50,000 psychologists have signed petition saying Trump unfit to be president:

[Leweman]

Politcal affiliation? ACTUAL affiliation.

 

[Correll]

and because people are not always clearly one or the other hence treatment can be very helpful to determine orientation as can culture! You know there is something very sick in American culture when there is more energy to get gay people together than to get straight people together.

When gay people realize they are gay, they stay gay.

Do you actually KNOW any gay people? Cause if you do, who are you trying to NOT think of?

I've known plenty. Some people are gay. Some are bi. Some are unsure because sexuality can be fluid in SOME people. I'm sure you're straight right? Are you sure you are? Same logic applies.

If sexuality is fluid, then your side's claim that it is set by birth, or "when gay people realize they are gay, they stay gay".


You are jumping all over the place.


I asked you who you were trying to NOT think of, that didn't match your stated view on the subject.

Tell us about him or her, and how he/she jumped around sexuality wise.

When it comes to fluidity, it applies to bisexuality. It just isn't always 50/50. So yes, it is programmed at birth. It just isn't concrete. That means you can't condition or program them to be gay or straight, right? . No such therapy exists. No such environmental influence will turn someone straight. This only applies to SOME people.

Again, are you straight? How sure are you?

Are you trying to imply that there is NOT a gay you know who did not conform to your view on this subject?

 

[Billy000]

When gay people realize they are gay, they stay gay.

Do you actually KNOW any gay people? Cause if you do, who are you trying to NOT think of?

I've known plenty. Some people are gay. Some are bi. Some are unsure because sexuality can be fluid in SOME people. I'm sure you're straight right? Are you sure you are? Same logic applies.

If sexuality is fluid, then your side's claim that it is set by birth, or "when gay people realize they are gay, they stay gay".


You are jumping all over the place.


I asked you who you were trying to NOT think of, that didn't match your stated view on the subject.

Tell us about him or her, and how he/she jumped around sexuality wise.

When it comes to fluidity, it applies to bisexuality. It just isn't always 50/50. So yes, it is programmed at birth. It just isn't concrete. That means you can't condition or program them to be gay or straight, right? . No such therapy exists. No such environmental influence will turn someone straight. This only applies to SOME people.

Again, are you straight? How sure are you?

Are you trying to imply that there is NOT a gay you know who did not conform to your view on this subject?

Why is this about me knowing someone gay? Yes I have met people 100% gay. Lol we all have. I guess you're too immature to be friends with them though.

 

[bripat9643]

Lots of stuff that goes on in bedrooms is caused by mental disorders: child molestation, incest, rape, beastiality, etc. Homosexuality is one of them. The fact that homosexuals put political pressure on the psychology profession to take their personality disorder out of the DSM doesn't change the objective scientific fact that homosexuality is a personality disorder.

Incest, rape, and beastiality are not mental disorders - they are crimes. Committing an act isn't what a mental disorder is. Committing an act COULD be a symptom of a mental disorder but not necessarily. Someone could commit those crimes but not have an actual disorder. That isn't how disorders are defined.

You're right that crimes are not the same as disorders. But the fact is, mentally and emotionally healthy people do not engage in deviant or abusive sexual behavior. For example, the vast majority of child molesters were sexually molested when they were children. We don't know what causes homosexuality, but there is no such thing as a normal person, who "just happens to be homosexual." Homosexuality comes with it a host of other mental and emotional problems. For example, homosexuals are more likely to suffer depression, anxiety, have substance abuse problems, and are more likely to self-harm and commit suicide, than heterosexuals.

Higher Risk of Mental Health Problems for Homosexuals | Psych Central

Also, homosexuals are 10% less likely to report that they are "fairly happy" or "very happy" than heterosexuals.

Now, you're going to say that all these problems homosexuals experience are linked to society's non-acceptance of them, but I don't think that covers all your bases. Homosexuals now have won societal acceptance on many levels, and can now even marry one another, but all these mental and emotional problems have not gone away. Prior to the DSM being purged for political reasons, psychologists recognized that homosexual sexual orientation was merely a symptom of a much larger problem, which is a disordered personality on many levels. Now that the psychological profession has been terrorized into silence, they can no longer treat these problems, but must pretend homosexuals are "healthy" and that the only problem is societal disapproval. Not only is this an unscientific approach, it is harmful, because homosexuals really need psychological help, and they are not getting it.

Homosexuality cannot be "treated". And because the distress of it is ONLY caused by outside prejudice, it is NOT a mental disorder. By your logic, any sexual fetish would be considered a mental disorder. That isn't how it works.

Homosexuality can be treated in a sense if a person is not sure what he is or what he wants to be given conflicting inclinations. Do you understand that people do not have to be 100% straight or gay some can be right in the middle or anywhere on the spectrum.

Yeah that's called bisexuality lol. You can't change what a person is attracted to. It doesn't work like that.

That's a theory, not a fact.

 

[Billy000]

Incest, rape, and beastiality are not mental disorders - they are crimes. Committing an act isn't what a mental disorder is. Committing an act COULD be a symptom of a mental disorder but not necessarily. Someone could commit those crimes but not have an actual disorder. That isn't how disorders are defined.

You're right that crimes are not the same as disorders. But the fact is, mentally and emotionally healthy people do not engage in deviant or abusive sexual behavior. For example, the vast majority of child molesters were sexually molested when they were children. We don't know what causes homosexuality, but there is no such thing as a normal person, who "just happens to be homosexual." Homosexuality comes with it a host of other mental and emotional problems. For example, homosexuals are more likely to suffer depression, anxiety, have substance abuse problems, and are more likely to self-harm and commit suicide, than heterosexuals.

Higher Risk of Mental Health Problems for Homosexuals | Psych Central

Also, homosexuals are 10% less likely to report that they are "fairly happy" or "very happy" than heterosexuals.

Now, you're going to say that all these problems homosexuals experience are linked to society's non-acceptance of them, but I don't think that covers all your bases. Homosexuals now have won societal acceptance on many levels, and can now even marry one another, but all these mental and emotional problems have not gone away. Prior to the DSM being purged for political reasons, psychologists recognized that homosexual sexual orientation was merely a symptom of a much larger problem, which is a disordered personality on many levels. Now that the psychological profession has been terrorized into silence, they can no longer treat these problems, but must pretend homosexuals are "healthy" and that the only problem is societal disapproval. Not only is this an unscientific approach, it is harmful, because homosexuals really need psychological help, and they are not getting it.

Homosexuality cannot be "treated". And because the distress of it is ONLY caused by outside prejudice, it is NOT a mental disorder. By your logic, any sexual fetish would be considered a mental disorder. That isn't how it works.

Homosexuality can be treated in a sense if a person is not sure what he is or what he wants to be given conflicting inclinations. Do you understand that people do not have to be 100% straight or gay some can be right in the middle or anywhere on the spectrum.

Yeah that's called bisexuality lol. You can't change what a person is attracted to. It doesn't work like that.

That's a theory, not a fact.

What is a fact is that no conversion therapy works.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You're right that crimes are not the same as disorders. But the fact is, mentally and emotionally healthy people do not engage in deviant or abusive sexual behavior. For example, the vast majority of child molesters were sexually molested when they were children. We don't know what causes homosexuality, but there is no such thing as a normal person, who "just happens to be homosexual." Homosexuality comes with it a host of other mental and emotional problems. For example, homosexuals are more likely to suffer depression, anxiety, have substance abuse problems, and are more likely to self-harm and commit suicide, than heterosexuals.

Higher Risk of Mental Health Problems for Homosexuals | Psych Central

Also, homosexuals are 10% less likely to report that they are "fairly happy" or "very happy" than heterosexuals.

Now, you're going to say that all these problems homosexuals experience are linked to society's non-acceptance of them, but I don't think that covers all your bases. Homosexuals now have won societal acceptance on many levels, and can now even marry one another, but all these mental and emotional problems have not gone away. Prior to the DSM being purged for political reasons, psychologists recognized that homosexual sexual orientation was merely a symptom of a much larger problem, which is a disordered personality on many levels. Now that the psychological profession has been terrorized into silence, they can no longer treat these problems, but must pretend homosexuals are "healthy" and that the only problem is societal disapproval. Not only is this an unscientific approach, it is harmful, because homosexuals really need psychological help, and they are not getting it.

Homosexuality cannot be "treated". And because the distress of it is ONLY caused by outside prejudice, it is NOT a mental disorder. By your logic, any sexual fetish would be considered a mental disorder. That isn't how it works.

Homosexuality can be treated in a sense if a person is not sure what he is or what he wants to be given conflicting inclinations. Do you understand that people do not have to be 100% straight or gay some can be right in the middle or anywhere on the spectrum.

Yeah that's called bisexuality lol. You can't change what a person is attracted to. It doesn't work like that.

That's a theory, not a fact.

What is a fact is that no conversion therapy works.

it can work on people who are convertible but not on those who are not.

 

[Richard-H]

Really? The American people were wealthier than the British, French and Spanish during colonial times?

You gotta be kidding!

America was a rural backwater before WWII. It wasn't until post WWII industrialization that the U.S. became an economic super power.

You are simply ignorant.


Economic history of the United States - Wikipedia


"The colonial economy differed significantly from that of most other regions in that land and natural resources were abundant in America but labor was scarce.

From 1700 to 1775 the output of the thirteen colonies increased 12 fold, giving the colonies an economy about 30% the size of Britain's at the time of independence. Population growth was responsible for over three-quarters of the economic growth of the British American colonies. The free white population had the highest standard of living in the world."

As your quote says, the American colonies economy was 30% the size of Britain's.

I don't consider a larger but poorer population a sign of greatness or anything to be proud of.

Do your really believe that American colonists had a higher standard of living than European Royalty?

That is an absurd strawman. Comparing the average American to Kings and Queens is A. nonsense and B, not at all what I said.

Does Free White population include indentured servants and slaves? Does it include farmers?

You're actually asking me to explain the meaning of the word "Free"?

You are trying to distract from the fact that you were wrong, with semantic games. I will not coddle you and pretend that you are A. unaware of common english terms and b. unable to use an online dictionary.

Knock off your shit.

I'm sure that there were some landowning white men that had a very high standard of living, bit the majority were subsistence.

Your position is A contrary to linked source and B based on nothing but your need to put America down, except for dems.

So your saying that because a minority (Free White landowning Men), enjoyed a higher standard of living, the society as a whole was wealthier.

Your so full of shit, as is the opinion in that wikipedia article.

It may be said that colonists had a higher standard of living than they would have had if they had stayed in Europe. The overall wealth wasn't close to that of Europe.

Neither I nor the linked source I posted said anything about "Free White Men".


Your inability to understand what is mean by three common English words strung together is incredible.

Free white population.

Indeed, it is not credible. YOu are the one full of shit and trying to hide that fact.


The free white population of Colonial America was not a minority, and having a majority of the population being wealthier does indeed mean that the society as a whole was wealthier.


If by "overall wealth" you mean, in Absolute GDP numbers, then yes, the far larger European populations has far larger economies.

per capital though, America was already number one, WAY before you thought.


Even in Absolute GDP numbers, American was number one WAY before you thought.

Your original assertions were:

"The American people were the richest in the world in Colonial times.

America the nation grew it's economy to be the largest in the world in the 1800s."

The first statement is proven false, as you admitted above:

"in Absolute GDP numbers, then yes, the far larger European populations has far larger economies."

The only way you can justify that statement is by eliminating the wealth of European royalty, which is effectively discounting the vast majority of European wealth.

The second statement you made is equally false. The very article you posted stated that the colonial economy grew to only 30% of Britian's.

Now, you can try to connive, twist and wiggle. You can try to qualify your statements and discount whatever proves you wrong. But the fact is your original statements are grossly and undeniably false.

You lose.

 

[Richard-H]

It's very common for gay people to not be certain they are gay until a later age because heterosexuality is such a common norm.

and because people are not always clearly one or the other hence treatment can be very helpful to determine orientation as can culture! You know there is something very sick in American culture when there is more energy to get gay people together than to get straight people together.

In an economy where employers have ever increasing demands on employee education, training and job skills. Young people are not able to get married and start a family until they are much older than natural biology dictates. The result is that young people view sexual relations as extraordinary and erotic, rather than natural and for the purpose of procreating. This is the roots of why there's an increase in not only homosexuality, but of other forms of erotic sexuality.

wow that is off the wall by 1000 miles!! Yes economy is bad, people marry later, but I don't see why it would change sexual desires or directions unless the culture changed so that everybody was made to feel free and non judgemental about sex so gays could be freed! What determined sexual direction for 1000 years was culture not the state of the economy.

So you think that culture and economics are not related? Seriously?

I got some news for you:

Culture is dictated by economics.

 

[bripat9643]

You're right that crimes are not the same as disorders. But the fact is, mentally and emotionally healthy people do not engage in deviant or abusive sexual behavior. For example, the vast majority of child molesters were sexually molested when they were children. We don't know what causes homosexuality, but there is no such thing as a normal person, who "just happens to be homosexual." Homosexuality comes with it a host of other mental and emotional problems. For example, homosexuals are more likely to suffer depression, anxiety, have substance abuse problems, and are more likely to self-harm and commit suicide, than heterosexuals.

Higher Risk of Mental Health Problems for Homosexuals | Psych Central

Also, homosexuals are 10% less likely to report that they are "fairly happy" or "very happy" than heterosexuals.

Now, you're going to say that all these problems homosexuals experience are linked to society's non-acceptance of them, but I don't think that covers all your bases. Homosexuals now have won societal acceptance on many levels, and can now even marry one another, but all these mental and emotional problems have not gone away. Prior to the DSM being purged for political reasons, psychologists recognized that homosexual sexual orientation was merely a symptom of a much larger problem, which is a disordered personality on many levels. Now that the psychological profession has been terrorized into silence, they can no longer treat these problems, but must pretend homosexuals are "healthy" and that the only problem is societal disapproval. Not only is this an unscientific approach, it is harmful, because homosexuals really need psychological help, and they are not getting it.

Homosexuality cannot be "treated". And because the distress of it is ONLY caused by outside prejudice, it is NOT a mental disorder. By your logic, any sexual fetish would be considered a mental disorder. That isn't how it works.

Homosexuality can be treated in a sense if a person is not sure what he is or what he wants to be given conflicting inclinations. Do you understand that people do not have to be 100% straight or gay some can be right in the middle or anywhere on the spectrum.

Yeah that's called bisexuality lol. You can't change what a person is attracted to. It doesn't work like that.

That's a theory, not a fact.

What is a fact is that no conversion therapy works.

That's not a fact.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It's very common for gay people to not be certain they are gay until a later age because heterosexuality is such a common norm.

and because people are not always clearly one or the other hence treatment can be very helpful to determine orientation as can culture! You know there is something very sick in American culture when there is more energy to get gay people together than to get straight people together.

In an economy where employers have ever increasing demands on employee education, training and job skills. Young people are not able to get married and start a family until they are much older than natural biology dictates. The result is that young people view sexual relations as extraordinary and erotic, rather than natural and for the purpose of procreating. This is the roots of why there's an increase in not only homosexuality, but of other forms of erotic sexuality.

wow that is off the wall by 1000 miles!! Yes economy is bad, people marry later, but I don't see why it would change sexual desires or directions unless the culture changed so that everybody was made to feel free and non judgemental about sex so gays could be freed! What determined sexual direction for 1000 years was culture not the state of the economy.

So you think that culture and economics are not related? Seriously?

I got some news for you:

Culture is dictated by economics.

What determined sexual direction for 1000 years was culture not the state of the economy which was all over the place for the last 1000 years!!.

 

[Correll]

You are simply ignorant.


Economic history of the United States - Wikipedia


"The colonial economy differed significantly from that of most other regions in that land and natural resources were abundant in America but labor was scarce.

From 1700 to 1775 the output of the thirteen colonies increased 12 fold, giving the colonies an economy about 30% the size of Britain's at the time of independence. Population growth was responsible for over three-quarters of the economic growth of the British American colonies. The free white population had the highest standard of living in the world."

As your quote says, the American colonies economy was 30% the size of Britain's.

I don't consider a larger but poorer population a sign of greatness or anything to be proud of.

Do your really believe that American colonists had a higher standard of living than European Royalty?

That is an absurd strawman. Comparing the average American to Kings and Queens is A. nonsense and B, not at all what I said.

Does Free White population include indentured servants and slaves? Does it include farmers?

You're actually asking me to explain the meaning of the word "Free"?

You are trying to distract from the fact that you were wrong, with semantic games. I will not coddle you and pretend that you are A. unaware of common english terms and b. unable to use an online dictionary.

Knock off your shit.

I'm sure that there were some landowning white men that had a very high standard of living, bit the majority were subsistence.

Your position is A contrary to linked source and B based on nothing but your need to put America down, except for dems.

So your saying that because a minority (Free White landowning Men), enjoyed a higher standard of living, the society as a whole was wealthier.

Your so full of shit, as is the opinion in that wikipedia article.

It may be said that colonists had a higher standard of living than they would have had if they had stayed in Europe. The overall wealth wasn't close to that of Europe.

Neither I nor the linked source I posted said anything about "Free White Men".


Your inability to understand what is mean by three common English words strung together is incredible.

Free white population.

Indeed, it is not credible. YOu are the one full of shit and trying to hide that fact.


The free white population of Colonial America was not a minority, and having a majority of the population being wealthier does indeed mean that the society as a whole was wealthier.


If by "overall wealth" you mean, in Absolute GDP numbers, then yes, the far larger European populations has far larger economies.

per capital though, America was already number one, WAY before you thought.


Even in Absolute GDP numbers, American was number one WAY before you thought.

Your original assertions were:

"The American people were the richest in the world in Colonial times.

America the nation grew it's economy to be the largest in the world in the 1800s."

The first statement is proven false, as you admitted above:

"in Absolute GDP numbers, then yes, the far larger European populations has far larger economies."

The American people were the richest in the world, as I sited.

That other much larger nations had enough poor people to have a larger economy, does not make the individual people wealthier.

That you would mischaracterize my above statement as an admission of being wrong, is you purposefully lying because you know you are wrong.

The only way you can justify that statement is by eliminating the wealth of European royalty, which is effectively discounting the vast majority of European wealth.

I reject your pretense that you are too stupid to understand the difference between Per capita and Absolute Numbers.

Knock that shit off.

The second statement you made is equally false. The very article you posted stated that the colonial economy grew to only 30% of Britian's.

In colonial times, you dishonest anti-america hack.

THe 1800s is not Colonial times.

Stop playing dumb.

Now, you can try to connive, twist and wiggle. You can try to qualify your statements and discount whatever proves you wrong. But the fact is your original statements are grossly and undeniably false.

You lose

Your need to give credit for American Exceptionalism to the dems is your problem, and I have debunked your nonsense.


If you want to continue to try to defend your position, start posting some historical numbers, instead of lying about what I said, or playing stupid.

 

[Richard-H]

As your quote says, the American colonies economy was 30% the size of Britain's.

I don't consider a larger but poorer population a sign of greatness or anything to be proud of.

Do your really believe that American colonists had a higher standard of living than European Royalty?

That is an absurd strawman. Comparing the average American to Kings and Queens is A. nonsense and B, not at all what I said.

Does Free White population include indentured servants and slaves? Does it include farmers?

You're actually asking me to explain the meaning of the word "Free"?

You are trying to distract from the fact that you were wrong, with semantic games. I will not coddle you and pretend that you are A. unaware of common english terms and b. unable to use an online dictionary.

Knock off your shit.

I'm sure that there were some landowning white men that had a very high standard of living, bit the majority were subsistence.

Your position is A contrary to linked source and B based on nothing but your need to put America down, except for dems.

So your saying that because a minority (Free White landowning Men), enjoyed a higher standard of living, the society as a whole was wealthier.

Your so full of shit, as is the opinion in that wikipedia article.

It may be said that colonists had a higher standard of living than they would have had if they had stayed in Europe. The overall wealth wasn't close to that of Europe.

Neither I nor the linked source I posted said anything about "Free White Men".


Your inability to understand what is mean by three common English words strung together is incredible.

Free white population.

Indeed, it is not credible. YOu are the one full of shit and trying to hide that fact.


The free white population of Colonial America was not a minority, and having a majority of the population being wealthier does indeed mean that the society as a whole was wealthier.


If by "overall wealth" you mean, in Absolute GDP numbers, then yes, the far larger European populations has far larger economies.

per capital though, America was already number one, WAY before you thought.


Even in Absolute GDP numbers, American was number one WAY before you thought.

Your original assertions were:

"The American people were the richest in the world in Colonial times.

America the nation grew it's economy to be the largest in the world in the 1800s."

The first statement is proven false, as you admitted above:

"in Absolute GDP numbers, then yes, the far larger European populations has far larger economies."

The American people were the richest in the world, as I sited.

That other much larger nations had enough poor people to have a larger economy, does not make the individual people wealthier.

That you would mischaracterize my above statement as an admission of being wrong, is you purposefully lying because you know you are wrong.

The only way you can justify that statement is by eliminating the wealth of European royalty, which is effectively discounting the vast majority of European wealth.

I reject your pretense that you are too stupid to understand the difference between Per capita and Absolute Numbers.

Knock that shit off.

The second statement you made is equally false. The very article you posted stated that the colonial economy grew to only 30% of Britian's.

In colonial times, you dishonest anti-america hack.

THe 1800s is not Colonial times.

Stop playing dumb.

Now, you can try to connive, twist and wiggle. You can try to qualify your statements and discount whatever proves you wrong. But the fact is your original statements are grossly and undeniably false.

You lose

Your need to give credit for American Exceptionalism to the dems is your problem, and I have debunked your nonsense.


If you want to continue to try to defend your position, start posting some historical numbers, instead of lying about what I said, or playing stupid.

Your 'wiggle, wiggle' is pitiful. Why don't you admit that your original statement was wrong?

Your original statement did not say 'average wealth' or 'per capita' wealth. It said 'The American people' were the wealthiest. that implies a comparison of total wealth and the total wealth of the European powers was by far greater than the total wealth of American colonists.

The fact that the American economy GREW to 30% of Britain's economy in the 1800s indicates that it was much smaller than Britain's prior to that.

The fact that Britain was well on the way to being an industrial power in the late 1700s while the colonies were agrarian, seafaring and pioneering economies is another indicator of Britian's economy being a whole magnitude greater than than the colonies. Finally, Britain was an empire that was absorbing wealth from it's colonies throughout the world.

What's even more laughable is your attitude that anyone that disagrees with you is anti-American. If you espoused any of the basic American principals, you'd welcome differences of opinion. Apparently you do not, which means that you are without a doubt anti-American.

You're obviously a jerk that won't admit that your original statements are wrong and tries to declare anyone that disagrees with you to be anti-American. You are a fascist jerk!

 

[Correll]

I don't consider a larger but poorer population a sign of greatness or anything to be proud of.


That is an absurd strawman. Comparing the average American to Kings and Queens is A. nonsense and B, not at all what I said.


You're actually asking me to explain the meaning of the word "Free"?

You are trying to distract from the fact that you were wrong, with semantic games. I will not coddle you and pretend that you are A. unaware of common english terms and b. unable to use an online dictionary.

Knock off your shit.


Your position is A contrary to linked source and B based on nothing but your need to put America down, except for dems.

So your saying that because a minority (Free White landowning Men), enjoyed a higher standard of living, the society as a whole was wealthier.

Your so full of shit, as is the opinion in that wikipedia article.

It may be said that colonists had a higher standard of living than they would have had if they had stayed in Europe. The overall wealth wasn't close to that of Europe.

Neither I nor the linked source I posted said anything about "Free White Men".


Your inability to understand what is mean by three common English words strung together is incredible.

Free white population.

Indeed, it is not credible. YOu are the one full of shit and trying to hide that fact.


The free white population of Colonial America was not a minority, and having a majority of the population being wealthier does indeed mean that the society as a whole was wealthier.


If by "overall wealth" you mean, in Absolute GDP numbers, then yes, the far larger European populations has far larger economies.

per capital though, America was already number one, WAY before you thought.


Even in Absolute GDP numbers, American was number one WAY before you thought.

Your original assertions were:

"The American people were the richest in the world in Colonial times.

America the nation grew it's economy to be the largest in the world in the 1800s."

The first statement is proven false, as you admitted above:

"in Absolute GDP numbers, then yes, the far larger European populations has far larger economies."

The American people were the richest in the world, as I sited.

That other much larger nations had enough poor people to have a larger economy, does not make the individual people wealthier.

That you would mischaracterize my above statement as an admission of being wrong, is you purposefully lying because you know you are wrong.

The only way you can justify that statement is by eliminating the wealth of European royalty, which is effectively discounting the vast majority of European wealth.

I reject your pretense that you are too stupid to understand the difference between Per capita and Absolute Numbers.

Knock that shit off.

The second statement you made is equally false. The very article you posted stated that the colonial economy grew to only 30% of Britian's.

In colonial times, you dishonest anti-america hack.

THe 1800s is not Colonial times.

Stop playing dumb.

Now, you can try to connive, twist and wiggle. You can try to qualify your statements and discount whatever proves you wrong. But the fact is your original statements are grossly and undeniably false.

You lose

Your need to give credit for American Exceptionalism to the dems is your problem, and I have debunked your nonsense.


If you want to continue to try to defend your position, start posting some historical numbers, instead of lying about what I said, or playing stupid.

Your 'wiggle, wiggle' is pitiful. Why don't you admit that your original statement was wrong?

Your original statement did not say 'average wealth' or 'per capita' wealth. It said 'The American people' were the wealthiest. that implies a comparison of total wealth and the total wealth of the European powers was by far greater than the total wealth of American colonists.
...!

I don't consider a larger but poorer population a sign of greatness or anything to be proud of.


That is an absurd strawman. Comparing the average American to Kings and Queens is A. nonsense and B, not at all what I said.


You're actually asking me to explain the meaning of the word "Free"?

You are trying to distract from the fact that you were wrong, with semantic games. I will not coddle you and pretend that you are A. unaware of common english terms and b. unable to use an online dictionary.

Knock off your shit.


Your position is A contrary to linked source and B based on nothing but your need to put America down, except for dems.

So your saying that because a minority (Free White landowning Men), enjoyed a higher standard of living, the society as a whole was wealthier.

Your so full of shit, as is the opinion in that wikipedia article.

It may be said that colonists had a higher standard of living than they would have had if they had stayed in Europe. The overall wealth wasn't close to that of Europe.

Neither I nor the linked source I posted said anything about "Free White Men".


Your inability to understand what is mean by three common English words strung together is incredible.

Free white population.

Indeed, it is not credible. YOu are the one full of shit and trying to hide that fact.


The free white population of Colonial America was not a minority, and having a majority of the population being wealthier does indeed mean that the society as a whole was wealthier.


If by "overall wealth" you mean, in Absolute GDP numbers, then yes, the far larger European populations has far larger economies.

per capital though, America was already number one, WAY before you thought.


Even in Absolute GDP numbers, American was number one WAY before you thought.

Your original assertions were:

"The American people were the richest in the world in Colonial times.

America the nation grew it's economy to be the largest in the world in the 1800s."

The first statement is proven false, as you admitted above:

"in Absolute GDP numbers, then yes, the far larger European populations has far larger economies."

The American people were the richest in the world, as I sited.

That other much larger nations had enough poor people to have a larger economy, does not make the individual people wealthier.

That you would mischaracterize my above statement as an admission of being wrong, is you purposefully lying because you know you are wrong.

The only way you can justify that statement is by eliminating the wealth of European royalty, which is effectively discounting the vast majority of European wealth.

I reject your pretense that you are too stupid to understand the difference between Per capita and Absolute Numbers.

Knock that shit off.

The second statement you made is equally false. The very article you posted stated that the colonial economy grew to only 30% of Britian's.

In colonial times, you dishonest anti-america hack.

THe 1800s is not Colonial times.

Stop playing dumb.

Now, you can try to connive, twist and wiggle. You can try to qualify your statements and discount whatever proves you wrong. But the fact is your original statements are grossly and undeniably false.

You lose

Your need to give credit for American Exceptionalism to the dems is your problem, and I have debunked your nonsense.


If you want to continue to try to defend your position, start posting some historical numbers, instead of lying about what I said, or playing stupid.

Your 'wiggle, wiggle' is pitiful. Why don't you admit that your original statement was wrong?

Your original statement did not say 'average wealth' or 'per capita' wealth. It said 'The American people' were the wealthiest. that implies a comparison of total wealth and the total wealth of the European powers was by far greater than the total wealth of American colonists.

The fact that the American economy GREW to 30% of Britain's economy in the 1800s indicates that it was much smaller than Britain's prior to that.

The fact that Britain was well on the way to being an industrial power in the late 1700s while the colonies were agrarian, seafaring and pioneering economies is another indicator of Britian's economy being a whole magnitude greater than than the colonies. Finally, Britain was an empire that was absorbing wealth from it's colonies throughout the world.

What's even more laughable is your attitude that anyone that disagrees with you is anti-American. If you espoused any of the basic American principals, you'd welcome differences of opinion. Apparently you do not, which means that you are without a doubt anti-American.

You're obviously a jerk that won't admit that your original statements are wrong and tries to declare anyone that disagrees with you to be anti-American. You are a fascist jerk!

You are citing my own link to make your "point" that the British Empire's economy was larger in absolute terms than the much smaller, but wealthier per capita 13 colonies.

That that information was contained in my link, should have given you all the context you needed to understand that I was not claiming something that my own link disagreed with.


AND it is not just anyone that disagrees with me that I consider anti-american.

But you are being offended by the very idea that America was wealthier far earlier and more so than you thought.

Why would good news about Colonial America piss you off?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Ok, the latest is that Trump asked Comey not to investigate Flynn and then he fired Comey after he said, no. This seems a sign of unfitness for office, partly psychological and partly intellectual. I do hope though that if he stays his mostly conservative agenda will be enacted!!

 

[Correll]

Ok, the latest is that Trump asked Comey not to investigate Flynn and then he fired Comey after he said, no. This seems a sign of unfitness for office, partly psychological and partly intellectual. I do hope though that if he stays his mostly conservative agenda will be enacted!!

1. He did not ask Comey to not investigate Flynn.

2. Comey has been a train wreck for MONTHS. Everyone wanted him fired, for good reason.

 

[healthmyths]

I tend to agree with the 50,000 psychologists referred to in the New Yorker magazine article but that still leaves the question of whether Trump is more fit to serve than a liberal.

Given that liberals have destroyed our families, schools, religion, healthcare system, and driven our corporations off shore with their taxes,unions and regulations it seems clear that Trump is still by far the better choice.

Trump is an emotionally unstable male drama queen. He just released highly sensitive classified information to the Russians during his private meeting with the Russians--(while he blocked out American media) he let the Russian media in. He was doing it to bragg about our intelligence while at the same time putting agents in foreign countries at risk that are in very dangerous places. He is a National Security threat and a real threat to the Democracy of this nation.
Sources: Trump shared classified info with Russians - CNNPolitics.com
Donald Trump is a unique threat to American democracy

I'm holding two headlines from the Washington Post, one of May 25th, 2014,
“White House mistakenly identifies CIA chief in Afghanistan.
”The Obama administration put the name of the CIA on the press release, exposed him and endangered his life.

The second one, June 30, 2016, “U.S. Offers to share Syrian intelligence on terrorist with Russia,”
which is to say the Obama administration wanted to give their intelligence to the Russians.
Guests Remind NBC, CNN: Obama Gave Classified Intel to Russia

Trump has a narcisstic mental disorder--that makes him a very dangerous leader--and no one can control him. He is showing all the signs of a dictator mentality. Firing people that know too much--attacking the media--and actually admitting obstruction of justice on T.V. that he fired Comey over the Russian investigation. That alone is an impeachable offense.
A neuroscientist explains: Trump has a mental disorder that makes him a dangerous world leader
Donald Trump Admits He Fired Comey Because Of Russia Investigation

Barack Obama appears to be a narcissist. Scroll down for a detailed treatment.

Granted, only a qualified mental health diagnostician can determine whether someone suffers from Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) and this, following lengthy tests and personal interviews. But, in the absence of access to Barack Obama, one has to rely on his overt performance and on testimonies by his closest, nearest and dearest.
Narcissistic leaders are nefarious and their effects pernicious. They are subtle, refined, socially-adept, manipulative, possessed of thespian skills, and convincing. Both types equally lack empathy and are ruthless and relentless or driven.

Barack Obama - Narcissist or Merely Narcissistic?

Trump belongs in a straight jacket.

He was never fit to be POTUS.

We are Americans, and it's high time you Trump supporters start acting like Americans.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Donald Trump is Bull Goose Bat Guano Loony..No Shrinks are Necessary ...One does not need a weatherman in order to tell which way the wind blows ...

 

[healthmyths]

Ok, the latest is that Trump asked Comey not to investigate Flynn and then he fired Comey after he said, no. This seems a sign of unfitness for office, partly psychological and partly intellectual. I do hope though that if he stays his mostly conservative agenda will be enacted!!

Where is your proof that Trump asked Comey not to investigate Flynn"?
Here is what Comey said and I quote per Comey's Memo:
"I hope you can let this go," Comey wrote, quoting Trump in the document, which CNN has not viewed but which was described by the sources.
Comey memo: Trump asked Comey to end Flynn investigation - CNNPolitics.com

Where in that statement is the phrase" Comey don't investigate Flynn?
I hope you can let this go is far different then "Comey don't investigate Flynn"!
You people leave out some important distinctions here.
Unlike these people that said in no uncertain words:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "War is lost",
U.S. Rep. Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”
Senator Kerry(D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."
Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"
Why weren't these people then charged with TREASON? They were clearly aiding and abetting the enemy in recruiting terrorists!

 

[healthmyths]

Donald Trump is Bull Goose Bat Guano Loony..No Shrinks are Necessary ...One does not need a weatherman in order to tell which way the wind blows ...

AND as your brain drained people are wont to do you don't tell the whole story:

 

[healthmyths]