Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Vox, Stephanie, Frank, and the others are mere libertarians or reactionaries, unmasked by their words.
They can't refute the facts, so the attack personality.
What a lot of slobbering by the reactionaries. The below is from a basic HS powerpoint presentation.
Some of the slobbering bloviators obviously did not get through or just slept in high schoo.
Far Right of the Spectrum Reactionary (Far Right) Advocate a return to a previous state of affairs,
often a social, political or economic order that existed earlier in history. Will use extreme measures to
achieve their goals including violence. (Fascist Dictatorships, Monarchies, Oligarchies, such as Taliban)
http://www.rocklin.k12.ca.us/staff/rspears/govt/Political Spectrum.pdf
what is interesting in looking at this chart, it clearly demostrates one thing. The left is focused on dedicating most of our resources to the segment of our society that returns the least (little to nothing) to society as a whole. When you talk about a return on investment, the poicies of the left pay no return. Is it any wonder that we're going broke?
Thank heavens, people are looking and talking about the chart. Your second sentence is a vastly overinflated statement, in what the "left" is doing and in what America is receiving. Kaz, by inference, could have asked what the GOP is doing to try prevent that, but then we have NCLB (which I opposed) and the Senior Drug Prescription (which I opposed) and the invasion of Iraq (which I opposed) and the privatization of much of the logistics (which I opposed) for the war effort, the Patriot Act (which I opposed).
We need to reach out to women, minorities, and immigrants. We need to downsize our military. We need to stop the war on gays. We need to tell the socon Christian nationalists they cannot use government to impose their morality on every one else. We need to reform and update social entitlements so that it is cost effective and solvent.
And, yes, we need to tell our reactionaries we are never going back to a world of the 1890s or 1920s. Not ever.
http://www.pearsonhighered.com/assets/hip/us/hip_us_pearsonhighered/samplechapter/0205082386.pdf
Try figure 2.2 at the link, Vox. The company uses thousands of college instructors and professionals to create text books.
Radical Liberal Moderate Conservative Status Quo Reactionary Retrogressive
Vox, Stephanie, Frank, and the others are mere libertarians or reactionaries, unmasked by their words.
They can't refute the facts, so they attack personality.
Personality?
http://www.pearsonhighered.com/assets/hip/us/hip_us_pearsonhighered/samplechapter/0205082386.pdf
Try figure 2.2 at the link, Vox. The company uses thousands of college instructors and professionals to create text books.
Radical Liberal Moderate Conservative Status Quo Reactionary Retrogressive
Jake what is it about you?.....this is a DEAN thread......not many people (except TM) can get everyone to be goofing on them instead of Dean......
what is interesting in looking at this chart, it clearly demostrates one thing. The left is focused on dedicating most of our resources to the segment of our society that returns the least (little to nothing) to society as a whole. When you talk about a return on investment, the poicies of the left pay no return. Is it any wonder that we're going broke?
the most interesting in this "chart" ( it's not a chart it's a student's presentation, obviously) it does not have an AUTHOR and a RESOURCE.
So you yourself can make a "chart" which will state the opposite and walk proud you've been professing the ultimate Truth
The chart is a summation of what generally accepted definitions. Look them up
That you disagree with it means nothing.
what is interesting in looking at this chart, it clearly demostrates one thing. The left is focused on dedicating most of our resources to the segment of our society that returns the least (little to nothing) to society as a whole. When you talk about a return on investment, the poicies of the left pay no return. Is it any wonder that we're going broke?
Thank heavens, people are looking and talking about the chart. Your second sentence is a vastly overinflated statement, in what the "left" is doing and in what America is receiving. Kaz, by inference, could have asked what the GOP is doing to try prevent that, but then we have NCLB (which I opposed) and the Senior Drug Prescription (which I opposed) and the invasion of Iraq (which I opposed) and the privatization of much of the logistics (which I opposed) for the war effort, the Patriot Act (which I opposed).
We need to reach out to women, minorities, and immigrants. We need to downsize our military. We need to stop the war on gays. We need to tell the socon Christian nationalists they cannot use government to impose their morality on every one else. We need to reform and update social entitlements so that it is cost effective and solvent.
And, yes, we need to tell our reactionaries we are never going back to a world of the 1890s or 1920s. Not ever.
I don't see us being negative to women in the way the left tries to portray it. it's 90% spin. You have a few off the wall individuals who make some aggressive comments. but thats as far as it goes. the GOP is not taking rights away from women. immigrants, enforce the laws on the books. they are illegal and shouldn't be here in the first place. also, time to do away with the anchor baby amendment. interesting you bash the religions right for trying to impose their will on people yet you neglected to chastize the anti gun nuts who try to do the same. yes we need to reform entitlements, but in the vein of making them no longer a way of life. entitlements should be short term with a path away from them. roosevelt had the right idea. you want a check? here are public works projects we have going. get you ass out ot where we are building a damn or a road. of course todays unions would take objection to that. you don't get an education while you are in school = your problem. we aren't providing tax dollars so you can sit there an be a rebel. you need to prepare yourself to be able to compete. if you can't, don't look to us to support your ass. and speaking of competing, what is this shit today that no one can lose? that isn't real world. people need to learn how to lose as well.
the most interesting in this "chart" ( it's not a chart it's a student's presentation, obviously) it does not have an AUTHOR and a RESOURCE.
So you yourself can make a "chart" which will state the opposite and walk proud you've been professing the ultimate Truth
The chart is a summation of what generally accepted definitions. Look them up
That you disagree with it means nothing.
the "chart" means NOTHING.
there is no reference to the resources used and no authors - it is IMHO, not a "chart"
The first rule of evaluation of the paper or article is- who is the author and what are the resources used. This is not even a paper or article. it's pure nonsense.
The chart is a summation of what generally accepted definitions. Look them up
That you disagree with it means nothing.
the "chart" means NOTHING.
there is no reference to the resources used and no authors - it is IMHO, not a "chart"
The first rule of evaluation of the paper or article is- who is the author and what are the resources used. This is not even a paper or article. it's pure nonsense.
Read on to the pearson links, little one, and remember the first thing we all know is that the chart generally portrays common acceptance (reasonable wo/man standard) and we know you are no authority whatsoever. Trot along.
JakeStarkey said:But the mainstream leadership knows the reactionaries and libertarians in the party have to be defused, finally and forever. They cost the party the presidency in 2008 and 2012, the Senate in 2010 and 2012, and are building a growing population in red states that will take power and re-gerrymander then for a blue majority.
the libertarians don't count because they are irrelevant
JakeStarkey said:But the mainstream leadership knows the reactionaries and libertarians in the party have to be defused, finally and forever. They cost the party the presidency in 2008 and 2012, the Senate in 2010 and 2012, and are building a growing population in red states that will take power and re-gerrymander then for a blue majority.
the libertarians don't count because they are irrelevant
You said the mainstream leadership is trying to defuse us, which means we have lots of power. Then you said we're irrelevant. So which is it jake?
I agree with much of what you say, but (imo) our reactionaries (the libertarians don't count because they are irrelevant) would turn us into a totalitarian right wing statist country. The lefties could never do that because, like the libertarians, they can never agree on anything.
What nonsense. It is common sense. And the pearsonhighered link explains it in much fuller detail based on the work of professionals, not a single Vox yelling "nay" in the wilderness.the so-called "chart" is pure IMHO.the "chart" means NOTHING.
there is no reference to the resources used and no authors - it is IMHO, not a "chart"
The first rule of evaluation of the paper or article is- who is the author and what are the resources used. This is not even a paper or article. it's pure nonsense.
Read on to the pearson links, little one, and remember the first thing we all know is that the chart generally portrays common acceptance (reasonable wo/man standard) and we know you are no authority whatsoever. Trot along.
therefore has no validity.
I agree with much of what you say, but (imo) our reactionaries (the libertarians don't count because they are irrelevant) would turn us into a totalitarian right wing statist country. The lefties could never do that because, like the libertarians, they can never agree on anything.
Liberals never agree on anything? Name anything they disagree about.
What nonsense. It is common sense. And the pearsonhighered link explains it in much fuller detail based on the work of professionals, not a single Vox yelling "nay" in the wilderness.the so-called "chart" is pure IMHO.Read on to the pearson links, little one, and remember the first thing we all know is that the chart generally portrays common acceptance (reasonable wo/man standard) and we know you are no authority whatsoever. Trot along.
therefore has no validity.
Read on to the pearson links, little one, and remember the first thing we all know is that the chart generally portrays common acceptance (reasonable wo/man standard) and we know you are no authority whatsoever. Trot along.
One, you did not read it all. Two, you have no expertise in the area.I did and I also evaluated "suggested reading" - all lleftist liberal authors. It is skewed beyond any reasonable amount of bias - therefore not valid.
Three, Pearson is middle mainstream; if it had been McGraw-Hill, then you would have an argument about liberal leaning agenda.here are plenty of false textbooks. naming a text textbook does not make it fail-proof and bias-proof.
You are a reactionary fraud whose opinion is immaterial.I couldn't care less what an internet fakey thinks of me.
Your opinion, little freak, does not matter. Pearson's does matter, so go ahead and give us your reasons and evidence. Hint: you have none.I am warning normal posters here - the so-called "chart" is pure IMHO. therefore has no validity.
Vox, Stephanie, Frank, and the others are mere libertarians or reactionaries, unmasked by their words.
They can't refute the facts, so they attack personality.
Personality?
Definition of personality (n)
Bing Dictionary
per·son·al·i·ty
[ pùrss'n állətee ]
1.somebody's set of characteristics: the totality of somebody's attitudes, interests, behavioral patterns, emotional responses, social roles, and other individual traits that endure over long periods of time
2.characteristics making somebody appealing: the distinctive or very noticeable characteristics that make somebody socially appealing
3.somebody regarded as epitomizing traits: somebody regarded as epitomizing particular character traits
Personality?
Definition of personality (n)
Bing Dictionary
per·son·al·i·ty
[ pùrss'n állətee ]
1.somebody's set of characteristics: the totality of somebody's attitudes, interests, behavioral patterns, emotional responses, social roles, and other individual traits that endure over long periods of time
2.characteristics making somebody appealing: the distinctive or very noticeable characteristics that make somebody socially appealing
3.somebody regarded as epitomizing traits: somebody regarded as epitomizing particular character traits
Jake your best personality feature is how convinced you are that we believe your "I'm a Real Republican" Schtick
tis what tis
