maitreya

[quote=CrazyHorse]

No, you didn't. OK, say 2.3 million a year is too much. What is a better figure, and why?
And Centrists DO have principles, contrary to what you say. We oppose ALL radical policy shifts, unless there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Calling people "marxists" or "f*****ts" repeatedly is not persuasive, nor does it make you sound like anything other than a brainwashed drone yourself. No sane person references Marx more than 20 times a day, especially if the other side of the conversation doesn't give a s**t about Marx, which I don't. And for your information, my family fled Russia when Stalin took power. We were rural poor slated for the gulags. So you can take your cries of "c*******t!" and shove them up your ass.
Anyway, for our part, we seek to build the scientific, cultural, and economic strength of America, always. Cutting the NSF, teaching fiction as science; these things make us weak. Raising minimum wage to $15 an hour and eliminating minimum wage are both radical, with repercussions not easily forseen. You contemplate armed i**********n? Yeah, I'm sure that will make things better for everyone. It worked so well the last time. How many would die in a second Civil War? Ever think about that? People like me exist to stop people like you from performing your own sociological experiments. And if you think we lack conviction, you are mistaken.
BTW, what little I've read from Nietche, I rated as insane, probably because he was insane. I've never read Alinsky, nor do I care to. Ayn Rand was a sociopath. I'd rather read Keegan. Or the Art of War. Or Adam Smith. And for the record, just who do you regard as a great thinker?

CrazyHorse Loc: Kansas

Quid Pro Quo, maitreya: It sure isn't you pard. You say you don't read Alinsky, but you apply one of Alinsky's rules for radicals. The subject matter of the thread is Defining Liberalism. You obstruct the thread subject by ignoring it, deflecting any discussion of it, and setting up your own strawman subjects to argue and posture with yourself about and try to get others to respond to your ranting drivel. Let's see, with your Alinskyite Obstruction you rant about: immigration (not illegal invasion); minimum wage; armed i**********n; your sociological experiments; Ayn Rand; Keegan; Adam Smith; the art of war; the wealth of nations; etc. You say you are not an Alinskyite, but you use the tactic. You are what your language says you are. You have been on IPP all or two days and you are at war with everyone who disagrees with your ranting drivel. The last time I responded to your obstructionist questions. But you pard haven't earned the respect of having your mental masturbation ranting drivel responded to. I won't be wasting any more of my time responding to your petrified mind lemming drone support of OIllegal and his politburo of radical Muslim Tzar's and his insidious plotting to destroy America. But I will bag on you when it pleases me. You must be the Jersey d**g q***n aka CHE the CHARDO, the CHE Authentic Radical Domestic Obstructionist, or his clone.
If you want to apply your ipse dixit asserted wisdom, go back and see if you can fix Russia. Hoka Hey!

Click on download for the Alamo:

Attached file:
(Download)

alex Loc: michigan now imperial beach californa

LEGAL immigration and there are something like 192 countries in the world so not all immigrants need to come from mexico

The Dutchman

I'm beginning to think you just may be a bit dense, This topic is about "Defining liberalisum" and doesn't have a dam thing to do with rewarding criminals for committing crimes!

Go to the first page of this topic and read the first post and you may just learn the difference between liberalism & immigration and you may well learn somthing about yourself

"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under
the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist
program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without
knowing how it happened."
Norman Thomas (1884-1968)
Defining liberal (AKA) useful i***t

The Dutchman

maitreya

Wrong button. So sue me.

trustNO_one

Corporations like Walmart thrive on Socialism. As an example; Walmart pays the rank and file workers below the living wage standard and then teach their employees how to apply for Food Stamps and Welfare Benefits. Thus communities must pay additional taxes to support the Walmart employees that cannot afford food, housing, etc. Walmarts profits skyrocket on the back of the US taxpayer. Mike Duke- the CEO of Walmart is a Socialist. Watch as these types of CEO's will defend socialism to the death as it bolsters their bottom line. All that matters is the bottom line, its not about right or left, socialist or f*****t, it's about dollars.
So get in line and queue up for your welfare check - you are supporting capitalism by doing so. Should you choose not to accept welfare - you are a socialist c*******t pinko rat.

The Dutchman

The Dutchman wrote:
I'm beginning to think you just may be a bit dense, This topic is about "Defining liberalisum" and doesn't have a dam thing to do with rewarding criminals for committing crimes!

Go to the first page of this topic and read the first post and you may just learn the difference between liberalism & immigration and you may well learn somthing about yourself

"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under
the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist
program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without
knowing how it happened."
Norman Thomas (1884-1968)
Defining liberal (AKA) useful i***t


Now just how in the world can you make this ridiculous statement then lie and say you hit the wrong button?



There is just no way in hell you could have hit the wrong button to get this topic confused with the rewarding criminals for committing crimes (immigration) issue? How about owning up to the fact that you just flat out lied! And got caught and are now crying "So sue me!
Every time you post something you just convince me even more that you are far from the brightest bulb on the tree!

maitreya

Firstly, if the subject is defining liberalism, you must explain what is (and is not) liberal. My readings and other views were presented as items that were to be to identified as liberal or not liberal. It was an attempt to identify the set, not obstruction.

Secondly, a strawman is a construct which I present in lieu of your argument, and then treat as the original. I literally can not draw a parallel from your arguments on which to base a strawman.

Thirdly, tell me you've never gone off-topic in a debate, even by accident. You have? Congratulations! By your own logic, you're an Alinskiite ! Wh**ever the fuck that is. Oh, and a Marxist, C*******t, liberal, Obozo-lover, etc, etc.

Fourthly, I cannot "go back" to Russia. I've never been there. Born here, and with just as much right to be here as you. And contrary to your suggestion, I will not abandon my country to the likes of you. A country composed of your ilk would collapse into a hellhole overnight. If your segment of the e*****rate dwindles and vanishes, so much the better. If history is kind, posterity will forget that you were once our countrymen.


And lastly, I address the so-called excellence of your thinking. You accusing me of ranting is a breathtaking display of projection.
Your claim that you look through the "lens of propaganda" is patently absurd. You're so full of programmed reactions that its comical. Someone could ring a bell and make you shout "marxist!" like you were Pavlov's dog, complete with salivation. And argument ad populum? I see you are not averse to using techniques of disinformation yourself, for all your assumed righteousness. Other people agree with you? So what? Do you possess enough self-awareness to even contemplate the possibility that you're a pack of fools? I'm "at war" with you? How intimidating! Your rejoinders sound like they were written by a compulsive sixth grader.

And now, as you myopically celebrate your "victory", I address others who may be reading. My apologies if my diatribe with these self-proclaimed savants was distracting. As a public service, I shall summarize all posts from these fellows in merciful brevity:

All goons: Huh, Huh. They bad. We good. They dumb. We smart. {manic declarations of no actionable value}
Other poster: Uh, yeah. Anyway, I have an issue with a topic you were theoretically discussing. I suspect that your views on this matter are incorrect. I present....
Goon 1: Marxist! You i***t who want destroy America!!!
Other Goons: Yeah! You stupid!!!!
Other Poster: No, I am saying that, in order to arrive at a sound policy, you must....
Goon 1:You use smart talk, but me smarter. You try confuse us, but me know better. Alinsky! You not listen to post from paid political hack who I agree with! Not fool me! You enemy! {pause} Marxist!!!!
Other goons: Marxist!!!!
Other poster: What the fuck is wrong with you people? Well, maybe someone else around here isn't insane.
All Goons: We win! We beat you. Huh Huh. {resume mutual ego-stroking and verbal fellatio}

If anyone is sufficiently masochistic to listen further to these brainwashed obsessives, Let me know if they deviate from script in some meaningful way. And no, I'm not talking to you goons.

maitreya

Hmm. Either I opened the wrong post, or I'm engaging in a totally t***sparent scheme for no reason. Which do you really think happened?

CrazyHorse Loc: Kansas

[quote=maitreya]

Quid Pro Quo, maitreya: You sir have just demonstrated that you are seriously incurably mentally sick. Go see your shrink forthwith. You have been on 1PP all of two days and you are blasting everyone, having read nothing. You're just an Alinskyite Obstructionist. :roll: :mrgreen:

maitreya

Not quite sure where you're going here, but I agree that they're criminal. It's called "externalized costs". To amplify, they made around 11 billion or so last year. Don't know how much we had to pass out to pay their workers, but since they've got a million workers, I assume it's in the billions. What course of action do you suggest?

trustNO_one

A good point stjems. I'd like to add that giving handouts to extremely well off corporations, on the taxpayers dime is equally as degrading. Both the dems and the repubs love to give handouts to big corporations that don't need the cash and they love to shield the big corporations from having to pay taxes.

Welfare is bad.
Corporations are people ( see recent SCOTUS decision regarding "Citizens United")
ergo Corporations receiving welfare is bad.

Right?

trustNO_one

THANKS FOR CHALLENGING ME!! I appreciate that. I am stumped at the moment to come up with a course of action. I'll need to ponder that and get back. Out of curiosity -what course of action would you suggest?

The Dutchman

I do believe your just faulked up like a wooden watch! and don't really have a clue where your at or what your doing!