Are liberals pro equality?

[PaintMyHouse]

Why are the right wingers here so unhappy and angry? Usually in the socialist countries such as in Scandinavia, people are pretty happy. Maybe we need more socialism and a little less capitalism?

DINGLE BERRY

IF YOU KNEW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOUR ASS AND A HOLE IN THE GROUND YOU WOULD KNOW THAT THAT IS PRECISELY WE HAVE HAVE - A MIXED ECONOMY WHICH IS CALLED *****FASCISM*****.


CAPITALISM WAS STABBED IN ITS HEART CIRCA 1913.

We do have a Mixed Economy, like all other capitalist nations on the planet. How odd eh? Well, not really.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

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.

You utterly ignorant dipstick!

fascist - an advocate or follower of fascism.

fascism - an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE DEFINITIONS ABOVE OR SHOULD I SPEAK LOUDER AND S-L-O-W-E-R?

I was a card carrying member of the GOP until Aug 1974 when that ******* crook resigned the Presidency. But since then I'm an Indy because I'm done with liars protecting and boosting their faction at any cost. The GOP has gone to the far right nationalist bent with the New Age Goebbels talking heads moving the lemmings, like you, to the extreme fascist right. But rather than Jews as a handy target for attack, the focus is on the Democratic party as the epicenter of the contrived hate. And I have committed another Thought Crime against you and your brethren!

I'm a life long Constitutional Conservative, but now I've been reclassified by your neocon fascists ilk and other walking dead-heads as a Liberal. You bloody used and soiled fool! Enjoy your ignorance and revelry as one of the cogs in the Big Lie Machine.

Is there any chance there might be some critical thinking by YOU in YOUR future? Naw, I didn't think so!

 

[Contumacious]

Why are the right wingers here so unhappy and angry? Usually in the socialist countries such as in Scandinavia, people are pretty happy. Maybe we need more socialism and a little less capitalism?

DINGLE BERRY

IF YOU KNEW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOUR ASS AND A HOLE IN THE GROUND YOU WOULD KNOW THAT THAT IS PRECISELY WE HAVE HAVE - A MIXED ECONOMY WHICH IS CALLED *****FASCISM*****.


CAPITALISM WAS STABBED IN ITS HEART CIRCA 1913.

We do have a Mixed Economy, like all other capitalist nations on the planet. How odd eh? Well, not really.

A MIXED ECONOMY - MEANS THAT THERE IS NO LONGER CAPITALISM -

IN THE US THAT OCCURRED BACK IN 1913 WHEN THE GOVERNMENT BEGAN TO CONTROL BANKING AND CREDIT AND INSTITUTED A *****GRADUATED**** "INCOME" TAX.



.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Why are the right wingers here so unhappy and angry? Usually in the socialist countries such as in Scandinavia, people are pretty happy. Maybe we need more socialism and a little less capitalism?

DINGLE BERRY

IF YOU KNEW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOUR ASS AND A HOLE IN THE GROUND YOU WOULD KNOW THAT THAT IS PRECISELY WE HAVE HAVE - A MIXED ECONOMY WHICH IS CALLED *****FASCISM*****.


CAPITALISM WAS STABBED IN ITS HEART CIRCA 1913.

We do have a Mixed Economy, like all other capitalist nations on the planet. How odd eh? Well, not really.

A MIXED ECONOMY - MEANS THAT THERE IS NO LONGER CAPITALISM -

IN THE US THAT OCCURRED BACK IN 1913 WHEN THE GOVERNMENT BEGAN TO CONTROL BANKING AND CREDIT AND INSTITUTED A *****GRADUATED**** "INCOME" TAX.

Okay, we'll use your logic. Capitalism does not exist in any nation on earth (because they are all mixed economies). Better now?

 

[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.

Liberals are not concerned with a person's contribution - they are only concerned with a person's compensation. Liberals are not concerned with creating an environment in which all people have the equal opportunity to succeed - they are only concerned with creating an environment in which all people are rewarded equally, regardless of effort. Liberals are not interested in creating an educational system that maximizes the growth of each individual - they are only concerned with an educational system that delivers all students at the same level.

Do I need to go on?

 

[Debra K]

Liberals are not concerned with a person's contribution - they are only concerned with a person's compensation. Liberals are not concerned with creating an environment in which all people have the equal opportunity to succeed - they are only concerned with creating an environment in which all people are rewarded equally, regardless of effort. Liberals are not interested in creating an educational system that maximizes the growth of each individual - they are only concerned with an educational system that delivers all students at the same level.

Do I need to go on?

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?

 

[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.

Liberals are not concerned with a person's contribution - they are only concerned with a person's compensation. Liberals are not concerned with creating an environment in which all people have the equal opportunity to succeed - they are only concerned with creating an environment in which all people are rewarded equally, regardless of effort. Liberals are not interested in creating an educational system that maximizes the growth of each individual - they are only concerned with an educational system that delivers all students at the same level.

Do I need to go on?

Well, you could but I wouldn't bother since that's all total nonsense. The choice is yours of course, I'm liberal on that.

 

[2aguy]

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.

they support Affirmative Action...that is discriminating for people based on the color of their skin...how is that equality? They want some to pay more taxes than others....a lot more....how is that equal?

 

[Spare_change]

Liberals are not concerned with a person's contribution - they are only concerned with a person's compensation. Liberals are not concerned with creating an environment in which all people have the equal opportunity to succeed - they are only concerned with creating an environment in which all people are rewarded equally, regardless of effort. Liberals are not interested in creating an educational system that maximizes the growth of each individual - they are only concerned with an educational system that delivers all students at the same level.

Do I need to go on?

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]

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.

Liberals are not concerned with a person's contribution - they are only concerned with a person's compensation. Liberals are not concerned with creating an environment in which all people have the equal opportunity to succeed - they are only concerned with creating an environment in which all people are rewarded equally, regardless of effort. Liberals are not interested in creating an educational system that maximizes the growth of each individual - they are only concerned with an educational system that delivers all students at the same level.

Do I need to go on?

Well, you could but I wouldn't bother since that's all total nonsense. The choice is yours of course, I'm liberal on that.

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

Well done.

 

[bravoactual]

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.

I am not the one who wants to restrict a Woman's Right To Choose. Cons are.

I am not the one who wants to restrict Voting Right's. Cons are.

I am not the one who *****, whine, moan and complain about how they hate the very idea "Government Involvment in Health Care." then turn around and a Constitutional Amendment banning abortion, in other words for those to dead from the neck up to understand. You want to do the very thing you are suppose to be opposed to.

I do not try force religion on anyone....but your RW Religious Nut Jobs seem to think you have a right to do exactly that.

I donot discriminate based on religion, yet you people see a Muslim you go bat crap crazy over how they worship.

 

[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.

Liberals are not concerned with a person's contribution - they are only concerned with a person's compensation. Liberals are not concerned with creating an environment in which all people have the equal opportunity to succeed - they are only concerned with creating an environment in which all people are rewarded equally, regardless of effort. Liberals are not interested in creating an educational system that maximizes the growth of each individual - they are only concerned with an educational system that delivers all students at the same level.

Do I need to go on?

Well, you could but I wouldn't bother since that's all total nonsense. The choice is yours of course, I'm liberal on that.

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

Well done.

There's not much argument to made against nonsense. All you can do is comment.

 

[Debra K]

Liberals are not concerned with a person's contribution - they are only concerned with a person's compensation. Liberals are not concerned with creating an environment in which all people have the equal opportunity to succeed - they are only concerned with creating an environment in which all people are rewarded equally, regardless of effort. Liberals are not interested in creating an educational system that maximizes the growth of each individual - they are only concerned with an educational system that delivers all students at the same level.

Do I need to go on?

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.

 

[conservativerod]

Of course liberals are pro equality, but I might be willing to reevaluate that in your case. It would be no use to tell you that all that crap rush told you was not true, but I will say you are an idiot for believing it.

Crap? That would be my story if...I was a blindly devoted leftist nut bag kook. It retains all that lying Dem politicians say. That cannot be lies. Audio replay. Just for starters


Sent from my LG-V410 using Tapatalk

 

[Spare_change]

Liberals are not concerned with a person's contribution - they are only concerned with a person's compensation. Liberals are not concerned with creating an environment in which all people have the equal opportunity to succeed - they are only concerned with creating an environment in which all people are rewarded equally, regardless of effort. Liberals are not interested in creating an educational system that maximizes the growth of each individual - they are only concerned with an educational system that delivers all students at the same level.

Do I need to go on?

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..

 

[Debra K]

Liberals are not concerned with a person's contribution - they are only concerned with a person's compensation. Liberals are not concerned with creating an environment in which all people have the equal opportunity to succeed - they are only concerned with creating an environment in which all people are rewarded equally, regardless of effort. Liberals are not interested in creating an educational system that maximizes the growth of each individual - they are only concerned with an educational system that delivers all students at the same level.

Do I need to go on?

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.

 

[Spare_change]

Liberals are not concerned with a person's contribution - they are only concerned with a person's compensation. Liberals are not concerned with creating an environment in which all people have the equal opportunity to succeed - they are only concerned with creating an environment in which all people are rewarded equally, regardless of effort. Liberals are not interested in creating an educational system that maximizes the growth of each individual - they are only concerned with an educational system that delivers all students at the same level.

Do I need to go on?

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.

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 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.

 

[IronFist]

A MIXED ECONOMY - MEANS THAT THERE IS NO LONGER CAPITALISM -

IN THE US THAT OCCURRED BACK IN 1913 WHEN THE GOVERNMENT BEGAN TO CONTROL BANKING AND CREDIT AND INSTITUTED A *****GRADUATED**** "INCOME" TAX.



.

There is nothing bad in state controlled capitalism but this control has to stay unnoticed. Nowadays everything is controlled by the state through various funds and media and it kinda disappoints me.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Are liberals pro equality?"

Are most conservatives incapable of avoiding a loaded question fallacy.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

More ridiculous lies from the right.