> > That "progressive philosophy" is a "desire to help random people who
> > are not well off" is a sham.
> No, it's not. But if that makes you feel more comfortable with your
> selfishness, you keep believing that, k?
> > It is, and always has been, a sham.
> Right. Progressive civil rights legislation didn't help black people at
> all. The halving of their poverty rate that immediately followed was
> pure coincidence. Doh!
> > There are none so greedy and selfish as the progressives are.
> Yes, and black is white and up is down.
I just went through this with Pepe. Why would I expect you to agree
with me when I know you have swallowed the progressive bait, hook,
line and sinker? I'm just stating how it is, because that's what I do
around here, state how it is. I already know you and Pepe were raised
on Liberal Avenue and have never left the neighborhood.
> >> For example, people who don't think everyone should benefit from the
> >> same level of medical care they enjoy, simply because it might raise
> >> their taxes some tiny percentage.
> > here's pepe's lesson for this weekend: what's a strawman? the great part
> > of the above post is it's a strawman mounted on the rear of another
> > strawman.
> It's pretty clear you don't have any clue what is meant by the term > "strawman." She ask me who is greedy and selfish, and I gave her a prime > example. That has absolutely nothing to do with a strawman fallacy.
> > You talk as if greed and selfishness haven't been around for a while
> > too. Doesn't greed and selfishness long pre-date the desire to help
> > random people who are not as well off?
> That "progressive philosophy" is a "desire to help random people who
> are not well off" is a sham. It is, and always has been, a sham.
> There are none so greedy and selfish as the progressives are.
it's a philosophy predicated on their generous use of other's resources. those with resources are too greedy and selfish to help, so nice little
"progressives" -- with (surprise!) no resources of their own -- intervene
to do the lord's work for them.
seriously, can this group's leftwing morons find two nickels between them?
no way. not a chance.
mo_ntresor wrote:
> On Oct 7 2012 10:35 AM, popinjay999 wrote:
>>> You talk as if greed and selfishness haven't been around for a while
>>> too. Doesn't greed and selfishness long pre-date the desire to help
>>> random people who are not as well off?
>> That "progressive philosophy" is a "desire to help random people who
>> are not well off" is a sham. It is, and always has been, a sham.
>> There are none so greedy and selfish as the progressives are.
> it's a philosophy predicated on their generous use of other's resources.
> those with resources are too greedy and selfish to help, so nice little
> "progressives" -- with (surprise!) no resources of their own -- intervene
> to do the lord's work for them.
Like Bill Gates, the Kennedys, Warren Buffet, all those Hollywood types..
> seriously, can this group's leftwing morons find two nickels between them?
> no way. not a chance.
> mo_ntresor
I was born into a dirt poor family and through a lifetime of honest work and saving now I'm well off. That's not inconsistent with having a social conscience. Your stereotypes are all fucked up.
>>>> For example, people who don't think everyone should benefit from the
>>>> same level of medical care they enjoy, simply because it might raise
>>>> their taxes some tiny percentage.
>>> here's pepe's lesson for this weekend: what's a strawman? the great part
>>> of the above post is it's a strawman mounted on the rear of another
>>> strawman.
>> It's pretty clear you don't have any clue what is meant by the term
>> "strawman." She ask me who is greedy and selfish, and I gave her a prime
>> example. That has absolutely nothing to do with a strawman fallacy.
> LMFAO! yeah, you were talking hypotheticals. lying shithead strikes
> again.
No, I'm not talking about hypotheticals. I am talking about a large percentage of real, live US citizens. I offered them as a prime example of who I consider greedy and selfish. That was the question.
You really need to learn what a "strawman" is before you use the term again. You came off looking like a complete idiot, even more than usual.
> On Sat, 6 Oct 2012 04:02:41 -0700 (PDT), popinjay999
> <paulpopin...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Progressives are for the opposite of progress. It is conservatives
>> who want real progress.
> WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
Yes, that's exactly what we're pointing out ... they adopted the name
"Progressive" in an Orwellian fashion.
> >>>> For example, people who don't think everyone should benefit from the
> >>>> same level of medical care they enjoy, simply because it might raise
> >>>> their taxes some tiny percentage.
> >>> here's pepe's lesson for this weekend: what's a strawman? the great
part
> >>> of the above post is it's a strawman mounted on the rear of another
> >>> strawman.
> >> It's pretty clear you don't have any clue what is meant by the term
> >> "strawman." She ask me who is greedy and selfish, and I gave her a prime
> >> example. That has absolutely nothing to do with a strawman fallacy.
> > LMFAO! yeah, you were talking hypotheticals. lying shithead strikes
> > again.
> No, I'm not talking about hypotheticals. I am talking about a large > percentage of real, live US citizens. I offered them as a prime example > of who I consider greedy and selfish. That was the question.
> You really need to learn what a "strawman" is before you use the term > again. You came off looking like a complete idiot, even more than usual.
ROFL. you found the people who push grannies off cliffs!
> "TruthSeeker" <TruthSee...@nospam.us> wrote in message >>>>>> Progressives are for the opposite of progress. It is conservatives
>>>>>> who want real progress.
>>>>> Forward into the 19th century!!!
>>>> Yes, that's another way to describe Progressives.
>>> What scathing wit.
>> It's not my fault that you walked right into that with your feeble
>> sophistry.
> Yes, your IKYABWAI is indeed mighty.
"I do not think that word means what you think it means."
I'm pointing out that the name "Progressive" as applied to a political
ideology is Orwellian. The name posits an image of good, as it implies
that the movement is for "progress." And most people like progress, and
rightly associate it with "getting better." As the principles that
"Progressives" foster would actually make things worse, it is the
opposite of progress. Hence, Orwellian.
> > On Oct 7, 7:58 pm, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:
> >> "TruthSeeker" <TruthSee...@nospam.us> wrote in message
> >> > I'm pointing out that the name "Progressive" as applied to a political
> >> > ideology is Orwellian...
> >> Sure thing, Beldin.
> > Who are you calling Beldin? Truthseeker is absolutely 100% correct,
> > so you are arguing with the truth. Now who's a Beldin, Beldin?
> I'd say it's a dead heat between the two of you.
> Jim
One question. One simple question. Between me, Truthseeker, or you,
which one of us has a greater compulsion to "get the last word in"?
Answer me that, and then tell me that you aren't more Beldin-like.
You maggot.
