CreateDebate


The Public Waterfall RSS

Every argument gets a chance to be on top!
The Public Waterfall shows you all arguments, looking across every debate.

I read the debate. You said Nazi alot to a brown person and a moderate.

Ahahahaha! Bronto, you are a brown moderate in the same way that Hitler was a brown moderate.

Hello Jew hater

Oh please grow up you child. You are not a Jew and I do not hate you.

The answer is Capitalist. An economic liberal is a Capitalist

The answer is that you did not read our conversation properly, otherwise you would have discovered that we were talking about capitalists in the first place. Nobody mentioned socialism except you. Nobody mentioned socialism and nobody mentioned Jews. These are simply things which you are obsessed with and cannot go more than ten minutes without mentioning.

0 points

Oh, wouldn't it be nice.

Get those self driving cars figured out and I'll sleep on the way to anywhere. Work especially.

In fact, rearrange the whole interior of the car. Take out the seats and put in a bed.

Yes, mostly by themselves and their victim mentality which gets reinforced by the left at every opportunity.

1 point

Of course not. I've known fairly dumb, but very hard working rich guys. I've known very smart, and very hard working poor guys. I've known dumb and lazy poor guys. I've known smart but lazy poor guys. TV is filled with fairly dumb and very lazy rich people, though I haven't met any.

It takes all sorts.

Amarel(4034) Clarified
1 point

Some of my responses my be somewhat disconnected from the larger topic, as this conversation is tending the way ours always tend. My apologies up front.

I do not see why this means it is rational, beyond it's being tautology coherent.

It's the basis for rationality in decision making. Without this primary value, no decisions can be made, including the decision to use logic at all.

The same is equally true of a negative valuation of one's life, however.

No one who truly holds a negative valuation remains alive. Can you elaborate on this argument for the converse?

Since the way in which positive valuation of one's life is rational is non-unique this does not seem to suggest any reason that it is further rational to prefer it over other valuations

Other valuations cannot be had without maintaining the positive valuation for one's life.

I'm not sure what conception of rationality would plausibly presume that life is rational.

Rationality is a product of life. So it cannot be said that life as such is rational, but rather that rationality exist because of life. I worry that this argument is going to lead down a side road that we disagree on and have never resolved. In a previous debate, I argued that you seek something outside of reason as a proof for reason, but that proof itself is a function of reason. If you don't recall that particular debate, we may end up down a similar rabbit hole here.

I'm also not sure how your analysis accounts for cases of mortal self-sacrifice. People who willfully die to protect others (or ideas) seem to hold other values which exceed the value which they place upon their lives, otherwise their actions could not occur.

We don't value our lives merely in quantity, but in quality. People don't want to live in a world where certain things are the reality, so they risk their lives to keep those things from becoming a reality. We call them brave when we share the value for which they risk their lives. We call them stupid when we do not.

how do you explain people being irrational? If this really were the most fundamental value then shouldn't we expect people to be more rational?

Evolution is an ongoing process. Rationality is relatively new to the scene. Not everyone is good at it. Some people would never wish to harm themselves and believe that they love themselves, all while slowly killing themselves with this vice or that. They fundementally value their own life, but they are irrational on key issues. Sometimes they have what they call a moment of clarity, and their behavior changes.

You also seem to be assuming that the value of life is greater than the quality of life, which seems fairly controversial to me. It seems evident that lots of people think that quality of life is more important than merely living.

I'm not sure what I previously said to give you this idea. We are in agreement about quality of life. My position is that a person who does not hold thier life as a fundemental value will cease to live. This is not to say that holding this value will keep one from willingly dying.

If instead the most fundamental value for someone were the status quo for its own sake (or any other value), then the application of your reasoning would suggest that valuing one's own life for its own sake would defeat preference. If you're claims about the value of one's life are correct then your analysis here might stand, but if they are incorrect the implications for the value you place on life could be considerable.

That valuation of life is actual. The valuation of status quo and change requires context before it can be actual. In that way, a person may accidentally act rationally by valuing change for it's own sake only if the change is in the context of a rational pursuit. Otherwise, both change and status quo are mere floating abstractions. They cannot rationally be evalutated until they are actualized. Of course, this is all premised on what I have already argued for. But can you provide a realistic scenario where valuing a floating abstraction as ones fundemental value can make any sense?

Amarel(4034) Clarified
2 points

Something that damages the "health" of the non-human parts of the natural world in a way that significantly and demonstrably jeopardizes the ability of humans to live healthily, productively, and peacefully in the world.

Then it's a hard sell to claim that the removal of one of the worst scourges on humanity constitutes an environmental disaster. The primary driver of our population boom has been advancements in food production. That's also conducive to living healthily, productively, and peacefully in the world. Going from 2 billion to 7 billion people has certainly put a strain on our environment, but we are simultaneously better off than we ever have been before, so it isn't exactly a disaster.

We get much less advantage out of our technological and economic advances than we could because there are just too many people

Much of the technological benefit is information based, which is to say it is not a scarce resource. More things are free now than ever before.

Population pressures exacerbate international conflicts

It's also the most peaceful time in human history.

and make it impossible to enjoy how beautiful the world is

Honestly marcus, this is a personal problem.

especially if we want to experience pristine (unaffected by technology, etc.) places.

If you are hike with clothes on, this is unavoidable, no matter how remote your location.

1 point

The answer is Capitalist. An economic liberal is a Capitalist .

1 point

Amarel, who earlier tonight got confused and spectacularly misinterpreted my debunking of one of Bronto's lies (i.e. he had claimed Conservatives are more intelligent than liberals) as having something to do with socialism, then accused ME of "lacking reading comprehension".

You shouldn't lie about things that are so easily verifiable. Social bigots and economic leftists tend to be less intelligent according to your source. I'll provide the link to the debate in question.

http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ You mightbeadumb_ass#arg945989

1 point

In fact, the only thing in this quote that you DIDN'T make up yourself is the terminology of "Conservative syndrome". Everything else is your own invention.

I already provided direct quotes from your source that support exactly what I have said about intelligence related to economic liberalism. The "bigot" description of the conservative is apparent in the article when it describes their "rather harsh views toward those outside their group". I know, it didn't precisely say what it means. That's hard for someone with low reading comprehension like yourself. The lesson is over.

-2 points

I'm waiting for him to say to cite his hero, Karl Marx: "Religion is the opiate of the people".

-1 points

What patently ignorant hog shit.

Hogwash, do you want men having 30 wives? Is that how you look at the Constitution. Anything goes?

If 30 women and one guy are of age and give informed consent, then that is none of my business and it sure as hell is none of yours.

The Constitution in no way wanted Gay marriage to be legal. If it did, it would have been long ago.

Funny, similar arguments were made against the outlawing of slavery. Not to mention quotations of the bible.

You are blind to the slippery slope and this culture of broken families, living together, loss of commitment, etc.

You're blind to the fact that this is already happening to 50% of straight couples, and you have the balls to say that marriage shouldn't include gay couples out of a misplaced sense of sanctity?

Most Gays could not care less about marriage because they live such promiscuous lives.

First, citation. Second, tell that to the gay couples that marched on Washington and demanded legal reform for decades.

They simply wanted Gay marriage sanctioned so they could feel better about their unnatural sexual orientation.

So it's a choice, you say? That one day a person woke up in the morning and said "hey, lets become a part of one of the most hated and ostracized groups in America today"? That people have followed this "choice" to suicide when they've been abandoned by friends, family and coworkers? Kicked out of their homes, fired from their jobs?

Wait till we hear the divorce statistics in ten years for men getting married today.

Unless you're clairvoyant and can see that the stats will be higher than they are for straight couples: Shut. The fuck. Up.

Why do you suppose the Gay community were by far the largest percentage spreaders of Aids? They sleep around!

Aaaaand, straight people don't? Oh wait, that's how AIDS is no longer confined to the gay community.

There is no explaining it to irresponsible selfish people.

And there is no explaining it to arrogant hypocritical puritanical nut jobs such as yourself, claiming the moral high ground while condemning a group that engages in a practice that doesn't affect anyone besides the consenting adults involved.

What you seem not to understand is that you've presented no credible link between sexuality and either A) inherent immorality (besides your subjective disgust to an activity which doesn't involve your participation) or B) a breakdown in society. That's because the link doesn't exist, and you're concerning yourself with the bedroom activities of grown men of your own volition.

You will go down with the ship no matter how obvious it is.

And you will probably be remembered as nothing more than a sad angry son of a bitch who hated people for a practice that didn't affect him, and for that, I pity you.

1 point

SUPER STUPID do you have any evidence at all ????????????

2 points

That face is the face of pure evil. People like him want to control every facet of our lives.

2 points

Tom is surprised that there are actually people out there who worship God and not their government.

Must be very frustrating for the party that needs to control the people like a 3rd world country does.

4 points

No, Tom. It's because they think. Something your party doesn't like.

1 point

DEFINATELY ? What is your description of the word that a Socialist cannot spell ?????

0 points

Let them try. They won't get the metal they bargained for. I invest in lead too.

0 points

On second thought, I agree with you, but not by much. The silly bastard just put this debate at the top of the Active list almost single-handedly.

-1 points

Tied between Outlaw60 & Nom. Both believe themselves to be right by default, neither knows how to logically defend their positions, neither is above name-calling believing that to be a valid argument.

You are blind to the slippery slope and this culture of broken families, living together, loss of commitment, etc.

Most Gays could not care less about marriage because they live such promiscuous lives. They simply wanted Gay marriage sanctioned so they could feel better about their unnatural sexual orientation. Wait till we hear the divorce statistics in ten years for men getting married today.

Why do you suppose the Gay community were by far the largest percentage spreaders of Aids? They sleep around!

There is no explaining it to irresponsible selfish people. You will go down with the ship no matter how obvious it is.

FromWithin(6657) Clarified
1 point

So if the values I just described are not evident to you, please explain where I am wrong.

Tell me how promiscuous sex, and adultery, and stealing, and lying, etc. are not irresponsible things.

-2 points
-2 points
excon(8919) Clarified
-2 points
-1 points

No examples?

Hello AB:

DUDE! Look around..

excon

-2 points
1 point

It's not crashing, but it would be wise to buy the coins anyway for when a Democrat takes over. Then hide it so they can't steal it.

1 point

No examples? What a horrible dissapointment. I thought you'd come up with something.

1 point

What politics is about still to this day. Democrats trying to create their own country/culture.

1 point

I read the debate. You said Nazi alot to a brown person and a moderate.

1 point

Do you live in a socialist country? If you dont, then why not? I mean, if it's so great, why aren't you living there?

The fact that the Russia’s destructions was much much greater under Stalin

Were much greater, you semi-educated halfwit. Please keep your insane far right opinions to yourself until you at least learn to write and spell in coherent English.

isn’t the least of the prevarications in this video.

Please try to understand that the online thesaurus is for people who already understand the basics of English.

Perhaps the most important neglected detail is that, according to the researchers, “The study did not include the United States or other high-income capitalist countries in the comparisons because there were no equivalent socialist countries”.

Oh yeah, that's right.

Because the United States fucking destroyed them all.

The US was the world economic leader by 1900

And it wanted to stay that way, hence it attacked all the socialist countries it could find.

In actual fact, your assertion is so purposefully vague that it could be interpreted any one of a hundred different ways. If one person earned four hundred trillion dollars in 1900 (or any stupid figure like that) while the rest of the population ate out of dustbins, then your assertion would still be correct, so it means absolutely nothing. It is just another example of you showing apples while drivelling on about oranges.

It is no secret that there is MASSIVE wealth inequality in the United States, and there has been since at least the 1970s. Hence, what you are really arguing underneath all the deceitful language which accompanies your bullshit, is that capitalism is great because there are a few rich people who preside over hundreds of millions of poor people.

1 point

Of course, they should. Space exploration is the future of mankind. Recently, I've found a great article about space exploration. You can check the link below. It's really great.

Supporting Evidence: Click for more info (edubirdie.com)
Dreadnought(232) Clarified
1 point

It’s when someone says it that you know they aren’t just insecure.

Right. Like when you claim to be a "success".

Other times, you claim that my success is not my own

Nice outrageous lie bro. Show me ever claiming that you are a success as a human being. I think we both know we are going to be waiting a long fucking time.

I do not equate lying with being a successful human being and I daresay the reason you do is because you are a complete fucking failure who lacks both the intelligence and the talent to acquire anything in life through honest means.

Have you ever seen a small business?

Oh, I often see abstract nouns like businesses, charities and democracies. All the time bro.

Your ignorance of basic life is astounding.

It isn't a patch on your ignorance of your own fucking language.

Dreadnought(232) Clarified
1 point

Wouldn't it work so much better for you if there really were Nazis running around being all evil and shit?

Yeah, that would be awesome. If evil little ratbags were running around lying, cheating and deliberately misrepresenting everything they see or read in order to manufacture false support for their wingnut far right ideology.

Hey, wait a minute....

You never have shown much aptitude for reading comprehension.

You literally responded to me disproving a claim Bronto made about Liberals by attacking socialists.

Do you understand what an economic liberal is?

Do you fucking understand that Bronto's claim was that Conservatives are more intelligent than Liberals, not socialists?

Haha wow. The article you sourced

I sourced two articles, idiot. Two. Plural. The first article does not mention "Conservative syndrome", and you never bothered to tell us which one you were referring to.

is literally about what they call “conservative syndrome”.

It is not "literally about what they call Conservative syndrome". It is literally about smart people tending to be more liberal, as the title makes perfectly fucking clear. You furthermore invented your own definition of Conservative syndrome which is what confused me in the first place. You claimed verbatim:-

Nice. The conservative syndrome articulated in your source applies to social bigots and those opposed to economic freedom.

But the article says no such thing. In fact, the only thing in this quote that you DIDN'T make up yourself is the terminology of "Conservative syndrome". Everything else is your own invention. The actual article describes Conservative syndrome much differently:-

The term “conservative syndrome” was coined to describe a person who attaches particular importance to respect for tradition, humility, devoutness and moderation.

Such a person tends to hold conformist values like obedience, self-discipline and politeness, and emphasises the need for social order coupled with concerns for family and national security.

So you horrendously misrepresented the article's definition of Conservative syndrome either way.

I suppose you’d have to read it before you fail to comprehend it.

Correct. But you DID read it and you DID fail to comprehend it. Either that or you read it and decided to deliberately misrepresent its contents.

Typically, you are depending on what kind of bigot you wish to be.

This sentence does not make any grammatical sense. If you want me to "comprehend" the things you write then they must be both grammatically coherent and coherent with the content you are representing. When you read an article and then decide to invent your own version, as you have done with this one, it is not going to be surprising when people do not understand what the fuck you are talking about.

Either Jews can’t be Jews, or non-Jews must be Jews because you hate the non-Jew in question.

What the fuck are you talking about? Nobody has even mentioned Jews you mad bastard. Is this some kind of an exercise to see how many times you can fit the word Jew into a sentence? Five in a single sentence.

You're welcome.

https://www.debt.org/faqs/americans-in-debt/economic-demographics-republicans/

From your own source:-

There seems to be a tipping point where the ultra-wealthy begin leaning Democratic. The most famous example would be the entertainment industry, where star-studded events have become a significant part of Democratic culture.

But this phenomenon is not limited to Hollywood. A review of the 20 richest Americans, as listed by Forbes Magazine, found that 60 percent affiliate with the Democratic Party, including the top three individuals: Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Larry Ellison. Among the richest families, the Democratic advantage rises even higher, to 75 percent.

DEFINATELY says the Brain Dead One who cannot spell !

I still can't work out if you are a Conservative moron or a parody of a Conservative moron.

The line he actually cherry picked was “Financially, Conservatives fare better than liberals or independents."

You are correct, but I wasn't being dishonest. I was unable to check exactly which line he had used while writing my post so I got mixed up. The fact that you are deliberately assuming I made a mistake therefore I must be dishonest actually illustrates very well which of us is dishonest, since you have done so completely absent any evidence or even motive.

Whichever of the two lines he cherry-picked makes no difference, because he still omitted to explain that this is only true until a certain point, where wealthy people begin to vote Democrat. If 75 percent of the richest families vote Democrat, then obviously this is going to bring the average in favour of Democrats.

1 point

In this debate about someone else’s dishonesty, you posted The line he cherry-picked was:-

“An individual’s likelihood of being a Democrat decreases with every additional dollar he or she earns.”

The line he actually cherry picked was “Financially, Conservatives fare better than liberals or independents."

http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ You mightbeadumb_ass#arg945923

1 point

DEFINATELY says the Brain Dead One who cannot spell !!!!!!! Now that is a Socialist for ya right there !!!!!!!!!! Dummy can you do you some Socialist math as well ????????

If that were true, the brilliant libs would have some.

Jesus Christ, WHY ARE YOU SO STUPID????

There seems to be a tipping point where the ultra-wealthy begin leaning Democratic. The most famous example would be the entertainment industry, where star-studded events have become a significant part of Democratic culture.

But this phenomenon is not limited to Hollywood. A review of the 20 richest Americans, as listed by Forbes Magazine, found that 60 percent affiliate with the Democratic Party, including the top three individuals: Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Larry Ellison. Among the richest families, the Democratic advantage rises even higher, to 75 percent.

https://www.debt.org/faqs/americans-in-debt/economic-demographics-democrats/

Liberals are, on average, wealthier than Republicans. Hence, you can go suck a cock.

You do.

You admitted having sex with children. I have already captured your IP address and sent it to the relevant authorities, so expect a knock on the door sometime soon.

No one believes you.

That is partially accurate. You don't believe me and you are a no-one. I don't take the opinion of self-confessed paedophiles seriously, but thanks anyway you kiddie-fiddling sicko.

I don't take tips from looney tunes.

Cool. I don't take tips from people who are detested by their own children.

You already admitted you lived with your parents.

The fact that you are lying about this when you actually DID confess to "liking a bit of underage pornography now and then" illustrates poignantly that you should never, under any circumstances, ever be taken seriously.

1 point

You said "conservative syndrome" you impossibly stupid neo-fascist imbecile. If you meant to accuse the source of liberal bias then you should have said, "anti-Conservative syndrome".

Haha wow. The article you sourced is literally about what they call “conservative syndrome”.

The problem is not my reading comprehension.

I suppose you’d have to read it before you fail to comprehend it.

So why are you obsessed with Jews?

Typically, you are depending on what kind of bigot you wish to be. Either Jews can’t be Jews, or non-Jews must be Jews because you hate the non-Jew in question. It’s your bigotry I was referring to, as it applies to your source. Your socialism applies because economic liberals tend to be more intelligent, according to your source.

Anyway, I can’t explain your own source to you all night. Get your helper to read it to you.

Why Liberals and Atheists are More Intelligent

http://www.asanet.org/research-and-publications/journals/social-psychology-quarterly/why-liberals-and-atheists-are-more-intelligent

Enjoy this peer-reviewed scientific research while you bounce around your litany of alt accounts telling lie after lie and running away every time you get owned in a debate, you delusional neo-fascist prick.

They do. Google it, and come back with your findings.

Over $100,000 in income, you are likely more than not to vote for Democrats

www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/PathwaysSummer11_Trends.pdf

In 2012, something unusual happened. The wealthiest 4 percent of voting-age Americans, by a narrow plurality, supported a Democrat for president.

https://www.vox.com/polyarchy/2016/6/3/11843780/democrats-wealthy-party

Democrats represent a majority of the richest congressional districts.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/opinion/how-did-the-democrats-become-favorites-of-the-rich.html

Democrats are replacing Republicans as the preferred party of the very wealthy

https://www.vox.com/polyarchy/2016/6/3/11843780/democrats-wealthy-party

Nonsensical ramblings.

This from the fascist idiot who changed his argument three times in the same debate, then posted a misleading line from a 2012 FAQ about national debt and ran away like a coward.

Pointing to a liberal being rich from capitalism as a trophy doesn't really help any argument for the intelligence of socialists.

I never claimed socialists are intelligent you deranged moron. For God's sake stop attacking straw man arguments. It's absolutely abhorrently retarded. You claimed Conservatives are more intelligent than liberals because they make more money. I proved that both of those claims are false. Conservatives neither make more money than liberals, nor are they more intelligent than liberals.

Try sticking with the same argument for longer than two sentences you egregiously dishonest twit.

You never have shown much aptitude for reading comprehension.

You said "conservative syndrome" you impossibly stupid neo-fascist imbecile. If you meant to accuse the source of liberal bias then you should have said, "anti-Conservative syndrome". The problem is not my reading comprehension. The problem is that you are a redundantly stupid twat who does not understand the meaning of words.

Not this time haha

So why are you obsessed with Jews? Is it because you are a pro-Israeli fascist who once argued the Israelis were morally in the right to purposefully bomb UN schools and hospitals?

dimwit

Oh the sheer irony of being called a dimwit by an idiot who attacked me without even bothering to read the prior conversation.

1 point

you think this is because the source must be Conservative?

You never have shown much aptitude for reading comprehension. I suppose that’s why you attribute to you opponents things they never even implied, and why you never seem to read your own sources.

I didn't mention Jews

Not this time haha. Later dimwit.

1 point

https://www.racfoundation.org/data/volume-petrol-diesel-consumed-uk-over-time-by-year

Now the above shows the Climate Chaos believers as the fools they really are !!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-driving-kemp-idUSKCN0YW21Y

Britain’s motorists consumed 36.0 million tonnes of motor spirit (gasoline) and road diesel in the 12 months ending in March, up from 35.2 million tonnes in the prior 12-month period.

Fuel consumption has been rising since 2013/14 and the increase predates the collapse in oil prices from mid-2014 (tmsnrt.rs/1VQACef).

For the most part, the rise in fuel consumption reflects a growing economy, increasing employment and rising household incomes (tmsnrt.rs/1ZE2b9Q).

1 point

The UK downstream oil sector comprises over 200 companies involved in the refining, distribution and marketing of petroleum products.

They range from oil companies, which are members of UKPIA, supermarket chains, independent retail groups, through to the independent retailer with one site.

The market is split into commercial and retail sectors. The commercial market includes power generators, industrial, transport (aviation, marine and road) and agriculture customers, independent fuel distributors (transport & heating fuels), the Government and its agencies, public services and the military. The retail market covers fuels mainly sold from filling stations.

The market for road fuels in the UK amounts to about 36.7 million tonnes per year, equivalent to just under 46 billion litres. Demand for road transport fuels equates to 44 million litres of petrol and a little over 81 million litres of diesel per day. Other than jet fuel, the market for transport fuels is mature with little overall growth in demand and in the case of retail fuels sold on the forecourt, this sector is virtually stagnant. Sales of petrol currently represent 35% of road transport demand by litres sold, whilst sales of diesel now represent 65% of total demand

You mean to say the Climate Chaos believers in the UK are burning fossil fuel ?

What is up with that ????????????

http://www.ukpia.com/industry_information/industry-overview.aspx

You got that right? Do you understand what an economic liberal is?

Do you understand that I was debunking Bronto's claim that Conservatives earn more money and are therefore more intelligent than liberals? It doesn't appear that you do understand, because you are quoting stuff about socialism.

Nice. The conservative syndrome articulated in your source

So the source claims liberals are smarter than Conservatives and you think this is because the source must be Conservative?

Wow.

Tell us again about the Jews, bigot

What the fuck do Jews have to do with anything? I didn't mention Jews you clueless fucking clown.

Learn how to follow a conversation you fucking idiot.

1 point

Marx·ism

the political and economic theories of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, later developed by their followers to form the basis for the theory and practice of communism.

Do Socialist view Marxism as Communism ???????

That would any interesting question for the Brain Dead Left !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Checkmate

Nah.

Over $100,000 in income, you are likely more than not to vote for Democrats

www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/PathwaysSummer11_Trends.pdf

In 2012, something unusual happened. The wealthiest 4 percent of voting-age Americans, by a narrow plurality, supported a Democrat for president.

https://www.vox.com/polyarchy/2016/6/3/11843780/democrats-wealthy-party

Democrats represent a majority of the richest congressional districts.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/opinion/how-did-the-democrats-become-favorites-of-the-rich.html

Democrats are replacing Republicans as the preferred party of the very wealthy

https://www.vox.com/polyarchy/2016/6/3/11843780/democrats-wealthy-party

1 point

Can the author of this post figure this out ???????????

Marx·ism

the political and economic theories of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, later developed by their followers to form the basis for the theory and practice of communism.

1 point

From your own source:

Economic liberals’ beliefs are based on the idea that individuals should be free to engage in voluntary transactions with others and to enjoy the fruits of their own labour. The typical leftist socialist position is opposed to such a view.

You got that right? Do you understand what an economic liberal is?

In other words, intelligence is correlated with socially and economically liberal views.

Nice. The conservative syndrome articulated in your source applies to social bigots and those opposed to economic freedom. Tell us again about the Jews, bigot. Tell us again about the evils of economically liberal policies. And then try to tell us this article is about the other guys.

1 point

NOM cannot defend Socialism but it is good at banning what it cannot defend !!!!!!!!!!

1 point

Socialist are stupid have you not yet figured that out NOM ?????????

1 point

Crazy AL are you Leftist there in Road Island dependent on Natural Gas ???????

Survey says what ?????????????

Rhode Island generates a larger share of its electricity from natural gas than any other state, more than 90%. Most of the rest of the state's net generation comes from biomass and wind.

But Leftist oppose oil and gas so where does your State of Confusion tie in with Sheldon Whitehouse and his insanity ???????????????

In the topic of averages it is. Libs average less.

Jesus Christ you are such a humongous fucking liar.

Why Liberals Are More Intelligent Than Conservatives

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201003/why-liberals-are-more-intelligent-conservatives

Do smart people tend to be more liberal? Yes.

https://theconversation.com/do-smart-people-tend-to-be-more-liberal- yes-but-it-doesnt-mean-all-conservatives-are-stupid-57713

Democrats have an even greater advantage when one focuses on the contributions—again, aside from those of million-dollar-plus self-funders—made by the lucky persons who live in neighborhoods and towns that have long been notably elite. These are the 14 locales Charles Murray identified as famously elite since at least 1960, including Chicago’s North Shore, Boston’s Brookline, the Philadelphia Main Line, Manhattan’s Upper East Side, and the like.4 From these elegant precincts, Democrats raised twice as much money as Republicans—$82 million to $41 million.

The Democrats’ fundraising advantage in affluent communities is not uniform across the country. There are metropolitan areas—Chicago, Dallas, Houston, and Atlanta, for example—where Republicans raise more than Democrats from the most affluent zip codes. In contrast, Democrats have an enormous advantage in what Charles Murray calls the Big Four metro areas—New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C.

The Big Four contain almost one-sixth of the nation’s population and a larger proportion of its SuperZips, many clustered together, as Murray notes, so that residents can drive—or be driven—miles without leaving one. Murray observes that “it is difficult to hold a nationally influential job in politics, public policy, finance, business, academia, information technology, or the media and not live in the areas surrounding” those four metropolises.

https://capitalresearch.org/article/party-one-percent/

(CNN)At a rally in Houston Monday night for Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, President Donald Trump said this:

"A globalist is a person that wants the globe to do well, frankly, not caring about our country so much. And you know what? We can't have that. You know, they have a word. It sort of became old-fashioned. It's called a nationalist. And I say, really, we're not supposed to use that word. You know what I am? I'm a nationalist, OK? I'm a nationalist.

"Nationalist. Nothing -- use that word. Use that word."

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/23/politics/donald-trump-nationalism/index.html

Albert Einstein, on the fact that nationalism killed 70 million people in Europe:-

"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind."

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/albert einstein107012

But it's OK folks. According to Bronto, Einstein was much less intelligent than Trump because he earned a lot less money.

Forget about the 70 million who died because of these fascist idiots the last time. Nationalism is awesome!

Pull my finger.

Nah.

But when we shift our focus to the 300 zip codes across America that rank as the highest 1.4 percent of socio-economic status, using the formula for SuperZips created by Charles Murray,3 the picture is different. Among all contributions, Republicans still had an advantage by $192 million to $175 million. But when we set aside self-funders’ million-dollar-plus contributions to their own campaigns (which by law are unlimited), the Democrats are ahead by $160 million to $129 million. In percentage terms, Democrats come out ahead in the SuperZip money race by 55 percent to 45 percent.

https://capitalresearch.org/article/party-one-percent/

seeing that I couldn't care less

And this claim is clearly consistent with the 34 posts you have made in the last 30 minutes.

2 points

Financially, Conservatives fare better than liberals or independents."

Checkmate.

Ahahaha! You really are deranged, aren't you?

Firstly, this is data specifically for the year 2012.

Secondly, your claim was not that Republicans earn more on average than Democrats. This is what you changed your claim to when you claim was proven to be false.

Thirdly:-

Also notable is the decline of Republicans among top earners.

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/ 09/26/161841771/how-income-divides-democrats-republicans-and-independents

More money from the top 300 SuperZips in 2013–14 went to Democrats than Republicans, by a significant but not overwhelming margin

https://capitalresearch.org/article/party-one-percent/

* i.e. SuperZip being a high income zip code.

0 points

Pull my finger.

-1 points

This is a FAQ about debt. Debt has no relationship to your claim. Your claim was that Conservatives make more money than liberals.

Excerpt from link.

Financially, Conservatives fare better than liberals or independents."

Checkmate.

How is it even possible that you are this perpetually dishonest and stupid?

Probably time to ask yourself this question, seeing that I couldn't care less, and it only applies to you.

I watched it. He lost.

Making up a second lie to justify your first lie isn't really going to help you. It is just going to prove that you are a liar.

So far you have had a 100 percent accuracy rate at being correct. That's impressive.

Making up fake quotes isn't going to help you either.

Perhaps you should simply go to the doctors and acquire the medication you need.

You're welcome.

What exactly am I welcome for?

https://www.debt.org/faqs/americans-in-debt/economic-demographics-republicans/

This is a FAQ about debt. Debt has no relationship to your claim. Your claim was that Conservatives make more money than liberals.

How is it even possible that you are this perpetually dishonest and stupid?

0 points

No it doesn't. Here is a video of a journalist winning a debate against a right winger:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQggAg-NdpU

I watched it. He lost.

So far you have had a 100 percent accuracy rate at being correct. That's impressive.

I agree.

0 points

How long do you intend to remain in denial about this?

You're welcome.

https://www.debt.org/faqs/americans-in-debt/economic-demographics-republicans/

I got through to you.

No Bronto, that was sarcasm. You can educate yourself about sarcasm here:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

Cool

Your straw man argumentation is not cool. It is indicative of a deranged mind.

Marxists are the stupid liberals

I've just told you that socialists are not the same thing as capitalists. Do you need a diagram or a translation into Russian you pig-ignorant troglodyte?

You didn't.

Yes I did. You claimed that Conservatives make more money than liberals. Bill Gates proves that is not true.

How long do you intend to remain in denial about this?

It proves a journalist can't win a debate against a right winger.

No it doesn't. Here is a video of a journalist winning a debate against a right winger:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQggAg-NdpU

So far you have had a 100 percent accuracy rate at being wrong. That's impressive.

0 points

Nobody claimed it did, you ridiculously stupid asshat.

Cool. Marxists are the stupid liberals trying to get some help from the smart capitalist ones. Neat. You make a good point.

Why would you be attacking a claim nobody has ever made?

Slow it down for me please.

You don't deserve any more slow down effort.

1 point

Thanks Bronto. You're so kind and honest.

I got through to you. I never thought a literal muddy pig would ever get it.

0 points

Nonsensical ramblings. No offense to ramblings.

2 points

I'll slow it down for you.

Thanks Bronto. You're so kind and honest. Nothing at all like an obnoxious Nazi fuckwit.

A smart liberal capitalist doesn't make a Marxist or any Marxist intelligent.

Nobody claimed it did, you ridiculously stupid asshat. Why would you be attacking a claim nobody has ever made?

Slow it down for me please.

2 points

That's why I'm content with what I have

I see. That must explain why you lie compulsively. Because you are "content" with what you have. Ahahaha!

0 points

I have already disproved your argument twice. Once when you first made it, and then again four posts later when you repeated it.

You didn't. I saw a pig playing in the mud.

Being in denial about something which can be publicly seen to be true only discredits you completely as a sore loser.

It proves a journalist can't win a debate against a right winger. Pretty sad.

0 points

It's a problem for you because everybody can publicly see how stupid and dishonest you are.

Right. That's why I'm content with what I have, and you are scrambling for help finding food, bitching like a girl.

2 points

So start.

I have already disproved your argument twice. Once when you first made it, and then again four posts later when you repeated it.

Being in denial about something which can be publicly seen to be true only discredits you completely as a sore loser.

1 point

That isn't any problem because your claim was that Conservatives makes more money than liberals

Conservatives and liberals with an "s". Bill Gates isn't plural.

1 point

I'll slow it down for you. A smart liberal capitalist doesn't make a Marxist or any Marxist intelligent. Especially a journalist Marxist.

Your problem being that Bill Gates' used his business partner's brains to make his money

That isn't any problem because your claim was that Conservatives makes more money than liberals. Deflecting to yet another false claim after your initial one was disproved is not a problem for me. It's a problem for you because everybody can publicly see how stupid and dishonest you are.

1 point

pretty much anything that isn't white or healthy or rich are oppressed.

In what specific way?

1 point

I pointed out that Conservatives don't make more money than Bill Gates the liberal. Therefore your claim is demonstrably false

Your problem being that Bill Gates' used his business partner's brains to make his money and stole from him. Paul Allen.

1 point

Nope. I can win a debate just by disproving your constant stream of lies and half-truths. Didn't you know that?

So start.

Ut's a lot less work than making my own points because everything you say is simply so stupid and so easy to disprove.

See above.

1 point

You honestly need to get it through your incredibly stupid head that when someone points out you are a Nazi, they are only calling you a Nazi. They are not calling everybody a Nazi, nor claiming Nazis are everywhere. That's just something you made up on account of you being a Nazi.

Right. I share basically every position of Churchill, whom you praise for fighting off Nazis.

Let's not mention your blantant anti semitism. Shhh.....

Pointing out that libs hoard money.

I pointed out that Conservatives don't make more money than Bill Gates the liberal. Therefore your claim is demonstrably false.

See my "intelligent capitalists doesn't mean socialists have any intelligence"

Bill Gates is not a socialist. He's a liberal capitalist.

Seriously Bronto, HOW FUCKING STUPID ARE YOU?

Why do you even feel entitled to an opinion about anything when you are literally so stupid that you don't know the difference between socialism and capitalism?


2 of 5 Pages: << Prev Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]