What would happen to the United States if Conservatives left?

[PMZ]

I disagree that history hasn't taught us that extreme wealth inequity is not among those causes.

Can you give an example? Because I'm not coming up with an historical example of wealth disparity resulting in societal collapse.

In the case of Russia it was certainly the direly failed war, plus the Germans sending in Lenin, in a sealed train so he would not infect Germany.

In the case of Southern American slavery, that was certainly wealth disparity but never resulted in meaningful revolt by the slaves. The Civil War was a result of extreme hostility by abolitionists and reaction to laws ending slavery by Southerners, but not wealth disparity.

Even the French Revolution was not a product of wealth disparity, but of severe government collapse because of gross economic malfeasance and of several years of remarkably bad weather that resulted in bad harvests all over.

I can think of many examples of wealth disparity, but none that resulted in societal collapse, revolution, or chaos. I don't think that's where it's at.

I think that you are incorrect about the USSR, the French Revolution, and the Civil War.

For instance the Civil War was about maintaining the extreme wealth inequity in the south. That's why the South suceeded.

In fact it was really a major factor in our Revolutionary war. The hardscrabble American frontier people having to support British nobility.

 

[PMZ]

However the causes of wealth inequality are far more likely to result from government engineering, meddling, and interference than they are likely to result from a free market economy, restricted only as necessary to prevent us from doing physical, environmental, and/or economic violence to each other.

This is something conservatives understand. Liberals and even quasi conservatives put far too much faith in government to manage the economy and it always does that badly.

I agree that the government can worsen wealth inequality. Witness the Bush Administration for example.

My main point though is that it's surely the endgame of unregulated capitalism simply because free markets are a myth. There's never been one.

 

[GWV5903]

I put this topic here because I want honest answers and no flaming. As a right leaning guy I love the left and wouldnt want to see them go. But why does the left hate Republicans so bad? Their history is after all the Anti-Slave party. p.s. sorry about any typo's I wrote this on the fly because I am so curious what would you think happen to the US if cons left

The ‘left’ doesn’t ‘hate’ anyone, republicans in particular.

In fact, they’d love to have conservatives back to participate in responsible governance again.

Unfortunately, at least at this time, social conservatives, rightwing fiscal extremists, and Christian fundamentalists have a stranglehold on the GOP.

That's not true, this is the dialogue that keeps both sides from communicating constructively...

We could sit hear and write a book about liberal ideology, but it is not going to solve the problems we have today...

Come to the table with compromise as the first belief and you will be surprised...

 

[PMZ]

Some people make the mistake of associating free markets with capitalism. They are simply disconnected concepts.

Capitalism soley deals with the ownership of the means of production. It can only be compared to socialism. In a socialistic economic system everybody in the country owns the means of production. Like the common property in the worlds biggest condo association. Examples are national parks, the military, the airspace, the FBI/CIA, the VA, etc.

In a capitalistic economic system the means of production are owned by something less than all of us, all of the way down to only one of us.

Free markets are those markets where demand is fully informed. Where all buyers know all about the quality, functionality, reliability, in other words every detail that affects value. The closest we come to that ideal are commodity markets like, for instance, gasoline should be. However, in today's world branding has just about ended the reality of free markets.

 

[PMZ]

The reason that the concept of free markets is enticing is that it results in perfect competition, the preeminence of the consumer, just like democracy results in the preeminence of we, the people, the citizens. But of course in today's world of pervasive brand marketing, both in politics and consumer markets, "free" has been grossly compromised by advertising. Consumers and voters are illinformed by it. We are not informed, but missinformed by the purchase of media exposure.

So "free" has been superceeded by monied interests.

The end of freedom as we've known it?

We'll see.

 

[Foxfyre]

However the causes of wealth inequality are far more likely to result from government engineering, meddling, and interference than they are likely to result from a free market economy, restricted only as necessary to prevent us from doing physical, environmental, and/or economic violence to each other.

This is something conservatives understand. Liberals and even quasi conservatives put far too much faith in government to manage the economy and it always does that badly.

I agree that the government can worsen wealth inequality. Witness the Bush Administration for example.

My main point though is that it's surely the endgame of unregulated capitalism simply because free markets are a myth. There's never been one.

In rebuttal. "Free market" depends upon one's definition of that. As for the "Bush record":

It was only a few months ago that the Congressional Budget Office released a report illustrating how the very richest Americans have pulled away from the rest of society in the past 30 years.

But that report used data that was only complete through 2007. Saez's calculations go through 2010, suggesting that White House rhetoric or no, the trends of the past three decades haven't started to reverse themselves.

Here's how Saez's math breaks down, for the curious: In the 2009-2010 period, a time of modest economic growth, the top 1 percent of U.S. earners captured 93 percent of all the income growth in the country.

Got that? Now compare it to how the mega-rich made out during the Bush upswing years of 2002 to 2007. During that time, the top 1 percent of earners captured just 65 percent of all the income growth.

That means the rising tide has lifted fewer boats during the Obama years -- and the ones it's lifted have been mostly yachts
Income Inequality Worse Under Obama Than George W. Bush

But though GWB was far more conservative than Obama in his concepts of how to stimulate an economy and increase productivity and create jobs so that people could prosper, he overall was no conservative.

But get the liberals out of the way and put conservatives in charge, and we will again have no incentives to remain 'poor' and we will again see the easy mobility between economic classes as economic prosperity will again be based on individual incentive, ability, and ambition rather than on government engineering.

 

[PMZ]

However the causes of wealth inequality are far more likely to result from government engineering, meddling, and interference than they are likely to result from a free market economy, restricted only as necessary to prevent us from doing physical, environmental, and/or economic violence to each other.

This is something conservatives understand. Liberals and even quasi conservatives put far too much faith in government to manage the economy and it always does that badly.

I agree that the government can worsen wealth inequality. Witness the Bush Administration for example.

My main point though is that it's surely the endgame of unregulated capitalism simply because free markets are a myth. There's never been one.

In rebuttal. "Free market" depends upon one's definition of that. As for the "Bush record":

It was only a few months ago that the Congressional Budget Office released a report illustrating how the very richest Americans have pulled away from the rest of society in the past 30 years.

But that report used data that was only complete through 2007. Saez's calculations go through 2010, suggesting that White House rhetoric or no, the trends of the past three decades haven't started to reverse themselves.

Here's how Saez's math breaks down, for the curious: In the 2009-2010 period, a time of modest economic growth, the top 1 percent of U.S. earners captured 93 percent of all the income growth in the country.

Got that? Now compare it to how the mega-rich made out during the Bush upswing years of 2002 to 2007. During that time, the top 1 percent of earners captured just 65 percent of all the income growth.

That means the rising tide has lifted fewer boats during the Obama years -- and the ones it's lifted have been mostly yachts
Income Inequality Worse Under Obama Than George W. Bush

Again, I think that you live in a world of denial caused by the belief, that there is some philosophy, in your case conservatism, that is always successful. In your mind Bush wasn't conservative, because he wasn't successful. IMO, he wasn't President either. Cheney was. "Always successful" is, by definition, extremism.

But though GWB was far more conservative than Obama in his concepts of how to stimulate an economy and increase productivity and create jobs so that people could prosper, he overall was no conservative.

But get the liberals out of the way and put conservatives in charge, and we will again have no incentives to remain 'poor' and we will again see the easy mobility between economic classes as economic prosperity will again be based on individual incentive, ability, and ambition rather than on government engineering.

There is so much data out there as evidence of America's wealth inequity position in the world that, if you've missed it, you are a dedicated extremist with no use for the truth.

Liberal = belief in a world of plenty.

Conservative = belief in a world of scarcity.

Conservatism in the form of the Bush/Cheney Administration, and in the form of conservative business people, tried to maintain our collective stash, in the face of scarcity, by shrinking, defending, isolating, hiding.

It did not work and we have a huge pile of unpaid bills to show for it.

You've been fired as a result.

We, who see plenty out there if we go after it, now are in control and pursuing government and business growth in capability so all that can be is spread among all Americans, like things used to be.

You had your chance and you failed. This is our chance, and early returns show steady if slow progress by business, and recovery by government.

 

[Trakar]

That's not true, this is the dialogue that keeps both sides from communicating constructively...

We could sit hear and write a book about liberal ideology, but it is not going to solve the problems we have today...

Come to the table with compromise as the first belief and you will be surprised...

The fact that most of the last administration are not still engaged in trials defending their criminal acts, that the heads of most major US investment banks aren't lined up on the dockets with them, that we still have troops in both Afghanistan and Iraq, that Gitmo is still open, that we don't have comprehensive federal legislation and international treaties to deal with climate change, that there is no carbon tax paying off the national debt and building efficient, sustainable energy infrastructure and that we have insurance company welfare rather than universal health care, speaks to the fact that the reasonable opposition did come to the table with compromise as the first belief, ...unfortunately, their generosity and willingness to work towards mutual goals has been met with "well, now that you gave-in to those demands here are the rest of our demands." Such an approach (unsurprisingly) has resulted in an atmosphere where the reasonable are no longer willing to give until they receive an equivalent yielding by the groups that don't even seem to realize what all they have already won in compromise.

 

[PMZ]

I put this topic here because I want honest answers and no flaming. As a right leaning guy I love the left and wouldnt want to see them go. But why does the left hate Republicans so bad? Their history is after all the Anti-Slave party. p.s. sorry about any typo's I wrote this on the fly because I am so curious what would you think happen to the US if cons left

The ‘left’ doesn’t ‘hate’ anyone, republicans in particular.

In fact, they’d love to have conservatives back to participate in responsible governance again.

Unfortunately, at least at this time, social conservatives, rightwing fiscal extremists, and Christian fundamentalists have a stranglehold on the GOP.

That's not true, this is the dialogue that keeps both sides from communicating constructively...

We could sit hear and write a book about liberal ideology, but it is not going to solve the problems we have today...

Come to the table with compromise as the first belief and you will be surprised...

I see your position on compromise in the logo on the bottom of your post.

 

[Foxfyre]

I agree that the government can worsen wealth inequality. Witness the Bush Administration for example.

My main point though is that it's surely the endgame of unregulated capitalism simply because free markets are a myth. There's never been one.

In rebuttal. "Free market" depends upon one's definition of that. As for the "Bush record":

It was only a few months ago that the Congressional Budget Office released a report illustrating how the very richest Americans have pulled away from the rest of society in the past 30 years.

But that report used data that was only complete through 2007. Saez's calculations go through 2010, suggesting that White House rhetoric or no, the trends of the past three decades haven't started to reverse themselves.

Here's how Saez's math breaks down, for the curious: In the 2009-2010 period, a time of modest economic growth, the top 1 percent of U.S. earners captured 93 percent of all the income growth in the country.

Got that? Now compare it to how the mega-rich made out during the Bush upswing years of 2002 to 2007. During that time, the top 1 percent of earners captured just 65 percent of all the income growth.

That means the rising tide has lifted fewer boats during the Obama years -- and the ones it's lifted have been mostly yachts
Income Inequality Worse Under Obama Than George W. Bush

Again, I think that you live in a world of denial caused by the belief, that there is some philosophy, in your case conservatism, that is always successful. In your mind Bush wasn't conservative, because he wasn't successful. IMO, he wasn't President either. Cheney was. "Always successful" is, by definition, extremism.

But though GWB was far more conservative than Obama in his concepts of how to stimulate an economy and increase productivity and create jobs so that people could prosper, he overall was no conservative.

But get the liberals out of the way and put conservatives in charge, and we will again have no incentives to remain 'poor' and we will again see the easy mobility between economic classes as economic prosperity will again be based on individual incentive, ability, and ambition rather than on government engineering.

There is so much data out there as evidence of America's wealth inequity position in the world that, if you've missed it, you are a dedicated extremist with no use for the truth.

Liberal = belief in a world of plenty.

Conservative = belief in a world of scarcity.

Conservatism in the form of the Bush/Cheney Administration, and in the form of conservative business people, tried to maintain our collective stash, in the face of scarcity, by shrinking, defending, isolating, hiding.

It did not work and we have a huge pile of unpaid bills to show for it.

You've been fired as a result.

We, who see plenty out there if we go after it, now are in control and pursuing government and business growth in capability so all that can be is spread among all Americans, like things used to be.

You had your chance and you failed. This is our chance, and early returns show steady if slow progress by business, and recovery by government.

Doesn't it embarrass you at all to post such nonsense without any example from real life or even fantasy that you can use to back it up and without ability to post evidence from any credible source? Not to mention being totally non sequitur. Did you even read my post? Or the link I provided to back it up?

 

[PMZ]

However the causes of wealth inequality are far more likely to result from government engineering, meddling, and interference than they are likely to result from a free market economy, restricted only as necessary to prevent us from doing physical, environmental, and/or economic violence to each other.

This is something conservatives understand. Liberals and even quasi conservatives put far too much faith in government to manage the economy and it always does that badly.

I agree that the government can worsen wealth inequality. Witness the Bush Administration for example.

My main point though is that it's surely the endgame of unregulated capitalism simply because free markets are a myth. There's never been one.

In rebuttal. "Free market" depends upon one's definition of that. As for the "Bush record":

It was only a few months ago that the Congressional Budget Office released a report illustrating how the very richest Americans have pulled away from the rest of society in the past 30 years.

But that report used data that was only complete through 2007. Saez's calculations go through 2010, suggesting that White House rhetoric or no, the trends of the past three decades haven't started to reverse themselves.

Here's how Saez's math breaks down, for the curious: In the 2009-2010 period, a time of modest economic growth, the top 1 percent of U.S. earners captured 93 percent of all the income growth in the country.

Got that? Now compare it to how the mega-rich made out during the Bush upswing years of 2002 to 2007. During that time, the top 1 percent of earners captured just 65 percent of all the income growth.

That means the rising tide has lifted fewer boats during the Obama years -- and the ones it's lifted have been mostly yachts
Income Inequality Worse Under Obama Than George W. Bush

But though GWB was far more conservative than Obama in his concepts of how to stimulate an economy and increase productivity and create jobs so that people could prosper, he overall was no conservative.

But get the liberals out of the way and put conservatives in charge, and we will again have no incentives to remain 'poor' and we will again see the easy mobility between economic classes as economic prosperity will again be based on individual incentive, ability, and ambition rather than on government engineering.

"But get the liberals out of the way and put conservatives in charge, and we will again have no incentives to remain 'poor'"

I have never met a poor person there by choice.

 

[PMZ]

In rebuttal. "Free market" depends upon one's definition of that. As for the "Bush record":



Again, I think that you live in a world of denial caused by the belief, that there is some philosophy, in your case conservatism, that is always successful. In your mind Bush wasn't conservative, because he wasn't successful. IMO, he wasn't President either. Cheney was. "Always successful" is, by definition, extremism.

But though GWB was far more conservative than Obama in his concepts of how to stimulate an economy and increase productivity and create jobs so that people could prosper, he overall was no conservative.

But get the liberals out of the way and put conservatives in charge, and we will again have no incentives to remain 'poor' and we will again see the easy mobility between economic classes as economic prosperity will again be based on individual incentive, ability, and ambition rather than on government engineering.

There is so much data out there as evidence of America's wealth inequity position in the world that, if you've missed it, you are a dedicated extremist with no use for the truth.

Liberal = belief in a world of plenty.

Conservative = belief in a world of scarcity.

Conservatism in the form of the Bush/Cheney Administration, and in the form of conservative business people, tried to maintain our collective stash, in the face of scarcity, by shrinking, defending, isolating, hiding.

It did not work and we have a huge pile of unpaid bills to show for it.

You've been fired as a result.

We, who see plenty out there if we go after it, now are in control and pursuing government and business growth in capability so all that can be is spread among all Americans, like things used to be.

You had your chance and you failed. This is our chance, and early returns show steady if slow progress by business, and recovery by government.

Doesn't it embarrass you at all to post such nonsense without any example from real life or even fantasy that you can use to back it up and without ability to post evidence from any credible source? Not to mention being totally non sequitur. Did you even read my post? Or the link I provided to back it up?

You wouldn't react the way that you do if you didn't see the essential truth in what I post.

 

[PMZ]

Most of the extremism posted here comes from a common source. Rush and Rupert et al. What they propagate is 24/7/365 Republican propaganda consisting of an inseparable mix of facts (news) and opinion.

It has compromised the once free market of democracy.

I think, like most fads, it's 15 minutes of fame are over, but we must continue our vigilance.

 

[Foxfyre]

There is so much data out there as evidence of America's wealth inequity position in the world that, if you've missed it, you are a dedicated extremist with no use for the truth.

Liberal = belief in a world of plenty.

Conservative = belief in a world of scarcity.

Conservatism in the form of the Bush/Cheney Administration, and in the form of conservative business people, tried to maintain our collective stash, in the face of scarcity, by shrinking, defending, isolating, hiding.

It did not work and we have a huge pile of unpaid bills to show for it.

You've been fired as a result.

We, who see plenty out there if we go after it, now are in control and pursuing government and business growth in capability so all that can be is spread among all Americans, like things used to be.

You had your chance and you failed. This is our chance, and early returns show steady if slow progress by business, and recovery by government.

Doesn't it embarrass you at all to post such nonsense without any example from real life or even fantasy that you can use to back it up and without ability to post evidence from any credible source? Not to mention being totally non sequitur. Did you even read my post? Or the link I provided to back it up?

You wouldn't react the way that you do if you didn't see the essential truth in what I post.

I see no truth at all in what you posted. I don't believe any of that for a second. I don't think even you believe it. But oh well.

 

[PMZ]

Doesn't it embarrass you at all to post such nonsense without any example from real life or even fantasy that you can use to back it up and without ability to post evidence from any credible source? Not to mention being totally non sequitur. Did you even read my post? Or the link I provided to back it up?

You wouldn't react the way that you do if you didn't see the essential truth in what I post.

I see no truth at all in what you posted. I don't believe any of that for a second. I don't think even you believe it. But oh well.

I will believe that what I've posted is accurate until I find, from this source or some other, evidence that I'm wrong.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

I was pretty sure that you'd be incapable of refuting simple logic.

You said that it was your experience that outlaws live at the expense of others. Luckily Harriet Tubman and others didn't wallow in your moral pacifism . Did you know that there were slaves who wanted to stay on the plantation? They pretty much echoed what you said. So go ahead, tremble at the thought of not returning your library book in on time. I, however, have a world to piss off. Nice talking to ya though.

Feel free to piss off the world. My message was to anybody who might take you seriously. It's easy to piss off the world. In fact, Rush has made a billion dollars doing it. Hitler almost conquered the world that way. Some clowns paint on happy faces, some sad, yours is angry.

As you and Rush and Rupert and Grover and Rove and Beck lead your angry followers to political extinction your anger will consume you while the country footnotes you as another movement that we had to flush on our way to recovery.

Hmmm... are you sure I'M the angry one? Sheesh! Now this is why I have fun with vacuous silly posts like yours. I don't want to be sucked up into the political repetitive time/space continuum which is liberal spin . What do I mean by this? I mean that you bring up Rush,Rupert,Grover,Rove and Beck as angry leaders. So this is the part where I am supposed to bring up Mathews,Wiener (the politician),Moore,Media Matters, etc. Now that we have blocked each other with what we perceive as the other side's "haters" we would then go back and forth with quotes from people we don't like. It's really such a bore. So instead, I simply point out the shallowness of your post and the silliness of your point then we can all move on and have a beer. You're welcome.

 

[PMZ]

And here is your other problem...conservatives have NEVER given us less government. When in power, they have GROWN government. MORE than liberals and Democrats.

This is true, and I realize now that this is because there is not much spillover, practically, from libertarianism into conservatism. Libertarians are on the freedom versus coercion (by government) axis and value freedom.

Conservatives promote both civilization against barbarism and personal responsibility versus sucking on the public tit, and control of the state is viewed as not a problem in enforcing that.

Although I must say, the last various so-called conservatives seem to have passed a whole lot of liberal laws, like the leftwing promotion of house-buying for the poor, which led straight into the worldwide Great Recession. So I expect the idea that the Bush's were conservatives was either a lie or they were remarkably ineffective.

No it is not true. The Founders were true conservatives as we define conservatism now. They called it liberalism in the mid to late 18th century--now referred to by most historians as 'classical liberalism' that bears absolutely no resemblance to modern day American liberalism.

The Founders put into place a great experiment--the first in the world--of limited government authorized and allowed by the people. The world's first constitutionally limited government restricted to extremely narrow authority and responsibility. In a nutshell the duty of central government was to provide a system by which the various colonies/states could function as one cohesive nation, secure the unalienable rights of the people, and then leave them strictly alone to govern themselves however they chose to do that.

THAT is what true modern American conservatism is and the only groups promoting it are groups such as the Tea Party, Constitutionalist groups, 9/12ers and such.

Neither Keynesians (and JFK was basically a Keynesian at heart) nor supply siders (Reagan, GHWBush, GWB) are true conservatives as were the Founders. Keynesians are willing to run short term deficits on the theory that giving more money to the people to spend will generate spending that will stimulate the economy that will return the money to the treasury. Supply siders are willing to run deficits on the theory that allowing the people to keep more of their own money will stimulate the economy that will return the money to the treasury.

Both theories are credible to a point and both will work for the short term to a point. Unfortunately we have had governments for a very long time now that are not willing to do anything for the short term. Government programs are given life expectancy approximating mop handles and it costs more every single year to run them. Baseline budgeting means government never shrinks or is less - 'budget cuts' are simply slightly slowing the size and scope of increases in government.

Conservatives want no more government than is absolutely necessary to carry out its constitutional functions. Conservatives want informed citizens who demand that government at all levels not overstep its boundaries and who will hold accountable those they put in the public trust. Conservatives understand government as a necessity, but also understand that unrestrained, unchecked government will always enslave the people and force them to work for and perpetuate the government and everything that an unrestricted government does will eventually be purely self serving.

That is why the Founders envisioned true freedom--a people who would not be governed but who would have their rights secured and would govern themselves.

Take the conservatives out of the equation and all you have left are the keynesians, the supply siders, and the liberals. And you will quickly have a government that will assign the people the rights they will have and there will be no more freedom.

From Wikipedia.

"Prior to the publication of Keynes's General Theory, mainstream economic thought was that the economy existed in a state of general equilibrium, meaning that the economy naturally consumes whatever it produces because the needs of consumers are always greater than the capacity of the economy to satisfy those needs. This perception is reflected in Say's Law[5] and in the writing of David Ricardo,[6] which is that individuals produce so that they can either consume what they have manufactured or sell their output so that they can buy someone else's output. This perception rests upon the assumption that if a surplus of goods or services exists, they would naturally drop in price to the point where they would be consumed."
"Keynes's theory was significant because it overturned the mainstream thought of the time and brought about a greater awareness that problems such as unemployment are not a product of laziness, but the result of a structural inadequacy in the economic system. He argued that because there was no guarantee that the goods that individuals produce would be met with demand, unemployment was a natural consequence. He saw the economy as unable to maintain itself at full employment and believed that it was necessary for the government to step in and put under-utilised savings to work through government spending. Thus, according to Keynesian theory, some individually rational microeconomic-level actions such as not investing savings in the goods and services produced by the economy, if taken collectively by a large proportion of individuals and firms, can lead to outcomes wherein the economy operates below its potential output and growth rate."
"Prior to Keynes, a situation in which aggregate demand for goods and services did not meet supply was referred to by classical economists as a general glut, although there was disagreement among them as to whether a general glut was possible. Keynes argued that when a glut occurred, it was the over-reaction of producers and the laying off of workers that led to a fall in demand and perpetuated the problem. Keynesians therefore advocate an active stabilization policy to reduce the amplitude of the business cycle, which they rank among the most serious of economic problems. According to the theory, government spending can be used to increase aggregate demand, thus increasing economic activity, reducing unemployment and deflation."

From Foxfyre.

"Take the conservatives out of the equation and all you have left are the keynesians, the supply siders, and the liberals."

Keynesians and supply siders, in other words demand and supply siders, together, are everyone who has a macronomic theory, leaving nobody to be a conservative.

 

[PMZ]

You said that it was your experience that outlaws live at the expense of others. Luckily Harriet Tubman and others didn't wallow in your moral pacifism . Did you know that there were slaves who wanted to stay on the plantation? They pretty much echoed what you said. So go ahead, tremble at the thought of not returning your library book in on time. I, however, have a world to piss off. Nice talking to ya though.

Feel free to piss off the world. My message was to anybody who might take you seriously. It's easy to piss off the world. In fact, Rush has made a billion dollars doing it. Hitler almost conquered the world that way. Some clowns paint on happy faces, some sad, yours is angry.

As you and Rush and Rupert and Grover and Rove and Beck lead your angry followers to political extinction your anger will consume you while the country footnotes you as another movement that we had to flush on our way to recovery.

Hmmm... are you sure I'M the angry one? Sheesh!

I don't know if you are angry or not. I just know what you post. And that I've assumed that most outlaws are angry. That's what they have no compunction against taking from others.

 

[Foxfyre]

I can cut and paste huge gray blocks of stuff that is mostly irrelevent and/or non sequitur to the discussion too PMZ. So what do you think you accomplished?

 

[PMZ]

I can cut and paste huge gray blocks of stuff that is mostly irrelevent and/or non sequitur to the discussion too PMZ. So what do you think you accomplished?

Dunno. That's an inherent problem with this hobby.

So, I state the truth as I've determined it to be, in as provacative a way as I'm able to, and read the response from it. Sometime there's evidence that I hadn't been exposed to previously that either reinforces or denies what I've posted. I check it out.

That's how I learn and evolve. I was once a conservative and still am a Republican. This methodology was how I learned that both had abandoned me.

I don't know how time efficient this is as a learning process, but it adds entertainment to life long learning so it works OK for me.