an unconventional view on the economy

Its something Stumpy would say/do.

"Secular" anyone???

Yes, his argument is.

Nice. Another vacuous post. I have no need or desire to respond.

:tears:

Eennnhhh!!! Wrong answer Stumpy Jr.!!! This is not Austria or the EU. In this country, "liberalism" does not mean "free-market". Check the definition you accepted earlier, Pussy-Puss. Meeeeowwww!

:beyes:

Not in this Reality.

:hw:

You mean the one politician I pimp? (besides Nader and Sanders) Exactly. I'm a Liberal...or Progressive if you prefer. Ron Paul is not.

This thread illustrates (again) quite well that you share many many qualities with Stonewall. If those things are so foreign to each other (the protectionism was an example of an exception to the rule), why is Ron Paul (the libertarian, free trade, laissez faire dope) a member of the conservative AUTHORITARIAN Republican Party and not a Democrat?

Why was the "fit" (for someone who is so different from either) so much "tighter" with the Goose-stepping GOP??? Just another coinky-dink???

pps:

Ask Ron Paul. :burst:

Reality is messy, no matter how hard conservatives like you try and pretend nothing is interconnected, or how hard you long for "certainty" and absolutes. Sorry Loother, you are what you are. Embrace it:


Researchers help define what makes a political conservative

By Kathleen Maclay, Media Relations | 22 July 2003 (revised 7/25/03)

BERKELEY – Politically conservative agendas may range from supporting the Vietnam War to upholding traditional moral and religious values to opposing welfare. But are there consistent underlying motivations?

Four researchers who culled through 50 years of research literature about the psychology of conservatism report that at the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include:

* Fear and aggression
* Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
* Uncertainty avoidance
* Need for cognitive closure
* Terror management

"From our perspective, these psychological factors are capable of contributing to the adoption of conservative ideological contents, either independently or in combination," the researchers wrote in an article, "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition," recently published in the American Psychological Association's Psychological Bulletin.....

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/..._politics.shtml

Nor the ability.

Its pretty simple. You are a tool.

:hw:


*FLUSH*
*FLUSH*
*FLUSH*
:crapper:

You are almost there...what this whole discussion indicates is that it is foolish to correct the usage of the term liberal in modern day america. Your claim to correctness is no more valid than mine. In fact I have much more support for my views.

And that's the sad sad point, Loother. I can completely fool around in an "un-serious mannah" and easily OWN you without breaking an intellectual sweat whatsoever.

Your own failed "lojik" and debunked dogma is like shooting retaaaaded fish in a barrel!

:fish:

I see we are not going to agree on the appropriate definitions of these words, so let us try to move beyond the semantics.

You say that Ron Paul's economic views are shared by many fake conservatives. Which ones? Ronald Reagan, George Bush, and the many others in government and the media that I think you are referring to have often used rhetoric similar to Ron Paul's, but actions speak louder than words. The fact that Ron Paul is quite frequently the only "no" vote in Congress on economic issues seems to indicate that his views are not the same as the fake conservatives.

Again, I despair that these debates always move away from the issues toward Ron Paul. Yes, I supported his presidential candidacy because I thought he was by far the best candidate. Do I agree with all of his positions? No. That campaign is now over. I would prefer to argue for my own beliefs than someone elses.

Given the direction that this debate has gone, I wish I had not.

The "I wasn't really trying" excuse. Nice. But it is not quite convincing when every one of your posts are "written" in the same immature manner.

Are you the person I once asked to list the last ten books you have read and was unwilling (likely unable) to do so?

Why would I need an excuse? You've been completely destroyed in this thread. And any other time you get up the courage to "defend" your debunked and irrelevant views.

I was merely letting you know how easy, effortless, and simple it is to get over on you and your supposed "intelligence".

Yes, you are nothing but fodder for my amusement. Do you understand what it is I do here? And who I do it to?

:fish:



If I wanted to be "mature", I'd look for an argument that had some challenge for me intellectually. It just doesn't exist politically. Not in here anyway!


:hw:

I have quite a collection of books. I thirst for knowledge and understanding don't you know. And I possess the objectivity and reason to correctly judge valid and invalid information.

Meanwhile, you spend years studying complete nonsense. You thirst for cognitive closure and certainty, no matter the validity. Congrats!



But if I'm not a "read" person, or educated, why can't you hold your own against my arguments....you know...being that you're so smaaaaat?!?!

:scratch:

The simple force of my Logic too much to handle? Imagine that, no substance, yet I make you look a fool whenever I want.

The dissonance hurts bad, eh? :drown:

Maybe you are so high above me that I cannot understand your lofty purposes. What you seem to "do here" is demagogue and denigrate while appearing even stupider than the subject of your attacks. I do not understand why someone would be amused by doing that. But apparently you are. You say it is all part of an act; who am I to question your sincerity?

You find it easy enough to reveal that you have a collection of books, so why not tell what you read? The only reason I can think of is that you do not read and are afraid that a list you make up might reveal your stupidity, because you do not know what an intelligent person would read. Surely you do not read Dr. Seuss?

:tears:

How do you think you "appear" in this thread? Playing your weak semantics games and ducking all the questions you have no answer for? I'll tell you.

You appear a Cunt.

Why do you have so little understanding of yourself, as your test score illustrates?

So you take SFN so super seriously, yet I'm the one who is stupid?

:burst:

It is not for you to judge the strength of your arguments against mine, or for me to judge mine against yours. Your self-proclamations mean nothing. Let the neutral observers judge.

Again, you should be concerned with what the neutral observers think. Of course you think you are right, and I think I am. Your declarations of victory are worth nothing.

In the same way that Austrians share elements of their economic views with Chicago schoolers. I did not say they were the same. I said he shared many, many views. In fact just about everything but the federal reserve. That is one reason RP ran as a republican...they are peas in a pod. That is the reason so many RP supporters are authoritarians. The reason that so many "real conservatives" defected from the repussican party to support RP. They share many views on government and economics. Which you have already agreed on. It is termed conservative economics. Your bedfellows are your problem...not mine.
And I understand that these fake conservatives do not understand the great utopian goals of RP. But I also don't think that makes one iota of difference. If RP were to gain power...his system would be just as completely co-opted by corporate culture as the GOP has been. In terms of my concerns there is no difference between fake and real conservatives. Real conservatives are just more thoughtful. But hold no more value to humanity in my view. So it is not my fight to clarify your positions. Just like you don't mind people ragging on Obama because it serves your purposes...not because of any amount of intellectual honesty. But feel free to explain to all these mouth breathers how Obama is not a liberal. At the end of the day it accomplishes nothing but feeding your need for closure and certainty around your dogma.

Yet you are the one that pointlessly insists on calling RP a liberal as though there was any purpose to it. You argument is with repussicans. Go educate them. In reality there is not very much difference between libertarians and the GOP. For all practical purposes they are headed for the same thing. Libertarians are just more tolerant in the social arena. This is because I a not herding unicorns. I can differentiate realistic concerns from non-realistic concerns. I know you want to eliminate the Federal Reserve and these bozos don't follow the argument that far. But that does not confuse me into supporting a pipe dream that will get me the same results as voting for the GOP.

Fine.

Then you should steer clear of correcting my terms in the future. Or maybe if you showed any consistency and did the same with the right wing authortarians that inexplicably you have so much in common with. :burst:
I am compelled to expose hypocrisy.
And I do oppose RP because I do not agree with so many of his positions. Coincidentally it is the same positions that I oppose in the GOP platform. But I guess I just am misinformed

I have no compunction in calling Nadar a liberal. Neither do 99% of Americans. You are the one trying to redefine terms.

Maybe I do not know the definition of "cunt" either, but even if my arguments are wrong, I think you appear to be one and I do not.

That is fine too...and if you had been a little more polite about it we could have just defined our terms and been done with it.

So this is what you've been reduced to? Deflect much?

My book collection is a window to my soul. Something I don't share with crying little bitter cunts who can't hold their own on the subject they hold most dear (and that I could give a fuck about!).

If you were looking for guidance, I guess I'd give it.....but you've proven to be a hopeless, deluded, cry-baby case. Dogmatic and narrow. Delusional and in denial. In other words, another hopeless conservative DUPE.

But if I'm ignorant and un-read, what's that make you?

:freak:

You personify cunthood in many respects. "If you could conceive of more than blah, blah, blah..."

back to this dodge