Elizabeth Warren on a Roll!

You mean after your attempted diversion with this statement:



Prior to that, it was just me asking Loyek why he was intent on blaming the Jews for banking. Don't try to put it on me when your circular reasoning backfired.
yes, I was the first one to bring up banking jews, just to put Elizabeth on notice that her attack on bankers is getting dangerously anti semitic, and that's a no no, for a democrat
no different than attacking the inequality of salaries paid to professional athletes, be careful, because most of those athletes are black
kind of silly isn't it? I mean the whole thing

they taught me this in first grade

you can't get taller by chopping other peoples heads off
 
yes, I was the first one to bring up banking jews, just to put Elizabeth on notice that her attack on bankers is getting dangerously anti semitic, and that's a no no, for a democrat
no different than attacking the inequality of salaries paid to professional athletes, be careful, because most of those athletes are black
kind of silly isn't it? I mean the whole thing

they taught me this in first grade

you can't get taller by chopping other peoples heads off

Ah, gotcha. Thanks for the explanation. Too bad I had to go through all the noise and obfuscation Ricter saw fit to throw all over the thread.
 


Ah, so what you said was that this board has become Politics and Race, and I responded that the board has always been a discussion on politics and race. And you take that to mean the equivalent of "Whenever blacks are discussed, it is the race's fault and not the individual black's."

That's some leap of logic you made! But then, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. You've been twisting words of others since you've been on this board.
 
Ah, so what you said was that this board has become Politics and Race, and I responded that the board has always been a discussion on politics and race. And you take that to mean the equivalent of "Whenever blacks are discussed, it is the race's fault and not the individual black's."

That's some leap of logic you made! But then, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. You've been twisting words of others since you've been on this board.
You're frothing at the mouth today.
 
swaps trading! Now you nailed it. That's what's wrong with America. Too many goddamn swaps being traded. You can hardly get up in the morning and get a cup of coffee without somebody trading a swap on you. You kids today don't even remember what it was like before McCarran. Kids went to public schools and private doctors, all totally swap free. Ah, those were the days.
That made my day! thanks. Still laughing.
 
Everyone is a Libertarian, except when they need the govt for something.
Classical libertarians are very conscious of the need for good government, because government is necessary to protect our freedoms.. The people calling themselves libertarians today have a very different view of what the role of government should be. In my opinion they are not libertarians at all, but something else, I'm just not sure what.
 
Classical libertarians are very conscious of the need for good government, because government is necessary to protect our freedoms.. The people calling themselves libertarians today have a very different view of what the role of government should be. In my opinion they are not libertarians at all, but something else, I'm just not sure what.
They are Laissez Faireyians.
 
for instance, social security. It's not something we would have voted for, but now after 70 years it is part of the game and the fabric of America. And to preserve it we know SS taxes need to be raised. Preferably a small amount sooner rather than a large amount later. We are not anti government. But if the government is going to do something, do it right or don't do it at all. Same with min wage. Set it and tie it to inflation (or productivity) and make it work, rather than becoming just another election tool. You take just those two topics out of the debate and that makes the government less powerful, which is what we want.
 
Back
Top