Just Look At This Section... 90% Of Everything Posted Here Is LIBERAL CRAP!

[Pale Rider]

Just Look At This Section... 90% Of Everything Posted Here Is LIBERAL CRAP!
And many other sections are as well.

How the fuck did this board get so damn full of fucking whiney, smartass, shrill, conservative bashing, mouth breathing, liberal assholes?

The fun is leaving this board. I'd say it's more liberal than conservative right now. We either need a conservative membership drive, or maybe a different board is in order. Personally, all these frothing at the mouth liberals and the shit they talk are getting old. The majority of it is pure bullshit or smartass!

[darin]

why not post more 'truth'?

[Pale Rider]

I try. But we're lacking in the conservative department here. This board is leaning left now. Shrill, smartass left. There's liberal members here that are literally INCAPABLE of making a post without some sort of smartass.

[Nuc]

Hey not all the hippies turned into gunslinging neo Nazi gaybashers! :dance:

Some just stayed hippies!

[Hagbard Celine]

I try. But we're lacking in the conservative department here. This board is leaning left now. Shrill, smartass left.

It's representative of the country. ;)

[Nuc]

I try. But we're lacking in the conservative department here. This board is leaning left now. Shrill, smartass left. There's liberal members that are literally INCAPABLE of making a post without some sort of smartass.

You guys scared away the funny conservatives like RWA and archangel. You made your bed now lie in it, Noahide!:poke:

[Pale Rider]

You guys scared away the funny conservatives like RWA and archangel. You made your bed now lie in it, Noahide!

It wasn't me who got rid of either RWA or arch. I actually MET arch. It was you whiney, liberal, bigot, hater, neocommies that did that. :poke:

[gabosaurus]

Another complaint about the rising intelligence level of the board :laugh2:

http://www.offworlddesigns.com/media/eyechart.jpg

[Pale Rider]

Another complaint about the rising intelligence level of the board.

I knew I could rely on you to prove my case in point. You're one of the biggest offenders.

Thanks for helping out.

[Pale Rider]

Just LOOK at this THREAD so far. "One" response from a conservative... "ONE", and the rest is jacked off bullshit smartass from liberals.

I rest my case.

[darin]

I try. But we're lacking in the conservative department here. This board is leaning left now. Shrill, smartass left. There's liberal members here that are literally INCAPABLE of making a post without some sort of smartass.

You're exactly right. Libs here are trying to drive away 'smart people' with their bs. We have a couple very good libs here - but 4 or 5 of the most vocal are trying to muddy the waters, so to speak. Send out the note to your Conservative buddies...get 'em here :)

[Nuc]

It wasn't me who got rid of either RWA or arch. I actually MET arch. It was you whiney, liberal, bigot, hater, neocommies that did that. :poke:

I stand corrected, I remember those groovy beer drinking pics you posted with old archie. :beer:

But I'm not exactly a liberal, I'm liberal in some matters, conservative in others. Case by case. What does that make me? :link:

[loosecannon]

Liberalism refers to a broad array of related doctrines, ideologies, philosophical views, and political traditions which advocate individual liberty.[1] Liberalism has its roots in the Western Age of Enlightenment, but the term has taken on different meanings in different time periods.

Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights. It seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power (especially of government and religion), the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of all citizens are protected.[2] In modern society, liberals favor a liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law and an equal opportunity to succeed.

Are you with the liberals or against them?

Because Thomas jefferson, George Washington, Tom Paine, Alexander hamilton and Patrick Henry were revolutionary Liberals

Liberalism is the basis for democratic government and our bill of rights.

If you aren't a Liberal, what the hell are you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

[Kathianne]

Are you with the liberals or against them?

Because Thomas jefferson, George Washington, Tom Paine, Alexander hamilton and Patrick Henry were revolutionary Liberals

Liberalism is the basis for democratic government and our bill of rights.

If you aren't a Liberal, what the hell are you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

LOL! You put Jefferson, Hamilton in the same category. Then Washington and Paine, interesting. You have no sense of history OR politics.

[loosecannon]

Libs here are trying to drive away 'smart people' with their bs. We have a couple very good libs here - but 4 or 5 of the most vocal are trying to muddy the waters, so to speak.

You wanna expand on this DMP?

[loosecannon]

LOL! You put Jefferson, Hamilton in the same category. Then Washington and Paine, interesting. You have no sense of history OR politics.

Make your case, but they were all Liberals involved in a conspiracy to over throw the law of the day and establish a revolutionary new kind of government based on Enlightenment ideology.

You got a specific bitch, elaborate.

[Kathianne]

Make your case, but they were all Liberals involved in a conspiracy to over throw the law of the day and establish a revolutionary new kind of government based on Enlightenment ideology.

You got a specific bitch, elaborate.
Hey bastard, I'm not doing your homework for you, but you are one fuked up dude, history wise.

[Yurt]

You guys scared away the funny conservatives like RWA and archangel. You made your bed now lie in it, Noahide!:poke:

Tis a fair point

[Yurt]

You wanna expand on this DMP?

What for? You are the ones he is talking about


You got a specific bitch, elaborate.


BITCH

[loosecannon]

Hey bastard, I'm not doing your homework for you, but you are one fuked up dude, history wise.

so prove it. Prove that any of those I listed did not subscribe to the liberal ideology of the Enlightenment.

[Kathianne]

so prove it. Prove that any of those I listed did not subscribe to the liberal ideology of the Enlightenment.

Sorry, I don't have to. I have degrees in history, post grad. You've linked polar opposites, after the revolution.

[Samantha]

It wasn't me who got rid of either RWA or arch. I actually MET arch. It was you whiney, liberal, bigot, hater, neocommies that did that. :poke:Very interesting. A whiny hating thread that complains about whiney haters.

You should love yourself, if you don't do it, no one else will!


You're exactly right. Libs here are trying to drive away 'smart people' with their bs. We have a couple very good libs here - but 4 or 5 of the most vocal are trying to muddy the waters, so to speak. Send out the note to your Conservative buddies...get 'em here :)

And another whiny hater claiming "libs" are trying to drive away "smart people". You guys are among the whiniest haters on the board. :clap:

[Gaffer]

I'm at the point I don't bother reading liberal started threads and don't bother responding to most of their posts. They have nothing to say but hate and name calling. They are not worth responding too. They post here purely to disrupt the board.

[Pale Rider]

I stand corrected, I remember those groovy beer drinking pics you posted with old archie. :beer:

But I'm not exactly a liberal, I'm liberal in some matters, conservative in others. Case by case. What does that make me? :link:

I have no idea... libertarian? Independent? You tell me.

[Pale Rider]

I'm at the point I don't bother reading liberal started threads and don't bother responding to most of their posts. They have nothing to say but hate and name calling. They are not worth responding too. They post here purely to disrupt the board.

So I'm no the only one that sees that... :beer:

There hasn't been ONE LIBERAL in this thread, give a RATIONAL RETORT to my claims. It's all been BULLSHIT, just like evidently others and myself see it.

Great jobs liberals! You're one hell of a bunch.... of BULLSHITERS.... :fu:

[Samantha]

You guys are just mad your party is going down the tubes. There's no way to defend the failure of Bush's war, Bush's failed immigration policy, Bush's failed border security, Bush's failure to prevent 9/11 even with over 50 warnings beforehand, Bush's underlings outting a CIA agent for political purposes, Bush's massive deficit and failure to balance the budget, Bush's failure to get Bin Laden, etc....

So you take it out on the Democrats who keep pointing these things out and discussing all the Republican corruption and greed and dishonesty.

You really look like big whiney babies.

[loosecannon]

Sorry, I don't have to. I have degrees in history, post grad. You've linked polar opposites, after the revolution.

So you have a degree in history, you take strong exception to my grouping of Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Revere and Paine together as enlightment Liberals....

But you are too________ to actually name a singgle objection.

Why?

If all you have is the most veiled generalizations to offer as criticism I will just discount your comments as pure BS.

The fact that they were opposites in some senses is relative. They were also all opposite of the status quo, rule of kings, and being at the exploited end of empirialist corporations.

Thomas Jefferson and Hamilton were probably the most at odds with one another but one wrote the federalist papers while the other crafted the dec of independence.

If you have a case to make, make it. If not I will disregard your points.

[loosecannon]

I'm at the point I don't bother reading liberal started threads and don't bother responding to most of their posts. They have nothing to say but hate and name calling. They are not worth responding too. They post here purely to disrupt the board.

talk about myopic bs.

Gaffe you hardly ever manage to post without inserting some hate filled invective.

And your claim that liberals merely post to disrupt the board has all the aroma of sour grapes and bunched underwear.

Why do you hate the values that made America the great democracy that we have been?

[Pale Rider]

You guys are just mad your party is going down the tubes. There's no way to defend the failure of Bush's war, Bush's failed immigration policy, Bush's failed border security, Bush's failure to prevent 9/11 even with over 50 warnings beforehand, Bush's underlings outting a CIA agent for political purposes, Bush's massive deficit and failure to balance the budget, Bush's failure to get Bin Laden, etc....

So you take it out on the Democrats who keep pointing these things out and discussing all the Republican corruption and greed and dishonesty.

And you are a prime example of a liberal that thinks if you repeat a lie enough times it becomes truth. Well maybe it does in your mind, but no, your lies are still just lies.

Post an article, a link, some facts, SOMETHING, other than your wild accusations and opinions, because you're NOT helping your cause just spewing wild lies and bigoted hate.

[Hobbit]

I don't mind most of the 'veteran' libs. Hell, even psycho can say something smart about once every week or two, but this new crop is just getting a little on my nerves.

As for liberalism, loose, that definition was made by people who lie about modern liberalism to make it more attractive. Modern liberals aren't in favor of individual rights, or else they'd probably be against gun control and in favor of low taxes. They're in favor of collective rights, which is why they believe the government should be the only entity allowed to defend anyone and also why they believe in income distribution. They only believe in a select few individual rights long enough to gain votes from certain groups and attempt to supress the voices of those who oppose their agenda.

[diuretic]

What's a "collective right"?

[Pale Rider]

And you want me to make another point? Look down at the bottom of the board on the home page.... THERE ISN'T ONE LIBERAL THAT HAS DONATED TO KEEPING THIS BOARD GOING.

They can sure spend their TIME here TRASHING the place, but FUCK IT when it comes to helping.

[loosecannon]

As for liberalism, loose, that definition was made by people who lie about modern liberalism to make it more attractive.

no, that definition was "made" by the folks who fought a revolution so we could have free speech etc, and guns.


Modern liberals aren't in favor of individual rights, or else they'd probably be against gun control and in favor of low taxes. They're in favor of collective rights, which is why they believe the government should be the only entity allowed to defend anyone and also why they believe in income distribution. They only believe in a select few individual rights long enough to gain votes from certain groups and attempt to supress the voices of those who oppose their agenda.


wtf do you know about modern liberals that goes beyond the BS of political propaganda?

Not a damned thing grasshopper.

You think that because you have a 125 IQ and are 25 YO that you know anything.

I will be the first to say that when I was your age I thought I knew everything but was as dumb as a stump. Nothing personal, but so are you.

Almost everything that you believe today will be discounted when you mature.

Liberalism has not changed.

Only the vendeta against it has.

And even conservatism is equally maligned.

There is no room to criticize liberals or conservatives in the true definitions of each.

Now you wanna jump the shark and go down on imaginary defs of libs and cons......

of course you do. cuz you have no idea what libs and cons are in reality.

[Hobbit]

no, that definition was "made" by the folks who fought a revolution so we could have free speech etc, and guns.

Then you're talking about classic liberalism, which has more in common with modern conservatism than it does with modern liberalism.


wtf do you know about modern liberals that goes beyond the BS of political propaganda?

I know what they preach and I know what they do. I have eyes and ears. That's all it takes.


Not a damned thing grasshopper.

I keep up with the news all the time, and it's not hard to find liberals on the news. I know plenty, and I'm not a grasshopper.


You think that because you have a 125 IQ and are 25 YO that you know anything.

A) My IQ is quite higher than 125
B) I'm 24
C) I think I know everything because I do. Deal with it.


I will be the first to say that when I was your age I thought I knew everything but was as dumb as a stump. Nothing personal, but so are you.

You still are.


Almost everything that you believe today will be discounted when you mature.

Age does not make one mature. I'm more mature than you, tending towards factual, logical arguments, than emotional ones. I also tend to know when to walk away, which is usually when you've posted 10 posts in a row without a single fact and a LOT of personal attacks and rhetoric.


Liberalism has not changed.

Then explain to me why classic liberals wrote the Bill of Rights while modern liberals want to repeal the second ammendment, keep the first ammendment from applying to radio and political speech, and move powers from the states to the federal level.


Only the vendeta against it has.

There isn't a vendetta against liberalism. There's a vendetta against conservatism and individualism, and their adherants are fighting back.


And even conservatism is equally maligned.

Yes, as the times change, so do the definitions of liberalism and conservatism. 'Maligned,' however, is the wrong word. Either that or conservatism. Republicanism is what's been maligned.


There is no room to criticize liberals or conservatives in the true definitions of each.

Yes there is. Watch me. MODERN liberals are against individual rights and wish a socialist utopia that can never be achieved upon our society.


Now you wanna jump the shark and go down on imaginary defs of libs and cons......

of course you do. cuz you have no idea what libs and cons are in reality.

No, I simply use current definitions rather than made up ones or definitions from over 200 years ago.

It's typical of a liberal to twist facts and distort the truth to make a point. It happens every time I bring up the FairTax, which people always either distort or lie about before they criticize it.

As for a 'collective right,' that's a right applied to a group, rather than individuals. For example, most liberals do not believe in an individual right to self-defense, which is why children in liberal-run schools are often punished for defending themselves from bullies, and why liberals are against gun rights. They, instead, believe in the right of the group as a whole to defend itself, so police and the military can handle that.

Basically, a collective right is a right a group has, but that the individuals within that group do not have individually.

Edit: Wow, I'm having flashbacks to the time when you decided to define capitalism as a system in which an upper class controlled all of the means of production, which is technically an oligarchy, and is only a widely accepted definition of capitalism with die hard commies.

[Samantha]

And you want me to make another point? Look down at the bottom of the board on the home page....THERE ISN'T ONE LIBERAL THAT HAS DONATED TO KEEPING THIS BOARD GOING.

They can sure spend their TIME here TRASHING the place, but FUCK IT when it comes to helping.Why would anyone contribute to a board that is so hostile toward them?


And you are a prime example of a liberal that thinks if you repeat a lie enough times it becomes truth. Well maybe it does in your mind, but no, your lies are still just lies.

Post an article, a link, some facts, SOMETHING, other than your wild accusations and opinions, because you're NOT helping your cause just spewing wild lies and bigoted hate.

OK, I will link to the obvious for you, since you apparently have not read the news or watched it on TV for the past 6 years. I am even going to use lots of right wing sources so you will believe them ;)


There's no way to defend the failure of Bush's war,


BEDFORD, N.H. -- Former House speaker Newt Gingrich told a New Hampshire audience yesterday that unless the Bush administration admits that the war in Iraq is a "failure," it will never develop a strategy to leave the country successfully.source (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/11/29/gingrich_calls_iraq_war_a_failure/)


Bush's failed immigration policy,


In other words, this plan takes everything that is wrong with our deeply flawed immigration system and makes it worse. It devalues U.S. citizenship and makes the desire to become an American a purely commercial venture. It looks at immigration as something to benefit the few rather than the nation as a whole. It fails to protect borders and adequately deter illegal immigration. It throws assimilation, culture and social cohesion out the window and makes the whole process about money. It equates our obligation to the whole world with our obligation to our fellow Americans. It takes neither Americans nor foreigners seriously. source (http://www.american-partisan.com/cols/2004/antle/qtr1/0115.htm)


Bush's failed border security,


In the United States, an obscene alliance of corporate supremacists, desperate labor unions, certain ethnocentric Latino activist organizations and a majority of our elected officials in Washington works diligently to keep our borders open, wages suppressed and the American people all but helpless to resist the crushing financial and economic burden created by the millions of illegal aliens who crash our borders each year. source (http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/viewpoints/articles/0828dobbs0828.html)


Bush's failure to prevent 9/11 even with over 50 warnings beforehand,

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art3/0409041pdb1.gif

source (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0409041pdb1.html)


NewsMax.com Wires
Thursday, Feb. 10, 2005
NEW YORK -- Federal Aviation Administration officials received 52 warnings prior to Sept. 11, 2001, from their own security experts about potential al-Qaida attacks, including some that mentioned airline hijackings or suicide attacks, The New York Times reported.

The Times said in Thursday editions that a previously undisclosed report by the 9/11 commission that investigated the suicide airliner attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon detailed warnings given to FAA leaders from April to Sept. 10, 2001, about the radical Islamic terrorist group and its leader, Osama bin Laden. source (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/2/10/90455.shtml)


Bush's underlings outting a CIA agent for political purposes,


3 October 2003: "More vicious than Tricky Dick" by John W. Dean:
"I thought I had seen political dirty tricks as foul as they could get, but I was wrong. In blowing the cover of CIA agent Valerie Plame to take political revenge on her husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, for telling the truth, Bush's people have out-Nixoned Nixon's people. And my former colleagues were not amateurs by any means." source (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Valerie_Plame)


Bush's massive deficit and failure to balance the budget,


FactCheck: Deficit is increasing substantially this year
The President proposed cutting $14 billion worth of programs and said this would keep the US "on track to cut the deficit in half by 2009." Not mentioned is that the deficit is going up this year. It was $317 billion in the fiscal year that ended last Oct. 30, and actually cut this category, and that is correct. The decline is projected to be 0.5%.
Overall federal spending is up 42% under Bush, and CBO projects further upward pressure on spending, including rising interest rates pushing up the cost of servicing the swelling national debt, and rising medical costs and Bush's new prescription drug benefit pushing up the cost of Medicare. (Neither item is counted in the "discretionary" category).

Source: FactCheck analysis of 2006 State of the Union speech Feb 1, 2006 source (http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/George_W__Bush_Budget_+_Economy.htm)

And don't forget about the 300 billion every year for the war. That's not even included in the budget.


Bush's failure to get Bin Laden,

Um, do I need a link to prove that Bin Laden is still roaming free?

OK, well here's a link to how Bush decided to let him go free at Tora Bora. Instead of US military going after him, we let the tribal Afghans go. The US pulled back and left it up to Afghans. Bin Laden isn't really that important to Bush, after all.


The Bush administration has concluded that Osama bin Laden was present during the battle for Tora Bora late last year and that failure to commit U.S. ground troops to hunt him was its gravest error in the war against al Qaeda, according to civilian and military officials with first-hand knowledge.

Intelligence officials have assembled what they believe to be decisive evidence, from contemporary and subsequent interrogations and intercepted communications, that bin Laden began the battle of Tora Bora inside the cave complex along Afghanistan's mountainous eastern border.

source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A62618-2002Apr16)

Are you man enough to take back your accusations of lies?

[lily]

You guys scared away the funny conservatives like RWA and archangel. You made your bed now lie in it, Noahide!:poke:

Since I haven't been here that long, let me see if I have this right. There were 2 liberal posters on this forum and they are no longer here. Now the forum has attracted some liberals to debate with and the right is complaining?

What was the debate like here before? Someone said something and all the other posts said I agree?

[lily]

And you want me to make another point? Look down at the bottom of the board on the home page.... THERE ISN'T ONE LIBERAL THAT HAS DONATED TO KEEPING THIS BOARD GOING.

They can sure spend their TIME here TRASHING the place, but FUCK IT when it comes to helping.

Why would we want to donate to a forum where we get banned daily? Who knows when on a whim it might be permanent?

Also.........I don't do paypal.

[Samantha]

Why would we want to donate to a forum where we get banned daily? Who knows when on a whim it might be permanent?
Exactly

[gabosaurus]

Typical ConRep crap. They want all their information censored and sanitized. Either support the Bush or you are un-American. Support the illegal war and the slaughter of Americans or leave the country.
There are a lot of conservative-only boards out there where liberal views are not allowed. Anyone who thinks this board is "too liberal" should try one of them.
The "this board is too one-sided" garbage is normally employed when when the other side is getting their butt whipped.

If the board displeases you, take your ball(s) and go home.

[Chessplayer]

I try. But we're lacking in the conservative department here. This board is leaning left now. Shrill, smartass left. There's liberal members here that are literally INCAPABLE of making a post without some sort of smartass.

I see a lot of hatred and anger and shrill commentary from you in this thread.

[gabosaurus]

Not just in this thread. :laugh2:

[Hobbit]

I see a lot of hatred and anger and shrill commentary from you in this thread.

While Pale does have a short fuse, it's not spontaneous. We had a few liberals on this board before, and while the board had a definite conservative slant, there was honest debate. The liberals that were here often debated, and conservatives don't always agree.

Then, we started trying to recruit liberals to 'balance' the board, but most of the ones that come in won't attempt to debate. You could give their responses a form post, and it would basically add up to 'Uh uh!' There's still some debate here, and that's good, but too many of the new liberals always chime in by either a) dimissing the source as a 'hate group,' b) accusing the poster of racism, bigotry, hatred, stupidity, etc., c) simply claiming the other person is wrong, with little or not explanation and no facts, or, more recently, d) attempting to discredit the original poster by attacking his/her origins or place of residence (on local issues, this can be a valid tactic, but being from Arkansas doesn't disqualify me from knowing about the economy). When asked for facts, it's a good day if the libs post one or two links to blog posts or something moveon.org-ish.

And if you have an issue with being given temporary bans, try these two things:

A) Question the mods/owners via pm.
B) Try to be more polite.

The mods don't issue bans on a whim and remain mods under Jim's ownership. Same goes for banning simply for point of view. The banning comes in when somebody gets backed into a corner by facts and comes firing back by cussing up a storm and accusing nearly everyone on the board of being a racist/bigot/war-monger/idiot/whatever.

I also wouldn't worry about permanent bans. If Gabby hasn't been given a permanent ban, the rest of you have little to worry about.

[avatar4321]

It's representative of the country. ;)

That's the scariest thing ive ever heard.

[avatar4321]

Just LOOK at this THREAD so far. "One" response from a conservative... "ONE", and the rest is jacked off bullshit smartass from liberals.

I rest my case.

Been studying sorry:(

[avatar4321]

Are you with the liberals or against them?

Because Thomas jefferson, George Washington, Tom Paine, Alexander hamilton and Patrick Henry were revolutionary Liberals

Liberalism is the basis for democratic government and our bill of rights.

If you aren't a Liberal, what the hell are you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

And the conservatives are attempting to preserve the legacy of the Founders. Which means the liberals are trying to liberate us from freedom, enlightenment, and hope.

When the foundation is liberty, those trying to conserve it are the good guys.

[avatar4321]

You wanna expand on this DMP?

Ill try to break it down for you.

You= scared of intelligent people

So you try to attack people with baseless assertions, faulty appeals to emotion, and get them tired of responding to your constant BS. Because that is the only way you can win. You cant actually win intellectually. If you could, youd be conservative.

[avatar4321]

Make your case, but they were all Liberals involved in a conspiracy to over throw the law of the day and establish a revolutionary new kind of government based on Enlightenment ideology.

You got a specific bitch, elaborate.

No, the founders weren't trying to over throw the law of they day. They were trying to restore it after it was stolen by an oppressive government.

As for enlightenment idealogy, that is concept completely lost on liberalism. Liberalism is based on post modern bullcrap.

[avatar4321]

so prove it. Prove that any of those I listed did not subscribe to the liberal ideology of the Enlightenment.

The enlightenment idealogy is not connected with modern liberalism in anyway. Stop trying to play semantics and look at what they actually stood for.

[avatar4321]

You guys are just mad your party is going down the tubes. There's no way to defend the failure of Bush's war, Bush's failed immigration policy, Bush's failed border security, Bush's failure to prevent 9/11 even with over 50 warnings beforehand, Bush's underlings outting a CIA agent for political purposes, Bush's massive deficit and failure to balance the budget, Bush's failure to get Bin Laden, etc....

So you take it out on the Democrats who keep pointing these things out and discussing all the Republican corruption and greed and dishonesty.

You really look like big whiney babies.

I defend the War in Iraq all the time. That very fact makes your claim that we cant defend it invalid.

We are the ones bitching about the immigration policy. why would we defend it?

No one could have prevented 9/11 the previous administration gutted our intelligence and military and Al Gores attempt to cheat prevented Bush from having his adminstration in place much longer than normal.

You cant out who isnt covert. What political purpose did Armitage who was against the war have for outing a non-cover agent?

The lack of a balance budget is due to a recession the President inherited and an enemy attack on this nation combined with the need to rebuild a gutted military and a gutted intelligence operation.

Bin Laden is apparently in Pakistan. You have got to be completely clueless about international politics if you think the President can sent troops into Pakistan without dangerous reprocussions. especially when Bin Laden is for all purposes marginalized.

Democrat corruption, greed, and dishonesty makes Republicans look like boy scouts. It be nice if you actually cared about winning the war on terror rather than just getting your democrat politicians their power back. You could start with, you know coming up with a plan rather than just whining cause you arent getting credit for the good things that happen. You could actually support the troops instead of setting it up so that you benefit if the troops get killed. You know, show some of that patriotism you claim to have.

You guys have been whining for 50 years. And half of that time you had the power to actually run things.

[stephanie]

I defend the War in Iraq all the time. That very fact makes your claim that we cant defend it invalid.

We are the ones bitching about the immigration policy. why would we defend it?

No one could have prevented 9/11 the previous administration gutted our intelligence and military and Al Gores attempt to cheat prevented Bush from having his administration in place much longer than normal.

You cant out who is covert. What political purpose did Armitage who was against the war have for outing a non-cover agent?

The lack of a balance budget is due to a recession the President inherited and an enemy attack on this nation combined with the need to rebuild a gutted military and a gutted intelligence operation.

Bin Laden is apparently in Pakistan. You have got to be completely clueless about international politics if you think the President can sent troops into Pakistan without dangerous repercussions. especially when Bin Laden is for all purposes marginalized.

Democrat corruption, greed, and dishonesty makes Republicans look like boy scouts. It be nice if you actually cared about winning the war on terror rather than just getting your democrat politicians their power back. You could start with, you know coming up with a plan rather than just whining cause you are getting credit for the good things that happen. You could actually support the troops instead of setting it up so that you benefit if the troops get killed. You know, show some of that patriotism you claim to have.

You guys have been whining for 50 years. And half of that time you had the power to actually run things.

:clap:
I will add...That Clinton had a chance to get Bin Laden also...and DIDN'T..
And Clinton wasn't able to stop the first world trade center bombing, or the USS Cole...
So for anyone to be so disingenuous, to keep saying that President Bush didn't stop 9/11....Well...That's why their not taken seriously..

[avatar4321]

:clap:
I will add...That Clinton had a chance to get Bin Laden also...and DIDN'T..
And Clinton wasn't able to stop the first world trade center bombing, or the USS Cole...
So for anyone to be so disingenuous, to keep saying that President Bush didn't stop 9/11....Well...That's why their not taken seriously..

You realize they are just going to start responding claiming "See! See! You neo-cons are obsessed with Bill Clinton" as if there is another Democrat President in recent history to compare actions with.

[Pale Rider]

Why would anyone contribute to a board that is so hostile toward them?
Then what are you doing here?

And I won't in any shape, way or form defend bush on the tidal wave of invading mexicans dragging down America.


Um, do I need a link to prove that Bin Laden is still roaming free?
Umm... your hero and dream date slick willie the cigar dipper was the man that had OBL right under his thumb, and then LET HIM GO. And it was your hero bubba clinton that did NOTHING the FIRST TIME bin laden blew up the world trade centers. Blaming bush for that is pure revissionism and passing the buck, trying to get clinton off the hook when it's his fault, not bush's.

We've bombed bil laden back into the stone age and he's living in a cave. He may not be dead, but he's not doing much either.


Are you man enough to take back your accusations of lies?

The only thing you were right about is mistakes that have been made handling the war, and bush's open border policy. Your accusations that 9/11 was somehow bush's fault are pure crap. The blame rests solely on the whie house molestors shoulders, bill clinton.

[stephanie]

You realize they are just going to start responding claiming "See! See! You neocons are obsessed with Bill Clinton" as if there is another Democrat President in recent history to compare actions with.

They probably will...But...you can't deny the facts, no matter how much they wish it wasn't..so..

[Pale Rider]

Since I haven't been here that long, let me see if I have this right. There were 2 liberal posters on this forum and they are no longer here. Now the forum has attracted some liberals to debate with and the right is complaining?

What was the debate like here before? Someone said something and all the other posts said I agree?

RWA and archangel were right wingers, not liberals.

[Pale Rider]

Why would we want to donate to a forum where we get banned daily? Who knows when on a whim it might be permanent?

Also.........I don't do paypal.

Oh c'mon.... you can probably think up another COUPLE excuses anyway.... you're not trying very hard. :uhoh:

[Pale Rider]

Typical ConRep crap. They want all their information censored and sanitized. Either support the Bush or you are un-American. Support the illegal war and the slaughter of Americans or leave the country.
There are a lot of conservative-only boards out there where liberal views are not allowed. Anyone who thinks this board is "too liberal" should try one of them.
The "this board is too one-sided" garbage is normally employed when when the other side is getting their butt whipped.

If the board displeases you, take your ball(s) and go home.

You haven't whipped anybody's butt about anything since you've been here princess. It's your cocky little smartass cake hole that were getting sick of, and that is the purpose of this thread.

[Pale Rider]

I see a lot of hatred and anger and shrill commentary from you in this thread.

And I see a lot of ignorance, and speculation, supposition from you. Not a great start here cherry.

[diuretic]

Hobbit wrote:


As for a 'collective right,' that's a right applied to a group, rather than individuals. For example, most liberals do not believe in an individual right to self-defense, which is why children in liberal-run schools are often punished for defending themselves from bullies, and why liberals are against gun rights. They, instead, believe in the right of the group as a whole to defend itself, so police and the military can handle that.

Basically, a collective right is a right a group has, but that the individuals within that group do not have individually.

Hobbit - what is a "collective right?" You wrote that it's, "a right applied to a group, rather than individuals." Okay I need to see an example. You didn't cite one. You made a generalised, sweeping claim that, "most liberal do not believe in an individual right to self-defense..." Now you need to show so evidence for that claim. Okay let's move on.

You gave an example of "which is why children in liberal-run schools are often punished for defending themselves from bullies.." Again, another general, sweeping claim. I need to see evidence for that claim.

More - "why liberals are against gun rights". So your claim is that "...liberals are against gun rights" because "most liberals do not believe in an individual right to self-defense". Whaaah????? Help me out here, I'm confused.

Then "They, [liberals] instead, believe in the right of the group as a whole to defend itself, so police and the military can handle that."

Oh, so if I, as a liberal, believe that since the police exist there should be no right to self-defence? A flat no.

I know a lot about the limitations of the state in protecting individuals and groups and that the state and its instruments - the police are on - are concerned with the wellbeing of the state and not the individual. The whole criminal law has been designed for the state to keep good order rather than protect the individual in any direct manner.

Read the idea of the the King's Peace in early English law and you see exactly what it's interested in. Read the Carrier's Case - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier's_Case - where the English judges, under pressure from the King on economic grounds, invented the fiction of "breaking bulk" so as to create a crime of larceny as a bailee which was a complete break (pun) from the idea of larceny at common law.

This liberal believes you look after yourself and your own and you can expect a hand from the police, but don't rely totally on the police to help you as an individual.

Finally:
Basically, a collective right is a right a group has, but that the individuals within that group do not have individually

Give me an example.

[loosecannon]

Then you're talking about classic liberalism, which has more in common with modern conservatism than it does with modern liberalism.

DING DING DING. We have a winner.

Yes classic liberalism has a LOT in common with what conservatism WAS 30 years ago.

And what you pretend is modern liberalism is simply the term hijacked to vilify opponents of the Neo conservatism that has replaced true conservatism.

At their heart Conservatism and liberalism mean almost the same thing.

Liberalism is the belief in Liberty and conservatism is a 20th century term refering to the original Liberal tenets our nation was founded on.




A) My IQ is quite higher than 125
B) I'm 24
C) I think I know everything because I do. Deal with it.

you don't even know what your IQ is, you said so yourself. Your Mother wouldn't tell you.



Age does not make one mature.

No but it makes you smarter, consult the formula for IQ




I'm more mature than you

that ole ignorance of youth again



Then explain to me why classic liberals wrote the Bill of Rights while modern liberals want to repeal the second ammendment, keep the first ammendment from applying to radio and political speech, and move powers from the states to the federal level.

Maybe some modern libs want to take away your guns. I don't know them.

That freedom of speech does not apply unconditionally across a public asset. Consult the seven deadly words.

States to feds? Bush was all for states rights until he became pres, when he switched sides on the argument. And altho 2-3 other preses have violated the bill of rights in times of war ONLY the neocons want to do it permenently. The biggest assault on the bill of rights in our history is happening NOW. And it is the GOPers who are trying to shred those rights. Posse comatatus, Habeas corpus, rights to trials, rights to counsel, and privacy rights are all under attack.


There isn't a vendetta against liberalism. There's a vendetta against conservatism and individualism, and their adherants are fighting back.

You have scrambled reality into a dangerous and insidious soundbite. your party is at war with our democracy.


Yes, as the times change, so do the definitions of liberalism and conservatism. 'Maligned,' however, is the wrong word. Either that or conservatism. Republicanism is what's been maligned.

OK, there is a huge diff between the republican party and republicanism.




Yes there is. Watch me. MODERN liberals are against individual rights and wish a socialist utopia that can never be achieved upon our society.

utter horseshit. The neocons originally were socialists and commies.

I do not know one true Liberal who advocates socialism.

[loosecannon]

Why would anyone contribute to a board that is so hostile toward them?



OK, I will link to the obvious for you, since you apparently have not read the news or watched it on TV for the past 6 years. I am even going to use lots of right wing sources so you will believe them ;)



source (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/11/29/gingrich_calls_iraq_war_a_failure/)



source (http://www.american-partisan.com/cols/2004/antle/qtr1/0115.htm)



source (http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/viewpoints/articles/0828dobbs0828.html)



http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art3/0409041pdb1.gif

source (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0409041pdb1.html)

source (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/2/10/90455.shtml)



source (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Valerie_Plame)


source (http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/George_W__Bush_Budget_+_Economy.htm)

And don't forget about the 300 billion every year for the war. That's not even included in the budget.



Um, do I need a link to prove that Bin Laden is still roaming free?

OK, well here's a link to how Bush decided to let him go free at Tora Bora. Instead of US military going after him, we let the tribal Afghans go. The US pulled back and left it up to Afghans. Bin Laden isn't really that important to Bush, after all.



source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A62618-2002Apr16)

Are you man enough to take back your accusations of lies?


Outstanding documentation.

[TheSage]

I try. But we're lacking in the conservative department here. This board is leaning left now. Shrill, smartass left. There's liberal members here that are literally INCAPABLE of making a post without some sort of smartass.

Because republican Ideology is just as indefensible and anti american as liberal crap. The conservative movement has been hijacked by globalists who are using america's military and corporations towards their own ends, and against the interests of the american people. Globalist arguing against globalist is pretty boring, and you ban people who pinpoint the actual choices on the table right now. Nationalism versus internationalism.

[loosecannon]

Ill try to break it down for you.

You= scared of intelligent people

So you try to attack people with baseless assertions, faulty appeals to emotion, and get them tired of responding to your constant BS. Because that is the only way you can win. You cant actually win intellectually. If you could, youd be conservative.

This kind of horse shot is typical of the whiney right.

Stating that by definition only a false conservative POV could be correct.

And they accuse others of avoiding debate? LMAOROF:laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:

might I remind you avy that this thread IS an attack against our founding ideas as a nation and half the membership of the board?

[Dilloduck]

Outstanding documentation.

Of what ? The total impotance of the Clinton administration to do a damn thing to stop al Quaeda ?

[diuretic]

Has anyone thought of the idea that ideology is dead?

[TheSage]

Has anyone thought of the idea that ideology is dead?

No. That's stupid. Sounds like NIHILISM.

[loosecannon]

No, the founders weren't trying to over throw the law of they day. They were trying to restore it after it was stolen by an oppressive government.



IOW you don't know a single solitary thing about the American Revolution.

[diuretic]

No. That's stupid. Sounds like NIHILISM.

Now, care to explain what nihilism is? I'm being nice.

Fuck this is great, old times eh?

[loosecannon]

Has anyone thought of the idea that ideology is dead?

Ideologies have been hijacked by propagandists who redefine our words and ideas for us.

Americans for the most part do not think anymore. Media manufactures their beliefs for them.

Which is exactly how nations end up committing atrocities like Germany in the 40's while still convinced that they were doing God's work.

[diuretic]

Ideologies have been hijacked by propagandists who redefine our words and ideas for us.

Americans for the most part do not think anymore. Media manufactures their beliefs for them.

Which is exactly how nations end up committing atrocities like Germany in the 40's while still convinced that they were doing God's work.

Fred Skinner was right.

[TheSage]

Now, care to explain what nihilism is? I'm being nice.

Fuck this is great, old times eh?


Go look it up. I'm not your tutor.

[gabosaurus]

http://www.joebrower.com/PHILE_PILE/PIX/FR/liberal_crap.jpg

[diuretic]

Go look it up. I'm not your tutor.

I know you're not my tutor. But I'm yours. I was checking you had a clue, don't want you to make a fuckwit of yourself yet again. You cut too many classes and lectures in the delusion you were too smart to attend. Comes back to bite you on the arse doesn't it? :laugh2:

[TheSage]

I know you're not my tutor. But I'm yours. I was checking you had a clue, don't want you to make a fuckwit of yourself yet again. You cut too many classes and lectures in the delusion you were too smart to attend. Comes back to bite you on the arse doesn't it? :laugh2:

no.

[loosecannon]

Fred Skinner was right.

about some things. I wouldn't want to live in his experiement tho.

[diuretic]

about some things. I wouldn't want to live in his experiement tho.

Me either. His daughter, she must be in her forties or fifties now, apparently was a bit, um, unemotional shall we say. He apparently brought her up according to his theories of operant conditioning. I also think he graduated from Harvard, but given he was on the faculty I suppose he got a deal for her tuition. When it comes to Walden I prefer Thoreau to Skinner.

[diuretic]

no.

Hah, just wait and see Captain America :laugh2:

[loosecannon]

Me either. His daughter, she must be in her forties or fifties now, apparently was a bit, um, unemotional shall we say. He apparently brought her up according to his theories of operant conditioning. I also think he graduated from Harvard, but given he was on the faculty I suppose he got a deal for her tuition. When it comes to Walden I prefer Thoreau to Skinner.

What I like about Skinner was his experimentation with advanced positive reinforcement. He was dead wrong about the competition for power within society.

I prefer Chomsky when it comes to the influence of propagandas. I think the study of propaganda is probably the best antidote to it's widespread use. It should be a required subject even in high school.

You can not have a functional democracy unless the people understand how they are trained to believe.

[LiberalNation]

lol just seen this.

Pale your the biggest whiner. OMG they're are some liberals now we can't just all talk to ourselves and totally out gang the few that try.

Donating, I don't have any money or a credit card so there's my excuse.

Clinton, wasn't into news during his time. Don't know all that much about his admin. Seemed okay.

Bush, done some good things, made some mistakes. He isn't evil or to blame for all the stuff he get's blamed for but I do disagree with a lot of his policies.

Liberals being banned, yeah they're always getting banned her while cons are let off the hook.

[Hobbit]

DING DING DING. We have a winner.

Yes classic liberalism has a LOT in common with what conservatism WAS 30 years ago.

And what you pretend is modern liberalism is simply the term hijacked to vilify opponents of the Neo conservatism that has replaced true conservatism.

At their heart Conservatism and liberalism mean almost the same thing.

Liberalism is the belief in Liberty and conservatism is a 20th century term refering to the original Liberal tenets our nation was founded on.

And what liberalism is now is a bunch of emotional bullcrap that might work well in theory but doesn't work in practice. It taxes high achievers and gives their money to underachievers, rewards people for skin color, and thinks that 'diplomacy' is somehow a magical way to resolve all conflicts without violence. Conservatives (not neo-cons, you jackass. I doubt you even know what that means) believe in individual rights, that force is sometimes necessary, and that low taxes are the way to economic prosperity.


you don't even know what your IQ is, you said so yourself. Your Mother wouldn't tell you.

So you were paying attention, but that means that YOU don't know either, and while my mom won't tell me my exact IQ, I do know that it's at least 135.


No but it makes you smarter, consult the formula for IQ

It can, but doesn't. Take you for example. Unless you're being dishonest, you're older than me, but obviously stupid, which is why your best comebacks here about to "Uh-uh!"


that ole ignorance of youth again

See above classification of comebacks.


Maybe some modern libs want to take away your guns. I don't know them.

So, I take it you've never heard of the Democrat Party?


That freedom of speech does not apply unconditionally across a public asset. Consult the seven deadly words.

Yes it does. Airwaves are not a public asset. Broadcast companies spend money building transmitters. They own the waves they broadcast on. The reason this 'public airwaves' bullcrap came up is because the government saw a way to gain more power. Thus was born the FCC, which shouldn't have the power to do anything other than liscence frequencies to keep multiple stations close to each other from using the same one.


States to feds? Bush was all for states rights until he became pres, when he switched sides on the argument. And altho 2-3 other preses have violated the bill of rights in times of war ONLY the neocons want to do it permenently. The biggest assault on the bill of rights in our history is happening NOW. And it is the GOPers who are trying to shred those rights. Posse comatatus, Habeas corpus, rights to trials, rights to counsel, and privacy rights are all under attack.

I take it you're referring mostly to the Patriot Act. Let me put this to you simply. Those being denied all of these 'rights' are not only not U.S. citizens, they're prisoners of war. Do you think we gave captured Nazis lawyers and American trials? Hell no. We threw them in a cell and, if we thought it was necessary, we later gave them a military tribunal. Claiming we're denying prisoners of war habeus corpus is like saying we're denying 3-year-olds their right to drive. Also, I don't see what this has to do with states' rights. Neither side seems interested in restoring states' rights, but both seem to love taking them away.


You have scrambled reality into a dangerous and insidious soundbite. your party is at war with our democracy.

A) We don't have a democracy. We have a republic. The founding fathers said democracy was dangerous, as it's basically mob rule.
B) Last I checked, the Republicans, for all their faults, were actually at war with the enemies of this country, while the Democrats were instead trying to undermine that war to gain political points with people who think a drum circle can get the terrorists to lay down their guns.


OK, there is a huge diff between the republican party and republicanism.

Then what the hell would you like me to call the ideology followed by the Republican party, and just remember, you lose any argument the moment you call anyone a neo-con.


utter horseshit. The neocons originally were socialists and commies.

Again, you have no clue what a neo-con is.


I do not know one true Liberal who advocates socialism.

So, I guess Hillary Clinton doesn't count? What about every Democrat in the government, as they're always talking about raising taxes on the 'rich' so they can give it to the 'poor?'

Once again, you respond to a post full of logic and fact with insults, fake words, and appeal to emotion. You're pathetic, and you don't even know it.

[diuretic]

What I like about Skinner was his experimentation with advanced positive reinforcement. He was dead wrong about the competition for power within society.

I prefer Chomsky when it comes to the influence of propagandas. I think the study of propaganda is probably the best antidote to it's widespread use. It should be a required subject even in high school.

You can not have a functional democracy unless the people understand how they are trained to believe.

I'm right out of my depth with Chomsky, completely and utterly ignorant. I found Skinner to be too focused on input/output and the sort of manipulation (I know it wasn't but I only did undergrad psych) that obviously works at the lower end of the cognitive scale, but I did take notice of his cautions. He's demonised by some but not by me (I'm sure his shade takes comfort in that, coming from an insignificant indivdual).

I agree with you, we need to teach kids to detect bullshit.

[loosecannon]

And what liberalism is now is a bunch of emotional bullcrap that might work well in theory but doesn't work in practice.

NO. That is what YOU THINK liberalism is. You are merely grouping together the ideas you have been trained to oppose, painting them all with one label and making an enemy out of that artificial labeling.


It taxes high achievers and gives their money to underachievers, rewards people for skin color, and thinks that 'diplomacy' is somehow a magical way to resolve all conflicts without violence. Conservatives (not neo-cons, you jackass. I doubt you even know what that means) believe in individual rights, that force is sometimes necessary, and that low taxes are the way to economic prosperity.

all your imagination. None of that is liberals.



Yes it does. Airwaves are not a public asset. Broadcast companies spend money building transmitters. They own the waves they broadcast on. The reason this 'public airwaves' bullcrap came up is because the government saw a way to gain more power. Thus was born the FCC, which shouldn't have the power to do anything other than liscence frequencies to keep multiple stations close to each other from using the same one.

The bandwidth is a public asset. This post of yours is filled with senseless tripe. Just because you have an opinion about something doesn't make it true.



I take it you're referring mostly to the Patriot Act. Let me put this to you simply. Those being denied all of these 'rights' are not only not U.S. citizens, they're prisoners of war. Do you think we gave captured Nazis lawyers and American trials? Hell no. We threw them in a cell and, if we thought it was necessary, we later gave them a military tribunal. Claiming we're denying prisoners of war habeus corpus is like saying we're denying 3-year-olds their right to drive. Also, I don't see what this has to do with states' rights. Neither side seems interested in restoring states' rights, but both seem to love taking them away.

You simply couldn't be more wrong. ALL of the examples I listed were US CITIZENS being denied their consti rights. You need to read the news son.




Then what the hell would you like me to call the ideology followed by the Republican party, and just remember, you lose any argument the moment you call anyone a neo-con.

You lose any argument the moment you use the words Liberal, or "the".

The ideologies of the modern republicans are many. They vary from religious fundamentalist nutjobs to genocidal militarists to relatively centered centrists.

There is no over arching dem or repyb ideology.

But there ARE over arching lib and cons ideologies and you and many others abuse them habitually.

neocon




Again, you have no clue what a neo-con is.

you uneducated little twerp.... IT IS A FACT that neocons as a movement, as an "ideology" and as individuals BEGAN as far left socialists and commies. FACT! Do some remedial research.

Hillary Clinton is a neocon. Reasearch her positions and life path and you will see that she matches the def of a neocon in most ways.



Once again, you respond to a post full of logic and fact

You don't post facts. You don't think logically.

If/when you ever do I will praise your posts.

As it is your posts routinely are the most bizarre collection of misinformation and imaginitive chaotic thinking on the board.

[Hobbit]

NO. That is what YOU THINK liberalism is. You are merely grouping together the ideas you have been trained to oppose, painting them all with one label and making an enemy out of that artificial labeling.



all your imagination. None of that is liberals.




The bandwidth is a public asset. This post of yours is filled with senseless tripe. Just because you have an opinion about something doesn't make it true.




You simply couldn't be more wrong. ALL of the examples I listed were US CITIZENS being denied their consti rights. You need to read the news son.





You lose any argument the moment you use the words Liberal, or "the".

The ideologies of the modern republicans are many. They vary from religious fundamentalist nutjobs to genocidal militarists to relatively centered centrists.

There is no over arching dem or repyb ideology.

But there ARE over arching lib and cons ideologies and you and many others abuse them habitually.

neocon





you uneducated little twerp.... IT IS A FACT that neocons as a movement, as an "ideology" and as individuals BEGAN as far left socialists and commies. FACT! Do some remedial research.

Hillary Clinton is a neocon. Reasearch her positions and life path and you will see that she matches the def of a neocon in most ways.




You don't post facts. You don't think logically.

If/when you ever do I will praise your posts.

As it is your posts routinely are the most bizarre collection of misinformation and imaginitive chaotic thinking on the board.

So, basically, "Nuh-uh, you're wrong, and you're a big, fat, stupid-head, too." Really creative. Care to back it up, or am I just to assume you're right and bow to your made up definitions and obvious superiority of a 12-year-old pretending to be an adult?

[loosecannon]

I'm right out of my depth with Chomsky, completely and utterly ignorant. I found Skinner to be too focused on input/output and the sort of manipulation (I know it wasn't but I only did undergrad psych) that obviously works at the lower end of the cognitive scale, but I did take notice of his cautions. He's demonised by some but not by me (I'm sure his shade takes comfort in that, coming from an insignificant indivdual).

I agree with you, we need to teach kids to detect bullshit.

Anybody who meddles in social engineering is gonna take heat because like nuclear technology there are weapons applications.

MANY of the early eugenicists were prominent business leaders who had reasonably noble intentions. They even founded Planned Parenthood.

But you can see what became of those movements in Europe.

In Skinners defense scientific study of social engineering is also the best antidote to the existing social engineering efforts that have been active since the birth of religion and empire. Prob even earlier.

[loosecannon]

So, basically, "Nuh-uh, you're wrong, and you're a big, fat, stupid-head, too." Really creative. Care to back it up, or am I just to assume you're right and bow to your made up definitions and obvious superiority of a 12-year-old pretending to be an adult?

Do a google search or a Wiki search for

neoconservative
Liberalism
Conservatism.

What points in particular would you like backed up? Beyond of course the basic definitions that you can link faster than I can cut and paste.

[diuretic]

Anybody who meddles in social engineering is gonna take heat because like nuclear technology there are weapons applications.

MANY of the early eugenicists were prominent business leaders who had reasonably noble intentions. They even founded Planned Parenthood.

But you can see what became of those movements in Europe.

In Skinners defense scientific study of social engineering is also the best antidote to the existing social engineering efforts that have been active since the birth of religion and empire. Prob even earlier.


I appreciate the information on this. Eugenics in the US gave Hitler his start for sure. Good to be aware of our past.

[loosecannon]

I appreciate the information on this. Eugenics in the US gave Hitler his start for sure. Good to be aware of our past.

I think there were parrallel movements in Europe with a lot of cross pollenation.

[Chessplayer]

And I see a lot of ignorance, and speculation, supposition from you. Not a great start here cherry.

Well, this is my last post anyways, so you can say it's not a great end either.

Good bye. This thread is warning enough to me, to tell me that I don't want to spend time here.

[Hobbit]

Do a google search or a Wiki search for

neoconservative
Liberalism
Conservatism.

What points in particular would you like backed up? Beyond of course the basic definitions that you can link faster than I can cut and paste.

Given the kind of red-faced screaming of Marxist idiocy that came down after I did the same thing with the word 'capitalism,' I think I'll pass. I've made my point.

[manu1959]

i find the tension here refreshing....

[loosecannon]

Given the kind of red-faced screaming of Marxist idiocy that came down after I did the same thing with the word 'capitalism,' I think I'll pass. I've made my point.


You have avoided the point.

You habitually misuse the words neocon, liberal and conservative and label everything that you have been trained to hate as "librul".

You also equate faux conservatism with the GOP and your faux version of liberalism with the dem party.

And Marx is one of the, perhaps the most respected authorities on capitalism to ever live. Think what you will about his social theories, his economics rule.

Even the Federal Reserve's website considers Marx among the ten most notable economists.

http://www.frbsf.org/publications/education/unfrmd.great/greatbios.html


here's another

http://ecedweb.unomaha.edu/gett.pdf

[Hobbit]

You have avoided the point.

You habitually misuse the words neocon, liberal and conservative and label everything that you have been trained to hate as "librul".

You also equate faux conservatism with the GOP and your faux version of liberalism with the dem party.

And Marx is one of the, perhaps the most respected authorities on capitalism to ever live. Think what you will about his social theories, his economics rule.

Even the Federal Reserve's website considers Marx among the ten most notable economists.

http://www.frbsf.org/publications/education/unfrmd.great/greatbios.html


here's another

http://ecedweb.unomaha.edu/gett.pdf

I don't use neocon, and I use liberal and conservative in their modern definitions. You simply choose antiquated definitions to make a point.

And notable does not mean good. Hitler was definitely a notable statesmen, but I don't see people holding up "Mein Kampf" as a good starter to learning how to run a successful country.

Edit: And no, you're avoiding the point. When I talk about liberals, you know exactly who I mean, but instead you derail the discussion into a pissing match over semantics, another thing, next to economics, you know absolutely NOTHING about.

Oh, and that's it for me and this thread. It's started off pretty bad and went downhill from there. Enjoy your pissing matches.

[loosecannon]

I don't use neocon, and I use liberal and conservative in their modern definitions. You simply choose antiquated definitions to make a point.

And notable does not mean good. Hitler was definitely a notable statesmen, but I don't see people holding up "Mein Kampf" as a good starter to learning how to run a successful country.

Edit: And no, you're avoiding the point. When I talk about liberals, you know exactly who I mean, but instead you derail the discussion into a pissing match over semantics, another thing, next to economics, you know absolutely NOTHING about.

Oh, and that's it for me and this thread. It's started off pretty bad and went downhill from there. Enjoy your pissing matches.

When you use liberal and conservative you not only misapply the words, you are speaking about fictional groups.

[Pale Rider]

Because republican Ideology is just as indefensible and anti american as liberal crap. The conservative movement has been hijacked by globalists who are using america's military and corporations towards their own ends, and against the interests of the american people. Globalist arguing against globalist is pretty boring, and you ban people who pinpoint the actual choices on the table right now. Nationalism versus internationalism.

I would agree with you to the point that bush is a globalist. He's for open borders, and is secretly pushing for a north american union with mexico and canada. I think if it were up to him, he'd just fling open the borders and let people come and go at will. And I don't hear many "elected" conservatives mounting any resistance to this treason.

[Pale Rider]

Americans for the most part do not think anymore. Media manufactures their beliefs for them.

I find myself curiously agreeing with that. But to difine it further, most liberals and democrats are the young and uneducated. They are the ones most easily mislead. The vast majority of conservatives are the older and successful people, not easily mislead.

That's why conservatives are in full knowledge that the MSM is totally and unashamedly biased to the left, and don't believe much of it, whereas the empty headed young liberals buy it all.

[avatar4321]

IOW you don't know a single solitary thing about the American Revolution.

Thank you for making my earlier points of you being unable to debate:)

[Nienna]

I miss Jeff's & Bonnie's input. :)

[Pale Rider]

I miss Jeff's & Bonnie's input. :)

Well Bonnie donated to the board.... where the hell is she?

(I miss 'em too.)

[Nienna]

Well Bonnie donated to the board.... where the hell is she?

(I miss 'em too.)

She got married... guess she's busy with her husband. :)

[loosecannon]

Thank you for making my earlier points of you being unable to debate:)


OK Avatar without looking up your exact words you said something to the effect that our founders were not rebelling against existing law but re establishing a just system of law.

Well their MAIN gripe WAS the rule of kings. A legal hardship that had existed for what a thousand years in Europe?

And YES they were rebeling against the law of the time. If the revilution had failed they would have been hung or worse for breaking the law.

Your comment made not an iota of sense.

Now you wanna say something sensible?

[loosecannon]

I find myself curiously agreeing with that. But to difine it further, most liberals and democrats are the young and uneducated. They are the ones most easily mislead. The vast majority of conservatives are the older and successful people, not easily mislead.

That's why conservatives are in full knowledge that the MSM is totally and unashamedly biased to the left, and don't believe much of it, whereas the empty headed young liberals buy it all.

Well the media, at least the main stream media can be and has been scientifically demonstrated to be right leaning.

But I do agree that virtually all media now is propaganda.

The media is also becoming increasingly polarized along partisan lines....which isn't news anymore.

[loosecannon]

I would agree with you to the point that bush is a globalist. He's for open borders, and is secretly pushing for a north american union with mexico and canada. I think if it were up to him, he'd just fling open the borders and let people come and go at will. And I don't hear many "elected" conservatives mounting any resistance to this treason.

That is because the GOP is the party of corporations and globalists. That is also why most older, more succesful people vote GOP.

older, succesful, globalists all share money as a common denomonator.


"You are the haves and the have mores, and you are my base." ~ GWB Jr.

The dems used to be for labor and oppose this trend toward globalization but Bill C signed NAFTA, and Hillary will likely be much like her husband.

I really don't know who the dems are anymore but they are surely better than the GOP.

They may do no good, but they do far less harm.

Money rules the federal gummit like never before.

[lily]

RWA and archangel were right wingers, not liberals.

Ooopppss....you were right. I read that wrong, but it still doesn't answer my question. Who are all these liberals you were talking about? I know when I arrived there sure weren't more than 2 here.

[diuretic]

I think there were parrallel movements in Europe with a lot of cross pollenation.

Especially in Britain if I remember rightly. Why am I not surprised?

[diuretic]

You have avoided the point.

You habitually misuse the words neocon, liberal and conservative and label everything that you have been trained to hate as "librul".

You also equate faux conservatism with the GOP and your faux version of liberalism with the dem party.

And Marx is one of the, perhaps the most respected authorities on capitalism to ever live. Think what you will about his social theories, his economics rule.

Even the Federal Reserve's website considers Marx among the ten most notable economists.

http://www.frbsf.org/publications/education/unfrmd.great/greatbios.html


here's another

http://ecedweb.unomaha.edu/gett.pdf

Agreed. His analysis and critique of capitalism is sustained genius.

[Pale Rider]

Well the media, at least the main stream media can be and has been scientifically demonstrated to be right leaning.

HOGWASH loose. That's a rediculous statement. When you have MSM news ANCHORS reading FORGED DOCUMENTS on the air as if they were TRUTH, then exposed, and still hangs on to them because he WANTED them to be true.... you will NEVER make me believe the MSM is right leaning... no way jack... ain't happenin', and it ain't true.

[loosecannon]

And notable does not mean good.


from the link above

great economists and their times

marxist school
The Marxist School challenged the foundations of Classical theory. Writing during the mid-
19th century, Karl Marx saw capitalism as an evolutionary phase in economic development.
He believed that capitalism would ultimately destroy itself and be succeeded by a world
without private property.
An advocate of a labor theory of value, Marx believed that all production belongs to labor
because workers produce all value within society. He believed that the market system
allows capitalists, the owners of machinery and factories, to exploit workers by denying them
a fair share of what they produce. Marx predicted that capitalism would produce growing
misery for workers as competition for profit led capitalists to adopt labor-saving machinery,
creating a "reserve army of the unemployed" who would eventually rise up and seize the
means of production.

You really should read Marx Hobbit, He is like Nikola Tesla. His IQ might only be 50-70 points higher than yours, but if you lived to be 1000 you would still never be able to synthesize info with their speed and accuracy, not to mention creativity.

Karl Marx may be the most accurate visionary predicting the future that ever lived.

So much for the IQ concept.

[Pale Rider]

Double post, delete it.

[Pale Rider]

That is because the GOP is the party of corporations and globalists. That is also why most older, more succesful people vote GOP.

older, succesful, globalists all share money as a common denomonator.
That's also partly why repubs took such a beating in the last election, and why the repub presidential candidates are singing a new tune.


I really don't know who the dems are anymore but they are surely better than the GOP.
They may do no good, but they do far less harm.
If you feel communism is your thing, then I guess you do like the dems. They're all for taking care of you from womb to tomb.


Money rules the federal gummit like never before.
Left and right alike. No ones immune.

[lily]

HOGWASH loose. That's a rediculous statement. When you have MSM news ANCHORS reading FORGED DOCUMENTS on the air as if they were TRUTH, then exposed, and still hangs on to them because he WANTED them to be true.... you will NEVER make me believe the MSM is right leaning... no way jack... ain't happenin', and it ain't true.

You know, I know exactly how outraged you feel about forged documents and wanting them to be true. I'm outraged too!

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/index.html

[loosecannon]

HOGWASH loose. That's a rediculous statement. When you have MSM news ANCHORS reading FORGED DOCUMENTS on the air as if they were TRUTH, then exposed, and still hangs on to them because he WANTED them to be true.... you will NEVER make me believe the MSM is right leaning... no way jack... ain't happenin', and it ain't true.

I agree that I will never make you believe it, but it is still true, in fact proven true.

You believe what you want.

[Pale Rider]

I agree that I will never make you believe it, but it is still true, in fact proven true.

You believe what you want.

Well, I know it's not true. Perhaps you could prove it though, because there's a hell of a lot more people here than just myself that will call you on it.

[Pale Rider]

You know, I know exactly how outraged you feel about forged documents and wanting them to be true. I'm outraged too!

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/index.html

So what's your point with that? I don't recall it being read on the air to discredit clinton or kerry or something... :dunno:

[loosecannon]

If you feel communism is your thing, then I guess you do like the dems. They're all for taking care of you from womb to tomb.

No commyism is definitely not my thing. But the dems aren't commies. That labeling is getting kinda old. like as old as Joseph McCarthy.

Neither Clinton, nor Carter, nor Johnson, nor Kennedy were commies.

Hell the only commies left are China who buys our bonds and makes all our stuff and N Korea and Cuba. The rest of the commies don't even believe in Commyism.

But the neocons used to be commies, that's where they began their ideological journey.

How does it feel to have recovered commies running the WH?



Left and right alike. No ones immune.

Yup

[loosecannon]

Well, I know it's not true. Perhaps you could prove it though, because there's a hell of a lot more people here than just myself that will call you on it.

I have already posted the proof. But those who dearly want to believe otherwise don't care about no steenkin proof.

They just wanna believe that the librul media is out to gettim.

Believe whatever you want, I don't care.

[lily]

So what's your point with that? I don't recall it being read on the air to discredit clinton or kerry or something... :dunno:


My point is what I said, I too am outraged by forged documents. No the document itself wasn't read on the air, but mention of it's content were said in the SOTU address and used to lead us up to this war.

[Hobbit]

from the link above

great economists and their times

marxist school
The Marxist School challenged the foundations of Classical theory. Writing during the mid-
19th century, Karl Marx saw capitalism as an evolutionary phase in economic development.
He believed that capitalism would ultimately destroy itself and be succeeded by a world
without private property.
An advocate of a labor theory of value, Marx believed that all production belongs to labor
because workers produce all value within society. He believed that the market system
allows capitalists, the owners of machinery and factories, to exploit workers by denying them
a fair share of what they produce. Marx predicted that capitalism would produce growing
misery for workers as competition for profit led capitalists to adopt labor-saving machinery,
creating a "reserve army of the unemployed" who would eventually rise up and seize the
means of production.

You really should read Marx Hobbit, He is like Nikola Tesla. His IQ might only be 50-70 points higher than yours, but if you lived to be 1000 you would still never be able to synthesize info with their speed and accuracy, not to mention creativity.

Karl Marx may be the most accurate visionary predicting the future that ever lived.

So much for the IQ concept.

I never said he was dumb, but I doubt the 50-70 points higher business (could be wrong, but I do doubt). However, Marx turned out to be...WRONG! Capitalism is in no danger of collapsing in on itself. It's communism that collapsed in on itself, to be replaced with glorious capitalism.

[diuretic]

I never said he was dumb, but I doubt the 50-70 points higher business (could be wrong, but I do doubt). However, Marx turned out to be...WRONG! Capitalism is in no danger of collapsing in on itself. It's communism that collapsed in on itself, to be replaced with glorious capitalism.

No he's not necessarily wrong, he's just not right yet. Capitalism is very much in danger of collapsing in on itself and taking us with it.

As for communism - pah - been to communist countries when they really were communist, that wasn't communism, it was a totalitarian command economy and state capitalism with a lot of criminality.

[loosecannon]

No he's not necessarily wrong, he's just not right yet. Capitalism is very much in danger of collapsing in on itself and taking us with it.

As for communism - pah - been to communist countries when they really were communist, that wasn't communism, it was a totalitarian command economy and state capitalism with a lot of criminality.

The totalitarian part is the kicker, well said, took the words outta my mouth.

Capitalism is failing. It may not look like it to most but it is based on exponential growth and that curve is deteriorating.

Capitalism has already run out of things to capitalize.

[loosecannon]

I never said he was dumb, but I doubt the 50-70 points higher business (could be wrong, but I do doubt). However, Marx turned out to be...WRONG! Capitalism is in no danger of collapsing in on itself. It's communism that collapsed in on itself, to be replaced with glorious capitalism.

Well if the IQ ratio accurately compared test score to age Karl would have several hundred points on you and Tesla, turn an 8 on it's side.

[Pale Rider]

I have already posted the proof. But those who dearly want to believe otherwise don't care about no steenkin proof.

They just wanna believe that the librul media is out to gettim.

Believe whatever you want, I don't care.

Well, I don't recall seeing any proof that the MSM is CONSERVATIVE... I see PROOT the CONTRARY EVERYDAY loose. Whatever it is you think was proof couldn't have been much more than opinion, or spin.

And it really doesn't come down to you just convincing me. You have 90% of the country left to convince too.

Sorry bud, you ain't gonna do it.

[Yurt]

The totalitarian part is the kicker, well said, took the words outta my mouth.

Capitalism is failing. It may not look like it to most but it is based on exponential growth and that curve is deteriorating.

Capitalism has already run out of things to capitalize.

The samurai used to say that about the merchant class. Seen any samurai lately...

[diuretic]

The samurai used to say that about the merchant class. Seen any samurai lately...

And what was the class that kept the samurai in work?

[Birdzeye]

Well, I don't recall seeing any proof that the MSM is CONSERVATIVE... I see PROOT the CONTRARY EVERYDAY loose. Whatever it is you think was proof couldn't have been much more than opinion, or spin.

And it really doesn't come down to you just convincing me. You have 90% of the country left to convince too.

Sorry bud, you ain't gonna do it.


You sound like you have no intentions of being convinced of anything. You've made up your mind and nothing will change that. Pfft.

[CockySOB]

You sound like you have no intentions of being convinced of anything. You've made up your mind and nothing will change that. Pfft.

Seems to be people like that on both sides of the political and ideological spectrum. Sad, but not unexpected....

[Birdzeye]

Seems to be people like that on both sides of the political and ideological spectrum. Sad, but not unexpected....

I agree. I was referring to Pale Rider in particular in my last post.

[Pale Rider]

You sound like you have no intentions of being convinced of anything. You've made up your mind and nothing will change that. Pfft.

It's not that I've "made up my mind". I'm simply aware of the facts as they are.

[Birdzeye]

It's not that I've "made up my mind". I'm simply aware of the facts as they are.

I know that conservatives have invested a lot in the "liberal media bias" schtick and will continue pushing it as long as there is even one news source that doesn't parrot the right wing propaganda line.

[Birdzeye]

The way I see it, communism doesn't have a prayer of succeeding in a democracy, because humans tend not to be satisfied with having their equal share of the pie; they always want more.

In a communist system, the top dogs take as much as they want from the pie, and the only equality is with the masses, who tend to have to make do.

Capitalism tends to legitimize the greed by the powerful and blame the powerless for their struggling for necessities, and when they call for some fairness in the system, the old "you're a communist" demagoguery rears its ugly head.

[Hobbit]

Incorrect, Birdzeye. Capitalism ensures that everything is sold for exactly what it's worth and that those who make themselves the most valuable will have the most money. While not everybody can be a CEO or a rocket surgeon, people who are out of high school and still make minimum only do so because they haven't applied themselves enough to make more. Pretty much anybody who isn't retarded can, with hard work, become a craftsman (carpenter, mason, etc.), and they make great money.

On the other hand, socialism and communism do not attach worth to a the sale value and force arbitrary systems of distribution which lead to shortages of things everybody wants, are hard to find, yet have been ruled to be at a low price.

[Pale Rider]

I know that conservatives have invested a lot in the "liberal media bias" schtick and will continue pushing it as long as there is even one news source that doesn't parrot the right wing propaganda line.

You're really lost on this matter on you. Like you've been in a comma for say, thirty years.

99% of the population knows the MSM is left leaning but you. How does it feel to be in such a small minority?

[Pale Rider]

The way I see it, communism doesn't have a prayer of succeeding in a democracy, because humans tend not to be satisfied with having their equal share of the pie; they always want more.

In a communist system, the top dogs take as much as they want from the pie, and the only equality is with the masses, who tend to have to make do.

Capitalism tends to legitimize the greed by the powerful and blame the powerless for their struggling for necessities, and when they call for some fairness in the system, the old "you're a communist" demagoguery rears its ugly head.

Your a couple bricks short of a load here birdie. I think you better do some more reading about communism before you say anymore. You're embarrasing yourself.

[Birdzeye]

Incorrect, Birdzeye. Capitalism ensures that everything is sold for exactly what it's worth and that those who make themselves the most valuable will have the most money. While not everybody can be a CEO or a rocket surgeon, people who are out of high school and still make minimum only do so because they haven't applied themselves enough to make more. Pretty much anybody who isn't retarded can, with hard work, become a craftsman (carpenter, mason, etc.), and they make great money.

On the other hand, socialism and communism do not attach worth to a the sale value and force arbitrary systems of distribution which lead to shortages of things everybody wants, are hard to find, yet have been ruled to be at a low price.

Not true, Hobbit. Theoretically, capitalism ensures that everything is sold for exactly what it's worth, yada yada, but the reality is that people do not have the clout and the power to influence prices of necessities when industries don't truly compete in pricing.

Likewise, CEOs make more money in one year than most of us can make in a lifetime, often without even having to "perform." I just voted my proxy shares in a stock proposal, in favor of requiring the CEO to meet certain performance criteria to get his super high salary and benefits package, and I have no expectations that the proposal will pass, since those who benefit are also the ones who own the most shares of the stock.

Capitalism, as it's practiced, is largely an illusion, one that allows unbridled greed to be rewarded.

[Hobbit]

Not true, Hobbit. Theoretically, capitalism ensures that everything is sold for exactly what it's worth, yada yada, but the reality is that people do not have the clout and the power to influence prices of necessities when industries don't truly compete in pricing.

Likewise, CEOs make more money in one year than most of us can make in a lifetime, often without even having to "perform." I just voted my proxy shares in a stock proposal, in favor of requiring the CEO to meet certain performance criteria to get his super high salary and benefits package, and I have no expectations that the proposal will pass, since those who benefit are also the ones who own the most shares of the stock.

Capitalism, as it's practiced, is largely an illusion, one that allows unbridled greed to be rewarded.

Again, untrue. While CEO pay seems a bit ridiculous right now, it has not always been this way and will be corrected by the free market, just as Home Depot is now suffering because it chose to screw its workers. You're not taking into account competition in all of this. No, I don't have the sole power to force down prices, but if company a sells something at a huge markup, but company b decided to cut down the markup and undercut company a, who do you think will succeed? You vote with your dollars. If you think the CEO pay at one company is way too high, switch companies and write corporate to tell them why.

[Birdzeye]

Again, untrue. While CEO pay seems a bit ridiculous right now, it has not always been this way and will be corrected by the free market, just as Home Depot is now suffering because it chose to screw its workers. You're not taking into account competition in all of this. No, I don't have the sole power to force down prices, but if company a sells something at a huge markup, but company b decided to cut down the markup and undercut company a, who do you think will succeed? You vote with your dollars. If you think the CEO pay at one company is way too high, switch companies and write corporate to tell them why.

You have a lot more faith in the power of the free market than I do. I just don't see consumers as having that much power in our system to effect change.

[Hobbit]

You have a lot more faith in the power of the free market than I do. I just don't see consumers as having that much power in our system to effect change.

After 9/11, the horrible hit to profit taken by airlines threatened to collapse the entire industry through artificial means (for example, the horse-and-buggy industry collaps was not artificial), forcing its reconstruction from the ground up, something that could seriously damage the economy, which was already suffering from the destruction of an economic hub. To prevent this collapse,the federal government gave the airlines a bailout package, as well as relieving them of taxes on a temporary basis. For a couple of weeks, prices remained the same and the airlines raked in the cash to try to repair their battered industry, but then, a tiny airline on the west coast (I can't remember the name) lowered its prices to match their previous profit margin, thus hoping to undercut the competition and get oodles of business through sheer volume.

Within a matter of days, every other airline in the country dropped their prices to match, just so they could compete. The natural state of prices in a capitalist society is as low as they can go without creating a shortage and as high as they can go without creating a surplus, with a minimum price being set at profitability.

[Birdzeye]

You see the glass as half full, Hobbit, while I see it as half empty. I consider capitalism as the most viable system, for practical reasons, but see powerful people getting away with profiteering while consumers feel powerless to change things.

The cost of my prescription medication keeps going up at a dizzying pace, and even though I get generics when my doctor allows it, and even though I have some insurance coverage for prescription meds, the cost is still shocking to me. I don't know what else I can do. Not taking them is not an option, unless I want to die before my time (I'm taking meds for high blood pressure and diabetes).

[Hobbit]

You see the glass as half full, Hobbit, while I see it as half empty. I consider capitalism as the most viable system, for practical reasons, but see powerful people getting away with profiteering while consumers feel powerless to change things.

The cost of my prescription medication keeps going up at a dizzying pace, and even though I get generics when my doctor allows it, and even though I have some insurance coverage for prescription meds, the cost is still shocking to me. I don't know what else I can do. Not taking them is not an option, unless I want to die before my time (I'm taking meds for high blood pressure and diabetes).

I bet you'd see those prices drop through the floor with some good 'ole tort reform. It takes billions of dollars to develop one drug, and billions more to defend lawsuits claiming that the drug caused halitosis or something.

[Birdzeye]

I bet you'd see those prices drop through the floor with some good 'ole tort reform. It takes billions of dollars to develop one drug, and billions more to defend lawsuits claiming that the drug caused halitosis or something.

Well, I'm all for some kind of reform to deter frivolous lawsuits, which would make a great topic for another thread, but I'm not optimistic that it will drive down the prices of pharmaceuticals. I have great faith in the greed of humans, and am confident that, under the scenario you presented, the drug companies would just pocket the added profit and not lower the prices.

[diuretic]

Incorrect, Birdzeye. Capitalism ensures that everything is sold for exactly what it's worth and that those who make themselves the most valuable will have the most money. While not everybody can be a CEO or a rocket surgeon, people who are out of high school and still make minimum only do so because they haven't applied themselves enough to make more. Pretty much anybody who isn't retarded can, with hard work, become a craftsman (carpenter, mason, etc.), and they make great money.

On the other hand, socialism and communism do not attach worth to a the sale value and force arbitrary systems of distribution which lead to shortages of things everybody wants, are hard to find, yet have been ruled to be at a low price.

Capitalism doesn't ensure that everything is sold for exactly what it's worth at all. Market forces set the price for a commodity at any given time. Supply and demand and scarcity are some of the factors in the market equation.

Socialism (forget communism for the moment) understands value. Read some Marx, I mean read his own texts and you understand he knew exactly how commodities are priced. Socialism merely posits communal owneship of the means of production. In theory socialism doesn't use a market mechanism to set price, it fixes on need. Market socialism is much more realistic and has operated successfully in the real world.

[diuretic]

Again, untrue. While CEO pay seems a bit ridiculous right now, it has not always been this way and will be corrected by the free market, just as Home Depot is now suffering because it chose to screw its workers. You're not taking into account competition in all of this. No, I don't have the sole power to force down prices, but if company a sells something at a huge markup, but company b decided to cut down the markup and undercut company a, who do you think will succeed? You vote with your dollars. If you think the CEO pay at one company is way too high, switch companies and write corporate to tell them why.

Wrong response. It's the shareholders that need to pull the greedy CEOs into line.

[diuretic]

After 9/11, the horrible hit to profit taken by airlines threatened to collapse the entire industry through artificial means (for example, the horse-and-buggy industry collaps was not artificial), forcing its reconstruction from the ground up, something that could seriously damage the economy, which was already suffering from the destruction of an economic hub. To prevent this collapse,the federal government gave the airlines a bailout package, as well as relieving them of taxes on a temporary basis. For a couple of weeks, prices remained the same and the airlines raked in the cash to try to repair their battered industry, but then, a tiny airline on the west coast (I can't remember the name) lowered its prices to match their previous profit margin, thus hoping to undercut the competition and get oodles of business through sheer volume.

Within a matter of days, every other airline in the country dropped their prices to match, just so they could compete. The natural state of prices in a capitalist society is as low as they can go without creating a shortage and as high as they can go without creating a surplus, with a minimum price being set at profitability.


Are we talking mini-Keynesianism here?

[diuretic]

I bet you'd see those prices drop through the floor with some good 'ole tort reform. It takes billions of dollars to develop one drug, and billions more to defend lawsuits claiming that the drug caused halitosis or something.

I think not. You want to remove citizens right to protect themselves? Wrong solution to the problem. In my country we have our government adminstering a Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme which supplements the medicines I need to take to maintain my health. I pay an amount for medicines that is subsidised by my fellow taxpayers. It's a great policy and one any government here messes with at its peril.

[diuretic]

Well, I'm all for some kind of reform to deter frivolous lawsuits, which would make a great topic for another thread, but I'm not optimistic that it will drive down the prices of pharmaceuticals. I have great faith in the greed of humans, and am confident that, under the scenario you presented, the drug companies would just pocket the added profit and not lower the prices.

Absolutely right. Our government uses its power to negotiate prices with pharmaceutical companies to ensure a fair return to them but to help us purchase medicines we need with the PBS scheme.

http://www.health.gov.au/internet/wcms/publishing.nsf/Content/Pharmaceutical+Benefits+Scheme+(PBS)-1

[loosecannon]

Originally Posted by Hobbit
Incorrect, Birdzeye. Capitalism ensures that everything is sold for exactly what it's worth and that those who make themselves the most valuable will have the most money. While not everybody can be a CEO or a rocket surgeon,

Well at least you did mention rocket surgeons specifically I would have been tempted to believe that you were actually being serious otherwise.

The fantasy versions of capitalism that you entertain are fascinating creations of an obviously potent imagination.

Capitalism neither sets prices low, nor guarantees any kind of fair distribution at all.

It sets the stage for radically unfair and unmerited distribution of wealth to occur.

But the worse thing by far about capitalsim is that it relegates most of our social decisions to be made on a strictly profit motive driven basis.

Which is quite obviously an insane way to construct public policy.

There is no invisible hand. There is an invisible third digit.

[Hobbit]

1) Something is worth what people are willing to pay for it. Socialism sets an artificial price, while capitalism sets a true price that strives to ensure that everything made is sold.

2) I don't want to outlaw lawsuits, because lawsuits are necessary. However, frivilous lawsuits cost the plaintiff nothing, win or lose, while they cost a boatload to the defendant, win or lose. By ensuring that there could be a penalty for suing someone without a good reason, we could cut down on lawsuits. It's going to take outrage to get this passed, however, as lawyers make big money on frivilous lawsuits, and the government is run by lawyers. Many other countries do the loser pays system, and while I'm usually the last to adopt foreign legal ideas, I'm all for this one.

3) Competition always drives the market price down. Let's say the legal budget of pharmeceutical companies goes way down because of tort reform, and they decide to just rake in the cash. One day, a CEO who knows what he's doing is going to realize that if they cut the price on, say, Zyrtec, they'll still be profitable, but will outsell all of the other allergy medications. In order to keep from losing boatloads of money, drugs like Claritin will also have to lower prices to compete. The idea that reducing an entire industry's costs will not cut prices requires that you believe the CEOs of all the competing companies have an unspoken (or spoken) agreement not to lower prices on each other so they can keep them artificially high.

4) Government price negotiation hurts everyone. Right now, drugs in Canada are cheaper because Canada sets the price and threatens to revoke the patent and make it themselves if the drug company isn't willing to sell for that price (a bit unfair, don't you think?), so the drug company goes ahead and takes it in order to get SOMETHING out of the deal. The same goes for any other country with socialized medicine, leaving pretty much just the U.S. to shoulder the burden of R&D. If the U.S. forced the price down, like other countries do, then we'd see a massive drop in the number of new drugs on the market, and with mutating diseases, the whole world will suffer.

[loosecannon]

3) Competition always drives the market price down. Let's say the legal budget of pharmaceutical companies goes way down because of tort reform, and they decide to just rake in the cash. One day, a CEO who knows what he's doing is going to realize that if they cut the price on, say, Zyrtec, they'll still be profitable, but will outsell all of the other allergy medications.

Drug companies market drugs under the umbrella of PATENDS, so they have NO competition for drugs sold in the US and Treaty nations.

But they still charge US citizens more for those drugs than they do citizens of Canada or Europe.

You know why? Because SOCIALIST health care programs in other industrialized nations bargain collectively for better prices.

There is no justification for attempting to apply an idealist capitalist model to the USA. We have nothing akin to free markets and are not capitalist in that strict sense.

Meanwhile your assault of socialist economies bears no relationship to reality.

The US has THE most expensive healthcare in the world while it ranks 37th in it's quality.

idiotically simplistic psuedo analysis involving capitalistic rudiments is irrelevant.

Additionally Doctors and patients MUST follow the patterns of treatment dictated by Medicare and their insurance co's regardless of cost efficacy in treatment.

Patients do not have a CHOICE what they use unless their doctor approves it. And doctors are heavily lobbied by drug companies and heavily pressured by insurers.

Our medical system is 10 million exceptions away from remembering what capitalism once was.

[avatar4321]

Drug companies market drugs under the umbrella of PATENDS, so they have NO competition for drugs sold in the US and Treaty nations.

But they still charge US citizens more for those drugs than they do citizens of Canada or Europe.

You know why? Because SOCIALIST health care programs in other industrialized nations bargain collectively for better prices.

There is no justification for attempting to apply an idealist capitalist model to the USA. We have nothing akin to free markets and are not capitalist in that strict sense.

Meanwhile your assault of socialist economies bears no relationship to reality.

The US has THE most expensive healthcare in the world while it ranks 37th in it's quality.

idiotically simplistic psuedo analysis involving capitalistic rudiments is irrelevant.

Additionally Doctors and patients MUST follow the patterns of treatment dictated by Medicare and their insurance co's regardless of cost efficacy in treatment.

Patients do not have a CHOICE what they use unless their doctor approves it. And doctors are heavily lobbied by drug companies and heavily pressured by insurers.

Our medical system is 10 million exceptions away from remembering what capitalism once was.

Collective bargaining? yeah right. Its because the governments dictate the price. and because some governments dictate the price that means the price is forced higher in nations where governments dont dictate the price because the company has to break even with enough of a profit to make the research and development worth it.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Collective bargaining? yeah right. Its because the governments dictate the price. and because some governments dictate the price that means the price is forced higher in nations where governments dont dictate the price because the company has to break even with enough of a profit to make the research and development worth it.

There isn't a pharma company out there that doesn't think that some profit is good and obscene profits are even better. Why do you think that Big Pharma paid off the republican congress to insert retail pricing into the Medicare drug benefit package, a bill that disallows the government to negotiate a better wholesale price for perscription drugs? They are making their money and they are feeding at the taxpayers' trough whether you realize it or not.

One day, the congress will push back in order to save the consumers money and require the negotiation of drug prices for the Medicare benefit. You'll know when that happens by the howling and gnashing of teeth by the drug companies.

[glockmail]

Are you with the liberals or against them?

Because Thomas jefferson, George Washington, Tom Paine, Alexander hamilton and Patrick Henry were revolutionary Liberals

Liberalism is the basis for democratic government and our bill of rights.

If you aren't a Liberal, what the hell are you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

So do you agree with the principles of Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Tom Paine, Alexander Hamilton and Patrick Henry?

[Doniston]

Just Look At This Section... 90% Of Everything Posted Here Is LIBERAL CRAP!
And many other sections are as well.

How the fuck did this board get so damn full of fucking whiney, smartass, shrill, conservative bashing, mouth breathing, liberal assholes?

The fun is leaving this board. I'd say it's more liberal than conservative right now. We either need a conservative membership drive, or maybe a different board is in order. Personally, all these frothing at the mouth liberals and the shit they talk are getting old. The majority of it is pure bullshit or smartass!

DEFINITION OF LIBERAL: Anything the Conservative doesn't like, or disagrees with. HEH HEH

Side issue. Are you the Same Pale Rider I have run accross on other forums???

[Doniston]

Just LOOK at this THREAD so far. "One" response from a conservative... "ONE", and the rest is jacked off bullshit smartass from liberals.

I rest my case. Have you considered the possibility that Conservatives are a dying breed, and that there aren't many left? (leastwise that are willing to admit it> :biggrin:

[Doniston]

That's the scariest thing ive ever heard. Whether or not, ---It happens to be true. and the Conservatives caused it.

[glockmail]

Whether or not, ---It happens to be true. and the Conservatives caused it. It's all Bush's fault? :poke:

[loosecannon]

It's all Bush's fault? :poke:

Bush isn't even a conservative and yet with knee jerk predictability you assume any criticism of a conservative effect is Bush's fault.

[glockmail]

Bush isn't even a conservative and yet with knee jerk predictability you assume any criticism of a conservative effect is Bush's fault. WOW are you off base. Not surprising though.

[Pale Rider]

Have you considered the possibility that Conservatives are a dying breed, and that there aren't many left? (leastwise that are willing to admit it> :biggrin:

If they are, I'm going to take a couple of you with me when I go... :fu:

[Pale Rider]

At any one given point, liberals out number conservatives 5 to 1 on this board. It used to be the other way around. What the hell is happening, and who the hell is inviting them all here?

[Birdzeye]

At any one given point, liberals out number conservatives 5 to 1 on this board. It used to be the other way around. What the hell is happening, and who the hell is inviting them all here?

I have some doubts about your counting ability. :coffee:

But if it's a monopoly of conservatives you want, with nothing more than the token liberal to kick around, I can assure you that there are plenty of forums that fit that bill.

[Pale Rider]

I have some doubts about your counting ability. :coffee:

But if it's a monopoly of conservatives you want, with nothing more than the token liberal to kick around, I can assure you that there are plenty of forums that fit that bill.

Yeah, and this USED to be one of them, until you liberals took over.

[Birdzeye]

Yeah, and this USED to be one of them, until you liberals took over.

We "took over?"


:lol:

Why do you feel so threatened by dissent? Are you afraid you won't be able to debate effectively?

[Hobbit]

We "took over?"


:lol:

Why do you feel so threatened by dissent? Are you afraid you won't be able to debate effectively?

He's pissed off over how many of our new members can't debate AT ALL, and just throw around rhetoric and assumptions based on absolutely nothing, which accomplish no end except to piss off and drive away board veterans who are used to intelligent discourse. Take this thread, for example:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=3124

Nobody commenting in the thread has read the article. Nobody has addressed points brought up in the article. Yet everybody feels they are qualified to call the article stupid and reject it based on a quick synopsis I attempted at the beginning of the thread. That's the crap we're getting fed up with.

Edit: Dissent is only beneficial if the dissenters actually bring an intelligent discussion. Dissent for the sake of dissent is destructive, immature, and stupid.

[Doniston]

At any one given point, liberals out number conservatives 5 to 1 on this board. It used to be the other way around. What the hell is happening, and who the hell is inviting them all here? The real question is, where did all th conservatives go. (maybe they're on their last legs? (peg-legs, at that. HEH HEH)

[Pale Rider]

We "took over?"

Why do you feel so threatened by dissent? Are you afraid you won't be able to debate effectively?

"Threatened, afraid?" I haven't met a liberal YET that instilled either of those emotions.

You people are irrational, condescending, malinformed, and full of sass and hate. You base arguments on liberal party rants based solely on opinion, and you're ALWAYS the first ones to start calling names and questioning character. Typical liberal modus operandi. This overwhelming diet of it is getting sickening.

[Pale Rider]

The real question is, where did all th conservatives go. (maybe they're on their last legs? (peg-legs, at that. HEH HEH)

Who invited you here anyway?

[Birdzeye]

"Threatened, afraid?" I haven't met a liberal YET that instilled either of those emotions.

You people are irrational, condescending, malinformed, and full of sass and hate. You base arguments on liberal party rants based solely on opinion, and you're ALWAYS the first ones to start calling names and questioning character. Typical liberal modus operandi. This overwhelming diet of it is getting sickening.

Pot, meet kettle. I have yet to see you put up a reasoned comment, devoice of "sass and hate," Pale. You rant about the liberals name calling but remain strangely silent when it's your side doing the name calling. It's not like your ideological buddies are saints who have never provoked a fight, but the way you whine on, you'd think that was the case.

Grow up.

[Pale Rider]

Pot, meet kettle.

birdzeye, "say this, it'll make it seem as though you know what you're talking about even though you don't."

[Birdzeye]

birdzeye, "say this, it'll make it seem as though you know what you're talking about even though you don't."

Do you have ANYTHING besides unbridled hatred against liberals to contribute to a discussion?

[glockmail]

At any one given point, liberals out number conservatives 5 to 1 on this board. It used to be the other way around. What the hell is happening, and who the hell is inviting them all here?
Don't fret. It takes 15 or so to equal one conservative anyway. :laugh2:

[Pale Rider]

Do you have ANYTHING besides unbridled hatred against liberals to contribute to a discussion?

Hating liberals IS my contribution, and I've been making it since long before you ever showed up cherry.

As I always say, "I give what I get." If you want me to talk sane to you, then talk sane to me. You give me nothing but your wild accusations and lunatic liberal opinions, well then, I guess you know what you'll get back then don't you.

[Birdzeye]

Hating liberals IS my contribution, and I've been making it since long before you ever showed up cherry.

As I always say, "I give what I get." If you want me to talk sane to you, then talk sane to me. You give me nothing but your wild accusations and lunatic liberal opinions, well then, I guess you know what you'll get back then don't you.

I hardly think that hating some group of people is a virtue, but you seem to.

And it's more a question of you getting what you give, not the other way around.

[Pale Rider]

I hardly think that hating some group of people is a virtue, but you seem to.
I made no claim to virtue.


And it's more a question of you getting what you give, not the other way around.
I've been talking in the same tones to you that you have to me.

And you're passive aggressive. Don't think that that isn't recognizable.

[glockmail]

I hardly think that hating some group of people is a virtue, but you seem to.

And it's more a question of you getting what you give, not the other way around.

As liberals wish to tear down traditional American life and toss us to the jihadists, it is a virtue to hate them. :laugh2:

[Birdzeye]

As liberals wish to tear down traditional American life and toss us to the jihadists, it is a virtue to hate them. :laugh2:


Since what you say is an unproven load of horseshit, then hating us is delusional.

[darin]

Since what you say is an unproven load of horseshit, then hating us is delusional.

He, and others, judge Liberals by their words and actions. Popular Liberals (celebrities, politicians, etc) have made SO MANY statements which show their hatred of Freedom, their blatant disregard for human life, and their support of Terrorists, the conclusion that "As liberals wish to tear down traditional American life and toss us to the jihadists" is NOT much of a stretch.

[diuretic]

Don't worry about it Birdzeye, long on rhetorical bullshit, short on facts and big on losing, that's them reactionaries here. They're like Orang Utangs, dying out due to a loss of habitat.

[Doniston]

birdzeye, "say this, it'll make it seem as though you know what you're talking about even though you don't." Say what? You didn't say what it was you want him to say?:confused:

[Doniston]

As liberals wish to tear down traditional American life and toss us to the jihadists, it is a virtue to hate them. :laugh2: Ah, now the true colors come out-- That's the Glockmail I used to know. :biggrin:

[shattered]

Say what? You didn't say what it was you want him to say?:confused:

:slap: Stop posting before you finish reading. Pale's post made perfect sense to anyone with more than 3 functioning braincells.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

He, and others, judge Liberals by their words and actions. Popular Liberals (celebrities, politicians, etc) have made SO MANY statements which show their hatred of Freedom, their blatant disregard for human life, and their support of Terrorists, the conclusion that "As liberals wish to tear down traditional American life and toss us to the jihadists" is NOT much of a stretch.

We judge you neocons by your actions as well as your words, too. Conservatives have shown us that they value freedom only if that freedom means to agree with what the neocons say 100%. If that isn't hating freedom I don't know what is. Conservatives have shown that they have no regard for human life by their support of Bush's eternal war in Iraq and they certainly have no regard for our troops whom they have sent into harm's way numerous times for specious purposes. Consevatives have shown their avid support for the terrorists by (1)refusing to help pass the 9/11 Commission recommendations that would make America safer, (2)by ignoring the terrorist that caused 9/11 and fought a war to unseat a tinhat dictator that we put in power, and (3)staying in Iraq so that al-qaeda can use us as a recruiting tool throughout the Islamic world to recruit more terrorists to kill our troops. Conservatives support of terrorism thru their idiotic actions may have put all of us at risk, not just the troops. Conservatives won't be happy until their Patriot Act-Saddam Hussein driven hysteria robs us of the very freedoms that they are claiming to protect and make us the "christian" version of the Saudi kingdom and all that entails.

You go, girl. :dance:

[Doniston]

:slap: Stop posting before you finish reading. Pale's post made perfect sense to anyone with more than 3 functioning braincells.No, I won't stop posting, and I did read it. his statement made no sense at all. and now you've gone and ketched up to him HEH HEH

[darin]

We judge you neocons by your actions as well as your words, too. Conservatives have shown us that they value freedom only if that freedom means to agree with what the neocons say 100%. If that isn't hating freedom I don't know what is. Conservatives have shown that they have no regard for human life by their support of Bush's eternal war in Iraq and they certainly have no regard for our troops whom they have sent into harm's way numerous times for specious purposes. Consevatives have shown their avid support for the terrorists by (1)refusing to help pass the 9/11 Commission recommendations that would make America safer, (2)by ignoring the terrorist that caused 9/11 and fought a war to unseat a tinhat dictator that we put in power, and (3)staying in Iraq so that al-qaeda can use us as a recruiting tool throughout the Islamic world to recruit more terrorists to kill our troops. Conservatives support of terrorism thru their idiotic actions may have put all of us at risk, not just the troops. Conservatives won't be happy until their Patriot Act-Saddam Hussein driven hysteria robs us of the very freedoms that they are claiming to protect and make us the "christian" version of the Saudi kingdom and all that entails.

You go, girl. :dance:


Except none of that is true! Libs are VERY good about making shit up, and passing it off as truth. It's sickening, really...but, since I consider today's 'popular' liberals to have a bit of a mental disorder (not the 'good' liberals who can have HONEST and reasonable debates - just libs like you who create bullshit fantasies and SCREAM about them, hoping people will eventually believe you), it's to be expected.

[darin]

No, I won't stop posting, and I did read it. his statement made no sense at all. and now you've gone and ketched up to him HEH HEH

Count me, then among those 'ketched-up' - because Pale's comment easily made grammatical sense, AND made 'general' sense, too.

Archangel? is that you?

[glockmail]

Since what you say is an unproven load of horseshit, then hating us is delusional.

Just look at your actions and come to a logical conclusion, is all. :pee:


Ah, now the true colors come out-- That's the Glockmail I used to know. :biggrin:

Hugs and kisses to you as well. :laugh2:

[lily]

Except none of that is true! Libs are VERY good about making shit up, and passing it off as truth. It's sickening, really...but, since I consider today's 'popular' liberals to have a bit of a mental disorder (not the 'good' liberals who can have HONEST and reasonable debates - just libs like you who create bullshit fantasies and SCREAM about them, hoping people will eventually believe you), it's to be expected.

I noticed that you did not refute one thing Baron said.
I guess when the truth hurts and you can't defend it, then you attack the poster instead of the post.

[Pale Rider]

Count me, then among those 'ketched-up' - because Pale's comment easily made grammatical sense, AND made 'general' sense, too.

Archangel? is that you?

It's not arch dmp, me and arch are friends.

[shattered]

No, I won't stop posting, and I did read it. his statement made no sense at all. and now you've gone and ketched up to him HEH HEH

That's ok. Your own posts make sense to you, and nobody else.. About par for the course...

[Pale Rider]

Say what? You didn't say what it was you want him to say?:confused:

Think before you post. Also, reading back so that you can comprehend the text in which it is refering helps.

[Said1]

That's ok. Your own posts make sense to you, and nobody else.. About par for the course...

Looks like we got ourselves another wordsmith. I know wordsmith probably isn't a word, but you know what I mean, right? Do YoU CoMpREhEnD?:laugh2:

[Pale Rider]

That's ok. Your own posts make sense to you, and nobody else.. About par for the course...

This new bunch of board liberals sure is an obnoxious bunch aren't they?

Can't remember it ever being this bad.

[shattered]

Think before you post. Also, reading back so that you can comprehend the text in which it is refering helps.

Give it up. Won't happen. You're talking to a brick wall. Called on it multiple times today.. Plays ignorant and says "your fault - not mine - I respond to what was posted."

Duh.

Ugh.

[Pale Rider]

Give it up. Won't happen. You're talking to a brick wall. Called on it multiple times today.. Plays ignorant and says "your fault - not mine - I respond to what was posted."

Duh.

Ugh.

I'll tell ya shattered, I'm wondering what grade in grade school this one is in. 3rd, 4th? Preschool?

[shattered]

I'll tell ya shattered, I'm wondering what grade in grade school this one is in. 3rd, 4th? Preschool?

Alzheimers is my guess.

[Pale Rider]

Alzheimers is my guess.

Or HAMMERED... :alcoholic:

[lily]

This new bunch of board liberals sure is an obnoxious bunch aren't they?

Can't remember it ever being this bad.

Not many left after the banning last night.

[Pale Rider]

Not many left after the banning last night.

Thank God for small wonders.

[Said1]

Who was banned last night?

[Doniston]

[QUOTE=Pale Rider;55234]birdzeye, "say this, it'll make it seem as though you know what you're talking about even though you don't."

QUOTE] I have been told this makes sense. Will someone PLEASE explain it to me?" the only thing I can deduce is that Birdzeye should say

"it'll make it seem as though you know what you're talking about even though you don't."

Is that the Idea? If so, I ask the question "WHY should he say that in those cirumstances???

[Doniston]

[QUOTE=Pale Rider;55234]birdzeye, "say this, it'll make it seem as though you know what you're talking about even though you don't."

QUOTE] I have been told this makes sense. Will someone PLEASE explain it to me?" the only thing I can deduce is that Birdzeye should say

"it'll make it seem as though you know what you're talking about even though you don't."

Is that the Idea? If so, I ask the question "WHY should he say that in those cirumstances???

In place of reference to kettle/pot/black? I don't think so.

[shattered]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v64/mmlnt/putz.png

[lily]

Who was banned last night?

Samantha
Liberal Nation
Lightning Waltz
typomatic
Psycho

.........all liberal posters

[shattered]

Samantha
Liberal Nation
Lightning Waltz
typomatic
Psycho

.........all liberal posters

Psycho's been banned repeatedly - if you think he's not FULL of rotten, bannable behavior, you're nuts.

Samantha wasn't banned until today, for repeatedly slamming Admin..

LibgNat shoulda been banned long ago, but by some virtue of patience, she wasn't.

The other two, I don't even know.

None of that has anything to do with being a Lib.

Anyone with eyes can see that.

[glockmail]

Psycho's been banned repeatedly - if you think he's not FULL of rotten, bannable behavior, you're nuts.

Samantha wasn't banned until today, for repeatedly slamming Admin..

LibgNat shoulda been banned long ago, but by some virtue of patience, she wasn't.

The other two, I don't even know.

None of that has anything to do with being a Lib.

Anyone with eyes can see that. So libs are the only nasty, rotten people here? Wha 'bout you?
:poke:

[shattered]

So libs are the only nasty, rotten people here? Wha 'bout you?
:poke:

If you think I've done something worth being banned for, and Admin just missed it, feel free to point it out to them, and they can correct the oversight.

I merely hand back what I'm dished out.

[glockmail]

If you think I've done something worth being banned for, and Admin just missed it, feel free to point it out to them, and they can correct the oversight.

I merely hand back what I'm dished out.

Sorry I don't run to admin when I've been bested, or even diss'd. I'll leave that up to the little yip yip dogs. :poke:

[shattered]

Sorry I don't run to admin when I've been bested, or even diss'd. I'll leave that up to the little yip yip dogs. :poke:

Is this where I point out that Admin won't act on a complaint unless it has some validity to it?

[glockmail]

Is this where I point out that Admin won't act on a complaint unless it has some validity to it? Yup. :poke: :laugh2:

[gabosaurus]

Who was banned last night?

Anyone who dares speak their mind and respond to crap with crap.
If an admin tells you that you are a retarded jihadist piece of donkey sh*t, you gotta shut up and take it.
If you decide to respond by calling the admin a ignorant c*cksucking bastard, you are banned for "flaming the admin."
It's what DP is often about -- one-sided decisions based on delusional hypocrisy.

[shattered]

Anyone who dares speak their mind and respond to crap with crap.
If an admin tells you that you are a retarded jihadist piece of donkey sh*t, you gotta shut up and take it.
If you decide to respond by calling the admin a ignorant c*cksucking bastard, you are banned for "flaming the admin."
It's what DP is often about -- one-sided decisions based on delusional hypocrisy.

...and yet you come back, why?

[gabosaurus]

...and yet you come back, why?

Someone has to display intelligence and intelligence. Those two qualities are in fairly short supply at times.
Besides, when I am not here, the board tends to be over saturated with homophobia and racism.

[shattered]

Someone has to display intelligence and intelligence. Those two qualities are in fairly short supply at times.
Besides, when I am not here, the board tends to be over saturated with homophobia and racism.

Why not leave that particular job for someone more capable?

If you actually thought you were being treated unfairly, you'd have left long ago. Fact is, you know you're wrong - that's why you keep coming back the *second* you're allowed. :)

[Hobbit]

I've never been banned, but not because I'm nice to everyone or that I've never crossed the line. However, I understand, as a believer in individual rights, that Jim has the right to run this board, which he pays for, as he wants. If he asks me to back off, I do. I also read the rules and follow them as best as I can.

[avatar4321]

We "took over?"


:lol:

Why do you feel so threatened by dissent? Are you afraid you won't be able to debate effectively?

We aren't the ones threatened by dissent at all. It's the liberals who are trying to shut us off through namecalling, character assasination, and anything but legitimate arguments for their positions.

We simply would prefer some civilized discourse. Unfortunately that seems to be impossible for the left.

[avatar4321]

I've never been banned, but not because I'm nice to everyone or that I've never crossed the line. However, I understand, as a believer in individual rights, that Jim has the right to run this board, which he pays for, as he wants. If he asks me to back off, I do. I also read the rules and follow them as best as I can.

Ive never been banned either. But then I try to stay civil in all my discourse.

[avatar4321]

Someone has to display intelligence and intelligence. Those two qualities are in fairly short supply at times.
Besides, when I am not here, the board tends to be over saturated with homophobia and racism.

We have plenty of people displaying intelligence... which is only one quality and is quite common among posters on this board. Unfortunately, you arent one of those posters.

[jimnyc]

Samantha
Liberal Nation
Lightning Waltz
typomatic
Psycho

.........all liberal posters

And who's fault is it that these posters broke the board rules, abused staff as in Psycho's case (certainly not the first time) or argued my wishes to cleanup the board/threads?

If a conservative argued with me over my decision to clean things up, they would have received a 48hr ban too. If a conservative abused staff in a thread, then sent a nasty PM to said staff member as a follow up, they too would have received a 48hr ban. If a conservative called me a dictator, and biased, for wanting to clean things up, they would have seen the 48 too.

Am I biased because these individuals CHOSE to do these things? Was I not polite in my initial requests? Would it not have been easier to just heed my polite requests and continue in a mature manner, rather than become combative and argue with my intentions?

Don't call me biased or bring up the fact that they are all liberals. That's ridiculous and just more baseless accusations. I've had conservatives removed from staff because I disagreed with actions. A non-lib was banned for 3 months for his abuse. Shit, MY OWN DAMN BROTHER has left twice because he was either admonished for his actions that I disagreed with, or because I wouldn't uphold a ban against a liberal member. You guys see what you want, but the fact is that I look into each complaint/report individually and take action when appropriate, whether liberal or conservative.

[Pale Rider]

And who's fault is it that these posters broke the board rules, abused staff as in Psycho's case (certainly not the first time) or argued my wishes to cleanup the board/threads?

If a conservative argued with me over my decision to clean things up, they would have received a 48hr ban too. If a conservative abused staff in a thread, then sent a nasty PM to said staff member as a follow up, they too would have received a 48hr ban. If a conservative called me a dictator, and biased, for wanting to clean things up, they would have seen the 48 too.

Am I biased because these individuals CHOSE to do these things? Was I not polite in my initial requests? Would it not have been easier to just heed my polite requests and continue in a mature manner, rather than become combative and argue with my intentions?

Don't call me biased or bring up the fact that they are all liberals. That's ridiculous and just more baseless accusations. I've had conservatives removed from staff because I disagreed with actions. A non-lib was banned for 3 months for his abuse. Shit, MY OWN DAMN BROTHER has left twice because he was either admonished for his actions that I disagreed with, or because I wouldn't uphold a ban against a liberal member. You guys see what you want, but the fact is that I look into each complaint/report individually and take action when appropriate, whether liberal or conservative.

Jimmy... here's you... or I.... talking to the new board liberals... :bang3:

[Birdzeye]

We aren't the ones threatened by dissent at all. It's the liberals who are trying to shut us off through namecalling, character assasination, and anything but legitimate arguments for their positions.

We simply would prefer some civilized discourse. Unfortunately that seems to be impossible for the left.


I could name at least three people on your side of the fence here who show no signs of wanting "civilized discourse," but prefer to try to shut up liberals through namecalling and intimidation. but I doubt I'll ever hear you complain about that.

[diuretic]

I could name at least three people on your side of the fence here who show no signs of wanting "civilized discourse," but prefer to try to shut up liberals through namecalling and intimidation. but I doubt I'll ever hear you complain about that.

Well let's start racking them up. We need to call them out on it - every time.

[darin]

I could name at least three people on your side of the fence here who show no signs of wanting "civilized discourse," but prefer to try to shut up liberals through namecalling and intimidation. but I doubt I'll ever hear you complain about that.

Name them - to me in PM. I'll research your claims and verify the legitimacy of your complaint. You'll need to provide examples.

[glockmail]

I could name at least three people on your side of the fence here who show no signs of wanting "civilized discourse," but prefer to try to shut up liberals through namecalling and intimidation. but I doubt I'll ever hear you complain about that.

Found an old box of real (lead shot) 20 gauge in the attic. Time to shoot more of those noisy birds out of my trees. :laugh2:

[glockmail]

Well let's start racking them up. We need to call them out on it - every time. If you can't win on ideas and intellect then run to admin. :poke:

[Birdzeye]

Name them - to me in PM. I'll research your claims and verify the legitimacy of your complaint. You'll need to provide examples.

Sure, after you've earned my trust.

[darin]

Sure, after you've earned my trust.

Send it to Jim or MtnBiker if you want.

http://www.d-mphotos.com/images/darinshrug.gif

[jimnyc]

Sure, after you've earned my trust.

You want to complain about other members, but don't want to complain because you don't trust dmp? And what is there to trust about sending a few links?

[Birdzeye]

You want to complain about other members, but don't want to complain because you don't trust dmp? And what is there to trust about sending a few links?

If you really want me to, I'll send you a PM. I don't know why you'd want me to, because I was responding to Avatar's allegation of "liberals who are trying to shut us off through namecalling, character assasination, and anything but legitimate arguments for their positions."

I haven't noticed anybody present Avatar with the same challenge presented to me.

[glockmail]

Sure, after you've earned my trust. Typical lib smoke and mirrors in attempt to deflect attention to her baseless allegations.

[Birdzeye]

Typical lib smoke and mirrors in attempt to deflect attention to her baseless allegations.

What of Avatar's baseless allegations? Or is it OK for conservatives to make allegations without having to back them up?

[shattered]

Truthfully, her accusations aren't any more baseless than anyone elses.. The only difference is quantity.. For every 3 nasty conservatives, there's 5-6 nasty libs...

[glockmail]

What of Avatar's baseless allegations? Or is it OK for conservatives to make allegations without having to back them up? He'll back up his allegations if you ax him. But you can't back up yours.

[Birdzeye]

He'll back up his allegations if you ax him. But you can't back up yours.

And risk getting banned? Is that what this is about?

[gabosaurus]

A lot of conservatives are about backing up. To each other.

[LiberalNation]

If a conservative called me a dictator, and biased, they would have seen the 48 too.


Don't call me biased or bring up the fact that they are all liberals. That's ridiculous and just more baseless accusations.
hmmm, so we can't call you a dictator or biased on threat of banning. Do you see anything in that. I swear this board about the most ban happy I've ever been on.

[glockmail]

And risk getting banned? Is that what this is about?
Actually this is about your integrity.

[Pale Rider]

hmmm, so we can't call you a dictator or biased on threat of banning. Do you see anything in that. I swear this board about the most ban happy I've ever been on.

You haven't been banned, and I'll tell ya why. Because even though most of your posts are retarded, you at least stay civil. On the other hand most of your liberal friends here have a problem with their mouthy cake holes. I don't why we're surprized though. Most of the liberals I have EVER come in contact with were mouthy sons a bitches.

[Birdzeye]

Actually this is about your integrity.

Ah, yes, the old "integrity" chestnut you guys have been using lately.

Well, to "prove" my "integrity" to your satisfaction, I'd have to risk getting banned, which is what I suspect you want.

Of course, you could look at the first post in this thread to see what I'm talking about, but I have a hunch you'll find some excuse to reject that example.

And meanwhile, you keep giving Avatar a free pass. Whyzzat? You may not want to question my integrity as long as you keep beating on me while leaving him alone.

[glockmail]

Ah, yes, the old "integrity" chestnut you guys have been using lately.

Well, to "prove" my "integrity" to your satisfaction, I'd have to risk getting banned, which is what I suspect you want.

Of course, you could look at the first post in this thread to see what I'm talking about, but I have a hunch you'll find some excuse to reject that example.

And meanwhile, you keep giving Avatar a free pass. Whyzzat? You may not want to question my integrity as long as you keep beating on me while leaving him alone.

Are you saying that you fear being banned if you prove a point? That's not even plausible. Your victim ploy is getting tiring.

[Birdzeye]

Are you saying that you fear being banned if you prove a point? That's not even plausible. Your victim ploy is getting tiring.

I see you didn't answer my question. Maybe if you put away the bait . . .

[jimnyc]

hmmm, so we can't call you a dictator or biased on threat of banning. Do you see anything in that. I swear this board about the most ban happy I've ever been on.

I own this site, and you can't understand why I don't want you coming here calling me a dictator for no reason, or fouling up my board with useless discussion?

[LiberalNation]

Yeah you own this site but you also opened it to the public. My point is you could call anyone else any name in the book for any reason you can think of but when it's aimed at you there's a different standard. Anyway.......it's dangerous arguing with people so trigger happy so I'll stop for now.

[jimnyc]

Yeah you own this site but you also opened it to the public. My point is you could call anyone else any name in the book for any reason you can think of but when it's aimed at you there's a different standard. Anyway.......it's dangerous arguing with people so trigger happy so I'll stop for now.

Sorry, but THIS ISN'T a public site, whatever gave you that idea? You MUST register for this site and AGREE to abide by the rules when joining.

And where am I going around calling people names for no reason?

And if you think I'm too harsh, or other sites are more reasonable, then by all means - GO THERE AND STOP YOUR BITCHING!

[jimnyc]

Thread appropriately being moved to steel cage section...

[gabosaurus]

I own this site, and you can't understand why I don't want you coming here calling me a dictator for no reason, or fouling up my board with useless discussion?

This board is FAR from ban happy. If you believe this board is "dictatorial," then you obviously have not been to many message boards. Many conservative boards (and some allegedly liberal boards) do not tolerate dissent at all. There, you have two choices: agree or leave.
The best way to affect change is to work for it through proper channels. Sometimes it doesn't work.

As far as "useless discussion" is concerned, remove such and DP would average about four threads a day. :laugh2:

[LiberalNation]

And if you think I'm too harsh, or other sites are more reasonable, then by all means - GO THERE AND STOP YOUR BITCHING!
I don't wana go anywhere and I'm always bitching. Why are you so defensive man.

[stephanie]

I don't wana go anywhere and I'm always bitching. Why are you so defensive man.


You're way too young to have all these bitches, already..

Wait until you get in your 50's, then....bitch, bitch, bitch....:laugh2:

I'm just kidding with ya, dear...

:cheers2:

[jimnyc]

I don't wana go anywhere and I'm always bitching. Why are you so defensive man.

You call me a dictator.
You call me biased.
You tell me I'm ban happy.
You accuse me of calling people names.

I'm trying to make things better here BECAUSE MEMBERS COMPLAINED AND WANT IT A BETTER PLACE TO INTERACT AT. So yes, I get defensive when I go through all this crap to make everyone happy, then have people jump on me for my efforts.

[Pale Rider]

As far as "useless discussion" is concerned, remove such and DP would average about four threads a day. :laugh2:

Then what - in - the - fuck are YOU doing here? You just can NOT help yourself, can you?

You ARE the biggest SMARTASS this board has seen since manfrommaine. He's perma banned, and I'd sure like to see you gone with him.

[gabosaurus]

You need a sense of humor, dude. Wit and sarcasm rules the world. Remove that cocklebur from your anal sphincter and learn to laugh at yourself.
Also, I would rather be a smart ass than a big ass.

[typomaniac]

Most of the liberals I have EVER come in contact with were mouthy sons a bitches.
Then again, one excellent way to make other people come across as mouthy sons of bitches is to come across to them as an arrogant, grandstanding browbeater who'd rather starve than engage in any kind of civilized discussion.

That's just in general, you understand...

[LiberalNation]

You call me a dictator.
You call me biased.
You tell me I'm ban happy.
You accuse me of calling people names.
Hey I never accused you of calling people names.

I said, people can call anyone else far worse names and that's fine but when it's directed at you it's suddenly not. I'm assuming different standards for mods and posters.

[Abbey Marie]

Yeah you own this site but you also opened it to the public. My point is you could call anyone else any name in the book for any reason you can think of but when it's aimed at you there's a different standard. Anyway.......it's dangerous arguing with people so trigger happy so I'll stop for now.

Wrongo. Jim is about as patient a board owner/admin as you will ever find.