Capitalism is NOT Democratic: Democracy is NOT Capitalist

[struth]

Are you assuming none were right-wingers or voted republican?

I didn't make that assumption. You made the assumption they ALL were.

 

[danielpalos]

I didn't make that assumption. You made the assumption they ALL were.

Only the ones who responded "like right-wingers" on this site.

 

[struth]

Only the ones who responded "like right-wingers" on this site.

and you know that everyone that responded to you on this site, were "right wingers'?"

The problem here, is what I pointed it...you are too closed minded to recognize your argument is incorrect, flawed, and logically unsound.

 

[danielpalos]

and you know that everyone that responded to you on this site, were "right wingers'?"

The problem here, is what I pointed it...you are too closed minded to recognize your argument is incorrect, flawed, and logically unsound.

You don't know they weren't. So, who really is the most closed minded and subjective?

 

[struth]

You don't know they weren't. So, who really is the most closed minded and subjective?

I don't know they weren't either...I am not the one making the assumption they ALL are or ALL aren't.

You made that assumption...because you are closed minded.

 

[danielpalos]

I don't know they weren't either...I am not the one making the assumption they ALL are or ALL aren't.

You made that assumption...because you are closed minded.

You are the one assuming none were. Why is that?

And, are right-wingers on this site not that, "stereotypical"?

 

[struth]

You are the one assuming none were. Why is that?

And, are right-wingers on this site not that, "stereotypical"?

I never claimed none were. Stop lying

 

[danielpalos]

I never claimed none were. Stop lying

You first.

 

[struth]

You first.

ok....show me where I said what you claimed?

If you can't...then once again, I am going to have to label your post a lie....

 

[danielpalos]

ok....show me where I said what you claimed?

If you can't...then once again, I am going to have to label your post a lie....

I claimed I was merely stereotyping. You are clearly engaged in diversion instead of providing valid rebuttals to the actual argument involved. Being disingenuous is a "form of lying" and standard modus operandi for the right-wing.

 

[struth]

I claimed I was merely stereotyping. You are clearly engaged in diversion instead of providing valid rebuttals to the actual argument involved. Being disingenuous is a "form of lying" and standard modus operandi for the right-wing.

sterotyping is a form of bigotry.

You were basing your bigotry on the answers that you didn't like...which highlights you are closed minded...which most bigots are.

There is nothing to argue. You've stated your positions, and been rebutted, by numerous people on this site, and by lawyers on the AVVO site, and apparently by the Court....

So there is nothing to argue.

 

[danielpalos]

sterotyping is a form of bigotry.

You were basing your bigotry on the answers that you didn't like...which highlights you are closed minded...which most bigots are.

There is nothing to argue. You've stated your positions, and been rebutted, by numerous people on this site, and by lawyers on the AVVO site, and apparently by the Court....

So there is nothing to argue.

I was basing my "bigotry" on the fallacies instead of valid rebuttals that were resorted to by those persons and indistinguishable from right-wingers on this site. Any confusion is easily understandable, unlike the modus operandi of right-wingers who are deliberate.

The Court informed me I was deficient in legal procedure not legal substance.

By comparison and contrast, all those attorneys on the AVVO site and still no valid rebuttals or legal substance in their responses.

I even posted to the clean debate zone. And, those attorneys are welcome to use a nom de plum if they want, in that clean debate thread. The person who resorts the fewest fallacies wins.

 

[struth]

I was basing my "bigotry" on the fallacies instead of valid rebuttals that were resorted to by those persons and indistinguishable from right-wingers on this site. Any confusion is easily understandable, unlike the modus operandi of right-wingers who are deliberate.

The Court informed me I was deficient in legal procedure not legal substance.

hahhahaha it's amazing how folks from numerous sites, including lawyers keep having these same "fallacies" - the reality is your close minded bigoty keeps you form recognizing that you are the one with the fallacies that have been repeatedly highlighted.

Oh, wow, the Court didn't even get to your argument because you couldn't even appeal your denial correctly....well...if you can't get the procedure in law even correct, why should anyone consider you can make argument?

 

[danielpalos]

hahhahaha it's amazing how folks from numerous sites, including lawyers keep having these same "fallacies" - the reality is your close minded bigoty keeps you form recognizing that you are the one with the fallacies that have been repeatedly highlighted.

Oh, wow, the Court didn't even get to your argument because you couldn't even appeal your denial correctly....well...if you can't get the procedure in law even correct, why should anyone consider you can make argument?

Your bigotry is showing. The Court has a problem with my lack of high numbers and plenty of practice with legal procedure not legal substance.

 

[struth]

Your bigotry is showing. The Court has a problem with my lack of high numbers and plenty of practice with legal procedure not legal substance.

what high numbers?

yes the court took issue with the fact you could follow proper procedure so they didn’t even bother reading your argument

 

[danielpalos]

what high numbers?

yes the court took issue with the fact you could follow proper procedure so they didn’t even bother reading your argument

You must be on the right-wing. All you do is tell stories yet want us to believe you are for the "gospel Truth".

 

[georgephillip]

Reagan never used the term "trickle down," jackass. Your description of Reagan's policy is a flat out lie.

How many US billionaires existed before Reagan's tax cuts?

The 40-year con of trickle-down Reaganomics: Why Republican's toxic class warfare only spreads poverty | The Milwaukee Independent

"As a result of Reagan/Bush/Trump tax cuts, noted former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, 'Since the start of the pandemic, just 651 American billionaires have gained $1 trillion of wealth. With this windfall they could send a $3,000 check to every person in America and still be as rich as they were before the pandemic.'"

 

[georgephillip]

Neither of which qualify as "externalities."

Capitalism obtains its profits by socializing costs, Cracker.

Heart attack capitalism

 

[georgephillip]

View attachment 559310

Selfie?

 

[georgephillip]

Extracting? How?

"Why have economies polarized so sharply since the 1980s, and especially since the 2008 crisis? How did we get so indebted without real wage and living standards rising, while cities, states, and entire nations are falling into default?"

Finance Is Not the Economy - Evonomics