Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I am not sure what the purpose of a liberal arts education is. It certainly is not to prepare the student for any sort of meaningful career. Maybe the purpose of those courses is to create OWSers.
Oh, yeah:
New Class At Columbia Focuses On Occupy Wall Street « CBS New York
A perfect storm of moonbattery.I am not sure what the purpose of a liberal arts education is. It certainly is not to prepare the student for any sort of meaningful career. Maybe the purpose of those courses is to create OWSers.
Oh, yeah:
New Class At Columbia Focuses On Occupy Wall Street « CBS New York
'Appel is a staunch defender of the Occupy movement, in her blog she said that, it is important to push back against the rhetoric of disorganization or a movement without a message coming from left, right and center.'
From your link....
.....why the heck does it always have to be Columbia????
A surplus is cash inflow less cash outflow. Cash inflow that exceeds cash outflow is a surplus. Cash outflow that exceeds cash inflow is a deficit. Full stop. That's it. The total national debt may go up or down if there is a surplus or a deficit. Total national debt includes total outstanding debt issued by the Treasury to the public plus total debt the government owes to itself through the trusts. Total outstanding debt issued by the Treasury to the public will rise when there is a deficit. Total outstanding debt issued by the Treasury to the public will fall when there is a surplus. The fiscal balance does not include changes to debt the government owes itself through the trusts. Total outstanding debt issued by the Treasury to the public fell during the 1990s. This is evidence of a surplus since excess cash generated by the surplus was used to retire Treasury debt. Please refer to my prior links to explain further how this works.
This is why Republicans, conservatives, economists and accountants familiar with government accounting don't make the argument that there wasn't a surplus. Please refer to my links to the conservatives and Republicans who referenced the surpluses above. It's why Newt Gingrich repeatedly got up on stage during the primaries and said he was responsible for the surpluses, for which he certainly gets a big chunk of credit.
I read the links when you suggested same. What they prove is that there are easy to find big government Republicans, as well as Democrats.
The alternatives are not presented by Republicans and Democrats....
...but rather by Liberals and Conservatives.
As you acknowledge, under Bill Clinton, the national debt rose 41%.
I have no interest in using a modified meaning of the word 'surplus.'
While I am not disputing a question of economics, I am disputing that you have a firm grip on the bigger question, one based in politics.
While it is possible to deal with, and even obliterate the debt,- as you know, it was done once- our current iteration of politicians have no interest in this struggle.
You are arguing that there was no surplus. That is wrong. There is no "modified" definition of a surplus. A surplus is when cash inflows exceed cash outflows. That's it. Period. Full stop.
If you want to argue that the total national debt rose or that the operational budget was not in surplus, fine. But the unified budget ran a surplus four years in a row. That is not debatable. It has nothing to do with liberal or conservative any more than debating whether or not the sun rose in the east this morning is liberal or conservatives. That's why conservatives don't argue that there wasn't a budget surplus.
1. Leftism is so pervasive, that if applied to any other way of looking at life, it would be widely recognized as a form of brainwashing!
Image a person who attended only fundamental Christian schools from preschool through graduate school, who never saw a secular, let alone anti-Christian, film, and who only read religious books. Most would say that they had been brainwashed. Yet, we regularly find individuals who only attended secular liberal schools from preschool through college, watched or listened to only Left-of-center television, movies, music, and had essentially no exposure to religious or conservative ideas.
Brainwashed?
Of course not! Liberals are open-minded!!! The irony here is that the denial itself shows how very effective the brainwashing has been.
Now, Christians or Jews who have rarely been exposed to secular ideas and values would readily acknowledge same. It is only those on the Left who fool themselves into believing that they have been exposed to all points of view.
Prager, Still The Best Hope, chapter two.
2. Universities have become to Liberalism what a Christian seminary is to Christianity. The difference is that Christian seminaries acknowledge their purpose, to produce committed Christians.
a. The purpose of a university should be to make a son as unlike his father as possible. The University's Part in Political Life (13 March 1909) in PWW (The Papers of Woodrow Wilson) 19:99.
3. Now, while the indoctrination by universities is thorough and complete it is not permanent. This is the meaning of 'If you are not a liberal at 20, you have no heart. If you are not Conservative by 40, you have no brain'.
Therefore, what is required to maintain the miasma, the haze of Liberalism, is the media.
The media is the wall against which most folks bounce their search for Truth. In the Golden Days of Liberal control of the media, there was the Cronkite-Chancellor-Reasoner Cartel. In this top-down system for determining the Truth, it was handed out by a very few networks and a handful of national newspapers. Cronkite went so far as to end any debate, each night with And thats the way it is.
a. Cronkite was a big believer in the powers of centralization, that the smartest people could get into a room and solve all the worlds problems.
b. Cronkite: It seems to many of us that if we are to avoid the eventual catastrophic world conflict we must strengthen the United Nations as a first step toward a world government patterned after our own government with a legislature, executive and judiciary, and police to enforce its international laws and keep the peace. To do that, of course, we Americans will have to yield up some of our sovereignty. That would be a bitter pill. It would take a lot of courage, a lot of faith in the new order.
Remarks on Accepting the 1999 Norman Cousins Global Governance Award - World Beyond Borders
c. Frank Zappa saw this top-down journalistic Truth for what it was: They walk in the door seeking a method by which they can reinforce conclusions they've already arrived at. Zappa Family regains control of Frank's Catalog!! - Furthur Community Forum
4. Why so many in the profession lean Left? The radicals [of the 60's] were not likely to go into business or the conventional practice of the professions. They were part of the chattering class, talkers interested in policy, politics, culture. They went into politics, print and electronic journalism, church bureaucracies, foundation staffs, Hollywood careers, public interest organizations, anywhere attitudes and opinions could be influenced. And they are exerting influence.
Robert H. Bork, Slouching Toward Gomorrah, p. 51
But the spell is wearing off....fewer watch the nightly news, and fewer yet the newspapers.
5. In 1987 a group of conservative news junkies started the Media Research Center. The same year, the Reagan administration repealed the Fairness Doctrine. A year later, Rush Limbaugh began his wildly successful radio show. And in 1996, Matt Drudge appeared.
The internet: the final battleground.
We rule the world. America is falling in line. You white conservatives are fighting a battle in a way you have already lost.
Now, faulty....
...the use of factual information would do wonders for your reputation and status...
Let me help:
"Conservatives continue to make up the largest segment of political views in the country, outnumbering liberals nearly two-to-one, according to a new poll Thursday.
The Gallup survey found that 40 percent of Americans consider themselves conservative; 35 percent consider themselves moderate; and 21 percent see themselves as liberal. The figures did not change from 2010."
Read more: Gallup poll: Conservatives outnumber liberals - Tim Mak - POLITICO.com
Maybe this will make you feel better....
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-O3kYrDPbI]Everybody Wants To Rule The World - Tears For Fears W/Lyrics - YouTube[/ame]
I read the links when you suggested same. What they prove is that there are easy to find big government Republicans, as well as Democrats.
The alternatives are not presented by Republicans and Democrats....
...but rather by Liberals and Conservatives.
As you acknowledge, under Bill Clinton, the national debt rose 41%.
I have no interest in using a modified meaning of the word 'surplus.'
While I am not disputing a question of economics, I am disputing that you have a firm grip on the bigger question, one based in politics.
While it is possible to deal with, and even obliterate the debt,- as you know, it was done once- our current iteration of politicians have no interest in this struggle.
You are arguing that there was no surplus. That is wrong. There is no "modified" definition of a surplus. A surplus is when cash inflows exceed cash outflows. That's it. Period. Full stop.
If you want to argue that the total national debt rose or that the operational budget was not in surplus, fine. But the unified budget ran a surplus four years in a row. That is not debatable. It has nothing to do with liberal or conservative any more than debating whether or not the sun rose in the east this morning is liberal or conservatives. That's why conservatives don't argue that there wasn't a budget surplus.
Of course it is debatable.
"Over the past 25 years, the government has gotten used to the fact that Social Security is providing free money to make the rest of the deficit look smaller," said Andrew Biggs, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.'
The Big Lie from Liberals about a Clinton-era "Surplus" of Money - AJay70's Blog - Blogster
You can call a pig a racehorse....but it's still a pig.
There was no surplus....just the usual smoke and mirrors.
You are arguing that there was no surplus. That is wrong. There is no "modified" definition of a surplus. A surplus is when cash inflows exceed cash outflows. That's it. Period. Full stop.
If you want to argue that the total national debt rose or that the operational budget was not in surplus, fine. But the unified budget ran a surplus four years in a row. That is not debatable. It has nothing to do with liberal or conservative any more than debating whether or not the sun rose in the east this morning is liberal or conservatives. That's why conservatives don't argue that there wasn't a budget surplus.
Of course it is debatable.
"Over the past 25 years, the government has gotten used to the fact that Social Security is providing free money to make the rest of the deficit look smaller," said Andrew Biggs, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.'
The Big Lie from Liberals about a Clinton-era "Surplus" of Money - AJay70's Blog - Blogster
You can call a pig a racehorse....but it's still a pig.
There was no surplus....just the usual smoke and mirrors.
Wrong.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
"The budget" refers to the unified budget, which includes all money coming into the US government and all money going out. The unified budget includes social security receipts and expenditures. Social security was in surplus, so of course the fiscal balance would have been lower excluding social security. No one is saying otherwise.
Your source doesn't say there wasn't a surplus. He doesn't say it because there was.
Please stop.
Of course it is debatable.
"Over the past 25 years, the government has gotten used to the fact that Social Security is providing free money to make the rest of the deficit look smaller," said Andrew Biggs, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.'
The Big Lie from Liberals about a Clinton-era "Surplus" of Money - AJay70's Blog - Blogster
You can call a pig a racehorse....but it's still a pig.
There was no surplus....just the usual smoke and mirrors.
Wrong.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
"The budget" refers to the unified budget, which includes all money coming into the US government and all money going out. The unified budget includes social security receipts and expenditures. Social security was in surplus, so of course the fiscal balance would have been lower excluding social security. No one is saying otherwise.
Your source doesn't say there wasn't a surplus. He doesn't say it because there was.
Please stop.
From your side, it's a a question of the definition of 'surplus,' and you are providing cover for a criminal who demanded another obfuscation,...
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0]Bill Clinton It Depends on what the meaning of the word is is - YouTube[/ame]
From my side it is the reality of spending by government.
You may purchase your intellectual comfort more cheaply than I do.
Wrong.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
"The budget" refers to the unified budget, which includes all money coming into the US government and all money going out. The unified budget includes social security receipts and expenditures. Social security was in surplus, so of course the fiscal balance would have been lower excluding social security. No one is saying otherwise.
Your source doesn't say there wasn't a surplus. He doesn't say it because there was.
Please stop.
From your side, it's a a question of the definition of 'surplus,' and you are providing cover for a criminal who demanded another obfuscation,...
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0]Bill Clinton It Depends on what the meaning of the word is is - YouTube[/ame]
From my side it is the reality of spending by government.
You may purchase your intellectual comfort more cheaply than I do.
My from my side, it's technical knowledge devoid of politics. From your side, it's ideological partisanship that tries to score cheap political points and demonstrates why some accuse the right of being anti-intellectual. Conservatives who have an inkling of understanding don't make this argument. You're smarter than this. That's why I'm asking you to please stop. It looks so bad from my side.
Hey, PoliChic!
You do realize that, by definittion, the rebels were to the left of the King of England, don't you? After all, the terms left and right began in relation to the monarch.
From your side, it's a a question of the definition of 'surplus,' and you are providing cover for a criminal who demanded another obfuscation,...
Bill Clinton It Depends on what the meaning of the word is is - YouTube
From my side it is the reality of spending by government.
You may purchase your intellectual comfort more cheaply than I do.
My from my side, it's technical knowledge devoid of politics. From your side, it's ideological partisanship that tries to score cheap political points and demonstrates why some accuse the right of being anti-intellectual. Conservatives who have an inkling of understanding don't make this argument. You're smarter than this. That's why I'm asking you to please stop. It looks so bad from my side.
If only you had the gift of irony.....
....you might get a glimpse of the ideological basis of your post, a post that has become an attack, designed to close discussion.
Your "cheap political points" are designed to gain my acceptance of your politically based definition of "surplus."
If I agreed with you we'd both be wrong.
The debt grew throughout the Clinton regime.
Even you cannot dispute this.
There was no surplus....merely a moving around of the numbers.
Politicians do this to maintain their ability to feed at the public trough.
You, out of a fear that others may not accept your expertise or "technical knowledge."
I've had the luxury of attending the best schools...and have seen the phenomenon often: 'All of us say this is the case, logic be damned...so there."
Many who have built their reputations upon acceptance of group-think function in this manner.
Neither function to the benefit of the American people, or of honesty.
My from my side, it's technical knowledge devoid of politics. From your side, it's ideological partisanship that tries to score cheap political points and demonstrates why some accuse the right of being anti-intellectual. Conservatives who have an inkling of understanding don't make this argument. You're smarter than this. That's why I'm asking you to please stop. It looks so bad from my side.
If only you had the gift of irony.....
....you might get a glimpse of the ideological basis of your post, a post that has become an attack, designed to close discussion.
Your "cheap political points" are designed to gain my acceptance of your politically based definition of "surplus."
If I agreed with you we'd both be wrong.
The debt grew throughout the Clinton regime.
Even you cannot dispute this.
There was no surplus....merely a moving around of the numbers.
Politicians do this to maintain their ability to feed at the public trough.
You, out of a fear that others may not accept your expertise or "technical knowledge."
I've had the luxury of attending the best schools...and have seen the phenomenon often: 'All of us say this is the case, logic be damned...so there."
Many who have built their reputations upon acceptance of group-think function in this manner.
Neither function to the benefit of the American people, or of honesty.
Denying basic truths does not benefit anyone either, especially those who deny them. Denials discredit the deniers. If I walked over to our bond desk and argued there was no surplus, people would think I'm crazy and I'd risk my standing in the organization. Not because everyone is wrong but because I'd look like a loon. And rightfully so.
Those who sit on the outside of technical knowledge are usually wrong, especially when they are highly biased and lack basic knowledge. So when you look at those who make the argument, they are highly biased and know little about government accounting and finance. Compare that to multiple heads of the OMB and CEA, where government finance is a fundamental and critical aspect of their jobs, not to mention independent and conservative economists like Thomas Sowell and Kevin Hassett. Stuff like this just discredits conservatives. It demonstrates they know little about the subject and are driven by politics.
If only you had the gift of irony.....
....you might get a glimpse of the ideological basis of your post, a post that has become an attack, designed to close discussion.
Your "cheap political points" are designed to gain my acceptance of your politically based definition of "surplus."
If I agreed with you we'd both be wrong.
The debt grew throughout the Clinton regime.
Even you cannot dispute this.
There was no surplus....merely a moving around of the numbers.
Politicians do this to maintain their ability to feed at the public trough.
You, out of a fear that others may not accept your expertise or "technical knowledge."
I've had the luxury of attending the best schools...and have seen the phenomenon often: 'All of us say this is the case, logic be damned...so there."
Many who have built their reputations upon acceptance of group-think function in this manner.
Neither function to the benefit of the American people, or of honesty.
Denying basic truths does not benefit anyone either, especially those who deny them. Denials discredit the deniers. If I walked over to our bond desk and argued there was no surplus, people would think I'm crazy and I'd risk my standing in the organization. Not because everyone is wrong but because I'd look like a loon. And rightfully so.
Those who sit on the outside of technical knowledge are usually wrong, especially when they are highly biased and lack basic knowledge. So when you look at those who make the argument, they are highly biased and know little about government accounting and finance. Compare that to multiple heads of the OMB and CEA, where government finance is a fundamental and critical aspect of their jobs, not to mention independent and conservative economists like Thomas Sowell and Kevin Hassett. Stuff like this just discredits conservatives. It demonstrates they know little about the subject and are driven by politics.
I'm certain that you fail to realize what you are saying is that you fear the confrontation with others, if your opinion does not correspond with theirs...." If I walked over to our bond desk and argued there was no surplus, people would think I'm crazy and I'd risk my standing in the organization."
I have no such fear.
Of course, in reality, if it might cost you your job, I fully understand it. Many in Hollywood are in the same situation.
My championing of the truth risks no such result.
1. Gustave Le Bon, in his groundbreaking 1896 book, The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind, was the first to identify the phenomenon of mass psychology. Both Hitler and Mussolini used his book to understand how to incite a mob.
2. Liberals exhibit an indisposition to analogies, and fail to recognize contradictions. This, another example of mob thinking. Le Bon explains that mobs are perfectly capable of holding completely contradictory ideas at the same time, because a crowd will come under the influence of one of the various ideas stored up in its understanding, and is capable of committing the most dissimilar acts. Its complete lack of critical spirit does not allow of its perceiving these as contradictions. Le Bon, The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind, p. 30-31.
As you have no trouble absorbing the contradictions between the increase in debt during Clinton's reign, and the meaning of the word "surplus," you might benefit from Le Bon's thesis.
As for analogies....shall we try that?
If you were the typical household, and listed 8 or 10 liabilities, debts, and all except one increased, would you celebrate your 'surplus'?
Of course not.
Especially if, in total, the debts increased 41%.
True?
Denying basic truths does not benefit anyone either, especially those who deny them. Denials discredit the deniers. If I walked over to our bond desk and argued there was no surplus, people would think I'm crazy and I'd risk my standing in the organization. Not because everyone is wrong but because I'd look like a loon. And rightfully so.
Those who sit on the outside of technical knowledge are usually wrong, especially when they are highly biased and lack basic knowledge. So when you look at those who make the argument, they are highly biased and know little about government accounting and finance. Compare that to multiple heads of the OMB and CEA, where government finance is a fundamental and critical aspect of their jobs, not to mention independent and conservative economists like Thomas Sowell and Kevin Hassett. Stuff like this just discredits conservatives. It demonstrates they know little about the subject and are driven by politics.
I'm certain that you fail to realize what you are saying is that you fear the confrontation with others, if your opinion does not correspond with theirs...." If I walked over to our bond desk and argued there was no surplus, people would think I'm crazy and I'd risk my standing in the organization."
I have no such fear.
Of course, in reality, if it might cost you your job, I fully understand it. Many in Hollywood are in the same situation.
My championing of the truth risks no such result.
1. Gustave Le Bon, in his groundbreaking 1896 book, “The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind,” was the first to identify the phenomenon of mass psychology. Both Hitler and Mussolini used his book to understand how to incite a mob.
2. Liberals exhibit an indisposition to analogies, and fail to recognize contradictions. This, another example of mob thinking. Le Bon explains that mobs are perfectly capable of holding completely contradictory ideas at the same time, because “a crowd will come under the influence of one of the various ideas stored up in its understanding, …and is capable of committing the most dissimilar acts. Its complete lack of critical spirit does not allow of its perceiving these as contradictions.” Le Bon, “The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind,” p. 30-31.
As you have no trouble absorbing the contradictions between the increase in debt during Clinton's reign, and the meaning of the word "surplus," you might benefit from Le Bon's thesis.
As for analogies....shall we try that?
If you were the typical household, and listed 8 or 10 liabilities, debts, and all except one increased, would you celebrate your 'surplus'?
Of course not.
Especially if, in total, the debts increased 41%.
True?
I've read LeBon.
The crowd is not always wrong. The trick is being able to understand why the crowd is wrong or right. To do that, you first need the knowledge to understand why the crowd is wrong or right. If I walked over to my bond desk and said the sun is going to set at noon, they'll think I'm a loon, just like if I said there was no surplus. The sun does not set at noon. Just because everyone says the sun does not set at noon does not mean they are wrong. It has nothing to do with confrontation. It has to with understanding basic facts.
And yes, even if a household brings more income than it spends - a surplus - and uses that surplus to pay down debt, it's total liabilities can still go up.
I'm certain that you fail to realize what you are saying is that you fear the confrontation with others, if your opinion does not correspond with theirs...." If I walked over to our bond desk and argued there was no surplus, people would think I'm crazy and I'd risk my standing in the organization."
I have no such fear.
Of course, in reality, if it might cost you your job, I fully understand it. Many in Hollywood are in the same situation.
My championing of the truth risks no such result.
1. Gustave Le Bon, in his groundbreaking 1896 book, The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind, was the first to identify the phenomenon of mass psychology. Both Hitler and Mussolini used his book to understand how to incite a mob.
2. Liberals exhibit an indisposition to analogies, and fail to recognize contradictions. This, another example of mob thinking. Le Bon explains that mobs are perfectly capable of holding completely contradictory ideas at the same time, because a crowd will come under the influence of one of the various ideas stored up in its understanding, and is capable of committing the most dissimilar acts. Its complete lack of critical spirit does not allow of its perceiving these as contradictions. Le Bon, The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind, p. 30-31.
As you have no trouble absorbing the contradictions between the increase in debt during Clinton's reign, and the meaning of the word "surplus," you might benefit from Le Bon's thesis.
As for analogies....shall we try that?
If you were the typical household, and listed 8 or 10 liabilities, debts, and all except one increased, would you celebrate your 'surplus'?
Of course not.
Especially if, in total, the debts increased 41%.
True?
I've read LeBon.
The crowd is not always wrong. The trick is being able to understand why the crowd is wrong or right. To do that, you first need the knowledge to understand why the crowd is wrong or right. If I walked over to my bond desk and said the sun is going to set at noon, they'll think I'm a loon, just like if I said there was no surplus. The sun does not set at noon. Just because everyone says the sun does not set at noon does not mean they are wrong. It has nothing to do with confrontation. It has to with understanding basic facts.
And yes, even if a household brings more income than it spends - a surplus - and uses that surplus to pay down debt, it's total liabilities can still go up.
"...it's total liabilities can still go up."
And when you found Mr. Jones high-fiving everyone even though his debt rose 41% you'd find his reaction.....appropriate?
Well...you've admitted that you'd high-five 'em right back....and refrain from mentioning the foreclosure notice nailed to his door if he was your boss.
I understand your motivation....but if you continue to pronounce his reaction to the situation both intuitive and correct, then I'd have to question your honesty and/or your acumen.
Wouldn't I.
"The crowd is not always wrong."
Nor is it always correct....or should I use the word 'Right."
I've read LeBon.
The crowd is not always wrong. The trick is being able to understand why the crowd is wrong or right. To do that, you first need the knowledge to understand why the crowd is wrong or right. If I walked over to my bond desk and said the sun is going to set at noon, they'll think I'm a loon, just like if I said there was no surplus. The sun does not set at noon. Just because everyone says the sun does not set at noon does not mean they are wrong. It has nothing to do with confrontation. It has to with understanding basic facts.
And yes, even if a household brings more income than it spends - a surplus - and uses that surplus to pay down debt, it's total liabilities can still go up.
"...it's total liabilities can still go up."
And when you found Mr. Jones high-fiving everyone even though his debt rose 41% you'd find his reaction.....appropriate?
Well...you've admitted that you'd high-five 'em right back....and refrain from mentioning the foreclosure notice nailed to his door if he was your boss.
I understand your motivation....but if you continue to pronounce his reaction to the situation both intuitive and correct, then I'd have to question your honesty and/or your acumen.
Wouldn't I.
"The crowd is not always wrong."
Nor is it always correct....or should I use the word 'Right."
You're projecting.
A surplus is when cash inflow exceeds cash outflow. That's it. We ran surpluses.
Some people believe the world is flat, that Elvis is still alive, Obama is Satan, and we didn't run surpluses.
The rest of the world just brushes them aside because no matter what you put in front of them, they'll never believe.
"...it's total liabilities can still go up."
And when you found Mr. Jones high-fiving everyone even though his debt rose 41% you'd find his reaction.....appropriate?
Well...you've admitted that you'd high-five 'em right back....and refrain from mentioning the foreclosure notice nailed to his door if he was your boss.
I understand your motivation....but if you continue to pronounce his reaction to the situation both intuitive and correct, then I'd have to question your honesty and/or your acumen.
Wouldn't I.
"The crowd is not always wrong."
Nor is it always correct....or should I use the word 'Right."
You're projecting.
A surplus is when cash inflow exceeds cash outflow. That's it. We ran surpluses.
Some people believe the world is flat, that Elvis is still alive, Obama is Satan, and we didn't run surpluses.
The rest of the world just brushes them aside because no matter what you put in front of them, they'll never believe.
It is telling that you would rather avoid post #136, above.
So, if understand your premise, the more educated a person is the more likely they are to be a "leftist".
Which would mean the converse is that the less educated a person is the more likely they are to be a "rightist". So, carrying that logic on, the perfect person of the right is one who is utterly ignorant.
Perhaps you should rethink your approach.
