I just realized I have a good litmus test for if a poster is worth my time...

Only when compared to raving lunatics could I possibly be described as that liberal

I have more in common with a moderate republican from 1992 than I do with a hard core liberal in 2011
 
I'm not talking about you specifically, I have no idea who you are. I'm speaking about those in office. It bears repeating I didn't say all Democrats, nor did I refer to all Republicans.
 
That's extremely doubtful, since there are very few people in this forum who would support their preferred political party "no matter what they do", so there are not many threaRAB filled with such posts.


You're welcome to point a couple of these DIACers or such threaRAB, if you think I am wrong.
 
Pretty solid analysis. A couple that I might move around but overall pretty solid I think?

Also, @ not being able to nail me down. (to be honest, I don't even know where I would put myself )
 
Honestly, I didn't pay enough attention to the case to have much of an opinion on her guilt. From what I've read, she probably did kill the kid, but there just wasn't enough evidence to convict.


My litmus test is logic. If a poster just babbles nonsense and there is no logical flow to their argument, or if they simply argue with emotion, or if they are complete partisan hacks (my team is better than your team). I still argue with those idiots, though, because I come to OT to get a break from the real logic and reason of my job, which is computer-related (programming, maintenance, security, etc.)
 
If you're supposed to be referring to Telecast's opinion on taxes, you didn't even have any posts after Telecast's in that thread. And your posts before it was just some unrelated leghumping of Rick Perry.
 
You do understand the mortgage crisis wasn't as a result of unregulation, don't you? You do understand it was very highly regulated by The Fed, just regulated very poorly.

I also said nothing about markets being unregulated, btw.
 
He's not much of a jackass or anything and he does have interesting posts. However, the point is that he is at least as ideological as the people he is attacking (if not a bit more so).


The only difference is that his beliefs don't have a political party so that allows him to avoid the "partisan" label, but only as a technicality. His clutch on his ideology is just the same as the hyperpartisans on this board.
 
When you have you seen any of the right wing dopes here say "well, in this case, I think the solution is big government"

But of course, the educated leftist will find some areas where a regulated market would serve best, another area where a centralized government would work best, and even areas where an unregulated market (assuming no fraud/violence) would work the best

That person would also find some areas that are detrimental to themselves (higher taxes, affirmative action) and some areas that give them benefits (pro-science, student loans)

Other ideologies on this board only want as much for themselves as possible, and never borrow ideas from their ideological opposites

On this subforum, the religious versions call themselves Republicans and the secular versions call themselves libertarians

but its the same ideology, really, one big scream of "i want everything as comfortable for me as possible"
 
mongoloid librarians
pubic lice

austrian librarians
rotrabroadard, tgd, braddlac

randroid librarians
jas0n, jim, rabp, me


OMFG SOCIALISTS!!
karen, futuramafan, billy, my ae, red, simius, hodd, iso, sgt baker, redneck, douggiej, tkg, dedkal, qhc, asdracist, half zip, chuck finley, 7960, telecast, off, ec, ironmike, garbageman, uneek, diesel66, emfuser
 
Well, I couldn't really tell you the beliefs of most people on this forum with the exception of some of the more colorful ones.

And yeah, I'm pretty liberal, and I can be a dick to some people, but when it comes to issues I like to think I give credit where it's due
 
You're right ... it was a result of deregulation. Glass-Steagal kept shit in check for the better part of a century.
 
His position on earmarks is completely consistent.

Positions where he is hypocritical? Sanctity of Life Act, for one.

During the last election cycle, dumpy compiled a list of questions to ask Ron Paul - questions which brought to light some of his inconsistencies.

Yup, sure sounRAB like we are just a bunch of rabid Paultard partisans.
 
I ask posters to elaborate on their worldview, perhaps after challenging them by introducing history, graphs, and expert opinions and see if they rebut the claims, start some weird deflection, simply pussy out of the thread, or IL me.


The IL'ers aren't worth anyone's time.
 
Back
Top