, in the US Declaration of Independence. And while the "liberal" rationalizations have undermined the recognition of those principles over the years... and thus have undermine the viability of such...

Americans are no way asking for 'stronger systematic capacities...' However, those adhering to the principle-less notions of the Ideological LEFT are; and have since their infestation of the US culture in the mid to late 19th Century, are not ust asking for such, they're DEMANDING such... and therein, lies the basis for the looming civil war, which will inevitably result in United States returning to her American foundation.

Again... there's nothing particular complex about this; it only becomes so when those who adhere to anti-American reasoning; that which is hostile to the very CONCEPT of America, try to wedge that foreign reasoning into the intrinsic domestic concept and then reject their responsibility for having pushed the nation off its constitutional moorings...

Oh yawn...another boring diatribe to impress us. Frankly, I think you plagiarize most of what you post, but I'm not even interested in checking that out.

The dogma is straight John Birch Society drivel.

ROFL... and yet ANOTHER of the would-be anointed flees the field, through cries of irrelevance.

In this instance the baseless projection is that the argument rests within a previously discredited structure...

Sadly reason suggests that if such were the case; and if this member were privy to such; they would simply advance the prevailing argument that discredited that from which they're fleeing... thus, what we're left with is, as noted above, yet another flaccid bump born of an impotent mind-set... a fatally flawed species of reasoning which is helpless to defend a damn thing it would like you to believe it stands for.

Let us not forget that the point which has these numbskulls befuddled is simply:

YOUR NEED DOES NOT ENTITLE YOU TO ANOTHER'S MEANS!​

Now they whole-heartedly disagree with that position; they simply have no means to argue against it and still hope to lay claim to being an AMERICAN!

The Left LOVES to think of themselves as being compassionate above all others... And this through their incessant demand that the "NEEDY" must have their needs met, by those with the means to do so; Zero-sum... One gals has a need... and that need must be subsidized, or the culture is designated cruel, heartless and worthy of destruction.

Sends shivers, doesn't it? What compassion... the total intolerance of carelessness.

The problem is that the would-be needy are being represented as being without responsibility for their being in Need... as THAT guiltlessness then establishes an ENTITLEMENT... Still sounds OK? Well sure... that's because the equation remains open... the fact that another has a NEED and that neediness is at NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN... it's just 'the way it is'... "Realism, MAN!" Or as this bonehead prefers: PRAGMATISM... They're dealing with REALITY... not pie in the sky Dogma, ideology which stands upon ethereal principles... ITS THE WORLD DUDE! People have needs that have to be met or... there'll be problems... Meet the needs and PRESTO! No Problems.

And it sounds so 'caring...' don't it? Right up to the point where its determined that the needs will be taken care of on the backs of those who have the means... and THAT is where the calculation crumbles.

Strip people of means of that means, or the means represented by the desire; or the initiative... and soon... there will be damn few with such means...

WAIT A MINUTE! HOLD THE PRESSES!

Isn't it a constant howl by these people which bemoans "The GAP BETWEEN THE RICH AND THE POOR?" Uh oh... and this only 70 years after the US culture began adopting this species of reasoning.

Anyone heard of the 'shrinking Middle CLASS?'

Now could it be that such a recession of such a class could be due to the policies which state that those with a need are ENTITLED TO THE MEANS OF OTHERS? Would not such a reasoning tend to reduce the incentive of those with NEEDS to "Do for themselves?" And would such an incentive crushing mindset NOT reduce the MEANS OF A CLASS WHICH IS BUILT ON THE APPLICATION OF DOGGED DETERMINATION; thus which is dependent upon a irrepressible INITIATIVE TO SEEK OUT PERSONAL GAIN; thus a higher level of means?

Why I believe it would... ergo, the shrinkage of the middle class is a function of a crippling species of reason that induces an ENTITLEMENT TO THAT WHICH BELONGS TO ANOTHER.

If I'm entitled to what you have... then what incentive do I have to put out the effort to acquire what you have by other means? If the government is going to simply take what you have, I'd be a FOOL to bust my ass working for it, when the formula represented in that calculation tells me that IF I DO SO... I will be forced to give it to SOMEONE ELSE.

As noted many times... The Left-think calculation is a dead-end... it is not built upon sustaining principle; it is designed to produce precisely ZERO, to CRIPPLE cultures...

Left-think is a long series of lies... nothing less than an intellectual DECEPTION; which is embraced by those whose mindset is that of the irrational female... The high-maintenance "Do for ME!" variety of gals who see themselves as ENTITLED to a better life... because well... they're special~ and that many of those who adhere to such absurdities are of biological males... doesn't change their perspective as being that of the irrational female.

And THAT friends is why the Left will NEVER engage this argument... because to do so risks tearing the facade... That sheer dressing which drapes them in the deceptive cloak of 'compassion'... which conceals the darkness of their hearts; demonstrated by their carelessness for the cultural catastrophe which will always follow any culture which tolerates their idiocy.

ROFL... it's hysterical... in at least two contexts and on several levels... But its a joke that doesn't end well...

Leftism is sorta like "The Rabbi, the Chef and a Poodle that walk into a bar... the Chef orders a Blue-racer, the Rabbi a 'nice red wine' and the poodle shits in the floor... the waitress steps in it, slips and breaks her neck... she sues the Bar owner, the Chef and the Rabbi... stripping them of their means, and adopts the poodle; which she trains to assist her quadriplegic lifestyle; which works great until one day she rolls through another pile of dog crap, causing her to slip into an old woman, knocking her into traffic; where the woman is hit by a bus... The family sues the Invalid, stripping her of her economic means, but adopts the poodle...

The moral of the story is that shit happens... and its never happens more than to those people that adopt the causes that make it happen.

 

[Zoom-boing]

1. I believe in a balanced budget and therefore will vote for a freeze in government spending until that goal is realized.

We balance our household budget. Is it unreasonable to require that the government balance their budget? I think not. While I don't get to 'vote' on this, if I could I'd vote yes. Balance the damn thing and live within in.

2. I believe government should not increase the financial burden on the citizenry during difficult economic times therefore I will oppose all tax increases until our economy has rebounded.

Agree.

3. I believe more than four decades of U.S. dependence on foreign oil is a travesty therefore I will support an energy plan that calls for immediately increasing usage of all domestic resources including nuclear energy, natural gas, (of course OIL), and coal as necessary.

Agree. fwiw, we're never going to 'not need oil'.

4. I believe in the sovereignty and security of our country and therefore will support measures to close our borders except for designated immigration points so we will know who is entering and why and I will vehemently oppose any measure giving another country, the United Nations, or any other entity (including CZARS - unapproved by Congress), power over U.S. citizens.

I'm fine with legal immigrants. Illegal immigrants - boot them, secure the borders and go after those who employ illegals. Stop making it so damn appealing for them to come here illegally in the first place.

5. I believe the United States of America is the greatest country on earth and therefore will not apologize for policies or actions which have served to free more and feed more people around the world than any other nation on the planet.
Agree. The United States is the greatest country on earth and need not apologize for that . . . but the bar is being lowered in order to 'level the playing field' and lowering the bar is rarely a good thing.

.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

wow 3 people dont support any one of those ideas.

Thats interesting.

 

[GRX Dragon]

1. I believe in a balanced budget and therefore will vote for a freeze in government spending until that goal is realized.

A balanced budget, yes. A simple freeze in government spending, no. The only thing acceptable to me is the complete separation of government and economics. There should only be a single 23% sales tax, everything else abolished.

2. I believe government should not increase the financial burden on the citizenry during difficult economic times therefore I will oppose all tax increases until our economy has rebounded.

I oppose not only all tax-increases some of the time, but all the time. I oppose all non-sales taxes, period.

3. I believe more than four decades of U.S. dependence on foreign oil is a travesty therefore I will support an energy plan that calls for immediately increasing usage of all domestic resources including nuclear energy, natural gas, (of course OIL), and coal as necessary.

I oppose any government interference in the private market whatsoever. I think it is a travesty that people aren't smart enough to realize what they need to do to get themselves off dependency of oil (foreign or domestic), that they somehow have this thought in their head of expecting the government to do it for them.

4. I believe in the sovereignty and security of our country and therefore will support measures to close our borders except for designated immigration points so we will know who is entering and why and I will vehemently oppose any measure giving another country, the United Nations, or any other entity (including CZARS - unapproved by Congress), power over U.S. citizens.

I believe not only in the sovereignty and security of America, but that it is our responsibility to have secured borders while relaxing legal migration policy.

5. I believe the United States of America is the greatest country on earth and therefore will not apologize for policies or actions which have served to free more and feed more people around the world than any other nation on the planet.

I believe there was once a time that the U.S. may have been the greatest country, but we can thank all the Authoritarians - whether they be Marxists/Progressivists, Democrats, or Republicans - for changing that. I can hope but I am not going to be a wishful thinker of the U.S. being a great country again, the sheep have proven over and over again they'd rather listen to a bunch of fairytale lies than to stand on their own two feet to defend freedom.

 

[Zoom-boing]

1. I believe in a balanced budget and therefore will vote for a freeze in government spending until that goal is realized.

2. I believe government should not increase the financial burden on the citizenry during difficult economic times therefore I will oppose all tax increases until our economy has rebounded.

3. I believe more than four decades of U.S. dependence on foreign oil is a travesty therefore I will support an energy plan that calls for immediately increasing usage of all domestic resources including nuclear energy, natural gas, (of course OIL), and coal as necessary.

4. I believe in the sovereignty and security of our country and therefore will support measures to close our borders except for designated immigration points so we will know who is entering and why and I will vehemently oppose any measure giving another country, the United Nations, or any other entity (including CZARS - unapproved by Congress), power over U.S. citizens.

5. I believe the United States of America is the greatest country on earth and therefore will not apologize for policies or actions which have served to free more and feed more people around the world than any other nation on the planet.

You're okay except for Number I. Obama thinks he's a teenage girl with Daddy's AMerican Express at the mall.

Obama's motto:

 

[MaggieMae]

Well, yes... "liberal" as in that which is established upon the shifting sands of moral relativism; a species of reasoning common to secular humanism: AKA: Realism... OKA: LEFT-THINK... I.e.: A species of reasoning hostile to the concept known as America: Anti-Americanism.

The US Constitution does not fall into this category.

The US Constitution rests upon the framework of immutable principles which were established as such, in the US Declaration of Independence. And while the "liberal" rationalizations have undermined the recognition of those principles over the years... and thus have undermine the viability of such...

Americans are no way asking for 'stronger systematic capacities...' However, those adhering to the principle-less notions of the Ideological LEFT are; and have since their infestation of the US culture in the mid to late 19th Century, are not ust asking for such, they're DEMANDING such... and therein, lies the basis for the looming civil war, which will inevitably result in United States returning to her American foundation.

Again... there's nothing particular complex about this; it only becomes so when those who adhere to anti-American reasoning; that which is hostile to the very CONCEPT of America, try to wedge that foreign reasoning into the intrinsic domestic concept and then reject their responsibility for having pushed the nation off its constitutional moorings...

Oh yawn...another boring diatribe to impress us. Frankly, I think you plagiarize most of what you post, but I'm not even interested in checking that out.

ROFL... So I'm boring? Now that hurts...

But it is hysterical that you make such a claim on the back of your sole tactic of running from what ever argument is at issue... although I gotta say, the plagerism charge is a neat twist.

That it undermines your entire thesis is just a delicious rhetorical cherry... which i'll leave to you to puzzle over...

LOL...

Leftists...

Ironically, I tend to read everything anyone writes, until they go off on one tangent after another for entire pages. Yes, your shit is boring. If I wanted to read clear and concise right-wing ideology as it pertains to those evil leftists, I'd read some of Thomas Sowell's articles, which aren't full of shrieking accusations.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

whata horrible list.

 

[MaggieMae]

Oh yawn...another boring diatribe to impress us. Frankly, I think you plagiarize most of what you post, but I'm not even interested in checking that out.

The dogma is straight John Birch Society drivel.

ROFL... and yet ANOTHER of the would-be anointed flees the field, through cries of irrelevance.

In this instance the baseless projection is that the argument rests within a previously discredited structure...

Sadly reason suggests that if such were the case; and if this member were privy to such; they would simply advance the prevailing argument that discredited that from which they're fleeing... thus, what we're left with is, as noted above, yet another flaccid bump born of an impotent mind-set... a fatally flawed species of reasoning which is helpless to defend a damn thing it would like you to believe it stands for.

Let us not forget that the point which has these numbskulls befuddled is simply:

YOUR NEED DOES NOT ENTITLE YOU TO ANOTHER'S MEANS!​

Now they whole-heartedly disagree with that position; they simply have no means to argue against it and still hope to lay claim to being an AMERICAN!

The Left LOVES to think of themselves as being compassionate above all others... And this through their incessant demand that the "NEEDY" must have their needs met, by those with the means to do so; Zero-sum... One gals has a need... and that need must be subsidized, or the culture is designated cruel, heartless and worthy of destruction.

Sends shivers, doesn't it? What compassion... the total intolerance of carelessness.

The problem is that the would-be needy are being represented as being without responsibility for their being in Need... as THAT guiltlessness then establishes an ENTITLEMENT... Still sounds OK? Well sure... that's because the equation remains open... the fact that another has a NEED and that neediness is at NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN... it's just 'the way it is'... "Realism, MAN!" Or as this bonehead prefers: PRAGMATISM... They're dealing with REALITY... not pie in the sky Dogma, ideology which stands upon ethereal principles... ITS THE WORLD DUDE! People have needs that have to be met or... there'll be problems... Meet the needs and PRESTO! No Problems.

And it sounds so 'caring...' don't it? Right up to the point where its determined that the needs will be taken care of on the backs of those who have the means... and THAT is where the calculation crumbles.

Strip people of means of that means, or the means represented by the desire; or the initiative... and soon... there will be damn few with such means...

WAIT A MINUTE! HOLD THE PRESSES!

Isn't it a constant howl by these people which bemoans "The GAP BETWEEN THE RICH AND THE POOR?" Uh oh... and this only 70 years after the US culture began adopting this species of reasoning.

Anyone heard of the 'shrinking Middle CLASS?'

Now could it be that such a recession of such a class could be due to the policies which state that those with a need are ENTITLED TO THE MEANS OF OTHERS? Would not such a reasoning tend to reduce the incentive of those with NEEDS to "Do for themselves?" And would such an incentive crushing mindset NOT reduce the MEANS OF A CLASS WHICH IS BUILT ON THE APPLICATION OF DOGGED DETERMINATION; thus which is dependent upon a irrepressible INITIATIVE TO SEEK OUT PERSONAL GAIN; thus a higher level of means?

Why I believe it would... ergo, the shrinkage of the middle class is a function of a crippling species of reason that induces an ENTITLEMENT TO THAT WHICH BELONGS TO ANOTHER.

If I'm entitled to what you have... then what incentive do I have to put out the effort to acquire what you have by other means? If the government is going to simply take what you have, I'd be a FOOL to bust my ass working for it, when the formula represented in that calculation tells me that IF I DO SO... I will be forced to give it to SOMEONE ELSE.

As noted many times... The Left-think calculation is a dead-end... it is not built upon sustaining principle; it is designed to produce precisely ZERO, to CRIPPLE cultures...

Left-think is a long series of lies... nothing less than an intellectual DECEPTION; which is embraced by those whose mindset is that of the irrational female... The high-maintenance "Do for ME!" variety of gals who see themselves as ENTITLED to a better life... because well... they're special~ and that many of those who adhere to such absurdities are of biological males... doesn't change their perspective as being that of the irrational female.

And THAT friends is why the Left will NEVER engage this argument... because to do so risks tearing the facade... That sheer dressing which drapes them in the deceptive cloak of 'compassion'... which conceals the darkness of their hearts; demonstrated by their carelessness for the cultural catastrophe which will always follow any culture which tolerates their idiocy.

ROFL... it's hysterical... in at least two contexts and on several levels... But its a joke that doesn't end well...

Leftism is sorta like "The Rabbi, the Chef and a Poodle that walk into a bar... the Chef orders a Blue-racer, the Rabbi a 'nice red wine' and the poodle shits in the floor... the waitress steps in it, slips and breaks her neck... she sues the Bar owner, the Chef and the Rabbi... stripping them of their means, and adopts the poodle; which she trains to assist her quadriplegic lifestyle; which works great until one day she rolls through another pile of dog crap, causing her to slip into an old woman, knocking her into traffic; where the woman is hit by a bus... The family sues the Invalid, stripping her of her economic means, but adopts the poodle...

The moral of the story is that shit happens... and its never happens more than to those people that adopt the causes that make it happen.

 

[xotoxi]

1. I believe in a balanced budget and therefore will vote for a freeze in government spending until that goal is realized.

I think that all public schools should be shut down immediately.

Parents who still would like their children to go to school can pay for private school or home school them.

Children that opt out of education (or cannot afford it) will be allowed to enter the workforce at age 16, and will be able to take the menial jobs requiring no education in which the illegal immigrants are currently employed.

There! Solved two problems!

 

[Bern80]

I did find your #5 interesting as it demonstrates the hierarchical ideas of conservatism. It is good to see that admitted in words. Wrong or wrong you really don't care, cause you are a conservative American.

Really, because it appears all you did was gloss over it and iterpreted it incorrectly for the convenience of making the above argument. I does NOT say he will not apologize for America. Yes, this country has had it's share of less than exemplary moments. That does not change the fact that this country has done more for the rest of the world than any other.

 

[Fatality]

1. I believe in a balanced budget and therefore will vote for a freeze in government spending until that goal is realized.

2. I believe government should not increase the financial burden on the citizenry during difficult economic times therefore I will oppose all tax increases until our economy has rebounded.

3. I believe more than four decades of U.S. dependence on foreign oil is a travesty therefore I will support an energy plan that calls for immediately increasing usage of all domestic resources including nuclear energy, natural gas, (of course OIL), and coal as necessary.

4. I believe in the sovereignty and security of our country and therefore will support measures to close our borders except for designated immigration points so we will know who is entering and why and I will vehemently oppose any measure giving another country, the United Nations, or any other entity (including CZARS - unapproved by Congress), power over U.S. citizens.

5. I believe the United States of America is the greatest country on earth and therefore will not apologize for policies or actions which have served to free more and feed more people around the world than any other nation on the planet.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Oh yawn...another boring diatribe to impress us. Frankly, I think you plagiarize most of what you post, but I'm not even interested in checking that out.

ROFL... So I'm boring? Now that hurts...

But it is hysterical that you make such a claim on the back of your sole tactic of running from what ever argument is at issue... although I gotta say, the plagerism charge is a neat twist.

That it undermines your entire thesis is just a delicious rhetorical cherry... which i'll leave to you to puzzle over...

LOL...

Leftists...

Ironically, I tend to read everything anyone writes, until they go off on one tangent after another for entire pages. Yes, your shit is boring. If I wanted to read clear and concise right-wing ideology as it pertains to those evil leftists, I'd read some of Thomas Sowell's articles, which aren't full of shrieking accusations.

LOL...

One is drawn to wonder to what irony you're referring... Perhaps, it's that you seem to want to project yourself as being rather intellectual, while your professions demonstrate otherwise; particularly so in your above assertion wherein you imply that Sowell doesn't savage the ideological left... proving that you haven't spent much time reading his work either.

Now understand what this idiot is saying friends... She's admitting that she is incapable of comprehending the arguments of her ideological opposition...

Now if a person ADMITS that they lack the intellectual means to consider the opposing point of view... WHAT... pray tell would be the basis on which the notion that this person should be allowed to cast a vote?

She's admitted, if only by default that she is incapable of understanding the immutable principles on which the US is founded... WHY would we want this sub-standard intellect interfering with the election process?

Why not establish a limit which establishes a threshold which such individuals are not allowed to cross?

She would be allowed to vote for who stays in the Island... She could decide which Dance-team remains for another episode... If Britany really should lose another 10 lbs... She could even vote in popular opinion polls with regard to 'Presidential and legislative popularity... '

But such limited cognitive means simply has no business picking and choosing which legislators will represent us in matter of State and Federal Policy.

Don't you agree?


If not... WHY NOT?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

The dogma is straight John Birch Society drivel.

ROFL... and yet ANOTHER of the would-be anointed flees the field, through cries of irrelevance.

In this instance the baseless projection is that the argument rests within a previously discredited structure...

Sadly reason suggests that if such were the case; and if this member were privy to such; they would simply advance the prevailing argument that discredited that from which they're fleeing... thus, what we're left with is, as noted above, yet another flaccid bump born of an impotent mind-set... a fatally flawed species of reasoning which is helpless to defend a damn thing it would like you to believe it stands for.

Let us not forget that the point which has these numbskulls befuddled is simply:

YOUR NEED DOES NOT ENTITLE YOU TO ANOTHER'S MEANS!​

Now they whole-heartedly disagree with that position; they simply have no means to argue against it and still hope to lay claim to being an AMERICAN!

The Left LOVES to think of themselves as being compassionate above all others... And this through their incessant demand that the "NEEDY" must have their needs met, by those with the means to do so; Zero-sum... One gals has a need... and that need must be subsidized, or the culture is designated cruel, heartless and worthy of destruction.

Sends shivers, doesn't it? What compassion... the total intolerance of carelessness.

The problem is that the would-be needy are being represented as being without responsibility for their being in Need... as THAT guiltlessness then establishes an ENTITLEMENT... Still sounds OK? Well sure... that's because the equation remains open... the fact that another has a NEED and that neediness is at NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN... it's just 'the way it is'... "Realism, MAN!" Or as this bonehead prefers: PRAGMATISM... They're dealing with REALITY... not pie in the sky Dogma, ideology which stands upon ethereal principles... ITS THE WORLD DUDE! People have needs that have to be met or... there'll be problems... Meet the needs and PRESTO! No Problems.

And it sounds so 'caring...' don't it? Right up to the point where its determined that the needs will be taken care of on the backs of those who have the means... and THAT is where the calculation crumbles.

Strip people of means of that means, or the means represented by the desire; or the initiative... and soon... there will be damn few with such means...

WAIT A MINUTE! HOLD THE PRESSES!

Isn't it a constant howl by these people which bemoans "The GAP BETWEEN THE RICH AND THE POOR?" Uh oh... and this only 70 years after the US culture began adopting this species of reasoning.

Anyone heard of the 'shrinking Middle CLASS?'

Now could it be that such a recession of such a class could be due to the policies which state that those with a need are ENTITLED TO THE MEANS OF OTHERS? Would not such a reasoning tend to reduce the incentive of those with NEEDS to "Do for themselves?" And would such an incentive crushing mindset NOT reduce the MEANS OF A CLASS WHICH IS BUILT ON THE APPLICATION OF DOGGED DETERMINATION; thus which is dependent upon a irrepressible INITIATIVE TO SEEK OUT PERSONAL GAIN; thus a higher level of means?

Why I believe it would... ergo, the shrinkage of the middle class is a function of a crippling species of reason that induces an ENTITLEMENT TO THAT WHICH BELONGS TO ANOTHER.

If I'm entitled to what you have... then what incentive do I have to put out the effort to acquire what you have by other means? If the government is going to simply take what you have, I'd be a FOOL to bust my ass working for it, when the formula represented in that calculation tells me that IF I DO SO... I will be forced to give it to SOMEONE ELSE.

As noted many times... The Left-think calculation is a dead-end... it is not built upon sustaining principle; it is designed to produce precisely ZERO, to CRIPPLE cultures...

Left-think is a long series of lies... nothing less than an intellectual DECEPTION; which is embraced by those whose mindset is that of the irrational female... The high-maintenance "Do for ME!" variety of gals who see themselves as ENTITLED to a better life... because well... they're special~ and that many of those who adhere to such absurdities are of biological males... doesn't change their perspective as being that of the irrational female.

And THAT friends is why the Left will NEVER engage this argument... because to do so risks tearing the facade... That sheer dressing which drapes them in the deceptive cloak of 'compassion'... which conceals the darkness of their hearts; demonstrated by their carelessness for the cultural catastrophe which will always follow any culture which tolerates their idiocy.

ROFL... it's hysterical... in at least two contexts and on several levels... But its a joke that doesn't end well...

Leftism is sorta like "The Rabbi, the Chef and a Poodle that walk into a bar... the Chef orders a Blue-racer, the Rabbi a 'nice red wine' and the poodle shits in the floor... the waitress steps in it, slips and breaks her neck... she sues the Bar owner, the Chef and the Rabbi... stripping them of their means, and adopts the poodle; which she trains to assist her quadriplegic lifestyle; which works great until one day she rolls through another pile of dog crap, causing her to slip into an old woman, knocking her into traffic; where the woman is hit by a bus... The family sues the Invalid, stripping her of her economic means, but adopts the poodle...

The moral of the story is that shit happens... and its never happens more than to those people that adopt the causes that make it happen.

Yeah... I get it... You're a Moderate, Centrist, Independent, Liberal, Progressive... halfwit.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

What? No snappy comebacks?

 

[Bern80]

ROFL... So I'm boring? Now that hurts...

But it is hysterical that you make such a claim on the back of your sole tactic of running from what ever argument is at issue... although I gotta say, the plagerism charge is a neat twist.

That it undermines your entire thesis is just a delicious rhetorical cherry... which i'll leave to you to puzzle over...

LOL...

Leftists...

Ironically, I tend to read everything anyone writes, until they go off on one tangent after another for entire pages. Yes, your shit is boring. If I wanted to read clear and concise right-wing ideology as it pertains to those evil leftists, I'd read some of Thomas Sowell's articles, which aren't full of shrieking accusations.

LOL...

One is drawn to wonder to what irony you're referring... Perhaps, it's that you seem to want to project yourself as being rather intellectual, while your professions demonstrate otherwise; particularly so in your above assertion wherein you imply that Sowell doesn't savage the ideological left... proving that you haven't spent much time reading his work either.

Now understand what this idiot is saying friends... She's admitting that she is incapable of comprehending the arguments of her ideological opposition...

Now if a person ADMITS that they lack the intellectual means to consider the opposing point of view... WHAT... pray tell would be the basis on which the notion that this person should be allowed to cast a vote?

She's admitted, if only by default that she is incapable of understanding the immutable principles on which the US is founded... WHY would we want this sub-standard intellect interfering with the election process?

Why not establish a limit which establishes a threshold which such individuals are not allowed to cross?

She would be allowed to vote for who stays in the Island... She could decide which Dance-team remains for another episode... If Britany really should lose another 10 lbs... She could even vote in popular opinion polls with regard to 'Presidential and legislative popularity... '

But such limited cognitive means simply has no business picking and choosing which legislators will represent us in matter of State and Federal Policy.

Don't you agree?


If not... WHY NOT?

No I would not have a test for the right to vote. Unfortunately freedom means you must allow and accept that the stupid ones get to vote too. Gotta take the bad with the good my friend.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Ironically, I tend to read everything anyone writes, until they go off on one tangent after another for entire pages. Yes, your shit is boring. If I wanted to read clear and concise right-wing ideology as it pertains to those evil leftists, I'd read some of Thomas Sowell's articles, which aren't full of shrieking accusations.

LOL...

One is drawn to wonder to what irony you're referring... Perhaps, it's that you seem to want to project yourself as being rather intellectual, while your professions demonstrate otherwise; particularly so in your above assertion wherein you imply that Sowell doesn't savage the ideological left... proving that you haven't spent much time reading his work either.

Now understand what this idiot is saying friends... She's admitting that she is incapable of comprehending the arguments of her ideological opposition...

Now if a person ADMITS that they lack the intellectual means to consider the opposing point of view... WHAT... pray tell would be the basis on which the notion that this person should be allowed to cast a vote?

She's admitted, if only by default that she is incapable of understanding the immutable principles on which the US is founded... WHY would we want this sub-standard intellect interfering with the election process?

Why not establish a limit which establishes a threshold which such individuals are not allowed to cross?

She would be allowed to vote for who stays in the Island... She could decide which Dance-team remains for another episode... If Britany really should lose another 10 lbs... She could even vote in popular opinion polls with regard to 'Presidential and legislative popularity... '

But such limited cognitive means simply has no business picking and choosing which legislators will represent us in matter of State and Federal Policy.

Don't you agree?


If not... WHY NOT?

No I would not have a test for the right to vote. Unfortunately freedom means you must allow and accept that the stupid ones get to vote too. Gotta take the bad with the good my friend.

A test for the right?

Post the test you'd set on the right? Thats GOT to be worth a few giggles.

"Unfortunately freedom means you must allow and accept that the stupid ones get to vote too."

Does it?

ROFLMNAO... Based upon WHAT?

We don't let the blind drive... thus demonstrating the purpose of a viable, sustaining standard which doesn't usurp the freedom of those qualified to drive...

Allowing idiots such as yourself and the subject of the above referenced post... who has DEMONSTRATED and ADMITTED her stark intellectual limitation, to VOTE... is cultural suicide.

I'd prefer to fix it now... as oppossed to suffering the cultural collapse and the unspeakable brutality of the war which will naturally come to pass, as the culture implodes under the dead weight of the policy that such imbeciles heap upon the culture... but such idiots will be stripped of the means to infect the government with their idiocy; one way or another.

 

[Vast LWC]

No I would not have a test for the right to vote. Unfortunately freedom means you must allow and accept that the stupid ones get to vote too. Gotta take the bad with the good my friend.

Hey Bern, you do know that if "Ronny were in the white house" right now, he'd be doing the EXACT same things as Obama, right?

 

[Vast LWC]

I'd prefer to fix it now... as oppossed to suffering the cultural collapse and the unspeakable brutality of the war which will naturally come to pass, as the culture implodes under the dead weight of the policy that such imbeciles heap upon the culture... but such idiots will be stripped of the means to infect the government with their idiocy; one way or another.

Yet another piece of crap Beckian BS.

How about a "sanity test" for Voting?

You'd most certainly fail.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I'd prefer to fix it now... as oppossed to suffering the cultural collapse and the unspeakable brutality of the war which will naturally come to pass, as the culture implodes under the dead weight of the policy that such imbeciles heap upon the culture... but such idiots will be stripped of the means to infect the government with their idiocy; one way or another.

Yet another piece of crap Beckian BS.

How about a "sanity test" for Voting?

You'd most certainly fail.

And yet another flaccid Leftist argument designed to bump against the argument, due to the speakers intellectual impotence to produce such that would otherwise penetrate the argument.

Now ON WHAT LUCID BASIS would a viable culture even CONSIDER allowing someone that is so bereft of intellectual means to speak effectively on issues which they otherwise claim to be supremely interested... to have a say in who establish Federal and State policy?

They're IDIOTS... and have no being allowed within 10 MILES of a voting booth.

 

[Vast LWC]

And yet another flaccid Leftist argument designed to bump against the argument, due to the speakers intellectual impotence to produce such that would otherwise penetrate the argument.

Now ON WHAT LUCID BASIS would a viable culture even CONSIDER allowing someone that is so bereft of intellectual means to speak effectively on issues which they otherwise claim to be supremely interested... to have a say in who establish Federal and State policy?

They're IDIOTS... and have no being allowed within 10 MILES of a voting booth.

Well, let's see...

Because, as this and many other threads clearly show, the right-wingers of this country feel that anyone who doesn't see their point of view as the truth is somehow intellectually inferior.

And many of the Left-wing feel the same way.

In fact, if we were to just go by IQ tests, most of the unthinking extremists from both ends would probably be eliminated right off the bat.

People who adhere to political dogma, repeat talking points incessantly and refuse to see other points of view tend to be LESS intelligent than more open-minded folks.

In other words, you would probably be one of the first to be denied.

In addition, since older folks tend to have some degeneration of thinking processes as they age, many of them having major degeneration, most older folks would be taken off the rolls.