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

That would be awesome. It would probably be bit harder than you think, but if you could pull it off for 30+ posts before someone called it out as being a bot then you'd win the DIAC turing test. (Which I dunno if that would say more about the quality of your program or the patheticness of some of our partisan hacks... but hey... DO IT!)
 
My response is to laugh at your brash ignorance.



Here. Educate yourself minimally: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/freemarket.asp



Which is what you were already told:
 
You seem to be projecting some false hypocritical ego to Rotrabroadard then using that ego as the subject of an classical strawman argument.
 
Cutting earmarks doesn't cut spending.


Adding earmarks doesn't add spending.


Paul's principled stance is that a.) Congress should appropriate funRAB and b.) Congress should cut spending.

Earmarks don't violate either stance.

You're stretching here.

You would have a point if Paul spoke out against earmarks last month, I supported his opposition, and then this month, he is for earmarks, and I supported him. But none of this has happened.

Again, you are being dogmatically stupid on this topic, just to try to 'win' an argument over libertarian principles. But you haven't. You've lost.
 
I am not going to go threw the trouble of typing long examples for each person but without a doubt Tom is a fiscal conserative with extreme democratic roots who will rail against his party when he feels they deserve it.

I know I personally do not agree with a lot of the things republicans do and have voiced that opinion time and time again.

Also this forums isn't full of troll's , it has like 3 who have 5 AE's who just troll everyone who attempts to have a good discussion
 
Meh... the thread could've had more fun stuff in it.

The late edit time in the first post of that thread is when Emfuser slipped in those made-up debate rules that no one agreed to. I don't think he changed the agreed-upon rules intentionally, so I don't mind it that much. Seemed like an honest mistake but it seemed odd to me that a judge would hold you to a ruleset that s/he knows is different from the one you actually agreed to.
 
I'll try one more time since you're obviously slow. Free market does not mean unregulated. YOU stated the insurance on these mortgages was unregulated. Here's something you obviously don't know, there is no such thing as unregulated insurance of any kind in the United States. Granted some may be regulated worse than others, but to state this insurance was unregulated is very ignorant. EVERYTHING is regulated including how much water is used to flush your toilet.
 
Paying higher taxes, being responsible about the environment, being sensitive to other peoples culture, affirmative action, giving benefits that you will never receive, trying to help people who have wronged us

That is the opposite of making life comfortable for myself, rather

Trying to make a better society for all Americans, many times at my own expense

Republicans/Libertarians just want a better place for themselves, nothing more
 
In many cases, I'm not sure if it's a default position.

Of course there are people who don't follow politics or political philosophy well-enough to express themselves or are just not intelligent enough to do so. I presume that such people are the type that could end up abdicating their policy thinking to one of the political parties.

However, I haven't seen where these types generally have all that much to say. I'd guess the consequence of abdicating one's thinking is that you don't end up with many thoughts to post.



I've noticed that almost all posters, even the best ones, frequently offer superficial posts (at first, anyways). Oftentimes, it is only with a little prodding that more substantial discussions emerge (though a fair amount of the time, no one attempts any such prodding).

At first glance, a lot of thread comments may seem to be based solely on the stances of political parties, but for a great many of the posters, you can get some reasoned debate if you merely ask. Of course there are a few that have little reasoning, and, ultimately, it's my point that it is not merely agreement with some party's policy which makes for empty (worthless) contributions to the forum, but rather it is when someone is pressed but then display a lack of reasoning coupled with a willful blindness to their reasoning deficit which gives us worthless comments.
 
I fully admit I am a troll and don't have any (active) AEs, but the difference being when I want to have a real conversation I can turn off troll mode and do so.
 
It was a rule that was in the first post of the thread, and it was a rule that Jas0n mentioned in like the third post of the thread.

You can't pretend that you were unaware of it.



qui tacet consentire videtur


Go get me a wiki link bro.
 
It's funny you think that's the least bit comparable to Ron Paul taking it upon himself to crown a few select companies in Galveston to be worthy of government subsidies, while he blows so much hot air about how the government should not prop up companies and not "pick winners".
 
Back
Top