Me of all people? "Apparent liberal"? What the hell? Haven't you read my posts. I'm an Intelligent centrist. I don't answer to anyone or walk anyone's party line or argue Pro Trump, or, Pro Hilary to my dying breath.

Again, like I say every time I don't fit in your liberal preconception, just because I am on your left, doesn't mean I'm on the left. Does that confuse you?

Wait for it.......

 

Still having problems with basic literacy and liberal bias and trying to use it as a way out again I see. That second sentence of mine pretty much said everything I needed to to confirm your lazy liberal bias. In fact you're so predictable at this point I could almost write your response for you now.



You really think anyone would believe that beyond your buddies who have long since proven none of you are all that bright on pretty much everything you have said and done so far?

The thing is for someone who claims they are intelligent and a centralist you don't do much of anything to support yourself and what you claim, ever, yet expect everyone else to hand you everything you ask only so you can then proudly proclaim you totally ignored it over some ignorant and petty excuse. Central and right leaning people don't do that and everyone here knows it whereas liberals live and breath it!

Rather what you do act like is a standard issue liberal not a centralist or right leaning conservative. Those people people tend to actually stick the point in a debate and back themselves up with whatever facts and data they can find just as pretty much everyone but you ronv and shortbus have done since the very beginning.

Now as for your supposed intelligence, show us proof for once or it isn't real, just as most of us here already know you can't do because, well , lets face it. Intelligent people don't play stupid time and time again to get out of answering basic questions about their beliefs which however, you are a known expert at it!

BTW, real centrists are for common sense and looking at both sides of an issue and everyone here knows full well you can't bring yourself to look at anything anyone says that might have any merit in possibly proving your views are less than correct. If you were and did you wouldn't be seen as being the third leg in the 'idiots three' gang here of certain people who can not accept anything outside of their own narrow views and are proud in proclaiming anything that goes against their views is not true or worth their looking at as you have done time and time again.



https://www.google.com/search?q=cen...2.69i57j0l5.5150j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

So how does that work younow 'intelligent centralist' you?

You show absolutely zero traits of one and near perfect traits of most any far left liberal and everyone here including yourself knows it! Are you that ashamed of yourself and your lack of ability to defend your views you have to claim your something more centralized now even though you know full well no one will believe it because we all know you cant live up to the claim? You can lie to yourself about who you are but none of us will buy it.

Now you are comparing/contrasting my claim of unaffiliated, self-described "intelligent centrist" with views of Ross Perot's "centrist party". You are working too hard to put me in a cubby hole with a label you recognize. I am outside the box, my friend. Widen your horizons, buy a plane ticket or take a long drive. There are many other types of people out there.

 

So you believe it's better for the government to confiscate wealth from the people and spend it how they - the bureaucrats - want to? Where is the evidence that such a system is more productive? I'll tell you where - NOwhere.

The one that comes to mind is military hardware.

 

The one that comes to mind is military hardware.

I agree there are a very few activities that are most efficiently done by a central government. Our founders put national defense in the constitution for a reason. Their big mistake was not being specific about what "promoting the general welfare" might mean. The intentional ambiguity created a hole bigger than they could have imagined. In retrospect, there's a lesson there. Your inability to imagine something doesn't mean someone else won't. Be specific.

 

So you believe it's better for the government to confiscate wealth from the people and spend it how they - the bureaucrats - want to? Where is the evidence that such a system is more productive? I'll tell you where - NOwhere.

It works just fine. The National Acadamy of Sciences - some of the smartest people in the country work with various agencies to set research policy with the current administration. Some topics the onion has to be peeled back a bit but
1) energy independence and global energy surplus are a major effort.
2) Clean air and water are a major effort

Together, these topics (if solved) will mostly eliminate "land acquisition/resource acquisition" wars. Core to national defense. Google Lockheed fusion reactor research and Lockheed clearly spells out the energy/peacekeeping connection.

Communications and communication security are other topics. All national security issues.

Recently, banking security/financial transaction security is receiving more attention.

Many others - peel back the onion and peacekeeping / national security are always at the core.

 

Google Lockheed fusion reactor research and Lockheed clearly spells out the energy/peacekeeping connection.

I mostly agree with those research priorities and I suspect a majority of voters might
also, although I'd be curious to hear from private research entities that might disagree.

Lockheed certainly knows how to work the system. Check out LPP for someone that isn't as effective at getting taxpayer funding, but seems to ahead anyway.

 

Your kidding about crowd funding. Right?

Hell no I'm not kidding. If your idea has merit, and with the right marketing, you can get to where you need to be. But then, you would have to W O R K to get the funding.

Your telling me a kid wanting to fund a project has a better chance to get crowd funding then a serious scientist. No one has tried it, yet.

 

Interesting... Hasn't hurt it either, has it?

Only the loss of money that we will be paying for generations. I guess that don't hurt you at all, or me for that matter, because I'll be dead before the financial crisis.

 

I mostly agree with those research priorities and I suspect a majority of voters might
also, although I'd be curious to hear from private research entities that might disagree.

Lockheed certainly knows how to work the system. Check out LPP for someone that isn't as effective at getting taxpayer funding, but seems to ahead anyway.

Hell no I'm not kidding. If your idea has merit, and with the right marketing, you can get to where you need to be. But then, you would have to W O R K to get the funding.

Your telling me a kid wanting to fund a project has a better chance to get crowd funding then a serious scientist. No one has tried it, yet.

No one has tried it yet? Read your buddy's post on LLP just one post above. $34,000 raised to account for 5% of operating costs. They've spent $1.5M last year to make educational videos to teach people about the technology with hopes of raising more funds.

From LLP's website:

Last year, thanks to all of you, contributions to LPP Fusion totaled over $34,000. While this was not enough for us to hire more staff, it was 5% of our total budget. It helped us to get over gaps in our funding from investors, and thus to keep our device firing shots and to keep us rolling to producing new education videos that get the word out and convince people to invest.

Now, is it a science company, research company, or a fleecing of investors. What is the technology and why are they only spending money making videos instead of doing research?

 

Only the loss of money that we will be paying for generations. I guess that don't hurt you at all, or me for that matter, because I'll be dead before the financial crisis.

Sorry, I was simply quoting your post pointing out the fact the GDP has been pretty constant.

U.S. per capita gross domestic product has grown at around 2 percent a year since 1820, and the government largesse of the last 50 years has not altered that. Why not?

Edit:
It sure won't be research funding that breaks the bank.
Edit, edit:
I'm pretty sure you will live longer because of the funding to the NIH.

 

It sure won't be research funding that breaks the bank.

No but it adds to the debt of the Nation. Of course if we ever paid it off, it would be a repeat of that 1830s celebration, a toast to finally clearing the debt and then the legislature will get right back to work creating NEW debt.

 

No one has tried it yet? Read your buddy's post on LLP just one post above.

Lots of nice words, testing man's credulity. But I'm sure your ready to dig into your pocket. Spend away my friend.

on edit ...
You might want to review this before investing.

 

No but it adds to the debt of the Nation. Of course if we ever paid it off, it would be a repeat of that 1830s celebration, a toast to finally clearing the debt and then the legislature will get right back to work creating NEW debt.

Can wild BIll Clinton run again? Maybe we should go back and see what he did right.

 

Can wild BIll Clinton run again? Maybe we should go back and see what he did right.

You mean after his first overspending budget and losing both houses of congress to the opposition party?

He still added to the debt.

 

You mean after his first overspending budget and losing both houses of congress to the opposition party?

He still added to the debt.

At least he didn't double it like Reagan did.

 

Now you are comparing/contrasting my claim of unaffiliated, self-described "intelligent centrist" with views of Ross Perot's "centrist party". You are working too hard to put me in a cubby hole with a label you recognize. I am outside the box, my friend. Widen your horizons, buy a plane ticket or take a long drive. There are many other types of people out there.

Unfortunately I have not had to work at all to put you anywhere. You define yourself and where you really are quite well on your own no matter how hard you try to say otherwise.

The fact is the company you keep and the continual fails you make in both supporting your claims and disproving anything anyone else says pretty much say everything for you about where you fit!

As I have said before, you're predictably easy to understand. You're happy to play stupid to avoid owning up to thing and your happy to play being a simple minded troll when that fails too.

You rarely ever provide any information or references to support any claim you make whether its for your own views or to counter anyone else because you know you will just get called out on it if it wrong, which it more often or not is.

You continually drift off to random topics or no longer relevant subjects to draw the debate attention away from whatever it is you know you cant defend or back up and even then a lot of what you do drift off into is still proven to not be what you say it is.

You proclaim to know and have proof others are wrong yet never provide said proof and when you are called out on things to provide proof you immediately drift off into some other unrelated topic to avoid having to provide what was asked of you in return.

Standard liberal tactics from one end to the other. Accuse and avoid and repeat as often as needed. That's your box and your whole game.

In fact there's a basic operators manual for your tactics.

Debate and rhetorical tactics

1. Demands answers to questions, but after receiving answers then the liberal himself tries to avoid answering similar questions[3]
2. Demands proof from a conservative about their comments (because the liberal is typically too lazy to do their own research), but when the conservative provides that concrete proof to back his comments, the liberal then ignores or refuses to read the proof and proceeds to make a fool of himself by claiming (without having even seen the proof) that the conservative "has no proof" or "made it up" (despite the proof coming from legitimate sources not tainted by liberal bias) because the liberal did not like being exposed to the truth and chose to continue believing the lie.
3. Refuses to admit the truth in debate, even if a conservative compromises in a conciliatory manner
4. Resorts to bringing religion into a political discussion to use against a conservative opponent when the liberal feels they are losing the argument.
5. Like to use the phrase "reflects poorly on the site" when talking about the liberal articles on Conservapedia.[4]
6. Uses the term "controversial" to describe what he opposes (e.g., classroom prayer), but not to describe what he supports (e.g., theory of evolution)
7. A lack of originality and a predominance of copying and imitating.
8. Likes to use the phrase "Silence Speaks Volumes".[5]
9. Calls something disliked a "conspiracy theory," but don't use that term against wacky liberal theories like "global warming" or the claim the Russia "hacked" the 2016 presidential election (they thought such a claim was silly when it appeared Trump would loose but changed their minds after he won).
10. Responds with "sigh" when presented with repeated examples of harm caused by liberal culture, yet persist in denying the harm despite overwhelming evidence.
11. Uses condescension against a conservative opponent to belittle the conservative and his viewpoints and to avoid addressing a subject for which the liberal has no logical response.
12. Declaring that one is insulted as a response to an argument[6]
13. Insistence on talking more and having the last word in a discussion or debate, or last wordism.
14. Over-reliance on accusations of hypocrisy.[7]
15. Over-reliance on mockery,[8][9][10][11][12] even resorting to outright abuse when mockery fails
16. Uses non sequiturs in argument, such as responding to the point above that liberals over-rely on accusations of hypocrisy by citing an example of conservatives' observing liberal hypocrisy. But their example does not help their argument. Quite the contrary, use of that example tends to prove that liberals do over-rely on accusations of hypocrisy (relativism). Think about that.
17. Draws an analogy between opponents and racists and/or Nazis, no matter how illogical or hypocritical.
18. Deleting a comment, and with it the entire comment thread stemming from it, in an online article's comment section in an attempt to save face if the liberal realizes they have lost an argument they had with a conservative on that thread.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal_Style

So sure, You're not 100% liberal but yoo do score excessively high on repeatedly using the majority of their debate tactics so much so that I can almost guarantee that your response to this will include at least one if not several of these points.

[You will either and or:

1. Counter accuse without support,

2. Drift of to some other irrelevant topic,

3. Make a claim no one will believe and you can't back up with any degree of credibility,

4. Say something hypocritical and or nonsensical or irrelevant to try and push the topic off track,

5. Resort to a copycat tactic based on "I know you are, but what am I?' (one of your well known favorites.)

6. Play stupid until someone else changes the subject, (another of your favorite fallbacks when cornered.)

7. Fake not understanding context and meanings of what was said and go with something totally unrelated, (basic literacy and reading comprehension fail. Another One of your favorites.)

8. Throw a 'wild card' totally irrelevant accusation or topicless point out, (Then fail at it for what you intended it to be and do.)

9. Do a 'Grammar Nazi' strike then fail at it.

10. Fake being proud of your own faked illiteracy, ignorance or outright stupidity. (The 'Impenetrable Ignorance' stalemate tactic, Another one of you more predictable favorites as well. ]

So yeah. You very much have a box an everyone here knows exactly what it is and where you fit with it and it's not conservative or central in much of any way. It's very basic level liberal to the point most would be embarrassed about its predictability.

 

ronv said: ↑
Can wild BIll Clinton run again? Maybe we should go back and see what he did right.
Do you want a blow by blow account?

 

Unfortunately I have not had to work at all to put you anywhere. You define yourself and where you really are quite well on your own no matter how hard you try to say otherwise.

The fact is the company you keep and the continual fails you make in both supporting your claims and disproving anything anyone else says pretty much say everything for you about where you fit!

As I have said before, you're predictably easy to understand. You're happy to play stupid to avoid owning up to thing and your happy to play being a simple minded troll when that fails too.

You rarely ever provide any information or references to support any claim you make whether its for your own views or to counter anyone else because you know you will just get called out on it if it wrong, which it more often or not is.

You continually drift off to random topics or no longer relevant subjects to draw the debate attention away from whatever it is you know you cant defend or back up and even then a lot of what you do drift off into is still proven to not be what you say it is.

You proclaim to know and have proof others are wrong yet never provide said proof and when you are called out on things to provide proof you immediately drift off into some other unrelated topic to avoid having to provide what was asked of you in return.

Standard liberal tactics from one end to the other. Accuse and avoid and repeat as often as needed. That's your box and your whole game.

In fact there's a basic operators manual for your tactics.



http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal_Style

So sure, You're not 100% liberal but yoo do score excessively high on repeatedly using the majority of their debate tactics so much so that I can almost guarantee that your response to this will include at least one if not several of these points.

[You will either and or:

1. Counter accuse without support,

2. Drift of to some other irrelevant topic,

3. Make a claim no one will believe and you can't back up with any degree of credibility,

4. Say something hypocritical and or nonsensical or irrelevant to try and push the topic off track,

5. Resort to a copycat tactic based on "I know you are, but what am I?' (one of your well known favorites.)

6. Play stupid until someone else changes the subject, (another of your favorite fallbacks when cornered.)

7. Fake not understanding context and meanings of what was said and go with something totally unrelated, (basic literacy and reading comprehension fail. Another One of your favorites.)

8. Throw a 'wild card' totally irrelevant accusation or topicless point out, (Then fail at it for what you intended it to be and do.)

9. Do a 'Grammar Nazi' strike then fail at it.

10. Fake being proud of your own faked illiteracy, ignorance or outright stupidity. (The 'Impenetrable Ignorance' stalemate tactic, Another one of you more predictable favorites as well. ]

So yeah. You very much have a box an everyone here knows exactly what it is and where you fit with it and it's not conservative or central in much of any way. It's very basic level liberal to the point most would be embarrassed about its predictability.

First,
Read your post. It accomplishes everything you claim I am doing. You claim I am trying to divert the topic (I am really trying to address your person

Second,
You claim I do not give any references while you do. Your references are crap websites and YouTube videos that prove nothing but show someone else with the same opinion as you have. I don't need to give references, I am claiming the standard mainstream commonly accepted theories are true. It is up to you to present qualified peer reviewed papers that disrupt the facts. I looked and could not find them so the ball is in your court.

Third,
We are all tired of you Posting your list of debate tactics - (is this the fifth or sixth time we see this in the last year?).
We are all impressed with your new find. Now move on.

 

Do you want a blow by blow account?

Sure, if it lowers the deficit.

 

First,
Read your post. It accomplishes everything you claim I am doing. You claim I am trying to divert the topic (I am really trying to address your person

Second,
You claim I do not give any references while you do. Your references are crap websites and YouTube videos that prove nothing but show someone else with the same opinion as you have. I don't need to give references, I am claiming the standard mainstream commonly accepted theories are true. It is up to you to present qualified peer reviewed papers that disrupt the facts. I looked and could not find them so the ball is in your court.

Third,
We are all tired of you Posting your list of debate tactics - (is this the fifth or sixth time we see this in the last year?).
We are all impressed with your new find. Now move on.

[You will either and or:

1. Counter accuse without support,

2. Drift of to some other irrelevant topic,

3. Make a claim no one will believe and you can't back up with any degree of credibility,

4. Say something hypocritical and or nonsensical or irrelevant to try and push the topic off track,

5. Resort to a copycat tactic based on "I know you are, but what am I?' (one of your well known favorites.)

6. Play stupid until someone else changes the subject, (another of your favorite fallbacks when cornered.)

7. Fake not understanding context and meanings of what was said and go with something totally unrelated, (basic literacy and reading comprehension fail. Another One of your favorites.)

8. Throw a 'wild card' totally irrelevant accusation or topicless point out, (Then fail at it for what you intended it to be and do.)

9. Do a 'Grammar Nazi' strike then fail at it.

10. Fake being proud of your own faked illiteracy, ignorance or outright stupidity. (The 'Impenetrable Ignorance' stalemate tactic, Another one of you more predictable favorites as well. ]

1, 3, 4, and 7.

Just as I anticipated.

Your range of responses are predictable to a failing point.