Test for the rightwing: tell me the differences between the far left and the moderate left

[depotoo]

moderate left knew that raising the debt passed $6 Trillion was unamerican
prog left thinks spending more and more and more and more is a great idea and everyone that doesn't agree is a racist

moderate left supports the 2nd Amendment with restrictions on our rights
prog left wants to limit our right to plastic child safe sporks.

moderate left doesn't know just how evil partial birth abortion is so they support it.
prog left wants post birth abortion

mod left wants to prevent voter fraud but is gutless to pass rules
prog left wants anyone that's inside our boarders to vote dem


anything specific you would like me to explain or do you understand that dems are not liberals anymore?

I'll give you credit for making a an effort, but this answer is baseless.

You're just making things up. For instance, if you are arributing all of these issues to democrats, it's completely ridiculous.

I would say what you said about the 2nd amendment had at least some truth to it, but that's the only thing that came close.

it's all fact

the 2nd Amendment was hyperbole

Google
you can read through the post birth murder that you will support some day. just scroll, you'll see the facts of just how sick you are.

voting; Google

it started in CA already


anything else you would like me to teach you about the filth you support?

Don't you think it's pretty lame that you give me Google results rather than an actual source? This "post birth abortion" story is complete bullshit. A blog cited anecdotal sources of people supporting such a thing and another over blew the story of being from a "study" which is a complete fabrication. There is no trend in attitude for such a thing. An academic proposed the radical theory and the rightwing circus blew it way out of proportion.

Voting fraud is statistically very rare, therefore it is bullshit to make a policy out of it.

 

[Socialist]

moderate left knew that raising the debt passed $6 Trillion was unamerican
prog left thinks spending more and more and more and more is a great idea and everyone that doesn't agree is a racist

moderate left supports the 2nd Amendment with restrictions on our rights
prog left wants to limit our right to plastic child safe sporks.

moderate left doesn't know just how evil partial birth abortion is so they support it.
prog left wants post birth abortion

mod left wants to prevent voter fraud but is gutless to pass rules
prog left wants anyone that's inside our boarders to vote dem


anything specific you would like me to explain or do you understand that dems are not liberals anymore?

I'll give you credit for making a an effort, but this answer is baseless.

You're just making things up. For instance, if you are arributing all of these issues to democrats, it's completely ridiculous.

I would say what you said about the 2nd amendment had at least some truth to it, but that's the only thing that came close.

it's all fact

the 2nd Amendment was hyperbole

Google
you can read through the post birth murder that you will support some day. just scroll, you'll see the facts of just how sick you are.

voting; Google

it started in CA already


anything else you would like me to teach you about the filth you support?

Don't you think it's pretty lame that you give me Google results rather than an actual source? This "post birth abortion" story is complete bullshit. A blog cited anecdotal sources of people supporting such a thing and another over blew the story of being from a "study" which is a complete fabrication. There is no trend in attitude for such a thing. An academic proposed the radical theory and the rightwing circus blew it way out of proportion.

Voting fraud is statistically very rare, therefore it is bullshit to make a policy out of it.

Anecdotal bullshit, as usual.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Lol until you find a petition that has more economists opposing raising the wage, your point is moot and you know it.

Oh look... and appeal to authority AND an appeal to popularity.
Another liberal, proving my premise. Who would have guessed?
.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If we get to throw out ridiculous partisan bullshit, the rightwingers want to decide how people should run their lives. Let corporations run everything, privatize everything, fuck those in poverty and working families, love the wealthy, fuck women's rights, abortion should be illegal, I DON'T LIKE IT. Marijuana? ILLEGAL. Gay marriage? ILLEGAL.

Another liberal, arguing from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No, I really don't nor do many other leftists, regulate what you eat? Examples please. What you drive? I don't think tanks are legal,

You, then, are fully ignorant of the truth - a number of people have tanks in private possession, a quick search will find a number of them for sale.
Military vehicles militaria and military classifieds
For Sale 1943 Sherman Grizzly Canadian built M4-A1
Armor Page 1

 

[M14 Shooter]

Fascism is a right wing ideology. Capitalism has led to colonialism, imperialism, slavery, wage slavery, child labor, the crushing of women, destruction of the earth, I'm good, thanks.

Socialism is state-enforced involuntary servitude.
Why do you support this?

 

[Billy000]

Lol until you find a petition that has more economists opposing raising the wage, your point is moot and you know it.

Oh look... and appeal to authority AND an appeal to popularity.
Another liberal, proving my premise. Who would have guessed?
.

Lol economics is a complex issue, so yeah, I'm going to pay attention to the expert majority. Why should i listen to scumbag republicans and dumbass cons on a forum instead?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Lol until you find a petition that has more economists opposing raising the wage, your point is moot and you know it.

Oh look... and appeal to authority AND an appeal to popularity.
Another liberal, proving my premise. Who would have guessed?
.

Lol economics is a complex issue, so yeah, I'm going to pay attention to the expert majority. Why should i listen to scumbag republicans and dumbass cons on a forum instead?

Thank you for proving -both- parts of my premise.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Oh, and your precious 2nd amendment is in the context of a militia.

(sigh)

Yet another ignoramous who can't read the normal English in the Constitution.

Time for another reprint.

From Taking On Gun Control - The Unabridged Second Amendment

The Unabridged Second Amendment
by J. Neil Schulman

If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwarzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?

That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, editorial coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers -- who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of American Usage and Style: The Consensus.

A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's expertise.

Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.

That sounds like an expert to me.

After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter:

"I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.

"The text of the Second Amendment is, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State', is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary."

My letter framed several questions about the text of the Second Amendment, then concluded:

"I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance."

After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the follow analysis (into which I have inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):

[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The 'to keep and bear arms' is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

"In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"

[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia is, in fact, necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"

[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."

[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"

[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."

[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account of the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."

[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'

[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'

"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be:

"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and

"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' _only_ to 'a well-educated electorate' -- for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"

[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation."

Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."

So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.

As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional government in the Soviet Union has failed, apparently because the will of the people in that part of the world to be free from capricious tyranny is stronger than the old guard's desire to maintain a monopoly on dictatorial power.

And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and appointed officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second Amendment routinely. American citizens are put in American prisons for carrying arms, owning arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bureaucratic requirements regarding the owning and carrying of firearms -- all of which is an abridgement of the unconditional right of the people to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution.

And even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), staunch defender of the rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and does nothing.

It seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms to preserve that right. No one else will. No one else can. Will we beg our elected representatives not to take away our rights, and continue regarding them as representing us if they do? Will we continue obeying judges who decide that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says it means but means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak?

Or will we simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the Constitution of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that we will defend that promise with our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor?

------------------------------------------

©1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation. Informational reproduction of the entire article is hereby authorized provided the author, The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation are credited. All other rights reserved.

Lol all this guy is saying is that the amendment does not make it clear that the context is only for militia. He's basically saying it isn't wrong to interpret the law either way.

That publick skool eddicashun continues to shine through for the board ignoramouses.

That's not what Copperud was saying at all, of course. Unsurprisingly, the liberal fanatics who cannot understand the simple English of the 2nd amendment, also can't understand the plain language of Copperud's explanation.

Copperud points out that the part about militias, is an explanation, not a condition on the right to keep and bear arms. The people have that right, whether they are in a militia or not.

As usual, the liberals are desperately "interpreting" the amendment (aka lying about it) to try to make it say something it doesn't. (yawn)

 

[Billy000]

Oh, and your precious 2nd amendment is in the context of a militia.

(sigh)

Yet another ignoramous who can't read the normal English in the Constitution.

Time for another reprint.

From Taking On Gun Control - The Unabridged Second Amendment

The Unabridged Second Amendment
by J. Neil Schulman

If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwarzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?

That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, editorial coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers -- who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of American Usage and Style: The Consensus.

A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's expertise.

Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.

That sounds like an expert to me.

After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter:

"I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.

"The text of the Second Amendment is, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State', is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary."

My letter framed several questions about the text of the Second Amendment, then concluded:

"I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance."

After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the follow analysis (into which I have inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):

[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The 'to keep and bear arms' is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

"In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"

[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia is, in fact, necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"

[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."

[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"

[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."

[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account of the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."

[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'

[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'

"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be:

"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and

"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' _only_ to 'a well-educated electorate' -- for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"

[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation."

Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."

So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.

As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional government in the Soviet Union has failed, apparently because the will of the people in that part of the world to be free from capricious tyranny is stronger than the old guard's desire to maintain a monopoly on dictatorial power.

And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and appointed officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second Amendment routinely. American citizens are put in American prisons for carrying arms, owning arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bureaucratic requirements regarding the owning and carrying of firearms -- all of which is an abridgement of the unconditional right of the people to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution.

And even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), staunch defender of the rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and does nothing.

It seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms to preserve that right. No one else will. No one else can. Will we beg our elected representatives not to take away our rights, and continue regarding them as representing us if they do? Will we continue obeying judges who decide that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says it means but means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak?

Or will we simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the Constitution of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that we will defend that promise with our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor?

------------------------------------------

©1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation. Informational reproduction of the entire article is hereby authorized provided the author, The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation are credited. All other rights reserved.

Lol all this guy is saying is that the amendment does not make it clear that the context is only for militia. He's basically saying it isn't wrong to interpret the law either way.

That publick skool eddicashun continues to shine through for the board ignoramouses.

That's not what Copperud was saying at all, of course. Unsurprisingly, the liberal fanatics who cannot understand the simple English of the 2nd amendment, also can't understand the plain language of Copperud's explanation.

Copperud points out that the part about militias, is an explanation, not a condition on the right to keep and bear arms. The people have that right, whether they are in a militia or not.

As usual, the liberals are desperately "interpreting" the amendment (aka lying about it) to try to make it say something it doesn't. (yawn)

I support gun ownership without the militia context, but I don't see why he or you is so convinced it's not a condition. It very well could be ether way.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I support gun ownership without the militia context, but I don't see why he or you is so convinced it's not a condition. It very well could be ether way.

It isn't. The Law says so.

 

[Billy000]

Lol until you find a petition that has more economists opposing raising the wage, your point is moot and you know it.

Oh look... and appeal to authority AND an appeal to popularity.
Another liberal, proving my premise. Who would have guessed?
.

Lol economics is a complex issue, so yeah, I'm going to pay attention to the expert majority. Why should i listen to scumbag republicans and dumbass cons on a forum instead?

Thank you for proving -both- parts of my premise.

When an astronomer tells you the scientific consensus that the Earth revolves around the sun, do you call that bullshiti? The same logic applies here. Did you study economics in college? No you did not. Quit pretending you know what you are talking about.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Lol until you find a petition that has more economists opposing raising the wage, your point is moot and you know it.

Oh look... and appeal to authority AND an appeal to popularity.
Another liberal, proving my premise. Who would have guessed?
.

Lol economics is a complex issue, so yeah, I'm going to pay attention to the expert majority. Why should i listen to scumbag republicans and dumbass cons on a forum instead?

Thank you for proving -both- parts of my premise.

When an astronomer tells you....

Blah blah blah.
You're appealing to authority and popularity.
Both are logical fallacies.
You either don't know this, therefore arguing from ignorance, or your do know this and do not care, therefore arguing from dishonesty.
The only question now is if you will prove yourself a moderate liberal and skulk away, or prove yourself an extremist and continue to argue your unsound position.

 

[Billy000]

Lol until you find a petition that has more economists opposing raising the wage, your point is moot and you know it.

Oh look... and appeal to authority AND an appeal to popularity.
Another liberal, proving my premise. Who would have guessed?
.

Lol economics is a complex issue, so yeah, I'm going to pay attention to the expert majority. Why should i listen to scumbag republicans and dumbass cons on a forum instead?

Thank you for proving -both- parts of my premise.

When an astronomer tells you....

Blah blah blah.
You're appealing to authority and popularity.
Both are logical fallacies.
You either don't know this, therefore arguing from ignorance, or your do know this and do not care, therefore arguing from dishonesty.
The only question now is if you will prove yourself a moderate liberal and skulk away, or prove yourself an extremist and continue to argue your unsound position.

Lol you obviously don't understand what those fallacies mean. An appeal to authority as a fallacy refers to accepting an isolated view in the face of overwhelming evidence of the contrary. That isn't what I did. If anything you did because believe republicans are right in the face of 600 economists saying otherwise.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Oh look... and appeal to authority AND an appeal to popularity.
Another liberal, proving my premise. Who would have guessed?
.

Lol economics is a complex issue, so yeah, I'm going to pay attention to the expert majority. Why should i listen to scumbag republicans and dumbass cons on a forum instead?

Thank you for proving -both- parts of my premise.

When an astronomer tells you....

Blah blah blah.
You're appealing to authority and popularity.
Both are logical fallacies.
You either don't know this, therefore arguing from ignorance, or your do know this and do not care, therefore arguing from dishonesty.
The only question now is if you will prove yourself a moderate liberal and skulk away, or prove yourself an extremist and continue to argue your unsound position.

Lol you obviously don't understand what those fallacies mean.

Thank you for answering the only remaining question.

 

[Iceweasel]

I want you to name specific issues regarding the differences between more liberal polices and centrist policies. Don't give me some vague paragraph of fluff. I want specifics.

There's no such thing as the moderate left so the question is flawed. When is the last time you heard the phrase? I think this is my first.

Lefties think they shit special candy and can decide how everyone should run their lives. If they like it, you should like it. By law. They don't like it, it's illegal. Period!

If we get to throw out ridiculous partisan bullshit, the rightwingers want to decide how people should run their lives. Let corporations run everything, privatize everything, fuck those in poverty and working families, love the wealthy, fuck women's rights, abortion should be illegal, I DON'T LIKE IT. Marijuana? ILLEGAL. Gay marriage? ILLEGAL. Come on man.

Lefties lie, just like you did. Corporations are getting bigger and wage gaps are increasing with the size and power of government. People decide what's legal or not, or should. Republicans are not responsible for every fucking illegal thing out there. People have voted on gay marriage issues and drugs. Your problem is you're a partisan hack with no ability to process anything beyond left wing talking points.

 

[Iceweasel]

When an astronomer tells you the scientific consensus that the Earth revolves around the sun, do you call that bullshiti? The same logic applies here. Did you study economics in college? No you did not. Quit pretending you know what you are talking about.

The irony. You don't even know what the word consensus means, you're just trying to use it to buttress your argument. Once something is proven it's called a fact, not "consensus".