HAHAH exactly as I thought. I call you out on the fact that you don't know what you're talking about, and you claim to be baiting me to get me to do my work. Well that was easy. Next time, you shouldn't argue with people smarter than you. Maybe you can read up on classical liberalism, then you won't have to bitch and ask me to prove where "socialism" was in the constitution, ROFL.

WOW rofl, for someone who just tried to bluff his way out of knowing absolutely dick, you sure suck at it. Why would I have a problem with something that is the complete opposite of socialism/central planning?

I am not bluffing. I know what I am talking about. You are naive. Post all the links you like. Anyone can Google. Anyone can believe everything they read in Wikipedia. Now, what was your point, exactly?

You call me an idiot with no referance to my post, your short bus is leaving, try to be on it this time

It would really blow his mind if you showed him that he has been supporting isn't actually a conservative movement... it's a neo liberal movement. ;)

I didn't have to google. I called you out on your bullshit, and posted the best thing you could read since you know absolutely nothing. If you knew what you were talking about, you would have stopped posting 20 minutes ago.

It would really blow your mind that classical liberalism conforms mostly to modern conservatism, while modern liberalism is nothing more than a perversion of everything mixed together. But I suspect you don't know that :)

Are you paid by the democrat party? or do you just make the same old retarded posts reflexively?

Classic.

I don't think Russia wants socialism back. I think they want more capitalism.

China, a communist country, is now a shining example of capitalism.

I bet it took you all afternoon to come up with that posting. He does not give straight answers. When he gives an interview and it shows up in a magazine or newspaper, you read the interview. News flash, you can not hear when it is written down. When he is on tv you watch the interview and listen to what he has to say.

If anyone is a low informed voter it is you. You should be listening and reading. :2 cents:

Last time I checked Bush was no longer president. I never said he gave a straight answer. I thought this thread was about current events. I love it when you talk about Obama and people on here have to always bring up Bush. Can you people not stick to the topic at hand?

LOLOL.....it took me ten seconds. It took you all day. It pains me to think that people like you are actually allowed to vote. No wonder thieves run rampant and poor folks like you keep on voting for them. I hope you enjoy your teabag meetings with your redneck friends.

This is the topic. Current does not mean this morning. I know, you were having a blonde moment.

Good thing we are giving the insurance companies 4 years to figure out the loopholes.

Maybe they will have four years to find a new line of work.

Don't call me daughter, not fit too.

Agreed... :P Progressives hate that.

You're typing to a moron who doesn't know the difference between socialism and classical liberalism. I think we should leave the little retarded child alone.

You are the one that has no idea. You just learned the phrase "classical liberalism" yesterday when I got you to look it up in wikipedia. No say something that has substance instead of ranting and claiming ownership of everyone. Anyone can say they own something. But you have to buy it first. And you don't have the currency.

-------lmao------

There are lots of provisions that kick in instantly in this bill. There has been a typical movement to claim nothing happens except raised taxes for X amount of time. Well, believe it if you want. It's useless trying to convince a rock to bleed.

LOL, defend to the end, we're going to pay for this for 4 years before MOST of it takes effect, political move, see they can have all that money now, but don't have to use it till then.

I wonder how Idaho is going to play into this, and 26 other states that are considering the same law

Defend what? I simply dont buy the scare tactics. I'm not on the defense.

Actually, I posted the article for you, since your stupid ass didn't know the difference. It became obvious to people in the thread, which is why you shut up. You shouldn't have tried to bluff your way through the thread, or you at least should be educated enough to do it properly.

I love it when the ignorant argue politics. Humorous thread for a poli sci major.

I love it when people come in to claim others are ignorant while offering nothing themselves, hoping they don't get called out on their bullshit. It failed for "weekly", I suggest you quit while behind as well.

And LOL@Poli sci majors. Those morons know slightly more than English majors.

You clearly do not understand the evolution of government.

YOu're not defending the 2700 page healthcare bill?
Not scare tactics, it really doesn't do much for 4 years, but the money is already there for it, where they are going to pull the money out of the air is a mystery, but that hasn't stopped them before.

All this coming from someone quoting Wikipedia in the attempts to prove others wrong. LOL!

Holy shit, I rest my case. An eager younglin' trying his hand at regurgitating what he allegedly learned in class!!

Oh wow. Like I said, I rest my case, especially if that's what you think I did rofl. Too easy

Are you insinuating you did not reference Wikipedia to both "teach" someone and "prove them wrong" in the same attempt?

Young? Tell me, how old am I?


And rest what? You don't understand the evolution of government, it's more than simple. Would you like me to give you readings on the matter?

I would suggest you read over those 3-4 posts again to find out why I posted the link, but I suspect you won't be able to since your only real intention is to try to impress people with your knowledge.

Seeing as how there's zero indication of that, I'm just assuming you need approval.

It's a simple yes or no question.


I'm still waiting on your answer.

Zero indication? Lol, explain this:

I said it's unAmerican because this country was founded on certain principles that we've held for over 200 years, distinct of other countries.

That's ok, I don't need an answer from you. You have the hilarious balls to insinuate that I used a wikipedia link(which nonetheless is 100% accurate in this case), to allegedly prove my point. You then decide that I somehow don't understand government, and you want to link me to some readings to prove YOUR point. Oh the irony..

Go ahead and tell me that I don't know anything about government based on that statement ROFL

Are you honestly this simplistic? Let's break this down a little further for your understanding.

- YOU are the one having to answer, not me.
- YOU cited Wikipedia in an attempt to prove someone wrong
- In my previous post I ask you to explain a comment, that to me, is full of ignorance.

If you think ANY of the principles the country was founded upon have not changed, then you don't know anything.

Nah I'm not defending it, it doesnt need me. It's the opposition party that is fighting on talking points really. Boehner today in his weekly statement tried saying the CBO assesment is flawed because billions in costs were withheld (wow), and ending his address by saying just wait til election time. Well ok then, we'll wait.

So really, the fight is over. It's in another realm now I think.

Holy shit, you're hilarious. Here's a hint. When you try to be a pseudo intellectual, make sure you have the intelligence to back it up. I have no idea where you're coming from and I'm assuming you're typing the first thing that comes to that simple mind of yours. At any rate, you don't make sense, nor is the burden of proof on me, for you are the one who made the accusation. Swing and a miss, champ:)

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

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

Internalize.

So, now an accusation is defined as having concrete evidence?

There's nothing fake going on. For some reason, you're putting up a fight on me asking you a few questions.


I feel like Gestalt in here.

Then give me one founding principle that you believe has not changed in 200 years.


I'll see if I can show you otherwise. :)

:::Sigh::: I realize I'm speaking to a child who is desperately trying to sound intelligent and failing, so I will go slow. You accused me of not knowing anything about government. That's lays the burden of proof on you. You then claimed to know more than me and offered to give me some "readings", meaning you don't know anything and just want me to read and assume you already know all the stuff, making you a hilarious hypocrite and bullshitter. Finally, you either intentionally or unintentionally misrepresented my position and started arguing from ignorance. Keep trying champ:)

It's more than evident you're struggling to keep the two arguments we're having separate. And here, I thought simply ignoring those requests in every other reply was enough for you to understand.


To get back on topic of THIS reply, I'm still waiting on your yes or no answer on whether or not you cited Wikipedia in an attempt to prove someone wrong.