$50.00 lesson

Message boards : Politics : $50.00 lesson
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 . . . 7 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile skildude
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9541
Credit: 50,759,529
RAC: 60
Yemen
Message 1059453 - Posted: 24 Dec 2010, 19:43:35 UTC - in response to Message 1059447.  

there certainly is reason to explain things since you either need reminders, were never shown it, or jsut don't believe it exists. Though I'd love to read your latest tirade about how obtuse I am I feel this conversation is getting long in the tooth and accomplishing nothing other than a pissing contest that neither will ever concede. SO guess what. You win because I just don't have the desire to go futher. I guess that makes me a liberal and you a COnservative. It seems thats how things are politically fought in this country. Just argue against something until the other side gives up due to frustration.

Oh and Free open market society is another term for allowing business to run amuck just as long as the gov't will clean up afterward, create regulations to prevent it from happening again, then 20 years down the line has some Jackass repeal the regulations in the spirit of a free open market society... Rinse repeat. I'll pass on that logic


In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope
ID: 1059453 · Report as offensive
Profile Robert Waite
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Oct 07
Posts: 2417
Credit: 18,192,122
RAC: 59
Canada
Message 1059461 - Posted: 24 Dec 2010, 20:42:31 UTC

I don't blame you skildude.
This is like dealing with Rush or ScaryCapitalist.
Even the wording in this guy's arguments look the same.

They've all pulled themselves out of poverty, they've all travelled the world and seen "real" poverty and they all have first hand knowledge of people trying to rip off the system.

I think this is just another doink from some right wing PR company who's paid to spout off.
Probably in the cubicle next to Rush. LOL

I don't argue anymore. I just state my case and let them spout off until they're blue in the face.

I do not fight fascists because I think I can win.
I fight them because they are fascists.
Chris Hedges

A riot is the language of the unheard. -Martin Luther King, Jr.
ID: 1059461 · Report as offensive
Profile MOMMY: He is MAKING ME Read His Posts Thoughts and Prayers. GOoD Thoughts and GOoD Prayers. HATERWORLD Vs THOUGHTs and PRAYERs World. It Is a BATTLE ROYALE. Nobody LOVEs Me. Everybody HATEs Me. Why Don't I Go Eat Worms. Tasty Treats are Wormy Meat. Yes
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Jun 02
Posts: 6895
Credit: 6,588,977
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1059464 - Posted: 24 Dec 2010, 20:51:48 UTC

Polar opposites. People spin in different directions. It is a lesson learned everyday. $50.00 did not get taken out of my pocket directly to learn it. Indirectly, however, it costs a lot more to learn.

So, something is accomplished. I realize I do not think, believe, act, live like my neighbors(next door, next county, next state, opposite coast). Their house looks similar, but what lives inside is totally different.

I've learned to protect myself against "THEM".

Lesson learned. Alarm set. Protection Service-Active.

iWorm 'em.
ID: 1059464 · Report as offensive
Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 12273
Credit: 8,569,109
RAC: 79
United States
Message 1059474 - Posted: 24 Dec 2010, 21:54:29 UTC - in response to Message 1059129.  

Unless your super rich then voting for the Republicans is like turkey's voting for Christmas.

I suspect you mean a turkey voting for Thanksgiving? :)
ID: 1059474 · Report as offensive
Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 12273
Credit: 8,569,109
RAC: 79
United States
Message 1059477 - Posted: 24 Dec 2010, 21:57:48 UTC - in response to Message 1059130.  

Republicans choose life then support the death penalty.
Republicans, the party of contradiction where Christ is their saviour but if you end up poor it's due to some personal flaw in your own character and are unworthy of help.

Christ, as represented in the bible, was a socialist.
He didn't say "Go forth and amass great wealth."

Unfortunately, The Bible itself has such contradictions. Remember "Be fruitful and multiply"? This and probably other verses, as opposed to being stewards of the Earth, can, and have been, taken as license for Manifest Destiny ... domination of the Earth.
ID: 1059477 · Report as offensive
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10874
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1059533 - Posted: 25 Dec 2010, 6:53:17 UTC - in response to Message 1059474.  

Unless your super rich then voting for the Republicans is like turkey's voting for Christmas.

I suspect you mean a turkey voting for Thanksgiving? :)

We don't have thanksgiving in the UK, so the phrase has always been for me "like a turkey voting for Christmas".
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 1059533 · Report as offensive
Profile soft^spirit
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 6497
Credit: 34,134,168
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1059542 - Posted: 25 Dec 2010, 7:50:07 UTC - in response to Message 1059506.  

Well that certainly was verbose.

Pointless, but verbose.
Janice
ID: 1059542 · Report as offensive
Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 2892
Credit: 1,499,890
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1059626 - Posted: 25 Dec 2010, 16:08:06 UTC - in response to Message 1059506.  

That's it?

Seems pretty lame to me.

Instead of laming out like this, and calling me names like "doink", and attacking my prose, how about explaining to me what economic system would be better than free, open market capitalism? (with some controls, of course) or what rights, endowed by our creator, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness means to you? And how we can better work towards achieving those? Or maybe try to make the case we don't have rights endowed by our creator? Or what "rights" exist that are still not enumerated in the constitution? And how we can go about writing those down and making it better for future generations?

Ya see, this indicates to me you don't really know what you believe or what you're asking for and that you haven't really thought about those little one-liner quips.

One-liner quips, like, "Republicans choose life then support the death penalty." What are you implying here? That there is some sort of hypocrisy? Are you saying in order to be consistent, if we kill one, we need to kill the other? Or save both? An unborn baby hasn't had a chance to do evil yet. A convicted murderer has demonstrated he is a burden to society.

Or, "...since you either need reminders, were never shown it, or jsut don't believe it exists." Ok, don't just leave me wondering, what is "it?"

Or the generalized statement about my life experiences... What's wrong with coming to conclusions based on what one witnesses? Is this not the best, most informed opinion? I've been to a lot of places and have seen a lot of things. Check my profile for a list of places I've been. Seen the news about Greece lately? How about what's happening in England right now? I lived on the island of Crete for a year and a half. I lived in England for three years. Don't you think I might have *some* insight into what's causing the riots over there right now?

I won't bother with the other ridiculous quips.

You're not really aware of how this country was founded and what made it the country it is today, are you?

And I'm surprised you still haven't acknowledged that the democrat/liberal/marxists/socialists/communists are winning and the great strides made in the last two years. I have.

Don't have the desire? Or is it that you can't support your position?

In a free society, the free exchange of ideas is healthy. Our founders new this, and they new it was *so* important, they put it in the first amendment. We are all human. We all have faults. Those elected to government positions are human, too. That's why we must hold them accountable, as we hold ourselves accountable. Blind faith in another human, based on his elected position, will be the downfall of this nation because all humans are faulty by nature. Or do you believe there are some out there who are faultless?

You're not really for the open exchange of ideas, are you? A couple of you have mentioned or implied we need to shut down fox news, oreilly, rush and the gang. How about trying to make the case for limiting free speech?

I've made several points about economics, the constitution, and about human nature. And I've asked several specific questions. None of them have been substantially addresses. Those responses that have had some merit, I've expanded on. Others could be the subject of another thread.

Don't just lame out on me like this. I might lose respect for you.

And if this thread is done, then I'll see you on other threads.

Merry Christmas everybody!


Guy,

Nice to see your posts. I haven't been around here in a while, but I see that not much has changed.


You are somewhat correct about a great many things, from what I have read here, but you are expecting intelligent debate? I am afraid that you are correct about the 'democrat/liberal/marxists/socialists/communists' winning. They have been allowed to frame the debate for so long that the definitions and premises used by that group are now almost universally accepted.

For instance, it is almost totally agreed on nowadays that the govt. should interfere in the economy. The 'debate' nowadays is merely who should be the favored group, between the unproductive (the Democrats, in their support of the 'poor') and the uncompetitive (the Republicans, in their support of 'big business'). Very few now even slightly question whether the govt. should be interfering any at all.

Both sides now resort to Ad Hominem when they feel the 'debate' is not going well for them, with one side calling the other any number of things, such as unpatriotic or uneducated or some such.

You mention 'free, open market capitalism'. That has not existed in many decades. It died back in the 1930's under FDR, and had been wounded for many years before that by the various stripes of Progressives and Populists. I find it very interesting that the 'left' now seems to be abandoning the term 'liberal' in favor of 'Progressive'. They will changes labels again, once their current label has earned enough distaste.

You also mention 'rights', with a (to me) funny remark about the supposed finding of even more rights in the Constitution. One's actual rights under the US Constitution are few, but they are sufficient for liberty. The more rights that SCOTUS claims to 'find' in the Constitution (but in reality pulls out of their collective backsides), the more everyone's freedom and liberty are diminished.

To save some time (and space) here, I will give some background on myself. I am a student of several things: science (especially physics), history, and economics/political ideologies are three of my favorites. My political philosophy can probably be best labeled as 'libertarian constitutionalism'. My economics is Laissez Faire Capitalism. My religion could probably be best summed up as Deism (see Thomas Paine's "Age of Reason" if you don't know to what I refer).

In short, I would have had much in common in my beliefs with many (if not most) of the US Founding Fathers, and I would have likely been in general support of their efforts. I think that their end result (The US Constitution) was fairly perfect, and would have argued to change only the portions on slavery. I don't agree with slavery. In addition to my moral objections to it, it poisons the central right of the people (the right to property), if one person could 'own' another. As to the Bill of Rights, I generally support it, though I would have wished that all 12 of the amendments proposed had been adopted initially, instead of only 10 with one more ratified since then. I am glad that the one on pay raises for congress finally got adopted not so very long ago, but I would wish that the one on the maximum number of people represented by one member of the House would get ratified. Oh well, one of these days. So, that is the Original Constitution, the *complete* Bill of Rights, the one amendment outlawing slavery, and perhaps the last amendment on presidential succession. Other than those, the rest of the amendments are crap and shouldn't be there.

As to Mr. Belanger's initial post with the US$50.00 joke, I thought it was funny, though perhaps the Demo/Repub labels might need some work. It does illustrate part of the problem today... The redistribution of wealth by government being incorrectly considered as valid. We don't have a lack of tax revenue problem in this country. We have a too much spending problem: as in the Government of the US is spending money on things for which it has no Constitutional authority to do so.


More Later.

Have Fun, and Be Well.
https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.
ID: 1059626 · Report as offensive
Profile skildude
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9541
Credit: 50,759,529
RAC: 60
Yemen
Message 1059703 - Posted: 25 Dec 2010, 23:54:53 UTC - in response to Message 1059626.  

You are somewhat correct about a great many things, from what I have read here, but you are expecting intelligent debate? I am afraid that you are correct about the 'democrat/liberal/marxists/socialists/communists' winning. They have been allowed to frame the debate for so long that the definitions and premises used by that group are now almost universally accepted.

Say what? winning the debate, Perhaps I should click on any given news outlet. Oh wait, Aside from MSNBC and the BBC the "news" outlets are just talking heads for conservative causes. I guess I just read my local rag. Hmmm what isn't owned by Gannet is owned by Murdock. Hmmm where shall those damned liberals get their voice heard. Apparently, in back rooms and alleys because you know its those kind of people that are liberals. Damn liberal media and its generally unbiased views. Damn the liberals Damn.


In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope
ID: 1059703 · Report as offensive
Profile Robert Waite
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Oct 07
Posts: 2417
Credit: 18,192,122
RAC: 59
Canada
Message 1059704 - Posted: 25 Dec 2010, 23:55:48 UTC

Is there some sort of Libertarian Convention coming up?
All the corporatist/wealthy elite supporters seem to be extra vocal recently.
Please keep the Anne Rand quotes to a minimum. LOL
I do not fight fascists because I think I can win.
I fight them because they are fascists.
Chris Hedges

A riot is the language of the unheard. -Martin Luther King, Jr.
ID: 1059704 · Report as offensive
Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 12273
Credit: 8,569,109
RAC: 79
United States
Message 1059737 - Posted: 26 Dec 2010, 4:15:25 UTC - in response to Message 1059704.  

Is there some sort of Libertarian Convention coming up?
All the corporatist/wealthy elite supporters seem to be extra vocal recently.
Please keep the Anne Rand quotes to a minimum. LOL

I do believe it is spelled Ayn Rand.
ID: 1059737 · Report as offensive
Profile Robert Waite
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Oct 07
Posts: 2417
Credit: 18,192,122
RAC: 59
Canada
Message 1059738 - Posted: 26 Dec 2010, 4:17:09 UTC

I guess the secret is out...I'm not a Rand zombie.
I do not fight fascists because I think I can win.
I fight them because they are fascists.
Chris Hedges

A riot is the language of the unheard. -Martin Luther King, Jr.
ID: 1059738 · Report as offensive
Profile skildude
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9541
Credit: 50,759,529
RAC: 60
Yemen
Message 1059832 - Posted: 26 Dec 2010, 15:17:53 UTC - in response to Message 1059816.  

nobody asked you to write a diatribe or respond at all. I don't believe in the Shotgun Method of defending ones ideas.

let me define the Shotgun Method as it was explained to me by an attorney while I was sitting on a jury many years ago.
The Method employs a simple tactic. spray as much ammo out at one time. In the hopes that you'll hit something. In the form used here its sending out so many and so often disjointed ideas that it disrupts and diverts the honest discussion being had. by inundating ones adversary with so much shot it becomes increasingly difficult to discuss one thing when the thread become weighted down with each post containing intentional errors that further create more divergent talk until the shooter gets his way. people stop talking and it appears that the Shotgun Method wins. Unfortunately for the user of the Shotgun Method, others are aware of this and don't take the bait. Never rising to get shot down from more of the Shotgun Method. so lets say that our one liners are all we need to weed through others nonsense


In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope
ID: 1059832 · Report as offensive
Terror Australis
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 14 Feb 04
Posts: 1817
Credit: 262,693,308
RAC: 44
Australia
Message 1059833 - Posted: 26 Dec 2010, 15:18:32 UTC

As someone from a long way away these discussions fascinate me. The rhetoric is always the same old, same old.

On one side we have the "democrat/liberal/marxists/socialists/communists" and on the other the "Republicans". The amusing thing is that from half the world away the Democrats are still way to the right of any "socialist" party from any other country and the Republicans don't appear to stand for anything.

Anyone who equates the Democrats with socialism or communism knows very little about either of the three and why those same people would complain about a universal health care system is beyond me. The fact they then refer to such an idea as "Communism" in order to paint it as something undesirable just totally lacks logic.

To the scenario the OP originally described. If you give the homeless person $50, how long would that last them ? How long would it be before they could get another $50 and how are they supposed to survive in the meantime ?

Can someone please explain to me how they can claim to be "Christian" and yet have such a harsh attitude to those who are "down and out"? Remember, there but for the grace of God go you.

T.A.
ID: 1059833 · Report as offensive
Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 2892
Credit: 1,499,890
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1059905 - Posted: 26 Dec 2010, 18:56:13 UTC - in response to Message 1059833.  

As someone from a long way away these discussions fascinate me. The rhetoric is always the same old, same old.

On one side we have the "democrat/liberal/marxists/socialists/communists" and on the other the "Republicans". The amusing thing is that from half the world away the Democrats are still way to the right of any "socialist" party from any other country and the Republicans don't appear to stand for anything.

Anyone who equates the Democrats with socialism or communism knows very little about either of the three and why those same people would complain about a universal health care system is beyond me. The fact they then refer to such an idea as "Communism" in order to paint it as something undesirable just totally lacks logic.

To the scenario the OP originally described. If you give the homeless person $50, how long would that last them ? How long would it be before they could get another $50 and how are they supposed to survive in the meantime ?

Can someone please explain to me how they can claim to be "Christian" and yet have such a harsh attitude to those who are "down and out"? Remember, there but for the grace of God go you.

T.A.


This post is a perfect example of what I mean by "'They' have won by defining the terms with which the debate is framed".

First of all, the poster mentions two sides in such a way as to imply they are the only two sides... For sake of brevity, I will refer to these two sides as the Ds and the Rs. In reality, there is very little difference between the Ds and the Rs, namely only who their favored group of people is. I am not a member of either group. I was raised as an R, but left the Rs in the mid-1980s as I realized that the Rs did not live up to the ideals I thought they stood for. I consider both as being socialist.

What is socialism? It is Government control of the means of production. And for completeness, communism? Communism is a form of socialism where the government owns everything and private property is abolished. Property rights are the foundation from which all other rights are derived. Without property rights, a people have no rights at all, as we all found out under the old U.S.S.R.

Governments that practice either socialism or communism are, by their very nature, authoritarian. They function by denying to their people essential freedoms and liberties in order to enforce their economic systems. I don't know about the rest of you, but I consider this to be a very Bad Thing indeed.

Next, 'universal health care' is mentioned. Health Care, depending on exactly what it is, is either a Good (drugs and equipment, etc.) or a Service (physician's treatment, advice, etc.). Health Care is not a Right. Like all other goods and services, it is up to the individual to purchase when desired and if able. One might respond to this statement by mentioning how expensive it is, and that few could afford it. Well, the reason why it is so expensive is Government interference in the market. When I was a child, health care was affordable to almost everyone, and for those it wasn't, there were charities. Then enter massive Govt. involvement both directly (medicare, et. al, as well as massive regulation), and indirectly with tax policy favoring 'health insurance' as a 'benefit' from one's workplace. The result? Health Care that is not affordable anymore.

Then, he strikes at the heart of the matter... He mentions the $50 and the homeless man, asking how the $50 is supposed to help him? Well, the answer is not some bloody 'Govt. Program'. The answer is charity. There are plenty of charities around. I volunteer at one, and donate to another. My problem with Govt. Social Programs is not hardness of heart or a harsh attitude towards the down and out. And yes, I have been there.

Simply, it is not the place of Government to run and fund Social Programs through taxation. Government lacks the authority (both constitutional and moral) to do so. It is the place of various charities. The people that both can and wish to will donate to help their fellow man. Those that either can't or do not wish to do so should not be forced. Taxation is government confiscation of the wealth of individuals either through threat of (or in extreme cases, actual) force of arms. Now, that said, some level of taxation is necessary to support the legitimate functions of Government. But taxation to support illegitimate activities of Government is robbery, and is morally reprehensible.

As I have said here, I am not a Republican. Nor am I a Democrat. Of all the political parties here in the USA, I am probably closest to the Libertarians, and I do tend to vote for them a lot. The Great Debate now is not Ds vs. Rs... They both are really the same in methods, differing only in their favored group. Both are increasingly authoritarian, hell bent on depriving the People of their essential freedoms and liberties, and they seem to cooperate in using their petty squabbles as a circus to keep the Peoples' mind off of the real issues until it is too late (which it almost is, if not already). To paraphrase Shakespeare, "A plague on both their houses".
https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.
ID: 1059905 · Report as offensive
kittyman Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Jul 00
Posts: 51468
Credit: 1,018,363,574
RAC: 1,004
United States
Message 1059944 - Posted: 26 Dec 2010, 20:51:13 UTC
Last modified: 26 Dec 2010, 20:52:09 UTC

I don't think I have ever seen a thread with so many posts over a couple of hundred words.

It was a simple, $50.00 lesson, remember?

You either eat the beans, and give the homeless guy what's left,
or you give the homeless guy the beans.

Either way, you are out the beans........

If satisfying yourself in the homeless guy's face somehow makes you feel better........
By all means eat your beans.

My only problem with the whole scenario is when the government takes my beans, shoves them up my arse and then pulls them back out with everything else I have managed to consume over the last year.........and then gives the whole lot to the homeless bum. While I am empty.

All I am left with is the ferment.

Call me 'Beanless".
"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

ID: 1059944 · Report as offensive
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10874
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1060059 - Posted: 27 Dec 2010, 1:01:13 UTC - in response to Message 1059816.  
Last modified: 27 Dec 2010, 1:07:25 UTC


MajorKong,

Thank you. Yup. Looks like you and I would agree on a lot of things. You and I have them surrounded.

Lol! Seriously? I think you are vastly overestimating your powers of argument.

It's a re-occurring cookie-cutter pattern. Burn your opponent out with a barrage of unsubstantiated, hypocritical one-liner quips, causing your opponent to endlessly enumerate the insanity of it with a 1-line to 20-line ratio of typing.

Quite a few of us have realised this is what you are doing and can't really be bothered to argue with you any more.

As soon as they see some key words indicating that you have some conservative thoughts, they take on an air of superiority and start casting judgment based on false assumptions. And they never really read what you say from that point on. While demonstrating they're not really up to speed on what's really happening in the world, (or what really has happened in the world,) they say you need to learn. While repeating Rachael Maddow and Chris Matthew one-liners, they say you need to quit repeating what you see on Fox news and to think for yourself. They like to cut/paste phrases and comment on them out of context. Some of them try to put together a coherent thought, but they never really seem to be able to do it. And when you present what most reasonable people accept as fact, they either ignore it, or refuse to accept it with the wave of the hand.

What exactly are you trying to say here? Because every post you've made sounds like you've swallowed the doctrine of Fox News wholesale. I've not seen you back up anything you've said here from a credible source at all.

"Those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it to believe that most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely), most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points), the economy is getting worse (26 points), most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points), the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points), their own income taxes have gone up (14 points), the auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points), when TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points) and that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points). The effect was also not simply a function of partisan bias, as people who voted Democratic and watched Fox News were also more likely to have such misinformation than those who did not watch it--though by a lesser margin than those who voted Republican."

Run down the list of intellectually dishonest debate tactics--they are quick to use about half of them and might be able to name about a quarter of them.

Go on then. Let's see this list with examples of what you are talking about.

They never answer direct questions. They refuse to acknowledge that *real* evil exists in this world, both on death row and in positions of power in and out of government.
I think we'd argue about where the *real* evil is. I've certainly seen plenty of real evil.

They never try to justify anything they say. And if they try, there's usually a blatant logical fallacy or a basic misunderstanding of human nature. They post links to obscure web sites and think they've made their case. And usually, when they know they've lost and get frustrated, they start calling you names. If they were there with you in person, they'd initiate violence. However, in this forum, I believe the threat of being banished is preventing them from saying what they really want to call you.

This strikes me as projection on your part.

They're not here for the mutually beneficial exchange of ideas.

By repeating the work "they" you come across as someone who sees "liberals" as "the other" and certainly don't give the impression you want to exchange any ideas but your own.
I believe they're here in these anonymous forums because if they actually tried some of these tactics in the real world in front of everybody, they'd be laughed at and humiliated. Maybe some of them have already been laughed at and humiliated in the real world, so they come here and verbally masturbate knowing full well they're not contributing anything of value and knowing full well all they're doing is annoying other people for their own self-satisfaction.

Fortunately most of us don't make up our minds based on belief, but on analysis and weighing up as much evidence as we can. Most liberals don't see the world as black and white, because the real world isn't black and white.

I've read some of the older threads and see some folks out there who have given up trying.
That's an assumption.

If you read between the lines, they realize it's pointless.
Oh I know the feeling, but I'll respond to your post today because I have some time on my hands.
The people who have given up realize they're dealing with people who refuse to accept facts
This really is the pot calling the kettle black.
... that don't fit liberal, narrow-minded,
but you've just complained that liberals don't see absolute evils which is a decidedly un-narrow minded world view.

..short-term oriented beliefs.
Sort term would be cutting taxes to win the next election while underfunding health and education. Liberals tend to understand the long term importance of paying for these things.

Or they realize they're dealing with someone who really wants this world to degrade into anarchy so they can justify a one-world dictator with a caste system that will last for generations.
I really don't understand who you are talking about here. It sounds like one of Glen Beck's bizarre ramblings. Can you explain what you are talking about here? It's very unclear and strange.

This is why the quippers remain. Because they know their tactics eventually work. And because people give up on them in these forums, they view it as a form of validation for what they're saying.
You think that when people give up trying to respond to someone that they take this as a sign they've won the argument when they haven't. Yet look at your final comments here. Why do you take non -responses as you "currently having them on the run"?

Heck, some of them even start to believe what they're saying even though they don't understand what they're saying because it looks like they win arguments from their perspective. So they keep doing it. A quick scan through some of the recent posts in other threads shows me they're still using the same old quips I've already refuted with no real responses back from them.

I've gone through your entire post here with a fine tooth comb and I'm still haven't found any actual argument or content.

I currently have them on the run.

What evidence to have for this grand declaration?

I look forward to seeing some of your comments on other threads. You and I may be able to raise the level of ambiance by showing what the actual exchange of mutually beneficial information looks like. And we may be able to reinvigorate others who have given up to join back in. This thread is done based on the powerful statements and comments I've made, along with the non-responses I've received.

Your statements really aren't as powerful as you think they are. I think your message gets lost a little in the static.
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 1060059 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 . . . 7 · Next

Message boards : Politics : $50.00 lesson


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.